They did do something wrong, and what they did wrong is steal, but what they did wrong was not so wrong that they deserved to be shot to death or seriously maimed for life. The victim of theft (who subsequently killed over it) became so enraged that he unjustifiably took someone's life and maimed another. Are we insenced over this? Yes, but curiously, not everyone seems to display the same magnitude of anger, and it comes out in the language we use.
Consider the protesters at a trump rally. When someone starts something and they subsequently become victims, the far left (for lack of a better term) are hostile not towards the protester but towards the assailant whereas the far right (a term for consistency) are not quite as hostile.
Another example: if a shoplifter knocks over an elderly woman running out of a mass merchandiser, yanks a man out of a car in the parking lot, and almost hits a kid racing away ... and a police chase ensues, guess what the distinction between the reactions of the far left and far right are going to be when it's learned that the shoplifter suddenly stops and gives up but gets clubbed over the head in an unprovoked attack by the police?
The far left will be very terribly angry, and although the far right may come to agree that the actions were unjustifiable, the far right will not exhibit a level of teeth gritting angst as expressed by the far left.
What is going on? I lean right. I'm not far right. I understand the frustrations on both sides. I would have been content if the guy simply popped the two guys upside their heads with his fists. Unjustifiable, yes. Law into own hands, yes. Violent, yes. Shooting graveyard dead? Too far!
Is it because of the fact there is wrong-doing at play? Possibly. If a protester stands calmly displaying a sign and a trump fan shoots him, we're all going to be mightily upset, but if a protester runs through the crowd hitting trump fans and someone pulls out a knife and cuts off a piece of his ear, there are going to be those on the left displaying a much greater anger than those on the right.
It all goes back to if there wasn't the wrong doing in the first place, this wouldn't have happened. This of course in absolutely no way justified wrongful action, but it underscores the level of concern depending on whether you're someone from the left camp or right camp. If you're from the left, you don't give a rats ass about what provoked the unjustifiable behavior of the assailant, but if you're from the right, you do care.
As to the OP, the guy does need to be prosecuted if the available evidence pans out that he should be, and given such evidence, we'll all be in agreement that a punishment is fitting, but my point is that while some of us might be consumed with anger, there will be others with a more tame sentiment (perhaps angry too but less visceral) ... not as emotionally moved.
More to say, but I'm just trying to tap in to what really causes this divide between levels of disgust, as evidenced by the neutrality or lack thereof in the language we use.
