South Carolina store owner acquitted of murder in 2023 killing of Black teen

Aldebaran · 2026-06-03T13:33:07-0500

Tinker Grey said:
The law doesn't care about your feelings.

If a person genuinely feels their life is in danger, the law cares quite deeply about it. A person has the right to use deadly force to defend themselves if they feel it's necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

Tinker Grey · 2026-06-03T14:36:55-0500

Aldebaran said:
If a person genuinely feels their life is in danger, the law cares quite deeply about it. A person has the right to use deadly force to defend themselves if they feel it's necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

Point was: The law defines attempted murder. As such, that you felt threatened is irrelevant to whether it was attempted murder.

DaisyDay · 2026-06-03T15:29:21-0500

Hentenza said:
Nonsense. I doubt that you would think the same if it was you that was threatened with a loaded gun.

Of course, I would. The facts wouldn't change because I personally were involved. But from this, I suppose when it's you everything changes?

DaisyDay · 2026-06-03T15:32:23-0500

Aldebaran said:
If a person genuinely feels their life is in danger, the law cares quite deeply about it. A person has the right to use deadly force to defend themselves if they feel it's necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

In most states, it's whether a reasonable person would feel in great danger. Most states do not allow you to shoot a fleeing person in the back.

chilehed · 2026-06-03T16:22:59-0500

Hentenza said:
And yet a reasonable jury acquired him. What do they know that you don’t?

That's an odd question. What part of "I don't know anything about the testimony" is unclear? I can't possibly know something that I don't know.

If the jury was reasonable (which you've merely assumed), and if the assumptions I made are substantially correct, then as I said there must be significant mitigating circumstances of which we are not aware.

If my five assumptions about the facts of the case are correct and if there were no such mitigating circumstances, then the jury was not reasonable because those facts absolutely outline an unlawful use of deadly force.

Neither you nor I know whether or not the jury was reasonable, because we don't know what the testimony in the case was.

chilehed · 2026-06-03T16:25:38-0500

Aldebaran said:
If a person genuinely feels their life is in danger, the law cares quite deeply about it. A person has the right to use deadly force to defend themselves if they feel it's necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

Wrong. They have that right only if a reasonable person would think so.

rjs330 · 2026-06-03T16:54:15-0500

Not a single one of you were in the courtroom, nor did you hear the testimonies. Yet people are spouting off on things they have no knowledge of. Most of what is being said on this thread is completely ignorant and nothing more than pure conjecture. I just heard part of the closing arguments that pointed to testimony and video from the investigation. What was said completely contradicts what so many here are saying. The jury had black people on this jury who did hear and see it all. And they joined the rest of rhe jury in a not guilty verdict.

I suggest that most here need to get informed before making a bunch of unkowingly false statements and predominantly totally ignorant ones. Thats all I have to say. I haven't spent much time on this board recently and its actually been a blessing. I wont be back again for a long time except to maybe pop in and have my reasons for not being a part of this re-confirmed. Have a good evening.

chilehed · 2026-06-03T17:39:15-0500

rjs330 said:
Not a single one of you were in the courtroom, nor did you hear the testimonies.

Exactly my point.

It appears that the full trial is available on youtube, one video I see is 11 hours long. I figure that anyone who has not carefully absorbed the whole thing has a societal obligation to reserve judgement, as I do.

durangodawood · 2026-06-03T18:07:36-0500

rjs330 said:
Not a single one of you were in the courtroom, nor did you hear the testimonies. Yet people are spouting off on things they have no knowledge of. Most of what is being said on this thread is completely ignorant and nothing more than pure conjecture. I just heard part of the closing arguments that pointed to testimony and video from the investigation. What was said completely contradicts what so many here are saying. The jury had black people on this jury who did hear and see it all. And they joined the rest of rhe jury in a not guilty verdict.

I suggest that most here need to get informed before making a bunch of unkowingly false statements and predominantly totally ignorant ones. Thats all I have to say. I haven't spent much time on this board recently and its actually been a blessing. I wont be back again for a long time except to maybe pop in and have my reasons for not being a part of this re-confirmed. Have a good evening.

Yeah, I recall this exact same tendency when people were defending the George Floyd killer after conviction or J6 rioters contrary to what a jury found (or what the defendant knows they would have found.). Slow down, people. You aren't in the best position to second guess this.

As I mentioned before, I give some leeway to people whove just had violence initiated upon them, like this store owner with his sons life threatened. Plus, as you note, I dont have the whole picture like a jury would.

Aldebaran · 2026-06-03T22:27:32-0500

Tinker Grey said:
Point was: The law defines attempted murder. As such, that you felt threatened is irrelevant to whether it was attempted murder.

How about this:
1. A kid pulls out a gun and points it at me
2. The kid threatens to kill me
3. The kid now possesses the means to kill me easily and has verbalized the intent to do so. As a result.....
4. I am in fear for my life.

Are you going to tell me now that I wouldn't have the legal right to protect myself?

Aldebaran · 2026-06-03T22:30:06-0500

chilehed said:
Wrong. They have that right only if a reasonable person would think so.

Are you about to try making the case that the store owner wasn't a reasonable person? The jury heard the testimony and that evidence, and obviously thought he was.

essentialsaltes · 2026-06-03T22:41:11-0500

Aldebaran said:
How about this:
1. A kid pulls out a gun and points it at me
2. The kid threatens to kill me
3. The kid now possesses the means to kill me easily and has verbalized the intent to do so. As a result.....
4. I am in fear for my life.

Are you going to tell me now that I wouldn't have the legal right to protect myself?

A fine hypothetical, but what about the actual situation we're discussing, where it seems that 2 & 3 don't apply and the kid was running away and pursued?

chilehed · 2026-06-04T05:18:43-0500

Aldebaran said:
Are you about to try making the case that the store owner wasn't a reasonable person?

You don't listen very well. I'm glad that it's not likely you'll ever be on any jury that I might be involved with.

Hentenza · 2026-06-04T08:14:54-0500

DaisyDay said:
Of course, I would. The facts wouldn't change because I personally were involved. But from this, I suppose when it's you everything changes?

When it’s you it definitely changes. Your adrenaline runs amok and perceived danger becomes real. People react differently when faced with a life and death situation.

Hentenza · 2026-06-04T08:16:47-0500

chilehed said:
That's an odd question. What part of "I don't know anything about the testimony" is unclear? I can't possibly know something that I don't know.

If the jury was reasonable (which you've merely assumed), and if the assumptions I made are substantially correct, then as I said there must be significant mitigating circumstances of which we are not aware.

If my five assumptions about the facts of the case are correct and if there were no such mitigating circumstances, then the jury was not reasonable because those facts absolutely outline an unlawful use of deadly force.

Neither you nor I know whether or not the jury was reasonable, because we don't know what the testimony in the case was.

Nothing in the article suggests that the jury was not reasonable. Your assumptions are your own.

South Carolina store owner acquitted of murder in 2023 killing of Black teen

NCC-1701-A

Wanderer

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

re Member

NCC-1701-A

NCC-1701-A

Fact-Based Lifeform

Veteran

I will fear no evil for You are with me

I will fear no evil for You are with me

Similar threads