When The Castle Doctrine Goes Through A Steel Door

Richard McGee got drunk, which occasionally happens with 3Ls, whether at Whittier Law School or elsewhere.  Richard McGee did something foolish when he was drunk, which often happens with guys who are drunk.  Richard McGee was shot and killed for it. That doesn’t often happen.

Jonathan Wade, who lives at the Residence at Canyon Gate, was hosting his friend the night of the shooting. He said his buddy wandered off and mistakenly knocked on the wrong door — a decision that would cost him his life.

Richard Rizal McGee, 31, died when he was shot by his friend’s neighbor at the apartment complex, near where Sahara Avenue and Fort Apache Road meet.

Police on the day of the shooting said the couple at 2200 Fort Apache Road, who Metro have not identified, feared for their lives as McGee pounded on their door just before 5 a.m. while screaming and yelling.

McGee’s screaming and pounding on the door at 5 a.m. must have been hugely annoying, especially to ordinary people who are asleep at home. His drunken night didn’t become their problem. But much as they might have thought to themselves, “I could kill this guy,” they instead decided to put their anger into practice.

They couldn’t see the man behind their metal door with a small peephole. After warning him that they were armed and telling him to stop trying to enter their home, the woman called 911 for help.

But before police could arrive, the man who lives in the apartment shot through the door multiple times, killing McGee on the other side.

McGee could have chosen the right door. McGee could have stopped screaming and banging, especially after being told to stop. But he didn’t. It was a poor decision, but drunk people often make poor decisions. And he died for it.

The core concept of the Castle Doctrine is that a homeowner should have the right to defend himself and his family from an intruder without the requirement that he retreat, if safe retreat is possible. It’s an exception to the rule that the defense of property is not worthy of the taking of a life, an acknowledgement that a person’s home is his castle, and it’s a line that should not be crossed.

But Nevada’s Castle Doctrine takes it further.

1.  Justifiable homicide is the killing of a human being in necessary self-defense, or in defense of habitation, property or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against any person or persons who manifestly intend and endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein.

2.  A person is not required to retreat before using deadly force as provided in subsection 1 if the person:

(a) Is not the original aggressor;
(b) Has a right to be present at the location where deadly force is used; and
(c) Is not actively engaged in conduct in furtherance of criminal activity at the time deadly force is used.

The language, “endeavor, in a violent, riotous, tumultuous or surreptitious manner, to enter the habitation of another,” gives rise to the problem.  McGee was certainly endeavoring to enter, though his purpose of doing harm was purely speculative.  Yet, the perspective is that of the shooter, the homeowner, whose claim of fear of harm is sufficient to overcome the limitation of an unknown and unprovable purpose.

But its greater extension is that it permits a homeowner to shoot, to kill, before a person gains entry, such that the zone of killing extends beyond the walls of the home into the curtilage.

So long as the occupants can claim a reasonable fear that McGee was trying to break into their home, the shooting is treated as justified. Moreover, Nevada like some other states allows for the use of the power not just in the home but around its immediate exterior or curtilage.

This isn’t the first time a shot through a door has killed someone.  Nevada isn’t alone in its extension of the Castle Doctrine. Indeed, it’s downright modest in contrast to Texas, where it’s cool to shoot and kill a person running away, whose potential threat of harm to anyone inside a home is clearly past.

But when guns are in the hands of people who either misperceive the threat, or misapprehend the scope of the law, or are just too stupid to know when to shoot and when not to shoot, the likelihood of a mistaken killing, a combination of poor choices, availability of force, excessive fear and laws that enable people to feel confident that they can shoot and kill even when there is no actual threat to their safety, increases dramatically. Expect dead bodies.

The contention that the Castle Doctrine is well-founded, that people should have the ability to defend their homes and families from harm, is not the question.  The question is how far that authority should go.  Did Richard McGee present a real threat to the safety of the inhabitants of the apartment, or merely an inchoate threat, with one steel door between the homeowner and the drunken law student?  Was McGee’s purpose to harm those inside, or to go to sleep once the people inside stopped screwing with his head, as kids are wont to do?

Where is the line drawn for a threat worth killing for?  Are armed homeowners qualified to assess that threat, under stressful circumstances, or is it enough that they have an unwarranted but sincere fear?

