How he gonna get his money?

[Derec]

Seventeen-year-old Trevon Johnson died Thursday night after Jenrette shot him once as he allegedly fled the scene of the home invasion, according to Miami-Dade police. There have been no indications that Johnson was armed.]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ar-as-he-fled-her-home-should-she-be-charged/

I wanted to post scolding you for deceptive quoting but I see you have since edited your post. In the original you made it look like Trevon was shot in the back when in fact it was another burglar with the last name Johnson.

Speaking of other burglary cases mentioned in that article, the shooting of Marcus Glover is illustrative to the discussion about felony murder we had upthread.
Police: Man who shot burglar charged with voluntary manslaughter

Police have charged an Akron man with voluntary manslaughter after he allegedly shot and killed a home invasion suspect earlier this month.
[...]
A second burglary suspect, who police say was with Glover, has also been arrested.
Terry Tart, 37, of Akron, faces charges of aggravated burglary and murder.

The homeowner/shooter was charged with voluntary manslaughter. The other burglar was charged with murder based on the fact that his partner died as a result of the felony the surviving burglar was engaged in.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The word was intended in the general sense.

Killing someone is not arresting them. The two words do not mean the same thing.

So do you agree that it is also acceptable to chase someone out of your house and shoot them in the back as they are fleeing down the street?

Though not used so much, arrest can be defined as stopping someone. The term arrest by taking someone into custody is of course different.

 

[Derec]

This is largely a matter of simple minds not accepting the complexity of human situations and not making the slightest effort to understand what is happening in the lives of others.

The fact is, we don't know anything of any complexities in his life one way or another, and we do not know how they impacted his decision to break into houses and steal stuff. What we do know is that he made that decision and that it cost him his life. That does not make us "simple minds".

Somebody quoting somebody who is nameless and faceless does not actually constitute "fair game" to people who are not in the business of playing games.

She is not faceless. Her image has been posted here several times.
She is not nameless either. Her name is Nautika Harris.
And the expression "fair game" does not imply a literal game is being played. In fact, the etymology of the idiom comes from game that is hunted, not game that is played.

So many of us here seem to revel in the pathos of their enemies, using it to justify inhumane attitudes toward them. It is because we fail to recognize it is that very pathos that is making the enemy relation a reality. We can, if we want, to always justify about anything we do, no matter how wrong it may be, no matter how cruel it may be and use about any pretext including one like the OP. It proves nothing except that we are capable of pathological behavior using our emotional frustration as our justification.

Huh?

The thief is totally in the wrong, but his actions are in response to other wrongs.

Like what?

We are not very good at picking a path and a set of behaviors that minimizes the overall pathos of the situation. That would require a little empathy...a little logic...and a will to have better outcomes from our interactions with our fellow men. Is that too much trouble? Is that too hard to do? The answer to both of these questions is in my opinion NO.

Empathy for losing her cousin is one thing. Her justifying his choice to burgle houses is quite another.

 

[Derec]

You are plain wrong...at least as wrong as Trayvon. You are presenting murdering an unarmed teen ager as okay and even laudable.

Nobody is doing that. But it is not clear whether this was murder, manslaughter or justifiable homicide. No results of the investigation have been released.
So why are you so certain he was murdered?

That to me sucks! He was probably not threatening the shooter....probably running away.

How do you know that?

You do not appear to be even slightly sorry this incident happened. That is where we go into the wrong moral territory.

It sucks that he was killed. And perhaps the woman is guilty of a crime in relation to the shooting.
But that does not change the fact that Trevon would not be dead had he not decided to break into people's houses. This is most likely not the first house he broke into either.

 

[laughing dog]

???

At the moment the invitation is revoked they should leave.

And if they don't? Sorry, your presumption opens up the easy possibility of murder.

 

[Derec]

So in other words you think killing people...teen agers...especially black ones is the best policy?

No, not best policy. Just an inevitable occupational hazard of being a burglar. Invading somebody's living space, their castle, is a big deal. Would it have been better if she held him at gunpoint until police arrived and he was taken into custody without incident? Sure. But maybe she was trigger happy in which case she should be charged. Maybe he didn't want to go to jail and rushed her, in which case she shouldn't be.

Saying that the shooting might be justified does not mean we "think killing people...teen agers...especially black ones is the best policy."
Neither does saying that whether or not the shooting was justified it would not have happened but for the burglary.
Nor does ridiculing Nautika Harris for justifying his thieving ways.

