Black Teen Shot by Neighborhood Watch

Off Topic
81

[quote]BDSLift wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]BDSLift wrote:
Hell, who said the guy was in his right mind? Yes people flip out everyday run up to innocent people and start shooting, stabbing or just good ol beating ass.

Shit does happen.

But is this the case?.. Well we just don’t know.

Try this version:

This guy lives in the area. He is fed up with kids coming into his block making noise and doing bad things. He joins the watch program and is having a hard time because whenever he calls the cops they are always late. He decides to handle shit himself but picks a kid who is not doing anything but trying to get home.
He jumps out his car starts yelling at the kid the kid does not live there does not know about any watch group if the guy has no uniform he looks like a crazy man. The kid out of fear reacts and the guy shoots.

My story and your story both made up.[/quote]
Of course shit happens. Hell, maybe a meteor fell from the sky, hit the watchman, made him lurch and accidentally pull the trigger. Probability says my scenario is more likely.

But you are making my point for me. Everyone in here is making up accusations.[/quote]

Yes. Including you.

But I think my version is more probable and I’ll tell you why.

One of the two involved was looking for confrontation (driving around looking for a young trouble maker to scare off).
One of the two was looking to just go home and give his brother some skittles.
Who is more likely to escalate the situation from conversation to an act of violence?[/quote]
You’re assuming again. Who says the watch cruises around in attack mode? Cautious curiosity is more like it.

Cautiosly curios watchman responding to we don’t know what vs. teen with typical anti-authority attitude. My money says the teen escalated the situation. And for all you know, he was breaking out windows, snatching purses, slashing tires et cetera on his way home.

Just because he had skittles doesn’t mean anything. I eat skittles. I also use illicit drugs, sometimes simultaneously.

82

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Capricious wrote:
About 11-years ago or so, the man who essentially has taken over T-Nation, Chris Shugart, wrote an article called, “Be the Hammer”. I assume this is why his thread was called “Shugart’s Hammer”, or whatever.

In this editorial article, which if I’m not mistaken came on the heels of 9-11, Shugart, from Texas, extolled the virtues of initiating violence first rather than waiting to see if the person, or country, that you are afraid of has violent tendencies. Included was his account of gun-toting Texans, (including a pastor), and how you wouldn’t want to fuck with them.

The whole thing was a veiled reference for why we should attack any odd country in the Middle East that Bush and Cheney decided were a threat to the US, and ask questions later. Anyone remember how that turned out?

This story called to mind that article, and that simple, regressive mindset: that somehow it’s better to aggressively respond to perceived threats with basic self-protective instinct; that it is the right, courageous thing to do.

Except when it’s not the right thing to do at all.[/quote]

This one?

I dont see it. Hell it even has a disclaimer.

Oh well.[/quote]

Wow. I’d never read that article. Nice find. I like it.

I don’t see it either but thanks for bringing it up, Capri.

83

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Capricious wrote:
About 11-years ago or so, the man who essentially has taken over T-Nation, Chris Shugart, wrote an article called, “Be the Hammer”. I assume this is why his thread was called “Shugart’s Hammer”, or whatever.

In this editorial article, which if I’m not mistaken came on the heels of 9-11, Shugart, from Texas, extolled the virtues of initiating violence first rather than waiting to see if the person, or country, that you are afraid of has violent tendencies. Included was his account of gun-toting Texans, (including a pastor), and how you wouldn’t want to fuck with them.

The whole thing was a veiled reference for why we should attack any odd country in the Middle East that Bush and Cheney decided were a threat to the US, and ask questions later. Anyone remember how that turned out?

This story called to mind that article, and that simple, regressive mindset: that somehow it’s better to aggressively respond to perceived threats with basic self-protective instinct; that it is the right, courageous thing to do.

Except when it’s not the right thing to do at all.[/quote]
Yeah, we wrecked shop, dismantled the taliban, broke up violent “anti-western” support groups, eliminated a genocidal fascist and ushered the middle east in to the beginning stages of modern civilization although completing that work takes time.

