Poll of the Day > 24 y/o White Man Shoots Homeless Black Man DEAD cause he BEGGED for MONEY!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

24 y/o Trailer Trash, Jace Boyd is charged with second degree murder of 61 y/o homeless man, Danny Buckley after he had BEGGED Jace for Money outside a Trader Joe's and is calling it SELF DEFENSE!!

The panhandler was killed outside the store in Louisiana as Jace was RELEASED on bond thursday, a week after his arrest and public outcry over the shooting

His parents posted 300,000 smackers for him to be released as an arrest warrant says Buckley was panhandling in the parking lot at an Upscale shopping centre when he approached Boyd's car for money.

They got into a "verbal dispute" which escalated after buckley walked away to ask another woman for money

Boyd then YELLED at Buckley to "leave people alone because he was scaring them" and when Buckley turned ot Boyd, Boyd then went back into his car to grab his gun and FIRED once at him. The first shot however MISFIRED and he quickly reloaded the chamber and shot him again in the abdomen

Police said Buckley was out of reach at that point.

Boyd then called police and admitted killing them but he was NOT arrested and claimed self-defense

He was arrested THREE days later on August 27 and now the family said the shooting constitutes a hate crime and asked whether police handled this case differently if the races were reversed

Shane Hinch, a lawyer contacted Boyd's parents and they insisted the shooting was justified and said "I can say without equivocation that despite reports, Jace at all times felt that both himself and his fiancee as well as another woman were in immediate threat of great bodily harm and that he acted in self defense and defense of others"

Do you think begging for money is a threatening action?

Boyd - Going Down

https://i.imgur.com/Oba5eKN.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/wnKjdEr.jpg
---

It can be, panhandlers can become quite aggressive in pursuit of money without doing anything to earn it, but it would take a lot to convince me that this was an instance that warranted lethal force.

---

Shadowbird_RH posted...

It can be, panhandlers can become quite aggressive in pursuit of money without doing anything to earn it, but it would take a lot to convince me that this was an instance that warranted lethal force.

The panhandler would have to get violent, you can't just pull out a gun and shoot someone because he was being aggressive about getting some spare change., Even then it has to be a level of violence equal to the retaliation, if one guy punches you in the face you can't shoot him 6 times and then claim self defense.

These fucking people have problems.


---

Monopoman posted...

The panhandler would have to get violent, you can't just pull out a gun and shoot someone because he was being aggressive about getting some spare change., Even then it has to be a level of violence equal to the retaliation, if one guy punches you in the face you can't shoot him 6 times and then claim self defense.

I would say it depends on the situation, for instance if you have a gun, but the person is assaulting you and is much stronger/bigger than you, and you barely get away for a second, shooting them might be logical and the only way to insure your safety (and that they don't actually get your gun and shoot you).

Given the opportunity and space, pointing the gun at them and warning them first would make sense of course, but if they charged you anyway, firing again makes the most sense as your under attack.

The concept of not using a higher level of force is rediculous, because sometimes it's a persons only possible defense without being completely at the mercy of the attacker (who does not look sane at all).

I'm big, strong and trained in martial arts most of my life, even though i'm older, I don't really need to worry about anyone just plain out overpowering me. I can at least hold my own, but not everyone is like that. If I was like 120 pounds and 5'8 or something.....yeah, a gun would make sense if someone 6 foot 280+ was charging at me.

IF you lock someone up for shooting another person who didn't have a gun but was aggressive, you are basically saying it's illegal to defend yourself.

---

Officer "Why did you shoot him"
Scared dude "Well, he said he was going to kill me and charged at me, he's like twice my size. So I pulled out my gun and shot him."

Officer "Had he actually hit you/assaulted you at that point?"

Scared dude "Um, no, but if I waited till he did, I wouldn't have been able to shoot him. Was I supposed to wait for him to beat me up?"

Officer "Yes, you can't use lethal force on someone just because he threatened you. You are under arrest"

Scared Dude "But....but...you said that guy had a warrent for felony assault and murder!! If I hadn't shot him, I might be dead right now"

Officer "Sorry bub, thats the law. You shot an unarmed man who had not actually commited any crime against you, you can take it up with the judge"

Scared Dude "Nooooooooooooo!!"

---

It took 3 days to arrest him?

These kind of stories always get me really mad but then I remember I cant ever trust news establishments because they almost never give the full story to get you mad intentionally.

If it happened exactly as said then fuck that guy. The guy left him alone to bother someone else and he was like naw dog, might as well just go to my car and retrieve my gun so I can shoot this guy, but misfire and then shoot him again.

---

mrduckbear posted...

Boyd then went back into his car to grab his gun

I think this is the key here. You can't claim self-defense if you can walk back to your car to get your gun.

---

When I worked at wal-mart once in a while there would be a panhandler outside and customers would come tell me about it like it was concerning. Like a panhandler is something that should not be seen in the suburbs or something.

I know at least a few times I didn't tell my manager because I have more important things to worry about. I've never lived in the city or a low income area, but there are places where panhandlers are just a part of life there, so to see suburbanites worrying about somebody asking for change had me laughing.

