(05-11-2020, 12:35 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-11-2020, 12:30 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]DOJ considering pursuing a hate crime...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-hate-crime-arbery
That's too bad, hate crimes are wrong too.
(05-11-2020, 11:39 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]What? That is a completely different scenario! Holy [BLEEP]!
Stop defending whitey. Ahmaud was on a month to month lease and was out for a jog.
Again, so what? Call the cops and let them handle it. You're condoning vigilantism that resulted in a death. Those two went looking to hurt the guy and got to kill him.
Wrong. They didn’t grab their guns to hurt him!
(05-11-2020, 10:42 AM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (05-10-2020, 11:34 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Based on Georgia law and what we know so far, this will fall under involuntary manslaughter with a maximum 10-year sentence. There is not enough to make this voluntary (so far) and the DA would risk letting some folks walk free overplaying their hand based on the court of public opinion and outcry.
How is blowing a hole in someone's chest "involuntary"?
Do you understand the difference between murder/homicide and involuntary manslaughter? I'll give you a hint... key word is intent.
(05-11-2020, 12:38 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ] (05-11-2020, 11:21 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Black guy.
White guy with gun.
White guy with gun.
Another white guy filming it.
"C'mere boy, we need to talk ta you."
In [BLEEP] GEORGIA.
Yeah, you go on and believe whatever you like, the yokels had plenty of "original intent" the moment they decided they'd show that no good colored so and so what's what.
Sounds like you have some issue you are projecting on a whole group of people living in that area of Georgia .... what is that called again? I thought enlightened people did do that?
Not a whole group of people, just some guys who thought they should grab their weapons, jump in their pickups and go chase down some trespasser. And enlightened enough to know what it looks like when it's a bunch of white dudes chasing a black guy down the road in the South. All it really needed was some dogs, I'm kinda surprised they left the Coon Hounds at home.
(05-11-2020, 12:35 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-11-2020, 12:30 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]DOJ considering pursuing a hate crime...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-hate-crime-arbery
That's too bad, hate crimes are wrong too.
(05-11-2020, 11:39 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]What? That is a completely different scenario! Holy [BLEEP]!
Stop defending whitey. Ahmaud was on a month to month lease and was out for a jog.
Again, so what? Call the cops and let them handle it. You're condoning vigilantism that resulted in a death. Those two went looking to hurt the guy and got to kill him.
Again, not condoning anything. Just sticking with what we know without the useless racist rhetoric. Cops were called. No proof the McMichaels had intent on killing someone. Would you believe the same if the old man was carrying concealed?
(05-11-2020, 12:35 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-11-2020, 12:30 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]DOJ considering pursuing a hate crime...
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/doj-hate-crime-arbery
That's too bad, hate crimes are wrong too.
(05-11-2020, 11:39 AM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]What? That is a completely different scenario! Holy [BLEEP]!
Stop defending whitey. Ahmaud was on a month to month lease and was out for a jog.
Again, so what? Call the cops and let them handle it. You're condoning vigilantism that resulted in a death. Those two went looking to hurt the guy and got to kill him.
I've seen no evidence of that.
The only evidence that I have seen is the reporting officer's report after interviewing the suspects in which their claim is that they were attempting to stop and detain him until police arrived. On a side note the elder McMichael knew the victim and his criminal history which involves a felony firearms violation. They could have armed themselves for their own protection. I personally never leave home unarmed with the exception of when I'm going to work (I work on a Navy base where personal firearms are prohibited).
Before you say that I'm defending their action(s) I'm not. I'm simply pointing out the facts as I see and understand them.
(05-11-2020, 12:59 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ] (05-11-2020, 12:35 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]That's too bad, hate crimes are wrong too.
Again, so what? Call the cops and let them handle it. You're condoning vigilantism that resulted in a death. Those two went looking to hurt the guy and got to kill him.
Again, not condoning anything. Just sticking with what we know without the useless racist rhetoric. Cops were called. No proof the McMichaels had intent on killing someone. Would you believe the same if the old man was carrying concealed?
