America's Gun Violence

But isn’t things like this video exactly why they don’t rush into an arrest and hearings? The video just came out, so until then it was a he said-he said story, and one of them was dead so they weren’t talking.
If they rushed this and didnt have any of the evidence and it was just a one sided story they may have gotten off and not be able to charge them again when the video surfaces.
Thats my view on it anyway.

https://apple.news/Afk8U1beeS1y15HZQxATmWQ Guardian story about the racist killing of the jogger.

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

You can ask, and I won’t make random accusations for asking someone to explain their view.
 Like many states, Georgia requires a grand jury. Given the facts of the case where the individuals claim they thought he was breaking into a house, attempted a citizens arrest and then he attacked them does warrant an investigation. I believe they came to the correct decision in moving forward to a grand jury, they look guilty. But they needed to investigate the possibility of their story first.
2 months doesn’t seem like an unreasonable amount of time, especially being in the middle of a pandemic. I believe there wasn’t video until a few days ago. Investigations are going to take some time. What’s the other option if the races were reversed? Skip the whole investigation and just lock them up?

They murdered a man in broad daylight.  They should be in jail awaiting trial or a bond hearing.  

I agree they appear to be guilty. But keep in mind until just a couple days ago they only had the shooters’ side of the story. Which was they thought he was breaking into a building, he matched the description of a burglar, they saw him the other night and appeared to have been armed. So they chased him attempting to make a citizens arrest. When they confronted him he violently attacked the son.
That doesn’t mean they blindly accept the story. But they look for physical evidence that supports or disputes it. They talk to witnesses, see if he was actually trying to break into a building, etc. All that takes time under normal circumstances. Among court shutdowns (and many are shut down in Georgia) and all else that’s going on it will take even longer. 

Almost immediately after the video was posted they stated they will seek a grand jury. 

Looks like we’ll just have to disagree, but all that seems standard to me.

They murdered a man in broad daylight.  They should be in jail awaiting trial or a bond hearing.  

That's it. That's the standard procedure. Full stop. 

I’m just curious then, do you think every self defense shooting should result in an immediate arrest and let the jury decide?

The know 2 people who were murdered in the last 2 years. Both shooters got off on a self defense claim. Both were guilty in my mind.

One was the brother of my best friend. He was a homeless junkie. He and his friend were shot in the back multiple times The friend even texted his girlfriend that they are being robbed at gunpoint. The shooter got rid of the gun, went home and called his sister who worked for a lawyer, who then called the police. He was free for several months before being arrested. He was in jail about a year before the trial. Despite shooting 2 people in the back he got off because he got in front of it claiming self defense.
The other was my wife’s nephew. His girlfriend shot him in the chest. She called her uncle who was a former cop, and he called police. Her statement was he was a stalker who broke into her house and found him in the closet when she got home. During the investigation they uncovered they had been in a long term relationship, there were even pictures of the 2 of them together throughout the house, they knew they got into an argument and that she left the house to get her illegal gun out of the car, returned back inside and shot him. I even saw a local news report where she and her uncle were on TV saying he was a stalker, she didn’t know him and she found him hiding in the closet. Despite disapproving almost her entire story, including leaving the house and returning with a gun, after about 4 or 5 months the police said they will not be pressing charges because they couldn’t disprove her claim that he threatened her. Even though she lied about everything else.

So to me the fault isn’t just in this case or that it took too long, but that we have such a low standard for self defense. There should be a higher standard for self defense, and then even those who really are using self defense would flee before using it if it wasn’t such a low bar.

Thats why I see nothing unusual about this case. 2 months before moving forward with a grand jury (it’ll be longer since there are no grand juries right now) seems normal. Maybe that shouldn’t be the norm, but it is.