I'm just gonna grab some Raisinettes

---

they can get aggressive. iv yelled at some before because they wouldnt leave me alone

captpackrat posted...

I think this is the key here. You can't claim self-defense if you can walk back to your car to get your gun.

Pretty much. If it had been "guy begs for money, gets too aggressive, dude pulls a gun and shoots him," I could believe that he genuinely felt threatened (I could also believe that he didn't and just claimed he did to avoid legal ramifications). If he was able to leave to go to his car and come back, though, he very obviously could have escaped from the situation without shooting the guy, so I don't think he can justify self-defense.

Also still going through with it even after misfiring jeez

---

_AdjI_ posted...

Pretty much. If it had been "guy begs for money, gets too aggressive, dude pulls a gun and shoots him," I could believe that he genuinely felt threatened (I could also believe that he didn't and just claimed he did to avoid legal ramifications). If he was able to leave to go to his car and come back, though, he very obviously could have escaped from the situation without shooting the guy, so I don't think he can justify self-defense.

The law requires more than just feeling threatened, now in stand your ground states that holds more weight but in states that don't have that you need more than I feel threatened. Proving self defense is a hell of a lot harder than people think unless it's ridiculously obvious. Just because cops get away with casually shooting people doesn't mean that applies to everyone else.

Also, I don't think stand your ground counts unless the guy was, like, the owner of the store

---

Shadowbird_RH posted...

It can be, panhandlers can become quite aggressive, but it would take a lot to convince me that this was an instance that warranted lethal force.

All of this exactly.

---

wolfy42 posted...

Officer "Why did you shoot him"
Scared dude "Well, he said he was going to kill me and charged at me, he's like twice my size. So I pulled out my gun and shot him."

Officer "Had he actually hit you/assaulted you at that point?"

Scared dude "Um, no, but if I waited till he did, I wouldn't have been able to shoot him. Was I supposed to wait for him to beat me up?"

Officer "Yes, you can't use lethal force on someone just because he threatened you. You are under arrest"

Scared Dude "But....but...you said that guy had a warrent for felony assault and murder!! If I hadn't shot him, I might be dead right now"

Officer "Sorry bub, thats the law. You shot an unarmed man who had not actually commited any crime against you, you can take it up with the judge"

Scared Dude "Nooooooooooooo!!"

The article never said he charged him. "Aggressive" can also mean angry words.

Lokarin posted...

Also, I don't think stand your ground counts unless the guy was, like, the owner of the store

If that was true then Zimmerman wouldn't have gotten away with murder.
---

Lokarin posted...

Also, I don't think stand your ground counts unless the guy was, like, the owner of the store

All depends on the state.
---

deoxxys posted...

If it happened exactly as said then fuck that guy. The guy left him alone to bother someone else and he was like naw dog, might as well just go to my car and retrieve my gun so I can shoot this guy, but misfire and then shoot him again.

And have the sheer gall to claim "self defense" after that!

deoxxys posted...

Also still going through with it even after misfiring jeez

I know, right? It's like he was about to do something horrible and irreversible, and by some divine blessing or sheer dumb luck, the gun misfired, giving him a chance to rethink his life choices. And he just doubled down on, "nah, I'm murdering this homeless guy" and fired again!

And it took 3 days to arrest him AND he was granted bail and released?!

The amount needed for bail was 300k, he was fortunate as fuck his parents could afford that.

Monopoman posted...

The amount needed for bail was 300k, he was fortunate as fuck his parents could afford that.

I'm not familiar with it, but I thought that's what bail bonds are for? Only pay a fraction of the amount (plus interest, so the bondsman makes some money), and the bond covers the rest. Then the $300K is repaid by the government once the person shows up for trial.

So it's basically "show up for your court date, or face utterly crippling debt for life". But you don't actually pay $300K. Still seems like a dumb, antiquated system. If someone's dangerous, don't give them bail at all. If they're not, let them out until the trial for free, THEN hit them w/ a financial penalty if they don't show up. Seems like a smarter way to do it... *shrug* I'm guessing bail bonds companies "invest" money (ie, lobbying) to keep it as is...

streamofthesky posted...

I'm not familiar with it, but I thought that's what bail bonds are for? Only pay a fraction of the amount (plus interest, so the bondsman makes some money), and the bond covers the rest. Then the $300K is repaid by the government once the person shows up for trial.

So it's basically "show up for your court date, or face utterly crippling debt for life". But you don't actually pay $300K. Still seems like a dumb, antiquated system. If someone's dangerous, don't give them bail at all. If they're not, let them out until the trial for free, THEN hit them w/ a financial penalty if they don't show up. Seems like a smarter way to do it... *shrug* I'm guessing bail bonds companies "invest" money (ie, lobbying) to keep it as is...

True, but it's usually 10% of the amount so they still had to pony up $30k to make that $300k bail. Plenty of people would not be able to afford that even if they could get a loan for part of it.

This country is losing its mind.

---