“No, He Did Not Have the Right to Kill My Son,” Says Mother of Student Shot by Campus Security Guard

At 10:00pm on September 17th, 23-year-old DeAndre Ballard was fatally shot at his off-campus apartment complex. A student at North Carolina Central University, Ballard allegedly walked out of his apartment without a phone, shoes, keys, or identification and began trying to break into cars in the parking lot.

The last car he tried to enter belonged to a security guard who was on duty at the complex. According to police, Ballard got into the car and began fighting with the guard, attempting to take his gun, at which point he was shot. The bullet hit his arm and entered his stomach. At 10:15pm, officers arrived and took him to the hospital, where Ballard died the next morning.

The security guard’s employer, NC Detective Agency, stands by his claim of self defense. The agency’s Vice President, Kevin Ladd, says another security guard witnessed the incident, and his statement is consistent with the above sequence of events. This was the guard’s first such incident in 15 years of work.

“In our eyes this is a tragic accident,” said Ladd. “It never should have gotten to this, but our officer was fearful for his life.”

Ladd says he’s been receiving death threats as a result of his support for his employee.

“With what’s going on in this country, people are assuming that this is a white officer, I guess because I was on TV, and I’m white,” Ladd added.

The officer who shot Ballard, however, is black.

Predictably, Ballard’s family members don’t think the situation warranted a defensive gun use.

“They told his mom that DeAndre got inside the guard’s car, tried to fight the guard, and then he got back out and tried to grab the guard’s gun,” said Ballard’s cousin Ontoia Becton. “That doesn’t sound like self-defense.”

Ballard’s mother, Ernisha Ballard, also thinks the security guard shouldn’t have drawn his gun.

“How is it self-defense when my son was unarmed?” Ms. Ballard asked. “My son, he’s not even a big person. So, why would you feel that your life was in danger because you thought that my son was going to do something to you? It’s not 100 percent justifiable. I don’t buy it.

“I feel like this is something that they just want to sweep under the rug and say, ‘Ok, DeAndre did this to the officer and he had all the right to kill him.’ No, he did not have the right to kill my son.”

If events really did occur as reported by the two security officers, this looks like a justified self-defense shooting. Although the investigation is ongoing, no charges have been filed against the officer at this time, and he is still on duty at a different location.

comments

  1. avatar Michael B says:

    A lot of stupid victim-minded people. ‘My son didn’t do anything REALLY wrong. He just tried to grab the guard’s gun, after which, if successful, he probably would have shot the guard. But THAT is not a reason for someone to shoot in self defense — to protect his own life.’

    Don’t break into cars. Don’t get into fights with people. Don’t go for their gun if they have one. It just ain’t that complex.

    Unless, of course, you’re black, and then it MUST be wrong. Though can’t charge racism exactly, since the guard who defended himself was black. Sort of damages the usual story.

    1. avatar anonymoose says:

      Naw, das rayciss, mang. Dat cop a oreo.

      1. avatar Rincoln says:

        This is now my favorite moniker

      2. avatar Vincent Brady says:

        Naw, call the poo-poo shoot dat perp dead!

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      OK, this is not a matter of simple sloganeering (either viewpoint). The tactical situation does need some analysis. Not for “good shoot”, or “bad shoot”, but for “should shoot.

      As reported (which may be true or not), the shootee entered the security guard’s car while the security guard was in it. Some sort of fight broke out (doubtful it was an upright MMA style fight). One would conclude both persons were seated. As the event unfolded, the shootee exited the car, and then somehow re-engaged the security guard (the shooter), while remaining unarmed. The report claims the shootee tried to wrestle the shooter’s gun from its holster. At some point, the shooter decided the unarmed shootee presented a deadly threat. How so? Did the shootee actually get the gun free and point it at the shooter? Did the shooter prevent the loss of the firearm, then somehow decide the now twice unarmed shootee represented imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm? How so? We do not have any information of the nature of the threat that made the shooter fear for his life. Without any weapon, how did the shootee present a deadly threat?

      There is still too much we do not know, but let’s look anyway.

      If you are sitting in a car, and a man about your size approaches the open dirver’s window and begins to hit you in the face with a fist, is that an imminent threat of death? Are you/we justified in drawing from concealment and shooting the attacker?

