I'm guessing that a shop that advertises their wares like the above one:
"Check out the Zinger
Best electric chair ever!"
is probably not one I would be queuing up for at the best of times ...
I'm guessing that a shop that advertises their wares like the above one:
"Check out the Zinger
Best electric chair ever!"
is probably not one I would be queuing up for at the best of times ...
The video mentioned before does indeed show Ahmad Aubrey wandering onto a construction site. He looks around in general curiosity for a few minutes. There is a pile of drywall in front of him. Nothing on the video indicates he so much as stole a hammer or a nail. If we assume there wasn't a no trespassing sign in front of it, he didn't commit any crime at all. Even if there was, he was likely guilty of nothing more than a petty misdemeanor. As you'll recall, the Georgia law is CLEAR in that DIRECT witnessing of a FELONY is required to attempt a citizens arrest. This video shows nothing of the sort.
But what you'll see on many corners of the web today is the video being looped, in slow motion, to give the impression of a sinister motive, of the default danger of a dark-skinned man. The actual video shows someone looking around curious at what a home looks like in it's skeleton form. Has anyone here NOT walked into a construction site at some time in their life when work wasn't being done?? Again, the video of him at the house is being released (just like the idiot friend of the now arrested father and son intended with the first one) to somehow prove Aubrey was in the wrong, when it fact both videos do the complete opposite. This one clearly shows him stealing NOTHING and just casually observing for a short period of time. What people who are pointing to this video as incriminating are actually trying to say (without having the balls to do so) is that a.) he had no right to be in a "white neighborhood" and b.) he deserved to be summarily executed for doing so. But that story is as old as Emmett Till.
Make no mistake about it, anyone sharing this video and commenting "see, look at this" is saying that wandering into a house under construction is a legitimate reason for an armed posse to attempt to detain and then murder someone. And that it's completely justified. EVERY black man killed in this way is made out to be a demon posthumously. Even if they are 12-years old like Tamir Rice. They will find you casually looking at drywall. They will see if you had detention in middle-school. If you EVER smoked pot or were charged with ANY crime previously, it is used as iron-clad predicate that you deserved to be executed on the spot years later.
At BEST, what the new tape shows is that what was deserved if someone saw him was a yell along the lines of "hey, get out of there". Under no circumstances does it justify mounting up for an armed chase.
By the way, this is fucking brilliant. A white-man literally running down the street carrying a flat-screen under his arm. Of course, no one thought twice about it when they saw him:
My response to any this-person-committed-a-crime talk after an unarmed killing is "So what?"
Trespassing does not result in a death penalty.
Attempted robbery does not result in a death penalty.
Robbery does not result in a death penalty.
Assualt, the most you could probably throw at Arbery if he was alive for throwing a punch, does not result in the death penalty.
Hell even being generous, ARMED ROBBERY does not result in a death penalty.
Yet he's dead. It was an inexcusable use of excessive force where two people decided to be judge and jury. It's inexcusable that it took 2 and half months to press charges. It's sickening watching anyone defend the actions these people took, because, in their mind, they have the right to do it, and if they have the right, they may end up doing it in the future. And if these two walk, it will happen again in the future. . . who am I kidding, it'll happen in the future regardless.
My response to any this-person-committed-a-crime talk after an unarmed killing is "So what?"
Trespassing does not result in a death penalty.
Attempted robbery does not result in a death penalty.
Robbery does not result in a death penalty.
Assualt, the most you could probably throw at Arbery if he was alive for throwing a punch, does not result in the death penalty.
Hell even being generous, ARMED ROBBERY does not result in a death penalty.
Yet he's dead. It was an inexcusable use of excessive force where two people decided to be judge and jury. It's inexcusable that it took 2 and half months to press charges. It's sickening watching anyone defend the actions these people took, because, in their mind, they have the right to do it, and if they have the right, they may end up doing it in the future. And if these two walk, it will happen again in the future. . . who am I kidding, it'll happen in the future regardless.
