Jaylen McCollough arrested

[Vol423]

Public drunkeness? Disturbing the peace? You telling me these cops, who are good at cooking up charges any other time, suddenly can't seem to find a reason to arrest this guy?

And that sounds reasonable to you?

The person that was at home minding his business and gets intruded on goes to jail, but the drunk intruder goes home. You guys are crazy if you don't think that is a bad look.

You're pushing an absolutely ridiculous agenda over and over again.

 

[Rickyvol77]

You're pushing an absolutely ridiculous agenda over and over again.

Those delusions are on every topic unfortunately

 

[Vol423]

Also, how does that change what I originally said? Based on the way the laws are, JM would have been better off if he shot him in the apartment.

...and you're very possibly wrong in this statement as well. In many states (even conservative ones), you can't simply shoot someone because they have broken into your home. If you're an owner of a firearm, you should educate yourself about the laws in your home state. The laws are not necessarily what you believe they are or think they should be, and ignorance of the law is not a defense.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

This type of “I’m so much smarter than everybody else that I don’t even need to Google the statutes to think I know better” attitude is exactly how many people end up telling on themselves to the cops.

None of those statutes you’re babbling about would actually seem to fit, here. If you’d bothered to look them up, you could have made an argument for one paragraph of public intoxication, but it’s still paper thin and it’s a waste of taxpayer resources to bring that as a lone charge against, I assume, a college kid who got punched down some stairs and lost some teeth.

No idea why the police would cook up charges that aren’t going to stick or why that’s something a supposed fiscal conservative who already thinks police need to be reformed would advocate for.

The rest of what you’re saying would only make sense if the stairs that dude got knocked down were inside McCullough’s home. They weren’t. And the information available to the police is that that’s because dude realized he made a mistake, apologized, and left. The information available to police is that McCullough followed him outside, decked him, knocked him down some stairs, and he lost some teeth. Then there’s blood on the stairs, McCullough had left the scene, and when he came back his hand is bandaged.

That’s well past probable cause. It’s not a bad look. This is exactly how it should go down in every corner of all 50 states. Maybe it turns out to be ******** and he stole something or he’s been stalking the girlfriend or whatever, but that’s not in evidence.

In a just world, there is no way in hell a person minding their business at home ends up in jail after being intruded on while the drunk intruder is walking free. Either you arrest both, arrest neither or arrest the intruder. JM isn't the one that went out looking for trouble that night. Zion did.

Oh, and as you probably know by now, I really don't care that much about what the law says. I'm more concerned about justice. Justice isn't being served right here.

With regards to my comment about picking a charge, that was halfway facetious, but we know that cops routinely cook up charges all the time without thinking about if they will stick or not. That right there is pretty laughable.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

...and you're very possibly wrong in this statement as well. In many states (even conservative ones), you can't simply shoot someone because they have broken into your home. If you're an owner of a firearm, you should educate yourself about the laws in your home state. The laws are not necessarily what you believe they should be or think they should be, and ignorance of the law is not a defense.

Oh, I'm pretty sure that would be a roll of the dice also, as I think about it a bit more. JM likely wouldn't get the benefit of doubt in that situation either.

 

[ButchPlz]

In a just world, there is no way in hell a person minding their business at home ends up in jail after being intruded on while the drunk intruder is walking free. Either you arrest both, arrest neither or arrest the intruder. JM isn't the one that went out looking for trouble that night. Zion did.

Oh, and as you probably know by now, I really don't care that much about what the law says. I'm more concerned about justice. Justice isn't being served right here.

With regards to my comment about picking a charge, that was halfway facetious, but we know that cops routinely cook up charges all the time without thinking about if they will stick or not. That right there is pretty laughable.

I like a lot of the folks here like @Rickyvol77, but you are spot on about justice. We are not called to obey or respect unjust laws. Every one of these people would expect their homes to be respected and people that violate that respect to be punished, yet for some reason in this case the law supercedes sense.

Remember, he also supported proven damaging treatments for COVID and hospitals effectively killing people with denied treatment because that's what the proverbial "book" said was OK. Something's off with the moral compass.

 

[Vol Main]

How would Mac know if that man walked in accidentally? There are serial burglars who walk through unlocked doors and windows. It happens all the time, and of course they act all innocent when they get caught. As someone who caught a burglar in my home, I can tell you that seeing a man in your home who does not belong there is a highly disturbing experience.

 

[Rickyvol77]

I like a lot of the folks here like @Rickyvol77, but you are spot on about justice. We are not called to obey or respect unjust laws. Every one of these people would expect their homes to be respected and people that violate that respect to be punished, yet for some reason in this case the law supercedes sense.

Remember, he also supported proven damaging treatments for COVID and hospitals effectively killing people with denied treatment because that's what the proverbial "book" said was OK. Something's off with the moral compass.

Because accidents do happen and there is a difference between a drunk or high kid walking into your unlocked door by mistake and someone breaking into your house will ill intent. And no treatment given at hospitals were “damaging” or “killed” anyone.

