(05-11-2020, 03:49 PM)TJBender Wrote:

(05-11-2020, 02:26 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: 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.

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.

Bull.  Just out and out SJW bull.  Argue the facts, argue the law.  Theres no proof that these guys factored race into their decisions, but most people have judged them guilty just because they're white.  

We have video of the guy chasing the residence, and then fleeing when confronted by a neighbor.  Just because they mentioned his race in a physical description doesnt mean that they went out to fulfill their caverns quota of dead black boys.  

Morally, I wouldn't pursue someone with lethal force for a property crime.  That's me.  Personally I wouldn't write a law empowering citizens to pursue and arrest a citizen once they left the scene of a crime.  

Those personal preferences have zero bearing on the fact that if Mcmichaels believed Ahmad committed a felony then he has the legal authority to arrest him.  Arrest by definition is against someone's will.  This case hinges on whether they had reasonable immediate knowledge of a felony and if saying "we want to talk to you" fails the citizens arrest standard.  That's it!

---

(05-11-2020, 05:49 PM)EricC85 Wrote: I’ve watched the videos to me it looks like a open and shut case. Two guys assumed they where going to apprehend what they thought was a criminal and approached him, he obviously resisted, they killed him. It’s murder maybe it wasn’t intentional but it’s murder. The fact that it took the DA that long to file charges is ridiculous

It's a loser.

---