None of this is what happened. He attacked the guy and grabbed his gun, causing him to get shot through the hand, and another time in the leg during the struggle. He wasn't shot for trespassing, that was the alleged probable cause that caused a chase, which is actually legal in that state, assuming this is what really happened. He wasn't even shot for assault. He was shot during a struggle for the gun itself, which looks to be an accident based on the report.
I already said I hope they get manslaughter for their unjustified chase, because running armed after a guy because you think he "may have" stole something is such a needless and *dangerous* escalation, but this isn't a case of cold blooded murder by any means, and they may very well walk free. You try to take a person's gun that they are legally carrying and a very reasonable self defense case can be made, assuming he ever intentionally fired shots in the first place.
I think "citizens arrest" is the b.s law that allowed this to happen. How is a person supposed to distinguish between a random person who wants to do them harm and a concerned citizen trying to detain you for the police? You can't know, and of course it would inevitably lead to something like this.
I don't think their citizens arrest story will neccesarily hold up in court. This state has stricter laws than most, and you must have probable cause of a felony having been committed to legally give chase. It will all come down to what amounts to probable cause.
Small consolation when the law itself does more harm than good. Any form of citizens arrest, if it exists at all, should relate only to violent crimes, imo.
I don't think their citizens arrest story will neccesarily hold up in court. This state has stricter laws than most, and you must have probable cause of a felony having been committed to legally give chase. It will all come down to what amounts to probable cause.
Small consolation when the law itself does more harm than good. Any form of citizens arrest, if it exists at all, should relate only to violent crimes, imo.
No then rent-a-cops can't detain someone for shoplifting, or vandalism for example. A state could always regulate these positions to acquire certain licencing (and some do but really, it's besides the point in this situation.
And you are right, none of that did happen. All that happened was Abrery was ran off the road while jogging and assaulted by a person with a shotgun. The person with the shot gun should have kept a reasonable distance from the 'suspect,' dictate to that suspect to place his hands over his head as he was being arrested for ___________________. The shotgun wielder should have stated clearly that Aubrey remain calm until the police arrive while still keeping a distance. The safety of the weapon should have been on to prevent the gun from mistakenly going off.
None of that happened because the person responsible for the weapon wasn't trained how to properly use it. Wasn't trained how to restrain a suspect. Wasn't trained on how to keep a situation from escalating. He and he alone is responsible for the death of Arbery. Anything else is just making an excuse for some idiot.
My response to any this-person-committed-a-crime talk after an unarmed killing is "So what?"
Trespassing does not result in a death penalty.
Attempted robbery does not result in a death penalty.
Robbery does not result in a death penalty.
Assualt, the most you could probably throw at Arbery if he was alive for throwing a punch, does not result in the death penalty.
Hell even being generous, ARMED ROBBERY does not result in a death penalty.
Yet he's dead. It was an inexcusable use of excessive force where two people decided to be judge and jury. It's inexcusable that it took 2 and half months to press charges. It's sickening watching anyone defend the actions these people took, because, in their mind, they have the right to do it, and if they have the right, they may end up doing it in the future. And if these two walk, it will happen again in the future. . . who am I kidding, it'll happen in the future regardless.
None of this is what happened. He attacked the guy and grabbed his gun, causing him to get shot through the hand, and another time in the leg during the struggle. He wasn't shot for trespassing, that was the alleged probable cause that caused a chase, which is actually legal in that state, assuming this is what really happened. He wasn't even shot for assault. He was shot during a struggle for the gun itself, which looks to be an accident based on the report.
I already said I hope they get manslaughter for their unjustified chase, because running armed after a guy because you think he "may have" stole something is such a needless and *dangerous* escalation, but this isn't a case of cold blooded murder by any means, and they may very well walk free. You try to take a person's gun that they are legally carrying and a very reasonable self defense case can be made, assuming he ever intentionally fired shots in the first place.
I think "citizens arrest" is the b.s law that allowed this to happen. How is a person supposed to distinguish between a random person who wants to do them harm and a concerned citizen trying to detain you for the police? You can't know, and of course it would inevitably lead to something like this.
Blaming the guy who was murdered for his own death. Yikes.