Either way, Whittier 3L Richard McGee is dead.  Getting drunk and banging on the wrong door certainly isn’t good conduct, something for which McGee deserves a prize. But it also isn’t so threatening, so awful, that he deserved to die for it. When police shoot, and we parse their conduct to ascertain whether the killing was justified, we do so with the recognition that they are expected to exercise a higher level of restraint, a better level of judgment, than the typical criminal on the street.

Is a killing by a homeowner for inadequate reasons acceptable because the law imposes low expectations and needlessly broad authorization to shoot and kill?  Is it too much to expect the homeowner to not shoot through a door to kill someone who may be endeavoring to enter, but is no more than an annoyance at five in the morning?

59 comments on “When The Castle Doctrine Goes Through A Steel Door

  1. Michael McNutt

    What good is having a gun if you can’t use it to shoot somebody? All of these stories you link too seem to have that in common. Goodness if police can shoot anyone why shouldn’t us normal mundanes?

    1. SHG Post author

      That’s one of the big concerns about the RKBA. Having a gun is one thing. Using it properly is another. The former is easy. The latter is much harder.

  2. pml

    The people of Nevada have decided through their elected representatives that they think a homeowner should have the right to defend his property. I know that the Liberal Nanny State of New York doesn’t think we should have this right.

    But Nevada does and that’s all that matters in the case of Mr. McGee.

    1. Keith

      This statute appears to come from 1911 and sometimes context matters in a way that laws can’t quite grapple with, considering their “one size rules all” nature. 100 years ago, this may have even been acceptable. When a Nevada rancher without any neighbors sees someone screaming in his curtilage, it can have a very different meaning than when a drunk law student bangs on the wrong door in an apartment building.

      But that doesn’t relieve these apartment dwellers of their common sense. Shooting when you don’t know what lays beyond your target (or what is even your target) has never been acceptable.

      1. pml

        OBTW, this Law was updated to its present form in 2011 not 1911, so obviously this is exactly what the people of Nevada intended the law to be.

        1. SHG Post author

          Non-sequitur much? If the law said, “and kill anybody who knocks on your door in the early morning and annoys you,” then you might have a point. It doesn’t.

          1. pml

            So your comment below that since this law was enacted in 1911 and “almost certainly envisioned a very different scenario when enacted” doesn’t apply now that we know this is what they enacted in 2011 and it appears to be exactly what they intended.

            The difference is your culture in an urban environment and what you find in the more rural area’s where reasonable people believe we should be able to defend our house/home and family.

            1. SHG Post author

              In rural areas, shooting through doors because some guy is knocking and yelling is defending your home and family? Are you rural people that cowardly?

              I suspect the language was meant to suggesting that the homeowner didn’t have to wait until the burglar came through the window before shooting, and that breaking the window was good enough. But if you insist that they meant the law to shoot a guy knocking on the door because you rural folks are a bunch of moronic cowards, maybe you know the type better than us urban whiners who don’t think killing people for nothing is the same as defending one’s family.

            2. Keith

              now that we know this is what they enacted in 2011 and it appears to be exactly what they intended

              It was amended, but not in any material way. It made a few clarifications. Saying you know they exactly intended anything sounds stupid.

              And SHG is spot on here. If they are coming with arms up the path to your ranch ( or literally clinging to torches and pitchforks), it seems well within the realm of sanity to fire before they reach your front door. But, if you think for a second that the conception of the castle doctrine, in either 1911 or 2011, was that folks scared in an apartment building should be able to blast holes, sight unseen, into the hallways — you have completely lost me.

            3. DaveL

              I’m pretty rural myself. I have land, and I keep livestock on it. So I’m calling BS on you for this one. There are an awful lot of states with an awful lot of rural land that don’t sanction firing through a closed door (no matter what Joe Biden tells you). In my own state of Michigan, an attempt to break into a private home creates a rebuttable presumption that the people within reasonably perceived an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. An intact steel door between you and the prospective threat makes for a pretty convincing rebuttal.

    2. SHG Post author

      You make a monumental, and baseless, leap of faith by suggesting that this scenario is one the people of Nevada intended to allow. As Keith notes, this law is more than 100 years old, and almost certainly envisioned a very different scenario when enacted. To suggest that unintended consequences, particularly when they’re so ridiculous wrong as here, are what the people of Nevada meant to allow is absurd.

