• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Another Unarmed Black Man Killed

Enough said:
""Under a reasonable view of the evidence the homeowner acted reasonably in his use of force based on the facts and circumstances," county District Attorney Mark Bensen said."
"An attorney representing Kind said the shooting of Morrison in the enclosed porch would have been considered justifiable under Wisconsin's prior law as well.

"All the factors to prove self defense under the old law were present," lawyer Craig Mastantuono said.


Bo Morrison Killing And 'Castle' Law In Wisconsin Compared To Trayvon Martin Case
 
I dunno man, as I said I am kind of eh on it. The guy shouldn't have been on his porch, but still, it is all very unfortunate.
 
The police tried for 45 minutes to get into the garage...and failed???
 
This is missing a whole lot of other instances. Since the February 26 shooting of Trayvon Martin, 432 black men have been killed. By black men.
 
This is missing a whole lot of other instances. Since the February 26 shooting of Trayvon Martin, 432 black men have been killed. By black men.

Except they could go to prison? Key difference.
 
Assuming there is guilt somewhere involved here?

A white dude shot a black dude. Obviously, the white dude is a racist and shot the black dude because, he was black.
 
While the incident is unfortunate seeing poor Bo portrayed in such a manner caused me to look askance, reach for my skittles and go to the next news item. What sensationalistic garbage.

fullscreen_capture_4182012_24201_pm.jpg

Bo Morrison, 20, was shot and killed in Slinger, Wisconsin on March 3rd after he ran from an underage drinking party and hid inside an enclosed porch of a neighboring house.
 
This is missing a whole lot of other instances. Since the February 26 shooting of Trayvon Martin, 432 black men have been killed. By black men.

Do the police arrest these killers or do they let them go?
 
"At 1:56AM Bo is shot dead. The police cars are still outside the house. Bo is killed while the cops are only a few hundred feet from the house.

At 2:00AM Adam's wife calls 911 to report the shooting.

As we examine the facts in the case, we are troubled that Mr. Kind had called the police three times during the evening, visited the underage drinking party that was happening next door to his home, received a 4 1/2 call from the police after they have arrived on the scene, and still came out of his house with a Colt 45, ultimately shooting Bo, who was hiding in his enclosed porch.


Wait, there is an underage party going on and they are troubled by the neighbor calling the police?

kid young adult breaks and enters, gets shot, sad, but one shouldn't be trespassing like this, how would the neighbor know the kids intentions?


Just to report the facts, Adam Kind is white and Bo Morrision is bi-racial. Slinger is 98% white and .2% black



Right, no, asshole reporter, this is just an attempt to make up some racial bull**** to sell a sensationalized story....

Read more: http://globalgrind.com/news/bo-morrison-shot-killed-wisconsin-law-stand-your-ground-trayvon-martin-details#ixzz1sUQa4Mnm"
 
Bo Morrison Shot And Killed Under Stand Your Ground Law (DETAILS) | Global Grind

Just saw this story. Not sure what to make of it. Different circumstances, was night, guy might have seriously freaked out when he shot the guy.
This case ought to be further investigated, I think. I agree that the shooter might have legitimately "freaked out" when he saw the kid, but the police were right by his house and he was inside of his house so there was no immediate need for him to shoot someone who was outside of his house.

In any case, this is extremely sad. It seems to me that the people are pulling the trigger a little to fast which is irresponsible. I think these "stand your ground" type laws need to go. People need to be held accountable for their unnecessary, fatal actions.
 
Do the police arrest these killers or do they let them go?

Obviously they get arrested. Only the white ones get let go.


Anyway, the case appears to be Castle Doctrine, not SYG. Castle Doctrine exists in almost every state? That noted, shooting someone for hiding on one's porch is kinda messed up, but it's better than home-dwellers having to think twice about defending themselves in their homes.
 
Last edited:
A white dude shot a black dude. Obviously, the white dude is a racist and shot the black dude because, he was black.

It's always some innocent black dude arriving at the home of a racist white pig, and then gets himself shot. Probably another white racist pig called the first to report his uppity slave was missing. So the first pig took care if bidness, amiright? :roll: I hear there's lots of these racist Republican teams popping up around the country, working in cahoots to eradicate the black race.
 
I find the suggestions that I no longer should have the right to defend myself on my property in the middle of the night when someone's skulking around on my porch to be terribly disturbing.