He didnt "cause" the men to shoot him. He was being held at gunpoint and reacted in self defense. It's enlightening that you consider the heavily armed men making a completely illegal citizens arrest the victims here.
(And the "Citizen's arrest is completely illegal in this context. They would both need to have personally witnessed the crime, and the crime would have to have been a felony. Trespassing isnt a felony, and its my understanding they didnt directly witness it).
These sorts of justifications sound reminiscent of "She shouldnt have made him angry if she didnt want to be beaten".
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe you can certainly argue for homicide instead of merely manslaughter even if your interpretation of events is true, Zeke. Illegally detaining with the threat of force is kidnapping, even if it only happens for a second.
The victim died in the process of this illegal act, which, imo, does raise it past manslaughter. It's no different than an originally unintended killing that took place during a robbery for example. In fact, what these men did very much resembles an armed robbery gone wrong, they walked up to a guy, pointed their guns at him and then subsequently shot him. That would be homicide in the case of a robbery and should be the same in the case of an illegal detention as well. No one should be able to use pointing a gun at strangers on the street, unprovoked, as an excuse.
Their entire chase sequence could have taken place WITHOUT guns. They choose to bring firearms with them. If they were THAT worried Ahamd Aubrey had a weapon himself, then they should have let the police handle it. This isn't a matter of someone breaking into your bedroom and pulling a shotgun on them. This is ACTIVELY seeking out someone with a deadly weapon, and initiating a confrontation with them. They gave chase, the did it with weapons, the weapon went off. It's that whole "personal responsibility" thing we always hear about on the right, except not really when it comes down to it.
There was no legal basis for the chase and attempted questioning (as there is no direct, immediate evidence of a felony). They had no reason to think their lives were in immediate danger. If they were going to give chase regardless, they damn sure could have chosen to leave their shotguns at home. Once they barricade him in between the two pick-ups, Aubrey has EVERY REASON as a black man in the deep south being literally TRAPPED by 3 white men with guns that his life is in danger. He makes one move to veer off to the right. He is STOPPED from doing so by one of the men. At that point, he goes into survival mode. It's either that, or be at the mercy of 3 vigilantes. When the gun goes off, even if it was because of a struggle, it's because these fuckers made the decision to bring the guns in the first place. They are 100% responsible for the weapon being there, and they are 100% responsible for the confrontation taking place. Aubrey is guilty of gut instinct and terror kicking in. Again, these aren't REMOTELY equal.
I'm not a lawyer, but I believe you can certainly argue for homicide instead of merely manslaughter even if your interpretation of events is true, Zeke. Illegally detaining with the threat of force is kidnapping, even if it only happens for a second.
The victim died in the process of this illegal act, which, imo, does raise it past manslaughter. It's no different than an originally unintended killing that took place during a robbery for example. In fact, what these men did very much resembles an armed robbery gone wrong, they walked up to a guy, pointed their guns at him and then subsequently shot him. That would be homicide in the case of a robbery and should be the same in the case of an illegal detention as well. No one should be able to use pointing a gun at strangers on the street, unprovoked, as an excuse.
A murder conviction would appear possible. The Georgia penal code provisions on murder are: (a) A person commits the offense of murder when he unlawfully and with malice aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of another human being.
(b) Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take the life of another human being which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof. Malice shall be implied where no considerable provocation appears and where all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.
(c) A person also commits the offense of murder when, in the commission of a felony, he causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice.
(d) A person convicted of the offense of murder shall be punished by death, by imprisonment for life without parole, or by imprisonment for life.
If a murder charge were to be brought, this would most likely be done under (c) as it would appear much easier to demonstrate an intention to commit the crime of false imprisonment than an express or implied intention to kill sufficient to meet the requirement in (b). In Georgia, false imprisonment is always a felony offence and that would be the crime rather than kidnapping (as the latter requires a victim to be moved).
If my reading of these events is correct, it's notable that the victim was the one acting in self-defense. He tried to escape the situation, but when that was no longer an option, he tried to fight back against the men threatening him at gunpoint. If someone pulled a gun on me, my first instinct would be to freeze, talk, and slip out of the situation, but if that didn't become an option, trying to seize the weapon would be my only hope of survival.
