Neighborhood Watch Captain Shoots Unarmed Boy

[Steak]

Originally Posted by Rustynuts

We're going off two reports now, so yes, based on the reports it does appear he drove up, FOLLOWED, and got out to confront the kid. All could be viewed as acts of escalation/aggression. What facts are you disputing?

Right and a lot if people here are convicting him guilty of murder and the damn police haven't even charged him with anything as of yet.

I like your use of words though; "does APPEAR", "COULD be".

I'm not disputing any facts rusty because we don't KNOW FOR SURE what they are and we don't know all of them

What I AM disputing is a lot of posters convicting one side based off of 2nd hand information and half of it is from a news reporter.

[Eremius]

Originally Posted by Steak

Right and a lot if people here are convicting him guilty of murder and the damn police haven't even charged him with anything as of yet.

The police don't charge anyone with anything. That is the job of the DA.

I'm not disputing any facts rusty because we don't KNOW FOR SURE what they are and we don't know all of them

We know FOR SURE he called 911 and was advised an officer was on the way and he was not to follow the person.

We also know FOR SURE he decided to follow in spite of what he was told.

What I AM disputing is a lot of posters convicting one side based off of 2nd hand information and half of it is from a news reporter.

And the other half is from the chief of police. Corroborating the first half.

[Steak]

Originally Posted by Eremius

The police don't charge anyone with anything. That is the job of the DA.

We know FOR SURE he called 911 and was advised an officer was on the way and he was not to follow the person.

We also know FOR SURE he decided to follow in spite of what he was told.

And the other half is from the chief of police. Corroborating the first half.

We know FOR SURE he called 911 and was advised an officer was on the way and he was not to follow the person.

We also know FOR SURE he decided to follow in spite of what he was told.

Come on smart ass, stop being nit picky. You know what I mean.


Again smart ass, the facts being discussed and disputed are what led to the shooting. What did the kid do if anything and why did the resident feel the need to shoot?

I posted my responses based on trying to be objective versus convicting the shooter like a lot of posters.

It appears you took all of my quotes and made your response with a very heavy layer of condescension.

Not a good way to debate.

Doesn't matter what the police chief says unless he is testifying in court against the shooter if it gets that far.

[agalindo]

Steak no need to start name calling.

[br0ck]

Originally Posted by Steak

Come on smart ass, stop being nit picky. You know what I mean.


Again smart ass, the facts being discussed and disputed are what led to the shooting. What did the kid do if anything and why did the resident feel the need to shoot?

I posted my responses based on trying to be objective versus convicting the shooter like a lot of posters.

It appears you took all of my quotes and made your response with a very heavy layer of condescension.

Not a good way to debate.

Doesn't matter what the police chief says unless he is testifying in court against the shooter if it gets that far.

There is no need for schoolyard name calling. You are trying to be objective versus convincting the shooter. Some of us are trying to be objective versus convicting the dead guy. The dead guy doesn't get an "innocent until proven guilty" luxury. He has already been considered guilty (and shot because of it). If we find out he was innocent after the fact... do you just go "oh well" and offer an apology? There were TWO parties in this scenario... by siding WITH one with the limited amount of info we have you are essentially siding AGAINST the other. Why would you side against the dead guy? What did he do that is making you side against him? Is it because he didn't have a gun... so we only side with gun owners? Is it because he was a kid... and all kids are always up to no good? Is it because he was black and statistics say that because he was black he MUST have been committing a crime? What is making you side with the gun owner right now and not the dead guy? If someone is innocent until proven guilty... shouldn't you afford that same courtesy to the dead guy? Shouldn't you assume he was innocent and shot for no reason until proof dictates otherwise? Or is there some other reason you aren't telling us for assuming HE was guilty and not the shooter?

[Steak]

Originally Posted by br0ck

There is no need for schoolyard name calling. You are trying to be objective versus convincting the shooter. Some of us are trying to be objective versus convicting the dead guy. The dead guy doesn't get an "innocent until proven guilty" luxury. He has already been considered guilty (and shot because of it). If we find out he was innocent after the fact... do you just go "oh well" and offer an apology? There were TWO parties in this scenario... by siding WITH one with the limited amount of info we have you are essentially siding AGAINST the other. Why would you side against the dead guy? What did he do that is making you side against him? Is it because he didn't have a gun... so we only side with gun owners? Is it because he was a kid... and all kids are always up to no good? Is it because he was black and statistics say that because he was black he MUST have been committing a crime? What is making you side with the gun owner right now and not the dead guy? If someone is innocent until proven guilty... shouldn't you afford that same courtesy to the dead guy? Shouldn't you assume he was innocent and shot for no reason until proof dictates otherwise? Or is there some other reason you aren't telling us for assuming HE was guilty and not the shooter?

