But, as you already indicated, you weren't there, either, so you don't have a clue as to: (1) whether it was just a prank or not, (2) that it actually impacted Carl Ericsson for his entire life or not, (3) that whatever happened was really "bad" or not, (4) that the "prank" consisted of more than one incident, or (5) that Norman Johnson was even the primary perpetrator in the incident. Therefore, you are disparaging the grieving daughter from a position of admitted ignorance. What's up with that?
What we do know is that some kids apparently pulled a locker room prank on Ericsson back in the 1950s. I generally do not approve of hazing because I cannot see where the intentional, physical and psychological humiliation of a fellow student is ever worthwhile, but we simply do not have a clue how innocuous or severe this "prank" was, so it is presumptuous in the extreme to extrapolate that into an expression of kudos for an act of murder that will now deprive two families of their father/husband.
I respect people who defend themselves, and others, against attackers. Retaliation is different from defense ... and it usually ends up being just as personally destructive to the one serving it up as to the one on the receiving end.
The essential American soul is hard, isolate, stoic, and a killer. It has never yet melted. ~ D.H. Lawrence
| 
