[fapfapfap]

Originally Posted by Overlord86 ↗

I don't believe they would have handled it any differently if it was a white male. They wouldn't let him walk away and not pursued him. I believe they would have had guns out to detain a white suspect just the same.

The main difference is that the majority of white people would've stopped and talked to them. Even if they were guilty.

That's the crux of the deeper problem. The level of distrust that exists between races in this country is so strong that a significant number of black people are just going to straight up refuse to respect any authority or attempt at authority or control from a white person.

That lack of respect results in escalated situations that result in violence and murder, one side can credibly say "well just follow instructions!" and the other side who feels the same way as the victim is never going to go along with that. And the cycle continues.

[PAT5941]

There's a second video showing Ahmaud in the front of a house he has just robbed. Saw it today. In This video, it Looks like he is trying to grab the rifle out of the guy's hands...just sayin'

[fapfapfap]

FWIW, here's new footage, showing him in the house before the incident, as well as clips of what appears to be him in the same house last year (substantiating the oft-repeated claim that there had been someone trespassing previously).



Would be nice to get more than a few seconds of the footage, but that's the best I could find for now. There's also a brief shot of him at the side of the house.

Still no evidence of actual "burglary" (so yes the original DA is still full of shit), but there appears to be habitual trespassing.

It's entirely possible he jogged that route on a regular basis and thought it was cool to fuck around or rest in that house.

It's also entirely possible that he routinely went through that house hoping to find something to steal. I doubt we'll ever know.

Whether or not witnessing multiple trespass attempts is justification to pursue someone with a weapon, is what this case will boil down to.

Unfortunately, like I mentioned in my other post, distrust between races is so strong at this point that even an innocent black man would be inclined to just keep running away from these guys, so the fact that he didn't just stop and talk to them doesn't mean a whole lot IMO.

Sadly, I don't think a verdict either direction will do anything to change race relations for the better. Our race relations are locked in a sort of mexican standoff and instead of realizing the futility of it people are being forced to choose a side and dig their heels in more and more.

The fact that the media narrative is almost always bullshit doesn't help.

[photo2uj]

Your view is one of a person who grow has experienced the "southern way of life" In other places there racial difference are not as divided.
I went to school in an athletic scholarship in the south. Terrible experience for me. After graduating from college I made my self a promise to never return to the South. Things were worst in the 80's. Racism was everywhere specially at my South Carolina University.

[fapfapfap]

Originally Posted by photo2uj ↗

Your view is one of a person who grow has experienced the "southern way of life" In other places there racial difference are not as divided.
I went to school in an athletic scholarship in the south. Terrible experience for me. After graduating from college I made my self a promise to never return to the South. Things were worst in the 80's. Racism was everywhere specially at my South Carolina University.

Nah, your read is off.

I've never lived or even visited anywhere near the deep south. I've lived in most of the other parts of the U.S., mostly places that pretend racism isn't a thing here but it's really just hidden better.

I currently live in an area that would get picked out on a map as one of the more "progressive" and "post-racial" of any parts of America.

I recently met a black guy, from the south, who moved here for school. He told me he thought it was going to be great here but him and his wife can't wait to move back south.

One of the reasons he cited was "at least in the south the racism is obvious and you know where it is, out here it's hidden and everyone just pretends everything's perfect and they're all full of shit".

Of course you're right that the dynamic I talked about is worth in the south, but don't underestimate it overall. Either way, in the context of this video/case, that factor is still a thing.

[Sinil]

Originally Posted by Overlord86 ↗

Not correct. You can walk around with a long gun in Texas, slung or unslung. You violate the law if you act in a way that places someone in fear of bodily injury or serious bodily injury. You violate the law if you brandish a firearm while threatening someone with fear of bodily injury or SBI. Conditional threats aren't a threat.

Response: “Stop or I’ll shoot” is a conditional threat that is totally enough to put fear of being shot into a reasonable person. Also I would not want to talk to someone wielding a shotgun following me around while I was running.

Originally Posted by Overlord86 ↗

There is ample case law on that.

Question: Then site a few maybe?

Originally Posted by Overlord86 ↗

In the video he says something to the effect of 'I want to talk to you.' Not a threat in Texas. Holding a shotgun while saying it is not a threat. Most likely the same in Georgia because most state law is similar.

Law: TX Sec. 9.04.
THREATS AS JUSTIFIABLE FORCE.
Legal Definition of the threat the victim faced.
... a threat to cause death or serious bodily injury by the PRODUCTION of a weapon or otherwise, as long as the actor's purpose is limited to creating an apprehension that he will use deadly force if necessary....

My Response: While the words ‘I want to talk to you’ alone may not be threatening. When you look at the phrase in the context of the situation, 2 people (your out numbered), with firearms (your out gunned), that have chased you down in a vehicle (you can’t get away), and so on. At what point is a reasonable person going to start to feel a little uneasy.

Originally Posted by Overlord86 ↗

Holding it isn't brandishing it.

Response: Define the difference then, because brandishing is not pointing it either. The law in here states brandishing is being defined as simply HOLDING in a manner to cause alarm or elicit a response.