      If the same scenario above presents, but you have a handgun in a holster visible to the attacker (who still has not produced a weapon, and is punching from a position of disadvantage), and the attacker reaches out to grab your firearm. Are we/you justified in drawing the handgun, and shooting the attacker in response to an attempt to steal your firearm?

      In short, could the situation reported in the original post be considered use of disparate force? Yes, you are being assaulted with fists (which can be deadly over time). Yes, the attacker attempted to steal your handgun. However….in none of the scenarios presented did the attacker actually obtain the shootee’s firearm.

      Is it important that the attacker, having lost the struggle for the gun, is unarmed, and MAY present a possible threat of continued beating? Does the shootee still present a deadly threat once you have wrested the firearm from the shootee? In the immediate moment following rescue of the firearm, can you/we shoot anyway, just to be sure the shootee’s fists cannot become an actual cause of death?

      This reported episode does provide some good ground for thinking and planning for “just in case”.

      1. avatar Ing says:

        Anybody who is fighting you for possession of your gun is by definition trying to kill you — and thus needs to be shot.

        If you’ve already fought him off and he has no realistic chance of getting at your gun when he comes back at you, then it’s debatable whether the gun should come into play. If that’s what happened here (especially if just rolling up the window and driving away was an option), then the shooting probably wasn’t justifiable.

        However, I firmly believe there’s no such thing as “disparate force” when trying to prevent someone from doing harm to you. You have the absolute right to use whatever persuasion you deem necessary to keep someone from attacking you. If the goblin decides to attack despite knowing deadly force is on the table, that merely confirms the rightness of having ultimate force on the side of the peaceful party.

        1. avatar strych9 says:

          I call bullshit.

          1) Fists are, in and of themselves a deadly weapon. Anyone who wants to debate that is too stupid to be worth talking to.

          2) There are certain situations where deadly force is warranted because of the consequences if the situation escalates further.

          Some weirdo breaking into cars and then getting in your car with you and trying to disarm you is one of them. You have no idea what their state of mind is. All you know is that they are trying to remove a weapon from your posession. This cannot be allowed because you have no idea what they’ll do with it if/when they get possession of it. Maybe they’ll throw the gun off a bridge so no one can have it or maybe they’ll pistol whip the ever living fuck out of you and go commit a triple homicide moments later. There is no way to know what they’ll do but the risk is too high that, given that they’re assaulting you already, they will do something terrible.

          Further, the fact that they failed to get the gun away from you on the first attempt, or the second or attempt X is immaterial if they’re coming back for another helping. This time they may get lucky, you may get unlucky, they might deploy a weapon you don’t yet know they have, their friends might show up etc etc. No matter what, as Ing points out, they’ve tried to kill you already and now they’re back for another crack at it. Lethal force is certainly justified to prevent this person from obtaining your weapon.

          The person is already committing a violent felony, has already shown a disposition to use violence for no apparent reason, has given you ample reason not to trust their current mental state and is now coming back for another bite at the proverbial apple.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “2) There are certain situations where deadly force is warranted because of the consequences if the situation escalates further.”

          Is this the law in your jurisdiction? In every jurisdiction in the country?

          A man stands ten feet in front of you. He has a handgun holstered, visible on his belt. You do not know thid man. He looks at you and says, “If you move, I will shoot you.” Is this deadly force against you? Is this an imminent threat? Are you justified in shooting this person, “just in case”?

          “The person is already committing a violent felony, has already shown a disposition to use violence for no apparent reason,”

          Are these lawful justifications for shooting someone in your jurisdiction? Opinion doesn’t count. What is the law?

          A person tries to take your gun, then backs away and does nothing. In your jurisdiction, is it legal to shoot the attacker who has disengaged?

          An attacker tries to take your gun. You both wrestle and fall to the ground, still struggling. You maintain control of the gun, and manage to push yourself to a kneeling position. The attacker is lying on the ground. In your jurisdiction, are you legally justified in shooting the attacker based on not knowing what he will do next that might threaten your life? What do the laws in your jurisdiction say about attackers who disengage, no matter the potential to kill you?

