Father and son charged with murder of Georgia jogger.

You know nothing about the flag or why it was flown so let’s just leave your ignorance concerning that matter out of this before I’m forced to educate you.

As far as the first statement I didn’t assert they should all be considered criminals. I gave several other contributing factors as to why a gun should have been pulled including he was a suspect matching the description of someone caught on video burglarizing a home, he had just been seen peeping through windows at a construction site and he had previously brandished or pretended to brandish a firearm at the individuals involved. Combine that with the fact that he belongs to a group who routinely commits a grossly disproportionate amount of violent crime and they had a justifiable reason to have firearms with them.

Notice I didn’t say “he was black so they should have pulled a gun on him.”

By the way they didn’t want to kill the guy or they would have just shot him immediately. They didn’t shoot him until he tried to take someone’s gun away from them instead of just stop like he was asked to do.

And he wasn’t cornered lol he was on a road with woods on both sides. All he had to do was stop or keep running but his decision to try to take the man’s gun away cost him his life.

 

If your intent is to rob me then of course not. If your intent is to arrest me or hold me until authorities arrive then absolutely.

An intent which they made abundantly clear that they were simply trying to stop him for an arrest. But criminals don’t want to be arrested because then they end up in jail. I’ll be interested to see if his fingerprints matched those at the scene of the burglary.

Let’s assume that I WAS in the middle of a felony and you chase me down with a gun, not to kill me but to arrest me. If I try to take your gun from you and you shoot me, who is at fault?

 

I believe a reasonable person would think there is a degree of premeditation in loading weapons into a vehicle and then chasing someone down, confronting them on a public street and then shooting them. This wasn’t “in the heat of the moment”. Just brandishing a weapon shows intent.

 

Notice I didn’t say “he was black so they should have pulled a gun on him.” [/QUOTE]Treason pride not racial prejudice, right?

By the way they didn’t want to kill the guy or they would have just shot him immediately. They didn’t shoot him until he tried to take someone’s gun away from them instead of just stop like he was asked to do.

And he wasn’t cornered lol he was on a road with woods on both sides. All he had to do was stop or keep running but his decision to try to take the man’s gun away cost him his life.[/QUOTE]So if a group of black men with weapons approach you while demanding you “stop”, if you don’t comply they are free to kill you?

That is such a laughably absurd argument, reversed howvere it just might work in states that once fought a war to keep these places as slaves.

 

The northerners were the traitors and the south didn’t fight to preserve slavery. Both are easily demonstrable.

Regardless, no those men would not have the right to shoot me if they were trying to detain me for police to come along. If, however, they’re trying to detain me and I attempt to take one of their guns out of their hands they have every right to shoot me. Of course I wouldn’t be that stupid.

 

Feel free to demonstrate these truths then — I’ll start (with direct quotes from the Vice President of the Confederacy no less)
Maybe look up the definition of treason before you attempt

Of course you would, you would absolutely comply with their unlawful demands and not attempt to flee or protect yourself...

Why don’t I believe that?

Ever hear of flight or fight?

 

Okay so I was just gonna let this one go because I was busy and didn’t want to hijack the thread but since I’ve got a little free time and no one has responded since your post, it’s your lucky day. Class is in session. This will be done in several posts.

First of all I’ll call your VP sand raise you a president. I give you “The Great Emancipator” Abraham Lincoln, in his own words:

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”


“I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.”


“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…”


“Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.”

Lincoln didn’t go to war to free slaves. He went to war to assert the federal government’s authority over the state.

 

As for your claim of treason, you have a funny definition for the word.

If you and I enter into an agreement and we both willfully sign a contract that defines our rights and responsibilities under said agreement.

Years later I come back and say, “You know I never liked this part of our agreement because I consider it to be immoral. As such I’m no longer going to uphold that portion of our contract whether you like it or not.” You respond and say, “That’s fine. If you want to unilaterally alter our agreement without my consent then I want out of our partnership.”

Who is the traitor? You or I?

If I then come back and say, “No you’re not leaving our partnership and if I have to murder your men, women and children to stop you then that’s what I’m going to do.”

Who is in right and who is in the wrong? Furthermore if placed in that position would you not fight back?

 

To address my last claim that the south did not go to war to preserve slavery; they had no NEED to do so. The north had already capitulated and passed the Corwin amendment. An amendment which would have ended secession and guaranteed slavery as an inalienable constitutional right. An amendment which had already passed Congress, had full support from Lincoln and had already been ratified by multiple union states.

Please explain to me why ANYONE would choose to risk EVERYTHING they have including lands, property, homes, wealth, position, power, the lives of their friends and family and even their own lives in a war that they KNEW they had little to no chance of winning in order to accomplish the EXACT same goal of the preservation of slavery that they could have accomplished with zero risk and a 100% guarantee of success simply by signing a piece of paper? Why would ANYBODY do that?

Don’t worry. I’ll wait.

 

So you quoted the reasoning from the President of United States of America to show why the President and Vice President of the Confederacy went to war? Do you have a source within the Confederacy saying that it was not about slavery? No, you don’t.

 

Not every one is built to run.

 

If you believe it is moral to own people then the Confederacy was ‘in the right’. If you believe it is immoral then the Union was.

As for which side is a traitor to the Constitution, which did not contain absolute verbiage of succession, I would argue the group that struck first.
Hint: April 12, 1861 Fort Sumter.

 

They have no authority to ask him to stop.
They have no authority to block the road.

The moment they did the two and brandished weapons he was free to do what he needed to do to ensure his safety.
He tried to run right of the vehicle and saw the armed man at which point he tried to run right — when he saw the man approaching him he attempted to defend himself. Should he have ran in the wood or turned around and ran the opposite direction, I don’t know — I have never been in that situation so I cannot answer that question.

Should they have blocked the road and implied death if he didn’t comply by flashing their weapons at him?
No

Hopefully their decision costs them theirs.

 

The Amendment was proposed and ratified by 5 states until the CSA fired on the USA.
Why would they open fire if they believed they could keep everything through this Amendment?

 

It feels like you are describing something out of mad max there, that feels wrong.

With that said these yahoos totally exceeded all normal thresholds of acceptable behavior, and then this kid responded very agressively (also a low % reaction) and here we are.

if any of the two parties react like the other 99.999% of us this doesn't happen.

stay home, make a call, stand around the garage, drink a couple more beers. I mean seriously wtf, this is deep swamp Louisiana stuff.

 

If you want to find racism, check chicago and detroit.

 

2 cities out vs most of the southern states.

 

Is there some kind of point you're trying to make in all that?

 

They are murderers and deserve the needle.

Is that simplified enough for you?

Or maybe:

Murder. Bad.

Best I can do...

 

Secessionist too complex a word — treason flag seems to be the ticket

 

The south is pretty chill, I know this from living there, Chicago isnt chill.

 

I disagree. Wanting to fly the traitor flags to own black people doesn't seem chill to me.

 

Some people are saying this is a homicide.

I'm not sure about that. What he did was so stupid, I'm not sure it could really be described as self defense.

Even if they were in the wrong to approach or try to stop him (let's say here for the sake of argument), and even though he did have the right to run towards them and grapple for the gun, I still do not feel this constitutes a homicide.

The way I feel about it, he was a little bit more responsible than they were for his own death. Any rational person with common sense would have had no reasonable expectation that his reaction in that situation would be able to defend himself.

 

Would it make you feel better if there was fine white print at the bottom that stated "The display of this flag is not intended to condone the history of slavery, slavery was bad" ?

 

Why the need to fly a flag that represents slavery and a war to own them in the 1st place?