Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Asking him questions while holding a shotgun did not put his life in danger. Had the jogger guy survived the encounter, he would be in jail right now for committing battery against Travis McMichael. Had the jogger guy killed anyone, he'd be awaiting trial for manslaughter.



Protecting yourself from attack isn't murder.

Your opinion of perceived threat is your OPINION only and is the opinion of a gun aealot who wants to dintroduce firearms as an everyday every occurrence part of life, which most people reject. The introduction of shotgun in hand, nit even slung, is a significant escalation in potential violence than a simple unarmed approach after stopping someone for no apparent reason with no badge ofr evidence of legal authority, if you want to ask questions. For the same reason that a cop drawing his gun rather than leaving it hol=steresd is a universally recognized indication of increased seriousness in a cop'e intentions and actions. you're all wet,in other words.

If someone chooses to not carry arms in public, then it's their own fault if they fall victim to a massacre.

I respect the right of progressives to make that choice for themselves, but don't expect me to express any sympathy when their foolish choices catch up with them.

Your answers conveniently ignore that it is FACT that Snr had no knowledge of any breakin that the suspect could be fleeing (none having happened that day). Granted he would have known of a series of breakins that occurred over a month ago - but to be clear - this doesn't go towards describing anyone as fleeing a burglarly.

The only surrounding evidence you appear to be considering, is the words spoken by Snr to 911, and to the police (that is - you aren't considering any surrounding evidence). As I said, taking a criminals words for ‘why’ irrespective of the surrounding evidence, isn’t a good argument for manslaughter over murder.

The problem is the reasonableness of his beliefs are a key issue (see quote below of different types of belief in law), particularly given his law enforcement background, working for both police, and the DA’s office, because:

- If he wilfully ignored the lack of evidence to hunt down a person and kill him, then that makes it malicious.

- If he wilfully ignored all his knowledge and training to hunt down a person and kill him, then that makes it malicious.

- So the question isn’t whether or not he supposedly ‘believed’ but whether or not such ‘belief’ was reasonable (ie. Whether or not there were any reasonable grounds, and whether or not he ignored his knowledge & training in forming his ‘belief’). This is the only way you can determine maliciousness, or not (and once again, taking a killers word at face value is not a good way to determine if there was any maliciousness.)

My very solid opinion is that he did ignore the lack of evidence, and he did ignore his knowledge and training. If you want to think that this will not be a cornerstone of the murder charge, that is up to you, but I've not doubt it will play a major part in the case. My view is that, given this, his behaviour was malicious.


He was both a police officer, then hired as a DA investigator. The DA would not hire a completely incompetent investigator. It is not credible (even in the minutest terms) that Snr would have no understanding of criminal law, nor what would hold up in court, nor what makes a person a suspect (to a criminal standard).

It is fact that Snr had to ignore the lack of burglary that the victim was supposedly fleeing (because there wasn’t one that had just occurred). It is overwhelmingly credible that he ignored his knowledge of the law in order to hunt down, and then kill, a black man.



What evidence do you have to say the jogger violently attacked anyone prior to being shot at?

The evidence indicates the victim didn’t even reach the killer before being shot the first time. There is the almost immediate shot as the victim turns the corner of the vehicle – and junior can be seen backing up from the far side of the vehicle, with clear space in between the two. That evidence says almost overwhelmingly that the killer was not violently attacked prior to firing the first time. Jnr had already formed the intention to kill the victim reached him (the killer) in an attempt to defend his (the victims) own life.



For the average citizen, not trying to engage in a citizens arrest, that is somewhat okay (and even understandable for one asking if he should arrest the man).

However you are talking about a trained police officer and DA investigator, intending to conduct a citienzs arrest, with full knowledge of at least the police standard of arrest, full knowledge of what will hold up in court, and full knowledge of what makes a person an actual suspect (that is arrestable)….who does not know of any just completed breakin, and who knows he doesn’t have enough evidence....



Here you go again – ignoring the actual evidence:
- no just completed breaking (fact)
- man out jogging in jogging gear with clear jogging gait (fact)
...to take the white mans words over the actual evidence.

Actually, the responsibility for killing someone always rests with the person doing the killing.

Though in terms of this particular tragedy, it's interesting that you strongly infer the black victim is at fault for his own death at the hands of white killers:
- for not carrying a firearm to defend himself; and also
- for trying to defend his own life (which is oxymoronic)

That wasn't about the dead jogger guy. That was about the virtue signaling that progressives engage in whenever there is a bad massacre somewhere.

If someone chooses to not carry a gun to protect themselves, it's their own fault that they are defenseless.

And yet it could be applied directly to the dead jogger, who wasn't carrying a firearm when he was shot and killed.

The situations aren't really similar. The jogger was killed in self defense when he violently attacked someone.

If the jogger chose to not carry arms in public, then it's his own fault that he fell victim to a killing.

See...all the major parts are the same (a massacre of course involving more than one killing). Even if it wasn't your intention for your expressed view to be apply to the victim - it so very obviously can be applied to the dead joggers circumstances. I've no issue if you had said "it is a circumstance that contributed to his own demise". That at least would be accurate. I don't agree with the notion that he should feel the need to carry arms, but the actual accuracy of such a statement couldn't be questioned.

The major parts are not the same. The jogger was killed in self defense as he violently attacked someone.

Really? Which part isn't the same
- that he wasn't carrying arms
- or that he fell victim to a killing/massacre?
- and the 'its his/their fault' is predicated on the above two conditions (so this part can't change - only the conditions on which 'blame' rests)

'Fighting for his life' isn't involved in your statement regarding carrying firearms in public, fault, and dying. If you didn't express it as fully as you thought and wanted to include "and don't fight for their life", then the only issue I'd have is the use of the word 'fault'

"That he fell victim to a killing/massacre" is the part that is not the same.

He's NOT the victim of a Killing? Hallelujah, he is risen again !

Correct. He was killed in self defense as he violently attacked someone. It is wrong to suggest that someone was trying to kill him.

He was killed because he was black, and because killing black people for nothing is perfectly legal in the US, apparently.

Read in the newsfeed today: a woman calls the cop on a black man because he dared to ask for her dog to be leashed in Central Park, NYC. People have got it: cops can kill blacks, so if you want a black man killed, call the cops on him...

Ummm...wow...he was killed while trying to defend his own life, but this doesn't make him the victim of a killing....

There is a substantial difference between "someone being killed because somebody wanted to kill them" and "someone being killed in self defense as they violently attack someone".

The jogger would still be alive today if he had not violently attacked anyone.

That is incorrect. He was killed in self defense as he was violently attacking someone.



Self defense is a right the world over.

Your characterization "for nothing" is factually inaccurate.



Ideally the police will kill only in self defense or in the defense of others. That is usually the case.

That is purely speculation on your part - and quite a selective interpretation to suit your bias - while ignoring the actual evidence that shows him:
- zig zagging for his life (as he reaches the vehicle - where he obviously realises they are a threat to his life); and then
- being shot as soon as he rounds the corner of the vehicle (determined via sound of the shotgun blast), with Jnr on the far side of the vehicle (visual).

So there was no attack by the victim before the victim was shot (the first time).

After he is shot the first time (and we know all three shots hit him in some part of his body), he has no choice but to fight for his life. This is what you, with prejudice, call 'attacking'.

He is a victim in any sane world.

The only question is whether he is a victim of murder, or manslaughter. I think murder. The GIA think murder.

Travis McMichael only opened fire when the jogger charged at him.



The murder charges are based on a legal loophole that the Georgia legislature is in the process of closing.