Man shot while jogging

Im not against the original intention of these guys to protect the neighborhood and to stop crime, but its getting kind of far out of bounds for my personal tastes to approach one guy with more than one other guys with guns drawn when there was never even a perception of a violent crime having been committed, and a very, very ambiguous possibility that even a property crime was committed.

If once we get down to the letter and interpretation of the law, it is determined these guys were completely in the right, Im ok with them going free, but they are huge assholes who make all responsible gun owners look bad and give fuel to leftist bullshit about the types of people who own guns.

1 Like
Corn Pop -
Samoa - 
Corn Pop - 
Samoa - 
bartos -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA - 
bartos -
Charles Barkley - 

Whatever happened with this?

Was it ever agreed upon that you can’t murder unarmed people for trespassing?

Unless, of course, the trespassing occurs at a federal building. 

He wasn’t shot for trespassing. He was shot because he tried to take the other guys gun, which gave the other guy the right to defend himself with deadly force.

If the dude just kept running he would be alive today.

That’s not how self defense works. You can’t claim self defense whilst commiting a violent felony. Sorry. 

LOL @ violent felony. No one is committing a violent felony in the video except for the runner when he tries to take the other guy’s gun.

They ran into him while he was running from them. They blocked his path with their vehicle. They threatened him with a gun. He has the right to not retreat in the face of danger. 

And they had the right to perform a citizens arrest if they were suspicious that he was committing a felony, like burglary, in the house he ran out of

Funny you completely left out how the whole thing started. Honest mistake I’m guessing

This will be the most important issue in the case.  Did they have the right to try to effect a citizen's arrest.  They didn't see him run out of the house.  They saw him running down the street.  If they did, they can only use reasonable force which will be scrutinized even if they had reasonable suspicion to believe he committed a felony (burglary I'm guessing will be the argument) down the street from them.

They didn’t see him running out of the house? I saw it. Another neighbor, if not them, saw it

Travis did not see him run out of the house.  He saw him running down the street. 

sadic1 - My money is on these guys being fucked. The grounds for a citizens arrest being ambiguous, whatever racist shit they dug up on them, if its close, these guys are going down, imo, and they should. The only reason you bring an armed posse with you to confront someone is because you are hoping they give you a reason to shoot them, and even if youre not hoping for it, you're creating the possibility for no good reason.

I agree they are probably fucked but I think you’re off base with the rest. That’s like saying the only reason anyone carries is because they’re hoping for a chance to shoot someone.

min this case, these guys had no idea whether this dude might be armed.

Luke Rockhard - 
sadic1 - My money is on these guys being fucked. The grounds for a citizens arrest being ambiguous, whatever racist shit they dug up on them, if its close, these guys are going down, imo, and they should. The only reason you bring an armed posse with you to confront someone is because you are hoping they give you a reason to shoot them, and even if youre not hoping for it, you're creating the possibility for no good reason.

I agree they are probably fucked but I think you’re off base with the rest. That’s like saying the only reason anyone carries is because they’re hoping for a chance to shoot someone.

min this case, these guys had no idea whether this dude might be armed.

I know, and Im sympathetic, but in my mind, if you have numbers and no idea if the guy you want to “talk to” is armed, brandishing is automatically threatening in a situation where if you truly just wanted to ask questions to find out whats up, being threatening wouldn’t be in the best interest of the best outcome.

I get it if they are able to ride the letter of the law here, but their intent was to be a threatening posse in the first place, without knowing enough facts or having enough reason to feel the need to be armed.

It feeds the narrative of the left that gun owners are trigger happy wannabe vigilantes.

As a human, why turn a potentially shady thing with limited victims into a persons death unless you have some other anger youre dealing with? People need to chill a little bit, and they don’t have to pretend wrong is right to do it.

Brockback Mountain - Copp and son should hang for this.

You cant be shooting people jogging based on “looks like”.

They will walk. The shithead clearly went after the shotgun. The world is a better place without him. 

1 Like
Corn Pop -
Samoa - 
Corn Pop - 
Samoa - 
bartos -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA - 
bartos -
Charles Barkley - 

Whatever happened with this?

Was it ever agreed upon that you can’t murder unarmed people for trespassing?

Unless, of course, the trespassing occurs at a federal building. 

He wasn’t shot for trespassing. He was shot because he tried to take the other guys gun, which gave the other guy the right to defend himself with deadly force.

If the dude just kept running he would be alive today.

That’s not how self defense works. You can’t claim self defense whilst commiting a violent felony. Sorry. 

LOL @ violent felony. No one is committing a violent felony in the video except for the runner when he tries to take the other guy’s gun.

