Ahmaud Arbery Shooting

[new tobie]

On 5/13/2020 at 4:21 PM, stevenash said:

Was going into the home under construction part of the jogging routine?

people go into homes under construction in my neighborhood all the time Steve. Although I own a home in this area, I look at the new homes also. 

[WOSdrummer99]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

You been there, huh?

How many of those boat races, fishing tournaments, and local celebrations happen in the middle of the night? You get what I’m saying though. Sometimes, whether we like it or not, we are conspicuous by only our presence. You can debate whether that’s right or wrong all you want, but it is the way it is. 

Simple question for you that nobody else will answer. Do you feel like there’s a violence problem in the black community?

Yes, indeed I have, for good and bad. I also have first hand experience of how police have treated both sides. Just being in the wrong place at the wrong time isn't a crime. And it sure pisses em off when they cant find nothing to justify the mistreatment of those they feel are guilty. Police are the first step of the justice system. Not the judge, jury, and executioner.

My response was only to show the errors of your ways. Before you, or anyone else, attempts to prove a point, check the facts. Simmons is much different now than it was in my day, and probably yours as well.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Sorry, I will plea the 5th on the last question. Not my place to judge. Not yours either. American society, as a whole, has a violence problem.

[stevenash]

1 hour ago, new tobie said:

people go into homes under construction in my neighborhood all the time Steve. Although I own a home in this area, I look at the new homes also. 

In the middle of a jog?

[tvc184]

Some of these side bar arguments and questions are mostly a diversion to prove one way or the other. 

 It didn’t matter if there is a video showing Arbery arguing with the cops two years earlier. It doesn’t matter if he wasn’t completely stable mentally, it doesn’t matter about race relations and who has the most violent community,  it doesn’t matter if he was jogging and so on. 

 What matters is GA law on citizen arrest (CA), what the required knowledge is to justify such an arrest and what force or threats can be used. 
 

These are the questions that in my opinion matter. 

 Was Arbery committing a crime that GA law allows for a CA? 

 If that existed, did the men have the required direct knowledge of the crime?

What force does GA law allow for a CA and is displaying a firearm lawful without provocation of deadly force by the suspect?

If the men unlawfully displayed a weapon to apprehend Arbery for a non-violent, did Arbery have the right of self defense and stand your ground against the men?

 Short of knowing these answers...... 

[tvc184]

And if the answer to either of my first questions is “no”, we need not proceed any further down the list.

 If the answer to either is no, the Murder charge is valid. If both are yes, more details are needed but the first two are critical. No valid crime to justify a CA or not having the required knowledge to justify such an arrest and thesec guys need to make the best plea possible.

 I am not saying those are the facts as I don’t know (nor anyone else reading this)  but if you can’t get past both of those, these guys are rightfully in deep trouble.

[Rez]

2 hours ago, baddog said:

Didn’t I say, “that’s just me”?

I understand that -- I'm just throwing in my two cents. I hope it didn't seem like I was attacking you. 

[CardinalBacker]

1 hour ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

Yes, indeed I have, for good and bad. I also have first hand experience of how police have treated both sides. Just being in the wrong place at the wrong time isn't a crime. And it sure pisses em off when they cant find nothing to justify the mistreatment of those they feel are guilty. Police are the first step of the justice system. Not the judge, jury, and executioner.

My response was only to show the errors of your ways. Before you, or anyone else, attempts to prove a point, check the facts. Simmons is much different now than it was in my day, and probably yours as well.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Sorry, I will plea the 5th on the last question. Not my place to judge. Not yours either. American society, as a whole, has a violence problem.

You’re a weak person.

Deflect, deflect, deflect.... And everybody wonders why nothing ever changes.  You have no problems judging law enforcement.  You have no problems judging my beliefs... but you’re too “woke” to address the elephant in the room.

 

 

 

 

 

[new tobie]

1 hour ago, stevenash said:

In the middle of a jog?

I do it in the middle of a walk, because Im to out of shape to jog right now. 

[CardinalBacker]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

And if the answer to either of my first questions is “no”, we need not proceed any further down the list.

