16 Year old shot twice after ringing doorbell, shooter held and released

[RLLD 4,275]

39 minutes ago, KSB2424 said:

Will there be riots for this?  
 

https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/washington-county-20-year-old-killed-saturday-17901499.php

Of course not, people are not stupid.....

[TimHauck 3,087]

1 hour ago, RogerDodger said:

It's their state law they that if they don't charge within 24 hours they have to release you.  They didn't have all the goods by then.  Now they do.  JFC retard.  

Actually I believe he was released in 2 hours initially.

[TimHauck 3,087]

58 minutes ago, KSB2424 said:

Two posts up is a white girl who pulled in the wrong driveway at night and was shot dead last weekend.  Not a peep. 

Joe Biden never called the Families of the Nashville dead.  

Once you realize it’s all for politics and internet clicks you become numb. Racism sells and some of y’all eat it up with a spoon.  

That incident was discussed in here and in the news, it also happened after the KC incident and the shooter was charged more quickly.  For like the fourth time, the "protests" were because the shooter wasn't charged.  I bet there aren't still protests going on now that he has been.

I would agree that Biden should have called the Nashville families if he was calling this kid.

[RLLD 4,275]

5 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

That incident was discussed in here and in the news, it also happened after the KC incident and the shooter was charged more quickly.  For like the fourth time, the "protests" were because the shooter wasn't charged.  I bet there aren't still protests going on now that he has been.

I would agree that Biden should have called the Nashville families if he was calling this kid.

It does not matter how quickly someone is charged. That is unimportant. 

If you are being honest you know very well that liberals are dedicated to the misplaced dogma that AA's are treated differently, when they certainly are not. 

The President should not be calling anyone, he should be doing his job.  But when you are a politician, you never miss an opportunity to squeeze value out of a situation.

We have to stop pretending racism is driving this world, it is not. 

[Hardcore troubadour 15,678]

4 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

OH NOES NYC SO SCARY!

This punk making fun of victims again.  

[TimHauck 3,087]

9 minutes ago, RLLD said:

It does not matter how quickly someone is charged. That is unimportant. 

If you are being honest you know very well that liberals are dedicated to the misplaced dogma that AA's are treated differently, when they certainly are not. 

Seems like not even all the righties agree with this.

1 hour ago, Alias Detective said:

I will likely concede if the kid was white and knocked on the old man's door at 10:00 pm he likely isn't shot.

 

[dogcows 1,032]

9 minutes ago, RLLD said:

liberals are dedicated to the misplaced dogma that AA's are treated differently, when they certainly are not. 

Racism doesn’t exist, and everybody is treated equally? What fantasy world do you live in?

[TimHauck 3,087]

10 minutes ago, RLLD said:

We have to stop pretending racism is driving this world, it is not. 

I don't think many people are saying that racism is "driving this world," whatever the fock that means.  But it exists and is usually to the detriment of black and brown people.

[TimHauck 3,087]

Just now, dogcows said:

Racism doesn’t exist, and everybody is treated equally? What fantasy world do you live in?

One where liberals are the root of all problems.

[seafoam1 3,241]

6 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Racism doesn’t exist, and everybody is treated equally? What fantasy world do you live in?

White straight men are treated the worst in liberal culture. You wouldn't know that.

[RogerDodger 798]

36 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Actually I believe he was released in 2 hours initially.

You "believe" all sorts of crap.  That's your problem.

Quote

Kansas City Police Chief Stacey Graves said during a press conference Sunday evening that after the shooting, the suspect was taken into police custody and placed on a 24-hour investigative hold but had since been released while police investigate and present evidence to the prosecutor's office.

And before you get into your retarded semantics game it doesn't matter if it was 2-hours or 12-hours or 23-hours and 59 minutes.  If they can't charge within 24-hours they have to release you by law.  It's not nefarious and it doesn't make it a bigger story because of it.

[HellToupee 1,976]

1 hour ago, KSB2424 said:

 

What a POS

[RogerDodger 798]

A perimeter fence and dogs keeps them away.  

[Mr Fantasy 67]

 

[TimHauck 3,087]

30 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

You "believe" all sorts of crap.  That's your problem.

And before you get into your retarded semantics game it doesn't matter if it was 2-hours or 12-hours or 23-hours and 59 minutes.  If they can't charge within 24-hours they have to release you by law.  It's not nefarious and it doesn't make it a bigger story because of it.

Yeah like I said earlier, I was not expecting them to hold him longer than 24 hours.  I do think they likely had enough evidence for a charge by then though.  But like I also said, him being 84 makes it less questionable, so I think if they had at least released that information it would have calmed some of the anger.

