(11-25-2021, 09:10 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(11-25-2021, 05:40 AM)p_rushing Wrote: This one to me always depended on what the laws in GA say. He was trespassing and breaking the law by entering the home. They say there were break-ins in the neighborhood. He was seen previously and was there frequently. He had a long history of crimes, I think even once before using the excuse he was jogging.

It doesn't sound like he stole anything in the house, not sure about the neighborhood. Originally they said they were trying to detain him but I saw something where one of them said they weren't threatened at any time. So they convicted themselves with the testimony. So if following or searching for someone that you suspect is a criminal is against the law, then they broke it. Stopping the truck to try to get him to stop didn't show anything, if they wanted to shoot him, they could have easily just done it while in the truck.

Then you have the fight. Unless something was said, they weren't threatening him other than them having guys which is legal in GA. So not sure why he turns towards the gun and then fights over it. There weren't any shots fired until the fight over the gun. So it all came down to who broke the law first.


I didn't follow the trial but it sounded like they really didn't try to put up any defense.

You have someone who is dead because he ran away and then fought for a gun. If you are just running or not breaking the law, just talk to them and the cops if necessary. Then you can deal with it afterwards and sue for money if it's a racist thing.

You have 3 people in jail for life because they didn't just follow him, although it does sound like they are racist or at least prejudice to think a crime was being committed. They also chose to get out of the truck and put themselves in harm's way.


Terrible choices all around by everyone. All the people involved probably had their lives shaped by a bunch of terrible choices impacted heavily by democrats.

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

Yeah, it's always a good idea for a lone black guy to stop and talk to three white guys with guns who are chasing him through backwoods Georgia. That is always a safe thing to do. The chasers should've called the cops and followed at a distance AT MOST. Chasing him, trying to stop him, blocking his path, getting out of the trucks, and carrying their weapons while doing so all threatened the guy into a response. Then when he did the moron couldn't even protect his weapon and ended up killing the guy. The wanna pretend it was a "citizen's arrest" but we know it was far more sinister than that.

That whole "citizen's arrest" thing fell apart when, by the defendant's own testimony, they didn't know for sure he had committed a crime.  You are only allowed to make a citizen's arrest if you actually see a crime occur.  You cannot make a citizen's arrest on suspicion.   A civilian cannot chase someone down and pull a gun on them with the intent of detaining them if all they have is suspicion.  

Besides, the "citizen's arrest" idea didn't come up until the trial.  They never told the police or anyone that they had been trying to make a citizen's arrest.  Only at trial.  So it was something their lawyers obviously cooked up.

---