You can disagree, but if someone that's not in a patrol car pulls their vehicle in front of me in an attempt to block me and then gets out with a shotgun I'm not sure I'll wait for much else before I draw.oljames3 wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 7:06 pmRespectfully, I agree to disagree.clarionite wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 1:41 pmI wasn't saying it would be different because of Texas law. It would have been different had the jogger been a LTC holder exercising his rights.
More than likely the shotgun wielder would not be alive to stand trial.
Search found 3 matches
Return to “GA: "Jogger" chased and murdered”
- Fri May 15, 2020 7:24 pm
- Forum: The Crime Blotter
- Topic: GA: "Jogger" chased and murdered
- Replies: 311
- Views: 104883
Re: GA: "Jogger" chased and murdered
- Fri May 15, 2020 1:41 pm
- Forum: The Crime Blotter
- Topic: GA: "Jogger" chased and murdered
- Replies: 311
- Views: 104883
Re: GA: "Jogger" chased and murdered
I wasn't saying it would be different because of Texas law. It would have been different had the jogger been a LTC holder exercising his rights.oljames3 wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 2:26 pmYes, clarionite, the result under Texas law would be different because GA law is different from Texas law. In particular the law on carrying openly. Attorney Andrew Branca did a good job of explaining GA law during a Facebook LIVE discussion today. https://www.facebook.com/LawofSelfDefen ... 727001133/clarionite wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 12:19 pmI think you're absolutely correct with this TAM. I have to compare and contrast this to the Travon Martin case. I believed Zimmerman was correct in following and trying to be a good witness and was attacked simply for following Martin. This was supported with the prosecutions own witnesses.The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 11:57 am Well, maybe you’re right and I’m wrong. I can only call 'em like I see 'em, and in this particular case, it seems like both the McMichaels and Aubrey would have been better served if the McMichaels had simply tried to be good witnesses. But they clearly went beyond that line when they decided to chase him down and try to detain him, when they could have merely stayed in the daggum car, avoided direct contact, and tailed him and directed police to his location. I’m telling all of you right now, stuff like THIS is why I have insurance..... for those times when I’m not home to order someone off of my property, and he or she breaks into my house and takes something. But an empty, unfinished house in mid-construction in my neighborhood? Nah. Just call the cops and let them deal with it. That’s what they get paid for. I don’t.
And if I were the owner of that unfinished house, my answer would be, "I have property insurance. Thank you for your concern, but please don't put yourselves at risk on behalf of my property. If you see me getting a beat-down, then by all means help me if you can, and I’ll welcome any help you can give, and return the favor if the shoe's on the other foot. But for property crimes? let the police make the arrests, and my insurance company will make me whole if there’s any damage to or theft of my property."
There’s an obvious caveat here.... if someone is intent on going through me to get to my property, then self defense comes into play. But if I come home just in time to see someone go roaring out of my driveway with my lawnmower in the back of their truck, AT MOST I'd follow at a safe distance, dial 911, and direct officers to the location of that truck.
In this case they attempted to play cop. They confronted him with guns drawn. Had it been any of us on this forum that had been the jogger who looked around a newly constructed home and were then accosted by someone blocking you with their vehicle and brandishing firearms, the story might have read a little differently for at least one of the father son duo. Had they waited for the police to arrive and were good witnesses, then when the race baiting stories came out that he was confronted because he was jogging while black came out I'd have dismissed them. I'd have seen this as residents of a neighborhood keeping an eye out for their community. I'm not saying I think the jogger was shot because of his race. But It does give credibility to the theory of why they decided he was guilty and had to shoot him.
As I tell all my students in my LTC class, they have the responsibility to avoid confrontation if at all possible. Fault and blame can't factor into it. Because they know they're carrying, and they know what the outcome of the situation can become if they allow the situation to escalate. I also tell them that although the law allows deadly force in defense of property in some cases, that I don't have any possessions worth the money it'll take to defend myself in the trial. And I definitely don't have anything worth taking another's life over and having to live with that for the rest of mine.
I don't know what possessions my neighbor has, but they're not worth my life or me taking another's life for. I'll be as good a witness as I can for him. And I'll even defend his life if I can. But I hope he's got good insurance. And if he doesn't, well that's something he'll have to evaluate after he replaces his belongings.
More than likely the shotgun wielder would not be alive to stand trial.
- Thu May 14, 2020 12:19 pm
- Forum: The Crime Blotter
- Topic: GA: "Jogger" chased and murdered
- Replies: 311
- Views: 104883
Re: GA: "Jogger" chased and murdered
I think you're absolutely correct with this TAM. I have to compare and contrast this to the Travon Martin case. I believed Zimmerman was correct in following and trying to be a good witness and was attacked simply for following Martin. This was supported with the prosecutions own witnesses.The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 11:57 am Well, maybe you’re right and I’m wrong. I can only call 'em like I see 'em, and in this particular case, it seems like both the McMichaels and Aubrey would have been better served if the McMichaels had simply tried to be good witnesses. But they clearly went beyond that line when they decided to chase him down and try to detain him, when they could have merely stayed in the daggum car, avoided direct contact, and tailed him and directed police to his location. I’m telling all of you right now, stuff like THIS is why I have insurance..... for those times when I’m not home to order someone off of my property, and he or she breaks into my house and takes something. But an empty, unfinished house in mid-construction in my neighborhood? Nah. Just call the cops and let them deal with it. That’s what they get paid for. I don’t.
And if I were the owner of that unfinished house, my answer would be, "I have property insurance. Thank you for your concern, but please don't put yourselves at risk on behalf of my property. If you see me getting a beat-down, then by all means help me if you can, and I’ll welcome any help you can give, and return the favor if the shoe's on the other foot. But for property crimes? let the police make the arrests, and my insurance company will make me whole if there’s any damage to or theft of my property."
There’s an obvious caveat here.... if someone is intent on going through me to get to my property, then self defense comes into play. But if I come home just in time to see someone go roaring out of my driveway with my lawnmower in the back of their truck, AT MOST I'd follow at a safe distance, dial 911, and direct officers to the location of that truck.
In this case they attempted to play cop. They confronted him with guns drawn. Had it been any of us on this forum that had been the jogger who looked around a newly constructed home and were then accosted by someone blocking you with their vehicle and brandishing firearms, the story might have read a little differently for at least one of the father son duo. Had they waited for the police to arrive and were good witnesses, then when the race baiting stories came out that he was confronted because he was jogging while black came out I'd have dismissed them. I'd have seen this as residents of a neighborhood keeping an eye out for their community. I'm not saying I think the jogger was shot because of his race. But It does give credibility to the theory of why they decided he was guilty and had to shoot him.
As I tell all my students in my LTC class, they have the responsibility to avoid confrontation if at all possible. Fault and blame can't factor into it. Because they know they're carrying, and they know what the outcome of the situation can become if they allow the situation to escalate. I also tell them that although the law allows deadly force in defense of property in some cases, that I don't have any possessions worth the money it'll take to defend myself in the trial. And I definitely don't have anything worth taking another's life over and having to live with that for the rest of mine.
I don't know what possessions my neighbor has, but they're not worth my life or me taking another's life for. I'll be as good a witness as I can for him. And I'll even defend his life if I can. But I hope he's got good insurance. And if he doesn't, well that's something he'll have to evaluate after he replaces his belongings.