Georgia shooting of a black man

From what I've read the father/son claim he was running away. I've seen the video and what is show does not back that claim up.

If you are running away one tends to avoid people and open spaces. The object is to not be seen. Definitely not to run towards a stopped car that someone just got out of. You wold stop, turn around or just run away.

If you are jogging one tends to run on the side of the road, against traffic. If cars are parked you just go around them, not avoiding people (only gun toting rednecks).

Which was shown in the video? You decide.
 
Last edited:
Burn them out. They only live among us to plot & kill Americans. We dont have any here, if we did they'd have to move or I would.

Do you allow black people to jog or live in your neighborhood?
 
Hep a brother out!!! Is there anybody that has posted about this that feels Any change of opinion from a LEGAL aspect after reading the Ware County DA letter?? Whatcha say??
 
Hep a brother out!!! Is there anybody that has posted about this that feels Any change of opinion from a LEGAL aspect after reading the Ware County DA letter?? Whatcha say??
No. I think that it comes down to the J and in AOJ principle. We don't know what was said or by whom. The presence of guns and being armed fulfills the A and O. but not the J. Without that knowledge I could see hypothetical arguments being made that could go either way given that the jogger appears to have gone for the gun or at least decided to engage in a physical fight.

Honestly, I think this is going to be another OJ Simpson, Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin type event where people are going to believe what they believe based upon their own biases regardless of whatever facts come out.
 
Honestly, I think this is going to be another OJ Simpson, Michael Brown, Trayvon Martin type event where people are going to believe what they believe based upon their own biases regardless of whatever facts come out.
Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding!!!!!!!! A winner, a winner over here, right here a winner!!
 
Or it will be a case where two rednecks went out for revenge, got into a bad situation, and ended up killing another man.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Hep a brother out!!! Is there anybody that has posted about this that feels Any change of opinion from a LEGAL aspect after reading the Ware County DA letter?? Whatcha say??

Having read the letter, no my opinion hasn't changed from a legal standpoint. However, my viewpoint now includes the DA as one of the corrupt individuals complicit in this scheme to blatantly overlook a murder.
 
Unless @BlackGun is LEO and actively trying to prevent other LEO from getting into trouble for their wrongdoings, I dont see how he's the problem.
Im not sure I agree with his part about race having nothing to do with it, we'll see as time goes on, but him stating the LEO was protecting their own doesnt, to me, show anything negative about BG

Now if you want to look at some OLDer members and their nonsense, yeah, they're part of the problem with their ignorance
He needs to read it again. I definitely believe the DA was bias in this case given McMicheal’s employment with the department and a former officer. And that is and has been a big problem. I’ve had law enforcement relatives (uncles and cousins) who have done things unethical while being officers. I promise you they were not operating lawfully. I have about six LEO close friends who are as professional and decent as they come. Otherwise they would not even be on my friend list.
 
From what I've read the father/son claim he was running away. I've seen the video and what is show does not back that claim up.

If you are running away one tends to avoid people and open spaces. The object is to not be seen. Definitely not to run towards a stopped car that someone just got out of. You wold stop, turn around or just run away.

If you are jogging one tends to run on the side of the road, against traffic. If cars are parked you just go around them, not avoiding people (only gun toting rednecks).

Which was shown in the video? You decide.
The video is very short. I read an account that described the father and son's actions as:
  • following the guy, who turned and went the other way when they tried to talk to him;
  • turning and pursuing him again, with the same result of the guy turning again;
  • the pursuer in the second truck arrived and the father and son drove ahead of the guy to essentially box him in, at which point the video starts.
If the guy had already been accosted twice by the father and son and tried to avoid them, I can see why he might go rapidly on the attack during the third encounter.
 
Last edited:
Having read the letter, no my opinion hasn't changed from a legal standpoint. However, my viewpoint now includes the DA as one of the corrupt individuals complicit in this scheme to blatantly overlook a murder.
Unfortunately the DA will not be held accountable. They can’t prove what her intentions were. Matt, you and I have seen the corruption in our county before the current man. It was all over the news. Nobody did a damn thing about it at the department until the SBI decided to rid us of it.
 
...If the guy had already been accosted twice by the father and son and tried to avoid them, I can see why he might go rapidly on the attack during the third encounter.

Me too. But, (and I'm asking because I don't know): If an unarmed person is fatally shot while attempting to forcibly take the shooter's firearm away from the shooter, do the preceding events, OR how the parties "may" have felt about one another (prejudices that we assume) enter into whether it's a legal shooting or not?
 