If he was not brandishing the shotgun the results might've been different, but if they'd stayed the hell out of it and let the Law deal with it then it certainly would've been different. Bottom line: they instigated the incident, they killed a man, and they should be charged and tried accordingly. And the rhetoric isn't useless when it certainly looks to be true.
(05-11-2020, 01:13 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (05-11-2020, 12:35 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]That's too bad, hate crimes are wrong too.
Again, so what? Call the cops and let them handle it. You're condoning vigilantism that resulted in a death. Those two went looking to hurt the guy and got to kill him.
I've seen no evidence of that.
The only evidence that I have seen is the reporting officer's report after interviewing the suspects in which their claim is that they were attempting to stop and detain him until police arrived. On a side note the elder McMichael knew the victim and his criminal history which involves a felony firearms violation. They could have armed themselves for their own protection. I personally never leave home unarmed with the exception of when I'm going to work (I work on a Navy base where personal firearms are prohibited).
Before you say that I'm defending their action(s) I'm not. I'm simply pointing out the facts as I see and understand them.
The facts and evidence I've seen shows two morons trying to be lawmen chasing an unarmed black guy and killing him. What they knew or didn't know is irrelevant, they had absolutely no business trying to detain him. They were not in any danger and he was not an immediate danger to anyone else. There was nothing good going to come out of their actions and they should pay the penalty for the reckless actions that led to the death of another person.
(05-11-2020, 01:16 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-11-2020, 12:59 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Again, not condoning anything. Just sticking with what we know without the useless racist rhetoric. Cops were called. No proof the McMichaels had intent on killing someone. Would you believe the same if the old man was carrying concealed?
If he was not brandishing the shotgun the results might've been different, but if they'd stayed the hell out of it and let the Law deal with it then it certainly would've been different. Bottom line: they instigated the incident, they killed a man, and they should be charged and tried accordingly. And the rhetoric isn't useless when it certainly looks to be true.
Bottom Line: You are ignoring a whole set of facts in order to run with your narrative. It is indeed rhetoric at this point based on public information and regardless of your opinion. There is no law against brandishing a firearm. Even without the shotgun, as a retired investigator, I'm certain he has a law enforcement weapons permit. I'll ask you again, in hindsight does a concealed firearm change your point of view? You are right on one point, things could have been different...but as I've been saying since the beginning of this thread, both parties could have removed just one variable to avoid this whole situation. Pretty typical in most situations like this, but that variable is not racism. I am curious as to why we haven't heard about or seen a video of the police and paramedic response.
This is the type of stuff racial rhetoric gets you...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...ibute.html
(05-11-2020, 12:55 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (05-11-2020, 10:42 AM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]How is blowing a hole in someone's chest "involuntary"?
Do you understand the difference between murder/homicide and involuntary manslaughter? I'll give you a hint... key word is intent.
The intent is clear the second a freaking shotgun is pulled out for absolutely no defensible reason. Was Arbery pointing a gun at anyone? Was he running wild with a machete? Did he have a suicide bomb strapped to his chest? If I were to pull out a shotgun and walk towards you, would you consider that intent to harm you or not?
(05-11-2020, 01:33 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (05-11-2020, 12:55 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Do you understand the difference between murder/homicide and involuntary manslaughter? I'll give you a hint... key word is intent.
The intent is clear the second a freaking shotgun is pulled out for absolutely no defensible reason. Was Arbery pointing a gun at anyone? Was he running wild with a machete? Did he have a suicide bomb strapped to his chest? If I were to pull out a shotgun and walk towards you, would you consider that intent to harm you or not?
Depends. Are you wearing basketball shoes?
(05-11-2020, 01:27 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ] (05-11-2020, 01:16 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]If he was not brandishing the shotgun the results might've been different, but if they'd stayed the hell out of it and let the Law deal with it then it certainly would've been different. Bottom line: they instigated the incident, they killed a man, and they should be charged and tried accordingly. And the rhetoric isn't useless when it certainly looks to be true.