There were reports he was initially released within 2 hours though:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/ralph-yarl-shooting-suspect-andrew-lester-b2321482.html
 

[RogerDodger 798]

Just now, TimHauck said:

Yeah like I said earlier, I was not expecting them to hold him longer than 24 hours.  I do think they likely had enough evidence for a charge by then though.  But like I also said, him being 84 makes it less questionable, so I think if they had at least released that information it would have calmed some of the anger.

There were reports he was initially released within 2 hours though:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/ralph-yarl-shooting-suspect-andrew-lester-b2321482.html
 

  From your own link:

Quote

He said Mr Lester had been released last week because he could not be charged without getting a statement from Ralph, who was in critical condition at the time, and because officers believed that a proper investigation would take longer than the 24 hour limit on holding suspects without a charge.

You are foking reeeeeeeeetarded.

[TimHauck 3,087]

4 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

  From your own link:

I know what they said, just stating my opinion

[TimHauck 3,087]

21 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Better question is why would the guy even open the door?

Still a good question for the old man

[dogcows 1,032]

13 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

Quote

He said Mr Lester had been released last week because he could not be charged without getting a statement from Ralph, who was in critical condition at the time, and because officers believed that a proper investigation would take longer than the 24 hour limit on holding suspects without a charge.

 

That “explanation” from the government makes no sense. Do the cops let every murderer go free because they can’t get a “victim statement” from the corpse? This is just the police cover story. There was more than enough evidence to charge the guy… if they wanted to. Look how fast they were able to charge him once they got massive public pressure.

[Fireballer 2,659]

23 minutes ago, dogcows said:

That “explanation” from the government makes no sense. Do the cops let every murderer go free because they can’t get a “victim statement” from the corpse? This is just the police cover story. There was more than enough evidence to charge the guy… if they wanted to. Look how fast they were able to charge him once they got massive public pressure.

Another village idiot

[Hardcore troubadour 15,678]

I don’t know. I’m getting a Ferguson feeling. 

[TimHauck 3,087]

9 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

Another village idiot

Is it common for police to let someone they’re extremely confident killed someone walk free? I thought the standard practice was usually charging them with something small and then upgrading it.

[RogerDodger 798]

1 minute ago, TimHauck said:

Is it common for police to let someone they’re extremely confident killed someone walk free? I thought the standard practice was usually charging them with something small and then upgrading it.

Who was killed?????? 

  

[KSB2424 3,148]

2 hours ago, dogcows said:

Racism doesn’t exist, and everybody is treated equally? What fantasy world do you live in?

Of course it exists and will always as we all are human beings.  As long as there are differences in people there will always be an 'ism'.  It's been that way since the beginning of human history.

What America is NOT, is systemically racist.  If anything the "systems" have over compensated the past couple decades (see Affirmative Action)

Also not every single interaction between two different races is because its racist.  It's one hundred percent true that a black dude and a white dude arguing at a gas station or a bar is simply to a-holes arguing.  However in half of the country when you look at every interaction through a "race" lens that's all you will see.

[KSB2424 3,148]

5 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

Who was killed?????? 

  

The kid is perfectly fine, he went home the next day.  Thank goodness but still....

[TimHauck 3,087]

11 minutes ago, RogerDodger said:

Who was killed?????? 

  

Sorry, shot

[KSB2424 3,148]

And lets be real, when you are mad at another person what does a human being do?  They say to them the most hurtful thing possible.....not because they believe it per se but because they are pissed.  "You dirty whoore!"  "You fat mutherfocker"  "You short azz dumb azz"  People use how people look to talk down to them because they are mad.  I guarantee you people have used the N word when really upset but live their lives without racist intent.

I'm just saying.  Not everything is RACSIM.  

[Fireballer 2,659]

19 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

Is it common for police to let someone they’re extremely confident killed someone walk free? I thought the standard practice was usually charging them with something small and then upgrading it.

They knew he was shot, he’s not dead.    Simply because someone was shot doesn’t mean someone gets arrested.  Missouri has a Castle Doctrine.  There were only 2 people there. What evidence existed to charge him and what specific crime would it have been?  You actually have to put pen to paper to articulate the facts supporting PC

Have you ever watched the First 48?  That’s a decent laypersons reference to criminal investigation.  There’s many times  where they have the murderer in an interrogation room and simply have to let him go.  It happens. 

[Pimpadeaux 2,406]

14 hours ago, GutterBoy said:

Showed up in my feed this morning.

https://nypost.com/2023/04/17/kaylin-gillis-shot-and-killed-by-upstate-ny-homeowner-sheriff/

Guns are not a problem.

