Why the murderers of Ahmaud Arbery need to be prosecuted

[dannno]

This is so retarded. I'm on a forum with a bunch of conservatives. These bootlickers are gushing like a bunch of homosexuals over a little piglet. They're just as bad as the clowns gushing over George Floyd and his Jesus statues.

Do you have a problem with protecting property? I don't understand your issue with Kyle. I'm not pro-police, police are people with more authority than they ought to have. Sometimes they do good things, help protect people's rights and property, etc.. sometimes they do bad things. But citizens have the right to protect themselves and their property, so do the cops. A conservative would be a law and order type. I don't give a crap what any law says.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Kyle was on the horn calling the cops

Was he?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Kyle was on the horn calling the cops, after which he planned to help give him aid.

Oh, knock it off already.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Do you have a problem with protecting property?

You know all that weed you smoke? Rittenhouse is the type who would lock you up for a long long time over that. He ain't your friend.

[Occam's Banana]

What does any of this bickering about Rittenhouse have to do with the Ahmaud Arbery case?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

What does any of this bickering about Rittenhouse have to do with the Ahmaud Arbery case?

Because it's the same kind of case.

If you have kids, then give them this lesson. Don't steal out of construction sites or vandalize cars. Don't try to lie or act holier than thou either. Recording devices are everywhere.

[Occam's Banana]

Because it's the same kind of case.

It isn't, but whatever - I'm not going to help derail this rail the thread any further.

[RJB]

You know all that weed you smoke? Rittenhouse is the type who would lock you up for a long long time over that. He ain't your friend.

Rittenhouse was a life guard, a Jr. volunteer firefighter, took some first aid courses, etc.... Bootlicker or not, he was going out of his way to do good in the world and an adrenaline rush the best way he knew how. I was a volunteer firefighter for 6 years, and I met lots of kids that were like him. He could sit on his ass smoking weed and playing videogames, but he volunteered to do something. He showed up with a gun to prevent his town from getting turned into a blighted $#@!hole as everyone else (including the cops) fled the scene. He also brought a medic bag.

When I was his age, I was very dumb and naive. I joined the Marine Corps truly believing that I was signing up to "defend our freedom." Seeing the inside workings of the government turned me into a libertarian. It was quite an education. After facing that bull$#@! prosecution, I can say he got a much more throrough education than what I got. The fact that he says he wants to go to college to be a nurse rather than a cop, tells me that he learned something Of course he could be lying, but Ill give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Rittenhouse was a life guard, a Jr. volunteer firefighter, took some first aid courses, etc.... Bootlicker or not, he was going out of his way to do good in the world and an adrenaline rush the best way he knew how. I was a volunteer firefighter for 6 years, and I met lots of kids that were like him. He could sit on his ass smoking weed and playing videogames, but he volunteered to do something. He showed up with a gun to prevent his town from getting turned into a blighted $#@!hole as everyone else (including the cops) fled the scene. He also brought a medic bag.

When I was his age, I was very dumb and naive. I joined the Marine Corps truly believing that I was signing up to "defend our freedom." Seeing the inside workings of the government turned me into a libertarian. It was quite an education. After facing that bull$#@! prosecution, I can say he got a much more throrough education than what I got. The fact that he says he wants to go to college to be a nurse rather than a cop, tells me that he learned something Of course he could be lying, but Ill give him the benefit of the doubt for now.

And look what it got him. Big hero gonna set the world on fire. Too bad that name is going to follow him around.

I will give someone doubt benefit when they are young, but nurses and some medical people are also some of the biggest holier than thou bootlickers around. We took our baby to a pediatrician after she was born and they tried to tell us what to do with all their vaccines and telling us not to sleep with the baby in the bed. I told my wife not to go and be in their system (she also works in medical), and she finally listened to me. Some medical people have the biggest god complex around. Just like pigs, military, and neo-cons.

[RJB]

And look what it got him. Big hero gonna set the world on fire. Too bad that name is going to follow him around.

I will give someone doubt benefit when they are young, but nurses and some medical people are also some of the biggest holier than thou bootlickers around. We took our baby to a pediatrician after she was born and they tried to tell us what to do with all their vaccines and telling us not to sleep with the baby in the bed. I told my wife not to go and be in their system (she also works in medical), and she finally listened to me. Some medical people have the biggest god complex around. Just like pigs, military, and neo-cons.

After a few drinks at a party, how often does your wife have to elbow you in the ribs when politics come up? LOL

Joking aside, I really do enjoy your blunt honest opinion of stuff even when we disagree.

But yeah, you may be right about him. Who really knows what's really going on behind the scenes on the news these days?

[Occam's Banana]

https://twitter.com/NatetheLawyer/st...86273540595714

[dannno]

You know all that weed you smoke? Rittenhouse is the type who would lock you up for a long long time over that. He ain't your friend.

