Poll of the Day > NRA is offering MURDER INSURANCE incase you KILL Someone!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

The NRA is offering insurance for people who SHOOT someone which is causing outrage from gun control advocates who say it would foster more violence and give gun owners a false sense of security to shoot first and ask questions later!!

People are calling it "murder insurance" and say rather than promoting responsibility and protection, it encourages people to take action and not worry about the consequences.

It's also marketed in a way that feeds on the nations racial divisions!!

Guns Down, a gun control advocate is running an ad campaign to criticize this insurance as Igor Volsky said "The reason i call it murder insurance is because if you look at the way this is marketed, it's really sold in the context of "There's a threat around every corner, dear mostly white-NRA member" and that threat is a black man or a brown man or some other kind of person of colour"

The rates range from 13.95 and up to 250,000 in civil protection and 50,000 in criminal defense to a "gold plus" policy that costs 49.95 a month and provides up to 1.5 million in civil protection and 250,000 in criminal defense.

The NRA isn't the only one offering this as the United States Concealed Carry Association is also offering it much longer and provides 2 million in civil costs and 250,000 for criminal defense.

Sybrina Fulton, the mother of Travyon Martin is in the campaign to stop this kind of insurance whose teen was shot and killed in 2012 by fat jerk, George Zimmerman whose case drew nationwide notoriety.

The video shows images of the most racially divisive moments in recent history including the white supremacists who marched in Charlottesville leaving one woman dead and Dylann Roff, the confederate jerkw ho murdered 9 african americans in 2015 during a prayer meeting.

Fulton says "They spend millions lobbying for laws that allow them to "shoot first" and "stand their ground" but that just makes it easier to get away with murder". She's asking viewers to tell Chubb and Lockton Affitiny to drop these insurance policies and to not purchase their products until they do.

Chubb said that these insurance policies are for a wide range of risks including "lawful activity" such as hunting and shooting at gun ranges wen a firearm accidentally kills a person.

Peter Kochenburger says this will be a potential public relations mess worth the small amount that would be terrible pr and will do more harm for the NRA..

Do you think what the NRA is doing is disgusting?

NRA insurancy ad -

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/19/13/457E3B3500000578-4996560-image-a-2_1508417304129.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/19/13/457E3B3D00000578-4996560-Carry_Guard_insurance_was_launched_this_past_spring_by_the_NRA_R-a-6_1508417707661.jpg

Gun Nuts -

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/19/14/457E4AD100000578-4996560-image-a-12_1508418127767.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/19/14/457E3D1200000578-4996560-image-a-10_1508418035236.jpg

Sybrina Fulton -

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/10/19/13/457CB1E100000578-4996560-image-a-8_1508417741038.jpg
---

I might purchase this
---

For better or worse, I'd say it makes sense due to the risks involved. Folks can call insurance scams all they want, I personally do not have enough cash on hand to deal with any major car accidents, injuries, or sickness so if certain insurances weren't required, I'll still purchase em.
---

Yeah, this is gross.

I'm really surprised that Daesh (ISIS), the Taliban, etc... don't just donate money to the NRA.
The NRA gets way more Americans killed than any of them could ever hope to manage, seems like the best possible use of their drug money, from their perspective.

InfestedAdam posted...

For better or worse, I'd say it makes sense due to the risks involved. Folks can call insurance scams all they want, I personally do not have enough cash on hand to deal with any major car accidents, injuries, or sickness so if certain insurances weren't required, I'll still purchase em.

This, tbh. There are countless other insurances out there, many of which cover liability. It doesn't seem all that different.

streamofthesky posted...

I'm really surprised that Daesh (ISIS), the Taliban, etc... don't just donate money to the NRA.
The NRA gets way more Americans killed than any of them could ever hope to manage, seems like the best possible use of their drug money, from their perspective.

Considering the NRA kills nobody, it's a stupid claim. And, if you're talking about indirect contributors to death, they'd get far more bang for buck donating money to alcohol companies. After all, 40% of all violent crimes are committed by people under the influence of alcohol and 30% of all fatal car crashes are the result of alcohol. And pretty much every sports riot ever has involved alcohol.
---

Zeus posted...

streamofthesky posted...