 

[Vol423]

Oh, I'm pretty sure that would be a roll of the dice also, as I think about it a bit more. JM likely wouldn't get the benefit of doubt in that situation either.

It's not about getting the benefit of the doubt. It's about not doing something illegal (pursuing someone outside your residence and assaulting them or shooting someone within your residence potentially without it being in self defense). You seem to want people to be able to do whatever they want and then argue after the fact that the laws in place aren't fair.

 

[Vol423]

In a just world, there is no way in hell a person minding their business at home ends up in jail after being intruded on while the drunk intruder is walking free. Either you arrest both, arrest neither or arrest the intruder. JM isn't the one that went out looking for trouble that night. Zion did.

Oh, and as you probably know by now, I really don't care that much about what the law says. I'm more concerned about justice. Justice isn't being served right here.

With regards to my comment about picking a charge, that was halfway facetious, but we know that cops routinely cook up charges all the time without thinking about if they will stick or not. That right there is pretty laughable.

Wow. I hadn't even read this response from you before my previous post. It looks like my assessment of you was correct. You're a fool.

 

[AM64]

And that is what I am talking about.

The real victim here is Jaylen McCollough. He was the one minding his business. And the way the system is set up, the person that is violated finds themselves in jail while the trespassing drunkard walks free. Also, the argument can be made, just like you said earlier with regards to Castle Doctrine, that JM would have been better off shooting the guy in his apartment rather than going into an emotional, adrenaline filled rage and punching the guy. That is the dangerous precedent I am talking about. It really isn't that hard to understand that this is unjust. If JM is arrested, how the hell can this drunk trespasser be walking free?

The point is when the intruder is in the home it's a matter of self defense for the resident. Once the intruder is outside and without a means to harm the residents inside, the element of self defense is gone. If the guy had a gun to shoot into the apartment or perhaps a firebomb to throw through a window, it's a different story. I hope it goes away and McCollough plays again, but right now he's got a problem by being aggressive and failing to show common sense - and WTH didn't they have the door locked in the first place.

 

[RockyTop85]

In a just world, there is no way in hell a person minding their business at home ends up in jail after being intruded on while the drunk intruder is walking free. Either you arrest both, arrest neither or arrest the intruder. JM isn't the one that went out looking for trouble that night. Zion did.

If that was what happened, you’d be right. But theres a ton of evidence that it didn’t go down that way.

You’re complaining that people who are relying on incomplete information didn’t make up the same unsupported hypothetical that you did.

That’s not justice. You’re just looking for a reason to be mad.

 

[AM64]

...and you're very possibly wrong in this statement as well. In many states (even conservative ones), you can't simply shoot someone because they have broken into your home. If you're an owner of a firearm, you should educate yourself about the laws in your home state. The laws are not necessarily what you believe they should be or think they should be, and ignorance of the law is not a defense.

Considering the law continues to hundreds of volumes and changes daily, ignorance of the law should be an acceptable defense. How we ever got the the point that some simple codified law is replaced by judges making it up as they go is nuts.

 

[MOOOOONEY]

Lol you have no clue about the law. And it’s funny you say this when you in the past have said you wouldn’t stop a man beating his girlfriend in public

And be arrested like JM?

I’m sure if someone stopped a man from beating his girlfriend in public and the girl lies and said he didn’t beat her then the cops was arrest the man for assault.

The law? During Covid the law was unconstitutional mandates. You have admitted that cops do not have to enforce or follow the laws only orders from politicians.

 

[MOOOOONEY]

You're pushing an absolutely ridiculous agenda over and over again.

Are you zions brother? Mommy? Daddy? Attorney?

Why do you keep defending the drunk idiot like it’s your job?

 

[Vol423]

Are you zions brother? Mommy? Daddy? Attorney?

Why do you keep defending the drunk idiot like it’s your job?

This should be entertaining. I’m defending Zion? Please show me a single post that I’ve made where I’ve even mentioned him.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I like a lot of the folks here like @Rickyvol77, but you are spot on about justice. We are not called to obey or respect unjust laws. Every one of these people would expect their homes to be respected and people that violate that respect to be punished, yet for some reason in this case the law supercedes sense.

Remember, he also supported proven damaging treatments for COVID and hospitals effectively killing people with denied treatment because that's what the proverbial "book" said was OK. Something's off with the moral compass.

I heard this today and it is true. We have a legal system in this country, not a justice system. And you have many people such as @Rickyvol77 that support all laws and statutes and protocols no matter how foul and unjust they may be.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Because accidents do happen and there is a difference between a drunk or high kid walking into your unlocked door by mistake and someone breaking into your house will ill intent. And no treatment given at hospitals were “damaging” or “killed” anyone.

