Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

The second video shows Arbery wall to the home and stand in the yard for a moment before going into the garage. He leaves shortly after and goes to the backyard. I’d guess the garage door leading into the home was locked. A neighbor across the street comes outside and watches the house Arbery walked into. A couple minutes pass and then Arbery runs from the home toward the area he was approached by the father-son combo.

Do we believe he wasn’t trying to break into that home?
Do we believe he was ONLY running because he wanted a workout, and the timing of his sprint was just coincidental to the apparent burglary attempt?
Do we believe that his actions at the Home didn’t influence him to fight the father-son in an effort to avoid arrests?

You know, both parties could be wrong here. I don’t believe they should’ve approached him. I do believe he was burglarizing that home. I don’t believe it was racially motivated because we do have video showings what appeared to be a burglary which is consistent with the father-son.

And, no, because it has to be repeated for fear of my opinion getting interpreted incorrectly, I still don’t believe the shooting was justified.

(05-10-2020, 01:56 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]He was killed by people who had no business following him, talking to him, detaining him, or brandishing at him. That's what the video and pictures clearly show.

Is it illegal to follow someone, when you don't have a restraining order?
Is it illegal to talk to someone?
Did they detain him? I think the video shows otherwise. He ran around the vehicle while the son had his back to the open door. There was never any detainment.
Is it illegal to open carry in Georgia? They also never pointed the gun at him in the video.


You may not agree with what happened. They should have stayed in the truck and followed him. This issue is you don't seem to care what the laws are. You want to convict them because you FEEL it was wrong. That is an issue with liberal justice, the laws don't matter it is all about feeling. Even if they were a grand master or whatever the KKK calls it, unless they did something illegal, it doesn't matter. They could be terrible people, but plenty of other terrible people get off on crimes or terrible acts all the time.

(05-10-2020, 12:36 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-09-2020, 03:21 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]

All the usual race hustlers are in on this one, so you know the MSM got their marching orders.
The mythical tale is already being spun. 
He was unarmed.  He was out jogging.  He was killed in cold blood.  It was racially-motivated.
None of this is true.  The video shows clearly enough.
Arbery attacked the man holding the shotgun, punched him several times, and tried to take the shotgun away.
Arbery had both hands on the shotgun when the first round went off.  Abrery was not unarmed. 
It is likely that Arbery shot himself by trying to wrench the shotgun away from a man who had his finger inside the trigger guard.

Curious.

You assert he was armed and that he iniitiated the attack on two armed men.

Why didn't he, I dunno, use the weapon he had?!?

You say the murder was not racist in nature.

What of these photos?



More to come...

Bullseye,  I really respect you and admire your posts here.  However, what do those photos have to do with this incident?  Seriously.

From the facts and evidence that I have seen it is my opinion that this wasn't a "hate crime" and didn't have anything to do with race.

The facts are (as I understand) that this guy (Arbery) had a history of criminal conduct.  Supposedly there had been recent burglaries in the area and supposedly someone fitting his description was suspect.  This isn't an area (neighborhood) that he lived in.  Surveillance video of him walking down the street, stopping to look around then going onto private property has been revealed.  While that is a crime it is not a felony.  Also on the surveillance video he is seen coming out of the home and looking around again before going towards the back of the property.  Not long after that he is recorded running from the house, not jogging.

He wasn't "out for a jog" or out exercising and he did trespass onto private property.

A review of the reporting officer's report indicates that he was being chased and persons tried to stop him multiple times, hence by the time the video of the shooting it appears that he is "jogging".  By that point he was probably tired and made a last ditch effort to "get away".  Remember, he not only had the truck with the two suspects in front of him, he also had the vehicle behind him that was filming it.

One thing that I want to make clear.  I don't condone or justify what the suspects in this case did, however upon closer inspection of the incident video it appeared that he directly confronted the man holding the shotgun in an aggressive manner.  Perhaps if he had just run by the person holding the shotgun wouldn't have pulled the trigger.

Again, from what is known and public information regarding this case, it has nothing to do with race and photos like what you shared and posted do not help to bring appropriate justice.

