dhuze
NES Member
I have a feeling we don't have even 50% of the facts in this one.
I'm waiting to see his jr high photo before I pass any judgement.
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
I have a feeling we don't have even 50% of the facts in this one.
Why are you bringing up race when I never do? According to Frizzle that makes you a racist.
Again, I haven't brought up race, because I don't care what anyone's race is.Sure it does.
BTW are you 100% sure of the race of each poster on NES ?
I still having trouble figuring out how chasing down someone who may or may not have committed burglary and creating a confrontation that leads to you killing that person would be justified. Killing burglars is acceptable?
Again, I haven't brought up race, because I don't care what anyone's race is.
And what difference does it make what race any member of NES is?
And let's be clear, I don't necessarily think talking about race makes you a racist (what you say about it does), I was only referencing Frizzle's definition posted earlier.
Race may or may not have played a roll in the minds of the shooters. But it's irrelevant. What's relevant is the actions taken and what was known when and by whom regarding the victim, and what is fact and what is speculation.
I'm going by your insistence that the guy was just some poor schmuck out for a jog when all the facts so far point 180 degrees in the opposite direction.
If it was some guy out for a jog and this happened I'd be right with you , but it appears not to be .
Your version is made up to be what you wanted it to be.
As far as the race thing, just as a general rule one should be careful before they throw that word around .
You wouldn't be the first person to come off looking like a total fool later on.
All I'm saying is innocent till proven guilty.I'm going by your insistence that the guy was just some poor schmuck out for a jog when all the facts so far point 180 degrees in the opposite direction.
If it was some guy out for a jog and this happened I'd be right with you , but it appears not to be .
Your version is made up to be what you wanted it to be.
As far as the race thing, just as a general rule one should be careful before they throw that word around .
You wouldn't be the first person to come off looking like a total fool later on.
The law, as posted by Frizzle Fry ;
"O.C.G.A. 17-4-60 (2010)
17-4-60. Grounds for arrest
A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion."
Brings up multiple issues. The crime was not committed in the shooters presence or within his immediate knowledge, it was second hand at best. I question whether trespassing on open construction constitutes a felony (one of those involved was a retired cop so he should know this). And since this was not timely to the alleged offence and was not at the location of the alleged offence, the victume was not in the act of escaping.
There is simply no reason the shooter should get a pass on this.
If I see someone who looks like a person in a video commiting a crime, I call the cops, that's their job, my taxes pay them to do this.
As for RACE, which other keep bring up but I have not. I don't care and it is not relevant to the crime.
And I'm not worried about being called a fool for NOT bringing race into this. You comment on this seems kind of weird.
Where is this stated. From what I recall, there were calls about break ins, a woman was mentioned. Not that the shooter had previously reported a break in.He had called the police the day before, and they arrived too late to catch the guy.
He was running down the street, it does not say from a break in, and the shooter would have no knowledge of it even if it was the case, since he was not there. Unless you are speculating that video was taken and distributed throughout the community so quickly that someone previouly unaware of the breakin had time to view the video go outo his front yard and see the subject less than a block a way from the breakin. That's seems like some pretty big speculation.He was fleeing the scene of another breaking and entering
And where is this video, because it's not in the original article. You are attributing very specific actions to the victim and shooter. Link to the video please. Or is this just speculation of what could have happened that would support you position?The video clearly shows the burglar physically attacking him without having been attacked, and is not clear on whether the firearm discharged intentionally, or as a result of the burglar/attackers own actions. Armed or unarmed, is "Hey I want to talk to you!" an acceptable provocation for a physical attack?
My perspective might be a little different than most here, as I don't completely have the Massachusetts brain virus of "unless he's cornered you with a machete in your bedroom you can't defend yourself, and even then get him to put his threats in writing first and expect 50k in legal fees" - and bear in mind I taught LTC classes (and that mindset) in MA for years... where it is relevant. Some places it's not.
And where is this video, because it's not in the original article. You are attributing very specific actions to the victim and shooter. Link to the video please. Or is this just speculation of what could have happened that would support you position?
Dude, you can't just toss out all that unsupported information like that. Links to sources. Your other post talked like you had seen the videos, now you say they haven't been released, which is it? Until there is a source it's all just speculation.NYT won't report it because they have an angle and won't report inconvenient facts - read the local paper; there are perhaps a half dozen articles (I swear I first got there from a post in this thread) and two of the prosecutors thus far have stated there are multiple videos of the man committing burglaries, and a "third party" video of the altercation between the burglar and the two men which clearly shows him initiating physical violence. Both prosecutors have since recused; the first because of a conflict of interest, the second because of a VERY thin allegation of conflict and pressure from racebaiters and the local government. The second prosecutor stated he was waiting for ballistics because the statements of all witnesses and the video suggest the firearm may have first been triggered by the attacker/burglar during his attack (and then fired again by the weapons owner, intentionally).