I'm really surprised that Daesh (ISIS), the Taliban, etc... don't just donate money to the NRA.
The NRA gets way more Americans killed than any of them could ever hope to manage, seems like the best possible use of their drug money, from their perspective.

Considering the NRA kills nobody, it's a stupid claim. And, if you're talking about indirect contributors to death, they'd get far more bang for buck donating money to alcohol companies. After all, 40% of all violent crimes are committed by people under the influence of alcohol and 30% of all fatal car crashes are the result of alcohol. And pretty much every sports riot ever has involved alcohol.

Yeah, I'm a teetotaler, so I'm not going to defend alcohol at all.
But I'm not sure what giving alcohol companies money would really accomplish. NRA is a lobbying group, not a company, first of all. And what legislation would an alcohol lobbyist push for that could increase deaths?
NRA meanwhile has seemingly limitless options, like arming teachers (for "safety"), then arming students (for "safety"), then move on to arming doctors and nurses (for "safety"), then perhaps chipping away at laws to track movement of guns through the "Iron Pipeline" (for "safety"), and getting larger ammo magazines allowed so you can fire off dozens of shots before needing to reload...cause you just can't be too "safe," you know?

Zeus posted...

Considering the NRA kills nobody, it's a stupid claim. And, if you're talking about indirect contributors to death, they'd get far more bang for buck donating money to alcohol companies. After all, 40% of all violent crimes are committed by people under the influence of alcohol and 30% of all fatal car crashes are the result of alcohol. And pretty much every sports riot ever has involved alcohol.

88,000 deaths are annually attributed to excessive alcohol use
https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/data-stats.htm

Roughly 33,000 deaths are caused by gun violence annually.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

Honestly, I expected the gun violence number to be higher.

https://tinyurl.com/jhdx84m

And most deaths are caused by handguns by far. The more ridiculous semi-automatics that people want to ban cause virtually no deaths.

Huh. I somehow feel like we have bigger fish to fry than gun control, like Americans' poor eating habits. As silly as the NRA is with their little killsurance.

Not that I'm cosher with all the gun show loopholes or anything.

Well, I suppose it'll briefly increase shootings until those people are locked up, then presumably decrease them as the more volatile folks are removed from society...
---

How many handguns are owned vs. semi-automatics, though?
Also should take out suicides by each type from the figure for such a comparison, since it's the threat to other people that causes concern.

As far as alcohol deaths, for such a comparison of which is more dangerous to the general populace / innocents, take out all the deaths to the drinkers themselves and only look at the deaths of other people they caused.

The alcohol deaths likely are still higher than gun deaths after that, but way more people drink way more often than they do fire a loaded gun.

Eating habits is another "self-inflicted" ill. While it makes medical care and insurance more expensive for all of us, some obese dude's poor eating habits that cause him to die young isn't really a danger to the rest of us.
If you want to be self-destructive, whatever. But people have some basic desires to you know...not be shot by a gun nut or crashed into by a drunk driver.

I'm surprised that the gun deaths are that high... Seriously?!?! I know around here, nobody cares if it's just drug dealers killing each other. It basically gets filed alongside "stolen bikes" unless an innocent is harmed. Once that happens though, it gets pretty serious.
---

Omg gun death insurance is not a race issue.

People go through lengthy court battles for shooting home invaders, people want to know that if they protect their stuff from being stolen, the court doesn't take their stuff anyway.
---

streamofthesky posted...

How many handguns are owned vs. semi-automatics, though?

Handguns are almost exclusively semi-automatic.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

streamofthesky posted...

How many handguns are owned vs. semi-automatics, though?

Handguns are almost exclusively semi-automatic.

He's an idiot about guns, don't even waste your time
---

XlaxJynx007 posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

streamofthesky posted...

How many handguns are owned vs. semi-automatics, though?

Handguns are almost exclusively semi-automatic.

He's an idiot about guns, don't even waste your time

I was obviously responding to this:
Yellow posted...

And most deaths are caused by handguns by far. The more ridiculous semi-automatics that people want to ban cause virtually no deaths.

