The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on May 07, 2020, 06:20:14 pm
-
foxnews.com
Georgia shooting of Ahmaud Arbery spurs outcry
Tyler Olson
The case of a black man in Georgia who was fatally shot in February after being pursued by two armed white men is gaining widespread attention among lawmakers, particularly after a graphic video of the incident was released this week.
"Ahmaud Arbery was murdered for being Black," Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said in a Thursday morning tweet. "His White assailants were allowed to roam free *for months* after lynching him. They faced no charges, no arrests. Police had video of Ahmaud’s murder the day it happened. His family deserves justice. Our country deserves answers."
Ahmaud Arbery, 25, was killed on Feb. 23 when 64-year-old Gregory McMichael spotted Arbery jogging and called 911 to report a "black man running down the street" and said he suspected the man was involved in recent burglaries. McMichael called his son, Travis. The pair armed themselves, and then tracked Arbery down on the road.
more
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/georgia-ahmaud-arbery-outcry (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/georgia-ahmaud-arbery-outcry)
-
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=CIJkGV5wJz4#)
-
As soon as people can this much for our white policeman, who are gunned down by people like AHMAN...then I might care.
OR THAT BIGOTED CASE OF LUTHER BY A BLACK JUDGE. AOC....needs to put behind bars for inciting riots.
-
Were any stolen items found on his person, or at his resiidence?
-
Ahmaud Arbery case: Georgia father and son arrested, charged with murder
(https://a57.foxnews.com/static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2020/05/1862/1048/2e9a340f-georgiasuspects-split-1044pm.jpg?ve=1&tl=1)
more
https://www.foxnews.com/us/ahmaud-arbery-case-georgia-father-and-son-arrested-charged-with-murder (https://www.foxnews.com/us/ahmaud-arbery-case-georgia-father-and-son-arrested-charged-with-murder)
-
It looks like the racialist parasites are off and running with their issue.
How about we just wait for the investigation and trial?
-
The father and son were attempting a citizens arrest. Under GA law, the one making such an arrest must have witnessed the crime. The father and son did not witness any crime committed by the guy they chased. That makes them the aggressors in an attempted false imprisonment. What they did before the shooting was a criminal assault using deadly force (their vehicle). Therefore the guy who was killed had the right to defend himself with deadly force, regardless of whether or not he had the means.
Love it or hate it, that is why the father and son were indicted, and "murder" would not be over-charging.
-
Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms compared the shooting death of 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery (https://www.foxnews.com/category/person/ahmaud-arbery) in February to lynchings in the Jim Crow-era South and said that President Trump’s rhetoric give racists “permission to do it in an overt way.â€
Bottoms’ comments, made during an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union,†come just days after a white father and son were charged with the February shooting death of Arbery as he was running through a Georgia (https://www.foxnews.com/category/us/us-regions/southeast/georgia) neighborhood.
“It’s 2020 and this was a lynching of an African-American man,†Bottoms said. “My heart goes out to the family.â€
“With the rhetoric we hear coming out of the White House,†she added, “many who are prone to being racist are given permission to do it in an overt way we wouldn’t see in 2020.â€https://www.foxnews.com/politics/atlanta-mayor-calls-ahmaud-arbery-killing-a-lynching-says-trumps-rhetoric-gives-racists-permission
And we wonder why so many Trump supporters get upset.....
-
Candace Owens
@RealCandaceO
·
13h
Daily mail has published the full 4 minute video of Ahmaud Avery WALKING* up the street, and then ENTERING a private property which was under construction.
As I said: He didn’t deserve to die but the “just a jogger†narrative was a race-baiting LIE.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/card_img/1259232804287713287/h3469frm?format=jpg&name=small)
Cops review new video of man who appears to be Ahmaud Arbery
The Georgia Bureau of Investigation has confirmed it is investigating additional video footage as part of the Ahmaud Arbery case.
dailymail.co.uk
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8303973/Cops-review-new-video-man-appears-Ahmaud-Arbery-minutes-killing.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8303973/Cops-review-new-video-man-appears-Ahmaud-Arbery-minutes-killing.html)
-
Candace Owens
@RealCandaceO
·
12h
We went from “just a jogger†to “just a trespasser†real quick.
That’s because a lie makes it way around the world before the truth gets out of bed.
Our media is despicable.
Candace Owens
@RealCandaceO
·
16h
Two things can be true at once:
-Ahmaud Arbery did not deserve to die.
-Ahmaud Arbery was not a jogger gunned down for the crime of being black.
It’s that simple. But the media cannot resist a race narrative in a election cycle. And people struggle to think for themselves.
-
Comments like that from the scoundrel Atlanta mayor make things worse.
Many more whites are murdered by blacks than vice versa.
But nobody knows the names of the whites murdered by blacks because the media rarely reports or blows them up nationally. They're not made a big deal.
For the matter, I think the two white nitwits who stalked and shot the black guy are guilty of at least manslaughter.
But the lib media will pump this case up like they do all others of whites killing blacks.
-
THE TRUTH ABOUT AHMAUD ARBERY
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2M5Zh-ek9M#)
-
And we wonder why so many Trump supporters get upset.....
This is a very very terrible event. But I'd venture there is more violent black on white crime, if the stats were truly shared.
Why won't the MSM give those events the same coverage? (Answering my own question)
-
Whatever motivated the shooting - IMO, at this point, I think it was murder - it was not President Trump. OTOH, politicizing this story risks, IMO, inciting riot.
-
Recently another video appeared to show the young man entering a house that was under construction and he was in there for approx 3 minutes. At worst this trespassing. Trespassing is at worst a misdemeanor, if you are reasonably requested to leave and refuse. Clearly not a death penalty offense. I am wondering what the political affiliation is of the father and son. Of course given that it has not been plastered all over the media, maybe I don't have to wonder.
-
This is a very very terrible event. But I'd venture there is more violent black on white crime, if the stats were truly shared.
Why won't the MSM give those events the same coverage? (Answering my own question)
Blacks murder 400-500 whites annually. Non-Hispanic whites murder about 50 blacks annually. I'm guesstimating because if there were more, we'd hear plenty about it as this case proves. The official stats say whites murder about 250 blacks annually.
The numbers for whites killing blacks are muddled by the fact that the official stats counters count Hispanics as whites. Since many blacks are murdered by Hispanic gang members, that screws up the numbers.
-
Pam Key 10 May 2020
Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,†Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms addressed unarmed black jogger Ahmaud Arbery being chased and shot dead allegedly by two white men, Gregory and Travis McMichael in Georgia on February 23.
Host Jake Tapper said, “The shooting happened back on February 23. Authorities had possession of a now-viral video of the shooting from the beginning. But the murder charges were not filed until this past week after the video emerged online and shocked and outraged millions of Americans. Do you think that the two men were only charged because the video became public?â€
Lance Bottoms said, “I think that’s absolutely the reason that they were charged. I think had we not seen that video, I don’t believe that they would be charged. And it’s heartbreaking that it’s 2020. This was a lynching of an African-American man. And I think that, you know, my heart goes out to his family. But I think, again, it’s a part of this bigger issue that we are having in this country with the rhetoric we hear coming out of the White House in so many ways, I think that many who are prone to being racist are given permission to do it in an overt way that we otherwise would not see in 2020.â€
more
https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/05/10/atlanta-mayor-bottoms-trumps-rhetoric-gave-permission-in-ahmaud-arbery-shooting/ (https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/05/10/atlanta-mayor-bottoms-trumps-rhetoric-gave-permission-in-ahmaud-arbery-shooting/)
-
CNN’s Jake Tapper Does Not Challenge Atlanta Mayor Bottoms For Blaming Trump for Ahmaud Arbery Shooting
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2020/05/10/cnns-jake-tapper-does-not-challenge-atlanta-mayor-bottoms-for-blaming-trump-for-ahmaud-arbery-shooting/ (https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2020/05/10/cnns-jake-tapper-does-not-challenge-atlanta-mayor-bottoms-for-blaming-trump-for-ahmaud-arbery-shooting/)
-
Recently another video appeared to show the young man entering a house that was under construction and he was in there for approx 3 minutes. At worst this trespassing. Trespassing is at worst a misdemeanor, if you are reasonably requested to leave and refuse. Clearly not a death penalty offense. I am wondering what the political affiliation is of the father and son. Of course given that it has not been plastered all over the media, maybe I don't have to wonder.
The problem for the white father and son is that they instigated the killing by approaching the guy with a loaded weapon.
You're running down the road and two people jump out of a car and approach you with a loaded weapon. You weren't doing anything wrong...just running.
It doesn't matter than the guy tried to wrestle the gun out of one of the whites' hands. He had no idea what they were going to do.
Not being duly authorized leos they had no business stopping someone and aiming a loaded weapon at him just because they thought he resembled a criminal.
-
The use of deadly force is only legal to stop the abuse of deadly force.
You don't shoot someone for stealing a TV or 2x4.. that is murder no matter what colors are involved.
On a side note, not one person has condemned the slander against Trump.... interesting...
-
Blacks murder 400-500 whites annually. Non-Hispanic whites murder about 50 blacks annually. I'm guesstimating because if there were more, we'd hear plenty about it as this case proves. The official stats say whites murder about 250 blacks annually.
The numbers for whites killing blacks are muddled by the fact that the official stats counters count Hispanics as whites. Since many blacks are murdered by Hispanic gang members, that screws up the numbers.
My understanding is that most murders are intraracial —meaning the perpetrator and victim are of the same race. Those murders include so called crimes of passion and murder suicides but also drug related murders.
I know for example that the horrific murder rates in my former home town of Baltimore, the vast majority are black on black murders having to do with gang bangers and drugs and drug turfs wars. But in places, in many of the big cities like Baltimore, the vast majority of the drug trade – those dealing and buying are black.
Here in York PA where I current live however, the inner city of York were most crimes and murders occur, the demographics of the “inner city poor†and crimes including murder is pretty evenly spread among blacks, whites and Hispanics as both perpetrators and victims, but again mostly related to the drug trade and turf wars.
According to this article from 2016:
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers (https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers)
Interracial Killings
The number of black people who killed whites and the number of whites who killed blacks climbed to levels not seen since 2008, accounting last year for their largest percentages of U.S. homicides of black and white victims since at least the start of the century, according to the crime data.
The statistics show that the 500 killings of white people attributed to blacks last year were the most since black perpetrators were determined to be responsible for the homicides of 504 white people nationwide in 2008. Last year's total was up 12 percent from the 446 recorded in 2014 and 22 percent from the 409 seen in 2013, a year that saw the lowest total this century and one that capped seven years of general declines in black-on-white homicides. Prior to that, 2006 saw the most black-on-white killings since 2001, with 573.
The 229 black lives taken by white killers last year, however, marked an even larger leap from 2014, jumping more than 22 percent from the 187 black victims killed by whites that year, which was the second-lowest total since 2001. The tally was last exceeded in 2008, when 230 blacks were slain by whites. The highest total in the last 15 years came in 2007, when 245 black people were killed by whites.
-
Blacks murder 400-500 whites annually. Non-Hispanic whites murder about 50 blacks annually. I'm guesstimating because if there were more, we'd hear plenty about it as this case proves. The official stats say whites murder about 250 blacks annually.
The numbers for whites killing blacks are muddled by the fact that the official stats counters count Hispanics as whites. Since many blacks are murdered by Hispanic gang members, that screws up the numbers.
What happened to Mr Abrery is an individual tragedy, in this case he deserves our sympathies and is deserving of the fullest and fairest application of the law it is possible to provide.
As do any of the other X 100s of people killed at the hands of others in this country every year, regardless of race.
That aside, it is unfortunate that the media and certain politicians have decided some killings in this country are more deserving of our attention and our sympathies than are others. Especially so when clearly their purpose is to instigate hate and resentment.
-
The use of deadly force is only legal to stop the abuse of deadly force.
You don't shoot someone for stealing a TV or 2x4.. that is murder no matter what colors are involved.
On a side note, not one person has condemned the slander against Trump.... interesting...
Trump called the incident disturbing from the outset.
I agree.
-
more
Georgia shooting of Ahmaud Arbery spurs outcry
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,401052.0.html (http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,401052.0.html)
-
What happened to Mr Abrery is an individual tragedy, in this case he deserves our sympathies and is deserving of the fullest and fairest application of the law it is possible to provide.
As do any of the other X 100s of people killed at the hands of others in this country every year, regardless of race.
That aside, it is unfortunate that the media and certain politicians have decided some killings in this country are more deserving of our attention and our sympathies than are others.
I agree. Absolutely.
However, this shooting resulting in a death took place on February 23rd.
The first prosecutor recused herself, pointing out that Gregory McMichael, a former Glynn County police officer, had been a longtime investigator in her office until his retirement last May.
Then a second prosecutor then finds no reason to charge citing insufficient cause to arrest Mr. Arbery’s pursuers. He argued that they had acted legally under Georgia’s citizen arrest and self-defense laws. But he too then recused himself from the case because but only after it was learned that his son had worked in the Brunswick prosecutor’s office with Gregory McMichael.
It seems that there was perhaps an early effort to not further investigate or prosecute the case based on personal biases and professional acquaintances. Not unheard of in small towns and communities.
This has only really come to light on a national level just in the last week, after the video of the shooting was released, obsensivly by a lawyer of the shooters but not their "official lawyer" who though the video would exonorate his friends.
:shrug:
-
Okay, I watched the video and did my hour review as best I could....
Men (two) have been upset about robberies in the neighborhood which had been caught on camera (looked like perp).... Third person (was following the two men that shot the perp) was involved (probable person filming). I imagine the 3rd person was the one that was being robbed and suggested give chase.... Not sure... but somehow they thought they were hot on the trail.
They give chase and overtake the suspect on foot in their truck. Pull ahead of him and try to get him to stop (citizen's arrest)... They are armed (and I imagine the dead fellow Ahmaud Arbery knew they were armed?) and he had to know they were armed (visual). He attacked the older fellow with the shotgun (yes he attacked).... in the struggle he was shot.
I am sorta torn, citizen arrests are legal... shooting someone attacking you is legal. That said, if the fellow was just jogging and was suddenly stopped and feared for his life, attacking someone with a gun you think is trying to kill you is also legal.
Not sure I agree with some of the others here that this was murder... Don't have all the facts.
-
What happened to Mr Abrery is an individual tragedy, in this case he deserves our sympathies and is deserving of the fullest and fairest application of the law it is possible to provide.
As do any of the other X 100s of people killed at the hands of others in this country every year, regardless of race.
That aside, it is unfortunate that the media and certain politicians have decided some killings in this country are more deserving of our attention and our sympathies than are others. Especially so when clearly their purpose is to instigate hate and resentment.
"I am making an example of you. To send a message out to people everywhere that if you want to hurt another human being, you better make damn sure they're the same color as you are."
-South Park
-
Comments like that from the scoundrel Atlanta mayor make things worse.
Many more whites are murdered by blacks than vice versa.
But nobody knows the names of the whites murdered by blacks because the media rarely reports or blows them up nationally. They're not made a big deal.
For the matter, I think the two white nitwits who stalked and shot the black guy are guilty of at least manslaughter.
But the lib media will pump this case up like they do all others of whites killing blacks.
TRUE. ABREY WAS ON...PROBATION AND HAD PRIORS. LIVES WITH MOM. NOT IN HIS OWN NEIGHBORHOOD. NOT EVEN WEARING JOGGING SHOES......more lies.