 If the answer to either is no, the Murder charge is valid. If both are yes, more details are needed but the first two are critical. No valid crime to justify a CA or not having the required knowledge to justify such an arrest and thesec guys need to make the best plea possible.

 I am not saying those are the facts as I don’t know (nor anyone else reading this)  but if you can’t get past both of those, these guys are rightfully in deep trouble.

If the initial narrative was true (he was just out jogging) and these yayhoos tried to stop him on suspicions about past burglaries alone, they’d be guilty of murder in my book.

ALL of the evidence that indicates that Mr Arbery was repeatedly going into a dwelling that wasn’t his, and was literally being filmed by a man that had just watched him enter and flee the dwelling.  Both of the other suspects made 911 phone calls in the minutes leading up to the shooting. The father was on the line when the shooting occurred.

Obviously all three of the men being held without bail at the moment believed that a crime had been committed based on their actions that day. I personally think that CA laws are stupid...  Even if we sit back and say that based on all that we know now, Mr Arbery has not committed a crime prior to the attempted arrest, the men involved would still be justified in trying to stop Mr Arbery from fleeing. 

Whenever a suspect is arrested and eventually has his/her charges dropped, he doesn’t get to file suit for unlawful arrest. The officer believed that a crime was committed, and in this case all three believed.  It’s a stretch, I know. 
 

At the end of the day, this case will be heard by a jury that will see videos of Mr Arbery in a house that he has no right to be in. They’ll hear of Mr Arbery’s previous theft-related arrest. I have no doubt that they will see the videos of prior confrontations with LEOs that we’ve seen lately. They’ll also watch the video of the final confrontation in which Mr Arbery initiated a life and death struggle over the shotgun. 

Mr Arbery has no claim of self defense in my opinion. If I get stopped by loss prevention leaving Walmart and I slug him/her, I can’t claim self defense, even if it turns out that I owned what they thought I was stealing. Mr Arbery wasn’t jogging... he was fleeing. It’s obvious. 

 

[tvc184]

17 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

If the initial narrative was true (he was just out jogging) and these yayhoos tried to stop him on suspicions about past burglaries alone, they’d be guilty of murder in my book.

ALL of the evidence that indicates that Mr Arbery was repeatedly going into a dwelling that wasn’t his, and was literally being filmed by a man that had just watched him enter and flee the dwelling.  Both of the other suspects made 911 phone calls in the minutes leading up to the shooting. The father was on the line when the shooting occurred.

Obviously all three of the men being held without bail at the moment believed that a crime had been committed based on their actions that day. I personally think that CA laws are stupid...  Even if we sit back and say that based on all that we know now, Mr Arbery has not committed a crime prior to the attempted arrest, the men involved would still be justified in trying to stop Mr Arbery from fleeing. 

Whenever a suspect is arrested and eventually has his/her charges dropped, he doesn’t get to file suit for unlawful arrest. The officer believed that a crime was committed, and in this case all three believed.  It’s a stretch, I know. 
 

At the end of the day, this case will be heard by a jury that will see videos of Mr Arbery in a house that he has no right to be in. They’ll hear of Mr Arbery’s previous theft-related arrest. I have no doubt that they will see the videos of prior confrontations with LEOs that we’ve seen lately. They’ll also watch the video of the final confrontation in which Mr Arbery initiated a life and death struggle over the shotgun. 

Mr Arbery has no claim of self defense in my opinion. If I get stopped by loss prevention leaving Walmart and I slug him/her, I can’t claim self defense, even if it turns out that I owned what they thought I was stealing. Mr Arbery wasn’t jogging... he was fleeing. It’s obvious. 

 

I disagree on several points.

 Yes you can sue for unlawful arrest.

I don’t that GA or any state laws allow bringing things like a confrontation with the police. Those types of evidence can normally only come out in a punishment phase of s trial and only after a conviction.

 Arbery can’t claim self defense because he is dead but the DA will be able to bring up self defense laws. Even if Arbery has no right of self defense, that doesn’t negate murder. If you are in Walmart arguing with someone and he bops you in the nose, you would have a hard time claiming self defense by deadly force. A bloody nose doesn’t justify getting shot.

