I agree, Coley...as much as he deserves to die, and as much as it costs to go through legal channels to do it, it's a lot more legit and that satisfies my mind more. The death penalty is a big deal, and is not meant to be meted out in the field except in cases of threat of death and/or severe injury, and only then if it's the only way to avoid the death or serious injury.

I don't say that because I want cops to be exposed in the field...quite to the contrary, I want to protect them from any possible dangers to themselves or their careers if they get caught up in a "he killed a cop, so I'm going to kill him" scenario...as personally satisfying as that might be, it doesn't serve the greater justice to do it that way.

The greater justice is served when no one else is killed by a gun, when the perp is busted by cops who do a great job (as they did in this case), and when the dude is tried and convicted on the strong evidence that the cops and the detectives put together for the prosecutor.

Doing it any other way opens the door for technicalities and violations of civil rights that end up letting dickheads like this dude either get off on a lesser charge, or sometimes something far worse...and it reduces the public's trust in the cops to take care of them, which is probably the worse thing that can happen to the force.

Fish on...

Todd

P.S. The OJ Simpson trial is a good counter-example, though it didn't involve shooting at the perp...in that case, my opinion is that they tried to frame a guilty man, and that man is now walking free. It's not up to cops in the field to determine the guilt or innocence of a suspect, the Constitution gives that duty to a citizen jury in the legal system.

since they are both in the same shape more or less......would setting them out at the water line in the Skagit mud flats at low tide work?

just a thought