User Controls
Let’s see what really happened, shall we
-
2020-05-07 at 12:24 PM UTC
Originally posted by Technologist Why would the man get out of his truck with a gun in his hand? Absolutely no need.
You really can't think of a reason?
To take it into the house
To put it in the back of the truck
Not wanting to leave it in the truck because of theft possibilities
To protect himself against a perceived threat
etc etc
Fucking lol...so dumb. -
2020-05-07 at 12:30 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson You really can't think of a reason?
To take it into the house
To put it in the back of the truck
Not wanting to leave it in the truck because of theft possibilities
To protect himself against a perceived threat
etc etc
Fucking lol…so dumb.
That perceived Trayvon Martin threat. -
2020-05-07 at 12:43 PM UTC
-
2020-05-07 at 12:45 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson Exactly.
Believing someone is a threat is a reason to defend yourself, if it turns out later your perception was wrong..well hindsight is 20/20 as the stupid saying goes.
So you think Lopez was justified ?
Do you draw a line anywhere? Shoot first ask questions later is a cop motto. -
2020-05-07 at 1:01 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ So you think Lopez was justified ?
Do you draw a line anywhere? Shoot first ask questions later is a cop motto.
Doesn't matter what I think. It only matters what he thought at the time...if he felt his life was in danger then under the law he had the right to protect himself "reasonable cause" etc.
The Jury agreed with him.
Again, hindsight is all very well after the fact...but in the moment it's not available. -
2020-05-07 at 1:14 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson Doesn't matter what I think. It only matters what he thought at the time…if he felt his life was in danger then under the law he had the right to protect himself "reasonable cause" etc.
The Jury agreed with him.
Again, hindsight is all very well after the fact…but in the moment it's not available.
what kind of people "jogs" miles from where they live ?
is this normal american thing that you people do ? -
2020-05-07 at 1:18 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson Doesn't matter what I think. It only matters what he thought at the time…if he felt his life was in danger then under the law he had the right to protect himself "reasonable cause" etc.
The Jury agreed with him.
Again, hindsight is all very well after the fact…but in the moment it's not available.
It matters to ME what you think. If you were on the jury, do you think you would've also found him justified?
Wheres the line? If I have a gun, and I'm walking down the street, and a person walking past me drops their phone and bends over to pick it up and I get scared and assume they're reaching down to grab a knife from their shoe in order to stab me, and I shoot them in the face, we are ok with that? -
2020-05-07 at 1:37 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ It matters to ME what you think. If you were on the jury, do you think you would've also found him justified?
Probably, just based on the prosecution using a photo of said nig when he was a innocent looking young lad to try and win over the Jury's hearts instead of a recent photo...that in itself is an attempt to corrupt the Jury's perception of said nig.Wheres the line? If I have a gun, and I'm walking down the street, and a person walking past me drops their phone and bends over to pick it up and I get scared and assume they're reaching down to grab a knife from their shoe in order to stab me, and I shoot them in the face, we are ok with that?
Reasonable cause.
When a nig is on top of you beating you...it's quite different from someone walking passed and dropping a phone.
The Jury will decide... but of course in the moment you can do what the fuck you want...you just might have to face consequences for it later. -
2020-05-07 at 2:35 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson Probably, just based on the prosecution using a photo of said nig when he was a innocent looking young lad to try and win over the Jury's hearts instead of a recent photo…that in itself is an attempt to corrupt the Jury's perception of said nig.
Reasonable cause.
When a nig is on top of you beating you…it's quite different from someone walking passed and dropping a phone.
The Jury will decide… but of course in the moment you can do what the fuck you want…you just might have to face consequences for it later.
Jury's seem like such a medieval concept. Its quaint. I mean they used to have jury's that literally discussed, earnestly, whether they thought the person on trial was a genuine WITCH or not.
Grown adults deciding that a lady was a witch. Lol. Burn her! Imagine if you were alive then and your mom got accused of being a witch because she had an affair or whatever the fucking criteria was. And then a group of randoms confers with one another and agrees she is indeed a witch and you just have to sit there like wtf my mom isnt a WITCH what are you guys fucking talking about? But it doesn't matter what you think.