Originally Posted by Overlord86 ↗

There is no specific size or number of opponents in Texas law regarding this.

Answer: While technically you are correct, we teach the twice your size and out numbered rule to help the defender out. If you’re a 280 pound body builder and a unarmed 60 pound 10 year old punches you and you shoot them, your going to prison. Now if your a 125 pound female in parking lot and an unarmed 280 pound body builder punches you and you shoot him, you could be justified.

Law: TX Penal Code § 9.32
Deadly Force in Defense of Person
(This part 2 is where a jury will be the reasonable party during the case)
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force;  or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Originally Posted by Overlord86 ↗

We don't see everything that happens. This is speculation. Another observation is the deceased lunged at the suspect unprovoked. The suspect and deceased fight over control of the shotgun. It is seen the shotgun discharges into the deceased's chest during the fight for control of the shotgun. This would be a justified self defense on the part of the suspect in Texas.

Response: You can’t start a verbal altercation and then use force to defend yourself when the other party starts a fight, without first attempting to disengage/flee, or when not possible express your intentions to leave the situations. THATS RIGHT! You start a verbal disagreement, feud, argument, or whatever and the other party gets violent, your “Stand Your Ground” defense is gone.
Law: TX PC § 9.31. Self Defense (You must be able to meet this use of force benchmark FIRST, in order to use Deadly force)

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of UNLAWFUL force, unless:
(A) the actor ABANDONS the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter;  and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor
(That’s right! If you start shit, you gotta run if they come at you or go to prison).

Originally Posted by Overlord86 ↗

Say the shooter is a uniformed police officer doing exactly this, standing in the roadway with a shotgun and saying 'I want to talk to you.' The deceased lunges at the officer and outside fights for control of the shotgun. The deceased gets shot. It would be a no bill on behalf of the officer any day of the week

Answer: Peace Officers are clearly marked, given arrest authority by their respective municipalities, able to escalate 1 level of force above the level shown by a detainee, now days have dash cams, body cams, WOULDN’T HAVE A SHOTGUN OUT to say “can I talk to you”.

Originally Posted by Overlord86 ↗

If Georgia law allows for a citizen to detain a suspected felon, this only adds to the defense of the suspect.

Response: 1st - Find a felon and we can discuss this point. And adds to what defense. So far I haven’t seen a shred of evidence that would give a reasonable person the motivation to do HALF of what these two did to DEFEND their neighborhood from the ....hammer thief? Maybe? Jogger ? Maybe?

2nd - Detaining someone and using any kind of force to detain them are completely separate. That needs to not only authorize citizens to detain an individual but allow the use of force to do so for this to be anywhere close to a defensible event.

Originally Posted by Overlord86 ↗

Regardless if this is the case, the suspect still has a strong self defense claim. It would be bolstered if they have video of him committing a burglary or prowling around houses.

Response: Still wouldn’t have a case. Let me put this in perspective. The crime that you’re thinking will “Give them a strong case” is the equivalent to J-walking, or loitering...you wanna tell a judge that you were cleaning up the streets of DIRTY J-walkers and you killed one when they attacked you for stopping them with you gun??? “IF” he was told to not go into the construction site then at most he was trespassing!! He wasn’t stabbing little white ladies in their homes man, relax.

Originally Posted by Overlord86 ↗

What law is that?

Answer: TX Penal Code § 9.31 - Self-Defense
(Use of Force)
A person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.  The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

Originally Posted by Overlord86 ↗

Or the father and son, and the person videoing legitimately thought the deceased was observed committing a felony or was the one that had committed burglaries in the area Walking through a construction site isn't illegal...That's why the 911 operator said..."But what is he doing wrong sir?" It actually is illegal to walk through a construction site. It is criminal trespass if the owner of the land doesn't want you on the property.

(Answer: You need to ask a person to leave, or have signs posted stating “No trespassing”, it’s not just an automatic law broken when you step onto property not owned by you without permission. However “breaking and entering” would have been an automatic violation, IF the house’s construction was complete and he broke into a locked building.

Originally Posted by Overlord86 ↗

While you can get away with it, it is still against the law to go on to someone's property. I wouldn't want someone walking through my yard in the middle of the night or during the day when no one is home.

Answer: However it happens all the time across the country. The USPS/UPS/FEDEX has no special law or authority allowing them to step into your yard or onto your property to deliver a package, however if you shoot one your going to prison. Why is that? Maybe because you have to give people a verbal or written warning before a trespass is valid.

Originally Posted by Overlord86 ↗

Most burglaries do occur in the daytime. Construction site theft is a rampant issue that adds to the cost of a new home.

Response: The “jogger” was going to steal lumber? Heavy machinery? Paint? Bricks? ...And carry it by hand? There are times these sites lose materials due to theft yes, however I think vandals are wise to bring a pickup truck.

Originally Posted by Overlord86 ↗

The suspects were in the process of going after what he thought was a fleeing felony suspect. Failure to adequately give a complete and true statement to a 911 PTO, describing a complete history of what had or was occurring. He said enough to get officers started to the scene.

