Posted on 05/08/2020 7:57:41 PM PDT by Red in Blue PA
If they were pointing their guns at him, there would not have been a struggle. The fact that there was a struggle for the gun indicates the shotgun likely was NOT pointed in the direction of the dead perp.
Secondly, you can see the father in the back of the pickup go for his HOLSTERED gun AFTER the perp attacked his son.
Clear as day the dead perp attacked first.
There is no evidence anyone threatened him with a gun.
There were at least two burglaries, one of which was reported.
Except, that is not what happened in this case.
For all of the people here claiming he was an unarmed victim, the same thing was said of the “Gentle Giant” Michael Brown until gacts came out that Brown charged the officer.
It looks like that happened here too. People are assuming that because someone is “unarmed” they are peaceful.
That is not always the case, and the video shows that being true here too. The dead perp attacked.
One is an ex-cop.
They did block him with the truck
They had no authority to require him to stop and talk to them
Murder 1 since under the morons’ own admission that they wanted to “arrest” him
One is an ex-cop.
Meaning, he should have known better
He lived about 3 miles from where he was shot.
He was a convicted felon.
His older brother is a career criminal.
Those facts are only useful in explaining the mindset where he felt compelled to attack an armed citizen.
I haven’t seen all the evidence purported to exist. Too early for me to draw a conclusion.
No, they did not. He was on foot. There were paths around the truck. He chose to go on the right hand side, then he attacked the son who had the shotgun, from about 15-20 feet away.
He was at the front of the parked truck at that point, already past it.
So how was he blocked?
Wanting to and doing so are two different things.
They did not stop him.
They did not block him.
They did not grab him.
They yelled at him that they wanted him to stop and talk to them.
He did not do so.
Instead, he attacked the son who had the shotgun.
There is no evidence the gun was pointed at him until after he started the attack, and was actually grappling with the son who had the shotgun.
Not the same day of the shooting but over previous weeks. Construction sites had had several thefts and security cameras had captured someone resembling the “jogger.” Those good old boys knew all that and were on the lookout for suspicious characters when their path crossed that of the “jogger.” Incidentally that same “jogger” had been arrested five or six years earlier (at age 19, if I remember correctly) for bringing a loaded handgun to a local high school basketball game. Another spectator spotted it and notified one of the many police/security guards on duty at the game.
When a group of people with guns chase you down, block your freely passage with their trucks, yells at you to “talk to them”, approach you with a gun, you have every god given right by the constitution of the united states to defend yourself. That was his mindset
How do you know that?
You are not him.
Just as easily, if you are a criminal with a criminal history and a criminal family, you may believe it is worth the attempt to attack an armed man and maybe get away, rather than be clearly identified.
He could just as easily been casing the area for burglaries as innocently jogging.
His past history indicates either is possible, or maybe both at the same time.
A guilty mind-set could have triggered the attack as well as self-defense.
That was his mindset
How do you know that?
You are not him.
I can say the same exact thing about you
I would say his mindset at the moment was these three yahoos chasing him down, blocking him with their trucks, yelling at him while brandishing a shotgun was his mindset at the moment.
I am pretty sure he wasn’t thinking about the crimes he committed in his past.
The only problem with your argument is that the people who wanted to “clearly” identify him at the barrel of a shot gun are not cops. They have no legal authority to demand this person to succumb to their “citizen’s arrest”
When your actions are unlawful and you murder someone in the process, you should go to jail.
This man was defending himself against an unlawful action taken against him for a crime that none of those yahoos witnessed and even if they did witness the trespassing, trespassing isn’t a crime where you can go do an “citizen arrest” someone because trespassing isn’t generally considered a violent crime and none of their lives were in danger.
The yahoos created this situation, they were aggressor and they were the murderers of this man.
What person out to murder someone calls 911?
Simple question.
The picture the media gives of this dead perp looks like a High School photo. He left school 6 years ago (the same year be was arrested for bringing a handgun into a basketball game).
What has he been doing since? What type of work? The economy was the best it has been in 100 years. Curious what his profession was, or was he in school? How did he spend his time?
How wise is it to go accost him at gunpoint and instigate a situation where he gets killed and one is left, so to speak, "holding the shotgun"?
In rural areas, it may take 20 minutes for police to arrive. How is it unreasonable to try to talk to someone to see what they are doing while they have a chance? That is not unreasonable at all, in fact it is rational.
And before people say why bring guns.....well they are brought for the very reason seen in the video. People get violent. I never leave home without a gun on my hip.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.