It turned out pretty fucking awesome.

And, I bet you’re exaggerating. I doubt he alluded to indiscriminately killing on a whim, don’t be intentionally stupid.[/quote]

Awesome.

Whatever you smoke, I want some.

Because it seems to me like you shredded your constitution and the Magna Charter , reinvented Augustus “Firsts Citizen”, the Starchamber and the Spanish Inquisition, all for the low, low price of completely, utterly and irreversibly ruining your country with debt.

Bonus points for selling that debt to the Chinese, handing your balls over to your main rivals has a certain panache.
[/quote]
Let’s see China collect. Meanwhile, we will be restructuring a mineral rich region to our liking, with contracts ultimately assisting our bottom line.

84

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]BDSLift wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]BDSLift wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]BDSLift wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
I just want to say that nobody was there.

Who knows what happened.

Maybe the guy was racist and questioned the kid for no good reason and the kid gave empty threats, creating the perception of a threat the neighborhood watch took seriously.

And before “everyone said he was a good kid”, my mom and her neighborhood friends would say that too.

And gated communities aren’t shit. They are just neighborhoods with gates.[/quote]

Not 100% true. It must be a true possibility of harm before lethal force can be used. Just yelling threats is not enough. But this is something the cops would or should already checked on. So this goes back to the question what is the police report say. Because for this guy to be walking around free something more must have happened…or the cops just plain suck

Well a heated conversation even by a CCW holding Neighborhood Watch God and a Kid with skittles does not explain the Shooting

Even in The Free State of Florida you need to explain how you felt your life was on the line to justify shooting a guy on THE STREET.

[/quote]
In Texas, all you need to use deadly force is the threat of bodily harm, even if only verbal.

The only other witness is dead of course but the watchman very well could’ve been within the law.[/quote]
[/quote]

Nope. If you receive a direct threat, you may use deadly force within the confines of the law.

Call the HPD non emergency line and ask your self defense rights if an aggressor threatens your life.

If you do it, ask objectively, don’t slant the answer with conjectured bullshit.[/quote]

That is the point.

It is up to the Police to prove otherwise but you still need more than a kid saying “I’ll kill you”. Really. Even your last statement you added the word “Aggressor”.

This happened on the street while the kid was walking. The kid was approached by the guy as he was coming from the store returning home.

Words alone does not qualify for this use of force. At least not from what we know so far.

Now the civilian could have told the police that the kid became violent and started moving towards him in an aggressive manner while saying “I’ll kill you” that shows both an aggressive position and a intent.

Even TX has some rules hell if not guys would be shooting people from a block away saying the guy yelled “I’ll get you suck a”

Oh and was this a guy in uniform? Or just a civilian watch captain in regular clothes?

[/quote]
The dudes were engaged in some form of altercation, enough so that the watch called the police (I reject the notion they were called simply bc the kid was black for the more sensible notion that he did, in fact, draw attention to suspicion) and felt the need to protect himself.

If the kid grew belligerent and made a verbal threat, the man had a right to self defense in the likely confrontational scenario that is the context of this thread.

The idea being that when in a threatened situation where you are unsure of whether or not your safety actually is on the line, the benefit of the doubt is on your side as you were placed in the unfortunate position of judging the level of your safety at the hands of another.

Hesitate even briefly and you just might be dead and therefore have the right to react in defense.

But yes, two feuding people yelling “ima get you” would have a hard time overcoming premeditation one way or another; this story is not that scenario.[/quote]

Why do you reject the notion that the police were called to report an unfamiliar person in the neighbourhood? I can think of plenty of occasions where an unfamiliar vehicle, person or other seemingly innocuous activity has caused a particularly vigilant citizen to call police. This happens pretty much all the time. If this gentleman is the captain of his neighbourhood watch, it is reasonable to suppose that he may be of above average vigilance.