      1. pml

        To you it may appear absurd, however it doesn’t appear that way in Nevada. As to Keith’s allegation that actions such as this have never been acceptable, I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

        Here in NNY you will find if asked, that a lot of homeowners would feel the same way about the Castle Doctrine and the only reason in NY you have to retreat if possible is the Liberal whine asses in the NYC area.

          1. Mort

            Hell, *I* view lives as fairly easily disposable, and pml scares the crap out of ME.

            I mean, I’m more than willing to shoot a guy that’s trying to get into my home, but even here in Texas I wouldn’t blast through my front door for any reason short of “they are already shooting through my door.”

            And I’m in an actual home, not an apartment with people likely living across the hallway from my door – you know, downrange from where I’m shooting?

            But I’m not God Damn Insane, so pml’s mileage may vary…

  3. REvers

    You will not likely find a more pro-self-defense person than me.

    But shooting through a door is completely moronic. You don’t know your target and you don’t know what’s behind your target. The only possible exception I can think of is if somebody on the other side of the door is shooting at you, and I can’t say it would actually be acceptable then.

    I just thought of another valid exception. If the person who came up with the latest version of CAPTCHA was on the other side of the door, there would be a valid argument that shooting through the door was a moral imperative.

  4. JAV

    Ignorance about what a gun can be capable of is a big deal in every shooting. The shooter seems to know about the ability of most guns to pass through many common construction materials like wood or drywall, but then did not consider what or who else could get hit by firing blindly. Shooting through the door is pretty reckless unless there was a serious risk on the other side like using a tool to break in or firing a weapon.

    Then again the situation as described sounds allowable to the law. Banging and shouting at the door is pretty tumultuous, and I can see people giving the benefit of the doubt as to the threat of violence or assault since who is going to try and parse the language from some rowdy at 5AM for threats?

    1) Type comment.
    2) copy comment.
    3) Press F5
    4) Paste comment and submit post.

    1. SHG Post author

      “…since who is going to try and parse the language from some rowdy at 5AM for threats?”

      Someone who doesn’t want to kill another human being who isn’t doing something deserving of execution.

    2. Mort

      Perhaps I am not the norm, but if the banging and yelling continued past my shouting “Fuck off asshole, it’s 5AM, and I have a loaded gun in my hand!” I would probably open the door and SHOW THEM them loaded gun in my hand.

      At that point even a drunk would probably get the message.

      1. JAV

        Not sure if I’d open the door, but calling the police, grabbing a weapon, letting said rowdy know about both, and posting up somewhere safe to keep an eye out in case things escalate on their end should be the least a person can do since no one’s broken in yet.

        It’s just that nowadays I think there is a bigger social issue involving fear that could generate sympathy inside a jury.

  5. Kyle W

    As a non-lawyer, it seems to me that the addition of the text you quoted of the law – to enter the habitation of another “for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein” means that if they can’t prove that he was intending to do them harm, they are still on the hook. If that’s the case (and I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong), then it seems the law is working as intended.

    (Of course, there is no counter to their testimony…)

    1. SHG Post author

      Proof of intent isn’t what people usually think it is. It’s highly speculative, based upon the actions that can be objectively ascertained. In other words, people intend the natural consequences of their actions. As he was pounding on the door demanding to be let in, the notion of intent is sufficiently vague and broad to include that speculation that his purpose in entering someone else’s home was to do harm.

      Yes, it’s a long, long way from proof of intent. Welcome to the ambiguities of law.

  6. kenm

    All I can say is that they were an idiot for shooting like this…

    They’re lucky they didn’t kill some random person. Firing blindly through a solid object like that, they could’ve killed some kid across the street, or some cop down the way…heck, they could have had some really unlucky ricochets and killed themselves.

    The first rule of shooting I learned was to be sure of your target, and what’s beyond it. Because you just might miss.

      1. Mort

        I think he means “besides the person on the other side of the door.”

        Like a child sleeping in an apartment across the hall…

  7. John Barleycorn

    Are you going to make a habit of linking full chapters of statutes this year esteemed one? Kewl! You should call it the “shotgun technique” which would have been the weapon of choice had this unnecessary incident escalated in a rural area which it wouldn’t have because dogs for one thing and people in rural areas never call the cops before they shoot somebody.

