In the absence of what Santiago Drew’s parents see as reliable information, they can do little more than speculate. Their son was Black. The neighbor is white. Did race play a role here? They’ve also been told that the neighbor who shot Santiago Drew is related to a politically connected family in New Jersey. Was that a factor? And if Santiago Drew was killed by a bullet to the back, as the medical examiner’s report indicated, how could his shooting be considered self-defense?
This is not “playing the race card”. It’s is perfectly valid to consider if race is a factor. All of these speculations are valid, particularly the last one. On the road, if you rear-end someone, you’re at fault period dot end of story as far as the law and insurance is concerned, because (almost) no matter what else was happening you should have been following at a distance and speed that would allow you to react to a sudden stop ahead.
To shoot someone in the back you have to be behind them (unless you’re Shia LeBeouf or Angelina Jolie, zing shitty movie reference), and if you’re behind them they’re not a threat in that moment. Extenuating circumstances apply of course but in this case there’s nowhere near enough evidence to prove that, so there’s no way in hell to justify closing the case and letting the other guy go.
You know damn good and well that any use of force, regardless of the weapon (or even when only the body is used) has standards for what it and isn’t justifiable legally everywhere. Almost everywhere has the concept of there needing to be a credible threat at the time force is used, and someone facing away is going to be a hard situation to justify , period. Wouldn’t matter if you punched them, stabbed them, or shot them
Hell, afaik, there isn’t anywhere that attacking from behind, even in the middle of a fight where force is otherwise justified, wouldn’t at least be questioned.
If you’re going to be in a community that’s named anything close to what this one is, using a flimsy excuse to troll like that is likely going to end up with you banned. If you can’t have a discussion in good faith, bugger off.
If only there were evidence to support the premise underpinning all that sarcasm. Seems like you need to read up on how presumption works in law, and you might want to refresh yourself on logical argument while you’re at it 🤡
If ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest motherfucker in the universe. I’m now certain you’re never going to say anything worth listening to, so welcome to my block list. Enjoy your stay.
This is not “playing the race card”. It’s is perfectly valid to consider if race is a factor. All of these speculations are valid, particularly the last one. On the road, if you rear-end someone, you’re at fault period dot end of story as far as the law and insurance is concerned, because (almost) no matter what else was happening you should have been following at a distance and speed that would allow you to react to a sudden stop ahead.
To shoot someone in the back you have to be behind them (unless you’re Shia LeBeouf or Angelina Jolie, zing shitty movie reference), and if you’re behind them they’re not a threat in that moment. Extenuating circumstances apply of course but in this case there’s nowhere near enough evidence to prove that, so there’s no way in hell to justify closing the case and letting the other guy go.
deleted by creator
Don’t be obtuse.
You know damn good and well that any use of force, regardless of the weapon (or even when only the body is used) has standards for what it and isn’t justifiable legally everywhere. Almost everywhere has the concept of there needing to be a credible threat at the time force is used, and someone facing away is going to be a hard situation to justify , period. Wouldn’t matter if you punched them, stabbed them, or shot them
Hell, afaik, there isn’t anywhere that attacking from behind, even in the middle of a fight where force is otherwise justified, wouldn’t at least be questioned.
If you’re going to be in a community that’s named anything close to what this one is, using a flimsy excuse to troll like that is likely going to end up with you banned. If you can’t have a discussion in good faith, bugger off.
If only there were evidence to support the premise underpinning all that sarcasm. Seems like you need to read up on how presumption works in law, and you might want to refresh yourself on logical argument while you’re at it 🤡
Is that ironic or presumptious of you, Master? 🤡
If ignorance is bliss, you must be the happiest motherfucker in the universe. I’m now certain you’re never going to say anything worth listening to, so welcome to my block list. Enjoy your stay.
Oh noes!!!
Your BLOCK list!!!
P-P-Please nooooooooooooooo!!