Self-Defense or Manslaughter

[Scratch]

What gives them the right to chase him down and stop him with their guns drawn?

[Samm]

@WildRose

They didn’t approach him, they were in a static position. He first approached them and then charged the guy on the ground making a grab for his gun.

They weren’t just idly sitting there waiting for him, they chased him down, pulled past him, and stopped in front of him and blocked his path … a path which he had every right to be on. It was their behavior that caused this, not his.

[Samm]

@WildRose

Of course I would, I’m big on common sense and staying alive.

The first thing we teach people is to avoid threatening situations from the get go.

If the hair on your neck stands up or you otherwise get signals things are going to go bad you avoid the situation altogether if at all possible.

What you don’t do is what he did.

And what you don’t do if you just want to talk to someone is what they did. The responsibility for the outcome rests with who did it first.

[5th_WiL]

I knew for sure that old occums razor principle was going out the window as soon as i saw the video. So much bias built into all of us.

The whole system is stacked against this kid in this situation. All 3 DAs need to be investigated for obstruction.

[Samm]

@WildRose

They didn’t escalate anything, they were in a static position to which he then chose to charge and make a grab for the gun.

He escalated the situation and got himself killed.

No. He attempted to protect himself from a stranger with a gun who had for no reason (as far as he was concerned) had tried to detain him.

[Samm]

@WildRose

I’m simply stating facts.

They were not moving, he was, he closed the distance, charged, made a grab for the gun and got killed.

Stop, Asses, Decide.

Charging into that situation was the one choice guaranteed to end badly.

You know damned well, that an armed roadblock is an aggressive act in a civilian situation. Particularly when the roadblockers drove around you to get to where they stopped in front of you. I can’t believe that you actually think what these two guys did is acceptable.

[Samm]

@WildRose

Everyone involved made poor decisions.

In the end the fatal decision was to charge the guy with the gun and make a grab for it.

Stop, Assess, Decide on the course of action least likely to get you killed.

He chose poorly and paid with his life.

There is no legal requirement to make the right decision when you believe your life is in danger.

[5th_WiL]

It sounded like two people in the car recording the video. They are both suspects.
If the Governor doesnt step in, hope William Barr is paying attention. This thing stinks.

[5th_WiL]

@WuWei

A black guy being chased by two white guys in a pick up truck, one of whom is in the back… in Georgia.

You betcha.

You are consistent.
No time to stop and asses that historically dangerous scenario. You have to go with your move in that moment.

[WuWei]

@Samm

In this case, they intended to detain him so they could (in their words) talk to him. Does that count in Texas?

I would call that unlawful restraint and 3rd degree felony.

[WildRose]

What I do Samm is teach a very simple, common sense approach to people to keep them from getting killed or ending up in prison.

Stop, Assess, Decide and whenever possible Avoid inserting yourself into circumstances you cannot control where you’re likely to end up dead or in jail for making poor choices.

He’s one that is dead, hence, that’s my greatest concern.

Everyone should take this as a great example of what not to do when you see a couple of guys in the road with guns.

[WildRose]

From the video it appears they were always ahead of him and he was running towards them.

Was he supposed to change directions because of them?

What choice was most/least likely to result in his death?

Charging at them and making a grab for the gun?

Stopping and engaging to find out what is going on?

Turning left or right and getting the hell out of the AO?

[WildRose]

Watch the video, this isn’t what happened.

[WildRose]

Actually there is. The “Reasonable Person” requirement.

In this case the law was secondary to survival and he chose the least survivable path.

[WildRose]

Where have I said their actions are acceptable?

The only question I’m addressing is if it is legally justifiable along with how the victim here could have chosen differently and survived.

[Samm]

@WildRose

What I do Samm is teach a very simple, common sense approach to people to keep them from getting killed or ending up in prison.

Stop, Assess, Decide and whenever possible Avoid inserting yourself into circumstances you cannot control where you’re likely to end up dead or in jail for making poor choices.

He’s one that is dead, hence, that’s my greatest concern.

Everyone should take this as a great example of what not to do when you see a couple of guys in the road with guns.

So the best you can say is that he (the victim) could have benefited from taking your class. I know that. But that does not mean that anyone is required to have such training in the unlikely event that they experience an encounter such as this one, or that the reaction that they have be the “best” for the particular situation. The “common man” criterion is in play here, not the “trained man” criterion.

[Samm]

@WildRose

Actually there is. The “Reasonable Person” requirement.

In this case the law was secondary to survival and he chose the least survivable path.

I agree. And a reasonable person would have the expectation of fearing for their life in this situation. How a person reacts to that fear is immaterial and if they react badly (in your opinion) it does not justify the counter reaction by the person who created the fear in the first place. I agree, survival is the desired outcome, but given the lack of information available to the victim at the time, he had no idea whether the alternatives of freezing or fleeing would save his life. Unless we are trained and rehearsed for this and/or other scenarios, we as reasonable people can’t be expected to know what the “smart” thing to do is.

[Samm]

@WildRose

Where have I said their actions are acceptable?

The only question I’m addressing is if it is legally justifiable along with how the victim here could have chosen differently and survived.

You are saying it’s acceptable when you say that they should not be prosecuted.

[Scratch]

So would you charge the two armed men with any crime or not?

[markdido]

@Samm

@WildRose

Where have I said their actions are acceptable?

The only question I’m addressing is if it is legally justifiable along with how the victim here could have chosen differently and survived.

You are saying it’s acceptable when you say that they should not be prosecuted.

Don’t know about GA, but here in Florida, the two men could be charged with False Imprisonment