 It doesn’t matter if he was jogging or fleeing. Neither justifies deadly force. 

[CardinalBacker]

2 hours ago, tvc184 said:

I disagree on several points.

 Yes you can sue for unlawful arrest.

I don’t that GA or any state laws allow bringing things like a confrontation with the police. Those types of evidence can normally only come out in a punishment phase of s trial and only after a conviction.

 Arbery can’t claim self defense because he is dead but the DA will be able to bring up self defense laws. Even if Arbery has no right of self defense, that doesn’t negate murder. If you are in Walmart arguing with someone and he bops you in the nose, you would have a hard time claiming self defense by deadly force. A bloody nose doesn’t justify getting shot.

 It doesn’t matter if he was jogging or fleeing. Neither justifies deadly force. 

Okay... they can’t bring about prior arrest records and such of the defendant(s) as they’d be prejudicial towards them. In this case where we’re talking about the victim, it’s all fair game (as I understand it).  In rape cases, they don’t wait until the punishment phase to  sling mud at the accuser. 
 

Has you or anybody you’ve worked with or trained with been sued for wrongful arrest after a person was found not guilty? Or by an arrestee who eventually had their charges dropped? If that was the case, you’d run out of enrollees at the academy. 
 

I disagree with your “bop on the nose” scenario. What if I defend myself with a bat? Is that reasonable? Or am I, when criminally assaulted, only allowed to match my assailant’s weapon of choice? He hits me, I can hit him back. But I’d better not use a weapon.  However, if my assailant pulls a weapon of his own, now I am willing to engage him with a like weapon, but if I have a bigger stick, or match his knife with my gun, I’ll face murder charges. 
 

And I guarantee that if I bop a cop on the nose, I’d be lucky to get out with just a felony and not a couple of bullet wounds. You, as a police officer, have no more rights to defend yourself than do I.  
 

Lastly... what is the generally accepted definition of deadly force? Do you believe that brandishing a weapon is considered deadly force, or does that come it when the weapon is used? Because my interpretation of deadly force would be when the weapon was actually used. In this case that didn’t happen until the struggle over the weapon... and in instance deadly force would be completely usable beyond question.  Deadly force wasn’t used to stop anybody from jogging or fleeing. There was a mortal struggle initiated by the deceased when deadly force was used. Unless my definition is too restrictive.  I think of that cop from SC that shot a man in the back from about 50 feet away on camera. He’s rightfully in jail now.  There was a brief struggle and the victim made a break for it. He might have gotten the best of the officer in the struggle. It was just a traffic stop, nothing criminal if my memory is correct. THAT was wrong all of the way around.  

[SmashMouth]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

Okay... they can’t bring about prior arrest records and such of the defendant(s) as they’d be prejudicial towards them. In this case where we’re talking about the victim, it’s all fair game (as I understand it).  In rape cases, they don’t wait until the punishment phase to  sling mud at the accuser. 
 

Has you or anybody you’ve worked with or trained with been sued for wrongful arrest after a person was found not guilty? Or by an arrestee who eventually had their charges dropped? If that was the case, you’d run out of enrollees at the academy. 
 

I disagree with your “bop on the nose” scenario. What if I defend myself with a bat? Is that reasonable? Or am I, when criminally assaulted, only allowed to match my assailant’s weapon of choice? He hits me, I can hit him back. But I’d better not use a weapon.  However, if my assailant pulls a weapon of his own, now I am willing to engage him with a like weapon, but if I have a bigger stick, or match his knife with my gun, I’ll face murder charges. 
 

And I guarantee that if I bop a cop on the nose, I’d be lucky to get out with just a felony and not a couple of bullet wounds. You, as a police officer, have no more rights to defend yourself than do I.  
 

Lastly... what is the generally accepted definition of deadly force? Do you believe that brandishing a weapon is considered deadly force, or does that come it when the weapon is used? Because my interpretation of deadly force would be when the weapon was actually used. In this case that didn’t happen until the struggle over the weapon... and in instance deadly force would be completely usable beyond question.  Deadly force wasn’t used to stop anybody from jogging or fleeing. There was a mortal struggle initiated by the deceased when deadly force was used. Unless my definition is too restrictive.  I think of that cop from SC that shot a man in the back from about 50 feet away on camera. He’s rightfully in jail now.  There was a brief struggle and the victim made a break for it. He might have gotten the best of the officer in the struggle. It was just a traffic stop, nothing criminal if my memory is correct. THAT was wrong all of the way around.  