But you're too stupid to understand context, so it's ok.

that very immoral. so buy the insurance and then go on a killing spree and my family will be fine?
---

I love all the conjecture in these posts.

why can't this country be obssessed with something that doesn't suck for once
---

99% of all handguns are semi-automatic. The only exceptions are revolvers (double or single action) and something strange like a barrel loading pistol or an automatic pistol (which, I think technically makes it an SMG, although Glock had an automatic pistol and I'm not sure if that qualifies as an SMG.) And it makes sense to be able to get insurance for legal costs involved in self defense. Self defense =/= murder, sorry. It's justifiable homicide.

MannerSaurus posted...

The only exceptions are revolvers (double or single action)

Surely double action is semi-automatic as you don't have to "prepare" between trigger pulls.
---

Nope. Semi-automatic and automatic refer to the feeding mechanism between rounds discharged, not the trigger action. While you can accomplish the same firing speed, more or less with a double action, rotating individual chambers is different from a spring using the energy of the last shot when the slide moves to make room for the next spring fed round round. Revolvers are classified differently from "semi automatic" handguns (and shotguns/rifles/carbines etc.)

Also, semi-automatics (and automatics) automatically cock the hammer back between rounds, which is something that doesn't happen with a revolver of any kind (which aids in combat because you are in single-action mode for the rest of the "fight".)

Huh. I thought this would've been an Onion article.
Insurance so that you get paid if you kill someone with a gun is the most American thing I've ever heard of, and I'm ashamed I didn't think of it first.
---

I think people should be allowed to own guns but God I hate gun culture, it's so overcompensating and pseudo macho, with people buying the things thinking they are actually gonna fight the government

Not that Wiki is the best source but:

A semi-automatic pistol is a type of pistol that is semiautomatic, meaning it uses the energy of the fired cartridge to cycle the action of the firearm and advance the next available cartridge into position for firing. One cartridge is fired each time the trigger of a semi-automatic pistol is pulled; the pistol's "disconnector" ensures this behavior.

Additional terms sometimes used as synonyms for a semi-automatic pistol are automatic pistol, self-loading pistol, autopistol, and autoloading pistol.

A semi-automatic pistol harnesses the energy of one shot to reload the chamber for the next. After a round is fired, the spent casing is ejected and a new round from the magazine is loaded into the chamber, allowing another shot to be fired as soon as the trigger is pulled again. Most pistols use recoil operation to do this, but some pistols use blowback or gas operation.

Revolvers simply rotate a center chamber by having it connected to the trigger pull. There is nothing automated or "semi-automated" involving feeding, ejecting, extracting or anything else.

Why not just require gun owners to have insurance (and possibly inspections) the same way vehicle owners do?

None of this murder insurance
---

Doctor Foxx posted...

Why not just require gun owners to have insurance (and possibly inspections) the same way vehicle owners do?

None of this murder insurance

Because guns are a right and cars aren't.
---

fettster777 posted...

I love all the conjecture in these posts.

Yeah, we don't even know what the insurance actually covers.

This post is especially ignorant:

ernieforss posted...

that very immoral. so buy the insurance and then go on a killing spree and my family will be fine?

No, if you read the ad it says "lawful self defense." You can't go on a killing spree and even attempt to call that lawful self defense.

Plus the defense cost limits are so minimal that you're basically just receiving a discount on the defense costs from the insurance. You're still going to have a lot of out of pocket defense costs on a self defense murder case that goes to trial even if you have the gold plus plan.

This is basically a supplement to your homeowners insurance because homeowners insurance has exclusions for intentional/malicious acts which self defense shootings would fall under. Your homeowners insurance will almost never provide coverage to you in cases where you shoot someone.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

Why not just require gun owners to have insurance (and possibly inspections) the same way vehicle owners do?

None of this murder insurance

Because guns are a right and cars aren't.

A right that some people can be excluded for through no fault of their own (such as mental health issues), or by being on the wrong side of the law

You still need to follow federal and state laws to have that right. Make one of the laws mandatory insurance.
---

You should never be afraid to LEGALLY PROTECT someone you love because of court costs and jail time. That is the point of the insurance.

Doctor Foxx posted...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Doctor Foxx posted...

Why not just require gun owners to have insurance (and possibly inspections) the same way vehicle owners do?

None of this murder insurance

Because guns are a right and cars aren't.

A right that some people can be excluded for through no fault of their own (such as mental health issues), or by being on the wrong side of the law

You still need to follow federal and state laws to have that right. Make one of the laws mandatory insurance.