Just to be clear, you’re saying that a direct, lethal force response is justified when you think you MIGHT be in danger? Also, such a response is justified in the face of a verbal threat, with no apparent means of carrying out this threat?

It’s true that hesitation can mean death. However most places require the response to be at least somewhat proportional to the threat or perceived threat (and that “perception” generally needs to be somewhat reasonable).

I have no idea what happened out there. None of us do. The racial element (whether or not it was a contributing factor) adds even more fire to an already emotionally charged situation, and everyone starts to see what they want to. However, in the absence of any facts I fail to see how your version of events is any more plausible or compelling than anybody else’s. Why it more likely that Martin became belligerent than Zimmerman did? We have no knowledge of either of them, their backgrounds or mental states. Unarmed teenager shot dead while buying candy is a bad day out for everyone, how ever it went down.

Edited.

85

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]Capricious wrote:
About 11-years ago or so, the man who essentially has taken over T-Nation, Chris Shugart, wrote an article called, “Be the Hammer”. I assume this is why his thread was called “Shugart’s Hammer”, or whatever.

In this editorial article, which if I’m not mistaken came on the heels of 9-11, Shugart, from Texas, extolled the virtues of initiating violence first rather than waiting to see if the person, or country, that you are afraid of has violent tendencies. Included was his account of gun-toting Texans, (including a pastor), and how you wouldn’t want to fuck with them.

The whole thing was a veiled reference for why we should attack any odd country in the Middle East that Bush and Cheney decided were a threat to the US, and ask questions later. Anyone remember how that turned out?

This story called to mind that article, and that simple, regressive mindset: that somehow it’s better to aggressively respond to perceived threats with basic self-protective instinct; that it is the right, courageous thing to do.

Except when it’s not the right thing to do at all.[/quote]
Yeah, we wrecked shop, dismantled the taliban, broke up violent “anti-western” support groups, eliminated a genocidal fascist and ushered the middle east in to the beginning stages of modern civilization although completing that work takes time.

It turned out pretty fucking awesome.

And, I bet you’re exaggerating. I doubt he alluded to indiscriminately killing on a whim, don’t be intentionally stupid.[/quote]

Either it’s me who cannot detect sarcasm over the internet or some people just derive their political education from cartoons.
[/quote]

Well there was one poster who quite literally compared the US military to the Justice League, being in an epic struggle with the forces of doom and all soooooooo…

…that might actually be happening.

[/quote]
You can be cynical suzies if you want but what I mentioned happened, just like 99% of Americans (fuck everyone else) wanted, until they remembered that “oh yeah, people die in war” and forgot 9/11 in time accordingly.

86

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]BDSLift wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]BDSLift wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]BDSLift wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
I just want to say that nobody was there.

Who knows what happened.

Maybe the guy was racist and questioned the kid for no good reason and the kid gave empty threats, creating the perception of a threat the neighborhood watch took seriously.

And before “everyone said he was a good kid”, my mom and her neighborhood friends would say that too.

And gated communities aren’t shit. They are just neighborhoods with gates.[/quote]

Not 100% true. It must be a true possibility of harm before lethal force can be used. Just yelling threats is not enough. But this is something the cops would or should already checked on. So this goes back to the question what is the police report say. Because for this guy to be walking around free something
more must have happened…or the cops just plain suck

Well a heated conversation even by a CCW holding Neighborhood Watch God and a Kid with skittles does not explain the Shooting

Even in The Free State of Florida you need to explain how you felt your life was on the line to justify shooting a guy on THE STREET.

[/quote]
In Texas, all you need to use deadly force is the threat of bodily harm, even if only verbal.

The only other witness is dead of course but the watchman very well could’ve been within the law.[/quote]

[/quote]

Nope. If you receive a direct threat, you may use deadly force within the confines of the law.

Call the HPD non emergency line and ask your self defense rights if an aggressor threatens your life.
If you do it, ask objectively, don’t slant the answer with conjectured bullshit.[/quote]

That is the point.

It is up to the Police to prove otherwise but you still need more than a kid saying “I’ll kill you”. Really. Even your last statement you added the word “Aggressor”.

