Reply #45: Where did I say ANY of that?:

[Euromutt]

Oh, that's right: I didn't. You just decided to... embellish what I said, just like you decided to embellish the contents of the newspaper article. And by "embellish," I mean "make shit up."

You're not giving yourself any added credibility with that "gun worshipper" crap either. Use of pejoratively intended terms like that indicates that you're resorting to demonizing me because you know you can't mount a persuasive argument.

The Idaho criminal code includes specific provisions concerning aiming and discharging firearms at other people, and causing injury as a result. The Idaho criminal code also specifies that if someone dies as a result of these activities, the shooter shall be charged with manslaughter.
Now, that may not go far enough to your liking, but that is the current state of law in Idaho, and the rule of law demands that criminal suspects be charged with the actual offense that are suspected of committing; anything else would constitute arbitrary governance, and this country isn't supposed to work that way. The fact that I don't think it's appropriate to charge these two with attempted murder when there's a statute that more precisely covers their offense (and make no mistake, I think what they did was criminal, albeit most likely criminally stupid) doesn't mean I think it's "completely normal" to shoot at an occupied vehicle. Call me a bleeding-heart liberal, but I strongly question the social value of responding to every criminal offense by locking the offender up for as long as you can manage.

Let me know when you're ready to give up the pejoratives and the straw men and have a polite but frank exchange of views. If you're capable of that at all.