Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Incorrect. Not one things is crazy except for the FACT that the criminal attacked an armed man. The men who chased down the criminal put themselves in a position to protect their neighborhood. Should they wait for government to help like a kept child would?
The law says they should, yes. You can't go around defending other people's property or vigilante for your own from months prior.
The two guys are the aggressors, they are the ones who initiated the hostile confrontation, with their guns.
I just cannot run up to you with a gun out ordering you to do something, then when you fight back for your life and I shoot you, I claim self defense.
Merely having a gun is not a hostile act.
Also in your scenario, you have the guy with the gun "running up" when in this scenario the guy with the gun was stationary, it was the unarmed man who "ran up" and attacked.
Deciding to stop running away, turning around and charging at someone is not self defense, it is being the aggressor in an attack. Asking someone to stop is not provocation for an attack.
There's simply no justification for the deceased attacking a group of armed men. Had he not made that decision, and the guys just shot him, we'd be having a VERY different conversation right now because that would be murder.
He was not jogging through the neighborhood. He is on film casing out a construction site and took off running from confronted. He was wearing boots, cargo shorts & carrying a hammer. He also has prior conviction for burglary. That doesn't mean it was handled properly by the shooter, or that he deserved to die, but we should be honest about the context of how the incident began.
Wait what? He's not wearing boots or carrying a hammer when he walks into the construction site. The video is pretty clear.
So what makes this case so newsworthy, and what has inspired so much public outrage? Maybe we need a distraction from Covid19 at this point. But I think it's coupled with the fact that there's something to argue about in this story. People can argue whether his criminal history is relevant, his criminal behavior that started this incident rolling, and can argue whether he did in fact attack McMichaels before being shot in self-defense.
I spent some time looking through websites of black men killed in the last 20 years by cops, and it occurs to me that only in cases where it's arguable that the shooting was justified, do people protest and the media takes interest.
There are several cases of young black men being inexplicably shot by cops, and no media events follow, no public protests except family screaming for justice and help. Crickets.
Why? I just think the story has to have a "hook" to catch the public attention. Was this guy a jogger or a burglar? Did he attack the McMichaels or not?
The only notable exception to this I could find is the case of Botham Jean, but then people could argue whether the female cop could have possibly not known she wasn't in her own apartment, so game on. Something to argue about, I guess.
Maybe you can share some of those cases with us, was it Walter Scott, Philando Castille, Freddy Grey.
They did not "merely" have a gun, they were chasing him, cutting him off, yelling orders at him, pursuing him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbythegreat
Also in your scenario, you have the guy with the gun "running up" when in this scenario the guy with the gun was stationary, it was the unarmed man who "ran up" and attacked.
The guy in the gun was not stationary, they literally got in their truck, drove on a public road, and chased the victim. How in the world do you think that is stationary?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbythegreat
Deciding to stop running away, turning around and charging at someone is not self defense, it is being the aggressor in an attack. Asking someone to stop is not provocation for an attack.
Incorrect, those two with the guns that chased the victim down, are the aggressors. They did not jsut ask him to stop, they chased him with their guns points at him, cut him off, got out of the truck with a gun pointed at him.
If the victim shot them dead, that would be self defense. The two guys are the ones who imitated the hostile confrontation, not the victim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobbythegreat
There's simply no justification for the deceased attacking a group of armed men. Had he not made that decision, and the guys just shot him, we'd be having a VERY different conversation right now because that would be murder.
There is simply no justification for two guys to get their guns and go chasing a guy that is running along a public road, then killing him when he fights back for his life. The victim has zero obligation to do anything they ask him to do.
This is why I conceal carry, because of jack asses like those two guys. If I was in the victim's situation, I would have shot those two guys dead right there, and that would have been self defense.
These murderers chased this man back and forth down the street with loaded guns. Then one raced in front of him and got out of his truck with his loaded shotgun with another one in the back of the truck also with a loaded gun. Then there was one behind him with his gun ready and filmed this. How long do you continue to run? He tried to defend himself from these useless vigilantes whose only intent was to kill him so they did.
Attacking is not defense.
He had the option of continuing to run, surrendering and waiting for the cops, or attacking and dying.
He picked the last option like a moron and got what he deserved. When you decide to attack others, especially when they are armed, you are begging to be killed. That single act was his undoing. Apparently he was more afraid of waiting for the cops and possibly getting in trouble with the law once again, than he was of being shot to death. Well, he decided his own fate.
When he ran past the truck, he could have just kept going, he didn't have to turn around and attack. There's simply no defending that decision.
They knew because one of them was an officer involved with the case. They knew him, they knew he was a thief with a history of carrying guns. That's why they wanted to stop him till the cops could bust him. They probably assumed he was the guy who burglarized their car a month before, they probably assumed he was responsible for a few petty burglaries in the neighborhood recently.
There was nothing inherently wrong with what they did, it just went wrong when the guy decided to attack them.
If they knew him they could have easily have given his name to the police who could have then gone to his home and arrested him. But they decided to be judge, jury, and executioner.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