This happened on the street while the kid was walking. The kid was approached by the guy as he was coming from the store returning home.

Words alone does not qualify for this use of force. At least not from what we know so far.

Now the civilian could have told the police that the kid became violent and started moving towards him in an aggressive manner while saying “I’ll kill you” that shows both an aggressive position and a intent.

Even TX has some rules hell if not guys would be shooting people from a block away saying the guy yelled “I’ll get you suck a”

Oh and was this a guy in uniform? Or just a civilian watch captain in regular clothes?

[/quote]
The dudes were engaged in some form of altercation, enough so that the watch called the police (I reject the notion they were called simply bc the kid was black for the more sensible notion that he did, in fact, draw attention to suspicion) and felt the need to protect himself.

If the kid grew belligerent and made a verbal threat, the man had a right to self defense in the likely confrontational scenario that is the context of this thread.

The idea being that when in a threatened situation where you are unsure of whether or not your safety actually is on the line, the benefit of the doubt is on your side as you were placed in the unfortunate position of judging the level of your safety at the hands of another.

Hesitate even briefly and you just might be dead and therefore have the right to react in defense.

But yes, two feuding people yelling “ima get you” would have a hard time overcoming premeditation one way or another; this story is not that scenario.[/quote]

Why do you reject the notion that the police were called to report an unfamiliar person in the neighbourhood? I can think of plenty of occasions where an unfamiliar vehicle, person or other seemingly innocuous activity has caused a particularly vigilant citizen to call police. This happens pretty much all the time. If this gentleman is the captain of his neighbourhood watch, it is reasonable to suppose that he may be of above average vigilance.

Just to be clear, you’re saying that a direct, lethal force response is justified when you think you MIGHT be in danger? Also, such a response is justified in the face of a verbal threat, with no apparent means of carrying out this threat?

It’s true that hesitation can mean death. However most places require the response to be at least somewhat proportional to the threat or perceived threat (and that “perception” generally needs to be somewhat reasonable).

I have no idea what happened out there. None of us do. The racial element adds even more fire to an already emotionally charged situation, and everyone starts to see what they want to. However, in the absence of any facts I fail to see how your version of events is any more plausible or compelling than anybody else’s. Why it more likely that Martin became belligerent than Zimmerman did? We have no knowledge of either of them, their backgrounds or mental states. Unarmed teenager shot dead while buying candy is a bad day out for everyone, how ever it went down.

Edited.[/quote]

100% True

87

[quote]batman730 wrote:

I have no idea what happened out there. None of us do. The racial element (whether or not it was a contributing factor) adds even more fire to an already emotionally charged situation, and everyone starts to see what they want to.

[/quote]

Exactly the point I’ve been illustrating. No one knows what happened. Don’t assume one party is innocent or guilty over the other. You don’t know.

As for the rest of your comment, I’ve already discussed it in context.

88

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Yeah, we wrecked shop, [/quote]
aye, you certainly killed a lot, built some titanic embassies and burnt a lot of money - on that we can agree

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
dismantled the taliban, [/quote]
Afghanistan IS NOW an established taliban country.
E.g. women HAVE to wear carpet BY LAWS THAT ARE DIPLOMATICALLY RESPECTED, which wasn’t the case with the taliban.

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
broke up violent “anti-western” support groups, [/quote]
The Hydra is bigger then ever, Al Quaida still exists.
Killing third world peasents with ultra deluxe weaponry seriously made you a lot of friends!

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
eliminated a genocidal fascist [/quote]
Come again? You mean Saddam, who got ALL his actual-factual genocidal weapons (no other arsenals have been found) from whom?
Or do you mean the old, lonely masturbating pakistani hermit (your “ally”), whom you immortalized as a martyr and hastily buried, supposedly?
Please tell, since the vocable “fascist” is cheap today

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
and ushered the middle east in to the beginning stages of modern civilization although completing that work takes time.[/quote]
looks splendid what you did in tunesi… wait, that wasn’t you.
Right-
THE REAL democratic uprisings were done by the youth who had it with their (mostly americophil) dictators, curiously enough where american presence was at it’s thinest.
And which might very well turn anti-west, thanks to your glorious deeds described above.