None of the video has been released to the public, nor has the full police report and there's hints in what has been released that the burglar might himself have been armed... or not, but wording suggests it might be the case, as do some of the statements from prosecutor #2. If he was armed, there's a good chance it was with an M&P stolen from the retired cop. Or said M&P might have been found in his home. It's so political at this point the 3rd prosecutor brought in might have their hands tied, and need make a circus out of what turns out to be relatively straight forward - don't worry the SPLC is on it!
Have you posted a single link? Read the local paper that was linked I believe it was called Brunswick - (as stated above) there are a half dozen or more articles with statements from the prosecutors, parts of the police reports, and information about the theft of the retired cops handgun, the multiple 911 calls from the retired cop and the neighbors, etc. The newer articles are post-NGO involvement (usual suspects; race huckster lawyers and SPLC) and are less fact filled and more supposition.Dude, you can't just toss out all that unsupported information like that. Links to sources.
I cannot be any more clear than I have - the statement of the prosecutors were that a third party video captured the altercation. None of the videos have been released. I never claimed to have seen the videos. I never "made it seem like" I saw the videos, only referred back to their existence and the statements from the prosecutor regarding them.Your other post talked like you had seen the videos, now you say they haven't been released, which is it?
It's statements from the DAs office, the various prosecutors, etc when addressing their decisions not to pursue charges (at all, then yet). I've made a point to say very clearly what's speculation and what's not. I'd "speculate" that now that the race hucksters and grievance brigades are involved, we'll never see the videos and we'll see local and national papers reel back in anything that led to any questioning of the new narrative.Until there is a source it's all just speculation.
A group of people have the right to question a suspicious person in the neighborhood or street.
At the mall or anywhere else, I can go up to a person and question them. Even if I am armed.
I can't harass somebody, violate anybody's rights or detain somebody.
I can go up to a person who I think has drugs on them and ask them to empty their pockets.
I have the right to question a business owner in his own store if he has committed fraud that day. However, if he tells me to leave I must abide or else he can issue a trespass order.
Asking a suspicious stranger who they are or what they are doing is not a crime.
What happened after that is what is in question.
Sure it does.
BTW are you 100% sure of the race of each poster on NES ?
And they/I have every right to tell you to pound sand. And say nasty things about your mommy.
Back in middle school I had a race poster. I think it was the America's Cup.
All I'm saying is innocent till proven guilty.
But here are the facts, which you seem to be not completely familiar with.
A person who at least some say fits the description of the victim was seen inside a house under construction, not yet closed in, at some date/time in the past. When is not clear but it is clear that the victim was not followed from that location/time.
The two who chased the victim, claim to have seen video of him committing the "burglary", but that video has not yet been produced. They did not see him commit a crime first hand nor did they follow him from that location. This is based on their own statements. BTW I believe the local law on making a citizen's arrest requires that it be timely to the actual crime (later, elsewhere isn't good enough).
By their own statements the shooter saw the victim running past his home, got his gun, got in his truck and chased the victim down. He then engaged in a confrontation with the victim where the shooter was holding a loaded shotgun. The altercation turned physical and the victim was shot.
The victim's past criminal history is irrelevant since the shooter had no way of knowing this.
The law, as posted by Frizzle Fry ;
"O.C.G.A. 17-4-60 (2010)
17-4-60. Grounds for arrest
A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion."
Brings up multiple issues. The crime was not committed in the shooters presence or within his immediate knowledge, it was second hand at best. I question whether trespassing on open construction constitutes a felony (one of those involved was a retired cop so he should know this). And since this was not timely to the alleged offence and was not at the location of the alleged offence, the victume was not in the act of escaping.
There is simply no reason the shooter should get a pass on this.
If I see someone who looks like a person in a video commiting a crime, I call the cops, that's their job, my taxes pay them to do this.
As for RACE, which other keep bring up but I have not. I don't care and it is not relevant to the crime.
And I'm not worried about being called a fool for NOT bringing race into this. You comment on this seems kind of weird.
As the guy who first called this "bad shoot" I want to clarify something: If by some convoluted, pretzel logic the killers can get out of legal responsibility for this shoot, it is still is a bad shoot.
The shoot was WRONG, it was immoral. That nulls the entire legal analysis by the self-schooled lawyers on NES. If you don't see that then you are the real problem.
It was immoral for the felon who just committed another felony to attack a guy who had a shotgun, and possibly be the one who fired the weapon?