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcB6l3r0E04#)
-
I am sorta torn, citizen arrests are legal...
I have read that in Georgia, the person attempting a citizen's arrest must have witnessed the arrestee committing a felony. That doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Even if the deceased walked into the house under construction and looked around* (and let's face it, that's what guys do, they look at construction sites), thereby trespassing, I doubt trespassing is a felony and the McMichaels were not the aggrieved parties anyway. It wasn't their house.
That he may have been on probation for a previous offense is completely irrelevant, by the way.
But I agree wholeheartedly: we don't have all the facts. It would be great if we didn't act like we did.
*which is what the video shows. It doesn't show him stealing anything.
-
Accused of the crime of living with mother.
Accused of the crime of jogging without jogging shoes.
Found guilty, executed.
-
I have read that in Georgia, the person attempting a citizen's arrest must have witnessed the arrestee committing a felony. That doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Even if the deceased walked into the house under construction and looked around* (and let's face it, that's what guys do, they look at construction sites), thereby trespassing, I doubt trespassing is a felony and the McMichaels were not the aggrieved parties anyway. It wasn't their house.
That he may have been on probation for a previous offense is completely irrelevant, by the way.
But I agree wholeheartedly: we don't have all the facts. It would be great if we didn't act like we did.
*which is what the video shows. It doesn't show him stealing anything.
I think you are right about witnessing...
Of course the video didn't show him stealing, it did show him throwing punches at the older fellow though (attacking)... It also showed the fellow Ahmaud trying to just go around them (escape?? or flee) We don't know, and can't read minds. We don't know what was said the the fellow shot before either... was he told "Stop we want to talk to you about some thiefing in the area?" or "Joe saw you back there looking at his house so stop and lets talk to the police?" or "stop you negro that doesn't belong here?"...
All we know is the fellow tried to avoid them until the fellow got out of the truck and showed his gun... and that Ahmaud didn't attempt to talk but immediately attacked throwing several punches and grabbing at the gun....
Speculate is all I can do at this point... But I can see where this was not murder and just a good neighbor just trying to protect his neighborhood as best he understood, with no intentions whatsoever of shooting someone.
To me, if murder was the intent, then you don't wait until the person is on you grabbing your gun and throwing punches, you shoot from a safe distance.
-
CNN’s Jake Tapper Does Not Challenge Atlanta Mayor Bottoms For Blaming Trump for Ahmaud Arbery Shooting
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2020/05/10/cnns-jake-tapper-does-not-challenge-atlanta-mayor-bottoms-for-blaming-trump-for-ahmaud-arbery-shooting/ (https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2020/05/10/cnns-jake-tapper-does-not-challenge-atlanta-mayor-bottoms-for-blaming-trump-for-ahmaud-arbery-shooting/)
This, is CNN
-
...
I am sorta torn, citizen arrests are legal... shooting someone attacking you is legal. ...
1. GA requires a person making a citizen's arrest to have witnessed the crime. The McMichaels did not witness a crime, making what they attempted false imprisonment, which is a crime. Gregory McMichael, the former police officer, would have known this.
2. By employing vehicles to attempt to cut off Arbery, the McMichaels assaulted him using deadly force. Arbery, at that point, had the legal right to defend himself, including the use of deadly force.
3. While the McMichaels might have perceived Arbery as having assaulted one of them, in trying to get by one of them, Arbery did not use deadly force, therefore the McMichael's use of deadly force (shooting him) was at best intentional manslaughter.
4. Given that the McMichaels were attempting an illegal arrest (= false imprisonment) and at least twice used unjustified deadly force, I think the murder charge is completely correct.
-
Atlanta mayor calls Ahmaud Arbery killing 'a lynching'; says Trump's rhetoric gives
.
Couldn't you just say the mayor of Atlanta's rhetoric says that white people are to bend over backwards to allow black people to have their way in crime? What is the difference?
-
I think you are right about witnessing...
Of course the video didn't show him stealing, it did show him throwing punches at the older fellow though (attacking)... It also showed the fellow Ahmaud trying to just go around them (escape?? or flee) We don't know, and can't read minds. We don't know what was said the the fellow shot before either... was he told "Stop we want to talk to you about some thiefing in the area?" or "Joe saw you back there looking at his house so stop and lets talk to the police?" or "stop you negro that doesn't belong here?"...
All we know is the fellow tried to avoid them until the fellow got out of the truck and showed his gun... and that Ahmaud didn't attempt to talk but immediately attacked throwing several punches and grabbing at the gun....
Speculate is all I can do at this point... But I can see where this was not murder and just a good neighbor just trying to protect his neighborhood as best he understood, with no intentions whatsoever of shooting someone.
To me, if murder was the intent, then you don't wait until the person is on you grabbing your gun and throwing punches, you shoot from a safe distance.
Well you have one thing wrong right off the bat. It was the son that had the shotgun. The father was carrying a .357 magnum pistol.
So if you have that wrong is it all possible that your analysis is wrong? You see I watched the video a bunch of times and i did not see the young man throw any punches until after the first shot was fired (Off screen) You can tell by the description of his injuries and the the defendants description. They claimed that Ahmaud grabbed the shotgun by the barrel and the first shot injured his right hand. So think about this for a second: Why would you want to grab the barrel of a shotgun when another person is standing behind you with a pistol? Also if look closely at the video it appears that the person standing in the bed of the truck is also armed with a long weapon.
-
What happened to Mr Abrery is an individual tragedy, in this case he deserves our sympathies and is deserving of the fullest and fairest application of the law it is possible to provide.
As do any of the other X 100s of people killed at the hands of others in this country every year, regardless of race.
That aside, it is unfortunate that the media and certain politicians have decided some killings in this country are more deserving of our attention and our sympathies than are others. Especially so when clearly their purpose is to instigate hate and resentment.
"Especially so when clearly their purpose is to instigate hate and resentment."
By spreading the myth of black males being hunted by leos or average whites, the media is responsible over the decades for the deaths of thousands of whites who were murdered by resentful blacks just because they were white.
-
3. While the McMichaels might have perceived Arbery as having assaulted one of them, in trying to get by one of them, Arbery did not use deadly force, therefore the McMichael's use of deadly force (shooting him) was at best intentional manslaughter.
Guess we have to disagree here, that was not kiddy punches thrown at the older fellow... and he was NOT trying to get by them at the later point... getting by them was circling around the truck, charging the older fellow throwing punches (more than one) wasn't "perceived", it is fact.
By employing vehicles to attempt to cut off Arbery, the McMichaels assaulted him using deadly force.
I thought the law read --->Purposely using a vehicle to hit another driver or pedestrian.
I don't think anyone here thinks they tried to hit him with the truck.
-
Okay, I watched the video and did my hour review as best I could....
Men (two) have been upset about robberies in the neighborhood which had been caught on camera (looked like perp).... Third person (was following the two men that shot the perp) was involved (probable person filming). I imagine the 3rd person was the one that was being robbed and suggested give chase.... Not sure... but somehow they thought they were hot on the trail.
They give chase and overtake the suspect on foot in their truck. Pull ahead of him and try to get him to stop (citizen's arrest)... They are armed (and I imagine the dead fellow Ahmaud Arbery knew they were armed?) and he had to know they were armed (visual). He attacked the older fellow with the shotgun (yes he attacked).... in the struggle he was shot.
I am sorta torn, citizen arrests are legal... shooting someone attacking you is legal. That said, if the fellow was just jogging and was suddenly stopped and feared for his life, attacking someone with a gun you think is trying to kill you is also legal.
Not sure I agree with some of the others here that this was murder... Don't have all the facts.
]"Not sure I agree with some of the others here that this was murder[/b]... Don't have all the facts."
Maybe not murder, but at least manslaughter. They probably didn't plan to shoot the guy out of hand i.e. murder, but what happened is 100% their responsibility.
If you suspect a neighbor has been stealing apples from your apple tree, you don't have the right to go to his house and confront him with a loaded gun. If your neighbor lunges at you and the gun goes off and kills him, it's your responsibility.
-
TRUE. ABREY WAS ON...PROBATION AND HAD PRIORS. LIVES WITH MOM. NOT IN HIS OWN NEIGHBORHOOD. NOT EVEN WEARING JOGGING SHOES......more lies.
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcB6l3r0E04#)
Doesn't make any difference. You're running in a neighborhood, not yours, in regular clothes. Somebody jumps out of car and points a weapon at you. They don't know who you are or what you've done in the past.
These clowns simply had no business stopping the guy and pointing a loaded gun at him. They're 100% culpable for what happened.
-
Doesn't make any difference. You're running in a neighborhood, not yours, in regular clothes. Somebody jumps out of car and points a weapon at you. They don't know who you are or what you've done in the past.
These clowns simply had no business stopping the guy and pointing a loaded gun at him. They're 100% culpable for what happened.
Once they called the Police on the guy, which they did, that was the end of their part. They had no business chasing the guy down trying to block him in with vehicles and holding him at gunpoint. That was an extreme overreaction and out of the scope of their authority. If he was directly in the middle of committing a crime, beating someone, raping, climbing through a window, then maybe.
When the 911 operator kept asking them, 'What has he done?' 'What is the crime?' they had no answer except that he was running through their neighborhood.
-
There may be a murder "charge", but there will be no conviction.
This guy Arbery WAS NOT just "jogging' in the neighborhood". He was likely up to no good. The first video (of him casing out the property under construction) proves that.
Of course, that doesn't justify shooting him in cold blood.
But... it WASN'T quite "cold blood".
The black guy turned and then attacked the younger man holding the shotgun, I believe he even yanked at the barrel. Could this have been "the force" that caused the weapon to discharge, at least the first time that injured his hand?
The son may end up with a negligent homicide/involuntary manslaughter conviction. A few years at most.
The father will probably be acquitted, or receive even a lesser charge at worst.
-
There may be a murder "charge", but there will be no conviction.
This guy Arbery WAS NOT just "jogging' in the neighborhood". He was likely up to no good. The first video (of him casing out the property under construction) proves that.
Of course, that doesn't justify shooting him in cold blood.
But... it WASN'T quite "cold blood".
The black guy turned and then attacked the younger man holding the shotgun, I believe he even yanked at the barrel. Could this have been "the force" that caused the weapon to discharge, at least the first time that injured his hand?
The son may end up with a negligent homicide/involuntary manslaughter conviction. A few years at most.
The father will probably be acquitted, or receive even a lesser charge at worst.
This will end up being another political persecution, meaning a certain constituency will hold society hostage until they get the sentence they want.
-
Well you have one thing wrong right off the bat. It was the son that had the shotgun. The father was carrying a .357 magnum pistol.
So if you have that wrong is it all possible that your analysis is wrong? You see I watched the video a bunch of times and i did not see the young man throw any punches until after the first shot was fired (Off screen) You can tell by the description of his injuries and the the defendants description. They claimed that Ahmaud grabbed the shotgun by the barrel and the first shot injured his right hand. So think about this for a second: Why would you want to grab the barrel of a shotgun when another person is standing behind you with a pistol? Also if look closely at the video it appears that the person standing in the bed of the truck is also armed with a long weapon.
Thanks, I watched it last night a few times (late without volume, everyone is asleep)... and have slept since then. Seems I didn't invert weapons, just the father and son. Father was in the back of the truck.
I watched it again just now... and you are right, the first shot is fairly quick, but we don't know if it was just a accidental shot (due to pulling on the gun with finger on trigger) or not. The whole encounter took just seconds to occur as most do.
Younger son is already out of the truck so shooter saw him from a distance, and Arbery does see him and looks like he was gonna run right at him, but then turns (suddenly) to run around the truck but suddenly decides to attack instead. Perhaps he was going to attack before he veered, but decided the angle was not in his favor. We hear a shout (camera is not showing, don't know who shouted either) as Ahmaud goes around truck (sounded like 3 syllables, but inaudible in reality). Note the jogger was several feet in the grass at one point looking like he was gonna run into the yard away, but actually was positioning himself to make a lunge at a better angle, straight on. Next we see Arbery's feet at full run speeding rounding the truck. (19 seconds in video). First shot is heard at 20 seconds (and what has happened we can NOT see because the truck and door obscure the view except feet positions). There may of been a punch or not? What we can see is the younger shooter fellow was then in a defensive back up mode trying to put space between himself and Arbery. Perhaps he was taken somewhat surprised that Arbery rounded the corner of the truck so quickly. All we know is the shooter was not quite in front of the truck (jogger covered that whole distance himself) due to angle of camera shot but very close to the driver front of truck, but not in front. Part of the back up could be partially attributed to force of the lunge at him also and the struggle for the gun (again we can not see if a punch was thrown). The feet being squared forward (of the shooter) (One foot in front of the other) suggests holding his ground, maybe advancing, maybe bracing to meet a force coming at him. We see the jogger had made the decision not to attack at first (veering suddenly after running right at younger fellow at first then circling the truck), but decided to run around the front for a better angle (and some protection and limited view shielding). It also put some padding between the jogger and the person in the back of the truck who might attempt to help.
At 20 seconds in the video we see the shooter with his feet together at one point, and the jogger in full step advance mode. One can tell who had the force driving the direction. The fellow with the shotgun has backed up a few steps but has put his shoulder in stopping the advance (leaning into the oncoming force). Shotgun man lowers his center of gravity and stops the advance and seems to have regained possession of the gun. Still at 21-22 seconds in video. We lose camera for a bit at 22 seconds. But before we lose camera, we see the jogger pulling his right arm back for a punch (elbow is all we can see). It is 24 seconds and we hear the second shot. Smoke suggests it is directed towards the front of the truck area.
At 27 seconds both come back in view... reversed directions. Shooter is now having his back to the truck driver door. He has a wide stance to help keep control of the gun. Shooter also seems to still be backing away perhaps to keep control of the gun. At 28 seconds we see a good solid punch (again the right hand) connect to the shooter. Shooter as soon as punched seems to get an off balance shot off. Video is blurry and goes somewhat off center, but quickly recovers shot and focus. We are at 20 seconds. Shooter seems to know it was a fatal shot when jogger backs off 30 seconds), jogger loses will to fight (also seeming to want to run away, may be blinded) and after a few steps back resumes jogging forward and collapses headlong soon afterwards. We see as soon as the last shot goes off, the shooter does not take further defensive (or offensive) positioning. His gun was pointed down, he was backing up suggesting he did not want this deadly encounter and only wanted to not get killed himself. He backed away to let the fellow run away, getting out of his path.
I still don't see this as murder. Just a stop that went bad wrong and a stupid mistake of attacking an armed person. Coupled with not witnessing the thief, the bad judgement extends to both parties. The person filming, what did they see, did they relay they caught them in the act? Did they say he this looks just like the person I caught on film? I don't know, ain't read enough.
Just talking about something among friends... got something I didn't see, put it out there.
-
The problem for the white father and son is that they instigated the killing by approaching the guy with a loaded weapon.
You're running down the road and two people jump out of a car and approach you with a loaded weapon. You weren't doing anything wrong...just running.
It doesn't matter than the guy tried to wrestle the gun out of one of the whites' hands. He had no idea what they were going to do.
Not being duly authorized leos they had no business stopping someone and aiming a loaded weapon at him just because they thought he resembled a criminal.
Had Mr. Arbery been carrying, he'd have been within his rights to plug both those douchewheels.
