Omaha bar owner WILL be charged.

[Mr Person]

You may recall the shooting of protester James Scurlock some months back by another white dude claiming self-defense. His actions were cheered; the black man had it coming, we were told. Threads like this were created at the time:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...r-not-charged.html?highlight=Gardner+Scurlock






Update:

After he fatally shot James Scurlock, a 22-year-old Black protester, outside his Omaha bar in May, Jake Gardner told police it was self-defense. A county attorney agreed and decided not to prosecute Gardner, 38, who is White. But on Tuesday, a Douglas County grand jury came to the opposite conclusion, indicting Gardner on four felonies, including manslaughter, for the fatal shooting on May 30. In a news conference Tuesday, Frederick D. Franklin, a federal attorney with the U.S. attorney’s office in Omaha who acted as special prosecutor, said while investigators interviewed 60 witnesses, Gardner’s own words, through text and Facebook messages, ended up as the probable cause for the indictment. “I can tell you that there is evidence that undermines” Gardner’s claims of self-defense, said Franklin, without getting into specifics. “And that evidence comes primarily from Jake Gardner himself.”
.
.
“It was their brother, his son, that lost his life,” Nebraska state Sen. Justin Wayne (D), the family’s attorney, told reporters. “While this family is thankful, this family is also still frustrated that it took this process to occur. If we didn’t call for a grand jury, this case is over.” . . . Scurlock’s death came five days after George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis sparked nationwide protests, including a tense Omaha demonstration that eventually led to nearly 100 arrests on the night Scurlock was shot. . . . On Tuesday, Franklin said the evidence presented to the grand jury showed them “Jake Gardner was threatening the use of deadly force in the absence of being threatened with a concomitant deadly force by James Scurlock or anyone who was associated with him.” “There was evidence that was gathered and presented to the grand jury about activity that Jake Gardner was engaged in before even coming in contact with James Scurlock,” Franklin said. “Evidence to reasonably be construed as an intent to use a firearm for purposes of killing someone.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/09/16/james-scurlock-shooting-omaha-indicted/


Sounds like another Rittenhouse.

tl;dr*. I keep telling you that you cannot arm yourself, go provoke a confrontation, then the moment anyone does anything to protect themselves shoot them and claim it was legitimate self-defense because you were scared.

Given the way these cases work, don't expect to hear exactly what it is that got a GJ to indict. I bet it's something like statements he made to others about the shooting, possibly on social media or possibly to someone in person who had a conscience; or maybe it really is just some things he did/said beforehand that show he planned to cause trouble.

 

[Mr Person]

_______________
* State law varies, but the principles are almost always roughly the same. The brief version of MA's self-defense instructions in this area of law are:

1. The defendant did not actually believe that he/she was in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm from which he/she could save him/herself only by using deadly force. Deadly force is force that is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm.

2. A reasonable person in the same circumstances as the defendant would not reasonably have believed that he or she was in immediate danger of death or seriosu bodily harm from which he or she could save himself or herself only by using deadly force.

3. The defendant did not use or attempt to use all proper and reasonable means under the circumstances to avoid physical combat before resorting to the use of deadly force.

4. The defendant used more force than was reasonably necessary under all the circumstances.

5. [Where there is evidence the defendant was the initial aggressor. The defendant was the first to use or threaten deadly force, and did not withdraw in good faith from the conflict and announce to the person (or persons) whom he/she provoked his/her intention to withdraw and end the confrontation without any use of or additional use of force.

Those are the model instructions for MA superior courts. Judges will typically recite them, then read out longer paragraphs explaining each in more detail. I'm too lazy to type all that up.

It should be enough to give you the gist. NB's self-defense law is no doubt a bit different but like I said, the principles are usually consistent across states. A quick google indicates it's pretty similar, but I'm not doing proper research.

 

[Moderate Right]

You may recall the shooting of protester James Scurlock some months back by another white dude claiming self-defense. His actions were cheered; the black man had it coming, we were told. Threads like this were created at the time:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...r-not-charged.html?highlight=Gardner+Scurlock






Update:

After he fatally shot James Scurlock, a 22-year-old Black protester, outside his Omaha bar in May, Jake Gardner told police it was self-defense. A county attorney agreed and decided not to prosecute Gardner, 38, who is White. But on Tuesday, a Douglas County grand jury came to the opposite conclusion, indicting Gardner on four felonies, including manslaughter, for the fatal shooting on May 30. In a news conference Tuesday, Frederick D. Franklin, a federal attorney with the U.S. attorney’s office in Omaha who acted as special prosecutor, said while investigators interviewed 60 witnesses, Gardner’s own words, through text and Facebook messages, ended up as the probable cause for the indictment. “I can tell you that there is evidence that undermines” Gardner’s claims of self-defense, said Franklin, without getting into specifics. “And that evidence comes primarily from Jake Gardner himself.”
.
.
“It was their brother, his son, that lost his life,” Nebraska state Sen. Justin Wayne (D), the family’s attorney, told reporters. “While this family is thankful, this family is also still frustrated that it took this process to occur. If we didn’t call for a grand jury, this case is over.” . . . Scurlock’s death came five days after George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis sparked nationwide protests, including a tense Omaha demonstration that eventually led to nearly 100 arrests on the night Scurlock was shot. . . . On Tuesday, Franklin said the evidence presented to the grand jury showed them “Jake Gardner was threatening the use of deadly force in the absence of being threatened with a concomitant deadly force by James Scurlock or anyone who was associated with him.” “There was evidence that was gathered and presented to the grand jury about activity that Jake Gardner was engaged in before even coming in contact with James Scurlock,” Franklin said. “Evidence to reasonably be construed as an intent to use a firearm for purposes of killing someone.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/09/16/james-scurlock-shooting-omaha-indicted/


Sounds like another Rittenhouse.

tl;dr*. I keep telling you that you cannot arm yourself, go provoke a confrontation, then the moment anyone does anything to protect themselves shoot them and claim it was legitimate self-defense because you were scared.

Given the way these cases work, don't expect to hear exactly what it is that got a GJ to indict. I bet it's something like statements he made to others about the shooting, possibly on social media or possibly to someone in person who had a conscience.

From the little I know about this, I don't see him being found guilty.

 

[americanwoman]

You may recall the shooting of protester James Scurlock some months back by another white dude claiming self-defense. His actions were cheered; the black man had it coming, we were told. Threads like this were created at the time:

https://www.debatepolitics.com/brea...r-not-charged.html?highlight=Gardner+Scurlock






Update:

After he fatally shot James Scurlock, a 22-year-old Black protester, outside his Omaha bar in May, Jake Gardner told police it was self-defense. A county attorney agreed and decided not to prosecute Gardner, 38, who is White. But on Tuesday, a Douglas County grand jury came to the opposite conclusion, indicting Gardner on four felonies, including manslaughter, for the fatal shooting on May 30. In a news conference Tuesday, Frederick D. Franklin, a federal attorney with the U.S. attorney’s office in Omaha who acted as special prosecutor, said while investigators interviewed 60 witnesses, Gardner’s own words, through text and Facebook messages, ended up as the probable cause for the indictment. “I can tell you that there is evidence that undermines” Gardner’s claims of self-defense, said Franklin, without getting into specifics. “And that evidence comes primarily from Jake Gardner himself.”
.
.
“It was their brother, his son, that lost his life,” Nebraska state Sen. Justin Wayne (D), the family’s attorney, told reporters. “While this family is thankful, this family is also still frustrated that it took this process to occur. If we didn’t call for a grand jury, this case is over.” . . . Scurlock’s death came five days after George Floyd’s death in Minneapolis sparked nationwide protests, including a tense Omaha demonstration that eventually led to nearly 100 arrests on the night Scurlock was shot. . . . On Tuesday, Franklin said the evidence presented to the grand jury showed them “Jake Gardner was threatening the use of deadly force in the absence of being threatened with a concomitant deadly force by James Scurlock or anyone who was associated with him.” “There was evidence that was gathered and presented to the grand jury about activity that Jake Gardner was engaged in before even coming in contact with James Scurlock,” Franklin said. “Evidence to reasonably be construed as an intent to use a firearm for purposes of killing someone.”


https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/09/16/james-scurlock-shooting-omaha-indicted/


Sounds like another Rittenhouse.

tl;dr*. I keep telling you that you cannot arm yourself, go provoke a confrontation, then the moment anyone does anything to protect themselves shoot them and claim it was legitimate self-defense because you were scared.

Given the way these cases work, don't expect to hear exactly what it is that got a GJ to indict. I bet it's something like statements he made to others about the shooting, possibly on social media or possibly to someone in person who had a conscience; or maybe it really is just some things he did/said beforehand that show he planned to cause trouble.

I want to see what new evidence comes out because based on what was made public at the time Gardner was shown to act in self defense. Now, I can't claim for sure Gardner is a racist but based on a personal experience at his club I did see he act in a prejudice manner towards friends of mine.

