An even more biased article bent to paint him as the victim and the two remaining actors as vigilantes.
No objectivity whatsoever in presenting only one side of the story with a clear slant.
Ya need more information, not going to for another initial reporting story only for more details to come out that derails everything.
Just found it as well. 
In my opinion, the Brunswick News article paints an even more harrowing picture of what happened. They chase him down in their truck. Try to block his movement with their truck multiple times. They put one of the men in the truckâs bed with a gun while they chase him and pull up next to him. The driver gets out of the truck with a shotgun.
They suspected him of burglary, but they didnât see anything besides that he was running down the street while wearing a bandana.
Well, canât make a judgement. Definitely not enough information. Did they see him stealing? If so, citizens SHOULD confront thieves and if he grabbed for the gun, self defense is justified. If he was simply out on a run, no reason for a citizen to stop him and maybe HE was acting in self defense trying to get the gun? I can tell you this, if Iâm out jogging and someone starts yelling at me and trying to stop me, more than likely Iâll be inclined to act in self defense and Iâm always armed. This boils down to whether or not a crime was committed by the guy that got shot in my opinion.
Ah one of the guys worked for the DAâs office. Now this whole thing makes a lot more sense.
Legally the determination is basically âwho acted unlawfully firstâ.
Everything could have been fine for all involved right up to the end and the âsuspectâ could then have taken it as a slight and attacked.
When you do so, the first duty of the guy with the gun and his partner is to prevent the âsuspectâ from getting control of it and deadly force is then lawful.
Gotta see how it shakes out.
The DA recused himself, try again.
Try what again? Pointing out that being an ex DAâs investigator will get you a leg up isnât exactly solving the Lindbergh kidnapping.
The DA recused himself after telling the police he wasnât going to file charges - and then, only after the victimâs family complained of his conflict of interest.
How dare you point out the facts.
I mean, really! Who runs down a street with a bandanna on these days?
Where did you find that? Certainly isnât in the article⌠while the following IS in the article.
Ware County District Attorney George Barnhillâs office is still investigating to determine whether criminal charges are warranted in the shooting.
From the article in the OP:
The prosecutor who wrote the letter, George E. Barnhill, the district attorney for Georgiaâs Waycross Judicial Circuit, recused himself from the case this month, after Mr. Arberyâs family complained that he had a conflict of interest. A prosecutor from another county is now in charge and will determine whether the case should be presented to a grand jury.
I do have to say, a white t-shirt, shorts and running shoes doesnât fit the profile of a guy trying to hide his identity as heâs out committing crimes. If I had to guess, these guys will face charges. Over zealous concerned citizens can end up in prison. I get you want to stop crime but chasing someone down that you think may be armed is just stupidity⌠especially if you think you captured it on video and heâs not carrying stolen merchandise. Doesnât seem that he was carrying anything from the story.
Iâm 100% for people acting in self defense but you better be damn certain the person youâre chasing is in the process of committing a crime.
All I had was the alternate links and itâs not mentioned in them that I saw.
They are probably earlier reporting. The Times story is from yesterday.
From a guy who probably thought they were trying to rob him.
Both of them should go to jail for harassment, depriving the victim of his civil rights, etc. even if they canât convict them for murder.
The NYT probably got it wrong.