You’re a silly man. 

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

Okay... they can’t bring about prior arrest records and such of the defendant(s) as they’d be prejudicial towards them. In this case where we’re talking about the victim, it’s all fair game (as I understand it).  In rape cases, they don’t wait until the punishment phase to  sling mud at the accuser. 
 

Has you or anybody you’ve worked with or trained with been sued for wrongful arrest after a person was found not guilty? Or by an arrestee who eventually had their charges dropped? If that was the case, you’d run out of enrollees at the academy. 
 

I disagree with your “bop on the nose” scenario. What if I defend myself with a bat? Is that reasonable? Or am I, when criminally assaulted, only allowed to match my assailant’s weapon of choice? He hits me, I can hit him back. But I’d better not use a weapon.  However, if my assailant pulls a weapon of his own, now I am willing to engage him with a like weapon, but if I have a bigger stick, or match his knife with my gun, I’ll face murder charges. 
 

And I guarantee that if I bop a cop on the nose, I’d be lucky to get out with just a felony and not a couple of bullet wounds. You, as a police officer, have no more rights to defend yourself than do I.  
 

Lastly... what is the generally accepted definition of deadly force? Do you believe that brandishing a weapon is considered deadly force, or does that come it when the weapon is used? Because my interpretation of deadly force would be when the weapon was actually used. In this case that didn’t happen until the struggle over the weapon... and in instance deadly force would be completely usable beyond question.  Deadly force wasn’t used to stop anybody from jogging or fleeing. There was a mortal struggle initiated by the deceased when deadly force was used. Unless my definition is too restrictive.  I think of that cop from SC that shot a man in the back from about 50 feet away on camera. He’s rightfully in jail now.  There was a brief struggle and the victim made a break for it. He might have gotten the best of the officer in the struggle. It was just a traffic stop, nothing criminal if my memory is correct. THAT was wrong all of the way around.  

No, it’s not all fair game. It has to be relevant to the trial however, if a defendant (or anyone)  takes the stand, you can impeach his testimony by trying to show that he is untruthful. For the guys to claim self defense in this case, I believe they are going to have to take the stand to explain their actions. They obviously don’t have to by law and their lawyers can try to make the case without it but it will be difficult with what I think the state attorney is going to bring.

Dropping a case or being found not guilty has nothing to do with a lawful arrest. Probable cause is a way different standard than proof beyond s reasonable doubt. Yes I have seen officers sued and successfully.

Deadly force is defined (at least in Texas) by statute. It isn’t merely “generally accepted”.

DF used on a person is actual use of deadly force but the threat of deadly force (in Texas) with a deadly Weapon can get you up to 99 years in the hoosegow according who you threaten. Up to 20 years for everyone else. That is the mere threat and not even use.

i disagree with your struggle over the weapon makes the use of DF would be “completely useable beyond question”. Welllll.... not so much. If a person displays a weapon and/or threatens DF when it isn’t lawful, he loses his use of self defense. I will quote Texas law (as an example as I don’t like looking at GA) on self defense not being lawful. In your terminology, if a mortal was initiated by the deceased. No, if the shooter had no legal standing for displaying the shotgun, morally initiating the struggle is legal by Arbery. He has just as much right of self defense and stand your ground against an unlawful use of force including the threat. This is Texas law when self defense is not lawful:

>>>>>(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;

and (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used. (b) The use of force against another is not justified: (1) in response to verbal provocation alone;<<<<

Does not provoke... if the shooter had no lawful use of a shotgun to stop a man merely running (even away), then the shooter provoked the incident. Also, no defense when engaged in any crime other than C misdemeanor or in other words, a traffic citation. So if brandishing a firearm without the lawful use of self defense is a crime in GA, again (and I bet it is), the shooter broke the law and again, loses lawful self defense. So, you can’t commit a crime and then claim self defense. As my questions were, was an arrest lawful under GA law and was the display of a weapon to make that arrest in that situation lawful. If not lawful on either, case closed. 

