Just flip the scenario -- you're a white guy out on a run, and a couple of armed black guys -- NOT COPS - try to get you to stop. You're either going to run like hell, or if you don't think that'll work, try to rush one of them and get the gun so you don't get shot in the back.
"Citizen's arrests" should be limited to immediate actions where the citizen actually witnesses the crime, and accosts a criminal they saw committed that crime. Not playing wannabe cop.
And by the way, I have jogged/run in hiking boots many times. Not that it matters. The only thing that matters is what happened during the parts of the video when you can’t see the participants.
The shooter is an idiot and will probably pay with a 2nd degree murder conviction.
Been MANY moons siince I had time/inclination to post, but here’s the thing that keeps me awake with this story:
#1 Reported that there were three rounds fired.
#2 Shotgun was in possession struggle.
#3 No details on type of shotgun.
#4 Without INTENTIONAL re-chambering action, Neither a pump nor a side-by-side or over-under version could have fired a third shot.
#5 CONCLUSION, unless the gun was a semi-auto, the implication is that for at least the third shot, INTENT was involved.
Naturally, if the round count report I heard was incorrect, then my analysis is meaningless.
Just watch the whole video.
I'll confess that yesterday I felt the same way you do until I watched Stefan Molyneux's breakdown of the facts.
Watch the whole thing before you make assumptions based on ignorance.
You left out the part where you are on a run because you fleeing the scene after you just got busted burglarizing the place.