Is Bo Morrison's Death Justified?

8 Comments

  • radar - 11 years ago

    Are you people kidding me?? No your kidding yourselves.Our laws protect the criminals and thugs more than the average joe busting his ass and paying way more in taxes than he should.All of you that voted that he did not have to be killed would have crap rolling down your leg.You think we should have to say boo and scare this guy.Let it be known to all bad guys that if you try to hurt someone or brake into someone elses home or car your odds of being shot increase 10000000000000000000 percent.Mind your own fucking buissness and this would not happen.This guy was running from the law because he was guilty of something.Once again protect the criminal.You people need to understand that we the law abiding citizens have the right to protect ourselves from people who want to do us harm.I could give a shit less if you are black white purple keep your hands off of me or anybody else.If you think this right to protect ourselves or homes is going to be taken away the average joe will rise up as we denied our rights.Let them rob rape you and your family cause it wont happen to the people who carry. BANG

  • KSB - 11 years ago

    The DA has stated that the homeowner was justified under Wisconsin's decades-old self defense laws, in addition to the new Castle Doctrine. This law is not at fault; Bo Morrison is.

  • Joe Paterick - 11 years ago

    This law is redneck, evil and truly un-American, and should be thrown out of Wisconsin as quickly as Walker signed it. I truly believe the real honest to God truth is that the shooter, the killer, Adam Kind baited Bo Morrison and knew Bo Morrison was unarmed. Kind had a license to kill; shoot and no questions asked. This guy is a true dumb, idiot redneck who got away with murder. It’s as simple as that, and there are going to be many cases in the days, weeks, and months to come because Wisconsin, just like all states throughout the nation has its share of dumb ‘Billy Bob’ good old boy NRA rednecks wanting to kill someone. Hey, the guy had no remorse; what does that tell you? And what is equally irreprehensible is that his word and account of what happened is constituted under this redneck “Castle Doctrine” law as, “so help me God truth!” Under this law, there is this flimsy fuzziness whether or not the homeowner who is threatened (how does one proof this?) in “harm’s way,” could have recused himself, refraining not to KILL. I just can't believe the D.A. wimped out so quickly – appears political. There are so many unanswered questions here? First and foremost to say the lease is: How is this shooter threatened when he had his kitchen door locked? It is plain and simple that Adam Kind wanted to kill Bo Morrison, or anyone entering his unlocked porch. I also believe he left the porch unlocked and saw a person from the party coming in to hide. Adam Kind, (a murder), acted alone, like a trigger-happy, redneck dunce with a gun who got away with murder, i.e.,, the “Castle Doctrine,” A license To Kill. I hope his conscious someday wakes up and starts to bother him, and he feels the pain of regret for what he did – that was simply not justifiable as he may currently think. I think there should be a larger rally planned. Please, Anyone out there, let me know when the next rally is going to happen. I will be there to support Bo, even though I never met the young man, or his parents. I feel very bad for their loss, their pain.

  • amandamartinez - 11 years ago

    For the ppl who voted yes...excuse my language..but your a bunch of dumbasses how is he soooo scared but just got thru tryna kick in a garage door and i know da lil boycouldnt have walked up n a threating manner.because he ran, if thats da case da boy would have stayed next door ...plus if u tryna defend ur home and family against a child u could have scared him off shot in da air or close by common sense will tell u if someone shoots at u or by u ...run.....yes voters hope your food for the rest of yours days taste like shit

  • dennisy - 11 years ago

    Why is it ( forget sin color ) that this kid after one in the morning is in the back of the man's house. I don't care what the color of the person is, if he is in the back of my house in the middle of the night he dead.

    Hide in his own house not someone else s and he wouldn't be dead. How is this man suppose to know it is only a kid hiding from the police. How does he know this is not some one is out to hurt or kill him or his family?

    At one in the morning he should have been home in bed, nothing good happens when you are out at one in the morning.

    Sorry, the young man is dead, but sorrier for the man that had to shoot him.
    Now we all cry he shot him because he black, how about he shot him because he was in the man's house at one in the morning.

    You don't ask someone at one in the morning hiding in the back of your house, can i help you, do you need a glass of milk to help you sleep how about a cookie to go with the milk. Are you nuts, you shot the intruder and worry about keeping your family safe.

  • charles alford - 11 years ago

    Even the police cant shoot an unarmed man. At what point will we as black people gt tired of the double standards of the law. If it had been a black man that shot a white kid in this case and the martin case we wouldnt be talking about them getting charged.

  • Richard - 11 years ago

    This case is not that similar to Trayvon Martin as Zimmermen clearly has a record of harassing innocent young black men calling police dozen of times in a short time frame. Trayvon was not on private property when he was accosted by zimmermen he was a child walking home when a strange armed man started to follow him. Zimmermen disobeyed a direct order from the 911 operator and lied saying Trayvon looked like he was up to no good or on drugs. NO drugs were found in Trayvons system and Trayvon was committing no crime or had any intent on committing a crime. In the other case the young man could have been a criminal he ran on private property and thus put his own life in peril (unknowingly) . The only issue I have with stand your ground laws and prospect your castle is if you shot an unarmed person you should be required to have first shot a warning shot. Also you never ever hear of these kinds of shootings happening to white kids...or even Hispanics...you have to ask yourself why...is this another law that disproportionately affects blacks...

  • asformee - 11 years ago

    The laws of America are, in fact, taking people's fear of consequences. Morality shoud be grounds enough to evaluate a situation to determine if killing someone is justified, but history has shown us that we need laws in place to constrain the immoral. Seneca, the Roman stoic philospher, when referring to wickedness and powerlessness of men said, " These men simply lack the means whereby they may unfold there wickedness...it is merly numbed into inaction. Give them, as these laws do, the power and they use that power to do what they have not had the means to do before. Under the guise of the these laws, men do not seek out opportunities, they sit in hiding until an opportunty presents itself...then they go for the gold. They put there morality on hold, just for a moment, and do what they have always dreamed. When they comback from their convalescence, they want the world to believe it was a mishap. Look at the statistics. Under these laws, why is it mostly white men doing the shooting and black kids getting shot? It is not everybody shooting everybody. It is predudice white people shooting those they fear and getting the racist system to provide cover. It is not an accident. I submit it is intenional. I stand on that thought because while my opponents may think I am dillusional. I am thinking about what will happen the next time I, a black man, step outside my door.

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars


Submit Comment