If the shooter displayed the shotgun unlawfully, it is Arbery that had the lawful right of self defense, not the shooter.

I am not sure what the Michael Slager case has to do with this except even an officer can’t guess what “may” happen. If so the police could legally shoot anyone because they “may” do something. 

[CardinalBacker]

42 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

No, it’s not all fair game. It has to be relevant to the trial however, if a defendant (or anyone)  takes the stand, you can impeach his testimony by trying to show that he is untruthful. For the guys to claim self defense in this case, I believe they are going to have to take the stand to explain their actions. They obviously don’t have to by law and their lawyers can try to make the case without it but it will be difficult with what I think the state attorney is going to bring.

Dropping a case or being found not guilty has nothing to do with a lawful arrest. Probable cause is a way different standard than proof beyond s reasonable doubt. Yes I have seen officers sued and successfully.

Deadly force is defined (at least in Texas) by statute. It isn’t merely “generally accepted”.

DF used on a person is actual use of deadly force but the threat of deadly force (in Texas) with a deadly Weapon can get you up to 99 years in the hoosegow according who you threaten. Up to 20 years for everyone else. That is the mere threat and not even use.

i disagree with your struggle over the weapon makes the use of DF would be “completely useable beyond question”. Welllll.... not so much. If a person displays a weapon and/or threatens DF when it isn’t lawful, he loses his use of self defense. I will quote Texas law (as an example as I don’t like looking at GA) on self defense not being lawful. In your terminology, if a mortal was initiated by the deceased. No, if the shooter had no legal standing for displaying the shotgun, morally initiating the struggle is legal by Arbery. He has just as much right of self defense and stand your ground against an unlawful use of force including the threat. This is Texas law when self defense is not lawful:

>>>>>(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;

and (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used. (b) The use of force against another is not justified: (1) in response to verbal provocation alone;<<<<

Does not provoke... if the shooter had no lawful use of a shotgun to stop a man merely running (even away), then the shooter provoked the incident. Also, no defense when engaged in any crime other than C misdemeanor or in other words, a traffic citation. So if brandishing a firearm without the lawful use of self defense is a crime in GA, again (and I bet it is), the shooter broke the law and again, loses lawful self defense. So, you can’t commit a crime and then claim self defense. As my questions were, was an arrest lawful under GA law and was the display of a weapon to make that arrest in that situation lawful. If not lawful on either, case closed. 

If the shooter displayed the shotgun unlawfully, it is Arbery that had the lawful right of self defense, not the shooter.

I am not sure what the Michael Slager case has to do with this except even an officer can’t guess what “may” happen. If so the police could legally shoot anyone because they “may” do something. 

Let’s break it down hypothetically. Same exact scenario, except instead of the two citizens in a truck, you have two armed police officers hopping out of a police cruiser. Oh, and the video was filmed by dash cam of a third cop. 
 

Do you still think that all three cops should be held without bail? No crime was committed by jogging or fleeing, remember?
 

 

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

Let’s break it down hypothetically. Same exact scenario, except instead of the two citizens in a truck, you have two armed police officers hopping out of a police cruiser. Oh, and the video was filmed by dash cam of a third cop. 
 

Do you still think that all three cops should be held without bail? No crime was committed by jogging or fleeing, remember?
 

 

 No, you are comparing apples to Dodge Durangos.

 The third guy is not indicted for the video. He is indicted (from what I have read) for assisting, not videoing. Video in a public place is lawful.

 Also, officers have the authority to detain by force in order to investigate. Civilians do not. In IL v. Wardlow the SCOTUS ruled that seeing the cops in a high crime area and bolting away is enough reasonable suspicion to detain a person without violating the Fourth Amendment. 

I am not sure what no crime to jog or flee refers to....

[tvc184]

Aaaaaand now the FBI is investigating it......

[tvc184]

If the retired cop has any money in his retirement account, I’ll bet he won’t have any when this is over, no matter the outcome unless a go fund me account gives him some. Even if he beats the rap, he will be penniless and won’t be able to go back to his old job.