And then you have to go watch your mom get burned alive in a big public crowd of people that are all there because they want to see it and they're happy there is one less witch on the streets. -
2020-05-07 at 2:54 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Jury's seem like such a medieval concept. Its quaint. I mean they used to have jury's that literally discussed, earnestly, whether they thought the person on trial was a genuine WITCH or not.
Grown adults deciding that a lady was a witch. Lol. Burn her! Imagine if you were alive then and your mom got accused of being a witch because she had an affair or whatever the fucking criteria was. And then a group of randoms confers with one another and agrees she is indeed a witch and you just have to sit there like wtf my mom isnt a WITCH what are you guys fucking talking about? But it doesn't matter what you think.
And then you have to go watch your mom get burned alive in a big public crowd of people that are all there because they want to see it and they're happy there is one less witch on the streets.
didnt the same thing happened in the US during the communist inquisition ? -
2020-05-07 at 3:43 PM UTC
-
2020-05-07 at 4:07 PM UTC
Originally posted by Netflxchillr well, just going off what the video stated or what i recollect it stated: The men in the truck thought the guy was a burglar. That is where Georgia Law comes into play like: detaining a suspect, protecting one's domicile, and the degree of force that one can or/be used etc.
WRONG. If it can be proved the jogger 'charged' at him and was trying to take the gun from him-( why did he do so? what was the jogger's intent in taking the gun/or intent once he obtained it) then mens rea has to be determined- Did man with the gun have an intent to kill the jogger while he jogged? before he grabbed for the gun? when he grabbed the gun? or after he grabbed for the gun?
etc. Intent of both will be evaluated.
ermm. if i see someone has a gun i don't think I'm going to go charging at him for it. It it was a mistake in identity- as someone thought I was a burglar, but clearly I was not… very simple thing I would do- say, oh, wow.. there's some mistake I'm only jogging my neighborhood, probably even allow them to detain me until the police arrived w/o squabble or fight from me… I have no fear in the police arriving or that of being arrested etc. if it's all understandable mistake, riiight?!?
one thing I sure-the-chit am NOT going to do (if I'm innocent) is go grabbing for some joker's damn shotgun only to then try and convince him– "oh, hey… it's all just a terrible mistake!!" how fuq'n asinine is that?!?
I remember a time when I was a teenager driving in the evening with my girl and my best friend in my parent's car when a car started flashing it's lights behind me. I pulled over on the side street and found myself staring at another car full of teenagers with one pointing a gun at me. Apparently the guy with the gun had gotten beaten up at the local bowling alley by someone they claimed was driving the same type of car. Anyway, the punk went home and got a gun and went out looking for his attacker.
To make a long story short, by the time it was over my girlfriend was beside herself worrying and trying to talk me down and my best friend was practically on the floor because I told the punk I wasn't the guy but that I was going to get out of my car and shove his gun up his ass. Sometimes you're just young enough and stupid enough to get really pissed off rather than scared.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2020-05-07 at 4:08 PM UTCi probably wouldnt have done what these dudes did, but i always find it weird how incidents involving black victims and white assailants are ALL OVER my media feeds, and are titled things like “White men kill unarmed black jogger”, and when the inverse occurs (if it makes it outside of local news) its usually something like “Man dies after fight at county fair”.
I cant figure out what point there is in framing things that way. Either race is important or it isnt. I tend to think it is, to give an idea of certain trends, but that should also be applied across the board.
In any case, i can almost guarantee these guys will be convicted of something. And if not- well then a bunch of people get a bunch of new TVs.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2020-05-07 at 4:10 PM UTC
-
2020-05-07 at 4:22 PM UTC
Originally posted by Netflxchillr well, just going off what the video stated or what i recollect it stated: The men in the truck thought the guy was a burglar. That is where Georgia Law comes into play like: detaining a suspect, protecting one's domicile, and the degree of force that one can or/be used etc.
