A man was shot while out on a jog along the road. The men who shot him claim they thought he was a burglar, and that he was shot while wrestling away a gun. The men are not in custody and have yet to be charged with a crime. It's somewhat reminiscent of the Trayvon Martin story, but in this case there is a video:
So, what I ascertain from the story is this. He was a guy jogging on the road and someone says this looks like the guy from our security camera who robbed us previously. They chase him down in their trucks with shotguns and say "Hey, we want to talk to you". Within a few seconds they are fighting and the jogger is shot and killed. To me, this sounds worse than the Trayvon Martin case. I can't imagine how chasing down a clearly unarmed guy jogging on the road, trying to force him to stop and then you shooting him when he, naturally, freaks out and attacks you is self-defense.
Very weird video. I’m not exactly sure what the explanation is, but can’t think of one that results in the 2 guys with guns not being in the wrong. But if that’s the defense these guys are going with, they are mentally impaired and should be wards of the state. “He’s our running in the street in broad daylight! Must be on his way to commit a crime!”
In that scenario you follow the guy while calling the police, unless you’re worried about drawing attention to the meth lab back home. If they really were robbed and took it upon themselves to apprehend this guy, the book should be thrown at them to make an example.
It's clearly "worse" in the sense that there is not really a way to justify these guys not being at least booked.
I don’t know what happened. Neither does anyone else, even after watching this video. I don’t know what preceded the fighting / gunshots, and that’ll likely be the case. If they had reason to confront him, and he tried to forcibly take their gun, they’re probably justified in the use of deadly force. If they had no right to confront him, and he tried to fight back and take their weapon, I can’t see how deadly force is justified, and this is straight up murder. The family’s account of what he was doing that preceded the shooting is probably about as meaningless as what the shooter’s family thinks he was doing. If they were unauthorized in their use of deadly force, it’s murder and they should be held fully responsible - in both criminal and civil court. We’ve seen too many of these, where things look decidedly different, until placed under unflinching and unbiased scrutiny.
If I am on foot and a truck passes and stops in front of me with two plain clothes guys brandishing guns and trying to grab me, I am going to assume I am fighting for my life.
I’m not really sure about police procedure for that kind of thing. Probably didn’t have that video right away.
It seems like the only way these guys could even kind of be in the clear was if this guy picked the fight, which is extraordinarily hard to imagine or maybe if for some insane reason this dude just happened to be out for a jog right where these guys he robbed were hanging out, armed.
I've learned not to make a rushed judgement on these. Looks bad, yes. Avoided? Most likely. If they were not justified at all, fry em.
No, you should just assume that you know, immediately brandish all other possibilities as being crazy, close debate, deny scrutiny and hang these guys. I hate that you have the appearance of wanting to be reasonable, and every time I turn around, you’re saying something glaringly idiotic.
There’s the option that he could have successfully defended himself too if armed. If they’re guilty of wrong doing, they should face charges
By the way, here's the memo from the District Attorney on the matter. https://t.co/w4rCoS0Oyf?amp=1 I'm not a legal expert, but it seems a very defensively crafted writing almost acting as if it were from the men's attorney themselves instead of a neutrally crafted memo detailing his decision.