Mental health is for risk of danger to the public (handled badly) and being a criminal is for being a danger to the public.

Mandatory insurance is regularly used to block out undesirables by massive price hikes (note young drivers, NCDs and employment rates), so this gives the government means to simply deem everybody willing to rebel against a tyrannical government as high risk and shoot up rates way outside the scope of most people on the planet. This goes heavily against the spirit of the 2nd amendment.
---

Rights aren't things you apply to some and not others. That's a privilege that can be revoked.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

This goes heavily against the spirit of the 2nd amendment.

So does a militarized police force and bloated military. What a civilian can buy can't do shit against the government you're meant to protect yourself from
---

2nd amendment was made when guns could fire a single round with 15~ seconds of reloading between shots. Time for you Americans to get your shit together.

The only advantage to having an armed civilian population, is that it makes it incredibly difficult for a country to invade you. But considering that won't happen (baring Trump doing something stupider than anything he's done yet), why do people continue to defend gun ownership?
---

streamofthesky posted...

Zeus posted...

streamofthesky posted...

I'm really surprised that Daesh (ISIS), the Taliban, etc... don't just donate money to the NRA.
The NRA gets way more Americans killed than any of them could ever hope to manage, seems like the best possible use of their drug money, from their perspective.

Considering the NRA kills nobody, it's a stupid claim. And, if you're talking about indirect contributors to death, they'd get far more bang for buck donating money to alcohol companies. After all, 40% of all violent crimes are committed by people under the influence of alcohol and 30% of all fatal car crashes are the result of alcohol. And pretty much every sports riot ever has involved alcohol.

Yeah, I'm a teetotaler, so I'm not going to defend alcohol at all.
But I'm not sure what giving alcohol companies money would really accomplish. NRA is a lobbying group, not a company, first of all. And what legislation would an alcohol lobbyist push for that could increase deaths?
NRA meanwhile has seemingly limitless options, like arming teachers (for "safety"), then arming students (for "safety"), then move on to arming doctors and nurses (for "safety"), then perhaps chipping away at laws to track movement of guns through the "Iron Pipeline" (for "safety"), and getting larger ammo magazines allowed so you can fire off dozens of shots before needing to reload...cause you just can't be too "safe," you know?

Paying the alcohol companies would be like buying entire communities a round of drinks. It could also be used to lobby to roll back alcohol-related laws, including helping kids drink at younger ages which helps to make it even more socially acceptable (currently a third of Americans don't drink) and to get them addicted. Keep in mind that Muslims have enough sense to realize the dangers of alcohol and therefore should be able to recognize its potential as a weapon.

As for arming teachers, it would certainly cut down on the number of school attacks and SAVE lives rather than cost them. After all, even in the absence of guns, you have mass stabbings and other incidents.

As for the uproar over larger ammo capacity, it's a silly argument considering that:
A) If your rate of fire remains unchanged, the advantage from improved capacity is somewhat diminished. And keep in mind that the NRA is leading the charge when it comes to calling for restrictions on bump stocks (which increase the rate of fire)
B) The number of people killed by high-capacity weapons in mass shootings is tiny compared to the overall people killed.

streamofthesky posted...

How many handguns are owned vs. semi-automatics, though?

I think you're missing the boat on why handguns are used. Rifles, shotguns, etc, have far fewer restrictions than handguns yet handguns are far more widely used in murder. And not just twice as many or three times as many, but we're talking TWENTY times as much. It's not an availability issue, it's a convenience issue. Handguns are easy to carry and conceal. Rifles, shotguns, semi-auto long-guns are not. That's overlooking that there are semi-auto handuns.
---

streamofthesky posted...

As far as alcohol deaths, for such a comparison of which is more dangerous to the general populace / innocents, take out all the deaths to the drinkers themselves and only look at the deaths of other people they caused.

The alcohol deaths likely are still higher than gun deaths after that, but way more people drink way more often than they do fire a loaded gun.

However, only looking at deaths greatly conceals the total damage done by drinking to other people. Alcohol is tied at the hip with rape, domestic violence, child abuse, and other criminal behavior that directly harms other people.