Wrong.

I don't think anybody under age 35 or 40 thinks weed should be illegal.

[Brian4Liberty]

During much of the Rittenhouse trial, I had the Rekieta Law stream on in the background. It is entertaining and interesting, with the caveat that they are just normal people with legal education, and not all of their predictions and takes are accurate.

But something that was emphasized was that both sides of the legal battle want the audience to identify with their side, whether accused or victim.

That really applies to this case. Which parties do you identify with? This has a huge bearing on how people interpret this case. There are very interesting, and contradictory, aspects to how people evaluate this case.

Do you identify with residents battling crime? Or do you more identify with the idea that a person running like Arbery has no responsibility or reason to answer a question from some nosy resident, which interestingly rings true with many on both the right and left.

Somewhat telling is the fact that people on the right would say that police have special rights. The police can ask questions or shoot you at any time they want. It’s their job. Yet they fall in with the mainstream (left, Marxist?) propaganda point that people have no right to defend their property.

The proposition that when someone asks you a question, your right, and the preferred answer is “f*ck you” seems to appeal to many on the left and right. But is this total denial of reality and what they would really do?

For example, someone I personally know took the position of “f*ck you, I don't have to answer.” At the same time, they told stories of multiple incidents of them being confronted by armed residents asking what they were doing, and they immediately and in a friendly manner explained themselves to those residents. The armed residents then said, “oh ok, no problem.”

The rhetoric around this case seems to suffer from some disconnect between reality and adamant hypothetical talk.

[bananaman]

lmao, why am I not surprised to find dannno defending the blatant cold-blooded murder of a black man. Same guy who defended that piece of $#@! who rammed his car into the Charlottesville protest. Let me guess, if the victims are minorities or leftists, violence is good, but if they do not fit into those categories, violence is bad? Why didn't amaud arbery have a right to self defense after being chased down by gun wielding maniacs? Why do only gun wielders have the right to self defense, dannno? I know you are painfully low-iq from reading your posts for the last 10 years, so i don't expect much in response.

[dannno]

lmao, why am I not surprised to find dannno defending the blatant cold-blooded murder of a black man.

Because the video clearly shows he attacked them? Cold blooded? Really? If anything, your post is the low IQ post.. They didn't track him down and shoot him.. they had their car parked, he ran at them from hundreds of yards away, ran directly at them when he had 100 different options and tried to take their gun, presumably to shoot them.

You aren't one of those people who still thinks he was just out there for a jog, are you?

Same guy who defended that piece of $#@! who rammed his car into the Charlottesville protest. Let me guess, if the victims are minorities or leftists, violence is good, but if they do not fit into those categories, violence is bad?

Is it possible this is a pattern constructed by the mainstream media by the stories they choose to report on, and how they choose to report on them? Nah, couldn't be...

The Charlottesville car driver had a car in front of him, he thought he would be able to get through also but the crowd was getting bigger, then they started attacking his car before he rammed into anybody. He pinned some people between him and the car in front of him that was also trying to get through the crowd. But his car was already being attacked, I'm certain he thought he was going to be killed if he stopped. If he really wanted to hurt people, he would have been driving a lot faster, not slowing down as the brake lights indicated. He ended up $#@!ting his pants trying to get away, seems to me he was lost with all of the road blocks and went down the wrong street.

Why didn't amaud arbery have a right to self defense after being chased down by gun wielding maniacs?

Because he was committing crimes in their neighborhood for months? He had already had an altercation with the son, and they were terrified of him?

Why do only gun wielders have the right to self defense, dannno?

Question back to you: do you think gun wielders have the right to self defense?

[dannno]

Let me guess, if the victims are minorities or leftists, violence is good, but if they do not fit into those categories, violence is bad?

I think this guy might have a case. What do you think?

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...f-defense-case

[bananaman]

Because the video clearly shows he attacked them? Cold blooded? Really? If anything, your post is the low IQ post.. They didn't track him down and shoot him.. they had their car parked, he ran at them from hundreds of yards away, ran directly at them when he had 100 different options and tried to take their gun, presumably to shoot them.

You aren't one of those people who still thinks he was just out there for a jog, are you?



Is it possible this is a pattern constructed by the mainstream media by the stories they choose to report on, and how they choose to report on them? Nah, couldn't be...

The Charlottesville car driver had a car in front of him, he thought he would be able to get through also but the crowd was getting bigger, then they started attacking his car before he rammed into anybody. He pinned some people between him and the car in front of him that was also trying to get through the crowd. But his car was already being attacked, I'm certain he thought he was going to be killed if he stopped. If he really wanted to hurt people, he would have been driving a lot faster, not slowing down as the brake lights indicated. He ended up $#@!ting his pants trying to get away, seems to me he was lost with all of the road blocks and went down the wrong street.