They ran into him while he was running from them. They blocked his path with their vehicle. They threatened him with a gun. He has the right to not retreat in the face of danger. 

And they had the right to perform a citizens arrest if they were suspicious that he was committing a felony, like burglary, in the house he ran out of

Funny you completely left out how the whole thing started. Honest mistake I’m guessing

This will be the most important issue in the case.  Did they have the right to try to effect a citizen's arrest.  They didn't see him run out of the house.  They saw him running down the street.  If they did, they can only use reasonable force which will be scrutinized even if they had reasonable suspicion to believe he committed a felony (burglary I'm guessing will be the argument) down the street from them.

They didn’t see him running out of the house? I saw it. Another neighbor, if not them, saw it

STFU PimplePop, you’re troll game is stale and you sound ignorant doing it.

sadic1 -
Luke Rockhard -
sadic1 - My money is on these guys being fucked. The grounds for a citizens arrest being ambiguous, whatever racist shit they dug up on them, if its close, these guys are going down, imo, and they should. The only reason you bring an armed posse with you to confront someone is because you are hoping they give you a reason to shoot them, and even if youre not hoping for it, you're creating the possibility for no good reason.

I agree they are probably fucked but I think you’re off base with the rest. That’s like saying the only reason anyone carries is because they’re hoping for a chance to shoot someone.

min this case, these guys had no idea whether this dude might be armed.

I know, and Im sympathetic, but in my mind, if you have numbers and no idea if the guy you want to “talk to” is armed, brandishing is automatically threatening in a situation where if you truly just wanted to ask questions to find out whats up, being threatening wouldn’t be in the best interest of the best outcome.

I get it if they are able to ride the letter of the law here, but their intent was to be a threatening posse in the first place, without knowing enough facts or having enough reason to feel the need to be armed.

It feeds the narrative of the left that gun owners are trigger happy wannabe vigilantes.

As a human, why turn a potentially shady thing with limited victims into a persons death unless you have some other anger youre dealing with? People need to chill a little bit, and they don’t have to pretend wrong is right to do it.


1 Like
sadic1 - Im not against the original intention of these guys to protect the neighborhood and to stop crime, but its getting kind of far out of bounds for my personal tastes to approach one guy with more than one other guys with guns drawn when there was never even a perception of a violent crime having been committed, and a very, very ambiguous possibility that even a property crime was committed.

If once we get down to the letter and interpretation of the law, it is determined these guys were completely in the right, Im ok with them going free, but they are huge assholes who make all responsible gun owners look bad and give fuel to leftist bullshit about the types of people who own guns.

I agree with this. I like guns and concealed carry. That said, I do not like citizens taking the law in their own hands, particularly if there is not a life-threatening situation taking place.

1 Like
bartos -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA - 
bartos -
Charles Barkley - 

Whatever happened with this?

Was it ever agreed upon that you can’t murder unarmed people for trespassing?

Unless, of course, the trespassing occurs at a federal building. 

He wasn’t shot for trespassing. He was shot because he tried to take the other guys gun, which gave the other guy the right to defend himself with deadly force.

If the dude just kept running he would be alive today.

That’s not how self defense works. You can’t claim self defense whilst commiting a violent felony. Sorry. 

LOL @ violent felony. No one is committing a violent felony in the video except for the runner when he tries to take the other guy’s gun.

You do realize that things happened BEFORE the video picks up right? 

That the racist shit stain filming that video already admitted they had been chasing him before the video, and that he had hit him with his truck? That evidence on his truck confirms there was contact right? 

BUT BUT THE VIDEO!!! lol

FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA - 
bartos -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA - 
bartos -
Charles Barkley - 

Whatever happened with this?

Was it ever agreed upon that you can’t murder unarmed people for trespassing?

Unless, of course, the trespassing occurs at a federal building. 

He wasn’t shot for trespassing. He was shot because he tried to take the other guys gun, which gave the other guy the right to defend himself with deadly force.

If the dude just kept running he would be alive today.

That’s not how self defense works. You can’t claim self defense whilst commiting a violent felony. Sorry. 

LOL @ violent felony. No one is committing a violent felony in the video except for the runner when he tries to take the other guy’s gun.

You do realize that things happened BEFORE the video picks up right? 

That the racist shit stain filming that video already admitted they had been chasing him before the video, and that he had hit him with his truck? That evidence on his truck confirms there was contact right? 

BUT BUT THE VIDEO!!! lol

You Libs are so impressionable. It’s hilarious

So two vehicles followed a guy on foot in a high speed pursuit, trying to run him over. Trying to shoot/murder him but could manage to do so, IN TEN FUCKIN MINUTES

LOL you guys are morons

Corn Pop -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA - 
bartos -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA - 
bartos -
Charles Barkley - 

Whatever happened with this?

