Jogging while black

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,565
7,076
113
Washington DC
Let's get the facts straight here: Magna Carta is the document that gave us free speech.
Yes, let's. Freedom of speech is mentioned nowhere in the Magna Carta.

A simple reference to the provision number will prove me wrong. Yet you haven't produced one.

Repetition doesn't add truth value. Calling something a fact don't make it a fact.

Sorry. Nice try though.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,565
7,076
113
Washington DC
What felony was he committing? He was just filming wasn't he?
Accessory before and during the fact to assault, assault with a deadly weapon, and murder.

The felony-murder rule says that if you are participating in the commission of a felony, and ANYBODY dies, it's murder.

That means if you're robbing a liquor store, and a responding cop shoots the owner dead, that's murder on YOU.

I've seen cases where a person was charged with murder because he was committing a felony and a responding cop had a traffic crash six blocks away on the way to the scene, killing someone.

Whether or not the accused was part of the plot is a matter of evidence. I did consider it a bit more than coincidental that he was following the decedent, recording with a mobile phone.

I'd call that a prima facie (though not yet proven) case of accessory.
 

IdRatherBeSkiing

Satelitte Radio Addict
May 28, 2007
14,608
2,359
113
Toronto, ON
Accessory before and during the fact to assault, assault with a deadly weapon, and murder.

The felony-murder rule says that if you are participating in the commission of a felony, and ANYBODY dies, it's murder.

That means if you're robbing a liquor store, and a responding cop shoots the owner dead, that's murder on YOU.

I've seen cases where a person was charged with murder because he was committing a felony and a responding cop had a traffic crash six blocks away on the way to the scene, killing someone.

Whether or not the accused was part of the plot is a matter of evidence. I did consider it a bit more than coincidental that he was following the decedent, recording with a mobile phone.

I'd call that a prima facie (though not yet proven) case of accessory.



Thanx for your explanation. I guess they feel that he was somehow connected to the assailants. In your example, a simple customer in the liquor store would not be guilty if the owner gets killed.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,565
7,076
113
Washington DC
Thanx for your explanation. I guess they feel that he was somehow connected to the assailants. In your example, a simple customer in the liquor store would not be guilty if the owner gets killed.
Correct. Only the felon. The prosecution will have to make the link that the accused was acting in concert with the McMichaels pair.
 

Dixie Cup

Senate Member
Sep 16, 2006
5,723
3,597
113
Edmonton
Oh boy, hear we go. In defense of Blackleaf: Because ALL the facts of the case are not known, we cannot assume anything. I supposed he should have stopped there but then he goes on to say that we can't call the two men murderers because they have not been tried and found guilty of murder - yet! I think (and I may be wrong) that's what he's trying to say and I don't believe that's racist at all because he's right. Feel free to call them murderers but they're not "technically" murderers until found guilty of murder.


See Hoid - it all goes back to "definitions" and how people perceive the meanings. I understand what he's saying but perhaps he could have worded it differently. But to the thin skinned here, assumptions are clearly allowed no matter the facts.


JMHO
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Oh boy, hear we go. In defense of Blackleaf: Because ALL the facts of the case are not known, we cannot assume anything. I supposed he should have stopped there but then he goes on to say that we can't call the two men murderers because they have not been tried and found guilty of murder - yet! I think (and I may be wrong) that's what he's trying to say and I don't believe that's racist at all because he's right. Feel free to call them murderers but they're not "technically" murderers until found guilty of murder.
See Hoid - it all goes back to "definitions" and how people perceive the meanings. I understand what he's saying but perhaps he could have worded it differently. But to the thin skinned here, assumptions are clearly allowed no matter the facts.
JMHO


Actually, it was him using the word "nigger" that earned him the racist moniker.