Jogger Chased and Shot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Once he ran around the truck to punch and grab the shot gun he was the perpetrator. That put it in another light completely. He knew why they wanted to question him, and why he ran from the home. He was seen. Yes they should have waited for the cops, but the guy with the shot gun was clearly attacked.

He was under no obligation to answer their questions. They were not the property owner. They were not authorized to act on behalf of the property owner (security guards.) They were not the police.

He had every right to walk (run) away from them. They had no right to hunt him down and trap him.

True. He could have run in many directions and off the street. He instead chose to assault shotgun guy.

If he had, they would have shot him even sooner, but in the back.

[/b]No. They wanted to see why he was in the home, and detain him until the cops arrived. [b] They didn't expect him to turn and rush the guy with the gun.

And once again, because you're apparently irredeemably slow, THEY HAD NO RIGHT TO DO THAT. NONE. NADA. ZERO. ZIP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Once he ran around the truck to punch and grab the shot gun he was the perpetrator. That put it in another light completely. He knew why they wanted to question him, and why he ran from the home. He was seen. Yes they should have waited for the cops, but the guy with the shot gun was clearly attacked.

He was under no obligation to answer their questions. They were not the property owner. They were not authorized to act on behalf of the property owner (security guards.) They were not the police.

He had every right to walk (run) away from them. They had no right to hunt him down and trap him.

True. He could have run in many directions and off the street. He instead chose to assault shotgun guy.

If he had, they would have shot him even sooner, but in the back.

No. They wanted to see why he was in the home, and detain him until the cops arrived. They didn't expect him to turn and rush the guy with the gun.

According to their statement to the police right after it happened.

[Anonymous]

This is a pretty good timeline for those that missed-

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjd-L754N3zAhUD-Z4KHcY4AVgQFnoECAcQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fworld-us-canada-52623151&usg=AOvVaw2kFseGIUjDXKLhhXFBge4C

[Anonymous]

You're the definition of privilege if you think that a young black man in Georgia wouldn't feel threatened and fear for his life when 3 white men with a gun in a truck were pursuing him. They had no authority to stop him, even to ask him a question. And, if they just wanted to ask him a question, why the gun?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're the definition of privilege if you think that a young black man in Georgia wouldn't feel threatened and fear for his life when 3 white men with a gun in a truck were pursuing him. They had no authority to stop him, even to ask him a question. And, if they just wanted to ask him a question, why the gun?

I think everyone agrees they should not have pursued him. Nor taken a gun. The defendants have all that against them going into court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Once he ran around the truck to punch and grab the shot gun he was the perpetrator. That put it in another light completely. He knew why they wanted to question him, and why he ran from the home. He was seen. Yes they should have waited for the cops, but the guy with the shot gun was clearly attacked.

He was under no obligation to answer their questions. They were not the property owner. They were not authorized to act on behalf of the property owner (security guards.) They were not the police.

He had every right to walk (run) away from them. They had no right to hunt him down and trap him.

True. He could have run in many directions and off the street. He instead chose to assault shotgun guy.

If he had, they would have shot him even sooner, but in the back.

No. They wanted to see why he was in the home, and detain him until the cops arrived. They didn't expect him to turn and rush the guy with the gun.

It wasn't their home. Why was it their business if he was in the home? All they should have done is call the police to report something suspicious and give the best description they could. That's it. No need to "detain him" themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Once he ran around the truck to punch and grab the shot gun he was the perpetrator. That put it in another light completely. He knew why they wanted to question him, and why he ran from the home. He was seen. Yes they should have waited for the cops, but the guy with the shot gun was clearly attacked.

He was under no obligation to answer their questions. They were not the property owner. They were not authorized to act on behalf of the property owner (security guards.) They were not the police.

He had every right to walk (run) away from them. They had no right to hunt him down and trap him.

True. He could have run in many directions and off the street. He instead chose to assault shotgun guy.

If he had, they would have shot him even sooner, but in the back.

No. They wanted to see why he was in the home, and detain him until the cops arrived. They didn't expect him to turn and rush the guy with the gun.

It wasn't their home. Why was it their business if he was in the home? All they should have done is call the police to report something suspicious and give the best description they could. That's it. No need to "detain him" themselves.

Agree. Maybe they were the unofficial neighborhood watch but since the one was a former cop he should have known better. A lot of stupid choices.