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “You have the absolute right to use whatever persuasion you deem necessary to keep someone from attacking you. ”

          Maybe the attacker only wants to steal the gun.

          This is why the posting is such a good example for analysis. First, there are no “absolute” rights. Second, if a 10 year old smacks you in the face with a broom, you do not have the right to apply deadly force in defense. Such a situation would be a classic example of “disparate force”. Another take: the attacker walks up and punches you in the gut such that you fall to the ground. What then? Shoot out of fear of follow up? Even if the attacker makes no further move toward you?

          As you noted, if the shooter successfully wrests the gun free, and the shootee does not make further attempts to take the gun, maybe a shooting is not justified. But…suppose you retain the gun, and the attacker stands there and warns you that if you don’t hand over the weapon, he will kill you with his bare hands. Is that situation grounds for shooting the now not attacking person?

        4. avatar David Walters says:

          In my case (I have three fused cervical vertebrae held together by titanium places and screws) and I fear that any form of trauma to my head or neck of sufficient force would end my life.

          I’ll shoot the moment the first punch seems to be coming my way. No one gets a free swing at me…no one.

      2. avatar Chip Bennett says:

        If you are sitting in a car, and a man about your size approaches the open dirver’s window and begins to hit you in the face with a fist, is that an imminent threat of death?

        Yes, by definition. Any punch to the face or head is potentially incapacitating, if not lethal.

        …and the attacker reaches out to grab your firearm. Are we/you justified in drawing the handgun, and shooting the attacker in response to an attempt to steal your firearm?

        Yes. Someone reaching for your own firearm is prima facie grounds for reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm.

        Does the shootee still present a deadly threat once you have wrested the firearm from the shootee?

        Has the attacker clearly indicated intent to cease the attack? How do you know? What would a reasonable person believe in those circumstances?

        A man stands ten feet in front of you. He has a handgun holstered, visible on his belt. You do not know thid man. He looks at you and says, “If you move, I will shoot you.” Is this deadly force against you? Is this an imminent threat? Are you justified in shooting this person, “just in case”?

        Is that deadly force? No. But it is the threat of unlawful use of deadly force. Do you believe the threat? Is that belief reasonable? If so, then using deadly force in response is justifiable self-defense.

        “The person is already committing a violent felony, has already shown a disposition to use violence for no apparent reason,”

        Are these lawful justifications for shooting someone in your jurisdiction?

        IANAL. But my lay study of self-defense laws in most/all jurisdictions (i.e. the self-defense laws of the several states) indicates that deadly force in self-defense is always justifiable if it is reasonably believed to be necessary to end the commission of a violent felony. (Some states have a statutory duty to retreat, however.)

        A person tries to take your gun, then backs away and does nothing. In your jurisdiction, is it legal to shoot the attacker who has disengaged?

        See above. Does the person still cause a fear of continuing? Is that fear reasonable? If I’m on the jury, anything less than verbal de-escalation and completely walking away still leaves reasonable fear of continued threat.

        An attacker tries to take your gun. You both wrestle and fall to the ground, still struggling. You maintain control of the gun, and manage to push yourself to a kneeling position. The attacker is lying on the ground. In your jurisdiction, are you legally justified in shooting the attacker based on not knowing what he will do next that might threaten your life?

        Too situation-dependent. Can you reasonably escape without further threat from the attacker? (In SYG states, that consideration is irrelevant, mostly. Again, this scenario is heavily situation-dependent.)

        What do the laws in your jurisdiction say about attackers who disengage, no matter the potential to kill you?

        Actual, complete disengagement removes the threat of imminent death or great bodily harm, and thereby removes the statutory justification for the use of lethal force in self-defense. There’s the rub, though: what constitutes “complete” disengagement in any given scenario?

        “You have the absolute right to use whatever persuasion you deem necessary to keep someone from attacking you. ”

        Maybe the attacker only wants to steal the gun.

        Attempting to steal your gun is prima facie evidence of intent to use your gun against you. You have no idea what the attacker’s intent is, but the attacker’s actions inherently imply a mortal threat.

        Second, if a 10 year old smacks you in the face with a broom, you do not have the right to apply deadly force in defense. Such a situation would be a classic example of “disparate force”.