-
The problem for the white father and son is that they instigated the killing by approaching the guy with a loaded weapon.
You're running down the road and two people jump out of a car and approach you with a loaded weapon. You weren't doing anything wrong...just running.
It doesn't matter than the guy tried to wrestle the gun out of one of the whites' hands. He had no idea what they were going to do.
Not being duly authorized leos they had no business stopping someone and aiming a loaded weapon at him just because they thought he resembled a criminal.
Approaching? I thought they passed him by a good distance (we are not privy how far) but it seems they were not approaching, but attempting to stop him (citizen's arrest). I don't agree with the word approaching, they did give hunt to find and probable passed him and stopped and got out. But just judging from the video, they were not approaching after stopping. Just waiting.
He wasn't just "running"... He ran after being seen trespassing (hauling ass).... Yes he was observed by someone and it was on video of him booking it after being seen. Jogging is one thing, Hauling butt projects something different.
You probable have a point about "He had no idea what they were planning to do"... yelling "stop we want to talk" a second before this went down was not time to process they didn't want to do him harm. But he had to know he didn't want to talk to the police are anyone else after being seen at a construction site. Hauling butt proves that to me...
Does that give the shooter the right to shoot him? Nope... but at the same time attacking someone with a gun is not always the best option unless you knew they just wanted to kill you. At that point, if you feel someone has wronged you, you try to escape and call the police... or you do as this fellow did, try to turn the gun in his favor by taking it away (like in the movies). Can't really say if I was young I would not try this option (except knowing I had just committed a crime by trespassing, then I know I would be in the wrong). I would think probable these two guys saw what he did and were arresting him.
Now, if we back it up further, do we believe that the kid was seen earlier and gave a jester like he was reaching for a gun? Did that give them the right to think he may of been armed?
You say "they pointed a loaded gun at him"... Did they? Or did the shooter only pull up the weapon when charged? Were they actually "Pointing" at him? I must of missed that (or it was too blury to tell). Now I have to hunt down the dang video again.
Lot to digest, and lot of it more than just a 15 second video presents.
-
Is this the same ditz who criticized Brian Kemp for reopening the state, while the majority of her constituents were living paycheck to paycheck? Ghetto princess of crime city. Who cares?
-
And we wonder why so many Trump supporters get upset.....
WHAT RHETORIC? The lowest unemployment for blacks in decades? Ben Carson & Trump creating OPPORTUNITY ZONES for the black race ? POTUS kissing the hand of black, GOLD STAR MOTHER? TRUMP MEETING WITH KANYE WEST IN Oval Office? Having DIAMOND & SILK..sit next to him at round table meeting for blacks? This is sheer smearing of POTUS.
PRESIDENT TRUMP, before he ran of office, heard of XXXXX can't remember her name, her mother & brother were murdered, he let her stay in TRUMP TOWERS for a year rent free. Black singer, kind of new. Jennifer HUDSON! Another homeless black woman, holding up his sign, and being 'attacked' & mocked by other blacks, is now living in an apartment & POTUS GAVE HER 25 K. for a leg up. Many story's like this. In fact POTUS HAS A SOFT SPOT FOR THE BLACK RACE! THESE LIARS ARE TOALLY INSANE.
--
“With the rhetoric we hear coming out of the White House,†she added, “many who are prone to being racist are given permission to do it in an overt way we wouldn’t see in 2020.=ARTICLE.
-
Doesn't make any difference. You're running in a neighborhood, not yours, in regular clothes. Somebody jumps out of car and points a weapon at you. They don't know who you are or what you've done in the past.
These clowns simply had no business stopping the guy and pointing a loaded gun at him. They're 100% culpable for what happened.
Wrong. Retired father knew of his prior crimes. On probation. The black dude, was asked to stop, stay, while police were on their way. They have video of him trespassing & going into houses. They knew him. They didn't know if he was armed. Only with a hammer. Many home break in's in that area. He was NOT jogging, and not in his neighborhood. He lived about 16 miles away. Georgia law says, they can stop him, and were waiting for police. No clowns. Retired police officer, who had interrogated him before. They have video of his break ins. You didn't listen to video. No one "jog's" in timberline shoes. More like casing a construction site. Wore boots. The PERV attacked Travis, tried to get his gun, as with this trespassing....he would probably end up in jail. Thief took his chances and was going to kill BOTH with the gun, he was trying to take away. INNOCENT men don't do. LET POLICE SORT IT OUT. He was not innocent.
-
Vulcan wrote:
"Had Mr. Arbery been carrying, he'd have been within his rights to plug both those douchewheels."
I doubt he was legally entitled to "carry", due to his past record.
Puts him into a whole different category if he had been sporting a gun...
-
YOU ARE BOTH WRONG. They yelled at him to stop, stay, police were on their way. Trespassing on construction site & casing it. Going into homes, there. Videos of him doing break ins on other homes. He was on probation, for other theft & didn't want to go to jail. His intent was to kill BOTH.....then run away. 911 was called. Father & son did not instigate anything. Stopping crime.
---------------------------------------
Quote from: goatprairie on Today at 02:09:41 PM
The problem for the white father and son is that they instigated the killing by approaching the guy with a loaded weapon.
You're running down the road and two people jump out of a car and approach you with a loaded weapon. You weren't doing anything wrong...just running.
It doesn't matter than the guy tried to wrestle the gun out of one of the whites' hands. He had no idea what they were going to do.
Not being duly authorized leos they had no business stopping someone and aiming a loaded weapon at him just because they thought he resembled a criminal.
Had Mr. Arbery been carrying, he'd have been within his rights to plug both those douchewheels.
-
Again, using a high school picture, 18? not his mug shot of age 25. Too bad they counld't find one where he is 12, like Trayon Martin. Who actually was 17/18, had gold teeth, tattoos, pants on the ground and giving gansta signs. They didn't find High school pictures of the two white men to post. They found a 'hunting' picture to complete their BIG LIE. TUX for the criminal and the good guys stopping crime...a "hunting picture'. None of you are wise to this being done...AGAIN?
-
There may be a murder "charge", but there will be no conviction.
This guy Arbery WAS NOT just "jogging' in the neighborhood". He was likely up to no good. The first video (of him casing out the property under construction) proves that.
...
1. Arbery entered the home empty-handed, and he departed empty-handed. One can speculate why he entered - my theory is that he was seeking magenta-spotted chartreuse Neptunians - but guesses are guesses. So, other than, possibly, trespassing, he committed no crime.
2. The McMichaels were unaware of this incident. And they did not witness any other crime.
3. Therefore they were unlawfully assaulting and attempting to falsely imprison Arbery.
4. Their assault, including threatening Arbery with their vehicles and firearms - the latter, at the least, was deadly force - was unlawful. Their assault fully justified Arbery trying to defend himself. And then they killed Arbery for Arbery's lawful attempt at self-defense.
-
YOU ARE BOTH WRONG. They yelled at him to stop, stay, police were on their way. Trespassing on construction site & casing it. Going into homes, there. Videos of him doing break ins on other homes. He was on probation, for other theft & didn't want to go to jail. His intent was to kill BOTH.....then run away. 911 was called. Father & son did not instigate anything. Stopping crime.
---------------------------------------
Quote from: goatprairie on Today at 02:09:41 PM
The problem for the white father and son is that they instigated the killing by approaching the guy with a loaded weapon.
You're running down the road and two people jump out of a car and approach you with a loaded weapon. You weren't doing anything wrong...just running.
It doesn't matter than the guy tried to wrestle the gun out of one of the whites' hands. He had no idea what they were going to do.
Not being duly authorized leos they had no business stopping someone and aiming a loaded weapon at him just because they thought he resembled a criminal.
Had Mr. Arbery been carrying, he'd have been within his rights to plug both those douchewheels.
If all that was true, then of course that changes the picture. If not then those guys were seriously out of bounds.
Guess will have to see how it shakes out.
-
Wrong. Retired father knew of his prior crimes. On probation. The black dude, was asked to stop, stay, while police were on their way. They have video of him trespassing & going into houses. They knew him. They didn't know if he was armed. Only with a hammer. Many home break in's in that area. He was NOT jogging, and not in his neighborhood. He lived about 16 miles away. Georgia law says, they can stop him, and were waiting for police. No clowns. Retired police officer, who had interrogated him before. They have video of his break ins. You didn't listen to video. No one "jog's" in timberline shoes. More like casing a construction site. Wore boots. The PERV attacked Travis, tried to get his gun, as with this trespassing....he would probably end up in jail. Thief took his chances and was going to kill BOTH with the gun, he was trying to take away. INNOCENT men don't do. LET POLICE SORT IT OUT. He was not innocent.
It doesn't matter what he did in the past. You just can't jump out of your vehicle and point loaded guns at people without just cause.
Arbery had committed no crime. The whites were totally UNJUSTIFIED at stopping him and pointing a gun at him.
You are claiming that just because someone has committed a crime in the past, people who are not leos can stop him and point a gun at him.
You can't. These boneheads were not authorized.
The proper course of action would have been to notify the authorities and let them handle it.
If you had committed some non-violent crime in the past, how would you like it if people approached you with a gun and started asking questions just because you were in their neighborhood?
You wouldn't like it one bit.
Arbery might not be a great citizen, but he did have rights. The right to go about your business without someone stopping you without cause and pointing a gun at you.
-
It doesn't matter what he did in the past. You just can't jump out of your vehicle and point loaded guns at people without just cause.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You wouldn't like it one bit.
Arbery might not be a great citizen, but he did have rights. The right to go about your business without someone stopping you without cause and pointing a gun at you.
Again, where exactly did you get the "Pointed" their guns part? I didn't see it. Until he charged, I didn't see what you have said a few times now.
Here is the video... all of it with audio.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyb9AMQbV04 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyb9AMQbV04)
What I did hear, was if that (what we heard as vocals in the video) was the only warning they gave it was sorta late to be honest. Didn't give jogger time to react really.
-
Do all joggers check out garages too... since all guys do. Especially at night...
(https://i.postimg.cc/kXFp0vd7/Night-Garage.jpg)
Also the video of Arbery entering the house under construction (house front looked completed) shows he wasn't "jogging" but just walking (or scoping out things to rob at night). Also who jogs with a hammer? I bet he stole the hammer though they don't have it on tape.
Video (sped up) of him entering the house after looking around to make sure nobody sees him. Time 13:30 enter and 14:37 leaving.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=822&v=6Z99E6Vq6Hc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=822&v=6Z99E6Vq6Hc)
-
Also I pointed out earlier that perhaps the shooter and his father didn't give the boy enough heads up on telling him to stop... Even in the 911 call you can clearly hear him shout "Stop right there" .... Arbery knew exactly why he was being chased (for tresspassing). He took off running when he saw the fellow calling 911 on him.
Link to both 911 calls ... Second shorter one 911 call starts at 1:56 and you can hear the "Stop right there" comment clearly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEOBDlg9rp8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEOBDlg9rp8)
-
It doesn't matter what he did in the past. You just can't jump out of your vehicle and point loaded guns at people without just cause.
Arbery had committed no crime. The whites were totally UNJUSTIFIED at stopping him and pointing a gun at him.
You are claiming that just because someone has committed a crime in the past, people who are not leos can stop him and point a gun at him.
You can't. These boneheads were not authorized.
The proper course of action would have been to notify the authorities and let them handle it.
If you had committed some non-violent crime in the past, how would you like it if people approached you with a gun and started asking questions just because you were in their neighborhood?
You wouldn't like it one bit.
Arbery might not be a great citizen, but he did have rights. The right to go about your business without someone stopping you without cause and pointing a gun at you.
Well stated. Also I think we are missing the obvious. This whole thing is being timed and created to generate a "Ferguson Missouri" type race event to help move a swing state like GA into the dim column, come November 3rd. That farce of an interview between CNN and ATL mayor unabatingly implicating Trump is ironclad proof.
-
Well stated. Also I think we are missing the obvious. This whole thing is being timed and created to generate a "Ferguson Missouri" type race event to help move a swing state like GA into the dim column, come November 3rd.
:word:
-
Now this.
UPDATE: GBI arrests man after social media threat to Ahmaud Arbery protests
By: WSBTV.com News Staff
Updated: May 10, 2020 - 11:10 AM
GLYNN COUNTY, Ga. — The GBI has arrested a man after a post on social media apparently threatening people protesting the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery has caught the eye of investigators.
The GBI tweeted Sunday that it is investigating a Facebook post that contains a threat to future protests connected to Arbery, who would have turned 26 on Friday, but was shot and killed Feb. 23.
On Sunday night, the agency said it had arrested Rashawn Smith, 20, and charged him with dissemination of information relating to terroristic acts. He was taken into custody in Midway, Ga.
Police said he created a Facebook account of an unwitting individual to post a hoax threat. ...
WSB (https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/gbi-investigating-social-media-threat-ahmaud-arbery-supporters/2SXZ3IUVFFAJRCDLLYKTWIYZLA/)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EXua1pvVAAIEcoa?format=jpg&name=small)
-
"Police said he created a Facebook account of an unwitting individual to post a hoax threat. ..."
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EXua1pvVAAIEcoa?format=jpg&name=small)
More ironclad proof a premedicated Ferguson protest / riot type event....
Part 2. Cue the Jussie Smollett strategy.
This thing is really starting to smell, and any sympathy for the victim is drying up fast.
-
Do all joggers check out garages too... since all guys do. Especially at night...
(https://i.postimg.cc/kXFp0vd7/Night-Garage.jpg)
Also the video of Arbery entering the house under construction (house front looked completed) shows he wasn't "jogging" but just walking (or scoping out things to rob at night). Also who jogs with a hammer? I bet he stole the hammer though they don't have it on tape.
Video (sped up) of him entering the house after looking around to make sure nobody sees him. Time 13:30 enter and 14:37 leaving.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=822&v=6Z99E6Vq6Hc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=822&v=6Z99E6Vq6Hc)
Maybe i am maladjusted, but I can't column the number of times I have gone on to property of housed under construction to have a little look. Never stole anything just wanted to check out what they were doing. Mind you this was all done before anything was locked up or sealed in any way. Matter of fact there were two houses under construction around the corner from me this past month and it was all I could do not to stop and have look see on the way to and from work. I am also going to say that the vast majority of my guy friends have done similar things. Like I said maybe I am maladjusted.
-
Trump called the incident disturbing from the outset.
I agree.
He absolutely did. He still got the blame.
-
Maybe i am maladjusted, but I can't column the number of times I have gone on to property of housed under construction to have a little look. Never stole anything just wanted to check out what they were doing. Mind you this was all done before anything was locked up or sealed in any way. Matter of fact there were two houses under construction around the corner from me this past month and it was all I could do not to stop and have look see on the way to and from work. I am also going to say that the vast majority of my guy friends have done similar things. Like I said maybe I am maladjusted.
There's not really much to steal in those houses. Maybe power tools I guess? Scraps of lumber?
What good would a hammer be in that situation? I'm not convinced he was robbing.
-
Had Mr. Arbery been carrying, he'd have been within his rights to plug both those douchewheels.
QFT. And he would have had a chance if he was carrying.
-
He absolutely did. He still got the blame.
The MSM has gone "all in" into an all out frontal assualt on Trump. Every, I mean every report is configured now to make him look as bad as possible. The late night format, institutionalized by Johnny Carson? Now is a late night 100% Trump hatefest. Sunday morning politico shows? The same.
