I grew up in a neighborhood where all the houses were new mcmansions being built. As a kid we would play inside the houses - like 10 kids playing hide and seek. I got a nail through my foot twice (ouch). Nobody ever told us to stay out of the houses or mentioned it was trespassing. I guess an adult should know better, but it honestly didn't occur to me that there would be anything bad from just stepping onto a construction site to look around. It's very interesting - I have to admit I would be intrigued to look how a house is being built in my neighborhood and it would be difficult for me to not wander in once or twice to see how things are going. Perhaps this guy was doing some other shady stuff but the video to me means absolutely nothing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These men have a right to a fair trial. Innocent until proven guilty.

What about the victim’s right to a fair trial?

You’re right, he should have had a fair trial for his trespassing charges. No one is right here.

People are only innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

You don’t need a court to tell you they are guilty of murdering somebody.

Also it’s not trespassing.

Kids fit my lawn all the time to get to the basketball court behind my house. Being on my lawn is not trespassing.

It’s not because you allow it. A construction site - even if it’s unfinished - is private property. He was trespassing. No bones about it. Because other people do it, or there’s no lock on the door, that’s irrelevant.

I’m certainly not saying he deserves to die for it, but it is trespassing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter how many times this happens, bigots who are sympathetic to the shooters will introduce some irrelevant event that happened earlier to justify bigots murdering an unarmed black man. Every. Time.

It’s a common deflection tactic.

Yes and it’s disgusting. They did not have the right to murder him no matter what he did. That’s what I said at the beginning and I will continue to say it- there is simply no justification for this murder.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These men have a right to a fair trial. Innocent until proven guilty.

What about the victim’s right to a fair trial?

You’re right, he should have had a fair trial for his trespassing charges. No one is right here.

People are only innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

You don’t need a court to tell you they are guilty of murdering somebody.

Also it’s not trespassing.

Kids fit my lawn all the time to get to the basketball court behind my house. Being on my lawn is not trespassing.

Anonymous wrote:

Is there a longer version of this?

I think the narrative about his jog is going to change and I wish people would wait before they push those stories. The guy didn’t deserve to get killed (or even arrested by his fellow citizens) but I think it’s going to come out that he wasn’t jogging in cargo shorts and whatever shoes he had on and I think it will damage the way the crime against him is perceived.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No matter how many times this happens, bigots who are sympathetic to the shooters will introduce some irrelevant event that happened earlier to justify bigots murdering an unarmed black man. Every. Time.

It’s a common deflection tactic.

And an attempt to create a false equivalency (trespassing = murder). Pathetic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These men have a right to a fair trial. Innocent until proven guilty.

What about the victim’s right to a fair trial?

You’re right, he should have had a fair trial for his trespassing charges. No one is right here.

Ah, the old “There are fine people on both sides” argument.

Anonymous wrote:No matter how many times this happens, bigots who are sympathetic to the shooters will introduce some irrelevant event that happened earlier to justify bigots murdering an unarmed black man. Every. Time.

It’s a common deflection tactic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well there goes the bloom off that rose.

Those certainly don’t look like boots. I was told he was wearing work boots.

He was wearing Nike tee is shoes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These men have a right to a fair trial. Innocent until proven guilty.

What about the victim’s right to a fair trial?

You’re right, he should have had a fair trial for his trespassing charges. No one is right here.

No one goes to trial on trespassing charges. It’s a citation.

No matter how many times this happens, bigots who are sympathetic to the shooters will introduce some irrelevant event that happened earlier to justify bigots murdering an unarmed black man. Every. Time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of this matters.

Why, because those two stupid idiots with guns killed a man who did not have a gun.

They are not police officers.

They killed someone period, who was not in anyway threatening their lives to the point they had to shoot.

There is zero defense here. Doesn't matter the character of the guy shot, he didn't have a gun. He wasn't attacking them.

Anyone defending them is sick....

Didn't the jogger attack the guy who was standing outside the pick-up truck holding the rifle? At that point it becomes a lethal force situation. The hillbillies created the situation, but it wasn't a tactically smart move on the joggers part. Maybe he didn't see the second guy in the bed of the pick-up truck with a rifle? In some ways this is kind of George Zimmerman 2.0.

At that point it becomes a lethal force situation?? Not when the chased him with a truck and guns? Not when the son got out of the truck holding a shot gun? Charging the shooter is self defense. If you go to mug me with a gun, we struggle and you shoot me, that’s not self defense even if I’m the one who initiated the struggle.

I never said it wasn't self defense. What do you think would happen if the jogger got a hold of the rifle?

Idk but he would still be the one with a claim to self defense. They were chasing him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:None of this matters.

Why, because those two stupid idiots with guns killed a man who did not have a gun.

They are not police officers.

They killed someone period, who was not in anyway threatening their lives to the point they had to shoot.

There is zero defense here. Doesn't matter the character of the guy shot, he didn't have a gun. He wasn't attacking them.

Anyone defending them is sick....

Didn't the jogger attack the guy who was standing outside the pick-up truck holding the rifle? At that point it becomes a lethal force situation. The hillbillies created the situation, but it wasn't a tactically smart move on the joggers part. Maybe he didn't see the second guy in the bed of the pick-up truck with a rifle? In some ways this is kind of George Zimmerman 2.0.

At that point it becomes a lethal force situation?? Not when the chased him with a truck and guns? Not when the son got out of the truck holding a shot gun? Charging the shooter is self defense. If you go to mug me with a gun, we struggle and you shoot me, that’s not self defense even if I’m the one who initiated the struggle.

I never said it wasn't self defense. What do you think would happen if the jogger got a hold of the rifle?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These men have a right to a fair trial. Innocent until proven guilty.

What about the victim’s right to a fair trial?

You’re right, he should have had a fair trial for his trespassing charges. No one is right here.