Why should I assume that someone on my porch in the middle of the night after a night of police-calls and a noisy-teennybop-parties is hiding there for a peaceful encounter with no ill intent?

The argument against this case seems ****ing stupid.
 
I find the suggestions that I no longer should have the right to defend myself on my property in the middle of the night when someone's skulking around on my porch to be terribly disturbing.

Why should I assume that someone on my porch in the middle of the night after a night of police-calls and a noisy-teennybop-party is hiding there for a peaceful encounter with no ill intent?

The argument against this case seems ****ing stupid.
The argument isn't that you shouldn't be able to defend yourself. The argument is that when someone is outside of your house, you are inside of your house, the police are only a few hundred yards away and you leave to your house and then kill the person outside of it, your actions are questionable and perhaps irresponsible since there was no immediate threat to your safety and since those capable of handling the threat were so close.
 
Obviously they get arrested. Only the white ones get let go.


Anyway, the case appears to be Castle Doctrine, not SYG. Castle Doctrine exists in almost every state? That noted, shooting someone for hiding on one's porch is kinda messed up, but it's better than home-dwellers having to think twice about defending themselves in their homes.

Shooting someone for hiding in one's laundry room is not much different. (The laundry room may be off the garage, but it has an entry into the house as well.) When we lived in a home with an attached, enclosed porch, the door from the porch to the house wasn't locked. If I'd heard someone in my enclosed porch and kept a weapon for self-defense, I'd have probably stayed inside the house, trained my gun at the porch/house door, and called the coppers. If I thought a raccoon had broken into the enclosed porch, I might have gone out there to roust his lil' ass. Finding a guy crouched down on my porch would've scared the daylights out of me.

The story I read about this instance a few weeks ago (not from that obviously sensationalist rag), indicated he confronted the guy, the guy stood up and walked toward him. May have been perfectly innocent reaction; probably was. But if you're in someone's home in the wee hours, you are takin' your chances.

I hope their Castle Laws provide immunity to civil lawsuit like the SYG's do. That's there only redeeming factor, in my opinion. Extending what amounts to Castle Doctrine to public property is wrong, in my opinion. We already have self-defense on the books; that should be enough. In your home? That's another kettle of fish.
 
The argument isn't that you shouldn't be able to defend yourself. The argument is that when someone is outside of your house, you are inside of your house, the police are only a few hundred yards away and you leave to your house and then kill the person outside of it, your actions are questionable and perhaps irresponsible since there was no immediate threat to your safety and since those capable of handling the threat were so close.

That takes into account all sorts of assumptions about the situation: assuming the person on the porch was unarmed. Assuming they wouldn't attack you if you yelled out for the police to arrive - and so on.

My assumption = immediate and grave danger.
 
Do the police arrest these killers or do they let them go?
IF they investigate them fully and IF they find them and IF they manage a conviction and oh yes...IF they are guilty then they are 'arrested'. Nice of you to pretend to 'care'. Funny though...when the relative handful of white on black murders occur they are front page news. When the daily genocide occurs over a pair of sneakers...it is...meh. And when blacks murder whites? Crickets baby. Not a peep.

Like I said...its cute that you pretend to care.

(edited for correctness...that should have read "when the relative handful of HISPANIC on black murders occur they are front page news"
 
Last edited:
On that note: I remember someone from security that we use to hire at the theater telling me that a problem with a lot of unsolved murders in our area is that people know their guilt - might have facts to prove their guilt - but don't want to risk retaliation and being a victim in the future if it might be gang or drug related: so they say nothing. . . killer walks anyway.
 
That takes into account all sorts of assumptions about the situation: assuming the person on the porch was unarmed. Assuming they wouldn't attack you if you yelled out for the police to arrive - and so on.

My assumption = immediate and grave danger.
If you're inside of your house and someone is outside of your house crouched in a corner, you aren't in immediate or grave danger at all.

And no, my position does not make any of those assumptions. My position takes into account that the person might be armed and might react negatively to someone yelling for the police. My position is based on knowledge, not assumptions. You are in your house, the potential threat is outside of your house in the back and the police are outside of your house in the front. Those three circumstances show that you are not in immediate danger and that you have access to people trained to handle potential threats. If you shoot the person, your actions are question and perhaps irresponsible.