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

You can ask, and I won’t make random accusations for asking someone to explain their view.
 Like many states, Georgia requires a grand jury. Given the facts of the case where the individuals claim they thought he was breaking into a house, attempted a citizens arrest and then he attacked them does warrant an investigation. I believe they came to the correct decision in moving forward to a grand jury, they look guilty. But they needed to investigate the possibility of their story first.
2 months doesn’t seem like an unreasonable amount of time, especially being in the middle of a pandemic. I believe there wasn’t video until a few days ago. Investigations are going to take some time. What’s the other option if the races were reversed? Skip the whole investigation and just lock them up?

They murdered a man in broad daylight.  They should be in jail awaiting trial or a bond hearing.  

I agree they appear to be guilty. But keep in mind until just a couple days ago they only had the shooters’ side of the story. Which was they thought he was breaking into a building, he matched the description of a burglar, they saw him the other night and appeared to have been armed. So they chased him attempting to make a citizens arrest. When they confronted him he violently attacked the son.
That doesn’t mean they blindly accept the story. But they look for physical evidence that supports or disputes it. They talk to witnesses, see if he was actually trying to break into a building, etc. All that takes time under normal circumstances. Among court shutdowns (and many are shut down in Georgia) and all else that’s going on it will take even longer. 

Almost immediately after the video was posted they stated they will seek a grand jury. 

Looks like we’ll just have to disagree, but all that seems standard to me.

They murdered a man in broad daylight.  They should be in jail awaiting trial or a bond hearing.  

That's it. That's the standard procedure. Full stop. 

I’m just curious then, do you think every self defense shooting should result in an immediate arrest and let the jury decide?

You don't get to chase someone down, pick a fight with them, and then gets to declare self-defense. That's not how it works.

But it is how it works in places where guns and racism rules the day.

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

You can ask, and I won’t make random accusations for asking someone to explain their view.
 Like many states, Georgia requires a grand jury. Given the facts of the case where the individuals claim they thought he was breaking into a house, attempted a citizens arrest and then he attacked them does warrant an investigation. I believe they came to the correct decision in moving forward to a grand jury, they look guilty. But they needed to investigate the possibility of their story first.
2 months doesn’t seem like an unreasonable amount of time, especially being in the middle of a pandemic. I believe there wasn’t video until a few days ago. Investigations are going to take some time. What’s the other option if the races were reversed? Skip the whole investigation and just lock them up?

They murdered a man in broad daylight.  They should be in jail awaiting trial or a bond hearing.  

I agree they appear to be guilty. But keep in mind until just a couple days ago they only had the shooters’ side of the story. Which was they thought he was breaking into a building, he matched the description of a burglar, they saw him the other night and appeared to have been armed. So they chased him attempting to make a citizens arrest. When they confronted him he violently attacked the son.
That doesn’t mean they blindly accept the story. But they look for physical evidence that supports or disputes it. They talk to witnesses, see if he was actually trying to break into a building, etc. All that takes time under normal circumstances. Among court shutdowns (and many are shut down in Georgia) and all else that’s going on it will take even longer. 

Almost immediately after the video was posted they stated they will seek a grand jury. 

Looks like we’ll just have to disagree, but all that seems standard to me.

I still don't understand the point of this statement.

Do you think every black man with a gun should be treated as potential criminal?
Or that every black man going out for a jog looks like they just burgled a house?
Or maybe that every black man going out for a run should carry a gun to defend themselves in case someone tries to shoot them?

No, I never said any of those things. Not sure where any of that came from. I said this is a he said-he said case. Only one of the parties is dead and the other claims self defense. So it only makes sense to look at the physical evidence and see if it supports or refutes to story. The video appears to refute the story. There are other pieces of physical evidence they would look at too. Like how many shots were fired, and what distance, what was the angle, where was the victim struck with the bullet. Does the shooter have any marks or defensive wounds, among many other things they would consider. All takes time. Doesn’t matter what color they are, it would be investigated. 

