The video will tell all. But as described, seems the shooter will be held accountable.

Pending further evidence, I’m not so sure of the Rittenhouse comparison.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess we have to wait and what the facts are.

My gut tells me I should be siding with him. Let’s see if I’m correct.

Because he called the police himself, my gut tells me this as well.
I guess we’ll need to wait for the trial.

The McMichaels called the police themselves, too.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Oh brother. This is entirely different from Rittenhouse case. Rittenhouse was threatened by felons brandishing illegal weapons, threatening him verbally and chasing him as well as being bashed over the head with a skateboard. This sounds like someone with a gun and an impulse control problem.

Did he have a license for that gun, I wonder? Or a previous criminal record?

The gun was licensed and he called the police himself to report that he had shot someone in self defense.

You have no idea of any past crimes committed by the shooting victim just as Rittenhouse had no idea about the records of those chasing him.

Right. And this doesn't matter. We don't get to choose who to kill based on what we think their inherent worth is. We only get to defend ourselves in life-threatening situations.

Anonymous wrote:I guess we have to wait and what the facts are.

My gut tells me I should be siding with him. Let’s see if I’m correct.

Because he called the police himself, my gut tells me this as well.
I guess we’ll need to wait for the trial.

There is this:

"After talking with several people and reviewing footage, detectives arrested Coleman, who has been charged with malicious wounding and the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. "

Good to know there is video. Wondering if there is audio with that video. Probably not. But, there are apparently eye witnesses. Whatever that's worth.

If there is a trial, I guess the jury/judge will be able to see the video and hear from the witnesses. It is hard to know if this is like the KR case with so few details. It may be, or he could just be using self defense as an excuse. We really need more information.

I guess we have to wait and what the facts are.

My gut tells me I should be siding with him. Let’s see if I’m correct.

Anonymous wrote:
Oh brother. This is entirely different from Rittenhouse case. Rittenhouse was threatened by felons brandishing illegal weapons, threatening him verbally and chasing him as well as being bashed over the head with a skateboard. This sounds like someone with a gun and an impulse control problem.

Did he have a license for that gun, I wonder? Or a previous criminal record?

The gun was licensed and he called the police himself to report that he had shot someone in self defense.

You have no idea of any past crimes committed by the shooting victim just as Rittenhouse had no idea about the records of those chasing him.

Are we trying the case before all the evidence is presented?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don’t get to just shoot someone, who is unarmed, because they look like they are about to take a swing at you. This man is going to prison.

In the US, apparently you do in some situations.

Oh brother. This is entirely different from Rittenhouse case. Rittenhouse was threatened by felons brandishing illegal weapons, threatening him verbally and chasing him as well as being bashed over the head with a skateboard. This sounds like someone with a gun and an impulse control problem.

Did he have a license for that gun, I wonder? Or a previous criminal record?

Anonymous wrote:You don’t get to just shoot someone, who is unarmed, because they look like they are about to take a swing at you. This man is going to prison.

In the US, apparently you do in some situations.

You don’t get to just shoot someone, who is unarmed, because they look like they are about to take a swing at you. This man is going to prison.

You tell us what you think.

Anonymous wrote:This seems more like a Florida stand your ground case where the victim is dead so all the evidence is what the shooter tells police.

The victim is not dead.

This seems more like a Florida stand your ground case where the victim is dead so all the evidence is what the shooter tells police.

I just saw this in my Twitter feed:

Are there any significant differences between this and the Rittenhouse case?