It's gotten to the point that nothing can be beleived coming out of the cartel of CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, WaPo, etc.
Not even the human interest stories, which are now veiled SJW hit pieces.
-
The MSM has gone "all in" into an all out frontal assualt on Trump. Every, I mean every report is configured now to make him look as bad as possible. The late night format, institutionalized by Johnny Carson? Now is a late night 100% Trump hatefest. Sunday morning politico shows? The same.
It's gotten to the point that nothing can be beleived coming out of the cartel of CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, NYT, WaPo, etc.
Not even the human interest stories, which are now veiled SJW hit pieces.
And the shriller they screech, the less people will believe them.
-
Maybe i am maladjusted, but I can't column the number of times I have gone on to property of housed under construction to have a little look. Never stole anything just wanted to check out what they were doing. Mind you this was all done before anything was locked up or sealed in any way. Matter of fact there were two houses under construction around the corner from me this past month and it was all I could do not to stop and have look see on the way to and from work. I am also going to say that the vast majority of my guy friends have done similar things. Like I said maybe I am maladjusted.
The reason major construction sites erect an eight foot tall fence around the area is because people are curious. Everybody wants to wander in and see what's going on. Hence the classic picture of people peeking through the construction fence just to watch.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.unitedrentafence.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F12%2Fpanel-fence-on-construction-site.jpg)
-
Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms compared the shooting death of 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery in February to lynchings in the Jim Crow-era South and said that President Trump’s rhetoric give racists “permission to do it in an overt way.â€
The Mayor is equating President Trump with Democrats.
-
Maybe i am maladjusted, but I can't column the number of times I have gone on to property of housed under construction to have a little look. Never stole anything just wanted to check out what they were doing. Mind you this was all done before anything was locked up or sealed in any way. Matter of fact there were two houses under construction around the corner from me this past month and it was all I could do not to stop and have look see on the way to and from work. I am also going to say that the vast majority of my guy friends have done similar things. Like I said maybe I am maladjusted.
Back 30 years ago, I lived in a new subdivision near Houston, and would visit after hours the homes under construction near by, just to get an idea of how my house was built, including design flaws. (i.e plumbing, electrical, carpentry, etc.). Figured that information would helpful and useful later on for maintenance and repairs. Didn't figure I was being weird at the time.
-
Back 30 years ago, I lived in a new subdivision near Houston, and would visit after hours the homes under construction near by, just to get an idea of how my house was built, including design flaws. (i.e plumbing, electrical, carpentry, etc.). Figured that information would helpful and useful later on for maintenance and repairs. Didn't figure I was being weird at the time.
@catfish1957
If you had done that in this neighborhood, you could have been shot.
-
@catfish1957
If you had done that in this neighborhood, you could have been shot.
Nice quiet brand new neighborhood and development , few people lived there at the time, 30 years ago??? Not a chance then.
-
Back 30 years ago, I lived in a new subdivision near Houston, and would visit after hours the homes under construction near by, just to get an idea of how my house was built, including design flaws. (i.e plumbing, electrical, carpentry, etc.). Figured that information would helpful and useful later on for maintenance and repairs. Didn't figure I was being weird at the time.
It's different now... Between vandalism and outright thievery, jobsites are more and more protected - Thus the rise of Knack boxes... Bulletproof jobsite boxes for locking up tools that used to be left alone. Likewise onsite alarm systems and vid... Raiding jobsites has become big business in criminal circles.
-
Has it been stated yet, that stolen goods were found on his person or at his home? (where he committed the crime of living with his mother)
Just askin.
-
Has it been stated yet, that stolen goods were found on his person or at his home? (where he committed the crime of living with his mother)
Just askin.
The thing is the white guys had no idea if had done anything wrong. Walking into a marked construction site is hardly a major crime.
It didn't look like Arbery was lugging lumber or construction material on his shoulders. Because he wasn't.
These white guys saw a black guy running down the street whom they thought might be someone who, in their minds, just committed a crime.
BUT THEY HAD NO IDEA WHAT HE'D BEEN DOING!!!
They just stopped him, and POINTED A LOADED WEAPON AT HIM!!!
There are white thieves around where I live. They broke up a white burglary ring in my area last year.
I doubt any white guy out jogging/running would like the idea of some people driving up to him, jumping out of their car, and pointing a loaded weapon at him because he resembled somebody they knew who had committed a crime.
Again, if they thought the guy had committed a crime, they should have called the proper authorities.
-
Accused of the crime of living with mother.
Accused of the crime of jogging without jogging shoes.
Found guilty, executed.
Just CORRECTING.....the false narrative. No accusation....no found guilty, or executed.
This is why people need to listen to video's. You obviously are not. My favorite guys, who tell the truth and have facts.
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEBOfZ7j8qU#)
-
The thing is the white guys had no idea if had done anything wrong. Walking into a marked construction site is hardly a major crime.
It didn't look like Arbery was lugging lumber or construction material on his shoulders. Because he wasn't.
These white guys saw a black guy running down the street whom they thought might be someone who, in their minds, just committed a crime.
BUT THEY HAD NO IDEA WHAT HE'D BEEN DOING!!!
They just stopped him, and POINTED A LOADED WEAPON AT HIM!!!
There are white thieves around where I live. They broke up a white burglary ring in my area last year.
I doubt any white guy out jogging/running would like the idea of some people driving up to him, jumping out of their car, and pointing a loaded weapon at him because he resembled somebody they knew who had committed a crime.
Again, if they thought the guy had committed a crime, they should have called the proper authorities.
Wrong narrative. They told him to STOP, stay, that police were called. They were holding him till police were coming.
They knew of his prior crimes.
Abrey has a shot in his hand when HE ATTACKED Travis to take his gun by the barrel. Most of you need to write FICTION.
Amazing.
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEBOfZ7j8qU#)
-
There may be a murder "charge", but there will be no conviction.
This guy Arbery WAS NOT just "jogging' in the neighborhood". He was likely up to no good. The first video (of him casing out the property under construction) proves that.
Of course, that doesn't justify shooting him in cold blood.
But... it WASN'T quite "cold blood".
The black guy turned and then attacked the younger man holding the shotgun, I believe he even yanked at the barrel. Could this have been "the force" that caused the weapon to discharge, at least the first time that injured his hand?
The son may end up with a negligent homicide/involuntary manslaughter conviction. A few years at most.
The father will probably be acquitted, or receive even a lesser charge at worst.
I DO like people who can 'see' and think clearly. ^ 5.
Yes. Abrey tired to get Travis's gun. WHY? If Travis & father were shot to death...no media would care.
-
They told him to STOP, stay, that police were called. They were holding him till police were coming.They knew of his prior crimes.
The question is whether they had any legal authority to hold him. Not having witnessed him actually committing a felony, that seems unlikely. His past crimes are irrelevant, by the way. You can't "citizen's arrest" someone just because he may have a criminal record.
-
.
Couldn't you just say the mayor of Atlanta's rhetoric says that white people are to bend over backwards to allow black people to have their way in crime? What is the difference?
BINGO! :thumbsup:
-
Analysis by Dana Loesch:
The Killing of Ahmaud Arbery (https://danaloesch.com/the-killing-of-ahmaud-arbery/#.XrnoLztBOV4.twitter).
Some snippets:... Georgia does not make it easy for citizens to go around arresting each other. Citizens are entitled to use reasonable force to arrest people who have committed crimes in their presence or immediate knowledge (courts have held that these are synonymous). Here is the statute:
“A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.â€
The most important part of this statute is the unwritten bit — you are allowed to make arrests only with “reasonable force.†You can’t burn down an orphanage to catch one child snatching extra bowls of gruel. And the Georgia Supreme Court has held, as a matter of law, that you can’t chase someone down with a weapon because you think they have committed burglary.
Irresponsibly holding someone under the claim of citizen’s arrest without meeting the litmus test required by law may earn you some sort of unlawful detainment charge.
So there wasn’t any clear evidence tying Arbery to any burglary other than the McMichaels claim that they saw him at a construction site and assumed he was a burglar. Furthermore, there is nothing to justify the McMichaels’s pursuit. ...
And no — private citizens do not have the right to stop the actions or movement of other private citizens and if someone in a vehicle demands you stop to talk to them you are under zero obligation — legal or otherwise — to do so. Besides, doing so would violate every single “stranger danger†lesson I ever learned in school.
Those who say that the McMichaels have their right of armed self defense apparently don’t realize that it can also be viewed that Arbery also had his right of self defense and I’m pretty sure felt as though his life was in danger the moment Travis McMichael stopped his truck in the road and got out to confront him with his shotgun. ...
-
Autopsy shows Ahmaud Arbery was shot twice in the chest
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/497325-autopsy-shows-ahmaud-arbery-was-shot-twice-in-the-chest
-
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/07/ahmaud-arbery-killing-man-called-911... (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/07/ahmaud-arbery-killing-man-called-911...)
Audio recordings of two 911 calls have shed further light on the final moments before Ahmaud Arbery was shot dead by two white men while jogging through a neighborhood just outside Brunswick, Georgia.
Ahmaud Arbery: anger mounts over killing of black jogger caught on video
Read more
The full recordings, obtained by the Guardian, come after new video footage showing Arbery’s killing in February was released this week, prompting widespread outrage and raising questions over why no arrests have been made. Transcripts of the 911 calls have been previously reported by local media.
Arbery had gone for a jog in Satilla Shores, near the Georgia coast, on the afternoon of Sunday 23 February. The 25-year-old was known around the neighborhood, and would sometimes wave to residents as he ran. But that day, a series of events unfolded that ended in his killing at the hands of Gregory McMichael, 64, and his 34-year-old son, Travis McMichael.
...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No left-wing bias in this propa.....,uhhhh,news report,is there?
Note from Mod5: @sneakypete, do not quote entire articles. Your thread has been merged into this prior thread.
-
nI copied and pasted the whole lead-in because even though all of us understand the bias of the media,we tend to skip over and ignore it BECAUSE it is so common.
We really need to start paying more attention to it and point out the glaring hypocrisies.
The 25-year-old was known around the neighborhood, and would sometimes wave to residents as he ran.
Oh,well! "SOMETIMES waved to residents!" That makes all the difference in the world. I wonder how many fingers he was waving,and how often he waved them?
And HOW was he "known around the neighborhood"? Was he known as a friendly resident,beloved by one and all,or a strange black guy with a snarl that liked to enter vacant houses to look around?
And "Yes,he IS on video entering a house under construction in that very same neighborhood on that very same day,looking around for items to steal. I say that because what OTHER reason would he have to enter a house that doesn't belong to him,and then do a search?
The house had hidden cameras,and caught him doing it.
The vacant house under construction had hidden cameras for a reason. Gee,I wonder what that reason was?
THERE is the probably cause for the two crackas to assume he was a criminal,and to stop and detail him until the Po-Po could show up to question him.
Instead of waiting for the cops to show up,he decides to attack and armed man and try to take his gun from him. Gee,I wonder why? Could it be because he might have an arrest record,or even be on probation?
Speaking of which,WHY is no one on his side claiming he was an honest citizen who was wrongly being held against his will,and who had never been arrested for anything?
WHY is there no mention of how he had never been arrested or even been a criminal suspect in the past?
WHY is there NO MENTION at all of a criminal record by him,either real or non-existent? If there is no record to hide,WHY isn't his lawyer screaming from the rooftops how clean his clients past is,and how this is proof of racism?
Enquiring minds,and all dat,
-
As I've posted elsewhere, the McMichaels were attempting an illegal citizens arrest. They had witnessed nothing. AKA false imprisonment. That gave Arbery the right to defend himself with proportional force, though he first tried avoidance.
In this case, the McMichaels were illegally threatening him with deadly force, which gave Arbery the right to defend himself with deadly force, though Arbery did not have that capability.
-
As soon as people can this much for our white policeman, who are gunned down by people like AHMAN...then I might care.
OR THAT BIGOTED CASE OF LUTHER BY A BLACK JUDGE. AOC....needs to put behind bars for inciting riots.
You've pressed against some strong personal biases before. Mr. Arbery may well have been an entirely innocent man. That is something you should care about. Or, perhaps Arbery was not so innocent. Then, we need to explore how he became dead. That too is something you should care about.
In neither instance should skin color be a factor. Your bias is showing.
-
As soon as people can this much for our white policeman, who are gunned down by people like AHMAN...then I might care.
OR THAT BIGOTED CASE OF LUTHER BY A BLACK JUDGE. AOC....needs to put behind bars for inciting riots.
@LegalAmerican, why does the skin color of the "gunned down" policeman matter?
Why does the skin color of "AHMAN", whoever (s)he is matter if (s)he murdered a police officer, man or woman.
How is your comment not race-baiting?
Why do you keep throwing in irrelevancies to dodge the simple facts of this case?
-
Good posts, @PeteS in CA . I agree 100% that what these two did was unlawful to begin with, and that they properly face murder charges.
-
(attorney for)Georgia home site owner denounces Arbery shooting
says nothing stolen/missing. vigilante pair had no knowledge of video@security system,only.
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1Qt2--_BIs#)
-
Good posts, @PeteS in CA . I agree 100% that what these two did was unlawful to begin with, and that they properly face murder charges.
Uh-oh ... am I going to catch flak for you agreeing with me? :silly: You need to keep being strange and be less of a stranger, Jazz. :yowsa: Maybe the Phils will start playing in a couple of months?
-
The man in the garage appears to have white shoes, not natural leather color Timberline style?
-
As I've posted elsewhere, the McMichaels were attempting an illegal citizens arrest.
@PeteS in CA
Really? Do tell what was illegal about it?
They had witnessed nothing.
According to the first news report I heard or read,someone else saw him entering and leaving the house that was under construction,and called them to report it and described the guy. The media is dancing around now and saying the guy in the video "resembles" the deadhead,even though it is clearly him in the video.
AKA false imprisonment. [/quote,
Really? Where was he locked up? He wasn't even detained. He attacked the man TRYING to detail him until the police could show up,but then the guy attacked him and tried to take his gun away.
That gave Arbery the right to defend himself with proportional force, though he first tried avoidance.
According to who,the dead guy?
Or the dead guy's lawyer?
At any rate,that is NOT what the video showed.
-
You've pressed against some strong personal biases before. Mr. Arbery may well have been an entirely innocent man. That is something you should care about. Or, perhaps Arbery was not so innocent. Then, we need to explore how he became dead. That too is something you should care about.
@Lando Lincoln
Granted,but rather than hear about "racist white trash former cops murder-in de brutha fo no reasons but hes bees black",I want to know WHY he was wandering around in that neighborhood house under construction,WHY he tried to snatch the guy away from the white guy that stopped him,and DOES HE HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD?
The last part is really important because according to the press reports,he is so saintly he MIGHT have been the Black Jesus so many have been looking for.
Or a formal Saint,at a minimum.
WHY is the press mum about his background?
Not that I would suspect the Atlanta Journal, their reporter with the Arab name,or the NAACP of bias,mind you.
-
@sneakypete,
1. As was posted above, GA law only allows a citizen's arrest if the one making the arrest witnessed or has immediate knowledge of a crime. The McMichaels saw no crime and had no immediate knowledge of Arbery committing a crime. Therefore their attempted "citizens arrest" was illegal.
2. "According to the first news report I heard or read,someone else saw him entering and leaving the house that was under construction ...". What "someone else" saw is irrelevant, because the McMichaels did not see it or know of it.