If I were in that situation as has been described by the article, I would have either opened a front window/door and shouted to the police or I would have called 911 again and told them to tell the police outside of my house the situation. I would have my gun and watch the person from a place where I know they can't see me and if they tried to come into my house or if they pointed a weapon, I would shoot them. That would be the responsible thing to do and you shouldn't have a gun unless you know you can think that way in these situations.
 
If you're inside of your house and someone is outside of your house crouched in a corner, you aren't in immediate or grave danger at all.

And no, my position does not make any of those assumptions. My position takes into account that the person might be armed and might react negatively to someone yelling for the police. My position is based on knowledge, not assumptions. You are in your house, the potential threat is outside of your house in the back and the police are outside of your house in the front. Those three circumstances show that you are not in immediate danger and that you have access to people trained to handle potential threats. If you shoot the person, your actions are question and perhaps irresponsible.

If I were in that situation as has been described by the article, I would have either opened a front window/door and shouted to the police or I would have called 911 again and told them to tell the police outside of my house the situation. I would have my gun and watch the person from a place where I know they can't see me and if they tried to come into my house or if they pointed a weapon, I would shoot them. That would be the responsible thing to do and you shouldn't have a gun unless you know you can think that way in these situations.

Hmm - considering my house and where I live: I'd say that if someone is anywhere on my property we have a serious issue. . . definitely have an issue if you're on my porch at night - so be smart and stay off my lawn and we won't have a problem at all.

Normal people who don't have ill intentions don't hide on people's porches in the dark in the wee hours of the morning after causing trouble for the entire neighborhood all night: waiting to jump out and strike the neighbor who ruined all the fun. If anyone's that dumb they get what they have coming for just being a moron.
 
Last edited:
If you're inside of your house and someone is outside of your house crouched in a corner, you aren't in immediate or grave danger at all.

And no, my position does not make any of those assumptions. My position takes into account that the person might be armed and might react negatively to someone yelling for the police. My position is based on knowledge, not assumptions. You are in your house, the potential threat is outside of your house in the back and the police are outside of your house in the front. Those three circumstances show that you are not in immediate danger and that you have access to people trained to handle potential threats. If you shoot the person, your actions are question and perhaps irresponsible.

If I were in that situation as has been described by the article, I would have either opened a front window/door and shouted to the police or I would have called 911 again and told them to tell the police outside of my house the situation. I would have my gun and watch the person from a place where I know they can't see me and if they tried to come into my house or if they pointed a weapon, I would shoot them. That would be the responsible thing to do and you shouldn't have a gun unless you know you can think that way in these situations.
From a homeowners perspective, its early in the AM, you hear sounds as if someone is breaking into your home, you go to investigate and find an unknown individual facing you crouched in a corner. Now...of course...no burglar or rapist would crouch in a corner attempting to avoid detection, so the homeowners first thought MUST be, "ha! innocent black kid! I get to murder him!" and not "****!!! Some stranger is trying to break into my house and is crouching to avoid detection! I dont know if he is armed, unarmed, means to duct tape me to a chair and beat my family or what! ****!!!"

Nah...its gotta be "yay...I get to kill me a black kid."

Bloody hell...
 
It's always some innocent black dude arriving at the home of a racist white pig, and then gets himself shot.
To be fair, instances where it's clear cut that the person who was shot was a bad guy, well that's not as titillating as when there's a possibility of scandal, of wrongful homicide. So it's only natural that what is hyped and re-told are the events with more sordidness. It's what we the public respond to.

Imho, if Martin had been found with a pistol himself, or he and Zim had a shoot-out, or some other thing that suitably incriminated one or the other of them and duly simplified the story, we wouldn't have had such a reaction to the tale. It would have been local news that "faded away" over time.

So, I suspect that our perception as the news consuming public of the frequency of certain events and types of events is skewed by the tendency for the various media people to highlight sensational cases with a high likelihood of garnering our attention.
 
Except they could go to prison? Key difference.

It is baffling to me how many people don't get this point. Yes, black people kill black people. Black people go to jail for killing black people. Black people kill white people. Black people go to jail for killing white people.

All is well and good.

The question is this: When was the last time you ever heard of a black person killing an unarmed white person and being acquitted of the crime or not being arrested for it?

Furthermore, here's an example of a case where it seems obvious that the stand your ground law SHOULD apply, and Lo and Behold! we have a black man in jail for shooting and killing a white man...

When "stand your ground" fails - Crime - Salon.com
 
Back
Top Bottom