(05-10-2020, 02:11 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-10-2020, 01:51 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]If your implication is that he’s a racist and this is the motive for his encounter with Arbery then the mugshot would show that Arbery is a criminal and then fully capable of being the person on video burglarizing the home. You posted that picture to establish motive and nothing else. Pictures alone don’t explain what happened any more than his mugshot proves he’s a burglar.

How about you stop making vague implications and be clear with your posts instead?

You said you can believe it to a posts that addressed multiple points. If you didn’t want someone asking what you can believe, then you should’ve said it clearly.

People in this thread, including the OP, have dismissed out of hand the possibility this is racially motivated.  As for the mugshot, for my purposes in this point, or for the purposes of the applicable law, it doesn't matter if Arbery has a prior arrest for anything.  Prior arrests  do not trigger the citizens arrest statute, nor do the have any bearing on the self defense statute.

For the hard of reading, the author of the post to which I replied said he could not believe people would defend the two yahoos.  Flsportsgod then expresses disbelief about people villifying the African American for defending himself.  That's what I can believe.

Whenever a killing of an unarmed African American happens, there is always a rush to vilify them. Always.  The mere possibility that an African American might have a reasonable apprehension or fear of imminent physical bodily harm or death is almost never considered.

Even in the Botham Jean case, idiots were saying he should not have reacted to someone uninvited trying to enter HIS apartment, and observing he ha marijuana.

Is that clear enough, or do I need to use stick figures and sock puppets?

I know you get uber sensitive every time we talk about race, but how about dialing back and make sure your clear before you assume the reader misunderstood you. 

It’s possible that you said you can believe that two white dudes loaded up firearms and approached a black dude about something he didn’t do. Or, it’s possible you meant to say you can believe that people are defending two white guys for murdering a black guy that didn’t do anything. Or, it’s possible that you can believe that people wouldn’t understand what is going through a black guys mind when approached by two armed white dude. 

There’s always speculation that an unarmed black guy was doing something to justify it. To that I do agree. I also agree that this are seldom open and shut cases, and you can usually find instances when that unarmed black guy wasn’t innocent (Michael Brown). Not every case is a Tamir Rice, and they’re treated as such but only when a white guy kills a black guy. 

Maybe you should use puppets next time. You’d definitely make more sense.

The race thing is present on two levels here.
one question is, why did they suspect him of being a robber? Would they have suspected him, if he was doing all the same things but happened to be white? You guys are already trying to answer that question.
The other question is, if the jogger was white, or if the shooters were black, does the prosecutor sit on the case and do nothing for 3 months?

(05-10-2020, 02:01 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-10-2020, 01:42 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]If we assume the pic on the right is one of Arbery, and the pic on the left is a still of the incident where he is murdered, then all we have is a pic of the murder victim.  There is no mistake of the victim here.  It is commonly accepted fact Arbery is dead,

If we are to surmise that Arbery had been previously arrested for a crime, so what?  A prior arrest for a crime does not trigger Georgia's citizen's arrest statute, nor does it override the requirements of Georgia's self defense law.

---

My posts in this thread have been short.

Keep up.

You almost comprehended the point. You assumed a white guy is a racist using a picture but you aren't assuming Ahmaud can be criminally culpable based on a photo? White guy photo=no crime, Black guy photo=crime. No hypocrisy there? We should stick to what is a known entity and not build up some kind of obtuse narrative just for argument's sake. Especially a racially charged one. FYI, dead does not lawfully equal murder.

The point was immaterial.

I posted the pictures to show a) possible racial animus on behalf of McMichael instead of reflexively rejecting the possibility the way most on the right do; and b) the potential for McMichael NOT having enough information to trigger the citizen's arrest statute in the first place based upon possible mistaken identity.

Georgia's citizen arrest statute reads

Quote: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.

