Posted on 12/24/2010 8:08:49 AM PST by Charlespg
A black father has been sensationally pardoned for the racially charged murder of a white teenager he claimed was part of a ‘lynch mob’ that stormed his home.
John White, 57, was freed after serving just five months of a two-to-four-year prison sentence for the shooting.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Imagine how this story would be playing out, both in the media and on FR if a white, outgoing governor pardoned a white man that had shot a black teen under the same circumstances or any circumstance.
You are clueless. A mob was going to injure or kill his son. The came to his home with intent to attack his son he defended him self and his family, he did the right thing. I you cannot see this as the right tihing then I hope a mob visits your home.
Here in Texas, the only question would be what garbage service to call to haul off the carcass...
Read all your posts - you should stop posting after that 8th cup of coffee. this a.m.
Well perhaps they'll respond to your charge. I'd like to know the truth of the matter.
I remember this this case,a racist mob chased this mans son to his house and tried to storm it after he was falsely accused of harassing a white girl at a party.
IMHO the man should have used a 12ga shotgun not a pistol
you are siding with them because they are black which makes you a racist and an idiot.
no I'm siding with them becase people of any race have the right to defend themselves from violent bigoted mobs
the racist here is you
There is way more to this story than this article would have a reader believe.
That kid got shot for nothing. This guy ran out into his driveway with full intent to shoot somebody.
The prosecutor didn’t go after this case for NO reason. Mr. White had no reason to perceive any threat from those kids whatsoever. In the part of America where I live, you don’t just get to shoot and kill someone who’s coming to your house to talk. These kids were not even on White’s property as I recall.
So John White got a free murder. All because the girl who accused his son of threatening rape either lied about it to begin with or lied after when she recanted. But hey, SHE’S still alive.
The kid who got killed, well he was inebriated over the legal limit and it would seem that the bunch who were supposedly coming after White’s son maybe had a bit too much courage from liquid spirits.
These sorts of things happen all the time. More NORMAL folks don’t go brandishing guns and shooting people. One could make an argument that Mr. White perhaps a perfect right to carry his gun to confront the group coming after his son, but the young man he shot was UNARMED, on a public street, and not a danger to anyone.
Merry Christmas to John White.
For some of us, it never even crossed our minds. What you are descrbing happening to your son seems way too common. I wish you all well.
“You’re ok with a racist murderer serving just five months for unlawfully taking the life of an unarmed young man? I’m trying to think of a reason for you feeling this way that doesn’t involve stupidity, racism, and ignorance.”
Have I somehow wandered onto a sardonic humor site? Is this possibly the Free Onion?
If people get drunk, join a mob, and go to a neighbor’s home to threaten the safety of the occupants, it is implied in all 50 states that they may suffer a tragic accident. In this case the jury called it manslaughter, not murder (you evidently don’t much care for facts). I’m not sure I would have agreed to convict for anything, but then I wasn’t in the courtroom to hear all the testimony. Perhaps the jury and Governor both got it right.
Tis the season to be jolly, Fa la la la la, la la la la!
You are a liar and an idiot and a tool of the leftists. Nobody tried to storm Mr. White's house and everyone posting to this thread knows this including you.
That does not necessarly mean anything. Appellate courts do not review the facts of a case. They only review if the case was tried correctly and according to the law.
How can they possible judge the correctness of the prosecution without knowing the facts of the case?
Post something that is not goofy, retarded garbage and I might respond to it.
Are you implying that if, as the original poster asserted, the prosecutor tried the case improperly (as I assume a racist seeking to put away an innocent black man would have to) the appellate court wouldn’t be able to discern that?
Never entered my mind.
It seems your mistake was entering him into that school in the first place. You are changing that situation and more power to you.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2007/12/22/2007-12-22_guilty_verdict_for_black_dad_in_shooting.html
White testified during the trial that he was trying to protect his family when he brandished a gun last year after a group of angry white teenagers showed up at his doorstep late at night to confront his then-19-year-old son, Aaron.
nope can't have darky defending his home and family from racist mobs now can we ?
go back to storm front
I would lean toward a sympathetic response to just about anything a man did on his property that could be interpreted as protecting himself or his family against a superior number of drunk, angry, and rowdy teenagers. The details matter, but they had no business on his property and such a situation could easily cross the line beyond which armed self-defense was a reasonable response.
Continuing the article: "Mr Spota said a court, upheld by an appellate court, agreed that a reasonable person wouldn't have believed deadly force was needed that hot summer night."
My question is whether a reasonable person could have reached that decision while outnumbered by a bunch of angry drunks in the available time and with mere inches separating him from the nearest belligerent. I don't know the answer to that question, and I would have to read the trial testimony in detail before I was happy with either answer. Again, however, I have significant sympathy for the homeowner confronting multiple drunken intruders on his property.
My understanding is that appellate courts do not review whether findings of fact by the lower court are true, but do rule whether certain evidence was properly admitted or improperly excluded. If Mr. White's prosecution was tainted by racism then this mishandling of his trial would certainly be subject to appellate review. That is one of the reasons that courts of appeal exist.
I think it is transparently false to claim that Mr. White's prosecution was racist. He walked out of his house and shot an unarmed young man in the face at point blank range. Why wouldn't he get prosecuted for this?
“...it is implied in all 50 states that they may suffer a tragic accident. ...
“Post something that is not goofy, retarded garbage and I might respond to it.”
You just responded! LOL
Technical tip: if you want to not respond, you have to avoid hitting the “Post” button.
You post idiotic garbage because the leftists have duped you into thinking that doing so makes you some sort of moral exemplar. It is because of “conservatives” like you that our society is crumbling.
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.