Because he was committing crimes in their neighborhood for months? He had already had an altercation with the son, and they were terrified of him?




Question back to you: do you think gun wielders have the right to self defense?

Yea, you're stupid as $#@!. There was one truck following him from one direction, and the other truck stopped ahead of him. The video shown is clearly not the first interaction of the day between them, they had already been chasing him around for awhile.


Now I'm gonna prove how you've been typing complete bull$#@! about the case for days and days now.


You:


"The truck was stopped. The father was standing in the bed of the truck, and the son standing next to the truck. Arbery ran TO them, ran around the truck and attacked the son. The son never approached him, except when they were in the truck following him. And when they did get close to him, they certainly did not shoot him,"






As you can see, Ahmaud went to the right side of the truck because the son was standing there POINTING HIS GUN AT HIM, which he admitted to doing, on the left. Pretty simple, right? Who is escalating the confrontation? The son&father, without a doubt.


In this picture it's easy to tell that the son "approached him" because he's right next to the truck instead of ~6 feet away from it.


You have no right to point your loaded gun at someone and then continue to go after them after they try to avoid you. The son brought the gun, and pointed the gun first, as he admitted. Ahmaud arbery feared for his life and attempted to disarm the son of his weapon.


Ahmaud Arbery was well within his right to disarm the son and shoot all three of them dead and be acquitted with a much stronger case for self defense than the father&son

I had pictures from this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3JD...annel=USATODAY

but RPF wouldnt let me post them. the parts referred to are about 1:19 and 1:27

[bananaman]

The Charlottesville car driver had a car in front of him, he thought he would be able to get through also but the crowd was getting bigger, then they started attacking his car before he rammed into anybody. He pinned some people between him and the car in front of him that was also trying to get through the crowd. But his car was already being attacked, I'm certain he thought he was going to be killed if he stopped. If he really wanted to hurt people, he would have been driving a lot faster, not slowing down as the brake lights indicated. He ended up $#@!ting his pants trying to get away, seems to me he was lost with all of the road blocks and went down the wrong street.

wow, really smart move, when u fear for your life because someone threw a small object at your car, ram your car into a group of 30 protestors, thus forfeiting your life completely, makes sense.

[dannno]

wow, really smart move, when u fear for your life because someone threw a small object at your car, ram your car into a group of 30 protestors, thus forfeiting your life completely, makes sense.

Have you ever feared for your life before? What type of decisions were you able to make?

[dannno]

Yea, you're stupid as $#@!. There was one truck following him from one direction, and the other truck stopped ahead of him. The video shown is clearly not the first interaction of the day between them, they had already been chasing him around for awhile.


Now I'm gonna prove how you've been typing complete bull$#@! about the case for days and days now.


You:


"The truck was stopped. The father was standing in the bed of the truck, and the son standing next to the truck. Arbery ran TO them, ran around the truck and attacked the son. The son never approached him, except when they were in the truck following him. And when they did get close to him, they certainly did not shoot him,"






As you can see, Ahmaud went to the right side of the truck because the son was standing there POINTING HIS GUN AT HIM, which he admitted to doing, on the left. Pretty simple, right? Who is escalating the confrontation? The son&father, without a doubt.


In this picture it's easy to tell that the son "approached him" because he's right next to the truck instead of ~6 feet away from it.


You have no right to point your loaded gun at someone and then continue to go after them after they try to avoid you. The son brought the gun, and pointed the gun first, as he admitted. Ahmaud arbery feared for his life and attempted to disarm the son of his weapon.


Ahmaud Arbery was well within his right to disarm the son and shoot all three of them dead and be acquitted with a much stronger case for self defense than the father&son

I had pictures from this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3JD...annel=USATODAY

but RPF wouldnt let me post them. the parts referred to are about 1:19 and 1:27

LOL, nobody here is going to buy your bull$#@!..

Uh ya, I would imagine he feared Arbery might try and get into the truck and drive away, or something.. but moving a few feet is not the same as moving hundreds of yards, then cutting hard left and attacking someone.. When they approached Arbery earlier they asked him to stop so they could ask him some questions. They could have shot him then if they wanted to.. but they didn't.

Bottom line is the defense had a good case until the judge chimed in and said that their right to citizens arrest for the probable cause of a prior felony had extinguished, and this caught the defense off guard.. the case they had been arguing the whole time was shot.. and there is still debate on whether the judge's interpretation is correct. If it is incorrect, then they had every right to execute a citizen's arrest.. so this whole case is getting into semantics on the wording of particular law. Which in most cases, goes to the defense, but the Judge is going with his version.

This is not a black and white issue like you seem to make it out to be, the McMichaels thought they were doing the right thing, and in a sense they were because this guy was terrorizing their neighborhood and making people feel unsafe. However, they may have technically broken the law, and may end up going to prison on a technicality. The fact that the jury is taking as long as it has proves that this is not a simple case, these guys weren't out there to hunt this guy down.. they had the $#@!ing police on the phone when it happened.

