"They probably caught him in the act"
That's what you said, meaning you thought he was committing the crime.
Also, you forgot to look at the posts.
That's okay, not shocked. You need to be spoon fed.
So just ignore all that and carry on virtue signalling.
You don't know everything about what went on here and about what that guy was doing in the neighbourhood.
Going for a jog? Seems like a great excuse to me.
"Nah, he wasn't robbing people's homes. He was just out for a jog!"
It seems to be perfectly legal in Georgia to shoot a home intruder.
The law has three stipulations, one of which must fit:
The intrusion is “violent and tumultuous” and the resident believes its purpose is “assaulting or offering personal violence” to someone inside.
The intruder is “not a member of the family or household,” meaning you can shoot strangers who break in, but not someone who lives with you and just lost the door key.
The resident believes the intruder broke in to commit a felony and deadly force is required to stop it.
These really highlight that you thought he was a burglar.
Have you got any evidence that he was not burglarising and was merely going for an innocent jog?
No, you haven't. Yet you tell us his killing is unjustified.
There's no mention in this law that you can't shoot a burglar in the street.
What I'm is doing is trying to get you to stop saying these men are guilty of murder when they aren't. Thanks to the British Empire, they are innocent until proven guilty in a lawful court. The trial could determine that they killed this man lawfully as he was committing burglary or some other crime. It is quite wrong, as has been happening on this thread, to suddenly assume these men killed him unlawfully and are murderers. He could be the felon, not they.
Well he wouldn't have been tried had he only committed the burglary just before he was killed, would he?
And they don't have to wait for a court of law to find him guilty before they shoot him. They can shoot him straight away.
And in response to TB "Blackleaf is funny. He says they were entitled to kill a man because they "thought he might be a burglar," but we can't call them murderers until it's definitively proven."
You said this:
Correct.
Seems like someone's finally starting to understand.
And it's not the person I expected it to have been.
In several places, you insisted he committed burglary to justify the shooting, moaning about how the shooters needed to be proven murderers in court, but that the jogger didn't need to have his time in court for the charge because the shooters could lawfully shoot a burglar.
Which he was not.
And they never did have the right.
Now I know you will squirm and wiggle yourself out of admitting you were wrong - you always do - but your own words damn you, again.