3. Forcibly detaining someone from going about what they are doing is also "false imprisonment".
4. Attempting a false arrest was an assault. Trying to block Arbery with vehicles was assault with deadly force (the threat of hitting him). Trying to detain Arbery by pointing guns at him was assault with a deadly weapon. Almost everything the McMichaels did with Arbery was illegal except for following and talking to him before they tried to detain him.
-
@sneakypete,
1. As was posted above, GA law only allows a citizen's arrest if the one making the arrest witnessed or has immediate knowledge of a crime. The McMichaels saw no crime and had no immediate knowledge of Arbery committing a crime. Therefore their attempted "citizens arrest" was illegal.
2. "According to the first news report I heard or read,someone else saw him entering and leaving the house that was under construction ...". What "someone else" saw is irrelevant, because the McMichaels did not see it or know of it.
3. Forcibly detaining someone from going about what they are doing is also "false imprisonment".
4. Attempting a false arrest was an assault. Trying to block Arbery with vehicles was assault with deadly force (the threat of hitting him). Trying to detain Arbery by pointing guns at him was assault with a deadly weapon. Almost everything the McMichaels did with Arbery was illegal except for following and talking to him before they tried to detain him.
@PeteS in CA
Obviously the man and his son,both former LEO's,IIRC, had no interest in murdering him or they would have just killed him and been done with it.
Things didn't turn fatal until that retard attacked the man holding the gun on him,which resulted quite naturally in him being shot.
If I had been the one holding the gun on him,I would have shot him,too.
So would anyone else within shouting distance of "rational".
The black guy was the chief engineer of his own death.
-
@PeteS in CA
Obviously the man and his son,both former LEO's,IIRC, had no interest in murdering him or they would have just killed him and been done with it.
Things didn't turn fatal until that retard attacked the man holding the gun on him,which resulted quite naturally in him being shot.
If I had been the one holding the gun on him,I would have shot him,too.
So would anyone else within shouting distance of "rational".
The black guy was the chief engineer of his own death.
@sneakypete @PeteS in CA
Basically, you’re both right.
Victim, in the practical sense, caused his own death by going after the son with the shotgun. Personally, although he caused the altercation to go kinetic, I don’t blame him. You’ve got some dude rolling up on you with a shotgun...fight or flight kicks in and most folks don’t know which way they’d go until it’s happening in front of them.
However!!!! The perps are wholly LEGALLY culpable because their actions caused the situation. There ain’t a defense attorney alive who’s going to keep those two out of jail.
Additional, I think only the father had a relationship w LE. However I don’t think he was a street cop. Seems like they said he was an investigator for the DA or something.
Finally, in my life, Ive walked through probably dozens of houses under construction...it’d suck to get killed because of it.
-
@PeteS in CA
Obviously the man and his son,both former LEO's,IIRC, had no interest in murdering him or they would have just killed him and been done with it. 1
Things didn't turn fatal until that retard attacked the man holding the gun on him,which resulted quite naturally in him being shot. 2
If I had been the one holding the gun on him,I would have shot him,too. 3
So would anyone else within shouting distance of "rational". 4
The black guy was the chief engineer of his own death. 5
1 What is the basis for this assumption?
2 The McMichaels were illegally assaulting and attempting false arrest. What do you say Arbery should have done, @sneakypete? Surrender to the armed men who had been continually assaulting and threatening him?
3 And you would be guilty of murder, because Arbery was defending himself, legally.
4 A rational person would not have attempted a false arrest, would not have assaulted Arbery with a vehicle, and would not have threatened him with a gun. In short, a rational person would not have set in motion the train of events that led to Arbery's desperate attempt to escape the McMichaels' continual assaults.
5 No, what led to Arbery's death was the McMichaels' continual illegal assaults and illegal attempt at false imprisonment. Had they simply called 9-1-1 and followed Arbery - let the police do their job, professionally - Arbery would be alive. The McMichaels decided to play cop.
-
I just confirmed...he had been an investigator for the county DAs office for 24 years. His work did NOT give him powers of arrest, his work was all after an arrest was made.
-
@sneakypete @PeteS in CA
Basically, you’re both right.
However!!!! The perps are wholly LEGALLY culpable because their actions caused the situation.
Nope! IF they had been planning on murdering him,he would have been dead before he ever had a chance to reach for the gun. The fact that he did tells me he didn't want to still be there when the cops showed up.
There ain’t a defense attorney alive who’s going to keep those two out of jail.
I hope you are wrong.
Additional, I think only the father had a relationship w LE. However I don’t think he was a street cop. Seems like they said he was an investigator for the DA or something.
Irrelevant. In either case it could be assumed he knew enough about the law to assume he was in bounds.
Finally, in my life, Ive walked through probably dozens of houses under construction...it’d suck to get killed because of it.
I've probably walked through hundreds,but then again,I used to be a carpenter and walking through them was a part of my daily worklife.
Think the dead guy was a builder looking for building tips?
-
Nope! IF they had been planning on murdering him,he would have been dead before he ever had a chance to reach for the gun. The fact that he did tells me he didn't want to still be there when the cops showed up.
I hope you are wrong.
Irrelevant. In either case it could be assumed he knew enough about the law to assume he was in bounds.
I've probably walked through hundreds,but then again,I used to be a carpenter and walking through them was a part of my daily worklife.
Think the dead guy was a builder looking for building tips?
@sneakypete
I provided the info about dads career only because you said “IIRC†in an earlier post. Just giving an answer.
Re the if they wanted him dead: No, that would’ve made them guilty if premeditated murder. I don’t believe a smart prosecutor will go for that. But, barring something unknown at this time, they will almost certainly be found guilty of at least manslaughter and probably murder, just not capital murder. They didn’t go there with the intention of shooting anyone, they brought the gun because they thought they were confronting a criminal. Won’t matter. Legally they were wholly wrong.
By any chance Pete, do you have or have you ever had a concealed carry permit? Because what these two guys did violates pretty much EVERYTHING you are taught when obtaining a Carry permit.
Massad Ayoob has written a number of fabulous books on the legalities of armed confrontations by civilians. I’ll see if I can find a title if you’re interested. Trust me when I say, unless other information comes out, these two guys are completely screwed.
-
@sneakypete
Hers the one I was thinking of:
https://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Force-Understanding-Right-Defense/dp/1440240612/ref=nodl_ (https://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Force-Understanding-Right-Defense/dp/1440240612/ref=nodl_)
-
1 What is the basis for this assumption?
@PeteS in CA
The obvious fact they didn't just shoot him and been done with it. You've never been in a gunfight,have you?
2 The McMichaels were illegally assaulting and attempting false arrest. What do you say Arbery should have done, @sneakypete? Surrender to the armed men who had been continually assaulting and threatening him?
Duhhhhh. If he had,he would have been alive today.
3 And you would be guilty of murder, because Arbery was defending himself, legally.
Opinions are like Democrats. Everybody has one.
4 A rational person would not have attempted a false arrest, would not have assaulted Arbery with a vehicle, and would not have threatened him with a gun. In short, a rational person would not have set in motion the train of events that led to Arbery's desperate attempt to escape the McMichaels' continual assaults.
What the HELL do you know about rational people? I think you have been in Ca too long.
5 No, what led to Arbery's death was the McMichaels' continual illegal assaults and illegal attempt at false imprisonment. Had they simply called 9-1-1 and followed Arbery - let the police do their job, professionally - Arbery would be alive. The McMichaels decided to play cop.
"CONTINUED ASSAULTS"?????? WHERE is any evidence he assaulted that punk the first time? If he had been interested in hurting him,he could have just bounced him off his truck.
You really need to get out more.
-
@sneakypete , you’re arguing the rules of war. They don’t apply here.
@PeteS in CA Is arguing the law of a civilian involved shooting. They most certainly apply here.
-
Pete S said: “ what led to Arbery's death was the McMichaels' continual illegal assaults and illegal attempt at false imprisonment. Had they simply called 9-1-1 and followed Arbery - let the police do their job, professionally - Arbery would be alive. The McMichaels decided to play cop.â€
Arberys decision to fight (and not flight) cost him his life.
The McMichaels decision to ILLEGALLY detain Arbery, and the death that resulted from that decision, will cost them their freedom.
-
@sneakypete[/member] , you’re arguing the rules of war. They don’t apply here.
@Axeslinger
wit
ANYTIME someone is pointing a loaded gun at you with the intent to cause you harm or death,the rules of survival are in existence.
@PeteS in CA Is arguing the law of a civilian involved shooting. They most certainly apply here.
If you say so. Shot dead is shot dead to me.
-
Looks to me that this is another Michael Brown or Trayvon Martin thing. He was not hunted down. Appears he was suspected of burglary by concerned neighbors and reacted violently when confronted.
Refusing to let the media define the Ahmaud Arbery narrative
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/05/refusing_to_let_the_media_define_the_ahmaud_arbery_narrative.html (https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/05/refusing_to_let_the_media_define_the_ahmaud_arbery_narrative.html)
-
@sneakypete
Re the if they wanted him dead: No, that would’ve made them guilty if premeditated murder. I don’t believe a smart prosecutor will go for that.
What about a PC prosecutor,banking minority votes for an upcoming election?
But, barring something unknown at this time, they will almost certainly be found guilty of at least manslaughter and probably murder, just not capital murder. They didn’t go there with the intention of shooting anyone, they brought the gun because they thought they were confronting a criminal.
I don't like it,but agree.
Won’t matter. Legally they were wholly wrong.
And morally,100 percent right. You know what they call someone who allows an attacker to take their gun from them?
The word you are lookin for is "dead".
By any chance Pete, do you have or have you ever had a concealed carry permit?
Yes,the local sheriff called me at home the day it was made legal,and insisted I be standing in his office at 9 AM the next morning because he was going to personally process all my paperwork and make sure it was sent off that day.
He also told his secretary to go ahead and sign off on the purchase of any weapon I wanted to buy,including machine guns,without bothering to ask him.
Because what these two guys did violates pretty much EVERYTHING you are taught when obtaining a Carry permit.
So what? Most of the people who teach those courses are asshats that have never been in a gunfight.
Know what THE number 1 rule is in a gun fight?
It's "be the one that survives it".
Massad Ayoob has written a number of fabulous books on the legalities of armed confrontations by civilians. I’ll see if I can find a title if you’re interested.
I know who Aboob is. I also know he has never been in a gunfight.
-
Looks to me that this is another Michael Brown or Trayvon Martin thing. He was not hunted down. Appears he was suspected of burglary by concerned neighbors and reacted violently when confronted.
Refusing to let the media define the Ahmaud Arbery narrative
...
Under GA law, a citizens arrest is only legal if the person doing it saw the crime committed or had immediate knowledge of it. Therefore the McMichaels were violating the law when they attempted to detain Arbery (false imprisonment) and threatened Arbery with deadly force. The McMichaels' multiple assaults forced on Arbery a choice between defending himself, which would have been entirely legal, or surrendering to people who had been illegally and irrationally hounding him.
Those are the simple facts. The McMichaels acted illegally from the moment they acted beyond following Arbery and calling 9-1-1.
-
Under GA law, a citizens arrest is only legal if the person doing it saw the crime committed or had immediate knowledge of it. Therefore the McMichaels were violating the law when they attempted to detain Arbery (false imprisonment) and threatened Arbery with deadly force. The McMichaels' multiple assaults forced on Arbery a choice between defending himself, which would have been entirely legal, or surrendering to people who had been illegally and irrationally hounding him.
Those are the simple facts. The McMichaels acted illegally from the moment they acted beyond following Arbery and calling 9-1-1.
I still don't know enough about the case to leap to either "side."
-
I still don't know enough about the case to leap to either "side."
That should be everyone's opinion. When all is said and done I suspect that the truth lies somewhere between a lynching and a legitimate neighborhood watch.
-
Looks to me that this is another Michael Brown or Trayvon Martin thing. He was not hunted down. Appears he was suspected of burglary by concerned neighbors and reacted violently when confronted.
There are a few differences, especially in the Michael Brown deal. The LEO officer was arresting him after a robbery, and Brown tried to commandere this officer's gun, and lunged at the officer. LEO was fully and 100% justifiable in killing this POS. Sadly, that LEO's life was ruined afterwards.
Travon Martin was shot and killed after attacking Zimmerman, in a probable robbery. Zimmerman was in the right for defending himself.
The Arbery case does not meet either muster. Arbery was apparently attacked by a couple of vigalantes who went too far. Was Arbery a robber and a lowlife? I am guessing yeah. But that is not how we administer justice in this country.
Still, we need to get 100% of the facts before passing full judgement.
-
I still want to know the political affiliation of the suspects.
-
I still want to know the political affiliation of the suspects.
Not sure, but sure can discern a color on their neck.... :cool:
-
I still want to know the political affiliation of the suspects.
Obviously of the Moronic Party. ****drummer
-
What do the all three of the cases mentioned so far have in common (Martin, Brown and Arbery)?
In all three cases, the decedents became that way after making plays for the shooters' guns.
Not a dispositive point in any case. Just a non-germane observation.
-
What do the all three of the cases mentioned so far have in common (Martin, Brown and Arbery)?
In all three cases, the decedents became that way after making plays for the shooters' guns.
Not a dispositive point in any case. Just a non-germane observation.
Yeah, but the Arbery case is not the same as the other two. Arbery was accosted by the McMichaels who had no idea if he had committed a crime. They pointed a loaded weapon at him. They were not duly authorized law officers.
In the other cases the perps attacked the persons involved (Zimmerman, Wilson) who were not threatening the perps who got themselves shot.
In Arbery's case, he was running down the street when some people jumped out of car and pointed a gun at him. He had done nothing wrong.
I can't believe how many people twist themselves into knots trying portray the McMichaels as innocent motorists simply going down the street when they were attacked by Arbery.
The facts are completely opposite. They stopped a person who was running down the street, accosted him, and pointed a loaded weapon at him.
What difference does it make whether he grabbed for the gun or tried to run away? He had no idea what the two dopes were going to do. He thought grabbing for the gun was better than trying to outrun bullets.
In short, Arbery is innocent. The McMichaels are guilty of at least manslaughter. Period.
-
Yeah, but the Arbery case is not the same as the other two. Arbery was accosted by the McMichaels who had no idea if he had committed a crime. They pointed a loaded weapon at him. They were not duly authorized law officers.
In the other cases the perps attacked the persons involved (Zimmerman, Wilson) who were not threatening the perps who got themselves shot.
In Arbery's case, he was running down the street when some people jumped out of car and pointed a gun at him. He had done nothing wrong.
I can't believe how many people twist themselves into knots trying portray the McMichaels as innocent motorists simply going down the street when they were attacked by Arbery.
The facts are completely opposite. They stopped a person who was running down the street, accosted him, and pointed a loaded weapon at him.
What difference does it make whether he grabbed for the gun or tried to run away? He had no idea what the two dopes were going to do. He thought grabbing for the gun was better than trying to outrun bullets.
In short, Arbery is innocent. The McMichaels are guilty of at least manslaughter. Period.
Speaking for myself, I prefer to wait until I'm comfortable that I saw all the facts. tri22
-
Speaking for myself, I prefer to wait until I'm comfortable that I saw all the facts. tri22
Like what? Was Arbery stalking the McMichaels? No. They were stalking him.