Was it ever agreed upon that you can’t murder unarmed people for trespassing?

Unless, of course, the trespassing occurs at a federal building. 

He wasn’t shot for trespassing. He was shot because he tried to take the other guys gun, which gave the other guy the right to defend himself with deadly force.

If the dude just kept running he would be alive today.

That’s not how self defense works. You can’t claim self defense whilst commiting a violent felony. Sorry. 

LOL @ violent felony. No one is committing a violent felony in the video except for the runner when he tries to take the other guy’s gun.

You do realize that things happened BEFORE the video picks up right? 

That the racist shit stain filming that video already admitted they had been chasing him before the video, and that he had hit him with his truck? That evidence on his truck confirms there was contact right? 

BUT BUT THE VIDEO!!! lol

You Libs are so impressionable. It’s hilarious

So two vehicles followed a guy on foot in a high speed pursuit, trying to run him over. Trying to shoot/murder him but could manage to do so, IN TEN FUCKIN MINUTES

LOL you guys are morons

Oh goodie, the troll is trying to engage me with idiotic exaggerations and shit I didn’t say. 

Sorry troll. Not wasting my time with little cucks like you. I'll stick to the facts of the case and discussions with adults on those facts. 

1 Like
Samoa -
Corn Pop -
Samoa - 
Corn Pop - 
Samoa - 
bartos -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA - 
bartos -
Charles Barkley - 

Whatever happened with this?

Was it ever agreed upon that you can’t murder unarmed people for trespassing?

Unless, of course, the trespassing occurs at a federal building. 

He wasn’t shot for trespassing. He was shot because he tried to take the other guys gun, which gave the other guy the right to defend himself with deadly force.

If the dude just kept running he would be alive today.

That’s not how self defense works. You can’t claim self defense whilst commiting a violent felony. Sorry. 

LOL @ violent felony. No one is committing a violent felony in the video except for the runner when he tries to take the other guy’s gun.

They ran into him while he was running from them. They blocked his path with their vehicle. They threatened him with a gun. He has the right to not retreat in the face of danger. 

And they had the right to perform a citizens arrest if they were suspicious that he was committing a felony, like burglary, in the house he ran out of

Funny you completely left out how the whole thing started. Honest mistake I’m guessing

This will be the most important issue in the case.  Did they have the right to try to effect a citizen's arrest.  They didn't see him run out of the house.  They saw him running down the street.  If they did, they can only use reasonable force which will be scrutinized even if they had reasonable suspicion to believe he committed a felony (burglary I'm guessing will be the argument) down the street from them.

They didn’t see him running out of the house? I saw it. Another neighbor, if not them, saw it

Travis did not see him run out of the house.  He saw him running down the street. 

Then why would he confront some random guy running down the street?  Serious question. I chose not to follow this story very closely. 

Spider Rico -
Samoa -
Corn Pop -
Samoa - 
Corn Pop - 
Samoa - 
bartos -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA - 
bartos -
Charles Barkley - 

Whatever happened with this?

Was it ever agreed upon that you can’t murder unarmed people for trespassing?

Unless, of course, the trespassing occurs at a federal building. 

He wasn’t shot for trespassing. He was shot because he tried to take the other guys gun, which gave the other guy the right to defend himself with deadly force.

If the dude just kept running he would be alive today.

That’s not how self defense works. You can’t claim self defense whilst commiting a violent felony. Sorry. 

LOL @ violent felony. No one is committing a violent felony in the video except for the runner when he tries to take the other guy’s gun.

They ran into him while he was running from them. They blocked his path with their vehicle. They threatened him with a gun. He has the right to not retreat in the face of danger. 

And they had the right to perform a citizens arrest if they were suspicious that he was committing a felony, like burglary, in the house he ran out of

Funny you completely left out how the whole thing started. Honest mistake I’m guessing

This will be the most important issue in the case.  Did they have the right to try to effect a citizen's arrest.  They didn't see him run out of the house.  They saw him running down the street.  If they did, they can only use reasonable force which will be scrutinized even if they had reasonable suspicion to believe he committed a felony (burglary I'm guessing will be the argument) down the street from them.

They didn’t see him running out of the house? I saw it. Another neighbor, if not them, saw it

Travis did not see him run out of the house.  He saw him running down the street. 

Then why would he confront some random guy running down the street?  Serious question. I chose not to follow this story very closely. 

