He was not in a home. He was not intruding. This does not apply. But even so, I don't believe one of those conditions would apply.
Jogging while black
- Thread starter Avro52
- Start date
He was not in a home. He was not intruding. This does not apply. But even so, I don't believe one of those conditions would apply.
You obviously don't entirely believe that great staple of the English Common Law because you think it doesn't apply to those men who you are accusing of being murderers.
You are the one saying he was burglarizing a place, where's your proof of it?
There's no mention of him having anything in his hands that would be taken from any homes.
There's nothing I saw in the video like a pack that they could say was hiding something.
And again, you're wrong. I'm not saying he's entirely innocent.
You really need to learn to read.
I'm saying that the men who shot him had no reason to shoot him, for they are not the police. They followed him, and shot him. The moment they followed him, all the excuses you keep using in their defense vanishes.
Have you been to the trial of these fellows and seen all the evidence laid out before the court?
If not, then I don't think you should be making such comments.
Just because he wasn't carrying anything that was nicked doesn't mean he wasn't attempting to carry out a burglary.
If he was, then those fellows seem to be acting according to the law.
Considering they were JUST arrested and charged two months after the fact, there's yet to be evidence to present.
And why it took so long, because of people needing to recuse themselves from the case because they knew the father of the main shooter. An ex cop.
Who should have known better.
If there's no proof he burglarized a place, then they had no legal reason to go after him and shoot him.
Care to open the hole in your argument further?
How do you know there's no proof he burglarised a property?
Are you familiar with his whereabouts and his activities prior to his killing?
No, you aren't.
What holes?
Just because someone is arrested and charged doesn't mean they did it.
Often is the case people are found Not Guilty.
They will have their day in court. You are the one who says they shouldn't have been charged.
No doubt, if or when they are found Not Guilty, you and your little woke friends will start crying, call it a miscarriage of justice and for them still to be locked up anyway.
That's how it usually works.
You obviously don't get it yet.
He's cheering for those guys.
