Sometimes I can't stand the American legal system. I guess that's why I'm going to law school. It's frustrating on one hand that for trial purposes the courts can treat the individual shootings as individual crimes (which in essence they are) and try the two shooters one county/crime at a time, while on the other they treat them collectively while sentencing. Most state laws, including Virginia, allow the death penalty in cases of murder during a felony (which this wouldn't be), and aggrivated heinous crimes. Cold-blooded murders that the shootings may be they only contain aggrivating elements when you look at the big picture. What upsets me is that the prosecutors (legally) used the system as a 'trial'-and-error to keep at it until they found 12 men and women who were willing to recommend the death penalty. Personally, I think that there should have been one trial for all the Virginia murders, packaged nice and neat, and allow one jury to make the decision. In my eyes that would have been the Virginia Beach jury, the good, decent folks who looked at the evidence and said that Muhummed (sp) should get life, not death. If the prosecutors don't want to play the big picture during the trial, they shouldn't be allowed to present the big picture during sentencing. I guess I'm just so up about this because I'm anti-death penalty.