Bottom Line: You are ignoring a whole set of facts in order to run with your narrative. It is indeed rhetoric at this point based on public information and regardless of your opinion. There is no law against brandishing a firearm. Even without the shotgun, as a retired investigator, I'm certain he has a law enforcement weapons permit. I'll ask you again, in hindsight does a concealed firearm change your point of view? You are right on one point, things could have been different...but as I've been saying since the beginning of this thread, both parties could have removed just one variable to avoid this whole situation. Pretty typical in most situations like this, but that variable is not racism. I am curious as to why we haven't heard about or seen a video of the police and paramedic response.
This is the type of stuff racial rhetoric gets you...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...ibute.html
Odd, there's a movement in Georgia right now to make what you're saying is legal to actually be legal. Which means it's ummmm...currently not legal. So yeah, call it what you want but it doesn't pass the smell test. They went after him while carrying = crime.
AJC March 2020
As the GBI arrests indicate, the two are charged with committing Aggravated Assault and Homicide. I don't care if he has a permit, I don't care if he's carrying openly or concealed, I really don't care what he thought he was doing, the simple fact is that what he
did resulted in a man dying in the dirt on a road in Georgia and they need to stand to account for it.
(05-11-2020, 01:27 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ] (05-11-2020, 01:16 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]If he was not brandishing the shotgun the results might've been different, but if they'd stayed the hell out of it and let the Law deal with it then it certainly would've been different. Bottom line: they instigated the incident, they killed a man, and they should be charged and tried accordingly. And the rhetoric isn't useless when it certainly looks to be true.
Bottom Line: You are ignoring a whole set of facts in order to run with your narrative. It is indeed rhetoric at this point based on public information and regardless of your opinion. There is no law against brandishing a firearm. Even without the shotgun, as a retired investigator, I'm certain he has a law enforcement weapons permit. I'll ask you again, in hindsight does a concealed firearm change your point of view? You are right on one point, things could have been different...but as I've been saying since the beginning of this thread, both parties could have removed just one variable to avoid this whole situation. Pretty typical in most situations like this, but that variable is not racism. I am curious as to why we haven't heard about or seen a video of the police and paramedic response.
This is the type of stuff racial rhetoric gets you...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...ibute.html
You have no clue if this was racially motivated or not because the kid is dead and can’t tell his side.
You think the McMichaels are going to come out and say “yup. We followed him and killed him because he’s black”. No chance.
These dudes only followed him in their truck with a shotgun because he’s black.
(05-11-2020, 01:33 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (05-11-2020, 12:55 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Do you understand the difference between murder/homicide and involuntary manslaughter? I'll give you a hint... key word is intent.
The intent is clear the second a freaking shotgun is pulled out for absolutely no defensible reason. Was Arbery pointing a gun at anyone? Was he running wild with a machete? Did he have a suicide bomb strapped to his chest? If I were to pull out a shotgun and walk towards you, would you consider that intent to harm you or not?
A threat does not need to be armed. A perceived threat can justify deadly force. And Arbery ran towards the shotgun, not visa vis. In any case, a defense justification will be tricky for either party in court.
(05-11-2020, 01:49 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ] (05-11-2020, 01:27 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Bottom Line: You are ignoring a whole set of facts in order to run with your narrative. It is indeed rhetoric at this point based on public information and regardless of your opinion. There is no law against brandishing a firearm. Even without the shotgun, as a retired investigator, I'm certain he has a law enforcement weapons permit. I'll ask you again, in hindsight does a concealed firearm change your point of view? You are right on one point, things could have been different...but as I've been saying since the beginning of this thread, both parties could have removed just one variable to avoid this whole situation. Pretty typical in most situations like this, but that variable is not racism. I am curious as to why we haven't heard about or seen a video of the police and paramedic response.
This is the type of stuff racial rhetoric gets you...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...ibute.html
You have no clue if this was racially motivated or not because the kid is dead and can’t tell his side.
You think the McMichaels are going to come out and say “yup. We followed him and killed him because he’s black”. No chance.
These dudes only followed him in their truck with a shotgun because he’s black.