        A 10 year old smacking you in the face with a broom does not reasonably represent a threat of imminent death or great bodily harm. But what if it’s a hammer? What if the 10 year old has a gun?

        Another take: the attacker walks up and punches you in the gut such that you fall to the ground. What then? Shoot out of fear of follow up? Even if the attacker makes no further move toward you?

        Being punched in the gut, barring anything further, is not reasonably a threat of imminent death or great bodily harm.

        But…suppose you retain the gun, and the attacker stands there and warns you that if you don’t hand over the weapon, he will kill you with his bare hands. Is that situation grounds for shooting the now not attacking person?

        Does the situation cause that threat to be reasonable? Are the elements of the deadly force triangle present: ability, opportunity, and jeopardy? Opportunity is clearly present. The attacker is standing right in front of you. Jeopardy is present. The attacker has verbally threatened to kill you with his bare hands. Is ability present? Do you reasonably believe the attacker capable of killing you with his bare hands? It depends on the attacker.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Hi Chip. Been wondering where you were. Good to have you participate.

          “Yes, by definition. Any punch to the face or head is potentially incapacitating, if not lethal.”
          – Can a “reasonable” person (always determined by a jury) reasonably conclude that a single punch is an imminent threat of death? Barring anything other than a single punch, is that one action sufficient grounds for a justifiable shooting?

          “Yes. Someone reaching for your own firearm is prima facie grounds for reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm.”
          – Is the reaching (or even tusseling) justification? If a person tries to take you openly carried pistol, as in putting their hand on the grip, or the holster, or just moving in that direction, and you push them away, is it reasonable to draw and shoot in order to prevent a second attempt? Are you required to continue to use equal force to prevent the gun from being taken?

          “Has the attacker clearly indicated intent to cease the attack? How do you know?”
          – This is one of the reasons I posited the exercise. If the attacker just stops in place, and does nothing else, is it reasonable to shoot the attacker because there is a maybe potential the attacker will resume? Or are we obligated to await a continuation?

          “But it is the threat of unlawful use of deadly force. Do you believe the threat? Is that belief reasonable? If so, then using deadly force in response is justifiable self-defense.”
          – In this instance, the person remains standing in place and takes no further action. Where is the imminent threat?

          “Too situation-dependent.”
          – Indeed. All situations are situation-dependent. Part of the puzzle presented for analysis and decision-making.

          “There’s the rub, though: what constitutes “complete” disengagement in any given scenario?”
          – From casual reading, the question is truly situation-dependent. There have been a number of cases where the defender was charged with murder because the attacker reflexed and turned away from the anticipated blast of a defensive gun; the attacker then being “shot in the back”.

          “Attempting to steal your gun is prima facie evidence of intent to use your gun against you.”
          – In which jurisdiction, under what provision of local law?

          “But what if it’s a hammer?”
          – Indeed. What if? Can any jury be expected to believe it reasonable to shoot a ten year old who does not attemtp to stab or shoot you?

          “Does the situation cause that threat to be reasonable? Are the elements of the deadly force triangle present: ability, opportunity, and jeopardy?”
          – Isn’t this projecting a future action not yet in evidence. Making a “self-defense shooting” a pre-crime action, as it were? Is a potential attack justification for a definite self-defense shooting?

        2. avatar Chris T from KY says:

          Hello Sir!! And welcome BACK to the conversation!!!

      3. avatar Mark Webb says:

        Would-a, could-a, should-a…..

        It was a justified soot. The good guy went home and the bad guy didn’t!

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Sorry you missed the entire point, and descended into sloganeering. “Would-a, could-a, should-a…..” is what training is all about.

          BTW, it is not a “good shoot” until the authorities declare it so. Liking an outcome does not justify the action.

        2. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

          The “authorities” decision to prosecute or not doesn’t turn a good shoot into a bad one or a bad one into a good one. They can and do make errors.

      4. avatar Oldshooter says:

        I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me that the legal issue involved is not one of disparity of force, but rather of implied lethal intent. The attempt to take the shooter’s gun implies lethal intent on the part of the shooter. That action can reasonably be construed as an escalation of the level of force involved, by the assailant/shooter, from a nonlethal force assault and battery to a lethal force encounter. Such should justify the use of lethal force in response.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “That action can reasonably be construed as an escalation of the level of force involved, by the assailant/shooter, from a nonlethal force assault and battery to a lethal force encounter.”

