New leaked video of black jogger gunned down by a white father and son duo

a reply to: Grenade

A cop has the right to chase down an armed robber.

1. It's not proven he was robbing them or armed.

2. They're not cops.

originally posted by: Grenade
Reasonable and probable ground does leave some space to play with.

If it's a felony, which it wasn't.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: yuppa
Sure just let me bust out the ouija board. Yeah. he could swim.

I can't say that I'm surprised to learn that your recommended strategy is to jump in a river like a sewer rat.

WHy? Its fun to be able to get away from people that way especially in the summer.

originally posted by: yuppa
WHy? Its fun to be able to get away from people that way especially in the summer.

Sounds like you're speaking from experience.

Georgia Law since you keep asking but will not post.....

It is Felony Burglary if there is intent.

Link

If someone sees or has immediate knowledge of the crime they can attempt to hold the suspect

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.

There were 2 people who knew of the crime of Burglary. A felony. The 911 caller and those who saw the kid running out of the house.

Then, you throw in GA Stand Your Ground...

A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23 , a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Is it morally right what they did? That is up to ones own perception of events. It got out of hand when they tried to play cop but this was not in cold blood in my eyes and you will be hard pressed to find a jury to convict on emotion not facts.

These are the facts and as much as some of us do not want to accept them, it is very possible, that these 2 men will get off or limited charges if any. This way the state of GA can say they completed the due process.

a reply to: blueman12

I would lean more towards your side if i suspected what the McMichaels were intending to do was to just hunt him down and kill. That doesnt seem to be what they were intending to do. Evidence points that they were intending to conduct a citizen's arrest, which means to hold the suspect until the police arrived.

A lot of what people here are saying makes sense if we want to assume certain motivations or intentions on the part of the McMichaels, but at that point you need to prove that. But from what i see they had every intention to just hold him until the police arrived. If things were different it would be much easier to say you were right, but it looks like they were following the law, at least intending to follow the law, were intending to get the police involved. That then doesn't fit the whole definition of "vigilante" justice.

And intention is important to me, when it comes to judging people. When it comes to guilt, when it comes to punishment and so on.

Likewise vigilantism isnt illegal, just that some of the things one may do during it may be, thats also something to keep in mind.

a reply to: blueman12

Walking into a bank masked with a gun isn’t robbery.

Seems we need to wait for them to demand money.

Let’s see how the jury interpret the law based on the evidence.

For those hell bent on crucifying them can they at least admit the headline is misleading?

He wasn’t just some guy out jogging, I run every morning, I don’t pop into strangers houses for a look around, don’t see the benefits to my health.

a reply to: blueman12

I believe he was an ex cop?

I’m sure his training and understanding of Georgia’s laws would be better than the average man on the street.

originally posted by: matafuchs
It is Felony Burglary if there is intent.

How did they judge his intent? Did they see the video or speak to the homeowner? No. They assumed intent, which is why they are now screwed.

There were 2 people who knew of the crime of Burglary. A felony. The 911 caller and those who saw the kid running out of the house.

What was stolen? You have the surveillance video showing nothing and the homeowner's comments saying nothing was taken. What was burglarized?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You keep missing the parts about intent, reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

If you seen a stranger snooping around your neighbours house and when challenging him he sprints away what would you suspect he was up to?

Please give me any other reason for him to be in a strangers home. Until you do the most reasonable and probable scenario is the intent to burglarise the property.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You did not read the link and are still going under your assumptions. Fug it.....

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
You have the surveillance video showing nothing and the homeowner's comments saying nothing was taken. What was burglarized?

Why ... pray tell ... was homeowner dud repeatedly contacting the police about people being on the premises?

Don't you know his dwelling had been previously looted?

originally posted by: Grenade
If you seen a stranger snooping around your neighbours house and when challenging him he sprints away what would you suspect he was up to?

Let's break it down. What did I see? He's on the property? Is that a felony? No.

Please give me any other reason for him to be in a strangers home.

The homeowner said to possibly get water like others had.

originally posted by: matafuchs
You did not read the link and are still going under your assumptions. Fug it.....

The link doesn't do anything since there was no burglary and there certainly wasn't a felony.

Why don't you go back to fapping over where you think that yahoo's stolen gun may be hiding. Did you call this in yet?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The homeowner said he could get water?

I’ve not seen that explanation, can you source?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Just in case you ever pass by my home on a run and decide to pop in for a glass of water, you’re likely to take a bat to the head unless you’re invited.

If I’m at home with my kids and someone appears, I’ll ask questions later.

originally posted by: Snarl
Why ... pray tell ... was homeowner dud repeatedly contacting the police about people being on the premises?

Why are you asking me? What are his exact words on this? He's spoken about it, quote him.

Don't you know his dwelling had been previously looted?

Who stole it? Did he share this information with the yahoos?

Newsflash, the people who he thinks did it were driving a car and, wait for it, those people were white.

originally posted by: Grenade
Just in case you ever pass by my home on a run and decide to pop in for a glass of water, you’re likely to take a bat to the head unless you’re invited.

Fair enough. What if your home is under construction and you're not there?

16-7-1. Burglary

(a) As used in this Code section, the term:

(1) “Dwelling” means any building, structure, or portion thereof which is designed or intended for occupancy for residential use.

(2) “Railroad car” shall also include trailers on flatcars, containers on flatcars, trailers on railroad property, or containers on railroad property.

(b) A person commits the offense of burglary in the first degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant dwelling house of another or any building, vehicle, railroad car, watercraft, aircraft, or other such structure designed for use as the dwelling of another. A person who commits the offense of burglary in the first degree shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years. Upon the second conviction for burglary in the first degree, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two nor more than 20 years. Upon the third and all subsequent convictions for burglary in the first degree, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 25 years.

(c) A person commits the offense of burglary in the second degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant building, structure, railroad car, watercraft, or aircraft. A person who commits the offense of burglary in the second degree shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years. Upon the second and all subsequent convictions for burglary in the second degree, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than eight years.

(d) Upon a fourth and all subsequent convictions for a crime of burglary in any degree, adjudication of guilt or imposition of sentence shall not be suspended, probated, deferred, or withheld.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

If you enter the home you have intent to steal.Why else would you be there. Give me one good reason a grown ass man enters a vacant consturction site in the middle of the day. For a glass of water??? Again, It is NOT your home you cannot enter. Then you post the video of the sick homeowner who wants nothing to do with this # show so of course he is vague.

If he did not think anything was being stolen why contact the police?

Also, calling them yahoos tells us all we need to know. Very prejudice and in this day and age...racist.

originally posted by: matafuchs
If you enter the home you have intent to steal.

Wrong. Which was upheld by the video.

If he did not think anything was being stolen why contact the police?

I don't know, maybe to catch the white guys who he thought stole his fishing gear.

Very prejudice and in this day and age...racist.

Awww, did my comments of 'yahoos' and 'vigilante assholes' upset you. Hit close to home maybe?

And for the record, those would be bigoted comments. It would be racist if I said 'honky yahoos' or 'cracker ass cracker vigilante assholes'. You can't even get outraged properly. LULZ. KEK.