I think it was a part of the proper verification of the facts of the case against the driver. I imagine they checked the driver's social media too. MSM may run with it and construe it as a legitimate excuse but the court of law [used to] prosecute on the facts of the case. There is likely a lot more to this story and social media might reveal clues to what really happened. Was the driver a perv trying to pick up the victim? Kid refused, maybe called him names, so the driver went around the block and ran him down?
From what I understand even corporations might ask for your social media when applying for a job. Nothing posted is private.
It’s not a pertinent “fact of the case” is my point. Whether or not the kid was a member of such a group is irrelevant. The law doesn’t state “murder is illegal unless you disagree politically with the person you kill.”
”From what I understand even corporations might ask for your social media when applying for a job. Nothing posted is private.”
Completely irrelevant in a murder case.
The same reason that jackass can’t legally kill the kid for being part of an extremist group - EVEN IF HE IS - is the same reason that you can’t just roll up to an antifa meeting and mow everyone down: MURDER IS ILLEGAL.
It’s only legally justifiable to save your life or the life of others who are in imminent danger.
It’s not a pertinent “fact of the case” is my point
I agree with this statement, have always agreed since I first saw the story.
What I disagree with was when you said the cops shouldn't have investigated the drivers statement because it’s not a pertinent “fact of the case” whether the kid was or wasn't.
It was the driver's excuse (and MSM was quick to spread that notion with glee) which the cops must check out, it is their job. The cops investigated and determined it was total bullshit, the driver was lying about why he ran the kid over. The cops were right to seek the truth about the driver's statements in order to get to the truth of what really happened here. The prosecutor's options: Premeditated Murder 1? Looks like it to me. Manslaughter 1? "He didn't intend to kill him, just fuck him up"? Maybe. Manslaughter 2? "I thought he was MAGA and feared for my life"? Cops investigation proves this claim is Bullshit.
Prosecutors need the facts to determine what to prosecute. The cops had a job to do. How the MSM reports it is another story. MSM will try to spin it to make it sound like a legitimate excuse ... because they hate us. And it is infuriating.
I see what you’re saying, I’m just saying it’s bullshit that they are considering it no matter what.
If the kid threatened the man’s life, one could make the argument it’s relevant I guess.. not sure it matters what his motivations were if he threatened him. And I don’t mean a verbal threat when I say “threatened him.” There’s a charge for that and you don’t run someone over in an alley because of a verbal threat.
For the man to be justified at all would require extraordinary circumstances…for example, he’s driving and the kid steps in front of him and points a gun at him.
But even if that were the case, I still don’t see how the kid’s affiliations have anything to do with it…unless the kid premeditated a hit within the context of a “mission” on behalf of his “extremist group.”
The problem I have with this is that to even go there gives validation to the idea that the man would have been justified had the kid belonged to such a group.
I realize that you don’t think that would be a valid reason to kill him anymore than I do. What I’m taking issue with is that any of us (especially cops) are playing this game according to their bullshit, made up rules…
The fact that it’s operating on a false premise to begin with, and that false premise is even being entertained is what I find problematic.
(post is archived)