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.
This is the thing. Those individuals were likely going to shoot him anyway.
What proof do you have of this? Because the person defending himself from the attack is white, and white people are always guilty when they shoot aggressive blacks?
You make way too many dishonest comments with nothing to back it up. It's a victim mentality.
Any rational person would continue to flee, and try to get help if possible. Rest assured that is what I and most other people would do in the exact same situation.
If you would decide to just give it your best effort to try and disarm a guy holding a shotgun, your chances of pushing up daises increases exponentially.
`
Easy to say after the fact.
Most people do not exactly stop and analyze such a situation when it is actually happening to them. People are given to all kinds of reactions, panic being one.
And its moot because the guy should never have been thrust into such a situation.
Why are you saying they were not in a lawful situation? They can legally stop him. Even if it is proven that he was not stealing anything, they could not be charged with illegally detaining someone. Was it reasonable to assume he might have stolen something when he trespassed?
They cant stop him because they suspect he stole something. That's crazy.
Not to mention its pretty stupid to suspect someone on foot dressed in shorts and a t-shirt to be hiding stolen property on their person.
Why are you saying they were not in a lawful situation? They can legally stop him. Even if it is proven that he was not stealing anything, they could not be charged with illegally detaining someone. Was it reasonable to assume he might have stolen something when he trespassed?
You have to KNOW, because if you are wrong then you are up for charges of false imprisonment. And they were wrong. So here we go around and around again.
the statue does not say one may 'arrest' someone on suspicion. They have to KNOW. Like you SEE a purse snatcher snatch, so you grab the guy and hold him until police come. Even then, the use of force has to be proportional. Lacking a threat to someone's life, you can't use deadly force.
After the purse snatcher has left your field of view, the chance to legally chase him is over. You can't think yo see the purse snatcher the next day and detain him.
It has to be a FELONY you KNOW occurred and there was no felony and they didn't see jack**** that day except someone thought to be a suspect in a PRIOR, NON-FELONY.
How is this so hard to understand? No felony EVER took place, much less on that day in the presence of the McMichaels.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 9 days ago)
35,634 posts, read 17,975,706 times
Reputation: 50664
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
And yet again he had not stolen anything and the McMichaels saw him in the yard. Trespass at most.
We really don't know if he had stolen anything. English is running scared and somehow has neglected to mention he asked neighbors to go check out the intruder just 10 days before, which they did, and ended up calling the cops then too.
The McMichaels apparently saw the video of him inside the house, not just in the yard, and the first encounter was at night.
Then, 12 days later, he's back inside the house. Again.
IANAL, but doesn't the "Reasonable Man" standard address behavior? I wasn't aware that it can be used to divine feelings of the deceased.
Was the Fear of Harm Reasonable?
Sometimes self-defense is justified even if the perceived aggressor didn’t actually mean the perceived victim any harm. What matters in these situations is whether a “reasonable person” in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm. The concept of the “reasonable person” is a legal conceit that is subject to differing interpretations in practice, but it is the legal system’s best tool to determine whether a person’s perception of imminent danger justified the use of protective force. https://criminal.findlaw.com/crimina...-overview.html
"Perceived an immediate threat of physical harm" That would mean that the person was AFRAID that physical harm would happen.
Now a reasonable person would perceive or "fear" physical harm after being chased, corralled, and confronted by armed men.
We really don't know if he had stolen anything. English is running scared and somehow has neglected to mention he asked neighbors to go check out the intruder just 10 days before, which they did, and ended up calling the cops then too.
The McMichaels apparently saw the video of him inside the house, not just in the yard, and the first encounter was at night.
Then, 12 days later, he's back inside the house. Again.
It wouldn't matter if he had committed a triple homicide on top of the house prior with video broadcast by police for citizens to be alert and call them if they see the wanted man.
The law requires a felony to have taken place in front of the citizen who wants to make an 'arrest'. The person must be fleeing the scene, not showing up 12 days later.
Any rational person would continue to flee, and try to get help if possible. Rest assured that is what I and most other people would do in the exact same situation.
If you would decide to just give it your best effort to try and disarm a guy holding a shotgun, your chances of pushing up daises increases exponentially.
`
He had a right to try to defend himself from the posse that was chasing him corralled him, and confronted him with guns.
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.