    The Residence at Caynon Gate apartment complex on Fort Apache Road where this shooting took place is a few blocks from whole foods which could be considered a slaughter house but no way the Canyon Gate Country Club golf course could be considered some sort of horse pasture because old white people who like to expose their gold necklaces just as much as young black kids don’t know shit about horses.

    P.S. You can now open wear your six shooter to the park in Texas If Nevada isn’t your style.

    1. SHG Post author

      When I was repping a rapper, he had me put on his gold chains. They were very heavy. I mean, very heavy.

  8. losingtrader

    I live in NV. This is so awesome I’m going out to buy my first gun this afternoon. Frankly i don’t know how I missed this statute. I must have been busy reading landlord/tenant law.
    Even though I live in a guard-dated neighborhood that back up to a 10,000 foot mountain, there seem plenty of opportunities.
    Let’s see, I’ll start with the exterminator who entered my home twice without permission , maybe help cut back on the immigration problem when the landscaping crew gets to close for comfort, take care of the neighbors who rudely let their pets crap in my front yard then knock on the door to apologize but don’t pick up the poop.
    Then there was the kid who stole the car from the driveway.
    With the definition as free-floating as it seems, I’m hoping the Republican Congressman who lives 3 houses away ……eh, won’t say it.

  9. Robert Beckman

    I think you’re looking at this law the wrong way Scott.

    Skipping over the points of agreement (don’t shoot through doors, know what’s behind your target, etc), the better paradigm to analyze this pattern isn’t in this specific case but in the effects of the law on all cases.

    In each individual case, we would be better off if the burglar broke in, took what they wanted, and left, as this would minimize harm to the individual (things can be replaced, people cannot). But when aggregating the effect of this, a don’t-shoot-burglars rule will increase the rate of burglary, since one of the costs of burglary disappears (risk of being shot). While many instances of burglary don’t depend on the risks (criminals tend to believe they won’t get caught, so the costs don’t really matter), other burglars will choose the least risky option.

    If the law (as NV’s does) permits shooting an apparent burglar trying to break into the home, then the systematic effect is to have less burglary, as some burglars get shot, than in the alternative, where no burglars get shot.

    None of this, of course, speaks to weighing this benefit against the loss of the non-burglar, but this is the balance that needs to be measured: a system where there is less burglary and some innocents die, or a system with more burglary and some innocents die – but that we don’t know which results in total fewer deaths as some innocent residents are killed in burglaries.

    *Burglary standing in for all home-invasion type acts.

    1. Keith

      I’ve read a bit on it and I’ve never hear the Castle Doctrine as being meant to be a crime control statute.

      My understanding is that the castle doctrine does not permit the shooting of burglars*, but it permits you to do so without retreating, and here’s the kicker, when your life is in danger. That’s the reason for the statute saying: in necessary self-defense.

      But I’d be open to correction if I’m off here.

      1. SHG Post author

        There is no requirement under the Castle Doctrine that one’s life be in danger.

        And sometimes, when a comment just seems off the wall, that’s because it’s off the wall. He’s no more a lawyer than you are, and your grasp of the issue here is far better than his.

        1. mb

          There isn’t a duty to flee in the first place without something from which to flee. The castle doctrine laws I’ve seen before, including where I live, require a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury for it to even be relevant that someone had no duty to flee, from their dwelling or curtilage. This statute accomplishes the same thing, and additionally allows for the use of deadly force against anyone who looks like they might be about to commit a crime. This case isn’t the measure of the castle doctrine generally, but only of this one stupid law that Nevada needs to fix.

          1. SHG Post author

            Your comment doesn’t reflect a firm understanding of the Castle Doctrine. It eliminates the duty to retreat (not flee) before the use of deadly force, which has nothing to do with what they’re retreating from. It allows the use of deadly force against anyone who enters an occupied home with intent to commit a crime, regardless of whether they post a risk of death. It’s the mere presence inside an occupied dwelling, nothing more, that gives rise to the right to use force. These are the key points of the doctrine, and what make it controversial.

            While there are minor variations among jurisdictions, what makes Nevada’s wrong is that it allows someone to use deadly force against someone outside the home who is “endeavoring” to get in.