          Agree, there is not sufficient information to really sort through all this. Thinking that if the security guard managed to prevent the shootee from grabbing the security guard’s gun, then the shootee was in no position to be a deadly threat. The intervening moments between the gun grab and the fired shot are not explained. Maybe the struggle continued for the gun after the security guard freed the gun from the holster, continuing the threat that the gun would be used against the security guard. But if the struggle ended when the security guard took full control of the gun, and the suspect stopped struggling, is the security guard now in a non-threat position? Did the suspect “disengage”, becoming a non-threat. If that is the case (which we do not know), is the security guard justified in shooting the suspect, “just in case”?

          Digging into these cases, and obtaining the viewpoints of commenters on TTAG helps me refine my thoughts should I ever qualify for jury duty. In addition, the brain work helps me prep for a potentially similar event in my own life.

    3. avatar Lj says:

      I’m black and I fully believe the Security Officers accounts of what happened….so the ” victims” family can’t claim the “race card” thing …so now what?

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

        People in the neighborhood where the incident took place believes the shooter was white, even though the actual shooter was black.

        The white officer now rightly is concerned about neighborhood retaliation…

    4. avatar Buck Cassidy says:

      I nod das rite¡. C ithnk he did what he did. Kan ya feelz me¿ C dis manz wus good yun manz. He turn him lif aron. He b starin divinty skoolz in de fal. Hez b lookn fo skool books an som chains soiz git sompin to et. Hez jus hunry Homy. C wut im sayn.

      Antonio markez ladavid jones

  2. avatar former water walker says:

    Don’t raise a deranged thug and maybe just maybe he won’t get shot…

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Dunno about deranged thug, my assumption was stoned out of his mind. Love to see his corpse tested, but probably nobody cares.

  3. avatar ROBERT Powell says:

    what was the worthless thief doing in the guards car in the first place???the bastard got what he needed ,shot. the idea of a black student getting a free ride in college is NOT the best idea, getting a free ride for sports or just because he is black is the reason for this stupidity. the free ride that the blacks want and the liberals giving in to it needs to stop. if anybody ,black,white,asian or otherwise gets a pass on qualifications to college or any higher learning institute on race alone is WRONG. THIS IS WHY THE UNITED STATES IS ON THE DOWNHILL SLIDE IN GRADS WITH A USEABLE DEGREE..RIOTING,COMUNITY ACTIVISIM,COMMUNIST BASKET-WEAVING OR SLEEP-STUDYING IS NOT IN OUR BEST INTEREST.

    1. avatar Binder says:

      “THIS IS WHY THE UNITED STATES IS ON THE DOWNHILL SLIDE IN GRADS WITH A USEABLE DEGREE..RIOTING,COMUNITY ACTIVISIM,COMMUNIST BASKET-WEAVING OR SLEEP-STUDYING IS NOT IN OUR BEST INTEREST.”

      Well, if there was not so much money in higher education, then there would not be this issue. This has nothing to do with minorities; this is because there is too much money on the line. Where do you think all that student loan and tax money goes?

      1. avatar Ansel Hazen says:

        It eventually winds up back in the hands of the liberal moonbat congress critters in the form of “donations”.

  4. avatar m. says:

    sorry for parental loss, but reaching for a gun belonging to someone else is going to get your useless ass justifiably shot

    1. avatar Snake Plisskin says:

      Indeed.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Perhaps Mommy should have taught him that!

  5. avatar Michael says:

    Once again, there are no victims, only volunteers. If it’s open, leave it open. If it’s closed, leave it closed. If it doesn’t belong to you, don’t mess with it. Don’t be a volunteer. -30-

  6. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    No, he did not have the right to kill my son.

    The mom is technically correct: the guard had no right to KILL her son. Rather, the guard only had a right to defend himself from an attack, which is exactly what the guard did according to this story.

    If a righteous defender injures an attacker and those injuries end up being fatal, the attacker bears 100% of the responsibility for that outcome.