Me too. But, (and I'm asking because I don't know): If an unarmed person is fatally shot while attempting to forcibly take the shooter's firearm away from the shooter, do the preceding events, OR how the parties "may" have felt about one another (prejudices that we assume) enter into whether it's a legal shooting or not?
Actually it becomes a matter of who's claiming self defense. If someone is unarmed they only have 2 choices one being to run and the other being to fight. So to me it comes down to determining who was the aggressor. In the instance the shooter was the aggressor due to being the person initiating the contact. They chased him down and boxed him in to confront him. Is it really reasonable to assume the unarmed guy was the aggressor considering he wasn't setting out to confront them?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Actually it becomes a matter of who's claiming self defense. If someone is unarmed they only have 2 choices one being to run and the other being to fight. So to me it comes down to determining who was the aggressor.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Makes sense to me. Which aggression is the important one? How far do we get to roll-back the stack-up of aggressions, or perceived aggressions to find the "important" one in this event, and who gets to define "aggression"?
 
Last edited:
Which aggression is the important one? How far do we get to roll-back the stack-up of aggressions, or perceived aggressions to find the "important" one in this event, and who gets to define "aggression"?
It's really not that complex to me. Who initiated the contact? Who confronted who? If someone walked up on you and drew a gun on you do you really find it reasonable to actually believe that you then become the aggressor if you tried to take that gun from them???? Do you believe it would not be self defense on your part???

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
Makes sense to me. Which aggression is the important one? How far do we get to roll-back the stack-up of aggressions, or perceived aggressions to find the "important" one in this event, and who gets to define "aggression"?

I think it's safe to say the important one is the one that results in the loss of life. That has to be justifiable. In this case, it's clearly not.
 
So if I have a gun and you charge me and attempt to take my gun, I should stand there and let you take my gun ?

You think that's what happened here? Two guys minding their own business had guns and this guy came after them to take their guns away?

I won't insult your intelligence if you don't insult mine.

There's two sequential options, deterrence and engagement. When deterring the aggressor fails, only engagement is left. If you and a buddy approach me with drawn guns for reasons unknown to me and flight is not an option, I'm going to fight you and you'll have to justify killing me if that's the outcome.
 
Last edited:
It's really not that complex to me. Who initiated the contact? Who confronted who? If someone walked up on you and drew a gun on you do you really find it reasonable to actually believe that you then become the aggressor if you tried to take that gun from them???? Do you believe it would not be self defense on your part???

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Did he “draw the gun” or just have it in his hand? It was a shotgun. Was it pointed?
I’m talking, defusing, whatever but I’m not dancing with a shotgun barrel if I don’t have too.
 
You think that's what happened here? Two guys minding their own business had guns and this guy came after them to take their guns away?
Of course that's not what happened, but similarly do we know he didn't start running his mouth saying something like "I'm going to grab that shotgun and blow your creepy @$$ cracker head off"?

No, we don't know. There are things that could have gone down to make it go either way. The video does but tell the whole story.
 
Of course that's not what happened, but similarly do we know he didn't start running his mouth saying something like "I'm going to grab that shotgun and blow your creepy @$$ cracker head off"?

No, we don't know. There are things that could have gone down to make it go either way. The video does but tell the whole story.

So what if he did? He's the one under the gun, he isn't the threat. They are the ones with the duty to retreat, didn't happen that way.

If you think an unarmed man making a threat while at gunpoint is justification for his death, you're badly mistaken.
 
Last edited:
Actually it becomes a matter of who's claiming self defense. If someone is unarmed they only have 2 choices one being to run and the other being to fight. So to me it comes down to determining who was the aggressor. In the instance the shooter was the aggressor due to being the person initiating the contact. They chased him down and boxed him in to confront him. Is it really reasonable to assume the unarmed guy was the aggressor considering he wasn't setting out to confront them?
This is the key legal point: which party initiated an assault that led continuously to the homicide.

While a person can often claim self defense when another person points a firearm at them, it would be unusual for a person to be able to claim self defense while resisting arrest. The father and son claim they were making a citizen's arrest and presumably claim the guy assaulted the son while resisting arrest. If he were alive, the guy would presumably claim he was assaulted by the son and was defending himself by trying to disarm the son. The nuances of case law surrounding Georgia's citizen's arrest law are critical to a legal conclusion.
 