WRONG. If it can be proved the jogger 'charged' at him and was trying to take the gun from him-( why did he do so? what was the jogger's intent in taking the gun/or intent once he obtained it) then mens rea has to be determined- Did man with the gun have an intent to kill the jogger while he jogged? before he grabbed for the gun? when he grabbed the gun? or after he grabbed for the gun?
etc. Intent of both will be evaluated.
ermm. if i see someone has a gun i don't think I'm going to go charging at him for it. It it was a mistake in identity- as someone thought I was a burglar, but clearly I was not… very simple thing I would do- say, oh, wow.. there's some mistake I'm only jogging my neighborhood, probably even allow them to detain me until the police arrived w/o squabble or fight from me… I have no fear in the police arriving or that of being arrested etc. if it's all understandable mistake, riiight?!?
one thing I sure-the-chit am NOT going to do (if I'm innocent) is go grabbing for some joker's damn shotgun only to then try and convince him– "oh, hey… it's all just a terrible mistake!!" how fuq'n asinine is that?!?
WRONG. There certainly is "probable" causation of self-defense- for both parties. for the gunman- when the jogger "charged, grabbed for the weapon, and fighting for it" & for the jogger, as well, seeing someone brandishing a fire-arm… both scenarios will be evaluated from a legal standpoint & apply Georgia law to each.
again.., nobody "knows" the circumstances. If he's just an innocent jogger- there should have been no damn worries… why not just stop and find out why the truck stopped a head of him brandishing a fire-arm etc?? why try and wrestle with someone at all? when it all could have been easily explained/rectified, yes?
and like I'm always saying to you, Tech- FACTS don't care about your FEELINGS. The "facts" need to be sought after first!! No rash to judgment decisions should be made… that is what "investigations" are for. Just how do YOU know he was just a jogger gingerly jogging down the street or not some perpetrator trying to escape from a burglary? I'm sure he's not going to keep any stolen items if he's trying to flee & someone's in hot pursuit, now is he?
^^chit happens all the time. Innocent bystanders get hurt all the time by their own peril… just by trying to help when they see a crime is being committed. To be honest, it's the inherent nature of "good" within people is the reasons why they will, usually, get involved and try and stop a "wrong" that they are witnessing & wanting to help to "stop" it. It has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to be a "control freak" but probably more of: wanting to be a hero.
The DA is also an elected official. chit's all political… They're going to act or 'respond' more to how the public feels. Those ACTORS are always keeping the 'voters' in the back of their head. one shouldn't be naive' to this reality.
no worries, you have to remember… all my answers?? well, it's nothing but "my own opinion/s" as well.
we seem to think almost identically. When i heard about the Trayvon Martin shooting, my first thought was “Why attack the wannabe cop?” If theres a dude with a gun, and they want me to wait there for the police, if im mot doing anything wrong im going to take out my phone and start filming them, and make them look like total retards when the cops do arrive.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2020-05-07 at 5:43 PM UTC
Originally posted by mmQ Jury's seem like such a medieval concept. Its quaint. I mean they used to have jury's that literally discussed, earnestly, whether they thought the person on trial was a genuine WITCH or not.
We are still basically the same as back then. In fact your average Joe (or Josephine) is probably a darn-sight dumber and less skilled than back then.
Our technology has made us lazy and social media has destroyed our reasoning and social skills that they might have possessed. Knowledge isn't intellect etc.
As such a medieval court system is probably on par. -
2020-05-07 at 5:45 PM UTC
Originally posted by Jiggaboo_Johnson We are still basically the same as back then. In fact your average Joe (or Josephine) is probably a darn-sight dumber and less skilled than back then.
Our technology has made us lazy and social media has destroyed our reasoning and social skills that they might have possessed. Knowledge isn't intellect etc.
As such a medieval court system is probably on par.
source? -
2020-05-07 at 5:46 PM UTC
-
2020-05-07 at 5:47 PM UTCsorry but not sorry that i debunked youThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2020-05-07 at 5:53 PM UTCSounds like a challenge to me!