            1. mb

              My bad. What I meant was that the language quoted above removes not only the duty to retreat, but also the duty to not straight up murder somebody as long as they’re at your house. My state’s rule is much better written, despite some confusing language about purpose at the beginning.

    2. SHG Post author

      This is utter gibberish. The issue has nothing to do with “no Castle Doctrine at all” or “shoot anyone anywhere.” I can’t decide whether you wrote this to get a backlink to your (non-lawyer) business or you’re just a blithering idiot. Which is it?

      1. Robert Beckman

        Must be blithering idiot, as I’d assumed that no-follow was enabled on all links given your no links rule. I’ve removed that link from this post, as it hadn’t been my intent to leach from you.

        The hypothesis is this: if this rule exists, fewer burglaries will occur compared to a inside-the-home-castle-doctrine as either (a) more burglars are shot or (b) fewer burglaries are attempted due to increased risk.

        (a) is testable, though getting the data would be hard.
        (b) is harder to test, as fewer attempted burglaries could come from many things

        Rather than the question of “Did Richard McGee present a real threat … or merely in inchoate threat … ? ”
        I’m suggesting that the right question is: does this extension of the rule lead to a system that benefits society, even if it causes some people to die unnecessarily?

        1. SHG Post author

          Okay, I’m going to accept your bona fides and explain what’s wrong with your incentive model. The only distinction would be whether the homeowner would have to wait to shoot (and kill) until the putative burglar has actually committed an act that gives rise to a certainty that he is, in fact, breaking into the home.

          So the “extension” doesn’t mean the Castle Doctrine is eliminated, but that it ends at the walls of the home and doesn’t extend to the curtilage. This has no change on the incentive system for burglarizing a home, and will essentially eliminate the killing of innocent people outside the home. So your hypothesis has nothing to do with any of the issues raised in this post. The Castle Doctrine isn’t going away (nor should it), but it eliminates a harm that adds no societal benefit.

          And yes, links are “no follow,” but that doesn’t stop 10,000 spammers from trying every day.

          1. John Barleycorn

            If Robert hung out in Sacramento instead of San Francisco and wrote poems to Jerry Brown and you drank more beer in Albany than Manhattan their might be a chance for the children.

            1. John Barleycorn

              And people scratch their heads as to the reasons why you became a CDL.

              Everything to do with growing up in New Jersey: check

              Excessive beer consumption on the outskirts of Albany as a teen (what were your parents thinking): check


              Too easy…good thing the Castel Doctrine was more about party themes in the late ’70’s or you might not be with us.

            2. SHG Post author

              I have serious doubts as to my survival under the rules of the game today. And even if I did survive, I would definitely not have had as much fun.

          2. Robert Beckman

            This is the gap in our views, and since your data is better than mine (for I have none, and you have experience), I’ll yield to your view if this doesn’t raise doubts for you

            “eliminates a harm that adds no societal benefit.”

            I don’t see that we know that this statement is true (no societal benefit), as I don’t think it actually eliminates harm (how many people know enough for the law ex ante to matter? And is there any benefit to criminally punishing ex post for what someone at the time thought reasonable?) and think that it likely has some benefit, even if small.

            In other words: the public doesn’t know any better, and no studies show one way or the other.

            1. SHG Post author

              Law-abiding homeowners with guns tend to be highly cognizant of the law, because they recognize the significant potential of risk that a gun raises and they’re not particularly inclined to commit crimes. They take classes, they learn how to properly handle guns. They have no particular desire to kill innocent people. This is a group that will likely adhere to a clear line in the law, such as don’t shoot anyone unless and until he is actually breaking in/already in your home.

              You’re a big fan of empirical studies. Sometimes they help. Oftentimes, not so much. My experience is that armed homeowners are generally well-intended, law-abiding folks. Give them a clear line and most will toe it, and the homeowner and innocent outsider get to live another day. As for burglars, their purpose is to enter the abode, and if they should, their incentive system kicks in as well.

  10. Brady Curry

    The apartment dweller was just doing what any cop would do when placed in the same “I feared for my life” situation. I’m not condoning what happened. It just seems so similar to the questionable shootings committed by cops. Except in this case it was a citizen who pulled the trigger. I wonder if the apartment dweller had been a cop would the shooting have been anymore justified or unjustified. That said, I agree with most that shooting through a door is a stupid and cowardly thing for anybody to do.