Your right, so why are you going on and on about white versus black? You don't think if it was a white guy snooping in houses and vehicles he wouldn't have been followed? Get outta here.
(05-11-2020, 01:44 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-11-2020, 01:27 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Bottom Line: You are ignoring a whole set of facts in order to run with your narrative. It is indeed rhetoric at this point based on public information and regardless of your opinion. There is no law against brandishing a firearm. Even without the shotgun, as a retired investigator, I'm certain he has a law enforcement weapons permit. I'll ask you again, in hindsight does a concealed firearm change your point of view? You are right on one point, things could have been different...but as I've been saying since the beginning of this thread, both parties could have removed just one variable to avoid this whole situation. Pretty typical in most situations like this, but that variable is not racism. I am curious as to why we haven't heard about or seen a video of the police and paramedic response.
This is the type of stuff racial rhetoric gets you...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article...ibute.html
Odd, there's a movement in Georgia right now to make what you're saying is legal to actually be legal. Which means it's ummmm...currently not legal. So yeah, call it what you want but it doesn't pass the smell test. They went after him while carrying = crime.
AJC March 2020
As the GBI arrests indicate, the two are charged with committing Aggravated Assault and Homicide. I don't care if he has a permit, I don't care if he's carrying openly or concealed, I really don't care what he thought he was doing, the simple fact is that what he did resulted in a man dying in the dirt on a road in Georgia and they need to stand to account for it.
Except it was not aimed at anyone. Open carry is legal in the State of Georgia with a permit. And FYI, this bill came about, like the Florida bill, because folks were being arrested for brandishing/improper exhibition during concealed carry. It also removes the limitation imposed on an individual that brandishes a firearm to avoid deadly conflict.
(05-11-2020, 01:39 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ] (05-11-2020, 01:33 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]The intent is clear the second a freaking shotgun is pulled out for absolutely no defensible reason. Was Arbery pointing a gun at anyone? Was he running wild with a machete? Did he have a suicide bomb strapped to his chest? If I were to pull out a shotgun and walk towards you, would you consider that intent to harm you or not?
Depends. Are you wearing basketball shoes?
Here kiddo, I'll finally give you attention. You're hilarious! Good one.
(05-11-2020, 02:07 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ] (05-11-2020, 01:44 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Odd, there's a movement in Georgia right now to make what you're saying is legal to actually be legal. Which means it's ummmm...currently not legal. So yeah, call it what you want but it doesn't pass the smell test. They went after him while carrying = crime.
AJC March 2020
As the GBI arrests indicate, the two are charged with committing Aggravated Assault and Homicide. I don't care if he has a permit, I don't care if he's carrying openly or concealed, I really don't care what he thought he was doing, the simple fact is that what he did resulted in a man dying in the dirt on a road in Georgia and they need to stand to account for it.
Except it was not aimed at anyone. Open carry is legal in the State of Georgia with a permit. And FYI, this bill came about, like the Florida bill, because folks were being arrested for brandishing/improper exhibition during concealed carry. It also removes the limitation imposed on an individual that brandishes a firearm to avoid deadly conflict.
Open carry laws are a red herring to this discussion. By their own admission, the shooters were attempting a citizen's arrest, and they did not have enough knowledge of the man they were chasing. Even if they had seen him trespassing on a construction site. Unless they saw him take something valuable, that they knew he had no claim to, they did not witness a felony, so they could not legally attempt a citizen's arrest.
(05-11-2020, 01:33 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (05-11-2020, 12:55 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Do you understand the difference between murder/homicide and involuntary manslaughter? I'll give you a hint... key word is intent.
The intent is clear the second a freaking shotgun is pulled out for absolutely no defensible reason. Was Arbery pointing a gun at anyone? Was he running wild with a machete? Did he have a suicide bomb strapped to his chest? If I were to pull out a shotgun and walk towards you, would you consider that intent to harm you or not?
So because the guy was openly holding a shotgun that makes the intent to kill clear? Based on what they knew about Arbery's criminal history did they know without a doubt that he was unarmed? Were they not allowed to arm themselves for their own protection?