Granted, no matter what, only looking at the harm done to others by drinking is a stupid metric because if you're talking about killing Americans, you want to look at both the drinker and the people harmed by the drinker. Somebody who accidentally dies as a result of drinking is still killed as a result of drinking. That's not counting people who lose their jobs, homes, family, etc, as a result of drinking and later decide to kill themselves or their family. At its worst, guns are a means to an end and the problem already exists. Alcohol actively CREATES the problems.
---

So, you're a small government leaning person, yet would want the government to regulate self-destructive behavior?

All I care about is danger to other people. If someone wants to drink himself to literal death from alcohol poisoning, that's his decision*. I'm not going to try and get the government to protect him from himself, he's got the freedom to be an idiot if he wants.
But I should NOT have to worry about someone like that climbing into his vehicle and murdering me or someone else.

*If it's intentional suicide as opposed to intentional excess drinking to a dangerous level that anyone w/ a brain would know is a bad idea, then yeah, the person needs help. But I doubt there's many cases of that, it's not a very effective method and once you're wasted your sense of judgement will be impaired.

streamofthesky posted...

How many handguns are owned vs. semi-automatics, though?

This question makes no sense. 99.9% of all handguns in the world are semi-automatic.

streamofthesky posted...

So, you're a small government leaning person, yet would want the government to regulate self-destructive behavior?

While I didn't advocate that in this topic, I am in favor of it to some extent. It's why I'm not a full-on libertarian. I recognize that the government has a right and a moral obligation to protect its citizens from themselves to some extent. Plus libertarian tax codes are impractical.

I'm not saying "get rid of alcohol," but I would want consumption rates monitored and consumption limited to areas where the activities could be supervised, ensuring that people sober up before leaving and take cabs instead of driving.

streamofthesky posted...

All I care about is danger to other people. If someone wants to drink himself to literal death from alcohol poisoning, that's his decision*. I'm not going to try and get the government to protect him from himself, he's got the freedom to be an idiot if he wants.
But I should NOT have to worry about someone like that climbing into his vehicle and murdering me or someone else.

*If it's intentional suicide as opposed to intentional excess drinking to a dangerous level that anyone w/ a brain would know is a bad idea, then yeah, the person needs help. But I doubt there's many cases of that, it's not a very effective method and once you're wasted your sense of judgement will be impaired.

The only problem there is that an alcoholic affects EVERYBODY around them. They're more likely to be violent, more likely to engage in criminal conduct, more likely to engage in reckless/dangerous behavior, etc. Worst of all, you put their loved ones in an impossible situation where they either have to choose to leave or stay quiet about the whole thing.

Honestly, the number of STDs, rapes, etc, in this country could probably be cut in half if we implemented sensible controlled point-of-consumption laws. We're never going to be able to get rid of it, but at the least we can control its damage.
---

IceDragon77 posted...

2nd amendment was made when guns could fire a single round with 15~ seconds of reloading between shots.

Bullshit argument. The founding fathers knew damn well that weapon technology would continue to advance, and faster firing guns than muskets existed at the time.

The same bullshit argument could be said about the first amendment.
---

to be fair i'm drunk at the moment, didn't read what the OP said. but throwing my 2 cents in any damn way cause i'm bored. last I checked all the NRA offered was to get you a lawyer in the case of a gun related crime. now if you truly committed a crime, chances are you are still going down. what this policy was there for was in the few cases killing someone might be seen as justified, they'd give you a lawyer to help argue that case.
---

SmokeMassTree posted...

I might purchase this

---

Zeus posted...

That's overlooking that there are semi-auto handuns.

pretty much every single pistol is semi-auto.

there's the rare revolver that's a single shot, but those are few and far between.

i actually own one!

semi-automatic just means that, when you cock it and pull the trigger it uses the recoil to re-cock itself.
---

helIy posted...

Zeus posted...

That's overlooking that there are semi-auto handuns.

pretty much every single pistol is semi-auto.

there's the rare revolver that's a single shot, but those are few and far between.

i actually own one!

semi-automatic just means that, when you cock it and pull the trigger it uses the recoil to re-cock itself.

No revolvers are semi-automatic. Even the double action modern revolvers are not considered semi-automatic.

You are correct, though, the semi-automatic means energy is used from the last discharge to re-cock the hammer, and it extracts, ejects, and loads the next available cartridge in the chamber with the same movement.