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
It turned out pretty fucking awesome.
[/quote]
-last words of Osama bin Ladin?

89

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Yeah, we wrecked shop, [/quote]
aye, you certainly killed a lot, built some titanic embassies and burnt a lot of money - on that we can agree

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
dismantled the taliban, [/quote]
Afghanistan IS NOW an established taliban country.
E.g. women HAVE to wear carpet BY LAWS THAT ARE DIPLOMATICALLY RESPECTED, which wasn’t the case with the taliban.

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
broke up violent “anti-western” support groups, [/quote]
The Hydra is bigger then ever, Al Quaida still exists.
Killing third world peasents with ultra deluxe weaponry seriously made you a lot of friends!

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
eliminated a genocidal fascist [/quote]
Come again? You mean Saddam, who got ALL his actual-factual genocidal weapons (no other arsenals have been found) from whom?
Or do you mean the old, lonely masturbating pakistani hermit (your “ally”), whom you immortalized as a martyr and hastily buried, supposedly?
Please tell, since the vocable “fascist” is cheap today

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
and ushered the middle east in to the beginning stages of modern civilization although completing that work takes time.[/quote]
looks splendid what you did in tunesi… wait, that wasn’t you.
Right-
THE REAL democratic uprisings were done by the youth who had it with their (mostly americophil) dictators, curiously enough where american presence was at it’s thinest.
And which might very well turn anti-west, thanks to your glorious deeds described above.

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
It turned out pretty fucking awesome.
[/quote]
-last words of Osama bin Ladin?

[/quote]
You are quite the spinster, I will give you that.

90

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

I have no idea what happened out there. None of us do. The racial element (whether or not it was a contributing factor) adds even more fire to an already emotionally charged situation, and everyone starts to see what they want to.

[/quote]

Exactly the point I’ve been illustrating. No one knows what happened. Don’t assume one party is innocent or guilty over the other. You don’t know.

[/quote]

LOL. One party…IS DEAD. Regardless of what happened, to justify DEATH it had better be more than “black kid walking through neighborhood with snacks”.

91

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

I have no idea what happened out there. None of us do. The racial element (whether or not it was a contributing factor) adds even more fire to an already emotionally charged situation, and everyone starts to see what they want to.

[/quote]

Exactly the point I’ve been illustrating. No one knows what happened. Don’t assume one party is innocent or guilty over the other. You don’t know.

[/quote]

LOL. One party…IS DEAD. Regardless of what happened, to justify DEATH it had better be more than “black kid walking through neighborhood with snacks”.
[/quote]
And this I agree with.

Hopefully there is a story justifying the killing.

If it was a matter of trigger happy racism, I agree the act was rehensible, uncalled for, gross and should be punished by death.

Until the facts are out, lets not blame a guy for race driven murder because he is white.

92

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
You are quite the spinster, I will give you that.[/quote]

Weren’t you the guy who wrote some months ago: “I’m rich and bored”?

Why not travel the world a bit and see for yourself?

Even if your naive utopia (I cannot phrase it differently, sorry) would be true, was it worth the immeasurable, insane, decadent costs?

In the end, our opinions won’t matter if we don’t put them to good use or cling to them like a suckling to a tit.

Stay strong, at least
-S.

93

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
You are quite the spinster, I will give you that.[/quote]

Weren’t you the guy who wrote some months ago: “I’m rich and bored”?

Why not travel the world a bit and see for yourself?

Even if your naive utopia (I cannot phrase it differently, sorry) would be true, was it worth the immeasurable, insane, decadent costs?

In the end, our opinions won’t matter if we don’t put them to good use or cling to them like a suckling to a tit.