You are pushing a bull$#@! narrative, and people here know better than to trust the media.

[Invisible Man]

Guilty.

Good verdict. Both this case and the Rittenhouse one were pretty clear cut and both came out right.

[dannno]

Guilty.

Good verdict. Both this case and the Rittenhouse one were pretty clear cut and both came out right.

It's a good verdict according to the law, the jury decided the case based on the Judge's interpretation of Georgia law. There was a lot of disagreement on the wording.

I don't think the verdict is good as far as protection of property and individual rights go. They had probable cause to believe he had committed a felony and was terrorizing their neighborhood. The whole extinguishing clause makes sense in some circumstances, but not this one so much.

[luctor-et-emergo]

Guilty.

Good verdict. Both this case and the Rittenhouse one were pretty clear cut and both came out right.

I've not seen all of the trial but based on some basic understanding of the case I think the outcome is fair [Different question is if I will agree with sentencing]. I do not think there is a need to compare this to the Rittenhouse case, it's very different.

[Brian4Liberty]

Guilty.

Good verdict. Both this case and the Rittenhouse one were pretty clear cut and both came out right.

You now have the blessings of the state. Call the police, only they have the right to do anything.

[Brian4Liberty]

...The Charlottesville car driver had a car in front of him, he thought he would be able to get through also but the crowd was getting bigger, then they started attacking his car before he rammed into anybody. He pinned some people between him and the car in front of him that was also trying to get through the crowd. But his car was already being attacked, I'm certain he thought he was going to be killed if he stopped. If he really wanted to hurt people, he would have been driving a lot faster, not slowing down as the brake lights indicated. He ended up $#@!ting his pants trying to get away, seems to me he was lost with all of the road blocks and went down the wrong street.
...

The Charlottesville car driver was in the wrong. He went towards the crowd and a blocked street, not away from it.

But that is off-topic. Let's stick to the thread topic.

[Brian4Liberty]

I've not seen all of the trial but based on some basic understanding of the case I think the outcome is fair [Different question is if I will agree with sentencing]. I do not think there is a need to compare this to the Rittenhouse case, it's very different.

I am unsure as to the specific laws in that state. Were they found guilty of first degree, pre-meditated murder? That does not seem correct under any interpretation.

2nd degree, manslaughter, something like that seems more appropriate. He was shot while wrestling for a gun. How is that first degree, pre-meditated? Especially for a guy who was only filming?

[luctor-et-emergo]

I am unsure as to the specific laws in that state. Were they found guilty of first degree, pre-meditated murder? That does not seem correct under any interpretation.

2nd degree, manslaughter, something like that seems more appropriate. He was shot while wrestling for a gun. How is that first degree, pre-meditated? Especially for a guy who was only filming?

Well I totally agree with you that it's a very unreasonable thing that charges carry through on someone who's only part of something. If it's pre-meditated and agreed upon that someone will be killed, sure they should get the same culpability in the end but if it happens in the situation, then it shouldn't be the same...

[dannno]

I am unsure as to the specific laws in that state. Were they found guilty of first degree, pre-meditated murder? That does not seem correct under any interpretation.

2nd degree, manslaughter, something like that seems more appropriate. He was shot while wrestling for a gun. How is that first degree, pre-meditated? Especially for a guy who was only filming?

The son Travis got Malice Murder and Felony Murder, technically felony murder is not first degree, but it is at the same level as first degree because you committed the felony to get there so in that sense it is premeditated.

The father was not guilty on Malice Murder, but got Felony Murder.

The guy who took the video was not guilty on malice murder, not guilty on one of the felony murder charges, guilty on other felony murder charges.

[luctor-et-emergo]

The son Travis got Malice Murder and Felony Murder, technically felony murder is not first degree, but it is at the same level as first degree because you committed the felony to get there so in that sense it is premeditated.

The father was not guilty on Malice Murder, but got Felony Murder.

The guy who took the video was not guilty on malice murder, not guilty on one of the felony murder charges, guilty on other felony murder charges.

[Invisible Man]

I've not seen all of the trial but based on some basic understanding of the case I think the outcome is fair [Different question is if I will agree with sentencing]. I do not think there is a need to compare this to the Rittenhouse case, it's very different.

Very different cases, with very different rulings that comport with those differences. But both were murder trials where the defendants claimed to have acted in self defense. In both the prosecution tried to claim that the defendants were the aggressors, and thus not able to claim self defense. And both were national news at the same time, with media trying to play up a racial angle in both. So I think comparisons are inevitable. But in the one case it was clear that the prosecution had no good basis for their claim that the defendant initiated the aggression in any way, while in the other it was clear that their basis for that was firm.