You live in a world that only gets half the story and only sees that this whole affair is a matter of mutual injury.

We don't have the whole story. Newsflash, that also means you don't have the whole story.

I haven't an idea what "SJW bullshit" actually means to you. I am sure it has some derogatory meaning to you. Your handle seems appropriate to your posts. You are not getting it that all of this shit has mutual consequences and you choose to ignore the causes of this tragedy. You don't even seem to realize that a tragedy has occurred here...so you come across cold and inhuman and it isn't just an impression. That in itself is a setup for further tragedy.

It is a tragedy. But what do you think are causes of this tragedy? I think the first and foremost cause was the burglary.

 

[JonA]

???

At the moment the invitation is revoked they should leave.

And if they don't? Sorry, your presumption opens up the easy possibility of murder.

A lot of very simple questions.

If you understand what I am saying, then you should just raise a coherent objection instead of asking baby questions.

If you don't understand what I'm saying, then you should not object to it.

So do you really need me to walk you though it all, or do you have an actual objection you'd like to state?

ABE: I mean this sincerely.

 

[RavenSky]

The word was intended in the general sense.

Killing someone is not arresting them. The two words do not mean the same thing.

Killing someone is a means of arresting them.

bullshit

arrest:

seize (someone) by legal authority and take into custody.
"the police arrested him for possession of marijuana"
synonyms: apprehend, take into custody, take prisoner, imprison, incarcerate, detain, jail, put in jail; More

kill:

cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing).
"her father was killed in a car crash"
synonyms: murder, take/end the life of, assassinate, eliminate, terminate, dispatch, finish off, put to death, execute; More

 

[Kusa]

This is most likely not the first house he broke into either.

And was most likely not the last one he would have broken in either.

 

[RavenSky]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ar-as-he-fled-her-home-should-she-be-charged/

I wanted to post scolding you for deceptive quoting but I see you have since edited your post. In the original you made it look like Trevon was shot in the back when in fact it was another burglar with the last name Johnson.

I didn't "make it look like" anything. As you noted, both burglars had the same last name and the linked article referenced multiple cases. I trimmed it down over several edits to the pertinent paragraphs. Is there a purpose to your 'not scolding' scolding bullshit?

Interesting that you have nothing else to say about what I posted

 

[laughing dog]

And if they don't? Sorry, your presumption opens up the easy possibility of murder.

A lot of very simple questions.

If you understand what I am saying, then you should just raise a coherent objection instead of asking baby questions.

If you don't understand what I'm saying, then you should not object to it.

So do you really need me to walk you though it all, or do you have an actual objection you'd like to state?

ABE: I mean this sincerely.

You propose that the presumption is that someone who is not authorized to be in a home can be killed by someone who is. I have pointed out that permits someone to plan the perfect murder: privately invite a person into his/her home where there are no witnesses, order them out, and then kill them when they do not immediately comply.

I am asking baby questions because you are offering baby reasoning. And I mean this sincerely.

 

[RavenSky]

Killing someone is not arresting them. The two words do not mean the same thing.

So do you agree that it is also acceptable to chase someone out of your house and shoot them in the back as they are fleeing down the street?

Though not used so much, arrest can be defined as stopping someone. The term arrest by taking someone into custody is of course different.

Stopping is still not killing

 

[RavenSky]

And if they don't? Sorry, your presumption opens up the easy possibility of murder.

A lot of very simple questions.

If you understand what I am saying, then you should just raise a coherent objection instead of asking baby questions.

If you don't understand what I'm saying, then you should not object to it.

So do you really need me to walk you though it all, or do you have an actual objection you'd like to state?

ABE: I mean this sincerely.

Maybe you should cut the ad hominem and focus on the topic.

Sound like a plan?

I mean this sincerely.

 

[JonA]

The word was intended in the general sense.

Killing someone is not arresting them. The two words do not mean the same thing.

Killing someone is a means of arresting them.

bullshit

arrest:

seize (someone) by legal authority and take into custody.
"the police arrested him for possession of marijuana"
synonyms: apprehend, take into custody, take prisoner, imprison, incarcerate, detain, jail, put in jail; More

kill:

cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing).
"her father was killed in a car crash"
synonyms: murder, take/end the life of, assassinate, eliminate, terminate, dispatch, finish off, put to death, execute; More

Please see whichphilosophy's post for an explanation of English.

