What makes you think that an investigation was not done?[/quote]
The fact no charges were filed.
What makes you think that an investigation was not done?[/quote]
The fact no charges were filed.
I like Blue Women wrote:
Are you implying that white teenagers hold themselves to a higher standard than blacks and are rarely involved in these types of situations? That's a rather racist proposition on your part, Unc.
.
Are you implying I am supposed to understand whatever the hell it is you are trying to say?
That makes no sense. They don't start investigating after charges have been filed. The start of the investigation precedes filing of charges.
Wait for the civil trial, folks. This family is going to sue the living daylights out of this man. And they are going to win.
The New UncleB wrote:
Are you implying I am supposed to understand whatever the hell it is you are trying to say?
You stated that you can't think of a reverse situation of a white thug assaulting a black citizen who had to defend himself with a weapon. I was wondering what you were hoping we were to infer from this.
Why hasn't any asked why he couldn't just run away? This is supposed to be the website with all the fast people isn't it?
The New UncleB wrote:
AuntB wrote:There you go again, UncleB, playing the race card. If this was a white on black crime, then where's Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?
.
A white jogger (I assume) kills a nonwhite kid and no charges are filed, you cheer this on....and I am playing the race card?
Yes, you are. No mention was made of the race of either person until you. You pulled the race card, you could at least have the common courtesy to stop pretending you didn't.
If I were to shoot someone, run them over, whatever, I would certainly be arrested (i.e., "charged").
Well, maybe not in FLA if the guy I killed was a poor man of color
The New UncleB wrote:
If I were to shoot someone, run them over, whatever, I would certainly be arrested (i.e., "charged").
Well, maybe not in FLA if the guy I killed was a poor man of color
Or if the guy you killed was attacking you.
Also, you are lying when you say that being arrested is being charged. Two different things.
.I like Blue Women wrote:
The New UncleB wrote:Are you implying I am supposed to understand whatever the hell it is you are trying to say?
You stated that you can't think of a reverse situation of a white thug assaulting a black citizen who had to defend himself with a weapon. I was wondering what you were hoping we were to infer from this.
Infer? I was pointing out that, in all likelihood you knew of no situation where a black man killed a white kid and was not arrested. And, hoping against hope, that the fact that a white man can kill a nonwhite one and not be arrested while the reverse is not true might get you to see the racism inherent in the system. Is it really gthat difficult for you to understand this on your own.
The New UncleB wrote:
If I were to shoot someone, run them over, whatever, I would certainly be arrested (i.e., "charged").
Well, maybe not in FLA if the guy I killed was a poor man of color
It depends on the situation. Are you going to shoot while the person is assaulting you and your life is in danger? Or while you're robbing him?
Since you don't understand when force is allowed and when it's not, I would agree with you that you may very well end up being arrested out of pure ignorance.
The New UncleB wrote:
I certainly do so that an investigation can be done. Are we to take the word of the jogger as gospel?
There was an investigation and the companion of the shooting victim confirmed that the victim did initiate the incident by assaulting the jogger. So, no, we're (and more properly the authorities) are not taking the word of the jogger as gospel and the decision of the DA not to press charges seems justified.
What makes dismissing this as simply self-defense uncomfortable is that there are indications that the jogger may have been looking for confrontation. If that's so, he's an idiot with a side of vigilante, but not a criminal.
The fact a white shoots and kills a nonwhite kid and is not charged is not playing the race card? But my pointing it out is?
It's like when rich people crap all over the rest of us and when someone says, hey, the rich people are crapping all over us, we inevitably have some right wing nutbag accusing the observant person of engaging in class war. Actually engaging is class war is fine, but pointing it out is the problem
The New UncleB wrote:
If I were to shoot someone, run them over, whatever, I would certainly be arrested (i.e., "charged").
Well, maybe not in FLA if the guy I killed was a poor man of color
Also, you are lying when you imply that the shooter was not arrested. He was arrested and released.
[quote]the thug made him do it wrote:
Also, you are lying when you say that being arrested is being charged. Two different things.
You can be arrested without being charged? Well, maybe if you are a muslim or immigrant of color. But you (as a white person) cannot be arrested without charges. This guy was not charged according to the story. Hence, he was not arrested.
The New UncleB wrote:
The fact a white shoots and kills a nonwhite kid and is not charged is not playing the race card? But my pointing it out is?
Yes, that is playing the race card. Distil the incident down to raceless values, and you're argument becomes "I don't think a victim of an assault should be able to use force to defend himself." You'll notice without the black and white, it doesn't hold water.
You either watched American Beauty too many times or have some kind of military fanaticism about pulling a trigger. Thumb off the trigger buddy.
The New UncleB wrote:
You can be arrested without being charged? Well, maybe if you are a muslim or immigrant of color. But you (as a white person) cannot be arrested without charges. This guy was not charged according to the story. Hence, he was not arrested.
This is simply not true. You can be arrested without charge and the shooter was arrested and released without charge.
If you couldn't be arrested without charge, how would police arrest a criminal who they caught in the act of committing a crime? Do you think that they drive around with an ADA in the back of every squad car?
always called joggers.
always.
the thug made him do it wrote:
This is simply not true. You can be arrested without charge and the shooter was arrested and released without charge.
If you couldn't be arrested without charge, how would police arrest a criminal who they caught in the act of committing a crime? Do you think that they drive around with an ADA in the back of every squad car?
.
You cannot be arrested without being charged with a crime. Every time the cops arrest you they charge you with something -- even if it is some BS they made up. They cannot slap the cuffs on you and take you away without charging you with a crime. Charges may be dropped and you may not have to go to trial (or cut a deal), but you are most certainly charged with something everytome you are arrested.