Ok, instead of smart ass, how about I replace that with; stop trying to be smart.

Read all my posts. I haven't even mentioned the dead kid. You're asking me shouldn't I assume he was innocent and shot for no reason.

Since I never mentioned the kid at all how do you know that I'm not thinking he was innocent?

I'm asking that some objectivity be shown for he shooter since the debate was started by everyone coming to the dead kids defense and the automatic persecution of the shooter.


I don't recall reading in this post or saying myself the kid got what he deserved. So, to answer your question, what is making me side with the gun owner and not the kid? I'm not siding with anyone. I'm asking people be objective towards the shooter because everyone is condemning him and not the kid. If it was vice versa ( everyone jumping on the kid) then I'd be posting the same thing for the opposite side.

Wise up Brock.

[br0ck]

Originally Posted by Steak

Ok, instead of smart ass, how about I replace that with; stop trying to be smart.

Read all my posts. I haven't even mentioned the dead kid. You're asking me shouldn't I assume he was innocent and shot for no reason.

Since I never mentioned the kid at all how do you know that I'm not thinking he was innocent?

I'm asking that some objectivity be shown for he shooter since the debate was started by everyone coming to the dead kids defense and the automatic persecution of the shooter.


I don't recall reading in this post or saying myself the kid got what he deserved. So, to answer your question, what is making me side with the gun owner and not the kid? I'm not siding with anyone. I'm asking people be objective towards the shooter because everyone is condemning him and not the kid. If it was vice versa ( everyone jumping on the kid) then I'd be posting the same thing for the opposite side.

Wise up Brock.

You use "everyone" as an absolute. Have you not seen and read all of the posts defending the shooter? I have... thus the rebuttal.

Open your eyes Steak.

I am HOPING it was a justified shoot. Nothing has given me any indication of that yet though. The only "facts" I know are the shooter pursued the kid after being instructed not to. We know this could have been avoided but it wasn't. We have not been given any facts proving (or even indicating) that the dead guy did anything wrong... which is why until otherwise shown, I have to assume he wasn't doing anything wrong. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the shooter (people need to remember that). The good thing for the shooter is the main witness isn't gonna be talking so he at least has that going for him... and there is always reasonable doubt on your side. Yes there may be much much more to the story but if we aren't allowed to comment on what has been presented before us... why do we even have this thread here?

[Ocean82]

Originally Posted by CrAz3D

Race probably played into it. You see a black kid walking the streets in a rich white neighborhood, what do you think?

That his black parents have a really good job and I hope he doesn't waste his opportunity like any other spoiled kid.

[Eremius]

Originally Posted by Steak

Again smart ass, the facts being discussed and disputed are what led to the shooting.

I disagree

What did the kid do if anything and why did the resident feel the need to shoot?

None of this is fact, only speculation.

I posted my responses based on trying to be objective versus convicting the shooter like a lot of posters.

Maybe you should put that broad brush away and stop being so defensive.

It appears you took all of my quotes and made your response with a very heavy layer of condescension.

Not a good way to debate.

Maybe you shouldn't be so personally aggressive toward people who's opinion differs from your own.

Doesn't matter what the police chief says unless he is testifying in court against the shooter if it gets that far.

Not true. It helps form our opinions. Like the fact that he was told not to follow the kid.

[Steak]

Originally Posted by br0ck

You use "everyone" as an absolute. Have you not seen and read all of the posts defending the shooter? I have... thus the rebuttal.

Open your eyes Steak.

I am HOPING it was a justified shoot. Nothing has given me any indication of that yet though. The only "facts" I know are the shooter pursued the kid after being instructed not to. We know this could have been avoided but it wasn't. We have not been given any facts proving (or even indicating) that the dead guy did anything wrong... which is why until otherwise shown, I have to assume he wasn't doing anything wrong. The burden of proof is ALWAYS on the shooter (people need to remember that). The good thing for the shooter is the main witness isn't gonna be talking so he at least has that going for him... and there is always reasonable doubt on your side. Yes there may be much much more to the story but if we aren't allowed to comment on what has been presented before us... why do we even have this thread here?

Brock: we will see what happens. I used everyone meaning the majority. Not the literal definition.

Hopefully the person that posted this will follow and post updates.

Nice meeting you in the forum brock.