(Emphasis added)


Questions to consider at face value:

1.  Was the offense committed within his presence or within his immediate knowledge? 

2.  Was the offense a felony?

Even assuming Arbery had a prior arrest or conviction for burglary, it would be immaterial for the purposes if determining whether McMichael was there/had immediate knowledge when he supposedly committed the offense on 2/23.

As to question 2 even if you assume the video showing the individual entering that house is Arbery, and McMichael relied upon that video to gain "immediate knowledge" none of that is probative as to whether Arbery committed a felony in 2/23.

Georgia code 16-7-21  defines criminal trespass thusly

Quote:(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.
© For the purposes of subsection (b) of this Code section, permission to enter or invitation to enter given by a minor who is or is not present on or in the property of the minor's parent or guardian is not sufficient to allow lawful entry of another person upon the land, premises, vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft owned or rightfully occupied by such minor's parent or guardian if such parent or guardian has previously given notice that such entry is forbidden or notice to depart.
(d) A person who commits the offense of criminal trespass shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(emphasis added)

Conversely, Georgia defines burglary in 16-7-1 thusly

Quote:(b) A person commits the offense of burglary in the first degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant dwelling house of another or any building, vehicle, railroad car, watercraft, aircraft, or other such structure designed for use as the dwelling of another. A person who commits the offense of burglary in the first degree shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years. Upon the second conviction for burglary in the first degree, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two nor more than 20 years. Upon the third and all subsequent convictions for burglary in the first degree, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 25 years.

© A person commits the offense of burglary in the second degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant building, structure, vehicle, railroad car, watercraft, or aircraft. A person who commits the offense of burglary in the second degree shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years. Upon the second and all subsequent convictions for burglary in the second degree, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than eight years.

(emphasis added)

Assuming the individual on the second video shown entering the house is Arbery, and assuming he did not have permission to enter, how could McMichael have known his intent to commit a felony?  Was there anything missing that was taken by Arbery or damaged by Arbery?  How would McMichael have been present or otherwise have immediate knowledge?

It's far from established that Mcmichael was within his right to effectuate a citizen's arrest here.

Then there is the issue of self defense.

According to Georgia Criminal jury instructions...

Quote:GEORGIA CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS (G.C.J.I. 2003)
GA  3.02.10 Justification; Use of Force in Defense of Self or Others
A person is justified in threatening or using force against another person when, and to the extent that, he/she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himselfYherself or a third person against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person is justified in using force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if that person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself/herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
 
O.C.G.A. §16-3-21
 
The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not justified.
 
State v. Shepperd, 253 Ga. 321 (1984) Bishop v. State, 271 Ga. 291 (1999) (Give the following only as appropriate.)
 
A person is not justified in using force, if that person
a) initially provokes the use of force against himself7herself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; or
b) is attempting to commit, is committing, or is fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony (define arguable felony); or
c) was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates his/her intent to withdraw to the other person, and the other person still continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.
 

(emphasis added)

McMichael initiated the use of force against himself.  This was not a case where Arbery entered into McMichaels home and placed McMichael and his family in danger.

Arbery was running and unarmed when the McMicahels retrieved their weapons got the keys to their truck, entered their truck and pursued Arbery.

They drove past him in the street and cut him off.  He exited his truck with his shotgun.  What basis could there have been in Arbery's mind they had any authority, apparent or actual, to confront him in such a manner?  They weren't in police cars or uniforms.  There is no indication they presented law enforcement badges.  There was no reason for him to comply.  There was, however, reason to have a fear or apprehension of threat of imminent death or great bodily injury.

By their actions, they triggered the fight or flight reflexes in Arbery, and effectively precluded him from flight.

What the hell was he supposed to do?!?

People have noted that the McMichaels called the police not once but twice.  I have heard the recordings of both 9-1-1 calls and they raise questions.

1.  Why couldn't they clearly articulate exactly what the wrongdoing was?  The 9-1-1 operator prompts them repeatedly to clarify.  They said he was running down the street.  Running down the street is NOT in itself a crime. 