Because he’s a stupid racist redneck. /thread

Revenants - 
Spider Rico -
Samoa -
Corn Pop -
Samoa - 
Corn Pop - 
Samoa - 
bartos -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA - 
bartos -
Charles Barkley - 

Whatever happened with this?

Was it ever agreed upon that you can’t murder unarmed people for trespassing?

Unless, of course, the trespassing occurs at a federal building. 

He wasn’t shot for trespassing. He was shot because he tried to take the other guys gun, which gave the other guy the right to defend himself with deadly force.

If the dude just kept running he would be alive today.

That’s not how self defense works. You can’t claim self defense whilst commiting a violent felony. Sorry. 

LOL @ violent felony. No one is committing a violent felony in the video except for the runner when he tries to take the other guy’s gun.

They ran into him while he was running from them. They blocked his path with their vehicle. They threatened him with a gun. He has the right to not retreat in the face of danger. 

And they had the right to perform a citizens arrest if they were suspicious that he was committing a felony, like burglary, in the house he ran out of

Funny you completely left out how the whole thing started. Honest mistake I’m guessing

This will be the most important issue in the case.  Did they have the right to try to effect a citizen's arrest.  They didn't see him run out of the house.  They saw him running down the street.  If they did, they can only use reasonable force which will be scrutinized even if they had reasonable suspicion to believe he committed a felony (burglary I'm guessing will be the argument) down the street from them.

They didn’t see him running out of the house? I saw it. Another neighbor, if not them, saw it

Travis did not see him run out of the house.  He saw him running down the street. 

Then why would he confront some random guy running down the street?  Serious question. I chose not to follow this story very closely. 

Because he’s a stupid racist redneck. /thread

With apparently the best luck ever, as evidenced by the fact that the one black guy in his life he chose to follow and shoot, also happened to be the one guy who just ran out of his neighbors house and was the same guy who was there multiple times prior.

Amazing

Spider Rico - 
Samoa -
Corn Pop -
Samoa - 
Corn Pop - 
Samoa - 
bartos -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA - 
bartos -
Charles Barkley - 

Whatever happened with this?

Was it ever agreed upon that you can’t murder unarmed people for trespassing?

Unless, of course, the trespassing occurs at a federal building. 

He wasn’t shot for trespassing. He was shot because he tried to take the other guys gun, which gave the other guy the right to defend himself with deadly force.

If the dude just kept running he would be alive today.

That’s not how self defense works. You can’t claim self defense whilst commiting a violent felony. Sorry. 

LOL @ violent felony. No one is committing a violent felony in the video except for the runner when he tries to take the other guy’s gun.

They ran into him while he was running from them. They blocked his path with their vehicle. They threatened him with a gun. He has the right to not retreat in the face of danger. 

And they had the right to perform a citizens arrest if they were suspicious that he was committing a felony, like burglary, in the house he ran out of

Funny you completely left out how the whole thing started. Honest mistake I’m guessing

This will be the most important issue in the case.  Did they have the right to try to effect a citizen's arrest.  They didn't see him run out of the house.  They saw him running down the street.  If they did, they can only use reasonable force which will be scrutinized even if they had reasonable suspicion to believe he committed a felony (burglary I'm guessing will be the argument) down the street from them.

They didn’t see him running out of the house? I saw it. Another neighbor, if not them, saw it

Travis did not see him run out of the house.  He saw him running down the street. 

Then why would he confront some random guy running down the street?  Serious question. I chose not to follow this story very closely. 

AA was seen on video in the house prior to this day.  George (Travis' father; former cop) had seen the video.  George and Travis were at their house (down the street) a week or so later and only saw AA running down the street coming from the direction of the house.

Their position is that they believed from him running down the street coming from the direction of the house that they had seen video of him in without permission that they had reasonable belief to believe that he had committed a felony and jumped in a truck to pursue him.  Their buddy Roddy joined chase in a separate vehicle.  They chased him one direction and he reversed field and ran back the other direction.  At some point Roddy admits to hitting him with his car during the chase.  The video picks up after Travis and George have driven past AA and blocked the road with their truck.

Each is charged with malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, false imprisonment and criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment.

Corn Pop - 
Revenants - 
Spider Rico -
Samoa -
Corn Pop -
Samoa - 
Corn Pop - 
Samoa - 
bartos -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA - 
bartos -
Charles Barkley - 

Whatever happened with this?

Was it ever agreed upon that you can’t murder unarmed people for trespassing?

Unless, of course, the trespassing occurs at a federal building. 

He wasn’t shot for trespassing. He was shot because he tried to take the other guys gun, which gave the other guy the right to defend himself with deadly force.

If the dude just kept running he would be alive today.