Was Arbery committing a crime or had recently committed one? No.
Was Arbery legally running down the road when the McMichaels stopped him and pointed loaded guns at him?
Yes.
Were the McMichaels duly authorized police officers legally questioning a possible perp? No, they had no legal authority to hold a gun on someone simply running down the street.
If you lunge at someone unlawfully holding a gun on you, do you deserve to be shot?
I don't think so.
-
Like what? Was Arbery stalking the McMichaels? No. They were stalking him.
Was Arbery committing a crime or had recently committed one? No.
Was Arbery legally running down the road when the McMichaels stopped him and pointed loaded guns at him?
Yes.
Were the McMichaels duly authorized police officers legally questioning a possible perp? No, they had no legal authority to hold a gun on someone simply running down the street.
If you lunge at someone unlawfully holding a gun on you, do you deserve to be shot?
I don't think so.
Well, did you obviously make up your mind before ALL the facts are in? Yes. In the words of Bartleby: "I would prefer not to."
-
Well, did you obviously make up your mind before ALL the facts are in? Yes. In the words of Bartleby: "I would prefer not to."
Sure, I'll wait until all the facts are in. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it. But I don't think I'll be wrong.
When I first heard the official stories about Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, I put two and two together and doubted the official version.
The problem is due the past record of the media ignoring the staggering black crime rate and the overwhelming attacks by blacks on whites, many whites simply can't believe that a white or whites can be the perp(s) and guilty of a crime involving a black person.
Reading comments on other conservative forums by posters who actually believe Arbery was the aggressor because he charged the McMichaels leaves me stunned.
If it were a white man running down the road accosted by two armed black persons, you know what their reaction would be then.
"he was trying to protect himself from getting shot"
"the blacks had no right to accost him and point a loaded weapon at him"
"the blacks are guilty of first degree murder"
Those would be the comments I'd be reading if Arbery were white and the McMichaels were black.
Whites have to accept that other white people can screw up and commit crimes.
I don't think it's first degree murder, but the whole thing could have been avoided if the McMichaels had simply called the police instead of taking the law into their own hands.
-
Yeah, but the Arbery case is not the same as the other two. Arbery was accosted by the McMichaels who had no idea if he had committed a crime. They pointed a loaded weapon at him. They were not duly authorized law officers.
In the other cases the perps attacked the persons involved (Zimmerman, Wilson) who were not threatening the perps who got themselves shot.
In Arbery's case, he was running down the street when some people jumped out of car and pointed a gun at him. He had done nothing wrong.
I can't believe how many people twist themselves into knots trying portray the McMichaels as innocent motorists simply going down the street when they were attacked by Arbery.
The facts are completely opposite. They stopped a person who was running down the street, accosted him, and pointed a loaded weapon at him.
What difference does it make whether he grabbed for the gun or tried to run away? He had no idea what the two dopes were going to do. He thought grabbing for the gun was better than trying to outrun bullets.
In short, Arbery is innocent. The McMichaels are guilty of at least manslaughter. Period.
Pretty bold statement.
What knowledge do you possess which prompts you to make such a statement?
-
Pretty bold statement.
What knowledge do you possess which prompts you to make such a statement?
I do believe he was doing something wrong, but this still doesn't justify two armed vigalantes gunning him down. Not the way we administer justice in this country. These guys have no business being considered remotely in the same category as Zimmerman or Wilson
-
Pretty bold statement.
What knowledge do you possess which prompts you to make such a statement?
I gave up asking. Goat just "knows." It reminds me of certain Members back when Roy Moore was the accused.
-
I do believe he was doing something wrong, but this still doesn't justify two armed vigalantes gunning him down. Not the way we administer justice in this country. These guys have no business being considered remotely in the same category as Zimmerman or Wilson
That is what this case will turn on. The fact that the decedent tried to grab the shotgun could be a mitigating factor, but isn't going to get them off the hook if they were trying to do a "citizens arrest" without a proper predicate. If they didn't witness this guy doing a crime, they're screwed if I understand this part of GA law.
-
Reminds me of the Rodney King case. As in that case, you have someone who was caught engaging in if not actual criminal behavior, then very suspicious behavior. The escalation occurred when Arbery started running. If he wasn't doing anything wro-wro-wro-wro-wrong, why did he run? Then to resist when caught.
In the Rodney King case, nobody talks about the fact that before the incident, King had an arrest record as long as an Ourangatang's arm. Also when he was finally caught, it had been after a 100 mph+ car chase through residential neighborhoods. Also the tape of the beating waa edited an' only showed the end of the fight. Nor does the Propaganda Ministry For the Left-wing Fascist Agenda admit that King continued his criminal activities after he was released from custody. They will never admit that he was nothing more than a career criminal.
:pop41:
-
Pretty bold statement.
What knowledge do you possess which prompts you to make such a statement?
So you can, like the McMichaels did, see a person running down the road, assume he had just committed a crime, jump out of your vehicle, and point a loaded gun at him or her?
If that's the case, then maybe we can assume any person we see running down the road had just committed a crime, accost him or her and point a loaded gun at him or her.
Well, we can't. The McMichaels had no idea Arbery had committed a crime.
The elder McMichael saw someone he knew from a previous incident and just decided to stop and question him WHILE POINTING A LOADED WEAPON AT HIM!!!
He had absolutely no authority to do so.
Citizens arrests are only allowable when a citizen has seen a crime committed. This was not the case with Arbery. They had no idea what Arbery had been doing. They simply decided to take the law into their hands.
-
I gave up asking. Goat just "knows." It reminds me of certain Members back when Roy Moore was the accused.
We shall see.
-
That is what this case will turn on. The fact that the decedent tried to grab the shotgun could be a mitigating factor, but isn't going to get them off the hook if they were trying to do a "citizens arrest" without a proper predicate. If they didn't witness this guy doing a crime, they're screwed if I understand this part of GA law.
Arbery had been trespassing on private property. But the McMichael's didn't know that. Even if they had seen him trespassing, would that justify them stopping him and pointing a loaded weapon at him?
-
Reminds me of the Rodney King case. As in that case, you have someone who was caught engaging in if not actual criminal behavior, then very suspicious behavior. The escalation occurred when Arbery started running. If he wasn't doing anything wro-wro-wro-wro-wrong, why did he run? Then to resist when caught.
In the Rodney King case, nobody talks about the fact that before the incident, King had an arrest record as long as an Ourangatang's arm. Also when he was finally caught, it had been after a 100 mph+ car chase through residential neighborhoods. Also the tape of the beating waa edited an' only showed the end of the fight. Nor does the Propaganda Ministry For the Left-wing Fascist Agenda admit that King continued his criminal activities after he was released from custody. They will never admit that he was nothing more than a career criminal.
:pop41:
Except you can't stop a career criminal if you're not a leo and point a loaded weapon at him and you haven't seen him committing a crime.
The cops stopped Rodney King. They were authorized to do so.
The McMichaels had no authority to stop Arbery because they hadn't seen him commit a crime and they were not law officers.
-
Arbery had been trespassing on private property. But the McMichael's didn't know that. Even if they had seen him trespassing, would that justify them stopping him and pointing a loaded weapon at him?
Exactly, this is what the case turns on, and they will probably be found guilty of Murder, short of First Degree.
-
Except you can't stop a career criminal if you're not a leo and point a loaded weapon at him and you haven't seen him committing a crime.
The cops stopped Rodney King. They were authorized to do so.
The McMichaels had no authority to stop Arbery because they hadn't seen him commit a crime and they were not law officers.
Additionally, in the cases of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, the decedents were clearly the aggressors in the fatal altercations.
-
So you can, like the McMichaels did, see a person running down the road, assume he had just committed a crime, jump out of your vehicle, and point a loaded gun at him or her?
If that's the case, then maybe we can assume any person we see running down the road had just committed a crime, accost him or her and point a loaded gun at him or her.
Well, we can't. The McMichaels had no idea Arbery had committed a crime.
The elder McMichael saw someone he knew from a previous incident and just decided to stop and question him WHILE POINTING A LOADED WEAPON AT HIM!!!
He had absolutely no authority to do so.
Citizens arrests are only allowable when a citizen has seen a crime committed. This was not the case with Arbery. They had no idea what Arbery had been doing. They simply decided to take the law into their hands.
You are speaking 100% hyperbole.
You made the statement he did nothing wrong.
If you cannot support that statement with evidence, just shut up.
-
The elder McMichael saw someone he knew from a previous incident and just decided to stop and question him WHILE POINTING A LOADED WEAPON AT HIM!!!
So what? I have had that done to me a lot. Around here, if you are where you do not belong, and arouse suspicion, the folks that do belong will detain you with some prejudice. That's nothing new, or necessarily nefarious... And if they figger you are packin (which is a likely assumption), you are normally detained with a threat of greater force.
And by the by, if one is in such a situation, you've got to be an idiot to force the issue.
It is commonplace to approach a cabin in full view, hollerin out, and showing yourself unloading your rifle. It's just polite. It's also common for the owner of that cabin to be on the porch with a loaded 12ga pointed right at you till you've said your piece, and he can decide your worth.
And God help you if you approach that cabin (or his land for that matter) in any other way.
So just because you are confronted with a loaded weapon does not immediately mean a dang thing other than a fairly determined resolve to detain you, and that is not necessarily wrong.
-
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Ex-detective-charged-in-death-of-Ahmaud-Arbery-15269309.php (https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Ex-detective-charged-in-death-of-Ahmaud-Arbery-15269309.php)
Ex-detective charged in death of Ahmaud Arbery lost power to make arrests after skipping use-of-force training
Michael Brice-Saddler and Cleve R. Wootson Jr., The Washington Post
Published 3:50 am PDT, Thursday, May 14, 2020
The former police detective whose actions in the fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia were defended as a citizen's arrest was stripped of his law enforcement certification and power to arrest a year before the deadly encounter, according to personnel records acquired by The Washington Post.
Gregory McMichael's certification was suspended in February 2019 after repeated failures to complete required training, according to documents from the Brunswick Judicial Circuit District Attorney's Office, including a warning in 2014 that McMichael had neglected to finish mandatory firearms and use-of-force courses.
"Repeated failures" suggests he also had a problem with people having authority over him.
#######################
WRT "trespassing", my understanding is that under Georgia law, entering property without permission is not criminal trespass unless the one doing so is instructed not to, by the owner directly or by posted sign. Someone could verify or correct this, but I believe the home Arbery entered did not have a "No Trespassing" sign. IF that is correct, then Arbery did not even commit a misdemeanor, trespassing, when he entered that home.
-
WRT "trespassing", my understanding is that under Georgia law, entering property without permission is not criminal trespass unless the one doing so is instructed not to, by the owner directly or by posted sign. Someone could verify or correct this, but I believe the home Arbery entered did not have a "No Trespassing" sign. IF that is correct, then Arbery did not even commit a misdemeanor, trespassing, when he entered that home.
Entering a property may not be, but entering a building?
-
Entering a property may not be, but entering a building?
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-7/article-2/part-1/16-7-21/
2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 7 - DAMAGE TO AND INTRUSION UPON PROPERTY
ARTICLE 2 - CRIMINAL TRESPASS AND DAMAGE TO PROPERTY
PART 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
§ 16-7-21 - Criminal trespass
O.C.G.A. 16-7-21 (2010)
16-7-21. Criminal trespass
(a) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she intentionally damages any property of another without consent of that other person and the damage thereto is $500.00 or less or knowingly and maliciously interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without consent of that person.
(b) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she knowingly and without authority:
(1) Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person for an unlawful purpose;
(2) Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant that such entry is forbidden; or
(3) Remains upon the land or premises of another person or within the vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant to depart.
-
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-7/article-2/part-1/16-7-21/
That's nuts.
-
That is what this case will turn on. The fact that the decedent tried to grab the shotgun could be a mitigating factor, but isn't going to get them off the hook if they were trying to do a "citizens arrest" without a proper predicate. If they didn't witness this guy doing a crime, they're screwed if I understand this part of GA law.
Colion Noir did a very good video breaking down Georgia law on this. He is a 2A advocate and a lawyer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr-HMjlr1sU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yr-HMjlr1sU)
-
You are speaking 100% hyperbole.
You made the statement he did nothing wrong.
If you cannot support that statement with evidence, just shut up.
Just shut up? You made a statement that Arbery couldn't prove he didn't do something?
Really? Can you prove you didn't do something? Can you prove a negative?
But I don't tell you to shut up, do I?
-
So what? I have had that done to me a lot. Around here, if you are where you do not belong, and arouse suspicion, the folks that do belong will detain you with some prejudice. That's nothing new, or necessarily nefarious... And if they figger you are packin (which is a likely assumption), you are normally detained with a threat of greater force.
And by the by, if one is in such a situation, you've got to be an idiot to force the issue.
It is commonplace to approach a cabin in full view, hollerin out, and showing yourself unloading your rifle. It's just polite. It's also common for the owner of that cabin to be on the porch with a loaded 12ga pointed right at you till you've said your piece, and he can decide your worth.
And God help you if you approach that cabin (or his land for that matter) in any other way.
So just because you are confronted with a loaded weapon does not immediately mean a dang thing other than a fairly determined resolve to detain you, and that is not necessarily wrong.
So whenever you see a stranger around your parts on a public road, you drive up to them, stop them, and point a loaded gun at them? Really?
-
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Ex-detective-charged-in-death-of-Ahmaud-Arbery-15269309.php (https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Ex-detective-charged-in-death-of-Ahmaud-Arbery-15269309.php)
Ex-detective charged in death of Ahmaud Arbery lost power to make arrests after skipping use-of-force training
Michael Brice-Saddler and Cleve R. Wootson Jr., The Washington Post
Published 3:50 am PDT, Thursday, May 14, 2020
"Repeated failures" suggests he also had a problem with people having authority over him.
#######################
WRT "trespassing", my understanding is that under Georgia law, entering property without permission is not criminal trespass unless the one doing so is instructed not to, by the owner directly or by posted sign. Someone could verify or correct this, but I believe the home Arbery entered did not have a "No Trespassing" sign. IF that is correct, then Arbery did not even commit a misdemeanor, trespassing, when he entered that home.
Even he was wrongfully/criminally trespassing, the McMichaels had no way of knowing that. In any event, it was not their property, Arbery had not stolen anything or threatened anybody, and the McMichaels had no authority to stop him and point a loaded gun at him.
-
So whenever you see a stranger around your parts on a public road, you drive up to them, stop them, and point a loaded gun at them? Really?
No, not 'whenever'... But it ain't unheard of.
-
No, not 'whenever'... But it ain't unheard of.
I think you live out west somewhere. The wife and I have been out west quite a bit in the last twenty years or so including some very out of the way areas.
We've never had anybody drive up to us and point a loaded gun at us. But we've never trespassed on somebody's property. Neither was Arbery at the time he was shot.
If that happened, you can be rest assured if they didn't kill us, the authorities would be talking to them, and we'd be pressing charges.
-
I think you live out west somewhere. The wife and I have been out west quite a bit in the last twenty years or so including some very out of the way areas.
We've never had anybody drive up to us and point a loaded gun at us. But we've never trespassed on somebody's property. Neither was Arbery at the time he was shot.
If that happened, you can be rest assured if they didn't kill us, the authorities would be talking to them, and we'd be pressing charges.