2.  If they called the police, why not let them handle it?  What were the exigent circumstances requiring them to confront Arbery?  Had he attacked other people?  Had he threatened anyone else?   If escape was a concern, why?  He was on foot, they were in a truck.  If they could clearly identify him (appearance and identity) why not rely upon the police to arrest him?  Was McMichael, a former police officer, somehow not trusting of the ability or willingness of the police department to apprehend a suspect on foot?

(05-10-2020, 02:32 PM)JagNGeorgia Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-10-2020, 02:11 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]People in this thread, including the OP, have dismissed out of hand the possibility this is racially motivated.  As for the mugshot, for my purposes in this point, or for the purposes of the applicable law, it doesn't matter if Arbery has a prior arrest for anything.  Prior arrests  do not trigger the citizens arrest statute, nor do the have any bearing on the self defense statute.

For the hard of reading, the author of the post to which I replied said he could not believe people would defend the two yahoos.  Flsportsgod then expresses disbelief about people villifying the African American for defending himself.  That's what I can believe.

Whenever a killing of an unarmed African American happens, there is always a rush to vilify them. Always.  The mere possibility that an African American might have a reasonable apprehension or fear of imminent physical bodily harm or death is almost never considered.

Even in the Botham Jean case, idiots were saying he should not have reacted to someone uninvited trying to enter HIS apartment, and observing he ha marijuana.

Is that clear enough, or do I need to use stick figures and sock puppets?

I know you get uber sensitive every time we talk about race, but how about dialing back and make sure your clear before you assume the reader misunderstood you. 

It’s possible that you said you can believe that two white dudes loaded up firearms and approached a black dude about something he didn’t do. Or, it’s possible you meant to say you can believe that people are defending two white guys for murdering a black guy that didn’t do anything. Or, it’s possible that you can believe that people wouldn’t understand what is going through a black guys mind when approached by two armed white dude. 

There’s always speculation that an unarmed black guy was doing something to justify it. To that I do agree. I also agree that this are seldom open and shut cases, and you can usually find instances when that unarmed black guy wasn’t innocent (Michael Brown). Not every case is a Tamir Rice, and they’re treated as such but only when a white guy kills a black guy. 

Maybe you should use puppets next time. You’d definitely make more sense.

I know you do too, considering you have arrest quotas to meet.

If more whiites would not abuse their authority (actual or assumed) and made sure they had all of the facts before they killed unarmed African Americans and deem them culpable for their own deaths, there would be no need for my postings.

Our county supposedly has the greatest criminal justice system in the world.

If it's fair and true, then let it work for black defendants as well as whites.  Don't impose the death penalty before trial for crimes that don't warrant it. 

I've zero problems with African Americans being punished for crimes they committed if they have been proven guilty for them, up to and including the death penalty.  But let them make it to jail and court and let the punishment fit the crime.

(05-10-2020, 02:21 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-10-2020, 12:36 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]Curious.

You assert he was armed and that he iniitiated the attack on two armed men.

Why didn't he, I dunno, use the weapon he had?!?

You say the murder was not racist in nature.

What of these photos?



More to come...

Bullseye,  I really respect you and admire your posts here.  However, what do those photos have to do with this incident?  Seriously.

From the facts and evidence that I have seen it is my opinion that this wasn't a "hate crime" and didn't have anything to do with race.

The facts are (as I understand) that this guy (Arbery) had a history of criminal conduct.  Supposedly there had been recent burglaries in the area and supposedly someone fitting his description was suspect.  This isn't an area (neighborhood) that he lived in.  Surveillance video of him walking down the street, stopping to look around then going onto private property has been revealed.  While that is a crime it is not a felony.  Also on the surveillance video he is seen coming out of the home and looking around again before going towards the back of the property.  Not long after that he is recorded running from the house, not jogging.

He wasn't "out for a jog" or out exercising and he did trespass onto private property.

A review of the reporting officer's report indicates that he was being chased and persons tried to stop him multiple times, hence by the time the video of the shooting it appears that he is "jogging".  By that point he was probably tired and made a last ditch effort to "get away".  Remember, he not only had the truck with the two suspects in front of him, he also had the vehicle behind him that was filming it.