That’s not how self defense works. You can’t claim self defense whilst commiting a violent felony. Sorry. 

LOL @ violent felony. No one is committing a violent felony in the video except for the runner when he tries to take the other guy’s gun.

They ran into him while he was running from them. They blocked his path with their vehicle. They threatened him with a gun. He has the right to not retreat in the face of danger. 

And they had the right to perform a citizens arrest if they were suspicious that he was committing a felony, like burglary, in the house he ran out of

Funny you completely left out how the whole thing started. Honest mistake I’m guessing

This will be the most important issue in the case.  Did they have the right to try to effect a citizen's arrest.  They didn't see him run out of the house.  They saw him running down the street.  If they did, they can only use reasonable force which will be scrutinized even if they had reasonable suspicion to believe he committed a felony (burglary I'm guessing will be the argument) down the street from them.

They didn’t see him running out of the house? I saw it. Another neighbor, if not them, saw it

Travis did not see him run out of the house.  He saw him running down the street. 

Then why would he confront some random guy running down the street?  Serious question. I chose not to follow this story very closely. 

Because he’s a stupid racist redneck. /thread

With apparently the best luck ever, as evidenced by the fact that the one black guy in his life he chose to follow and shoot, also happened to be the one guy who just ran out of his neighbors house and was the same guy who was there multiple times prior.

Amazing

Calling black people coons and crackheads with gold teeth might be the actions of a racist.  Not sure.

accurate?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzNxSGsluSg

Samoa -
Spider Rico - 
Samoa -
Corn Pop -
Samoa - 
Corn Pop - 
Samoa - 
bartos -
FETT_Lay'n'PrayNINJA - 
bartos -
Charles Barkley - 

Whatever happened with this?

Was it ever agreed upon that you can’t murder unarmed people for trespassing?

Unless, of course, the trespassing occurs at a federal building. 

He wasn’t shot for trespassing. He was shot because he tried to take the other guys gun, which gave the other guy the right to defend himself with deadly force.

If the dude just kept running he would be alive today.

That’s not how self defense works. You can’t claim self defense whilst commiting a violent felony. Sorry. 

LOL @ violent felony. No one is committing a violent felony in the video except for the runner when he tries to take the other guy’s gun.

They ran into him while he was running from them. They blocked his path with their vehicle. They threatened him with a gun. He has the right to not retreat in the face of danger. 

And they had the right to perform a citizens arrest if they were suspicious that he was committing a felony, like burglary, in the house he ran out of

Funny you completely left out how the whole thing started. Honest mistake I’m guessing

This will be the most important issue in the case.  Did they have the right to try to effect a citizen's arrest.  They didn't see him run out of the house.  They saw him running down the street.  If they did, they can only use reasonable force which will be scrutinized even if they had reasonable suspicion to believe he committed a felony (burglary I'm guessing will be the argument) down the street from them.

They didn’t see him running out of the house? I saw it. Another neighbor, if not them, saw it

Travis did not see him run out of the house.  He saw him running down the street. 

Then why would he confront some random guy running down the street?  Serious question. I chose not to follow this story very closely. 

AA was seen on video in the house prior to this day.  George (Travis' father; former cop) had seen the video.  George and Travis were at their house (down the street) a week or so later and only saw AA running down the street coming from the direction of the house.

Their position is that they believed from him running down the street coming from the direction of the house that they had seen video of him in without permission that they had reasonable belief to believe that he had committed a felony and jumped in a truck to pursue him.  Their buddy Roddy joined chase in a separate vehicle.  They chased him one direction and he reversed field and ran back the other direction.  At some point Roddy admits to hitting him with his car during the chase.  The video picks up after Travis and George have driven past AA and blocked the road with their truck.

Each is charged with malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, false imprisonment and criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment.

Thanks i appreciate that breakdown.  Your opinion.......what would you do if this was your neighborhood and you felt this guy was being shady in your neighborhood (again)?  Not trying to set you up, im genuinely curious.  

Thanks i appreciate that breakdown.  Your opinion.......what would you do if this was your neighborhood and you felt this guy was being shady in your neighborhood (again)?  Not trying to set you up, im genuinely curious.

--------------------------------------------------

Well, I'm old and I'm not winning any footraces and I'm not going to chase anyone down in a car.  I might shoo someone away from a neighbors house if I saw them or even confront them if they don't take off but that is about it.

When I was 22 it was way different.  My brother and I caught a guy pushing his girlfriend's RX-7 down the parking lot in her apartment complex.  We massaged his head for him.  Didn't kill the guy, but it probably wasn't the wisest response.

It really is quite common to and normal