Stay strong, at least
-S.
[/quote]
Yes. Dubai is nice. Very western, yet middle eastern. Great tourism, great source of hope for the rest of the region as it modernizes and “awakens”.

Strangely Kazakhstan is nice too, around Kaindy lake. Tripoli, too.

94

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Who knows? We weren’t there. We don’t know why he took interest to the kid or followed through how he did. It’s shitty of you to baselessly crucify the guy as a blood thirsty racist though. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. You don’t know.

I do know that if I saw a grandma being mugged I’d call the police and step in too, for example.[/quote]

What’s shitty is taking the victim and turning him into the villain. From my understanding no other crimes were reported in this area that this kid could have been connected to. He wasn’t “mugging” anyone. As someone else stated, who is more likely to escalate this situation, the kid who left at halftime to go get Skittles and and Iced Tea or the self appointed neighborhood watch captain who drives around with a loaded gun?

95

[quote]Stronghold wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]BDSLift wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]BDSLift wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
I just want to say that nobody was there.

Who knows what happened.

Maybe the guy was racist and questioned the kid for no good reason and the kid gave empty threats, creating the perception of a threat the neighborhood watch took seriously.

And before “everyone said he was a good kid”, my mom and her neighborhood friends would say that too.

And gated communities aren’t shit. They are just neighborhoods with gates.[/quote]

Not 100% true. It must be a true possibility of harm before lethal force can be used. Just yelling threats is not enough. But this is something the cops would or should already checked on. So this goes back to the question what is the police report say. Because for this guy to be walking around free something more must have happened…or the cops just plain suck

Well a heated conversation even by a CCW holding Neighborhood Watch God and a Kid with skittles does not explain the Shooting.

Even in The Free State of Florida you need to explain how you felt your life was on the line to justify shooting a guy on THE STREET.

[/quote]
In Texas, all you need to use deadly force is the threat of bodily harm, even if only verbal.

The only other witness is dead of course but the watchman very well could’ve been within the law.[/quote]
[/quote]
Nope. If you receive a direct threat, you may use deadly force within the confines of the law.

Call the HPD non emergency line and ask your self defense rights if an aggressor threatens your life.

If you do it, ask objectively, don’t slant the answer with conjectured bullshit.[/quote]

Jesus Christ, stop acting like ANYWHERE in the continental US has definitions of “self defense” and “appropriate force” as loose as the ones in Texas. In the state of Texas, you can break into your neighbors house when they aren’t home in order to shoot a burglar who is in the process of robbing said house. This isn’t Texas, where even toddlers are encouraged to arm themselves for fucks sake, it’s Florida, a sort of southern state populated almost entirely by northern transplants.

Very interesting that the shooter wasn’t even taken in. Not very often you get to shoot and kill someone in apparent cold blood and just go home*. This guy may have gotten very lucky since there have been cases where 911 calls prior to a killing have been used to assert that premeditation existed.

*outside of the state of Texas[/quote]

You are only partly correct about Florida. Miami and it’s suburbs are like the southern most borough of the Bronx. But once you go north and reach Palm beach county it’s not like you are up north any more. Twenty miles north of Orlando where that kid from Miami was shot is essentially the deep south. Gainesville Florida which is about 40 miles north of where this happened was the birthplace of the KKK. So this is a tale of two people from two very different cultures.

96

[quote]BeefEater wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
Who knows? We weren’t there. We don’t know why he took interest to the kid or followed through how he did. It’s shitty of you to baselessly crucify the guy as a blood thirsty racist though. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. You don’t know.

I do know that if I saw a grandma being mugged I’d call the police and step in too, for example.[/quote]

What’s shitty is taking the victim and turning him into the villain. From my understanding no other crimes were reported in this area that this kid could have been connected to. He wasn’t “mugging” anyone. As someone else stated, who is more likely to escalate this situation, the kid who left at halftime to go get Skittles and and Iced Tea or the self appointed neighborhood watch captain who drives around with a loaded gun?[/quote]
What’s even shittier is you are assigning a “victim” title to a situation you have no detail about.