 About the best he can hope for being is a free destitute.....

 And what did the community policing cop text.... let the retired cop handle it? 

[CardinalBacker]

6 hours ago, tvc184 said:

 No, you are comparing apples to Dodge Durangos.

 The third guy is not indicted for the video. He is indicted (from what I have read) for assisting, not videoing. Video in a public place is lawful.

 Also, officers have the authority to detain by force in order to investigate. Civilians do not. In IL v. Wardlow the SCOTUS ruled that seeing the cops in a high crime area and bolting away is enough reasonable suspicion to detain a person without violating the Fourth Amendment. 

I am not sure what no crime to jog or flee refers to....

I disagree. We’re comparing the exact same scenario, except one group has badges and the other does not. One is accused of murder and the other is “just doing their job.” You just eloquently described what the people who protest these things have been complaining about. I guess what you’re saying is that the old man should have just had somebody carrying his commission and then this would have all been okay. 

They weren’t detaining him to investigate. They were trying to detain him until the police could arrive. But I don’t think they got to express much except “stop!” before Mr Arbery attacked.  
 

Since you don’t like that scenario, let’s pretend we’re talking about an armed security guard at a Walmart in GA. Loss Prevention radios him to stop the guy in the green jacket... he’s stolen something. The security guard confronts the shopper and a struggle ensues in which the shopper tries to disarm the guard and gets shot. Our guard didn’t see the actual theft-loss prevention thinks they did. No cover for a CA. How would you feel then? Would your opinion change if the guard was actually an off-duty police officer who wasn’t wearing his uniform to a side job?

14 hours ago, tvc184 said:

 It doesn’t matter if he was jogging or fleeing. Neither justifies deadly force. 

[SmashMouth]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

I disagree. We’re comparing the exact same scenario, except one group has badges and the other does not. One is accused of murder and the other is “just doing their job.” You just eloquently described what the people who protest these things have been complaining about. I guess what you’re saying is that the old man should have just had somebody carrying his commission and then this would have all been okay. 

They weren’t detaining him to investigate. They were trying to detain him until the police could arrive. But I don’t think they got to express much except “stop!” before Mr Arbery attacked.  
 

Since you don’t like that scenario, let’s pretend we’re talking about an armed security guard at a Walmart in GA. Loss Prevention radios him to stop the guy in the green jacket... he’s stolen something. The security guard confronts the shopper and a struggle ensues in which the shopper tries to disarm the guard and gets shot. Our guard didn’t see the actual theft-loss prevention thinks they did. No cover for a CA. How would you feel then? Would your opinion change if the guard was actually an off-duty police officer who wasn’t wearing his uniform to a side job?

The problem with all of this is that NONE of these hypothetical situations happened, nor do they line up with what actually happened. Those guys weren’t cops. The kid didn’t steal anything. And now he is dead. If your entire point is to say that the current circumstances don’t warrant a racial outcry from the black community, then I will ride with you until more evidence is exposed. If you’re  trying to say that the 2 (now 3) men arrested for the alleged murder of Arbery were acting lawfully and completely within their rights to detain and eventually kill Arbery then I’m unbuckling my seatbelt. If you’re implying that Arbery is a POS that, through his prior actions that day and with previous altercations with LE got what he deserved and the murder suspects should be let go, then pull over at the next light, I’m getting out. 

[SmashMouth]

Plus, please explain what you mean with the consistent use of the term “fleeing”. 

[CardinalBacker]

30 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

The problem with all of this is that NONE of these hypothetical situations happened, nor do they line up with what actually happened. Those guys weren’t cops. The kid didn’t steal anything. And now he is dead. If your entire point is to say that the current circumstances don’t warrant a racial outcry from the black community, then I will ride with you until more evidence is exposed. If you’re  trying to say that the 2 (now 3) men arrested for the alleged murder of Arbery were acting lawfully and completely within their rights to detain and eventually kill Arbery then I’m unbuckling my seatbelt. If you’re implying that Arbery is a POS that, through his prior actions that day and with previous altercations with LE got what he deserved and the murder suspects should be let go, then pull over at the next light, I’m getting out. 