    As others have said, don’t attack people and you won’t have to worry about defenders causing temporary injuries, permanent disability, or your untimely demise.

    1. avatar Lj says:

      Good comment

  7. avatar Jon in CO says:

    I’m unarmed, I try to take your gun, but I’m not a deadly threat? If you take my gun, now you’re armed and I’m not. Sounds logical to me.

    This dumb ***** needs a smack in the face. Her kid was an asshole, did stupid things, and got shot. Instead of saying nothing, or “I’m sorry he did that/I’m sorry I’m a shit parent and didn’t do my job correctly”, she blames the victim. Isn’t this what we’re told by the lefties we’re not supposed to do? Victim blame.

    1. avatar BlakeW5 says:

      The idea of “victim blaming” is only an issue depending on what the people involved look like. If you’re a man, perfectly okay to blame you. The degrees of blame you get afterwards all depend on the color of your skin. Women are always victims, minority women more-so. That’s leftist “equality” in a nutshell.

      Basically, unless there’s some historical injustice that you were not affected by that you can point to, you can’t be a victim. Black….slavery. Muslim/Arab….the crusades. Indian….Louisiana purchase. Women….women’s suffrage. On and on.

      1. avatar Iginvon says:

        Irish-discriminated against and enslaved…Minorcans-discriminated against and enslaved…Huguenot French-discriminated against and enslaved…Oh wait! Those ethnic groups I just mentioned don’t count, because they’re too white! Only non-whites were ever considered second class citizens or less in all of the history of mankind! Silly me!

  8. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

    If you try to grab my gun you’re going to get shot, whether or not I ‘have the right’. Only my wife gets to grab my gun. She’s made that abundantly clear.

    1. avatar Just Sayin says:

      Bob: Say buddy, do you have any pictures of your wife “grabbing your gun”?
      Tom: No…
      Bob: Wanna buy some?
      *r i m s h o t*

  9. avatar Dog of War says:

    If only there was a way that this whole incident could have been avoided! Oh wait…

    1. avatar Lj says:

      Great comment

  10. avatar Ranger Rick says:

    Looks like someone’s precious little angel liked to smoke K2 or weed and PCP.. Either one is not recommended for successful college students.

    1. avatar Jeremy D says:

      If it was just marijuana he probably would’ve just been hanging out on the couch. Based on recent events I think K2/spice/whatever-it-is is most likely

  11. avatar bryan1980 says:

    He was just about to get his life on the right track, right before he broke in to someone’s car, assaulted a security guard, and tried to take his gun.

    1. avatar Lj says:

      Do I compliment your comment or laugh??…

  12. avatar Mark N. says:

    I have a feeling that some powerful drugs were involved in this incident. It doesn’t make any sense otherwise.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      That’s what I was thinking, too. This is literally crazy behavior.

  13. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

    Yes Ms. Ballard, he did have the right to kill your son. He apparently had the will and means to as well.

  14. avatar Rocketman says:

    “No, he did not have the right to kill my son.”

    Yea, he did. Your son had already committed felony theft, assaulting an armed guard and was in the process of trying to kill said guard with his own gun. That’s justifiable by any standard and you should have raised your boy better than that.

  15. avatar ROBERT Powell says:

    what was the worthless thief doing in the guards car in the first place???the bastard got what he needed ,shot. the idea of a black student getting a free ride in college is NOT the best idea, getting a free ride for sports or just because he is black is the reason for this stupidity. the free ride that the blacks want and the liberals giving in to it needs to stop. if anybody ,black,white,asian or otherwise gets a pass on qualifications to college or any higher learning institute on race alone is WRONG. THIS IS WHY THE UNITED STATES IS ON THE DOWNHILL SLIDE IN GRADS WITH A USEABLE DEGREE..RIOTING,COMUNITY ACTIVISIM,COMMUNIST BASKET-WEAVING OR SLEEP-STUDYING IS NOT IN OUR BEST INTEREST.side note your lil idiot should have laid off the dope that made him so stupid. LEARN BY READING NOT BY PISSING ON AN ELECTIC FENCE..

  16. avatar rosignol says:

    …has the toxicology report been released yet?

    It sounds very much like the perp was being affected by something that impaired judgement, and I don’t think it was an Orbital Mind Control Laser.

