Posted on 07/04/2020 10:12:53 AM PDT by wastedyears
A white couple from Clarkston, Michigan, was arrested and charged with a felony after a video showed the woman pointing a gun at a Black mother and her two daughters.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
Bad times.
The enemy is organized and we’re not. We’re fractured to the point of atomization.
Each and every one of us are on our own. Just waiting until the mob comes for us as individuals because we can not stand up as an organized group and do to this enemy what is necessary and required.
“Accidentally bumped into a black lady” is very debatable.
It seems to me like it was all set up from the time the black lady brushed/bumped the white lady. Who-whom?
Now please look at what happens when you “bump into blacks” in the wrong circumstances. Video at the link at the bottom.
Suspects charged in brutal beating caught on video. Victim says one attacker told him ‘Black Lives Matter’ as he kicked him in face. One suspect is only 14 years old
Five suspects — three adults and two juveniles — have been charged in a brutal assault caught on video outside a convenience store in Klein, Texas, last month.
The victim told KTRK he just took the beating. Video of the attack shows he didn’t fight back or protect himself.
“I don’t know what else I could do,” he added to the station. “The fifth one at the end came out of the store after purchasing goods and came up to me and kicked me in the face and said, ‘Black lives matter, [expletive].’”
The victim suffered a swollen lip, bruising, and a cut near his eye, KTRK reported, adding that Harris County Sheriff’s deputies said he refused to seek treatment.
Here’s surveillance video of the attack:
The victim and his girlfriend asked not to be identified out of fear for their safety, the station said, adding that she said she’s received death threats.
“I really hope they’re caught before someone else gets hurt,” his girlfriend added to KTRK. “I hope that the people take this and don’t say, ‘It’s white against black.’ I don’t want this to be the statement. I want it to be, ‘Here’s a man who was checking out and stood up for himself, and he was targeted for that.’”
Some suspects are believed to be tied to another attack
Investigators believe some of the suspects in the Food Mart attack are tied to another brutal assault a few days later in southeast Houston, KTRK said in its latest story.
Video from the Houston attack shows a car backing up in a parking lot when it was hit by an SUV, the station said, adding that the SUV’s driver got out and was beaten unconscious by up to six people.
https://www.theblaze.com/news/suspects-charged-beating-video-blm
See 82. Her pulling a gun blew their plan.
See 82, check the link, watch the video.
Yep...trying to take hostages by physically blocking their exit. In New York State, if someone breaks into your home, you are required to find an avenue of egress before you are legally able to use deadly force. In other words, you have to retreat, which is what this pregnant woman was trying to do, but the black woman wouldn't allow it. When you have to keep retreating in a public setting, from someone who is continually invading your safe space, you should be legally able to defend yourself, and others from harm, no matter what.
I mostly agree, but being a very fallible human, who has often had to make major decisions under great stress in 1/10th of a second, live or die, and live with the results, I feel for the woman.
And the Atlanta cop facing death penalty murder charges.
It’s so easy to say, “He/She should have done XYZ...”
Every Monday Morning Quarterback is Tom Brady on a touchdown drive.
You, me, everybody.
I don’t judge people who act under unimaginable stress.
Read 82, watch the video of the guy who impassively takes many punches and kicks to the head.
If that was you, and you had a Glock 19 strapped....
And you have 1/10 of a second to decide, before the first punch to the head.
Ditto the Albuquerque statue self-defense shooter.
Please see 82 and watch the video at the link.
Thanks for the information, and please watch the video linked at 82. This is what can happen when you are NOT armed when a heated “racial” confrontation goes off the rails.
To balance, the young man was simply unarmed. The woman was pregnant.
“apparently after a minor accidental bump (not on camera) while going into the restaurant”
Please read 82 and watch the video at the link.
If the white dude in Texas had pulled a gun on them, instead of being beaten and kicked, they would have said he “bumped into them and called them all the N-word” in the convenience store.
Great advice.
Cops say the worst things happen to people who go to stupid places at stupid times with stupid people to do stupid things.
Please see 82 and the video at the link to see how it can otherwise turn out.
Great point. Please read 82 and see the video at the link.
This wasn’t an “altercation.” Jesus..the white woman apologized, backed away and tried to leave. The blacks continued to harass and pursue. This was an assault.
I’ll post this again for you:
An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:
(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.
(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.
That is a patch and paste from Michigan law. No where in there does it say property defense.
Michigan is a Castle Doctrine state and has a stand your ground law as they define it. A person may use deadly force, with no duty to retreat, if the individual has an honest and reasonable belief that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent death, great bodily harm or sexual assault to that person or to another individual. Again, no property threat, just bodily. The castle doctrine is a common law doctrine stating that persons have no duty to retreat in their home, or “castle”, and may use reasonable force, including deadly force, for defense. Outside of the abode, however, a person has a duty to retreat, if possible, before using deadly force in the line of defense from harmful threat.
If further states that any person who uses a gun legitimately in self-defense has immunity from civil liability. The gun was not legally used as no bodily threat existed to anyone except toward the woman in back of the car.
Whether I agree with it or not, doesn’t mean anything. It is Michigan law.
rwood
I saw the video yesterday. Not sure how my statement of the black woman threatening to beat the S out of the man differs.
And what does this have to do with the incident in this case?
It does seem to be their final solution -> you have the right to bear arms but you’ll lose your liberty if you exercise it defending yourself.
This is all going to end very badly.
Americans need to start setting up safe houses for cops and citizens like this to escape to when the anti-whites in authority try to prosecute them.
“This portion of the statute has been interpreted as Stand Your Ground.”
But that section of the law only identifies force other than deadly force. When the woman pulled the gun, it became deadly force. Inside the house and out in public changes the options. And the opportunity to retreat also fell under the option to summon police. At no time, that I can see as I’ve looked at a few different sites, did the woman physically threaten the people in the car. So deadly force was not warranted. I think the woman behind the car should have been arrested for striking the car, but that I believe was lost in the shuffle, or ignored by the prosecutor.
According to the Michigan Penal Code (750.349), kidnapping is committed when a person knowingly restrains another person with intent to hold that person in involuntary servitude.
750.349 Kidnapping; “restrain” defined; violation as felony; penalty; other violation arising from same transaction. Sec. 349.
(2) As used in this section, “restrain” means to restrict a person’s movements or to confine the person so as to interfere with that person’s liberty without that person’s consent or without legal authority. The restraint does not have to exist for any particular length of time and may be related or incidental to the commission of other criminal acts.
By blocking the retreat of the car, the woman violated this law. Kidnapping is a felony. Where’s the prosecutor?
rwood
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.