Neighbourhood Watch Kills Unarmed Black Kid

[Lace Neil Singer]

Had you been a lawyer, you wouldn't have got much repeat business.

Look, CSI is a work of fiction, but physical evidence is used successfully in trials where there are no witnesses to put people away. Even when it's all circumstantial evidence. Go ask Scott Peterson.

I'd go even further and say that there have been cases where a suspect has been convicted of murder when there is no body. Even without going that far, there are loads of cases where forensic evidence has convicted a killer.

I'd agree that it was self defence in this case if the boy was found knocked out cold on the ground. However, shooting an unarmed person does not count unless you're in fear of your life... which I fail to see how an adult male who is twice the height and weight of his victim could be. And he wouldn't have been in that situation in the first place if he had just done what he was told and left the boy for the police to deal with.

[Gravekeeper]

No it's not. It's on the prosecution to prove that he went out to kill the kid.

If we were talking about a murder charge, sure. But I don't recall saying arrest him for murder.

That he confronted the kid and not the other way around. And quite frankly no one has yet been able to provide a scrap of evidence to support either thing.

If he wanted to avoid a confrontation he would have stayed in his car. But he got out of his car. That is fact. Also even if the kid had confronted him instead, the kid has full right to confront him because some fucking weirdo has been following him all the way home from 7/11.

Why are you so desperate to defend this worthless human being? Even to the point of ignoring the police misconduct? Do you seriously think getting punched in the nose justifies lethal force? Self defence requires that you be at risk for serious bodily harm or death. A bloody nose from a teenager half your size doesn't count.

[Duelist925]

No it's not. It's on the prosecution to prove that he went out to kill the kid. That he confronted the kid and not the other way around. And quite frankly no one has yet been able to provide a scrap of evidence to support either thing.

No, its on the prosecution to prove that this wasn't self defense--anything else comes after that.

This was not self defense. The kid had no weapon, and was, according information given previous in the thread, roughly half the guys size and weight. He had no reason to fear for his life, nor the lives of anyone else. He had no reason to pull a gun. The self defense claim? Complete bull.

[Andara Bledin]

No it's not. It's on the prosecution to prove that he went out to kill the kid.

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. What horse do you have in this race that you're fighting so hard on the behalf of an admitted killer?

It's on the prosecution to prove that he went out to kill the kid only if they plan to try him for murder. There's at least a dozen other charges that they can lay on him that he's already provided enough evidence by his own words to get a conviction or three.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

It is a slippery slope to begin convicting people without hard evidence. And I fully admit he instigated it by following the kid. But we don't know the facts and I think it's absurd to hang someone before the facts come out.

[Duelist925]

It is a slippery slope to begin convicting people without hard evidence. And I fully admit he instigated it by following the kid. But we don't know the facts and I think it's absurd to hang someone before the facts come out.

Fact: He followed the kid after being told not too. Ignoring both common sense and orders from dispatch, and thereby insitgating the resulting conflict.

Fact: He outweighed the kid, and was significantly larger. The kid was unarmed. The kid posed no threat to him.


Based on the above, In what way does a self defense defense have any merit?

Without Self Defense, is there any reason he shouldn't be charged for, at the very least, manslaughter? Murder is a bit of a stretch with the evidence, but that, at the least, should be doable, if not a plethora of other possible charges that have been pointed out.

Ordinarily, I agree with most slippery slope arguements. This one, however, isn't a slippery slope, unless the prosecutor tries for murder, which I agree is a stretch under the current evidence.

But with the evidence already given, as well as the mans history...he should be charged with something.

[Greenday]

Fact: He outweighed the kid, and was significantly larger. The kid was unarmed. The kid posed no threat to him.

No one has ever beaten up someone bigger them before? It happens.

Manslaughter would be a lot easier to go with considering the facts we DO have. But people keep treating this like he was out to murder the teenager and they don't have the proof to go for that.

[draco664]

No one has ever beaten up someone bigger them before? It happens.

Manslaughter would be a lot easier to go with considering the facts we DO have. But people keep treating this like he was out to murder the teenager and they don't have the proof to go for that.

What about the kid who was being bullied, brought a knife for protection and killed the bully?

You were pushing hard your opinion that the kid was guilty of murder, when the courts all decided that he wasn't, and let him go.

Yet here we have a guy who disobeyed an instruction not to follow and confront a kid whose only crime was to be black while walking at 7pm. The guy ended up killing the kid, and you come all "We don't know the circumstances"

What gives? Because seriously, I'm having trouble reconciling your different opinions of the two situations.

[HYHYBT]

So: A "instigated" by following B when that was totally unnecessary, something unknown happened, A shoots B who was unarmed, and we are to presume that A acted in self defense.

However... in a different but not-that-different story not long ago, B heard in advance that he was going to be attacked, took precautions such as going home by a different route in hopes of avoiding the conflict and arming himself with a knife in case that didn't work, is nonetheless followed and then beaten by A, but since it's B who's armed, A's the one who winds up dead. In that case, you were vehemently adamant that B's action was murder, wouldn't listen to any suggestion otherwise, and gave precious little reasoning to support your position other than sheer insistent repetition.

So: if the guy who starts a fight is the only one armed and kills the person he went after, that's self defense. If the guy who starts the fight is unarmed and dies because the one he's attacking uses a weapon, that's murder. Got it.

The only question is, how can you *possibly* justify such a position, even if only to yourself and only long enough to type it?

[bara]

So: if the guy who starts a fight is the only one armed and kills the person he went after, that's self defense. If the guy who starts the fight is unarmed and dies because the one he's attacking uses a weapon, that's murder. Got it.

This is a good point and something I was wondering myself.

[Andara Bledin]

Contrarianism. The need to take the non-popular point and then fight for it. It's like devil's advocate gone crazy.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

...except it seems only to show up in this sort of thing. I'd have thought that simple contrarianism would be a more general trait and show up regardless of the topic, and so suspect there's more to it than that.

An explanation from the source would be a pleasant surprise.

[Greenday]

What about the kid who was being bullied, brought a knife for protection and killed the bully?

You were pushing hard your opinion that the kid was guilty of murder, when the courts all decided that he wasn't, and let him go.

Yet here we have a guy who disobeyed an instruction not to follow and confront a kid whose only crime was to be black while walking at 7pm. The guy ended up killing the kid, and you come all "We don't know the circumstances"

What gives? Because seriously, I'm having trouble reconciling your different opinions of the two situations.

I've yet to see any evidence that the guy confronted the teenager in this situation.

In the bullying situation, we saw a kid bring a knife to school with the intention of stabbing another student when the time was right and get on the bus knowing that he was going to get followed when he had plenty of other options to prevent the situation from happening.

This situation? We don't have any facts to go on other than the teenager was tailed and shot at some point during a struggle. We don't know who started what. The other situation? The kid planned it out.

[KnitShoni]

Do you realize that constantly saying "we don't know who started what" makes it look as if you are willfully ignoring the facts? Because, ultimately, we do know.

[Greenday]

Do you realize that constantly saying "we don't know who started what" makes it look as if you are willfully ignoring the facts? Because, ultimately, we do know.

Was the man forced out of his car or did he open the door and step out? Did he actually physically approach the teenager or did the teenager come up to his car? You don't know, I don't know. No one does. No one was there. So do not make blatantly false statements.