Posted on 06/28/2023 8:01:55 AM PDT by fruser1
If you read the Daily Mail article new video evidence has been reviewed which likely gainsays the initial claims made about what happened.
Remember too that witnesses are not always reliable and it could be those who said she told her son to keep shooting may have reason to be less than truthful.
If new evidence has come to light which means the DA is unlikely to meet the burden of proof I think the decision is the right one.
If you watch the video of the attack the assailant sounds and acts high or drunk.
“And most everyone here would be rightly defending the boy’s use of deadly force. Why not now when the boy is black?”
I read those comments as pointing out the hypocrisy of Minaj and the legacy media.
If the mom and boy were white with a dead black man on the ground, they would both be in jail with charges pending. The DA would charge the mom with murder, the boy with murder and the boy with illegal possession of a firearm and the mom with contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
The DA would be moving to try the 14 year old as a white supremacist adult.
And the DA would be adding hate crime charges.
Minaj, Crump and Sharpton would be conducting anti-hate candlelight vigils and demanding that the city give them money.
Of course this was appropriate case of self-defense or defense of another. The only legitimate charge would be the handgun possession charge against the minor and, if the mom gave him the gun, contributing to delinquency.
“with other customers in the store looking on in horror and running away.”
This is a problem with society. Perhaps if the other customers would have stepped in the man would be alive. How many of the other customers pulled out their phones to video this altercation?
That's what they teach their children. It's a generational thing. Killing people you think disrespected you is the norm.
Lucky the teen and mother were black. Had that been a white teen and mother they would be locked up for life.
Moolies are special, if you punch one, they can order an underage kid to kill them, take the gun from them and leave the scene. NO CHARGES?
As the thug is walking away, shooting him in the back is a major no-no for most, but apparently not all, people.
The difference is, the woman could have left the scene, she could have shut up, or the boy could have stepped in between. He is not legal to handle a gun, his mom ordered him to murder a man in public... Little things like that. If it were white people, the mother and little honkie would still be awaiting trial IN JAIL.
The reason black men are attracted to white women is? White women do not know how to scream like a howler monkey when angry. The least attractive trait of black people is? Nose to nose full volume screaming over minor and major issues.
I have black acquaintences, and a few friends. THEY are not like this majority. They also hate it too.
Bingo. Being able to beat someone to death is armed.
Good points. Thanks for bringing them to my attention.
Forget it Jake. . .
You seem to have missed the violent part punching part that preceded the gun. Why complain about the gun at all when the answer to a disagreement was punching a woman and the gun was merely to protect from further attack? Why not say the guy who did the punching should have just walked away rather than act violently?
Doesn’t matter whether the aggressor was high or drunk. The use of deadly force is no longer justified once the aggressor retreats. In this case, the aggressor not only retreated but was running away when the shooter chased him down and shot him in the back.
No. I’m referring to the mother and the kid. First, the man was guilty of the first blow, I agree with that. I don’t know exactly what happened after that, but where did the kid get the gun? Second, it appears that after the kid pulled the gun, he got the man attention and he stop beating the mother. Even though he had stop, the kid shot him. Also, most people are ignoring the fact that the kid followed him after he fled the store and shot him in the back. I don’t think the mother or the kid have any saving argument.
She’s got enough F U money... his “college” is probably less than she spends on a night on the town.
Listen up all you 14 year old Chicago boys...
I’m thinking the kid won’t be around in 5 years…
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.