Answer: I live in the ONLY state in the country that allows you to use deadly force to defend property. Even here you can’t use that deadly force indiscriminately to defend “a” property. It was to be your house and you have to be in it.

Originally Posted by Overlord86 ↗

Just because you didn't find the crime reports doesn't mean the don't exist. There can be a lag time of several days or more for some agencies to enter offense reports and then sending the UCR information to the FBI.

Response: what are you talking about, the FBI and shit. I sent a FOIR to the city...I find that there is less lag in case you were wondering.

Originally Posted by Overlord86 ↗

It is one thing to state facts, it is another to state opinions as facts.

Response: laws are meant to be interpreted. Fact, and events I have presented based on what’s been made available.

Originally Posted by Overlord86 ↗

These men have the presumption of innocence.

Response: So did the jogger right?

Originally Posted by Overlord86 ↗

Very true, but there are limits to that. One can't say 'no' when someone wants their stolen property returned from them.

Response: We are all presumed innocent until a court says otherwise. He could say “no” while holding that guy’s wife’s wedding ring. Guess what? Still can’t shoot him, threaten to shoot him, or use force to detain him. However if you ask him nicely to please stand by while you arrest him maybe he will comply. Or these assholes could have just called the fucking police like normal god damn people.

[Overlord86]

Originally Posted by Sinil ↗

It is indeed. The things I am having trouble with are the application of the use of force in GA.

Example: Here in TX you can use “Force” to restrain someone you witnessed attack, beat, mug, or strike in a criminal manner a victim. This is only true because here the law says if you can use force to defend yourself if you were in the victims shoes then you can use force to stop their attacker. This can include restraining the attacker until the police arrive (a variation of a citizens arrest). This can only be escalated to “Deadly Force” if the attacker is unarmed but bigger/stronger than you, is unarmed but out numbers you 2 to 1, or is armed with a deadly weapon.
Notice that here in Texas the use of force is primarily reserved for defense of a violent crime victim.

Separately you can only use force/deadly force to protect your property:

If you occupying the property and the trespasser is attempting to break into the OCCUPIED dwelling.

If the same scenario were to play out in my neighborhood, I would have (yes carried my Glock 31 holstered) called the non emergency number of the local PD. Explained that I was pretty sure the suspect was jogging through the neighborhood casing houses (maybe he was...he will now never be tried for it and will be forever innocent of that crime now that he is dead), then I would relay to the responding officer that I was following the individual. I may attempt to talk to the jogger before the police call. But if he doesn’t want to talk he has a right not to incriminate himself and that doesn’t make him guilty, so I would back off and give my evidence to the 50.
In Texas these guys broke a lot of gun laws. Since GA is a reciprocal Conceal Carry State, I am willing to bet the laws there are not that different. Which mean for these guys to use the self defense (stand your ground) statutes:
- They can’t start the altercation (Threat of deadly force to gain compliance is the start of altercation here) FAILED
- The jogger needs the means (a gun), opportunity (access/clear shot/line of sight to father and son), and MOTIVE (you have to prove he was about to try and kill you with his weapon). FAILED, because the previous point was failed as well, grabbing the shotgun will no longer work in their favor.


TLDR; You. can try to make citizen‘s arrests, sure. But simply saying “I am arresting you!” Doesn’t give you a free pass to use Force or, in this case, the threat of deadly force to gain compliance. Especially when there are no other factors that would allow the authorization of the use of force/deadly force.
If you gonna own a gun, use it to defend and not to force people to your will, and you should be safe.

Re-read Chapter 9 of the Texas Penal Code and Chapter 14 of the CCP. It says nothing about the suspect having to be bigger than you or that you have to be outnumbered. Further, the use of deadly force to protect property is very liberal, to include the use of deadly force to protect property from criminal mischief. It is written that way because if you kill a car burglar after he or she breaks the window but before they are able to grab something, they have only committed criminal mischief at the point deadly force was used to protect the property. You don't have to wait for them to break the window, dive into the car, then exit with property. You can use deadly force at the point they dive into the car. That will make a bloody mess of your car though.

[fapfapfap]

Great response Sinil. One minor point, I believe entering a construction site is considered trespassing without having to be told not to enter.

I'm actually pretty curious how this plays out in court. Hopefully it's a fair case because I'd really like to see how this would play out in a strictly legal sense.

[Overlord86]

Originally Posted by Bohemond ↗

The media is intentionally misleading people over this its like living in the Truman Show.

Of course they are. Newspaper sales have tanked and most media outlets are on the verge of going bankrupt. Stir up an issue to be far more than it is, by false reporting, under reporting, or omission, and boom, newspapers get sold and viewership of the news goes up.

And guess what.

We all fucking fell for it. This one story is going on 80 pages, of which I am unfortunately and regrettably responsible for at least 10 pages of it.

Bastards!

[fapfapfap]

I don't think having a reasoned discussion/debate about this one counts as falling for the media narrative.

If we fell for the media narrative, we'd spend 80 pages jerking off about how some "dumb redneck idiots" just decided to shoot some guy for no other reason than he was "jogging while black" and anyone who tries to make it out to be anything else is immediately called racist and ignorant until any real discussion is stamped out completely.