[Anonymous]

Since the jurors have all that info wouldn't they have to find new ones? I'm curious about the mental health, haven't read that anywhere or if it could be a factor.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiWzcDzrN7zAhWuFTQIHV7LAV8Q0PADKAB6BAgUEAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.vice.com%2Fen%2Farticle%2Fg5qxgw%2Fahmaud-arbery-mental-health-history-given-jury-candidates&usg=AOvVaw0muy7vQ7Tts9BvF732mRQC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Once he ran around the truck to punch and grab the shot gun he was the perpetrator. That put it in another light completely. He knew why they wanted to question him, and why he ran from the home. He was seen. Yes they should have waited for the cops, but the guy with the shot gun was clearly attacked.

He was under no obligation to answer their questions. They were not the property owner. They were not authorized to act on behalf of the property owner (security guards.) They were not the police.

He had every right to walk (run) away from them. They had no right to hunt him down and trap him.

True. He could have run in many directions and off the street. He instead chose to assault shotgun guy.

If he had, they would have shot him even sooner, but in the back.

No. They wanted to see why he was in the home, and detain him until the cops arrived. They didn't expect him to turn and rush the guy with the gun.

It wasn't their home. Why was it their business if he was in the home? All they should have done is call the police to report something suspicious and give the best description they could. That's it. No need to "detain him" themselves.

Agree. Maybe they were the unofficial neighborhood watch but since the one was a former cop he should have known better. A lot of stupid choices.

This whole incident seems to be a case of stupid people’s lives intersecting and one side being armed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Once he ran around the truck to punch and grab the shot gun he was the perpetrator. That put it in another light completely. He knew why they wanted to question him, and why he ran from the home. He was seen. Yes they should have waited for the cops, but the guy with the shot gun was clearly attacked.

He was under no obligation to answer their questions. They were not the property owner. They were not authorized to act on behalf of the property owner (security guards.) They were not the police.

He had every right to walk (run) away from them. They had no right to hunt him down and trap him.

True. He could have run in many directions and off the street. He instead chose to assault shotgun guy.

If he had, they would have shot him even sooner, but in the back.

No. They wanted to see why he was in the home, and detain him until the cops arrived. They didn't expect him to turn and rush the guy with the gun.

It wasn't their home. Why was it their business if he was in the home? All they should have done is call the police to report something suspicious and give the best description they could. That's it. No need to "detain him" themselves.

Agree. Maybe they were the unofficial neighborhood watch but since the one was a former cop he should have known better. A lot of stupid choices.

This whole incident seems to be a case of stupid people’s lives intersecting and one side being armed.

I think with the trial we'll find out just how stupid they all were. And maybe why they did what they all did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Once he ran around the truck to punch and grab the shot gun he was the perpetrator. That put it in another light completely. He knew why they wanted to question him, and why he ran from the home. He was seen. Yes they should have waited for the cops, but the guy with the shot gun was clearly attacked.

He was under no obligation to answer their questions. They were not the property owner. They were not authorized to act on behalf of the property owner (security guards.) They were not the police.

He had every right to walk (run) away from them. They had no right to hunt him down and trap him.

True. He could have run in many directions and off the street. He instead chose to assault shotgun guy.

If he had, they would have shot him even sooner, but in the back.

No. They wanted to see why he was in the home, and detain him until the cops arrived. They didn't expect him to turn and rush the guy with the gun.

It wasn't their home. Why was it their business if he was in the home? All they should have done is call the police to report something suspicious and give the best description they could. That's it. No need to "detain him" themselves.

Agree. Maybe they were the unofficial neighborhood watch but since the one was a former cop he should have known better. A lot of stupid choices.

This whole incident seems to be a case of stupid people’s lives intersecting and one side being armed.

I think with the trial we'll find out just how stupid they all were. And maybe why they did what they all did.

I bet there's text message traffic between the perpetrators.

[Anonymous]

Is anyone else following this trial? Closing arguments are coming Monday.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone else following this trial? Closing arguments are coming Monday.

I’m worried they’re going to get off scot-free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone else following this trial? Closing arguments are coming Monday.

I’m worried they’re going to get off scot-free.

I don’t think so. But the prosecution did reject plea deals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone else following this trial? Closing arguments are coming Monday.

I’m worried they’re going to get off scot-free.

Why? It seems pretty clear that they’re going to get convicted.