    1. SHG Post author

      That’s very much the problem; if it would be outrageous for a cop to needlessly kill, a law allowing a non-cop to needlessly kill outside the confines of his home would be at least as wrong.

  11. John Barleycorn

    It’s cool to shoot trolling altizimers patients who just will not go away and your daughter sneaking in the basement window as long as you know you don’t have to shit your pants, ever again, before pulling the trigger…random drunk law students and the ocasional deaf  solicitor are just a bonus.

    Another law brought to you by suburban leglislators in safe districts who care; that part about them getting picked on in high school and having parents who wouldn’t let them become cops doesn’t count.

    The Castel Doctrine because no one should have to shit their pants in their own castel.


  12. Charles J McCarthy

    As reported we only know some basic facts about what happened. Let me make some speculations. The pounding on the door was so violent and such that the door was about to be broken down. The yelling and screaming included threats like, “LET ME IN YOU NO GOOD MFers. I”M GONNA BEAT THE SHIT OUT OF YOU AHs WHEN I GET IN THERE ! YOU ARE GONNA DIE ! I have looked further online and no information is given about the occupants. Are they Senior citizens, are they immobilized in some way that would make them more fearful of not being able to sustain an attack ? The shooting may not be as egregious as everyone assumes.

    1. SHG Post author

      First, we work with the facts we have. We don’t make up facts to justify a position. Second, even in an excess of speculative masturbation, we don’t make up absurd facts, like a steel door “was about to be broken down” by someone pounding on it. Even if that was remotely accurate, “about to be” is meaningless; it either is or isn’t, unless someone has the ability to see into the future. Nor does hyperbolic screaming become a substitute for fact. Nor does the peculiar sensitivity of the occupants alter the reasonable person test.

      There isn’t a single aspect of your effort to justify the killing that is of any legal consequence whatsoever or alters the analysis. But more importantly, the burden is on the killer, not the killed, to provide a basis to justify the killing. We do not speculate (whether by sound argument or points like yours), but employ the known facts when someone is murdered.

      1. Charles J McCarthy

        You frame it with some of your own speculation.

        “must have been hugely annoying, especially to ordinary people who are asleep at home. His drunken night didn’t become their problem. But much as they might have thought to themselves, “I could kill this guy,” they instead decided to put their anger into practice.”

        “annoying” “thought to themselves” “their anger”

        1. SHG Post author

          Two rather significant differences. First, drawing basic inferences from known facts isn’t the same as baseless speculation. Second, these inferences were for the benefit of the homeowner, the “opposing” party in my paradigm. That said, what I did or did not do in no way makes your initial comment any more appropriate or illuminating.

          1. Charles J McCarthy

            You remind me of Henry Stamper and his motto: “Never Give an Inch.” I mean that in a good way.

  13. losingtrader

    What about the fact Fort Apache street in Las Vegas reminds me of the movie “Fort Apache The Bronx.”

  14. Joe

    It always amazes me how people manage to find ways to defend such clearly vile and unnecessary actions.
    I’ve said it time and time again: The Castle Doctrine is legalized murder.
    I’ve never heard one remotely sensible point as to why it was ever necessary to kill an unarmed man who posed no threat to you, but now in this case, he wasn’t even in the place, a STEEL DOOR was separating him from the owners AND the fucking COPS were already on their way?
    The people who call this justice are the ones who should be shot.

    1. mb

      “I’ve never heard one remotely sensible point as to why it was ever necessary to kill an unarmed man who posed no threat to you”

      Nor should you expect to. The castle doctrine removes the duty to retreat, not the duty to not kill people who pose no threat. I’ve never heard one remotely sensible point as to why we should convict someone of murder for defending themselves from an imminent threat because they could have fled from their own home instead. But I don’t expect to, because despite your puffery, you haven’t got any insight into the issue. You just know less than nothing about self defense law.

      1. SHG Post author

        It’s not puffery, but a concern for human life. Much as the Castle Doctrine has its grounding, let’s never get too cavalier about killing people.

        1. mb

          I’m not the one who called for the summary execution of anyone who disagrees with me. That was Joe. I call it puffery because I hope he doesn’t really mean it like he said it. To call it concern for life is a more generous interpretation than I think Joe is entitled to.

Comments are closed.