The article that came today left me with questions, the questions are out in the open, but then they nearly always are. The BBC article (at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-63237156) gives us ‘Parkland school shooting: Why the gunman was spared the death penalty’, yet for me the question evolves, or better stated formats in another direction. To give the initial lowdown, The parkland school shooting that happened in February 2018 gives us a few sides. There is “Nikolas Cruz, a 19 year old former student at the school, fled the scene on foot by blending in with other students, and was arrested without incident approximately one hour later in nearby Coral Springs. Police and prosecutors investigated “a pattern of disciplinary issues and unnerving behaviour”” and “At one point Cruz said “I think I am going to kill people” in the group chat, although he later claimed that he was joking”, we were also given in several sources “according to The Washington Post he was “entrenched in the process for getting students help rather than referring them to law enforcement.” He was transferred between schools six times in three years in an effort to deal with these problems. In 2014, he was transferred to a school for children with emotional or learning disabilities. There were reports that he made threats against other students.” Yet this person was given the permits to buy guns, he was given the stage to buy an AR-15 and several other guns. America blundered on several fronts already. Then there is the stage of ‘fled the scene on foot by blending in with other students’, which could be seen as premeditation, in do infer the stage of ‘could be’, it is entirely possible that the police faltered at least once here too. If there is one winner than it is defence lawyer Melisa McNeill, who got a mass murderer a free pass from the death sentence, she ends up being the only winner in this ‘game’. Yet the BBC also gives us “There was one [juror] with a hard no – she couldn’t do it,” he said. “And there was another two that ended up voting the same way.” One juror, a woman believed that a mentally ill person should not get the death penalty” I get it, it is hard to see this, but that is a fair conviction. Off course most will think that he could not do her job as a juror, but the article does not clearly bring out whether, or how well Melisa McNeill played the mentally ill card. We are given “the gunman’s mother’s heavy alcohol consumption and smoking during pregnancy had left him with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which they said drove his violent behaviour” yet I wonder if it was a child of Melisa McNeill, if she would have been able to do her job as well as she did. And I saw the footage of parents of 17 families demanding his head on a platter. A lot more questions come to mind, but they might all have answers in one form or another. The fact that he came to school as a former student implies premeditation. He had to buy ammo, he had to buy other matters, all leading to premeditation. And the stage of him being able to buy guns is a much larger failing than anyone realises. Even the NRA needs to acknowledge that this person should not have been allowed a gun permit. And soon the excuses will come from every direction, even those jurors that did not vote for the death penalty and are not happy with the outcome. But in this, what outcome did they expect? As a juror they had a duty and they decided to let the chips fall where they may and this time it fell on life without parole in prison, and for some the idea that he will become the resident prison bitch is perhaps slightly rewarding. But to 17 families it is not enough and these family members have more family and friends and any prosecutor who failed here might have some reelection issues for their cause. As I said, this event will show one winner, and that winner is Melisa McNeill.