One thing that I want to make clear.  I don't condone or justify what the suspects in this case did, however upon closer inspection of the incident video it appeared that he directly confronted the man holding the shotgun in an aggressive manner.  Perhaps if he had just run by the person holding the shotgun wouldn't have pulled the trigger.

Again, from what is known and public information regarding this case, it has nothing to do with race and photos like what you shared and posted do not help to bring appropriate justice.

Read my posts.

My position is quite clear.

His criminal history, whatever it may have been, is of no import given the facts of this case.  He could have been convicted of a burglary at age 18 or whatever, but it has no bearing whatsoever whether McMichael had the requisite level of knowledge that a felony was committed by Arbery on 2/23/2020 to effectuate a citizen's arrest.  Arbery's criminal history has no bearing on whether the amount of force McMichael used was consistent with the law.

BY YOUR OWN WORDS ABOVE, Arbery did not commit a felony.  Holding that up against the plain meaning of the words in the statute, the McMichaels had no authority to effectuate a citizens arrest, which means their actions were illegal and therefore a crime.  That crime resulted in the death of Arbery.

What exactly is your contention with me?

If you do not condone their actions, why do they get the benefit of the doubt from you in regards to racial animus? 

Do you seriously argue killers can not be racist or motivated by racial animus?

I've posted the relevant part of the "Cornerstone of the Confederacy" speech on here numerous times.  In that speech, Stephens explicitly states the motivating notions for the establishment of the Confederacy were borne of white supremacy.  Yet people deny race was any factor whatsoever in the Civil War.  It's of no surprise then that people reflexively deny any racial animus or motivation here, even with photos.

Frankly, that's the debate equivalent of pissing on my head and calling it rain.

Your Jedi mind tricks don't work on me.

By the way, the police report here summarizes the statments made by the accused here.  Those reprentations are not unassailable fact.

NY Times:

Arbery was not armed, and he was not the “suspect” in any break-ins.

At least they put that in the "opinion" section.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/opini...lling.html

Where were the police reports of burglaries that supposedly happened recently?

There was one on 1/1 indicating a burglary of McMichaels' truck.

(05-10-2020, 02:40 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The race thing is present on two levels here.
one question is, why did they suspect him of being a robber? Would they have suspected him, if he was doing all the same things but happened to be white? You guys are already trying to answer that question.
The other question is, if the jogger was white, or if the shooters were black, does the prosecutor sit on the case and do nothing for 3 months?

Interesting questions, indeed.

Without scrolling back I can already tell which posters had which take

It's too bad we still don't have Matt Jones on the team and therefore a racist Declinometer hot-take.

I know I'm dating myself on that one.

(05-10-2020, 05:27 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]Without scrolling back I can already tell which posters had which take

Actually there have been a couple of surprises.

(05-10-2020, 04:28 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-10-2020, 02:21 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Bullseye,  I really respect you and admire your posts here.  However, what do those photos have to do with this incident?  Seriously.

From the facts and evidence that I have seen it is my opinion that this wasn't a "hate crime" and didn't have anything to do with race.

The facts are (as I understand) that this guy (Arbery) had a history of criminal conduct.  Supposedly there had been recent burglaries in the area and supposedly someone fitting his description was suspect.  This isn't an area (neighborhood) that he lived in.  Surveillance video of him walking down the street, stopping to look around then going onto private property has been revealed.  While that is a crime it is not a felony.  Also on the surveillance video he is seen coming out of the home and looking around again before going towards the back of the property.  Not long after that he is recorded running from the house, not jogging.

He wasn't "out for a jog" or out exercising and he did trespass onto private property.

A review of the reporting officer's report indicates that he was being chased and persons tried to stop him multiple times, hence by the time the video of the shooting it appears that he is "jogging".  By that point he was probably tired and made a last ditch effort to "get away".  Remember, he not only had the truck with the two suspects in front of him, he also had the vehicle behind him that was filming it.