We ain't never gonna agree on this.
It's not immoral to chase a thief, it's not immoral to protect your property or your neighbors property, or your own life when attacked. Removing the rights of people to do so is immoral.
Now you have outed yourself for what you really are. You think it is moral to kill someone over physical property? I have no words.
I won't be engaging you any more on this topic.
No, he was chased down in a truck.He was not killed over "physical property". He was not run down and shot like a dog in the street, he was not cowering, he wasn't out for a jog... he stole, and when confronted, he attacked.
Video shows black man who was out for a run shot dead by two men
The video circulated across social media on the same day as a statement from a Georgia prosecutor that he wants a grand jury to decide if charges are warranted against the men.www.dailymail.co.uk
Jogger tried to take the gun away.
Edit:
Before that it appears as if a gun was fired.
I bet these guys wont get convicted.
Would you look at that... the 3rd party footage which "doesn't exist" shows him running right at the guy who's just standing, from a good distance away mind you, and trying to grab his gun and hit him... rather than, say, running literally anywhere else. And it doesn't look or sound as though shots were fired until he attacked the guy.
And it doesn't look like he was being chased either, but that the truck was parked and the man was standing next to it. It's almost as though the 2nd prosecutor had a point when he laid all of this out in his letter...
Would you look at that... the 3rd party footage which "doesn't exist" shows him running right at the guy who's just standing, from a good distance away mind you, and trying to grab his gun and hit him... rather than, say, running literally anywhere else. And it doesn't look or sound as though shots were fired until he attacked the guy.
And it doesn't look like he was being chased either, but that the truck was parked and the man was standing next to it. It's almost as though the 2nd prosecutor had a point when he laid all of this out in his letter...
They stated they had followed him, yes. At the time he attacked them, the truck was parked with no driver. It was "just sitting there". It looked to be at least 50 feet ahead of him (probably more) and he ran toward it and toward the men.So now you say the truck was parked and they weren't chasing him. But by the shooters own statements they got their guns and chased him in their truck. So NO the truck wasn't just sitting there.
The shooter did not "cross" the front of the truck, but simply moved toward the front of it (and never got there) - the video clearly shows the burglar (not sure where you got "victim") crossed the front of the truck to attack the shooter. If the burglar was attempting to avoid the shooter, he could simply continue running rather straight than turning in front of the vehicle to attack. If he was worried about being shot (and thus felt the need to attack the shooter) he could have simply run ANYWHERE other than at the men and the truck, especially given how far away from it/them he was initially in the video - if he felt being shot was a real concern, why continue running towards the man from such a great distance rather than away in any other direction?As the victim approached the vehicle the shooter was out with his shotgun ready on the left side. The victim went to the right side AWAY from the shooter. The shooter crossed in front of the truck to engage the victim.
It could just as easily be argued that he was moving toward the front of the truck or it's open door for cover as the assailant was running towards him, to avoid a physical confrontation (or because according to the two men, they believed he was armed). Or he could have been stepping to turn and face the burglar, who had himself turned sharply and was now charging directly at the shooter to attack him (which he did). If his intent from the outset was to shoot the burglar, he could have done so at any time. No shots were fired by either man until the younger man was attacked. The burglar veered to the right around the vehicle, and then made a sharp turn back towards the shooter, over the course of about 7 seconds during which time the shooter moved - generously - 3 feet.Here I'll grant you that initial contact was out of sight in front of the truck. But given that they had already chased him in the truck and the shooter went to the victim when he went around the truck to the far side, I would say the shooters intent for an armed confrontation was clear.
Again, to be completely clear, it does not look like he was being chased by the two men at the time he attacked. The video clearly shows him running a significant distance TOWARDS the truck, and the men. He may have been followed before (the statement of the two men) but in the video he ran a great distance toward them when they were completely stationary.Again, you say " it doesn't look like he was being chased" but the shooters own statements contradict this.
Again, he was leaving the scene of a crime that very moment. Same day, same moment, a felony at that. They had reasonable suspicion which is enough to satisfy Georgia law.Timeliness!! they didn't chase down what they called a suspect the same day/time as the break in. One of the reasons laws require this is because people don't know what may or may not have happened in between. Maybe he was picked up and cleared, maybe he was out on bail. The point is, the laws require it to be contiguous event to prevent mistakes.
Never happened. Watch the video, view the screen captures. He moves around the vehicle and makes a beeline for the man to attack him.The armed man moves forward and across the front to intercept you.
Not according to Georgia state law, the opinions of two prosecutors, and those of many lawyers.Bottom line, they had no business chasing him in the first place, everything after that is a result of that wrong.