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

You can ask, and I won’t make random accusations for asking someone to explain their view.
 Like many states, Georgia requires a grand jury. Given the facts of the case where the individuals claim they thought he was breaking into a house, attempted a citizens arrest and then he attacked them does warrant an investigation. I believe they came to the correct decision in moving forward to a grand jury, they look guilty. But they needed to investigate the possibility of their story first.
2 months doesn’t seem like an unreasonable amount of time, especially being in the middle of a pandemic. I believe there wasn’t video until a few days ago. Investigations are going to take some time. What’s the other option if the races were reversed? Skip the whole investigation and just lock them up?

They murdered a man in broad daylight.  They should be in jail awaiting trial or a bond hearing.  

I agree they appear to be guilty. But keep in mind until just a couple days ago they only had the shooters’ side of the story. Which was they thought he was breaking into a building, he matched the description of a burglar, they saw him the other night and appeared to have been armed. So they chased him attempting to make a citizens arrest. When they confronted him he violently attacked the son.
That doesn’t mean they blindly accept the story. But they look for physical evidence that supports or disputes it. They talk to witnesses, see if he was actually trying to break into a building, etc. All that takes time under normal circumstances. Among court shutdowns (and many are shut down in Georgia) and all else that’s going on it will take even longer. 

Almost immediately after the video was posted they stated they will seek a grand jury. 

Looks like we’ll just have to disagree, but all that seems standard to me.

I still don't understand the point of this statement.

Do you think every black man with a gun should be treated as potential criminal?
Or that every black man going out for a jog looks like they just burgled a house?
Or maybe that every black man going out for a run should carry a gun to defend themselves in case someone tries to shoot them?

No, I never said any of those things. Not sure where any of that came from. I said this is a he said-he said case. Only one of the parties is dead and the other claims self defense. So it only makes sense to look at the physical evidence and see if it supports or refutes to story. The video appears to refute the story. There are other pieces of physical evidence they would look at too. Like how many shots were fired, and what distance, what was the angle, where was the victim struck with the bullet. Does the shooter have any marks or defensive wounds, among many other things they would consider. All takes time. Doesn’t matter what color they are, it would be investigated. 

Just like a rape allegation. They don’t just automatically go out and arrest the accused guy. They look at evidence, get a statement, etc. Unless there is enough evidence and witnesses at the scene to justify an immediate arrest, a shooting would be the same.

Does it make sense to you if someone calls 911, says they are following a guy who was breaking into a house. Then says he violently attacked my son and went for my gun so I shot him. For the police to then say “we haven’t gathered any evidence yet, but I don’t believe you. You’re under arrest for murder.”?
Or to then say okay, this will be an open case until we gather all information. And that’s what it was, an open case. They never cleared him.
I also don’t see how you claim I brought up race in any of that, saying all black men should be seen as burglars.

Evidence is presented at trial.  Not before arrest.  You don't gather all the information then arrest someone after the police are 100% percent certain a crime was committed.  That's not how the justice system works.  Police only need to meet the standard of probable cause to make an arrest: Sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed.  

Known facts:
person A shot and killed person B (this is a crime)

Unknown and alleged 'facts' to be determined at trial after arrest:
a house was burgled (was it? I haven't seen it written where a house was actually broken into)
the dead person was the burglar (see above)
the dead person attacked the shooter
the dead person was armed

That’s only partially correct. Just the fact alone there was a shooting isn’t probable cause that a murder took place. They can’t just arrest on a gut feeling and hope evidence comes up later. They absolutely have to investigate first and gather evidence before an arrest. That’s where the probable cause comes from. The bar is lower to make an arrest than what needs to be presented at trial, but they still have to meet standards for probable cause.

” Known facts: 
person A shot and killed person B (this is a crime)”
Not true either. Depends on the reason and if there was just cause. Shooting someone is not always a crime. Again, why they investigate and gather evidence to see if there is probable cause for an arrest then trial. In some states the standard for justifying a shooting is actual very low, especially states with the king of the castle law.

Someone breaks into your house and is armed and you shoot them and claim you feared for your safety, very unlikely you would be arrest and meet any probably cause. I know that’s not what exactly happened here. But person A shooting B in itself isn’t a crime.