Posted on 05/21/2020 8:34:11 PM PDT by conservative98
There’s no evidence he was jogging anywhere but there is of him fleeing the residence he was trespassing in.
Regardless of what the G.B.I. thinks, U.S. citizens have the right to keep and BEAR arms, as written in the Constitution.
Your argument is somewhat flawed. Years ago an off-duty police officer driving on a two lane country road in Virginia saw a car with another man behind the wheel driving toward him in the other lane. The car was driving very fast and swerved multiple times into the oncoming lane. Fearing the other driver was drunk and may injure someone, the off-duty officer turned around and pursued the swerving vehicle at high speed for several miles. The other car pulled into a service station near an interstate on-ramp and the off-duty officer pulled into the lot behind him. He pulled his weapon and held the other man while he called police. The man grew increasingly agitated while the police were en route but the off-duty officer held the gun on him and he remained with him until the police arrived.
The second part of the story, and the reason it is even known today, is because the police arrested BOTH men. The other man accused the off-duty officer of illegally holding him because he was off-duty and outside his legal jurisdiction. The state of Virginia agreed because it had no written law that recognized “citizen’s arrest” and the off-duty police officer found himself in court. There was a trial and in the end the off-duty officer was found not guilty. The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that citizen’s arrest was an inferred right of every citizen if they witness a crime in their presence.
The key words as related to these types of situations are “witness a crime.” I fully support a right to make a citizen’s arrest. But I also think one should make sure they have solid grounds to try to make one.
Me personally, I’d hate the thought of killing a man because he stole/trespassed on someone ELSE. Especially if I had not actually SEEN him steal anything. If I had done anything, I would have shown my weapon and warned Aubrey that we had trouble in the neighborhood prior and that he had been warned and we were watching.
I am, however, going to wait for the trial and see the facts (provided I can get the facts without the media “tilt”). I do agree that Aubrey was highly foolish and the fact he is dead is proof of that. As for me, I will have a damn good reason to pull a gun on someone and it will be me or my family.
The case i mentioned is Wilson V. Commonwealth of VA from 2005.
Most people can see how moronic it was to confront that guy with a shot gun. So this case really isn’t going to have long term consequences despite the attempts to link it to Saint Brown and Trayvon.
Aside from his families, and the murderers comments that he was jogging or running in THEIR neighborhood, can you present any credible evidence that he wasn’t? Even if he was walking There is no excuse for three people to chase him down in two vehicles and videotape murdering It is hard to escape the conclusion that he was targeted because he was black, that he was killed because he was chased own and and then killed when he tried to destroy defend him self From three good old boys of the south who thought they were judge jury and executioner of a black person.
“This case is going to make people hide and cower when something is happening in their neighborhoods.”
That’s the objective. They (liberals, progressives, whatever you want to call them) want us to be too scared of them to defend ourselves. That’s why they make such a big deal out of these situations. You see someone breaking into your neighbor’s house? According to a lot of FR posters, call the police. Don’t get involved. Where I live the police will get there about 15 minutes after the burglars are gone. Tomorrow maybe they’re breaking into your house, or killing the little old lady who walked in on them while they were burglarizing her house. No, I think I’ll get involved. I won’t be a sheep.
The Right to keep and bear Arms is not the issue. killing the man is the issue. They witnessed no crime. The owner of the property and house made no complaint against the victim.True the victim entered the property. but until the owner complains there is no foul. The “Citizen’s Arrest” dates back to Common Law England and to Common Law period. The Hue and Cry where the entire village pursued the mal doer.
I believe you've made it as SIMPLE as it should be.
What most seem to miss is the SIMPLE point that if they were walking or jogging down the street, COMPLETELY UNARMED, and an ARMED person confronted them and ACCUSED them of a crime, and they tried to wrestle the firearm away and they were SHOT 3 TIMES.. are they guilty of the crime they were ACCUSED of.. or is the gunman guilty of murder. It's pretty clear as your statement implies.
The only other alternative for the defense attorney is to plead it was the WORST CASE of SUICIDE ever seen!
>>The fact is he closed the 20 feet, grabbed the shotgun and simply failed to wrest control of it.
would he be facing a murder charge if he’d taken control of the shotgun and killed one or more of these men?
Very likely and it would raise many of the same self defense issues. That’s why it’s a mess that was waiting to happen.
But if he killed only one, the survivor might have killed him.
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.