Regarding your last question, I encounter people all the time holding weapons and walking towards me. I don't consider that a threat unless the weapon is pointed in my direction. Go back and look at the video again. Was the younger McMichael walking towards him in a threatening manner (pointing the shotgun at him)?
In order for the charge of murder to apply it must be proven
with evidence that they armed themselves with the
intent to go and shoot the man.
Always call the cops to give your name and the victim's description before going on a racially-motivated murder spree.
(05-11-2020, 02:07 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ] (05-11-2020, 01:44 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Odd, there's a movement in Georgia right now to make what you're saying is legal to actually be legal. Which means it's ummmm...currently not legal. So yeah, call it what you want but it doesn't pass the smell test. They went after him while carrying = crime.
AJC March 2020
As the GBI arrests indicate, the two are charged with committing Aggravated Assault and Homicide. I don't care if he has a permit, I don't care if he's carrying openly or concealed, I really don't care what he thought he was doing, the simple fact is that what he did resulted in a man dying in the dirt on a road in Georgia and they need to stand to account for it.
Except it was not aimed at anyone. Open carry is legal in the State of Georgia with a permit. And FYI, this bill came about, like the Florida bill, because folks were being arrested for brandisous hing/improper exhibition during concealed carry. It also removes the limitation imposed on an individual that brandishes a firearm to avoid deadly conflict.
(05-11-2020, 01:39 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ]Depends. Are you wearing basketball shoes?
Here kiddo, I'll finally give you attention. You're hilarious! Good one.
And yet for all you've said about this the GBI arrested them and charged them (as the local DA should've to begin with). It's a damn shame it takes a leaked video and public outcry for murderous criminal actions such as these to even warrant an arrest. Now, because of the good ol' boys in good ol' Georgia we have to deal with more racial tensions. That's what optics are all about, you treat the situation with the gravity it warrants so that people don't accuse you of being part of the Klansmen running that poor kid down and gunning him down like a rabid dog in the street.
(05-11-2020, 02:27 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]Always call the cops to give your name and the victim's description before going on a racially-motivated murder spree.
When you know the guy on the other end of the line, and that the DA will let you slide, then absolutely you do.
(05-11-2020, 02:25 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-11-2020, 02:07 PM)B2hibry Wrote: [ -> ]Except it was not aimed at anyone. Open carry is legal in the State of Georgia with a permit. And FYI, this bill came about, like the Florida bill, because folks were being arrested for brandishing/improper exhibition during concealed carry. It also removes the limitation imposed on an individual that brandishes a firearm to avoid deadly conflict.
Open carry laws are a red herring to this discussion. By their own admission, the shooters were attempting a citizen's arrest, and they did not have enough knowledge of the man they were chasing. Even if they had seen him trespassing on a construction site. Unless they saw him take something valuable, that they knew he had no claim to, they did not witness a felony, so they could not legally attempt a citizen's arrest.
Evidence that has been released has proven otherwise. The elder McMichael recognized him and was involved in prosecuting a case against him of a felony firearms violation that he committed.
(05-11-2020, 02:26 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (05-11-2020, 01:33 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]The intent is clear the second a freaking shotgun is pulled out for absolutely no defensible reason. Was Arbery pointing a gun at anyone? Was he running wild with a machete? Did he have a suicide bomb strapped to his chest? If I were to pull out a shotgun and walk towards you, would you consider that intent to harm you or not?
So because the guy was openly holding a shotgun that makes the intent to kill clear? Based on what they knew about Arbery's criminal history did they know without a doubt that he was unarmed? Were they not allowed to arm themselves for their own protection?
Regarding your last question, I encounter people all the time holding weapons and walking towards me. I don't consider that a threat unless the weapon is pointed in my direction. Go back and look at the video again. Was the younger McMichael walking towards him in a threatening manner (pointing the shotgun at him)?
In order for the charge of murder to apply it must be proven with evidence that they armed themselves with the intent to go and shoot the man.
Please, if they cared about their own protection they would've stayed out of it as they should have.