Black man defends home, self, son from lynch mob and gets PRISON for it

  • Thread starter Thread starter uneek
  • Start date Start date
"John White testified that, believing the young men had come to harm his family, he backed them off his property with Napoleon White
 
Just as well as you can. Working from the same information that was presented to both of us in the story.
 
And I say if you come to my house unarmed and threaten my family, I'm not bringing a gun to a fistfight; you're bringing fists to a gunfight.
 
I don't care what they desire. I'm just mind-bottled at your inability to differentiate legal/illegal from right/wrong. Do you really not recognize that they are two entirely separate questions?
 
Unless the sentence that included the racial slur also included the word ".... I'm going to kill you." that is a moot point.
 
damn.


this is some bullshit... never living in New York. You faggotass bluestaters feel free to tell me at any point where this is justice.




also - lol@Cicciaro. Call a black man a moolie on his own property with four friends in tow and end up a centerpiece at Saturday mass You sure showed him
 
I just noticed this...



Two of you are questioning why the facts behind the shooting matter? Jesus Christ, I swear you people are retarded.
 
really..a white man would do time for shooting 4 black guys threatening him on his property?..really??

personally i find the reaction (at least on OT) kind of tame. If 4 black teens did that to white man and his son and one was shot this thread would be 20+ pages by now.
 
I believe you are wrong.

Texas is the only state i can find that allows someone to go outside and actively pursue someone to "defend" himself.
 
I think the use of racial slurs or the absence of the use of racial slurs is completely irrelevant. If it had been 5 white guys verses a white kid and his father would it have been any different?

Those 5 kids went out of their way to commit a crime. They made that clear by gathering on his property and expressly verbalizing that intent. The real potential of a 5:1 assault I think would make any person reasonably fear for their life and as such, justify the use of deadly force.

I also think that had it been 5 black guys vs. a white man and his kid, the outcome, (after the riots were quelled), would have been for more favorable for the father.
 
Well, the only criminal here is the one who is going to prison. The dead kid, while a punk, wasn't the criminal here.
 
I agree, they are two separate issues.

In this case, Mr. White was not only wrong, but also illegal, to shoot an unarmed person who was standing in the street.
 
You believe wrong ...

"The police later managed to time it precisely, using a surveillance camera that points directly at the street from a house a couple of doors to the north. The readout on the surveillance tape said that it was 23:06:11 when two cars whizzed by going south, toward the cul-de-sac at the end of the street. At 23:09:06, the first car passed back in front of the camera, going north. A minute later, a second car passed in the same direction. In the back seat of that second car--a black Mustang Cobra convertible--was a seventeen-year-old boy named Daniel Cicciaro, Jr., known to his friends as Dano. He was unconscious and bleeding profusely. He had been shot through the cheek. A .32-calibre bullet was lodged in his head."
 
I think this is an absolute travesty of justice. That kid got what he deserved and the other 4 kids are fortunate they did not share the same fate.

Hopefully the SC will see this they way most of us do here.

This speaks as to why gun control is ineffective. As guns are outlawed, I think it is safe to assume that the 5 kids felt reasonably safe in kicking some ass and then moving along. If they were in Tennessee or Florida for example where pretty much everyone has guns, you can pretty much guarantee they would have thought twice.
 
Back
Top