Did he “draw the gun” or just have it in his hand? It was a shotgun. Was it pointed?
I’m talking, defusing, whatever but I’m not dancing with a shotgun barrel if I don’t have too.
Ask yourself that question TH? If you were actually armed and 3 black men you didnt know pursued you, boxed you in, and confronted you with a shotgun in that matter would you honestly see it as a non threat simply because they hadnt pointed the gun at you yet and be very honest with that question? When I watch the video I hear that first shot happening right as he gets to the front of the truck and the report says that eas the first time he was hit so I can deduce that he was looking at that muzzle and it wasn't by his side.
It's not fair to judge the dead man for his response making this his fault when NONE of is were in his shoes at that very moment. We all have different life experiences and those experiences affect our behaviours and reactions to all things. Judging the dead guy and making it his fault for choosing to defend himself simply isn't fair in my eyes. If you would have chosen to talk then that's fine but I dont believe any of us have the right to tell the dead guy what he should have been thinking when not being in those shoes.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
Of course that's not what happened, but similarly do we know he didn't start running his mouth saying something like "I'm going to grab that shotgun and blow your creepy @$$ cracker head off"?

No, we don't know. There are things that could have gone down to make it go either way. The video does but tell the whole story.
Would that really make a difference in this case?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
So what if he did? He's the one under the gun, he isn't the threat. They are the ones with the duty to retreat, didn't happen that way.
One you don't know if they threatened him with the gun or just had it in their possession. It's makes a difference and if they weren't threatening with it then yes, making such a statement now makes you the aggressor.

Second, the GA law is unique here. You're making an assumption they had a duty to retreat.
 
So if I have a gun and you charge me and attempt to take my gun, I should stand there and let you take my gun ?

They weren't just standing in the street talking to friends and some random dude came up and charged them to try and take their guns. They were following him and then tried to detain him. If someone you don't know is following you and then blocks your path with a gun in hand, who is the aggressor?
 
One you don't know if they threatened him with the gun or just had it in their possession. It's makes a difference and if they weren't threatening with it then yes, making such a statement now makes you the aggressor.

The gun is the threat, and you fully well know that. I don't draw down on folks just to make conversation, neither do you presumably. Where there's a gun in hand, there's a reasonable assumption of the intent to utilize it.

Second, the GA law is unique here. You're making an assumption they had a duty to retreat.

I didn't say their duty to retreat was under the law. Common sense is enough to tell you they had no business trying to take the law into their own hands.
 
Of course that's not what happened, but similarly do we know he didn't start running his mouth saying something like "I'm going to grab that shotgun and blow your creepy @$$ cracker head off"?

No, we don't know. There are things that could have gone down to make it go either way. The video does but tell the whole story.

And what would you say to some inbred redneck who was following you and then blocks your path getting out with shotgun in hand? Would you be nice or tell him to get out of your way before you shove it up his rear end? Hell, you talk worse about cops legally detaining people than you do about these two morons.
 
I am having a hard time understanding why there would be any possible justifiable defense on the part of the shooter in killing the jogger.

First off, the jogger did not instigate anything. The aggression was started by the two guys in the pickup by blocking and intercepting the jogger.

2 - The 2 guys not only instigated the situation, they escalated it by introducing non-holstered firearms into the mix.

3 - So what if the jogger looked at a construction site? Is there anybody here that hasn’t ever walked through a new construction site? I know that I have many, many times over the year. That does not constitute just cause for being killed or detained at gunpoint by a non LEO. I can see a homeowner being justified in detaining a trespasser, but that right does not extend to others.

4. Adding in the incredibly poor history that our country has of abuse of black Americans by white Americans, if I were the jogger and accosted in the middle of the street by two white guys brandishing firearms, I too would be concerned for my life and would feel justified in defending it.

If I were on a jury in a death penalty state, the two white guys would get fried. Period. There is no justifiable defense whatsoever for their armed intercept of the jogger, resulting in his death, IMO.

For those on the opposite side of this issue, I ask this. If your unarmed spouse, son or daughter turned up dead - solely for being out jogging on a public street and after having walked through a new house under construction, would you think that the shooters were justified?

I just don’t see it.
 
So if I have a gun and you charge me and attempt to take my gun, I should stand there and let you take my gun ?

Have gun or have drawn gun?
If gun is drawn - why?
Here is a man with a shotgun in hand as he parked his truck in the middle of the road.

And your post about 'submit' lol ok man youre probably the same type who preaches 'tar and feather' or something about the Liberty Tree, but then youre saying he should have submitted to some dude in the street who drew a shotgun on him?
 
Back
Top Bottom