One thing that I want to make clear.  I don't condone or justify what the suspects in this case did, however upon closer inspection of the incident video it appeared that he directly confronted the man holding the shotgun in an aggressive manner.  Perhaps if he had just run by the person holding the shotgun wouldn't have pulled the trigger.

Again, from what is known and public information regarding this case, it has nothing to do with race and photos like what you shared and posted do not help to bring appropriate justice.

Read my posts.

My position is quite clear.

His criminal history, whatever it may have been, is of no import given the facts of this case.  He could have been convicted of a burglary at age 18 or whatever, but it has no bearing whatsoever whether McMichael had the requisite level of knowledge that a felony was committed by Arbery on 2/23/2020 to effectuate a citizen's arrest.  Arbery's criminal history has no bearing on whether the amount of force McMichael used was consistent with the law.

BY YOUR OWN WORDS ABOVE, Arbery did not commit a felony.  Holding that up against the plain meaning of the words in the statute, the McMichaels had no authority to effectuate a citizens arrest, which means their actions were illegal and therefore a crime.  That crime resulted in the death of Arbery.

What exactly is your contention with me?

If you do not condone their actions, why do they get the benefit of the doubt from you in regards to racial animus? 

Do you seriously argue killers can not be racist or motivated by racial animus?

I've posted the relevant part of the "Cornerstone of the Confederacy" speech on here numerous times.  In that speech, Stephens explicitly states the motivating notions for the establishment of the Confederacy were borne of white supremacy.  Yet people deny race was any factor whatsoever in the Civil War.  It's of no surprise then that people reflexively deny any racial animus or motivation here, even with photos.

Frankly, that's the debate equivalent of pissing on my head and calling it rain.

Your Jedi mind tricks don't work on me.

By the way, the police report here summarizes the statments made by the accused here.  Those reprentations are not unassailable  fact.

Easy there big guy.  All were saying is that if u want to show racial animus you need proof.  I asked where the photo came from and u havent answered.  I am not seeing it reported and I cant believe it wouldn't be a top story by this point.

(05-10-2020, 05:33 PM)Bullseye Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-10-2020, 05:27 PM)JackCity Wrote: [ -> ]Without scrolling back I can already tell which posters had which take

Actually there have been a couple of surprises.

Think a couple learnt their lesson from the Drejka incident.

This one is even more obviously murder.

What's with all this racial hate?

https://delawarebusinessnow.com/2020/05/...-cemetery/

(05-10-2020, 02:20 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-10-2020, 01:56 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]He was killed by people who had no business following him, talking to him, detaining him, or brandishing at him. That's what the video and pictures clearly show.

Is it illegal to follow someone, when you don't have a restraining order?
Is it illegal to talk to someone?
Did they detain him? I think the video shows otherwise. He ran around the vehicle while the son had his back to the open door. There was never any detainment.
Is it illegal to open carry in Georgia? They also never pointed the gun at him in the video.


You may not agree with what happened. They should have stayed in the truck and followed him. This issue is you don't seem to care what the laws are. You want to convict them because you FEEL it was wrong. That is an issue with liberal justice, the laws don't matter it is all about feeling. Even if they were a grand master or whatever the KKK calls it, unless they did something illegal, it doesn't matter. They could be terrible people, but plenty of other terrible people get off on crimes or terrible acts all the time.

Whatever man, they chased him down and killed him.

Yeah, pretty hard not to see this as a couple vigilantes. I pretty much share JJ's sentiments on this exactly. Wish people would lay off the racial narrative. Just like it's irrelevant that Ahmaud committed a crime, it's also irrelevant that this was motivated by race. If it could be proven that it was racially motivated, I am all about reversing that opinion.

(05-10-2020, 09:05 PM)Last42min Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, pretty hard not to see this as a couple vigilantes. I pretty much share JJ's sentiments on this exactly. Wish people would lay off the racial narrative. Just like it's irrelevant that Ahmaud committed a crime, it's also irrelevant that this was motivated by race. If it could be proven that it was racially motivated, I am all about reversing that opinion.

Why do you think that took 2.5 months before they were charged or arrested?