And you just pointed out the injustice I'm talking about. A person that is intoxicated on alcohol or drugs makes a mistake and is given more leeway than a person sitting at home minding their business and then is startled by an intruder and becomes "intoxicated" on adrenaline and makes a mistake. Zion poured that liquor down his throat on his own decision. Jaylen, on the other hand, wasn't out looking for trouble... trouble came at him.

And you guys are in here talking about all of this legal mumbo-jumbo that nobody really cares about because in the end, this case shows it all too clearly that we have a legal system and not a justice system.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

It's not about getting the benefit of the doubt. It's about not doing something illegal (pursuing someone outside your residence and assaulting them or shooting someone within your residence potentially without it being in self defense). You seem to want people to be able to do whatever they want and then argue after the fact that the laws in place aren't fair.

No, I simply want justice. Meaning, look at the totality of the situation and make a reasonable determination about what happened and who needs to be dealt with. If you have a system where a drunk intruder is free and an person at their residence that did not go out looking for trouble is the one put in handcuffs, then the system is corrupt.

There were 4 available options:
1. Arrest both
2. Arrest neither
3. Arrest Zion
4. Arrest Jaylen

Any of the first 3 would have been reasonable, so the cops had a 75% chance of getting it right. but what do they do? They pick the least just option of them all. You can't make this up.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

The point is when the intruder is in the home it's a matter of self defense for the resident. Once the intruder is outside and without a means to harm the residents inside, the element of self defense is gone. If the guy had a gun to shoot into the apartment or perhaps a firebomb to throw through a window, it's a different story. I hope it goes away and McCollough plays again, but right now he's got a problem by being aggressive and failing to show common sense - and WTH didn't they have the door locked in the first place.

I'm familiar with the logicality and the fact that Jaylen left the residence to attack the guy. I'm fully aware that in the eyes of the law, this is frowned upon.

One guy gets drunk and makes a mistake. He is free.
One guy minding his business and makes a mistake turned up on adrenaline as a result of the drunk guy's actions and he's sitting in the back of the squad car.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Because Brooks was actively using force including possible deadly force to the officers and others

Here you go...

Yet another example of you defending the cops. In both of those instances, the suspects were fleeing and the cops used lethal force. In the ATL case, they got away with it. In the other case, had it not been for the video, he would have gotten away with it.

So cops can use lethal force on people that flee and likely not get any time.

But a civilian runs after someone after the intrude in his home and uses non-lethal force and is dealing with the fuzz.

 

[MOOOOONEY]

Here you go...

Yet another example of you defending the cops. In both of those instances, the suspects were fleeing and the cops used lethal force. In the ATL case, they got away with it. In the other case, had it not been for the video, he would have gotten away with it.

So cops can use lethal force on people that flee and likely not get any time.

But a civilian runs after someone after the intrude in his home and uses non-lethal force and is dealing with the fuzz.

By cops standards JM should be given a medal and probably would have if he had shot the intruder in the back.

JM possible saved someone’s life. What if the drunk intruder jumped in his car and speed off and then hit and killed an innocent person?

 

[Rickyvol77]

Here you go...

Yet another example of you defending the cops. In both of those instances, the suspects were fleeing and the cops used lethal force. In the ATL case, they got away with it. In the other case, had it not been for the video, he would have gotten away with it.

So cops can use lethal force on people that flee and likely not get any time.

But a civilian runs after someone after the intrude in his home and uses non-lethal force and is dealing with the fuzz.

You are so clueless let me write slowly for you.
brooks had attacked officers in multiple felonies and had weapons and could’ve killed the officers or carjack or kill someone in the public thus deadly force was justified

This Dumbass kid was high and walked into the wrong unlocked apartment door without force and without any weapons or evidence of violence and left immediately once he saw what happened. Then JM followed him and chased him and assaulted him causing serious injuries as the guy was walking away.

The fact that you don’t have a clue about Graham v Connor or TN v Garner let alone have any logical rational thinking of any topic from executing nurses to nuthugging for fascist putin to saying you would let men beat innocent women. Nutjob all the way

 

[MOOOOONEY]

This should be entertaining. I’m defending Zion? Please show me a single post that I’ve made where I’ve even mentioned him.

So you are defending the thin blue line?

No reasonable person would believe that arresting JM was justified except cops and bootlickers.

 

[MOOOOONEY]

You are so clueless let me write slowly for you.
brooks had attacked officers in multiple felonies and had weapons and could’ve killed the officers or carjack or kill someone in the public thus deadly force was justified

This Dumbass kid was high and walked into the wrong unlocked apartment door without force and without any weapons or evidence of violence and left immediately once he saw what happened. Then JM followed him and chased him and assaulted him causing serious injuries as the guy was walking away.

The fact that you don’t have a clue about Graham v Connor or TN v Garner let alone have any logical rational thinking of any topic from executing nurses to nuthugging for fascist putin to saying you would let men beat innocent women. Nutjob all the way

By your standards JM should be a hero.

The drunk idiot didn’t live in the apartment complex. He probably drove there. What if he had jumped in his car intoxicated and hit an innocent bystander or a car with children inside?