I seen a cow was out... And I chased him up a holler. And there I was, ducking into places and back out, Going up this away and that, and back out. looking where she'd gone.Wasn't long before I ran up on a pickup blocking the road with folks and shotguns (one pointed at me), asking my business.
County road, sure enough. For all they knew I was up there robbing folks or casing joints to rob em later. Now, had I no real reason for my suspicious actions, they'd have sent me packing. Had I pulled a weapon in the mean time, I'd have been shot dead as a matter of defense. But I was going no further, under force of arms, until I explained myself.
Now, if I were to say I was looking for someone's property, and was lost, the shotgun would have come down and I would have been given direction and sent on my way... As it was, I told em I had shagged a loose cow up the mountain, and was looking to round it up, and told em which homestead below I figured it was from, and we were all fine then. They helped find it and put it in a corral and since they knew the feller it belonged to, that was my end done. They would take it from there. Wound up with sweet tea and a piece of pie, sitting on that porch, and sent away with thanks.
No fault, no foul. If you don't see the sense in that, I'd just as soon you stay where you are. No offense meant. Folks ten to twenty miles out have to look after their own. There ain't gonna be no sheriff in time for anything but the body bags. What they did was right by me, and what I did was right by them. That the guns were involved was of little matter.
-
Just shut up? You made a statement that Arbery couldn't prove he didn't do something?
Really? Can you prove you didn't do something? Can you prove a negative?
But I don't tell you to shut up, do I?
I really have no idea what you are now blabbering about.
You stated yourself unequivocally that the person killed did nothing wrong.
Why is it so difficult for you to produce the evidence that he did nothing wrong?
The burden is on you as you made the statement.
Where is the evidence?
You do not have it, then you really need to just shut up as there is nothing of substance you could say, unless you admit you are empty on the facts side of things.
-
I really have no idea what you are now blabbering about.
You stated yourself unequivocally that the person killed did nothing wrong.
Why is it so difficult for you to produce the evidence that he did nothing wrong?
The burden is on you as you made the statement.
Where is the evidence?
You do not have it, then you really need to just shut up as there is nothing of substance you could say, unless you admit you are empty on the facts side of things.
Actually according tot he rules of debate the burden of proof is on you. You hold the "positive" position, so you need to prove that he did do something wrong.After watching both videos, (The second one is "Claimed " to be him entering a house that is under construction. The owners and construction people stated that NOTHING was taken. So at worst he is guilty of trespassing. And under Georgia law this would be hard to prove since there was not fence or signs up. I am pretty sure thqt trespassing is not a death penalty offense.
-
I am pretty sure thqt trespassing is not a death penalty offense.
Two separate things. What he got dead for is going for the gun.
-
Two separate things. What he got dead for is going for the gun.
Yeah, that was pretty dumb. What did he think was going to happen when he yanked on that muzzle?
-
Yeah, that was pretty dumb. What did he think was going to happen when he yanked on that muzzle?
Yeah... Not the best option.
-
I seen a cow was out... And I chased him up a holler. And there I was, ducking into places and back out, Going up this away and that, and back out. looking where she'd gone.Wasn't long before I ran up on a pickup blocking the road with folks and shotguns (one pointed at me), asking my business.
County road, sure enough. For all they knew I was up there robbing folks or casing joints to rob em later. Now, had I no real reason for my suspicious actions, they'd have sent me packing. Had I pulled a weapon in the mean time, I'd have been shot dead as a matter of defense. But I was going no further, under force of arms, until I explained myself.
Now, if I were to say I was looking for someone's property, and was lost, the shotgun would have come down and I would have been given direction and sent on my way... As it was, I told em I had shagged a loose cow up the mountain, and was looking to round it up, and told em which homestead below I figured it was from, and we were all fine then. They helped find it and put it in a corral and since they knew the feller it belonged to, that was my end done. They would take it from there. Wound up with sweet tea and a piece of pie, sitting on that porch, and sent away with thanks.
No fault, no foul. If you don't see the sense in that, I'd just as soon you stay where you are. No offense meant. Folks ten to twenty miles out have to look after their own. There ain't gonna be no sheriff in time for anything but the body bags. What they did was right by me, and what I did was right by them. That the guns were involved was of little matter.
If I was looking for one of my lost livestock, and I was on a public road, and some armed people, who weren't leos, stopped me with one pointing a gun at me, they would have been visited by the authorities.
Those idiots had absolutely NO RIGHT to accost you on a public road and point a loaded gun at you.
-
I really have no idea what you are now blabbering about.
You stated yourself unequivocally that the person killed did nothing wrong.
Why is it so difficult for you to produce the evidence that he did nothing wrong?
The burden is on you as you made the statement.
Where is the evidence?
You do not have it, then you really need to just shut up as there is nothing of substance you could say, unless you admit you are empty on the facts side of things.
Are you a lawyer? Maybe you should talk to one. You don't have to prove you didn't do something wrong, the accusers have to prove you did.
Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
-
Yeah... Not the best option.
That won't be a good point for the defense at the trial. You point a loaded weapon at someone, you better have a very good reason for doing it. If it goes off and kills somebody who thought you might shoot him, your defense is very shaky. Especially if you're not a leo. Which the McMichaels weren't.
It doesn't matter if what Arbery did was stupid. You held a loaded weapon on him, and very probably fearing for his life, he decided to try and wrestle the gun away instead of running in the opposite direction
Remember, Arbery didn't confront the McMichaels, they confronted him.
-
If I was looking for one of my lost livestock, and I was on a public road, and some armed people, who weren't leos, stopped me with one pointing a gun at me, they would have been visited by the authorities.
Those idiots had absolutely NO RIGHT to accost you on a public road and point a loaded gun at you.
PROVE IT.
:seeya:
-
That won't be a good point for the defense at the trial.
Incidental to the point.
It doesn't matter if what Arbery did was stupid.
Well yeah it does. That's what made him dead.
-
That won't be a good point for the defense at the trial. You point a loaded weapon at someone, you better have a very good reason for doing it. If it goes off and kills somebody who thought you might shoot him, your defense is very shaky. Especially if you're not a leo. Which the McMichaels weren't.
It doesn't matter if what Arbery did was stupid. You held a loaded weapon on him, and very probably fearing for his life, he decided to try and wrestle the gun away instead of running in the opposite direction
Remember, Arbery didn't confront the McMichaels, they confronted him.
I have asked few times to prove they pointed a loaded gun at the fellow before he attacked... Linked the video... All I have been is ignored. Free screenshot programs out there, I use greenshot.
https://getgreenshot.org/
-
That won't be a good point for the defense at the trial. You point a loaded weapon at someone, you better have a very good reason for doing it. If it goes off and kills somebody who thought you might shoot him, your defense is very shaky. Especially if you're not a leo. Which the McMichaels weren't.
It doesn't matter if what Arbery did was stupid. You held a loaded weapon on him, and very probably fearing for his life, he decided to try and wrestle the gun away instead of running in the opposite direction
Remember, Arbery didn't confront the McMichaels, they confronted him.
:thumbsup:
-
Incidental to the point.
Well yeah it does. That's what made him dead.
No what made him dead was two rednecks that had not business or legal authority to chase him down and confront him over a supposed crime that they did not witness.
-
Actually according tot he rules of debate the burden of proof is on you. You hold the "positive" position, so you need to prove that he did do something wrong.After watching both videos, (The second one is "Claimed " to be him entering a house that is under construction. The owners and construction people stated that NOTHING was taken. So at worst he is guilty of trespassing. And under Georgia law this would be hard to prove since there was not fence or signs up. I am pretty sure thqt trespassing is not a death penalty offense.
You do not know of what you speak.
The poster said "He did nothing wrong". No facts, nothing but that statement.
I asked for the evidence he used to make that judgement and there is zilch.
How is the burden of proof on me when all I ask are the facts he used to support his statement?
Methinks you are confusing some type of trial with a simple request to backup a bold statement.
@verga
-
Agree... disagree... :shrug:
It's up to a jury now.
-
I have asked few times to prove they pointed a loaded gun at the fellow before he attacked... Linked the video... All I have been is ignored. Free screenshot programs out there, I use greenshot.
https://getgreenshot.org/
@Sighlass
Sorry, I didn't see your earlier post. From what I could see in the shaky video, the first time the gun was pointed at anybody was right after the decedent grabbed the muzzle of the shotgun and pointed it at himself in the process. Trying to disarm somebody by grabbing the barrel of the gun is not bright, because if the trigger finger was in the guard, it just about guarantees an accidental and fatal discharge.
This case will probably turn on whether the two had a legitimate reason to detain the man, and it appears they did not.
-
No what made him dead was two rednecks that had not business or legal authority to chase him down and confront him over a supposed crime that they did not witness.
Swift judgment is normally in error
-
@Sighlass
Sorry, I didn't see your earlier post. From what I could see in the shaky video, the first time the gun was pointed at anybody was right after the decedent grabbed the muzzle of the shotgun and pointed it at himself in the process. Trying to disarm somebody by grabbing the barrel of the gun is not bright, because if the trigger finger was in the guard, it just about guarantees an accidental and fatal discharge.
This case will probably turn on whether the two had a legitimate reason to detain the man, and it appears they did not.
For perspective.
https://www.takimag.com/article/the-lynching-of-a-black-jogger/ (https://www.takimag.com/article/the-lynching-of-a-black-jogger/)
-
For perspective.
https://www.takimag.com/article/the-lynching-of-a-black-jogger/ (https://www.takimag.com/article/the-lynching-of-a-black-jogger/)
I like how the article draws the comparison of this case, Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown all died after attempting to disarm somebody. Seems I read that somewhere before. :pondering:
-
Well,if anyone in the country knows anything about racism,it is the Mayor of Atlanta,"the black spot on your map".
-
Okay, I watched the video and did my hour review as best I could....
Men (two) have been upset about robberies in the neighborhood which had been caught on camera (looked like perp).... Third person (was following the two men that shot the perp) was involved (probable person filming). I imagine the 3rd person was the one that was being robbed and suggested give chase.... Not sure... but somehow they thought they were hot on the trail.
They give chase and overtake the suspect on foot in their truck. Pull ahead of him and try to get him to stop (citizen's arrest)... They are armed (and I imagine the dead fellow Ahmaud Arbery knew they were armed?) and he had to know they were armed (visual). He attacked the older fellow with the shotgun (yes he attacked).... in the struggle he was shot.
I am sorta torn,citizen arrests are legal... shooting someone attacking you is legal.
@Sighlass
I am not torn,or even bend in the tiniest amount. This goober was seen leaving a vacant house he clearly did not live in BECAUSE it was a vacant house under construction and NOBODY lived in it.
For this very good reason he immediately became a burglury suspect because it was an area where there were recent thefts.
Because of this someone notified the two men now under arrest who stopped the stranger running down the street,and one pointed a shotgun at him and the other a handgun,as a LEGAL method to get his cooperation. Instead of cooperating,this dumb ass attacked a man holding a loaded shotgun on him,and was shot to death for being criminally stupid.
Here is a little factoid you and everyone else needs to ponder. If they two men had planned to shoot him,why didn't they shoot him from the safety of the truck?
The guns were to protect THEM from possible attack by a criminal. They were DEFENSIVE weapons,not offensive weapons. We KNOW this to be true because they didn't just blow his ass away and ride off into the sunset to get a beer.
That said, if the fellow was just jogging and was suddenly stopped and feared for his life, attacking someone with a gun you think is trying to kill you is also legal.
You spell "stupid" or "desperate to escape before the law comes and runs warrant checks on me." different than I do.
The ONLY rational/semi-rational reason ANYONE who is suspected of a crime will choose to attack the armed citizen holding him at gunpoint is because he knows there are warrants out for his arrest,and he knows he WILL be arrested if he is still there when the po-po show up.
Am I the only one that finds it suspiscious that NO ONE has been claiming he was an innocent young man who had never been in trouble with the law before?
What we are witnessing now are politics and shuffling for advantage at play here,now. It has NOTHING to do with justice and everything to do with votes.
-
You do not know of what you speak.
The poster said "He did nothing wrong". No facts, nothing but that statement.
I asked for the evidence he used to make that judgement and there is zilch.
How is the burden of proof on me when all I ask are the facts he used to support his statement?
Methinks you are confusing some type of trial with a simple request to backup a bold statement.
@verga
You hold the "positive" "He did soemthing wrong" You need to prove that.
-
Because of this someone notified the two men now under arrest who stopped the stranger running down the street,and one pointed a shotgun at him and the other a handgun,as a LEGAL method to get his cooperation. Instead of cooperating,this dumb ass attacked a man holding a loaded shotgun on him,and was shot to death for being criminally stupid.
Please Sneaky I hope this is true, can you link where this has been reported... If so it clamps it for me, if they were shown the video of the kid in the garage (earlier robbery/trespassing) or if they were told of the kid leaving the house (that day) it would greatly lean my belief they were fully innocent of "just pointing a gun (embellishment spread here by one poster) and killing an innocent kid".... Something that says hey guys "we think we have found the culprit we have been looking for and need to have the police question him".
________________________________
________________________________
BTW... did the prosecution ever explain why he had a hammer and where he got it? Surely a jogger does not tote around a hammer.... I am just speculating here, but I would be a dollar to a donut he stole it and they didn't catch it on camera.
_________________________________
_________________________________
Also assuming the fellows are ruled as not being justified in doing a "citizen arrest" ... They still didn't just haul off and shoot the kid, they were attacked... I still don't see it as the big "M" (murder) but something far less (reckless endangerment or something, not a lawyer).
You are allowed to open carry (or concealed in GA w/ license). So if they were NOT banishing (pointing the weapon) what did they do wrong?
-
I have asked few times to prove they pointed a loaded gun at the fellow before he attacked... Linked the video... All I have been is ignored. Free screenshot programs out there, I use greenshot.
https://getgreenshot.org/
They clearly blocked the road and confronted him. And he clearly tried to run around the truck, out of the roadway. And if at that point these necks brandished a rifle, and Arbery acted rashly and (in hindsight) foolishly, that doesn't excuse 'em from a murder one beef.
-
Ahmaud Arbery 'may have been looking for drink of water' when he visited construction site near where he was killed - as new video shows multiple people wandered around the property the day of the shooting
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8324003/Security-cam-video-raises-new-questions-Arbery-shooting.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8324003/Security-cam-video-raises-new-questions-Arbery-shooting.html)
Newly released security video gives more context around Ahmaud Arbery murder case
www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0NzM1wjBRw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0NzM1wjBRw#)
:shrug:
-
They clearly blocked the road and confronted him. And he clearly tried to run around the truck, out of the roadway. And if at that point these necks brandished a rifle, and Arbery acted rashly and (in hindsight) foolishly, that doesn't excuse 'em from a murder one beef.
A fact not in evidence, sir. I saw no brandishing, just the decedent grabbing the muzzle of a gun, but that video is really shaky. Either way, that was a fatal mistake that, had he not done it, would be alive today.
I think Murder may be a bridge too far, and I think these guys are going to the slammer, or Atlanta will burn. Negligent Homicide will not calm the coming riots if they don't get done for Murder 1. We may never know, because jungle "justice" is the rule in the urban centers.
ETA: It's not Murder 1 if there was no premeditation, and good luck proving that.
-
And by the by, if one is in such a situation, you've got to be an idiot to force the issue.
@roamer_1
THERE it is!
A valid argument can be made that somebody THAT freaking stupid NEEDS to be removed from the gene pool for the benefit of humanity.