Hell the police responding the the scene haven’t even done that.

Nor a judge or jury (a right to which every American has) privy to details and facts you are assuming don’t exist.

97

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
What’s even shittier is you are assigning a “victim” title to a situation you have no detail about.

Hell the police responding the the scene haven’t even done that.

Nor a judge or jury (a right to which every American has) privy to details and facts you are assuming don’t exist. [/quote]

I asked you what justification this guy had for pursuing the kid, your response was “well he must have been doing something wrong.” You are assigning blame to the one who was shot, when there is no information to suggest he was doing anything wrong. No one else has come forth and said, “Well yeah my car was keyed, so I understand why he went after him.”

98

[quote]BeefEater wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
What’s even shittier is you are assigning a “victim” title to a situation you have no detail about.

Hell the police responding the the scene haven’t even done that.

Nor a judge or jury (a right to which every American has) privy to details and facts you are assuming don’t exist. [/quote]

I asked you what justification this guy had for pursuing the kid, your response was “well he must have been doing something wrong.” You are assigning blame to the one who was shot, when there is no information to suggest he was doing anything wrong. No one else has come forth and said, “Well yeah my car was keyed, so I understand why he went after him.”[/quote]
Good, you agree with the point I’ve been illustrating.

No one knows what happened.

Quit putting bullshit, blood thirsty racist blame on the watchman. You don’t know any more than I do.

David Koresh is dead too, I certainly wouldn’t call him a victim.

Instead of hypothetically musing “what if”, you are assigning blame to the watchman for some pretty dastardtly stuff which is unfair, un-American, illogical and frankly pretty ignorant behaviour, literally.

99

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
What’s even shittier is you are assigning a “victim” title to a situation you have no detail about.

Hell the police responding the the scene haven’t even done that.

Nor a judge or jury (a right to which every American has) privy to details and facts you are assuming don’t exist. [/quote]

I asked you what justification this guy had for pursuing the kid, your response was “well he must have been doing something wrong.” You are assigning blame to the one who was shot, when there is no information to suggest he was doing anything wrong. No one else has come forth and said, “Well yeah my car was keyed, so I understand why he went after him.”[/quote]
Good, you agree with the point I’ve been illustrating.

No one knows what happened.

No more so than your guess the kid must have attracted the attention of the watch lord by his actions and not his looks.

But thank you for coming around to how I see things

Quit putting bullshit, blood thirsty racist blame on the watchman. You don’t know any more than I do.

David Koresh is dead too, I certainly wouldn’t call him a victim.

Instead of hypothetically musing “what if”, you are assigning blame to the watchman for some pretty dastardtly stuff which is unfair, un-American, illogical and frankly pretty ignorant behaviour, literally.
[/quote]

100

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
What’s even shittier is you are assigning a “victim” title to a situation you have no detail about.

Hell the police responding the the scene haven’t even done that.

Nor a judge or jury (a right to which every American has) privy to details and facts you are assuming don’t exist. [/quote]

I asked you what justification this guy had for pursuing the kid, your response was “well he must have been doing something wrong.” You are assigning blame to the one who was shot, when there is no information to suggest he was doing anything wrong. No one else has come forth and said, “Well yeah my car was keyed, so I understand why he went after him.”[/quote]
Good, you agree with the point I’ve been illustrating.

No one knows what happened.

Quit putting bullshit, blood thirsty racist blame on the watchman. You don’t know any more than I do.

David Koresh is dead too, I certainly wouldn’t call him a victim.

Instead of hypothetically musing “what if”, you are assigning blame to the watchman for some pretty dastardtly stuff which is unfair, un-American, illogical and frankly pretty ignorant behaviour, literally.
[/quote]

And you are defending the person who was told by police to wait for them, ignored that message, pursued a young black man, in his predominantly white neighborhood, with a loaded gun, then shot him in front of his home after a scuffle. Which means that the neighborhood watchman had to get out of his car to confront the kid.