Jogging while black

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
You quoted Gerryh in post 28:
Let's ask a lawyer, trog.
Bones, do american civilians have the right to shoot and kill an unarmed man because they "think" he "may" have perpetrated a crime?

And then you reply with this:
You don't know that's what happened.
For all you know, they KNOW he committed the crime. They probably caught him in the act and went after him. You've got no idea what went on.

So I DIDN'T post that he definitely committed a burglary.

Thanks for clearing that up.
 

Serryah

Executive Branch Member
Dec 3, 2008
8,914
2,046
113
New Brunswick
So I DIDN'T post that he definitely committed a burglary.

Thanks for clearing that up.


"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.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
For smart people, there are 63 articles or provisions in the Magna Carta. Not one of them refers to freedom of speech.
You'll note Blackshirt did not specify which article recognizes freedom of speech. That would be because he's never read the document.

Magna Carta began the process of assuring free speech, freedom of expression and paved the way for a free press.

Without Magna Carta, we'd have no free speech.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
"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.

Thanks for proving me right yet again.
 

Avro52

Time Out
Mar 19, 2020
3,635
5
36
So I DIDN'T post that he definitely committed a burglary.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Yeah you did.

Post #10.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,436
7,004
113
Washington DC
Magna Carta began the process of assuring free speech, freedom of expression and paved the way for a free press.
Without Magna Carta, we'd have no free speech.
Began the process? Well the bloody process took almost 500 years. The Magna Carta was in 1215, and Englishmen could not be said to have anything recognizable as free speech until the Bill of Rights in 1689. (If you subtract 1215 from 1689, you'll get 474, which is to say people smarter than you will get 474, and thus "almost 500" is valid, because 474 is just a hair shy of three-quarters of the way from 400 to 500.) Even that "free speech" was sharply limited by laws on sedition, "causing distress and anxiety," and what-have-you.

It really wasn't until 1962, when a trial at the Old Bailey established that "Lady Chatterly's Lover" could be published that you really had anything close to free speech. And you've been chipping away at it ever since, with things like the Malicious Communications Act of 1988, the Communications Act of 2003, ASBOs, and the withdrawal of Britain from the European Convention on Human Rights.

And there you have it. More history in two paragraphs than the great British education system could pound into what little brain you have in a decade or so.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
Began the process? Well the bloody process took almost 500 years. The Magna Carta was in 1215, and Englishmen could not be said to have anything recognizable as free speech until the Bill of Rights in 1689. (If you subtract 1215 from 1689, you'll get 474, which is to say people smarter than you will get 474, and thus "almost 500" is valid, because 474 is just a hair shy of three-quarters of the way from 400 to 500.) Even that "free speech" was sharply limited by laws on sedition, "causing distress and anxiety," and what-have-you.
It really wasn't until 1962, when a trial at the Old Bailey established that "Lady Chatterly's Lover" could be published that you really had anything close to free speech. And you've been chipping away at it ever since, with things like the Malicious Communications Act of 1988, the Communications Act of 2003, ASBOs, and the withdrawal of Britain from the European Convention on Human Rights.
And there you have it. More history in two paragraphs than the great British education system could pound into what little brain you have in a decade or so.

It doesn't matter how long it took.

It was Magna Carta which helped give us free speech.

As a result of Magna Carta, the English people were freer centuries before their European neighbours.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,436
7,004
113
Washington DC
It doesn't matter how long it took.
It was Magna Carta which helped give us free speech.
As a result of Magna Carta, the English people were freer centuries before their European neighbours.
Assuming you read and understood what I wrote (which I doubt), you are now no smarter than you were yesterday at this time.

Or twenty years ago at this time.

It's OK. We still need swabbies and warehouse schleppers for a while, before their simple tasks are automated to the point they can be done by fairly stupid robots, then you and yours can join the ranks of the dole bludgers.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
Assuming you read and understood what I wrote (which I doubt), you are now no smarter than you were yesterday at this time.
Or twenty years ago at this time.
It's OK. We still need swabbies and warehouse schleppers for a while, before their simple tasks are automated to the point they can be done by fairly stupid robots, then you and yours can join the ranks of the dole bludgers.



Please keep in mind, just because the useless prick says he was in the royal navy doesnt mean he was, and just because he says he work, doesnt mean he does. He lies through his teeth.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,436
7,004
113
Washington DC
Please keep in mind, just because the useless prick says he was in the royal navy doesnt mean he was, and just because he says he work, doesnt mean he does. He lies through his teeth.
I have no way to prove it, just as you have no way to verify that I'm a USAF veteran and attorney.

Getting into handbag fights with people over what they say about themselves on an internet forum is futile even by the standards of this place.

So I'm willing to grant arguendo that he was the dumber end of a swab in Her Majesty's Bathtub Toys, and that he's now a low-skilled piece of meat shifting boxes in a warehouse.

Actually, there's a ring of truth in the fact that the pathetic loser is actually proud of those "achievements."
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
Assuming you read and understood what I wrote (which I doubt), you are now no smarter than you were yesterday at this time.
Or twenty years ago at this time.
It's OK. We still need swabbies and warehouse schleppers for a while, before their simple tasks are automated to the point they can be done by fairly stupid robots, then you and yours can join the ranks of the dole bludgers.

Well I'm still obviously a lot smarter than you.

I'm right about Magna Carta... you're not.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
he's now a low-skilled piece of meat

So probably like most people, then.

But, yeah, let's get rid of all the low-skilled vermin - those working in warehouses, supermarkets and shops, those important people who, for obvious reasons, have to keep working during lockdown.

People looking after the elderly, sweeping the streets, cleaning windows, petrol station attendants, hospital porters, cleaners.

They're all low-skilled scumbags and aren't needed.
 
Last edited:

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
55,436
7,004
113
Washington DC
Well I'm still obviously a lot smarter than you.
I'm right about Magna Carta... you're not.
I've read the Magna Carta. . . you haven't.

Stick with pushing a mop and shifting boxes. You're apparently at least marginally competent in those fields.

Funny part is, now you'll never read the Magna Carta, because deep down inside, you know I'm right and you're wrong, and you won't be able to deny it to yourself if you actually read the document.

You should thank me for helping you fortify your walls of ignorance.
 
Last edited:

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
So probably like most people, then.
But, yeah, let's get rid of all the low-skilled vermin - those working in warehouses, supermarkets and shops, those important people who, for obvious reasons, have to keep working during lockdown.
People looking after the elderly, sweeping the streets, cleaning windows, petrol station attendants, hospital porters, cleaners.
They're all low-skilled scumbags and aren't needed.

Ones like yourself, I agree completely, get rid of you, not needed by anyone. Easily replaced.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
I've read the Magna Carta

No, you haven't.

Stick with pushing a mop and shifting boxes. You're apparently at least marginally competent in those fields.
Funny part is, now you'll never read the Magna Carta, because deep down inside, you know I'm right and you're wrong, and you won't be able to deny it to yourself if you actually read the document.
You should thank me for helping you fortify your walls of ignorance.

Let's get the facts straight here: Magna Carta is the document that gave us free speech.

And the Americans love it so much, it influenced the US Constitution.