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

originally posted by: jjkenobiThey can't just say the truth, that he just robbed a house and was fleeing. .

interesting. you of course have links to back this statement up?

a reply to: RoScoLaz5
Look at NEO's post just above JJ's
There is a link in there.

a reply to: chiefsmom

It's a link to Wikipedia.

On video a man is seen standing outside a white truck holding a gun towards the ground.

A jogger is seen running to the passenger side of truck around to where the man with the gun is standing and start a physical altercation

originally posted by: continuousThunder
so, charged with murder hey 👀

does the "actually maybe the cops said they were allowed to roam the streets with shotguns stopping and killing dudes at will did u ever think of that" crowd have any further comment?

Same as we've been saying that you purposely overlook... Let the courts decide.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: chiefsmom

It's a link to Wikipedia.

If it's not true then I retract my statement. Should all come out in the investigation, but the media will have already spread their narrative before the facts are fully known.

a reply to: UpIsNowDown

You don't realize the impact this wouldn't have had if races weren't used and the MSM wasn't peddling the colors of the parties involved.

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Should all come out in the investigation...

It should now that the conflict of interest has recused himself. I see this going to a Grand Jury and I easily see them indicting the two.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Now the reason i do not like investing so much in these types of stories is that it is usually impossible to know the truth, or impossible to trust anything due to so many agendas and biases. And this leads people to start to exaggerate and use hyperbolic language. But most certainly getting as clear a picture as possible as to the whole event, which includes the actors, is important.

Now we both should know that no trial has happened yet, so many statements should be made with that understanding, referring to the fact we are speculating or framing things with a narrative that is beneficial to our position, which is what we would do in court, and then afterwards it gets decided what is "true." Which in this instance you talk about his life being threatened. And that is a claim that isnt completely substantiated nor proven in a court either yet, might be right but you have written as if it was definitive, and i dont know what the basis for that is at the moment. Likewise I will be arguing in part morally and hopefully it coincides with legal interpretations.

So first, is simply following someone considered threatening on it's own? Now we can work with two scenarios, one where they have something considered a weapon and one without. I would say it matters not, unless they were wielding it in a way considered "brandishing." This to me would mean wielding it where a reasonable person would considered it being wielded with an intent to harm or threaten. This is hard to see at the moment in this case, based on the video i cant consider how they are holding the weapons as brandishing, until the man attacked them.

So an example of course is lets just say someone was following someone else in a store. And then the person who was being followed just attacked the one doing the following. And then the person who was followed got killed. In this instance i would say the person who attacked was in the wrong, and the person doing the following shouldnt be charged with murder nor manslaughter. Possibly harassment, but that would then require further investigation and obviously would be a smaller punishment. But point here, is that simply following doesnt equal threat, or violence, or an attack. More is needed

We also can compound this with an engagement of conversation, i.e. the person doing the following was not simply just following but was asking to talk to the other person. Which also isnt an act of violence. This seems to be how the scenario we are dealing with played out. Now yes, in this instance they tried to stop him before, and the man kept running, but that can also be proof that they didnt intend to harm the man, since they let him continue to run without shooting him, the shooting only happened once the man running attacked the men with the guns.

Then of course, i would suggest certain people dont use the word jogger if it isnt actually true, because that can hurt ones case if they are riding on that and it turns out not true. So if i say ran to mcdonalds because i was hungry, that doesnt make me a "jogger" nor "jogging," and i would be lying if i called it as such. Jogger/jogging is a specific athletic/exercise activity, and means something different than simply running somewhere. What can help the proof of jogging is perhaps clothing that is suited to jogging, or records that the jogger may have where they right down how long they jog and the time. Or some proof that jogging is a part of their daily exercise, because that is the normal understanding of "jogging" and jogger, not just some random person running somewhere.

So in short, from my understanding, your case rests upon the man who was shot, which from the video looks like initiated the fight, being justified in doing so. That requires the men with the guns to have done something that would be deemed life threatening to the man running. That is what would need to be proven in court. And from my argument above i do not think it would be justice for them to be charged, at least not for manslaughter or murder, as from the evidence currently i dont see what they did that would have justified the actions of the man running, referring to initiating the fight. Which is what then caused lives to be threatened. There may have been other things that they did wrong, but being charged with the death isnt justice to me.

a reply to: greydaze

Yeah like the Jena 6. Beat a white guy and left him for dead for no reason other than they'd found a noose in a tree and went looking for a white boy to jump. But the NAACP, NBPP, and Al Sharpton came to their rescue and got them out of jail. All had criminal records, too. But hey, whatever floats your boat. As long as there's always a fabrication to be angry about, you'll be happy.

a reply to: LambertSimnel

Because since the dad knew him he knew the kid carried a gun. He had already been charged once. 5 years probation on a gun charge.

originally posted by: FellowHuman
So first, is simply following someone considered threatening on it's own?

They weren't just following him, they admittedly accosted and impeded him twice. If you're going to argue the point at least get the narrative straight.

They've charged the two with Murder.

a reply to: matafuchs

If people honestly felt like this and weren't just looking for reasons to be offended or angry, why don't they section themselves off into one region? I mean really, surely if you're THAT scared, you'll leave and go somewhere you don't have to be scared. So either they're just pumping out emotion for driving fear and division, or.... Well I can't think of another reason.

Not really interested in what my favorite UFO conspiracy site will say now that USA Today is reporting that the police have confirmed no reports of robberies or break ins for weeks prior to the murder. So the lynch men made it up of course. Everyone knew that already except for well you know people who favor lynching.

a reply to: Advantage

I was speaking of that earlier in this thread. A real lynching and a real hate crime was in 1998 when those 3 white supremacists beat and dragged James Byrd behind their truck. That was brutal and heinous and they deserved the death penalty they received for it. 3 miles they dragged that man, and around halfway into it, his body hit a culvert and the culvert severed his arm and head. That story still makes me sick to my stomach. We haven't seen anything even close to that since then, but the way the media pumps their stories full of emotion, you'd think this was just as bad.

The media is a huge problem in America because they decide the story for you instead of letting you decide on your own.

a reply to: matafuchs

The media's job is make your decision for you, not to lay out scenarios. That's why they're the enemy.

a reply to: Killeonidas

You sound very insecure about yourself. I would assume that's why you're projecting your insecurities on me. Let me know if you get that worked out, I'll be around.

a reply to: bastion

For months we heard "hands up don't shoot" and saw people from NFL players to ABC news anchors holding their hands up with emotional looks on their faces. Months... Only to find out it was all a lie just like everyone else had been saying.

Let's not get too caught up in innocence until the real story finally unfolds. It only makes things worse.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: jjkenobi
Should all come out in the investigation...

It should now that the conflict of interest has recused himself. I see this going to a Grand Jury and I easily see them indicting the two.

It really should play as guilty as the killing was in no way justified, but it's not helpful to have people walking around saying blacks are literally hunted in the USA every day. He was just out jogging and hateful racist white people just shot him. No, there was an entire scenario that led up to the confrontation and it ended tragically.