patrick.net

WookieMan says

I've said it probably wasn't handled correctly. It's not about that though. I'm strictly speaking about the legal aspect of it. I don't see an infraction that's above a misdemeanor by the two dudes though. I personally would not have come out with a gun, but if it's legal, so be it.

There should be more "constables" which are citizens, that have been trained and authorized to play Charles Bronson, by the local police authorities.
Folks who have been trained to coordinate with dispatch and the police dept, to make sure there is no confusion or that the hero dogooder, isn't a second gunman seen outside the scene. Which is what happens all too often after a shooting. There was a clerk in NYC that is now going to jail for shooting a robber coming after him with a knife.

We need laws that protects these people, and makes it clear that's what the 2nd amendment is for.

Your support of the shooters, would be like me defending an excellent driver fiddling with items in glove compartment, and changing the radio, while he plowed through a school zone killing a couple children crossing the street. Was there things he could have done differently? Sure there is, always be careful and never take your eyes off the road, and always maintain control of the vehicle. You can't arbitrarily say "Well he's a good guy, he didn't mean no harm by it, it was an accident."

It's less about punishing him, as it is about driving home to others, why they should always think and consider their actions.

And 80% of the gun owners out there, have not had training to run into a violent situation with a fleeing felonious suspect.
No matter how noble the cause, the outcome should be their responsibility to bare. If it were common knowledge that these wanna be heroes end up making mistakes and it's not as easy as cops on TV makes it look. Then people would be less incline to go charging in, unless they have had proper training, or have gotten some local Constable credentials.

The majority of those not trained to do so, never would chase after a suspect that potentially robbed a neighbor's construction site. They would follow him and do other things to make sure he gets caught when the police come. But they would run out there and engage in gun play.

You can shoot a bad guy all day long if you and he are on the same scene at the same time during the commission of the crime. So should the would be victim. We need to protect them, not these crackpot lunatics just itching to bag their first perp.

Also did you acknowledge that I said, the majority of these grey area shootings, are always caused by people who were rejected from Law enforcement or even military because those organizations did not deem them fit to be at large armed and dangerous?

We can't keep protecting these people, and would be people like them, need to be educated that they might get in some deep shit, if it goes wrong.
I don't think people realize, their actions would only be lawful and heroic, only if all goes to plan. Even the pros consider every scenario before they go charging in.

"Should I grab this shotgun and go running in? Nah better not, what if the idiot grabs the barrel, I'll have to shoot him?"

CBOEtrader says

He probably just didnt want to go to jail and overreacted.

This is quite likely, here is another possibility; maybe in addition to the fact he didn’t want to talk to the po po, he had struck out on a night of attempted thievery and when he saw the gun he saw a way to really make some money by stealing a gun. Either way, the assault and attempt to grab the gun is the bridge too far for any innocent person’s behavior. It is dishonest to say the departed was not in the wrong, and even more dishonest to suggest the people who were attacked set out to kill. They could have killed him anytime and not shared the video and more importantly not called the police, if killing was their intent. Here’s a clue, the criminals don’t call the police before they commit a crime. On the other hand when criminals get caught they run and resist arrest. It is fiction and foolish to invent stories of racism or other propaganda when the most reasonable answer is the three men who are still alive underestimated the recklessness of a criminal. So now they will have to explain to us all that their assumption that a criminal would be reasonable and wait for the police to arrive was wrong. But unfortunately for the people who want to punish these men for attempting to protect their neighborhood (don’t forget that if we allow people to steal or trespass on one persons things we might as well let people steal or trespass on everyone) it is not unreasonable or illegal to assume someone will be reasonable nor is it unreasonable or illegal to use deadly force when a person is punching you in the face or trying to grab your own firearm.

Tenpoundbass says

You can shoot a bad guy all day long if you and he are on the same scene at the same time during the commission of the crime

This is not true. Even police officers by law -in my state anyway- cannot use deadly force unless confronted with a criminal who appears to be an imminent threat to their own life or the life of another human being. Using a gun to send a projectile into the body of a horse thief for example is illegal, unless the horse thief is threatening by their actions violence on another person. I will say it again, the police cannot use deadly force to stop a non-violent crime. Neither can you. We are limited by divine right to only use deadly force in defense against violence.

PeopleUnited says

He probably just didnt want to go to jail and overreacted.