  17. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Besides the thug I blame the racist white Liberals and the racist white Left for the Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations, they have for low income black people.

    1. avatar Darkman says:

      All part of the Slave masters plan in the Democratic leadership.

    2. avatar BlakeW5 says:

      Yep, same plan, different plantation.

  18. avatar GS650G says:

    Was the security guard supposed to wait for the dead guy to hurt or kill him before defending himself? I guess the dead dudes can’t thinks so and their lawyer will try to get paid.

    1. avatar BlakeW5 says:

      Clearly the “community” thought he should wait until the guy took his gun before shooting him with said gun. We all know how easy it is to draw a backup piece on someone with a pistol already leveled on you lol

      Not sure how anyone thinks leaving a car, THEN attempting to disarm someone doesn’t make them a threat. If anything it makes you more dangerous. Throwing blows in a car is difficult, punches get much more impact when you standing over someone who’s buckled into a seat.

  19. avatar Joe says:

    If Mom had done a better job raising her son he wouldn’t have been out committing felonies and we wouldn’t have to hear her lame excuses or her poorly informed legal opinions. I enjoyed all the pro-personal responsibility replies. I guess not everyone is a lib-tard like the media likes to portray.

  20. avatar ATTAGReader says:

    This is a lot like something that happened when I was in college, as reported by another person at the same college. I have no reason to doubt the story, as it was contemporaneous, not a memory “recovered” 35 years later after cajoling by a psychiatrist. A group of his friends from back home (white boys, every last one) smoked PCP and decided to go out and rob a bank. They did! They almost got away with it but drove the wrong way down a one way street into a police roadblock. This was in a kinder, gentler time when the police did not just waste them. They were arrested and marched off to jail having no recollection of anything they did. Fast forward to today. You do anything like this, you will be shot. Whether by the police or by the intended victim if the intended victim is armed, you will be shot. High as a kite, violent and crazy, threatening me? I would shoot you.

  21. avatar Gralnok says:

    See, this is why you always have a sober friend over when you decide to take strange drugs. Or duct tape yourself to a chair. Or better yet, just don’t take the drugs in the first place.

  22. avatar Hannibal says:

    Wait, so the guard was IN the car at the time? That’s not breaking into cars, that’s effectively carjacking, assault, etc etc.

    If the basics of the story are correct, I don’t care if he grabbed for the gun or not, he got what was coming to him. I’m so tired of people with dirty hands (i.e. in the act of committing a crime) or their families complain about what happens to them as a direct result of their criminal actions.

  23. avatar John B Thayer says:

    Giving kids African sounding names is stupid. “DeAndre”? Why not just call him “DumNig” instead? Assimilation, not diversity, is our strength.

    1. avatar drunkEODguy says:

      obviously the guy was an idiot, but that’s no reason to disparage names that sound funny or foreign. Pretty myopic, probably better to just judge people on individual actions

  24. avatar MIO says:

    typical muh baby wasn’t doin nuffins scum

  25. avatar kap says:

    momma’s angel just got planted now mom looking for a payday

    1. avatar Eli2016 says:

      True. We are all Muslims afterall.

  26. avatar Sal Chichon says:

    The Dindu was shot while trying to break into a car? You’re right he didn’t deserve to get shot. He deserved to get shot at least twice. Good goddamned riddance.

  27. avatar AngryWhiteGuy says:

    “Shot by Campus Security Guard”
    “shot at his off-campus apartment complex”

    TTAG needs an editor.

  28. avatar BRUCE CLARK says:

    Just another black on black crime? Or at least that’s what the drive by media will claim. Now if it was a white security guard it’s all SHTF time. Racist White Cracker cop kills innocent black student. I can almost hear Wolf Blitzer, Jake Tapper, Rachel Maddow, and Morning Joe and his retarded wife now…

  29. avatar neal gorsitch says:

    he should of carried a sharp knife and cut that nigger’s head off. Suck on that one mom.

  30. avatar truckman says:

    Well I will put It like this I am disabled as well on the upper side of 64 and unable to fight so someone attacked me in my car would find himself on the wrong end of my gun don,t care what race my 45 don,t care

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email