Sometimes people are just so damn stupid they bring it on themselves,and it doesn't get any more stupid that attacking two armed men,one holding a shotgun,when you are unarmed.
No one has YET to mention why this "innocent black jogger" was so anxious to get away from this two "attackers' before the police showed up to settle things down,either.
OR made any mention of his criminal record.
AND.....,you can bet the farm he has a criminal record involving both theft and violence or we would have already heard about what a perfect little angle he was from the Tan Klan.
-
@roamer_1
THERE it is!
A valid argument can be made that somebody THAT freaking stupid NEEDS to be removed from the gene pool for the benefit of humanity.
Sometimes people are just so damn stupid they bring it on themselves,and it doesn't get any more stupid that attacking two armed men,one holding a shotgun,when you are unarmed.
No one has YET to mention why this "innocent black jogger" was so anxious to get away from this two "attackers' before the police showed up to settle things down,either.
OR made any mention of his criminal record.
AND.....,you can bet the farm he has a criminal record involving both theft and violence or we would have already heard about what a perfect little angle he was from the Tan Klan.
It came out over a week ago that he did have some minor run ins with the law, as well as a history of some mental issues, but as been said on the day of the incident nothing was taken from the site. https://www.yahoo.com/news/security-cam-video-raises-questions-150615409.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/security-cam-video-raises-questions-150615409.html) English has said nothing was ever stolen from his property. Graddy said his security cameras had recorded “numerous clips of persons entering the property†and shared two clips that showed a pair of children riding bicycles up to the home and then walking inside.
Prior bad acts are not a valid reason to shoot him.
-
It came out over a week ago that he did have some minor run ins with the law, as well as a history of some mental issues, but as been said on the day of the incident nothing was taken from the site.
@verga
Big whoop! I have seen the video,and the fact that he didn't steal anything is related to there being nothing there worth stealing that was portable.
As for the kids on bicycles,another Big Whoop. Most kids are curious and just looking around to learn things.
Prior bad acts are not a valid reason to shoot him.
Agreed,but physically attacking two men holding firearms pointed at him is good reason.
Or maybe you think he was trying to disarm them so they could have a debate?
Anybody foolish enough to attack TWO armed men that are just stopping and asking him questions NEEDS to be killed because whatever he is,"innocent" ain't it.
-
@sneakypete
I'd be interested in seeing the toxicology report from his autopsy. That stunt of grabbing the muzzle of the shotgun is something I'd have to be pretty wasted to pull.
-
@sneakypete
I'd be interested in seeing the toxicology report from his autopsy. That stunt of grabbing the muzzle of the shotgun is something I'd have to be pretty wasted to pull.
Nothing to lose? Get shot in the back walking away or fight...
-
Nothing to lose? Get shot in the back walking away or fight...
Well, I guess if that was his justification for committing suicide. Would you ever try to disarm somebody by grabbing the muzzle of their shotgun?
-
Well, I guess if that was his justification for committing suicide. Would you ever try to disarm somebody by grabbing the muzzle of their shotgun?
If I was pretty sure I would get shot anyway I might try to fight..
-
If I was pretty sure I would get shot anyway I might try to fight..
True...and maybe this was just a "Fight or Flight" response. Just because I can't imagine being in that frame of mind doesn't mean others never felt that way.
-
Nothing to lose? Get shot in the back walking away or fight...
@EdinVA
Or MAYBE,just stand right there and wait for the police to arrive?
If they had WANTED to shoot him,there was no need to let him get close enough to grab at a shotgun.
-
@EdinVA
Or MAYBE,just stand right there and wait for the police to arrive?
If they had WANTED to shoot him,there was no need to let him get close enough to grab at a shotgun.
Don't know.... just speculating...
-
Don't know.... just speculating...
@EdinVA
Ok,fair enough.
Sooo,which choice would YOU have made? Would you stand there and wait for the police to arrive,or would you have grabbed at the shotgun?
-
@EdinVA
Ok,fair enough.
Sooo,which choice would YOU have made? Would you stand there and wait for the police to arrive,or would you have grabbed at the shotgun?
@sneakypete
Well, when I was in my 20's, and if confronted with 2 armed thugs with no way out, probably fight.
-
@EdinVA
Ok,fair enough.
Sooo,which choice would YOU have made? Would you stand there and wait for the police to arrive,or would you have grabbed at the shotgun?
In a 2-point crossfire? The odds of success are infinitesimal. You'd have to get one gun, and take the other guy out, nearly at the same time. The best shot at it would be to knock the shotgun muzzle toward the other guy hoping an involuntary discharge takes him out... And then worry the rest of the way about the original guy. That is a zero gain.
Submit and wait for a better option.
-
@sneakypete
Well, when I was in my 20's, and if confronted with 2 armed thugs with no way out, probably fight.
Which brings us back to the original discussion: Did the two guys in the pickup behave in a manner that precluded flight? Could be seen that way, and then the question arises, were they "detaining" him legally?
-
@sneakypete
Well, when I was in my 20's, and if confronted with 2 armed thugs with no way out, probably fight.
@EdinVA
Well,to start off,you must have lived a sheltered life to have even considered fighting two potential attackers armed with firearms that are just trying to hold you for the police.
I KNEW better long before I got that old.
Survival Rule # 1 : If confronted by armed strangers and no one is talking about killing you,do NOT get pushy.
Truth to tell,in "real life" I don't even get pushy if they are unarmed,outnumber me,and talking about killing or beating me if I am armde. I will just stand there and let things develope until I see which way things are going,and then I either just explain the realities in life to them and tell them "You can be alive tomorrow or dead today,your choice. Take your time making it. I'm in no hurry."
If they are armed,I still won't react unless they seem to be serious about killing me NOW,not some time in the future. If I think they are going to kill me NOW,I will pull my gun and just start shooting because we no longer have anything to discuss.
If they are openly carrying firearms and telling me to remain in place and wait for the police,I am going to stand there and wait for the police to show up. The best way to survive a gun fight is to not get in one.
-
In a 2-point crossfire? The odds of success are infinitesimal. You'd have to get one gun, and take the other guy out, nearly at the same time. The best shot at it would be to knock the shotgun muzzle toward the other guy hoping an involuntary discharge takes him out... And then worry the rest of the way about the original guy. That is a zero gain.
Submit and wait for a better option.
I'm reminded of a short story about the appeal of self-preservation.
A fellow is condemned to be executed by a Feudal King, but he makes a suggestion that intrigued the King: If the King permitted him a one-year delay to the execution, he would teach the King's pig how to sing. The King agreed and the prisoner was led away. He was asked "Why would you make a deal like that? You know you can't teach a pig to sing!"
The answer: "It's true, I can't. But, now I have another year on this world. During that time, I might escape. The King may realize I should not be executed. The King may die. The pig may actually learn to sing! At least I'll be there to reap the reward and live another day."
And that is why I concur with your hypothetical scenario. :beer:
-
If I was pretty sure I would get shot anyway I might try to fight..
@EdinVA
WHY would you imagine that????
The two men have already stopped you,pointed guns at you to make you stop,and have NOT shot at you,so WHY would they start shooting when they stopped you without shooting,and are asking you questions about a burglary ???
If they had WANTED to shoot you,you would have already been shot!
Know how to GUARANTEE you that you will get shot? Try taking a gun away from someone pointing a gun at you.
This ain't rocket science,folks.
-
In a 2-point crossfire? The odds of success are infinitesimal. You'd have to get one gun, and take the other guy out, nearly at the same time. The best shot at it would be to knock the shotgun muzzle toward the other guy hoping an involuntary discharge takes him out... And then worry the rest of the way about the original guy. That is a zero gain.
Submit and wait for a better option.
@roamer_1
NEVERY PURPOSELY get into a fight you KNOW you can't win if you have any other choice.
Survival is more important than ego.
-
@roamer_1
NEVERY PURPOSELY get into a fight you KNOW you can't win if you have any other choice.
Survival is more important than ego.
That's entirely right. It's always an options game. If the percentage ain't there, There ain't no percentage. :whistle:
Wait for opportunity to present.
-
@roamer_1
NEVERY PURPOSELY get into a fight you KNOW you can't win if you have any other choice.
Survival is more important than ego.
Concealed Carry 101: Situational Awareness will prevent 99% of being likely to have to shoot somebody. Be street-smart enough to avoid those circumstances. Learn the cues of aggression. And....walk away whenever possible, to avoid having your life's savings stripped from you.
-
@EdinVA
WHY would you imagine that????
The two men have already stopped you,pointed guns at you to make you stop,and have NOT shot at you,so WHY would they start shooting when they stopped you without shooting,and are asking you questions about a burglary ???
If they had WANTED to shoot you,you would have already been shot!
Know how to GUARANTEE you that you will get shot? Try taking a gun away from someone pointing a gun at you.
This ain't rocket science,folks.
@sneakypete
So, you know who these guys are and what their intent is?
You know for a fact that they are sane rational human beings and that if you submit they will, in fact, not harm you?
Great assumptions....
-
You hold the "positive" "He did soemthing wrong" You need to prove that.
You lie.
I never said that. Instead, the poster claimed he did nothing wrong.
Typical lib argument you make.
Lie, then accuse the other side of something that the liar in fact was guilty of.
-
@verga
Big whoop! I have seen the video,and the fact that he didn't steal anything is related to there being nothing there worth stealing that was portable.
As for the kids on bicycles,another Big Whoop. Most kids are curious and just looking around to learn things.
Agreed,but physically attacking two men holding firearms pointed at him is good reason.
Or maybe you think he was trying to disarm them so they could have a debate?
Anybody foolish enough to attack TWO armed men that are just stopping and asking him questions NEEDS to be killed because whatever he is,"innocent" ain't it.
My position now, just like with Kavanaugh, Covington Catholic School, etc... is I want to see as much evidence as possible. To date I have sen three videos. The one where he was shot, and two more that claim to be him at the construction site (dates and times uncertain).
I have no idea what was said by either party, or what actions were taken of screen of the video, or before the guy with the video arrived.
I have learned from my own bitter experience that when I personally jump to a conclusion at least half the time I look really stupid.
So I will wait for more evidence.
-
I see a lot of the pro-McMichaels people are suggesting, without any evidence, that Arbery had committed a crime. And they are referring to Arbery walking into construction site and looking around without stealing anything. Gee, yeah that's a horrible crime I guess.
I guess then it's highly appropriate for two dopes, who aren't leos, to accost Arbery and either point a loaded gun at him or have it at the ready.
I don't think so. These two idiots saw a black guy running down the road and decided they, armed with loaded guns, to stop and question him.
What gives them the right to do that? If they can do that, without witnessing a crime committed by the person they stopped, then anybody, at least in Georgia, can stop anybody, and with loaded guns at the ready, stop someone and question him or her about some supposed crime.
In short, the McMichaels, who were not law officiers, HAD NO IDEA WHAT ARBERY HAD DONE!!!
Get it? Even if they had seen a video of Arbery stepping into a construction site, there was absolutely no reason to stop Arbery and question him carrying loaded guns. Again, they were NOT!! leos who are duly authorized to question suspicious persons.
They were completely in the wrong. Again, it might not be murder, but certainly at least manslaughter.
-
Well, I guess if that was his justification for committing suicide. Would you ever try to disarm somebody by grabbing the muzzle of their shotgun?
Funny you should ask this.
Two years ago at scout camp we had an (Unreported) autistic scout on the shot gun range. Went through the classroom pat of the class perfect.
Got up on the range my boss was standing face to face with the scout and put a single shell in to the semi auto shotgun. When he released the action and the round was chambered the scout got a crazy eyed look on his face. My boss grabbed the barrel with his right hand and told the student to let go. The scout didn't My boss cocked his left hand back and told him to let go or get knocked out. The kid relented, my boss grabbed the gun and backed away. 30 minutes later two scout masters got chewed new ones for not disclosing.
We have had similar incidents on two other occasions.
Last year I had a scout threaten to shoot everyone on the Archery range. You never know what someone is thinking when they get a weapon in their hand.
-
Funny you should ask this.
Two years ago at scout camp we had an (Unreported) autistic scout on the shot gun range. Went through the classroom pat of the class perfect.
Got up on the range my boss was standing face to face with the scout and put a single shell in to the semi auto shotgun. When he released the action and the round was chambered the scout got a crazy eyed look on his face. My boss grabbed the barrel with his right hand and told the student to let go. The scout didn't My boss cocked his left hand back and told him to let go or get knocked out. The kid relented, my boss grabbed the gun and backed away. 30 minutes later two scout masters got chewed new ones for not disclosing.
We have had similar incidents on two other occasions.
Last year I had a scout threaten to shoot everyone on the Archery range. You never know what someone is thinking when they get a weapon in their hand.
Like Chris Kyle....
-
@sneakypete
So, you know who these guys are and what their intent is?
@EdinVA
Absolutely! The first big clue is THEY DIDN'T JUST SHOOT HIM,THEY STOPPED HIM AND ASKED QUESTIONS.
Those are two clues a blind man can see.
You know for a fact that they are sane rational human beings and that if you submit they will, in fact, not harm you?
Yes,see the above.
Great assumptions....
Thank you! Comes from experience. I have had guns pointed at me,and pointed guns at other people.
lf they wanted to shoot him,they would have shot him,not stopped him and asked questions.
How much more obvious could it be?
-
I don't think so. These two idiots saw a black guy running down the road and decided they, armed with loaded guns, to stop and question him.
@goatprairie
Ahhhh,the "Race Card"! I knew it would raise it's ugly head sooner or later.
I guess we are now supposed to apply "Affirmative Action Rules" to self-defense?
What is the quota? How many times can we allow an attacker to disarm us before we can defend ourselves from an ACTUAL PHYSICAL ATTACK?
7 out of 10?
3 out of 10?
How much do the numbers change if the attacker is a mulatto?
These rules need to be published so we all know them.
-
@sneakypete
If you hadn't noticed, the Race Card has been in play since Shaun King (the fake black guy at the NAAC(L)P) broke the video on Twitter.
Yup. This is a Twit spawned story. Remember that next time some fellow tells you Social Media is harmless.
-
@sneakypete
If you hadn't noticed, the Race Card has been in play since Shaun King (the fake black guy at the NAAC(L)P) broke the video on Twitter.
Yup. This is a Twit spawned story. Remember that next time some fellow tells you Social Media is harmless.
@Cyber Liberty
Just one more reason for my tag line,"Twitter is for Twits".
-
@PeteS in CA
Excellent, reasonable, evidence based posts on this issue
:beer:
-
If you hadn't noticed, the Race Card has been in play since Shaun King (the fake black guy at the NAAC(L)P) broke the video on Twitter.
Yeah, so has the 'dumb rednecks, so it had to be racist' card, right here on this thread.
-
Yeah, so has the 'dumb rednecks, so it had to be racist' card, right here on this thread.
@roamer_1
The whole "dumb,racist rednecks" thing has been done so many times by now that it doesn't even need to be said anymore because it is ALWAYS implied.
Just like "the vic-tim wuz a noble black prince! A PRINCE,I TELL YA!"
-
@roamer_1
The whole "dumb,racist rednecks" thing has been done so many times by now that it doesn't even need to be said anymore because it is ALWAYS implied.
Just like "the vic-tim wuz a noble black prince! A PRINCE,I TELL YA!"
That's right @sneakypete