Does anyone else see a problem with this article?

...They're not calling racism on the homeowner for protecting his home. You realize that, right?

 

Hey Wild Cat!!!

 

my take on the article (and i just skimmed it) is that the black kid is being charged with murder...

murder that he didn't commit.

i'm not saying it's racism, but no, the black kid should not be charged with murder. breaking and entering, robbery, all that stuff? yes. and the white man WAS in self defense.

but the black kid shouldn't be charged with murder.

 

why shouldn't he be charged with murder? his actions directly resulted in the deaths of his two cohorts. or maybe he should be charged with assisting in their suicides? either way, he's an idiot.

 

I really cant take anything the naacp says seriously anymore.

 

edit

 

I can see how they could perceive it that way- digging up an old, rarely used law to charge a black kid with the murders of his two cohorts when he was clearly not the one who pulled the trigger. Not that I think its racism, but I don't think its a stretch for NAACP.

A murder charge is ridiculous. By definition, homicide requires the intent to kill/willful disregard for life. I don't think the kid led his two cohorts into the house intending for them to die. If anything, involuntary manslaughter should be the only legally applicable charge, and that's still kind of a stretch. Is there any proof that the survivor was the 'leader'? How can you be responsible for the person next to you's death if they were there entirely of their own free will? Yes, he's an idiot for taking part in a robbery, but its not like the other two were innocent victims that he forced to accompany him in a robbery.

 

The NAACP needs to learn how to pick their battles. This isn't racism. This is a bullcrap old law that should've been erased from the books years ago.

Yes, he was a moron for attempting to rob someone. Yes, he should do time for assault, as well. However, his responsibility of his friends' deaths is questionable. It's definitely not murder. Murder is the willful killing of another person, typically involving malice. As Logan's Runt said, it's involuntary manslaughter at most.

 

Can i ask something, what with me being british , and we very rarely get such things as gun crime *cough*...can self defense be used by the homeowner when he shot them in the back?

 

Yep. That was non-criminal homicide. Not even an issue. According to our laws, if somebody breaks into your house, you're free to shoot them in self defense.

 

Unless they're accidentally hurt, then the robber can sue you for their injuries.

 

actually, it depends on which state you live in. laws are different all over the place. and even if it is ruled as justifiable homicide, the dead intruder's family could possibly file a civil suit against the defending homeowner, once again depending on the laws of the state in which the act took place.

america. land of the free, home of the ****ed.

 

Agreed. who cares what color the people are. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time!!!

If people broke into my home and got hurt and sued me...and if they won...I would become homeless and say F you mofo try and get something from me now.

 

The classic divorcee tactic. Sell and donate all your stuff, so the other person can't win anything from you.

 

Greatly depends on the situation. For the defence of self-defence to be employed, one must generally be in an imminent state of danger to his life or property or the life of others. If the shooting in the back is evidence of the assailants fleeing, thus posing no imminent danger, then the defence of self-defence shouldn't hold.

In any event, the kid's murder charge is inherently ridiculous.

 

Definitely not the case here. The family of the deceased are not pursuing legal action against the homeowner for shooting the kids.

 

Yeah I know. I just wanted to say it.

(stupid) people are sue happy. We live in a world where some stupid B spills coffee an HERSELF and gets money??? I'm sorry thats just ******ed.

 

I totally agree with you on that note.

 

Yeah dude.
If only we American Barbarians were enlightened like you guys, the old man and his family could've been beaten within an inch of their lives or killed in their sleep by the guys who invaded their home, instead of these two, poor, put upon gangsters dying....shucks.

 

lol @ common sense.. maybe we should trade our guns in for trusty whistles and lead saps?

 

Take away our guns, and we'll find a different way to kill each other.

By the by, aren't knife crimes getting steadily worse every year in the UK?

 

The point logansoldcigar was asking was the fact that the kids were shot in the back which, without prejudice to further evidence presented, would seem to appear that the kids were fleeing.

If the kids were shot in the face while they were wielding axes, logansoldcigar wouldn't have posed his question.

 

But we don't know all the details. They could've been shot in the back while facing one member of his family.