 

[Mr Person]

I want to see what new evidence comes out because based on what was made public at the time Gardner was shown to act in self defense. Now, I can't claim for sure Gardner is a racist but based on a personal experience at his club I did see he act in a prejudice manner towards friends of mine.

It sounds like it's mainly stuff he said and did before, in preparation for going there. Possibly also statements he made after to people.

If memory serves, the available video started when a confrontation was ongoing. Who provoked a confrontation definitely plays a role in self-defense, among other things.

 

[HonestJoe]

Given the way these cases work, don't expect to hear exactly what it is that got a GJ to indict. I bet it's something like statements he made to others about the shooting, possibly on social media or possibly to someone in person who had a conscience; or maybe it really is just some things he did/said beforehand that show he planned to cause trouble.

Regardless of the outcome in this case, this should serve as warning to all the people who leap to conclusions on cases like this (in any direction) based on limited (and often biased) reporting in the media. There will always be rafts of potential evidence that isn't in the public domain, especially in the early stages, so assuming we can come to valid conclusions in immediate response to initial reports is clearly wrong. After all, if it were that easy, why would we need a legal system in the first place?

 

[Ikari]

Well he'll get is day in court and we'll see what evidence they had and if it cuts mustard. It's unfortunate that we turned to killing folk and assaulting each other during this trying time. But it doesn't seem like we're behaving entirely rationally at this moment.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

This is incredibly simple.
Take a look at me.
On a bunch of occasions, I've said, right here on DP and elsewhere, that I might be forced to shoot someone in self defense if they begin to get in my face or attack me some other way over masks, same for my wife or kids.

I've said that sort of thing numerous times, yes?
Now, if I did wind up having to do that, shoot someone, guarantee you law enforcement, courts, everyone...will be looking into stuff I've written to determine if I premeditated or if I was in any kind of "make my day" mindset.
And they would be right to do so.

Thus, the bar for me is necessarily VERY VERY high, yes?
It would have to be because of me telegraphing this so much.
It would really have to be a genuine case of a total lunatic going all out to attack me.
And that is as it should be, you don't get to shoot a person for just yelling about masks, sorry!
You DO get to eject them from your premises, but you don't get to shoot them.

And the smartest thing a person such as myself can do in a situation like this is to WALK AWAY, RUN AWAY, get away by any means possible, just remove oneself from the situation because there is no reason to "stand your ground" when you're in Target and a couple of morons start bitching about masks.
Just GO...get the Hell out of there or step away about five or ten yards.

Yeah, the bar SHOULD be very high for shooting a person in self defense, because it's what you think you are defending that counts and if it's not your actual life or safety, then it turns out you were really only defending your ego or your honor, which does not equal another person's life, even if they really ARE a moron or a lunatic.

 

[Mr Person]

Jake Gardner, a White bar owner who was indicted last week in the fatal shooting of Black protester James Scurlock during a late-night Omaha demonstration in May, died by suicide on Sunday, his attorneys said at a news conference. Attorney Stu Dornan said that Gardner, 38, had died “at his own hand” in Oregon on the same day he was scheduled to return to Omaha to turn himself in. Gardner faced four felony charges, including manslaughter, that were handed down by a special prosecutor last week. The indictment came months after a county attorney initially agreed with Gardner that he had shot Scurlock, 22, in self-defense and declined to prosecute the bar owner. A grand jury thought otherwise, pointing to Gardner’s own words in text and Facebook messages as probable cause for an indictment.
.
.
.
Special prosecutor Frederick D. Franklin of the U.S. attorney’s office in Omaha presented the grand jury evidence showing that Gardner had “an intent to use a firearm for purposes of killing someone,” Franklin said last week. The evidence, which came “primarily from Jake Gardner himself,” undermined self-defense claims, the special prosecutor concluded. “Jake Gardner was threatening the use of deadly force in the absence of being threatened with a concomitant deadly force by James Scurlock or anyone who was associated with him,” Franklin said.

[cont]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/09/21/jake-gardner-suicide-james-scurlock-shooting/

Which lines up with what I've been saying in this and other cases. You cannot arm yourself, go to a place for confrontation, get into a confrontation with someone, threaten that person with deadly force when you haven't been threatened with the same yourself (because he first got into an argument with people, and in the course of it displayed his firearm to them), and then when they respond kill them and claim self-defense.

The only person engaged in legitimate self-defense in that situation is the person you threatened with deadly force.