Those are just questions for the resident LEO, TVC.  The questions are legitimate.  The unfortunate event happened because of the actions of the three men who are currently being held without bail, according to the state and TVC.  IF those men had been police officers and Mr. Arbery acted the exact same way, you'd have TVC arguing that the whole thing was Mr. Arbery's fault.  If Mr. Arbery's actions are the exact same in both scenarios, and the only difference is that the people trying to detain him had badges, then we've all got a problem.  

1.  We agree on the racial outcry... I'm not seeing any evidence to say this was racially motivated.

2.  I believe that they WERE within their rights to ask Arbery to stop.  Arbery was within his rights to decline their request/order.  TVC states that if somebody bops me in the nose, I have no right to use deadly force, then turns around and justifies an "unlawful order" by the father/son as justification for the use of deadly force by Mr. Arbery...  Because face it.... if somebody is trying to take your weapon, they're going to use it on you if they can.  We keep talking about the events in a straight line... "to detain and eventually kill Arbery" were the words that you used.  You left out a key piece of the series of events-the one where Arbery initiated the struggle for the gun. 

3.  I don't know if Arbery was a POS or not... that doesn't matter.  His prior encounters with LE only serve to illustrate a pattern of confrontational behavior when engaging law enforcement and bolster the argument that Mr. Arbery overreacted during this encounter.... he's obviously got a pattern of doing so.  We can see it with our own eyes.  Mr. Arbery wasn't killed for jogging, and he wasn't killed for repeatedly going into a dwelling that he had no right to be in.  He was killed during a struggle over a gun that HE initiated. 

I don't think I've ever indicated that I felt Mr. Arbery "got what he deserved."  I wish that all involved had made different choices that day.

HOWEVER, if I drive up in my driveway and see a man fleeing my tool shed, so I pull out my pistola and holler for him to stop, then he tries to take my gun away from me and ends up dead, that I am responsible for his murder...  we just don't see things the same way. 

 

 

 

[PAMFAM10]

On 5/23/2020 at 3:33 PM, CardinalBacker said:

Why can’t anybody just admit the obvious? 

“It’s dehumanizing.”  
 

You know what’s dehumanizing? When hundreds of black kids get killed over bandanas, tennis shoes, and weed deals and there own people can’t even admit that it’s a problem. When the internet is flooded with videos of assaults, beat downs, and fights, but everybody just wants to pretend it doesn’t exist.  If Mr Arbery’s shooters had been black, the only difference would be that the cameraman would have yelled “Worldstar” and nobody would have  cared.  No protest, no celebrities, no news coverage.  

Let’s leave race out if it. Should one group of people who make up 13% of the population be committing 50% of the violent crimes in the US? 

 

Where is you going with this? I wouldn’t care if the shooters were  white black purple. You have no understanding of my viewpoints. I’m educated and have come  to my own conclusions about race in America. I think every race in this country has its fraction of people who make It hard on the others. But none of this has anything to do with that. If all persons in video was same color. I’ll still be interested in finding out why no arrests was made until after video was made public. And who shall be held accountable.

 

Everything isn’t about race but I’m not going to act like this country doesn’t have a race problem I’m only 28 and I’ve done witness the worst from both sides almost daily. I have a friend who recently just got disowned by her parents simply because she engaged to a different shade of skin. (It’s not just cnn and democrats it’s real life too).

[CardinalBacker]

50 minutes ago, PAMFAM10 said:

Where is you going with this? I wouldn’t care if the shooters were  white black purple. You have no understanding of my viewpoints. I’m educated and have come  to my own conclusions about race in America. I think every race in this country has its fraction of people who make It hard on the others. But none of this has anything to do with that. If all persons in video was same color. I’ll still be interested in finding out why no arrests was made until after video was made public. And who shall be held accountable.

 

Everything isn’t about race but I’m not going to act like this country doesn’t have a race problem I’m only 28 and I’ve done witness the worst from both sides almost daily. I have a friend who recently just got disowned by her parents simply because she engaged to a different shade of skin. (It’s not just cnn and democrats it’s real life too).

