Mr McLeod and Mr Schemelgsky had no monopoly on 'anger and grief'.
Half of Port Alberni probably has , individually, more anger and grief than Kam nor Bry could possibly conceive of.
What half of Port Alberni didn't do was strut on out along the highways and by ways of the provinces of Canada, killing at random , at whim, a woman, a young man and an elderly man. That's what the other folks of Port Alberni didn't do.
So what made Kam and Bryer's 'anger and grief' more important, more valid, more actionable, than anyone else's?
Nothing, is what.
What differentiates K and B from the rest is their CHOSEN determination to extract some relief by the mechanics of cold blooded murder. It takes a tremendous determination to kill two unarmed people, one a woman. They had to both reach a pitch of rage commensurate with the task before them, other wise it could get very over extended, the killings had to be quick, and in this , they managed very well. Both got themselves up to concert pitch to murder and pillage, and also, just incidentally, to have a bit of discernment in what to take from Mr Fowlers van.
They were cool headed enough to do that.
Then on to the next victim.
How very odd, then, that the proposition is, they both had the same degree of 'anger and grief'. How did this happen, from their very different backgrounds, then? If , as is proposed, they both had this overwhelming 'anger and grief', how come they both got there from very different paths, to the exact same level of anger and grief?
This is the problem with this proposal that both these men were hard done by to the extent, that together, from different paths, from different genetic makeup, from different backgrounds, it is to be assumed they both got to exactly the same pitch of 'anger and grief' at the exact same time in the exact same situation, that is, standing there beside the van of Mr Fowler.,
Then , they did the same thing again, with Prof Dyck. Both , in the exact same pitch of anger and grief, etc..
What's wrong with this picture?