There is a rare exception where a double-action only pistol (DAO) does not cock the hammer back after each shot (because it does not have a single-action trigger position with the hammer) which is still considered semi-automatic because of the extract/eject/feed mechanism, but those are pretty rare as well.

On second read, I think you were implying that revolvers in general where rare, and that they are all single shot. In that case, I guess I didn't even need to address that. lol

Im sure this is for situations where a gun owner is protecting themselves or their families. Not people walking the streets looking for a chance to kill someone. So Im all for it.
---

The first ad says it's for when you shoot someone in lawful self defense. So as long as the people at the insurance company pay out money only when they actually believe someone acted within the law, I don't see a problem with it.

OmegaM posted...

The first ad says it's for when you shoot someone in lawful self defense. So as long as the people at the insurance company pay out money only when they actually believe someone acted within the law, I don't see a problem with it.

Lawful self-defense is something determined by a court of law.
The insurance is to help pay someone's legal defense fees in the court case to determine if it actually was lawful self-defense.

So unless they only pay out after the verdict and the insurance holder is on his own paying the legal fees until that point, they have no legal grounds to withhold the money from a defendant w/ the insurance to be used in his defense.

So yes, it's "murder insurance"

streamofthesky posted...

OmegaM posted...

The first ad says it's for when you shoot someone in lawful self defense. So as long as the people at the insurance company pay out money only when they actually believe someone acted within the law, I don't see a problem with it.

Lawful self-defense is something determined by a court of law.
The insurance is to help pay someone's legal defense fees in the court case to determine if it actually was lawful self-defense.

So unless they only pay out after the verdict and the insurance holder is on his own paying the legal fees until that point, they have no legal grounds to withhold the money from a defendant w/ the insurance to be used in his defense.

So yes, it's "murder insurance"

that is just a stupid way of looking at it. the insurance is there so people who killed someone in self defense don't get thrown under the bus because all they could afford was a shitty lawyer

"murder insurance" would be more akin to a get out of jail free card, which this isn't
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

streamofthesky posted...

OmegaM posted...

The first ad says it's for when you shoot someone in lawful self defense. So as long as the people at the insurance company pay out money only when they actually believe someone acted within the law, I don't see a problem with it.

Lawful self-defense is something determined by a court of law.
The insurance is to help pay someone's legal defense fees in the court case to determine if it actually was lawful self-defense.

So unless they only pay out after the verdict and the insurance holder is on his own paying the legal fees until that point, they have no legal grounds to withhold the money from a defendant w/ the insurance to be used in his defense.

So yes, it's "murder insurance"

that is just a stupid way of looking at it. the insurance is there so people who killed someone in self defense don't get thrown under the bus because all they could afford was a shitty lawyer

"murder insurance" would be more akin to a get out of jail free card, which this isn't

Whether it was self-defense or not isn't even determined until after the court case that this insurance is applying the money towards. And if the guy still goes to jail in the end, fat chance he'll be able to pay back the money, so regardless of outcome, it's going to fund actual murderers.

streamofthesky posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

streamofthesky posted...

OmegaM posted...

The first ad says it's for when you shoot someone in lawful self defense. So as long as the people at the insurance company pay out money only when they actually believe someone acted within the law, I don't see a problem with it.

Lawful self-defense is something determined by a court of law.
The insurance is to help pay someone's legal defense fees in the court case to determine if it actually was lawful self-defense.

So unless they only pay out after the verdict and the insurance holder is on his own paying the legal fees until that point, they have no legal grounds to withhold the money from a defendant w/ the insurance to be used in his defense.

So yes, it's "murder insurance"

that is just a stupid way of looking at it. the insurance is there so people who killed someone in self defense don't get thrown under the bus because all they could afford was a shitty lawyer

"murder insurance" would be more akin to a get out of jail free card, which this isn't

Whether it was self-defense or not isn't even determined until after the court case that this insurance is applying the money towards. And if the guy still goes to jail in the end, fat chance he'll be able to pay back the money, so regardless of outcome, it's going to fund actual murderers.

the "murderers" aren't getting any money. they pay for a membership to a club, and getting legal help is one of the perks. talk about reaching.
---