B2hibry

(05-11-2020, 03:49 PM)TJBender Wrote: Bold point 1: So the new standard is, "I get to shoot you because I don't know for sure that you're unarmed"?

Bold point 2: How many times has someone pulled up in front of you and gotten out with a shotgun, facing towards you? Do you consider having your path blocked by someone with a shotgun to be threatening? And if the person who gets out with a shotgun ends up using it on you, wouldn't there have to be some intent involved on the part of the person who pulled a shotgun in the first place?

The extent to which some of you are bending over backwards to defend the murder of an unarmed man because he was on someone else's unoccupied property, or because blocking someone's path and brandishing a shotgun at them isn't a threat, or because no one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was not armed...I mean, what the [BLEEP]? Am I allowed to go around shooting people because I don't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're not armed?

Screw privilege. Some of you need to check your brain cells and make sure the neurons are still doing their thing. I block your path with a truck. I get out with a shotgun. I brandish said shotgun at you. I shoot you. You die. Somehow there's no intent on my part, even though I'm the one who blocked your path, hopped out with a shotgun and opened up a new putting green in your chest. But no, it's your fault because you didn't run screaming like a baby in your basketball shoes.

If it's a white guy doing what Arbery was doing, whatever that was, we never hear about this because no one gets shot. Because it was a black guy in a white neighborhood, the Stormfront brigade showed up and decided that petty theft of an unoccupied structure warranted blockading someone with a shotgun. I'd also like to point out that there were two 911 calls. In the first, the caller reported a black man inside a house under construction, and the caller could not articulate for the 911 operator what the man had done wrong, just that he had "taken off down the street". A second 911 call came in from someone else saying--literally--that there was "a black man running down the street".

So, again, explain how there's not intent to kill on the part of someone who blocks someone else's path, brandishes a shotgun, then puts a hole in that person's chest. Explain how there's no racial motivation when the two 911 calls made prior to the shooting are mostly to entirely focused on "a black man running down the street" without articulating any crime or threat. There was apparently enough perceived threat to stop the man with a shotgun, but not enough of one to explain the situation to a 911 operator as anything other than "a black man running down the street."

You want to say it's not racially motivated? Ok. No one showed up wearing bedsheets and burning a cross before shooting him, but as I've said over and over, all anyone was able to speak to on 911 was "a black man running down the street". And then they shot him. Because he was a black man running down the street. Their own words. Not mine.

Point 1: There was no intent to shoot based on public information. This was also not premeditated. And by law, a weapon can be carried as an equalizer. False belief is that the other individual must be armed.

Point 2: I have had a weapon pointed at me an untold number of times in uniform and out, to include false imprisonment.  In this case, there is currently no information that shows the shotgun was pointed at the guy. Simply carrying it is not a threat or proof of intent to kill.

The rest of your rant comes off frustrated and irrational. Of course, you can't just walk around shooting people. Shots weren't fired in this case until the gun was grabbed. It was not pointed at anyone according to the video we have. Yes, you can question someone and even detain someone based on a B&E or what Georgia considers felony burglary. I know you think its cute, but basketball shoes don't matter at this point because he wasn't jogging for health reasons anyway.

White, Black, no matter. It happens and more often than you are aware because it doesn't get media reads. Any idea who called 911? Was it the full call you heard? Can I get a link to the transcript or call if you got it? Everything I've seen shows "someone" told dispatch, "a man was on property under construction and had been caught on camera a bunch before at night." The rest is in the moment gibberish but really doesn't matter as the patrol was on the way during the second call.

FYI, Georgia does not have a specific brandishing law. Having a gun out while questioning could be considered disorderly conduct at most and escalates if actually aimed at someone (typical brandishing definition) without legal justification.

Could it have been racial, sure, it's possible but nothing yet says that is the case. Just because there are skin color differences does not instantly mean this is a hate crime. Some of you are getting twisted around the axle because you think it is an either-or situation. Both parties can be in the wrong without race even being a factor. One party can be wrong without race being a factor. And so on. Time and time again folks have said this situation was unnecessary and don't believe someone should have died, yet you don't want to hear it. But boy, if there aren't some of ya'll beating the war drums for a racial lynching without all the info.

---

(05-11-2020, 03:56 PM)Gabe Wrote: I could see something equally crazy like this happening in Jacksonville. 

During the quarantine, I like to ride my bike throughout Riverside (not my neighborhood). If two armed guys in a pickup truck continuously/aggressively tried to stop me, I'd also turn around and go the other way (no way am I stopping to find out what two armed guys I don't know want, even if they nicely said all they wanted to do was just talk to me - doubtful it happened like that in Brunswick). After chasing me and unsuccessfully trying to cut off my "escape" - my fight or flight options have been reduced to a singular choice. When I eventually stop and confront these two guys, is that escalation?

*Narrator: it isn't.

False equivalency, unless you were biking throughout riverside so you could walk through random houses.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, for the purposes of this scenario, I trespassed onto a construction property. 

Any reaction I have after consistent chasing, cutting off, etc. etc. etc. with guns is self defense. Trespassing onto a different person's property doesn't equate to escalation after the aforementioned aggression.

---