If the suspect truly committed a crime that was worthy of being chased down and killed I believe the law enforcement would have said so and this whole case would be over. What has happened is that is that there was no crime. There was no justification to make an arrest - particularly once the "suspect" fled. We can argue trespass all day long but without a fence and a closed door, it is simply not trespass. Never mind the fact that they didn't chase down the MANY others that showed up on the video - only this particular person. There was no long term occupation. We can argue all day long but I am guessing we will see what the jury thinks and what the DA represents - if it was a crime to begin with.

Note I am not saying murder1 etc... But the killers instigated the entire confrontation in a most irresponsible manner and should be accountable. Manslaughter... Perhaps the DA will overcharge and they will get off when jury thinks life term. Not sure how it works in GA.

The killers "thought" he did something - now they are in trouble because he wasn't robbing that location. You can claim he was "casing" but apparently (though I don't know if this is true or not) the killers had a run in with the suspect the previous week where they told him to leave the neighborhood - I guess because he wasn't from the neighborhood and I guess in GA you can't just go wandering in a neighborhood that I thought would be open to anyone. Owner has stated multiple times that the "suspect" as well as others were "looky-loos" and nothing was ever taken or damaged. Odd, if there was such a concern, that the owner has done his best to throw the killers under the bus as well. Maybe he is concerned about liability as well - since he did the "cheap" web cam as security vs putting up a fence and door.

It was a clear idiotic rush to judgement.

The mistake the suspect made was not carrying a weapon and firing back immediately when someone pulls out a gun.... So, if you are in GA - remember - go well armed.
:)

krc says

If the suspect truly committed a crime that was worthy of being chased down and killed I believe the law enforcement would have said so and this whole case would be over. What has happened is that is that there was no crime.

It was over until busybodies made LE to open/reopen the case. Just like with Zim/Trayvon. Only to waste shitload of taxpayer money on futile attempt to prosecute, ultimately arriving to the same point where it all started. There is a very good chance the same will happen here.

WookieMan says

krc says

within his immediate knowledge.

This is where looking up laws will fuck you over. There's a reason the language is very vague. These 4 words get the two hick's off. Followed by this.

krc says

attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

Suspicion. Probable. The law is in their favor. I don't like it and you clearly don't either, but it's water under the bridge at this point. They won't be convicted of anything more severe than a traffic ticket.

I agree we really need to see how this is interpreted. To me, the reading of the full text is that the private person may arrest only upon reasonable grounds of a "felony" and AND attempting to escape. The "crime" certainly wasn't in the killers presence, so they had no idea what was done. He showed up on a security camera, the idiots get a call, and go chasing him down. I doubt they reviewed the footage, etc... I think that is why the charges are not just "murder" but illegal detention and go the crux of the matter: they had no justification to even make an arrest. Note that I am not saying the "set out to kill him" but they created a situation where someone ended up dead due to the killers negligence, lack of care, and lack of responsibility.

"A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion."

PeopleUnited says

This is not true. Even police officers by law -in my state anyway- cannot use deadly force unless confronted with a criminal who appears to be an imminent threat to their own life or the life of another human being. Using a gun to send a projectile into the body of a horse thief for example is illegal, unless the horse thief is threatening by their actions violence on another person. I will say it again, the police cannot use deadly force to stop a non-violent crime. Neither can you. We are limited by divine right to only use deadly force in defense against violence.

Naturally I was speaking purely in terms of stopping a violent attack or armed intruder threatening people. And it's not a clear cut and dry law now. But I say we need laws that protect armed citizens protecting themselves and their homes, while making it clear what other accidental deaths with gun play, you'll be on your own with your lawyer and jury deciding your fate of Laws you clearly broke. If people understood these laws, they would be less inclined to run in and play Texas Walker Ranger.
As it's the same class of idiots time and time again. As you and I would not do something so haphazardly foolish.

covid_shmovid says

krc says

If the suspect truly committed a crime that was worthy of being chased down and killed I believe the law enforcement would have said so and this whole case would be over. What has happened is that is that there was no crime.

It was over until busybodies made LE to open/reopen the case. Just like with Zim/Trayvon. Only to waste shitload of taxpayer money on futile attempt to prosecute, ultimately arriving to the same point where it all started. There is a very good chance the same will happen here.

No. It was over until the idiotic killers decided that letting the video out was a good idea. :)

krc says

... decided that letting the video out was a good idea. :)

That was a weird decision. A real head-scratcher.