I still don´t get it. Maybe you have already found the answer to this but I couldn´t find it in here. This is what I´ve got so far:

1. The thief is ready to start the car (the car door is possibly open)
2. The hunter appears and apparently stands next to the car door? Or?
3. The thief threatens the hunter and the hunter shoots the thief.

OK, did I get that right? OK here´s what I´m not getting, the hunter manages to shoot the thief in the hip and buttocks? How? The hip I can understand but the buttocks? After getting shot the thief turns slightly away from the hunter or? Apparently his wounds are life threatening (I don´t see why, since he´s been shot mainly in adipose and muscle tissue. To hit a major artery the arrow had to go through the hip, break through the pelvis and the sever the artery, the iliac artery is in the anterior circulatory system.) but still the thief manages to jump out of the car and RUN away. With two arrows in his body? Maybe the solution is simple, I just can´t see it. [img]graemlins/confused3.gif[/img]

<font color="#ff00cc">Im with ya Willow, I just can't see a guy being shot in the arse up and croaking of it. There must have been more to it.

Im guessing the guy got shot in the backside as he was lunging away to reach his gun [img]smile.gif[/img] Or maybe he decided to Moon the guy as he drove off [img]smile.gif[/img] </font>

Sounds like a nominee for a Darwin award.

I suppose he could have threatened the hunter and reached into the passenger seat for a gun exposing his backside to the hunter.A hunting arrowhead is designed to shread tissue the more it is moved kinda like having four razors inside you slicing more and more as you move or put weight on it.It's also designed to keep the wound open and letting as much blood loss as possible so that could well be a wound that will kill.I think the case would hinge on finding the aledged gun as there is no other way to prove it likely he was threatened.As well as the autopsey because if the report showed he wasn't shot while sitting then the guy was outside the car and had his back to the hunter and then it's unlikely the hunter truly felt in his life in peril.

Since when was the death penalty a reasonable punishment for stealing a car?

Who made the Hunter judge and jury?

Without guns, the Hunter wouldn't have a leg to stand on. There would have been no threat to his life to base a dodgy defense on.

Two crimes were committed. One worse than the other. As Luvian said, property can be replaced, a life cannot.

Very true. But some lives are really not worth replacing if they make the lives of others less pleasant. Personally I have little to no sympathy for the robber, even if he didn't pull a gun. In my opinion it's like this: If you break the law, you've put aside all of your own rights by violating the rights of others. Don't whine if you or your stuff gets hurt in some way, you've brought it on yourself.

Yup.
Do whatever the hell you want with your existence provided you accept and deal with the repercussions of your actions. S'the way o' the world. The conquerors decide what's right and wrong.

Ramming bears! It's suddenly all clear to me!

Don't fundamental human rights override the laws of a nation, city or state?

Are we not arguing against a Nigerian woman being stoned to death for adultery? She broke the law and is being punished by the law.

Are we not against Chinese executing dissenters who break their laws in Tibet?

Human rights are paramount. Being killed for robbery is disgusting.

ROTFLMFAO!!! Dude, I've got this picture in my head of Yogi bear and... I'll say no more :D :D :D
Nicely put [img]graemlins/hehe.gif[/img]