This incident needs more attention. 

[avoiding injuries 1,634]

1 hour ago, KSB2424 said:

 

I'm just saying.  Not everything is RACISM.  

Tell me you’re not a liberal without saying you’re not a liberal…

[Strike 5,821]

2 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Is it common for police to let someone they’re extremely confident killed someone walk free? I thought the standard practice was usually charging them with something small and then upgrading it.

People who shoot people walk free all the time.  The circumstances of the shooting dictate whether someone gets charged with a crime and no, cops are not supposed to just hold anyone they can just because they can.  They're supposed to charge someone when they have sufficient evidence a crime occurred.

[RogerDodger 798]

Amazing what doesn't pass as common knowledge around here.  

[Fireballer 2,659]

Did he ring the bell or  try to open the door?  
 

563.031.  Use of force in defense of persons. — 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:

1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:

  (a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or

  (b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or

  (c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;

  (2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;

  (3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

  2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

  (1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself or herself or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony; or

  (2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence,or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person.

  3. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining.

[RogerDodger 798]

22 minutes ago, Fireballer said:

Did he ring the bell or  try to open the door?  
 

563.031.  Use of force in defense of persons. — 1. A person may, subject to the provisions of subsection 2 of this section, use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he or she reasonably believes such force to be necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person from what he or she reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful force by such other person, unless:

1) The actor was the initial aggressor; except that in such case his or her use of force is nevertheless justifiable provided:

  (a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or

  (b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046; or

  (c) The aggressor is justified under some other provision of this chapter or other provision of law;

  (2) Under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the person whom he or she seeks to protect would not be justified in using such protective force;

  (3) The actor was attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of a forcible felony.

  2. A person may not use deadly force upon another person under the circumstances specified in subsection 1 of this section unless:

  (1) He or she reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself or herself or another against death, serious physical injury, or any forcible felony; or

  (2) Such force is used against a person who unlawfully enters, remains after unlawfully entering, or attempts to unlawfully enter a dwelling, residence,or vehicle lawfully occupied by such person.

  3. A person does not have a duty to retreat from a dwelling, residence, or vehicle where the person is not unlawfully entering or unlawfully remaining.

Both, according to the old guy. Woken up by the doorbell. Opened main door and the 6 foot tall black intruder was trying to open the screen door which was also locked. Shot through the glass in the screen door. 

[RLLD 4,275]

14 hours ago, TimHauck said:

Seems like not even all the righties agree with this.

 

It is good that we do not agree, that is a welcomed factor. We on the right do not hate those who disagree with US. 

[RLLD 4,275]

14 hours ago, dogcows said:

Racism doesn’t exist, and everybody is treated equally? What fantasy world do you live in?

One where we do not pretend to magically transform into others....

[RLLD 4,275]

14 hours ago, TimHauck said:

I don't think many people are saying that racism is "driving this world," whatever the fock that means.  But it exists and is usually to the detriment of black and brown people.

Our system is called racist, and yet plenty of non-white people thrive in it.  Because it is not about skin color, it is about merit and behaviors. And if you come from a culture that supports these simple princinples, you succeed. If instead you come from a culture that celebrates criminality, violence and bad behaviors in general you do not succeed. The system is not racist, it is excellent at weeding out those who should be. 

[GutterBoy 2,900]

ELGIN, Texas (KTRK) -- Two members of an elite competitive cheerleading team in Oak Ridge were shot Tuesday morning after one of the athletes reportedly mistakenly tried to get into the wrong car after practice.

Guns are not a problem.

[TimHauck 3,087]

8 hours ago, RogerDodger said:

Both, according to the old guy. Woken up by the doorbell. Opened main door and the 6 foot tall black intruder was trying to open the screen door which was also locked. Shot through the glass in the screen door. 

Still begs the question of why did he even open the door

[TimHauck 3,087]

29 minutes ago, RLLD said:

Our system is called racist, and yet plenty of non-white people thrive in it.  Because it is not about skin color, it is about merit and behaviors. And if you come from a culture that supports these simple princinples, you succeed. If instead you come from a culture that celebrates criminality, violence and bad behaviors in general you do not succeed. The system is not racist, it is excellent at weeding out those who should be. 

Your privilege is showing.  It is mindblowing how naive this post is.   Some non-white people are successful, thus racism doesn’t exist?  

I will go as far saying that these days, most privilege is the result of wealth and not race.  The problem is that historically it WAS driven by race, and thus minorities are more likely to be poor.  And people that grow up poor, are more likely to stay poor.  Which is basically what you’re saying here reading between the lines of your sweeping generalizations.