Your point about no action being taken until the video was made public is spot on.  I feel as if the thing should have been presented to a grand jury initially, and I also doubt that any progress would have been made even still if the video hadn't gone public.  It also seems to me that the initial 2 DAs were investigating this crime with the innocence of the father/son a foregone conclusion-and that's not the way it should have been handled.  

The point about violence is this... if you have a segment of the population that reacts more violently when confronted with adversity, at some point some of them will react violently with the wrong person (people) and get shot.  You can see it in the postings here... to paraphrase, "well, if that cop can't protect himself with his fists, then he needs to go find another job."  "Somebody forgets to add extra pickles on your Big Mac?  Beat they _____." 

The other reason for pointing out violence that plagues the black community is to point out the hypocrisy.  Why is Ahmaud Arbery's unfortunate end somehow the sign that white america/law enforcement are out here killing off black men, but the two dozen or so black men that were killed right here in Jefferson County last year not worth mentioning?  Let's be honest.... if Mr. Arbery had been killed by black men it wouldn't have made the news in Atlanta, and you and I dang sure wouldn't be talking about it three or four months later.  

We're all getting pitted against each other and it's ridiculous.  

 

This morning Gayle King can't even SPEAK over the horror....  a black man died while being detained in MN and a white woman from NY made a *gasp* possibly false police report against a black man in Central Park.  How can this be?

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

On the other hand, you have:

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

And ol' Gayle just can't summon the tears for the 8 young black men killed this weekend in Chicago alone. 

The whole narrative of "race problems in America" is bad joke told repeatedly to get a response out of the lowest thinkers in the land. 

From February:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

25 shot, 11 of which were kids.  But let's LOSE OUR MINDS over Tamir Rice.  Bad police are the problem, right?

 

 

[SmashMouth]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

HOWEVER, if I drive up in my driveway and see a man fleeing my tool shed, so I pull out my pistola and holler for him to stop, then he tries to take my gun away from me and ends up dead, that I am responsible for his murder...  we just don't see things the same way.

What gave them the right to attempt detaining Arbery?

“GA-17-4-60. Grounds for arrest 

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.”

[PAMFAM10]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

Your point about no action being taken until the video was made public is spot on.  I feel as if the thing should have been presented to a grand jury initially, and I also doubt that any progress would have been made even still if the video hadn't gone public.  It also seems to me that the initial 2 DAs were investigating this crime with the innocence of the father/son a foregone conclusion-and that's not the way it should have been handled.  

The point about violence is this... if you have a segment of the population that reacts more violently when confronted with adversity, at some point some of them will react violently with the wrong person (people) and get shot.  You can see it in the postings here... to paraphrase, "well, if that cop can't protect himself with his fists, then he needs to go find another job."  "Somebody forgets to add extra pickles on your Big Mac?  Beat they _____." 

The other reason for pointing out violence that plagues the black community is to point out the hypocrisy.  Why is Ahmaud Arbery's unfortunate end somehow the sign that white america/law enforcement are out here killing off black men, but the two dozen or so black men that were killed right here in Jefferson County last year not worth mentioning?  Let's be honest.... if Mr. Arbery had been killed by black men it wouldn't have made the news in Atlanta, and you and I dang sure wouldn't be talking about it three or four months later.  

We're all getting pitted against each other and it's ridiculous.  

 

This morning Gayle King can't even SPEAK over the horror....  a black man died while being detained in MN and a white woman from NY made a *gasp* possibly false police report against a black man in Central Park.  How can this be?

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

On the other hand, you have:

 

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

And ol' Gayle just can't summon the tears for the 8 young black men killed this weekend in Chicago alone. 

The whole narrative of "race problems in America" is bad joke told repeatedly to get a response out of the lowest thinkers in the land. 

From February:

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

25 shot, 11 of which were kids.  But let's LOSE OUR MINDS over Tamir Rice.  Bad police are the problem, right?

 

 

The black crime rate is high for many reasons. Still have nothing to do with this incident. I can be upset about blacks killing blacks. I can also be upset with flat out racism that plague the black communities . I don’t have to choose one. A white man can be upset about immigration laws and the crimes in his communities. Also.