re: Let me guess, he was just a thirsty jogger who wanted a drink of water….

quote:

---

Did he ring the doorbell or enter the house? Big difference.

---

100% agree. My post is based off the very limited information this story has given and what I read is that he rang the doorbell a couple of times. I did not read that he ever entered the home.

If he in fact did enter the home wrongfully and against the owners word then I will acknowledge I replied incorrectly.

The main point I'm trying to make is that the constant cries for racism and gun control debates occurring at the expense of peoples' lives are doing more hurt than good. What happens when the "boy who cried wolf" metaphor causes an even more serious problem in our justice system. Unfortunately, we are already there I'm afraid. The majority of people will see this is as a story of skin color instead of sympathizing with a family and their son who almost lost his life.

I feel like this board collectively is against the "guilty until proven innocent" cancel culture we have witnessed over the years. Why is it that we go against that as soon as we hear a story like this? We say the one shot was at fault? Multiple people have agreed that there is not enough information to truly give an opinion on who was wrong here. Yet it looks like people have already made up their minds that this kid deserved to be shot.

Again, if it is proven this kid was intentionally trying to enter this home and resisting the homeowner, I'll change my opinion. Just seems hypocritical for the majority of this board to say the kid was automatically at fault without knowing full details.

It’s an overdeveloped reflex against the lies we have been told about every black media martyr.

quote:

---

And Auhmad Arbery was murdered, but you still cling to hope that was justified?

---

The guy who killed him was in the wrong, but I don’t think he was murdered. He lunged at the guy, who had no intention of killing him up to that point. They were wrong for taking the law into their own hands, but the killing was not intentional. I think Georgia has a third degree murder that this technically fell under, but that’s not traditionally considered murder.

quote:

---

It’s an overdeveloped reflex against the lies we have been told about every black media martyr.

---

Dang. Reflex is such a good word to use here. If we aren't careful, we will just turn into the type of people we despise.

quote:

---

if it is proven this kid was intentionally trying to enter this home and resisting the homeowner, I'll change my opinion. Just seems hypocritical for the majority of this board to say the kid was automatically at fault without knowing full details.

---

I've leaned the other way from the start - that the shooting was unjustified, but not from any racist standpoint.

Just the bare facts as we know them - two shots to the head (or upper part of body) at the front door - especially given the similarity of the addresses (and probably home design) it was totally believable to me that the kid could have gone to the wrong place accidentally but honestly.

It is also entirely believable that an 85 year old could have been alarmed by whatever activity was occurring at his front door.

Just given those facts, I;d find it hard to automatically declare 'castle doctrine' for gunning down the kid.

But I also see the confusion - perhaps because I am also 85 yrs old, and things get confusing very easily these days, especially when tired, or when under pressure.

But I see nothing that even hints a 'racism' as an initial automatic assumption, just as in this case I see nothing that screams 'thug gutter rat out for mischief"

I think it is a tragedy - and I think the shooter is in trouble for his lack of restraint. nothing good happens here.

quote:

---

I've leaned the other way from the start - that the shooting was unjustified, but not from any racist standpoint.

Just the bare facts as we know them - two shots to the head (or upper part of body) at the front door - especially given the similarity of the addresses (and probably home design) it was totally believable to me that the kid could have gone to the wrong place accidentally but honestly.

It is also entirely believable that an 85 year old could have been alarmed by whatever activity was occurring at his front door.

Just given those facts, I;d find it hard to automatically declare 'castle doctrine' for gunning down the kid.

But I also see the confusion - perhaps because I am also 85 yrs old, and things get confusing very easily these days, especially when tired, or when under pressure.

But I see nothing that even hints a 'racism' as an initial automatic assumption, just as in this case I see nothing that screams 'thug gutter rat out for mischief"

I think it is a tragedy - and I think the shooter is in trouble for his lack of restraint. nothing good happens here.

---

^^^This

I'm confused. Why is the door bell ringer INSIDE the house?

quote:

---

Pretty damn amazing to be out of the hospital after only a few days after a gunshot wound to the head

---

It’s not amazing at all. I could shoot a dozen guys in the head without severely hurting any of them. It would be amazing if the bullet had hit him square between the eyes, but it didn’t. It probably just grazed his scalp causing a long flesh wound.

quote:

---

I'm confused. Why is the door bell ringer INSIDE the house?

---

He may not have been, it is Time after all. But I guess that's as reliable as him being shot through the storm door at this point in the game at least. My biggest hope is that the kid recovers well (assuming, as I do, he wasn't up to no good), and that there are no riots, and I know they're itching for one.