Thank you.

 

[RavenSky]

The word was intended in the general sense.

Killing someone is not arresting them. The two words do not mean the same thing.

Killing someone is a means of arresting them.

bullshit

arrest:

seize (someone) by legal authority and take into custody.
"the police arrested him for possession of marijuana"
synonyms: apprehend, take into custody, take prisoner, imprison, incarcerate, detain, jail, put in jail; More

kill:

cause the death of (a person, animal, or other living thing).
"her father was killed in a car crash"
synonyms: murder, take/end the life of, assassinate, eliminate, terminate, dispatch, finish off, put to death, execute; More

Please see whichphilosophy's post for an explanation of English.

Thank you.

You are the one unable to speak English here

 

[JonA]

A lot of very simple questions.

If you understand what I am saying, then you should just raise a coherent objection instead of asking baby questions.

If you don't understand what I'm saying, then you should not object to it.

So do you really need me to walk you though it all, or do you have an actual objection you'd like to state?

ABE: I mean this sincerely.

You propose that the presumption is that someone who is not authorized to be in a home can be killed by someone who is. I have pointed out that permits someone to plan the perfect murder: privately invite a person into his/her home where there are no witnesses, order them out, and then kill them when they do not immediately comply.

Presumptions don't permit anything; they just change the burden of proof. The law is full of presumptions and ways to overcome them.

Proving that you staged the incident in the false belief that you had found some loophole allowing you to murder people would obviously overcome the presumptions I've mentioned.

See the Little Falls story Derec posted earlier.

 

[ZiprHead]

???

At the moment the invitation is revoked they should leave.

And if they don't? Sorry, your presumption opens up the easy possibility of murder.

That basically is The Castle Doctrine where force, including deadly force, can be used to remove someone unwanted in your home.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I suggest you look at reality rather than your ideology.

She didn't shoot when she saw him going out the window. She shot later. The only way that could have happened is if he did something other than running

or if she didn't have the gun on her when she walked in and saw the burglar, and lost time retrieving it from wherever she'd hidden it,

or if she forgot to take the safety off, and lost time finding it and moving the lever (they can be quite stiff and hard to move), then re-acquiring her target,

or if she tried to fire but forgot to chamber a round first and had to take a few extra moments to figure out what was wrong, work the slide, and aim,

or if he was running so fast she had to run outside to get a clear shot,

or all of the above,

or some other factor led to the delay between the moment she saw him and the moment she shot him.

and if she didn't shoot at the time it's unlikely she would have shot if he had frozen. Thus I'm left with the conclusion he came for her.

Now, it might simply have been to take the gun away but she's not required to risk her life that way. If the guy you're pointing a gun at comes for you the proper course of action is to pull the trigger.

The news reports linked in this thread indicate he was not coming after her; he was shot as he fled, hence the controversy.

It would help if you paid attention to the news reports rather than make stuff up.

None of your scenarios explain the report that there was a confrontation and one of them is obviously at odds with reality in a major way--had she shot him while he was running across the yard she would be in jail now.

You just don't want to believe this was a justified shooting.

 

[ZiprHead]

I have little sympathy for the kid that got shot. He chose to do something that can be very dangerous.

However, I have little respect for the OP when he mocks people for saying irrational things while mourning the loss of a loved one.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Apparently she was never inside the home, which presents a different picture:http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/miami-dade/sfl-teen-burglary-fatally-shot-20160311-story.html

Gwendolyn Jenrette can be forgiven for putting security cameras around her modest Miami home. She lives in Liberty City, a high-crime neighborhood in a high-crime town. Her low-slung duplex backs onto the railroad tracks and has been targeted in the past.

She can also be forgiven for racing home when, on Thursday afternoon, her security system alerted her to another break-in at the property.

But can she be forgiven for, according to police, fatally shooting a teenager as he fled her house, even as officers were on their way to help?

That is the question now facing the state’s attorney’s office.

Seventeen-year-old Trevon Johnson died Thursday night after Jenrette shot him once as he allegedly fled the scene of the home invasion, according to Miami-Dade police. There have been no indications that Johnson was armed.]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ar-as-he-fled-her-home-should-she-be-charged/

Ok, that does present a different picture indeed.

Directions now are very important. He was fleeing her house--but she was also outside. If he ran at her ("a confrontation" as originally reported) she's got a reasonable fear of harm and is justified. If he ran away from her it's murder.