I can see why the killer could claim he thought he himself was in danger ("if he got my gun, what if he used it on me?"), but trying to fight back against a random thug threatening you with illegal violence is an act of self-defense. The fact that the "thug" in this case was pretending to be a vigilante (with no probable cause, for that matter) doesn't invalidate a black man's right to self-defense just because his white killer consciously decided to threaten him with a lethal weapon.
Otherwise we have a situation where only certain people are allowed to practice self-defense.
If my reading of these events is correct, it's notable that the victim was the one acting in self-defense. He tried to escape the situation, but when that was no longer an option, he tried to fight back against the men threatening him at gunpoint. If someone pulled a gun on me, my first instinct would be to freeze, talk, and slip out of the situation, but if that didn't become an option, trying to seize the weapon would be my only hope of survival.
I can see why the killer could claim he thought he himself was in danger ("if he got my gun, what if he used it on me?"), but trying to fight back against a random thug threatening you with illegal violence is an act of self-defense. The fact that the "thug" in this case was pretending to be a vigilante (with no probable cause, for that matter) doesn't invalidate a black man's right to self-defense just because his white killer consciously decided to threaten him with a lethal weapon.
Otherwise we have a situation where only certain people are allowed to practice self-defense.
I think we HAVE a situation where only certain people are allowed to practice self-defense. I think that's what is implicit in all of this, and goes right back to the Black Panthers open-carrying in California in the '60s and Ronald Reagan immediately calling for strict gun laws. I mean, this is a broader question than just this incident. You had dozens of people storming the Michigan state Capitol armed with assault rifles last week. Some of them were even allowed to take up positions on a higher floor than everyone else, in an almost tactical way. That protest wasn't about shut-down orders. It was about saying "we can kill any of you right now if we want to, and what's more, NO one is going to stop us from engaging in this armed takeover of the lobby, and we know it". Not a single person here, no matter how socially conservative, honestly believes that if that had been a couple dozen black men or Muslims that it would have been allowed. No one. Everyone accepts that this is the case. And to some, the double-standard isn't just ok, it's actually right and proper. Roger Taney, from the Dred Scott decision. Nothing has much changed in the grand scheme of things:
“of an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
The open-carry in the midst of this pandemic is simply people with fragile egos flexing the fact that they can do something in public (carry assault rifles and implicitly threaten violence against state officials) that they KNOW no minority mob of the same number could EVER get away with. And they take comfort in knowing they have that special immunity. Because it means, in some way, they're "better". They may have a shitty job and their wife may have left them for the guy down the street, but by god, they can brandish their guns in front of cops and capitol security and not even get so much as a sideways glance.
If you don't believe me or think that's a serious statement, tell me WHY the guns were necessary. Was there any indication Michigan law enforcement was going to detain them?? What was the PURPOSE to bringing weapons of war to a protest about a local health directive?? There is only ONE reason for people to brandish these weapons in public, which is to say to EVERYONE they come across "I can kill you, and I'm the one in charge". That's all "open-carry" is. People with severe insecurities that have become pathological.
Point being, open-carrying a weapon (as is the case in both of these incidents) is, by default, an implicit threat to everyone who isn't carrying one. It may be "legal", but that doesn't make what I'm saying less true. The only purpose of a gun is to take life. The only reason to open-carry one is to convey to other people that you are willing to take theirs. It's almost indistinguishable from terrorism.
It's hard for me to even believe this is possible, but even I underestimated just how irredeemably stupid this society is and how much it's playing into how we simply cannot fight this virus like other (sane) countries:
My gym IS open. Opened about 4 or 5 days ago. It's 24-hours. I've walked by, people are definitely there. To me, it seems like a petri dish. I'd LIKE to go. I suppose I could go at 2 or 3 am when there is usually no one else there. But at the moment, I've opted for walking about 5 or 6 miles a day instead. Downloaded a pedometer app on my phone. It's been relaxing. It's not the end of the world. Light breeze, peaceful. Throw in my headphones and have some time to myself with fresh air. And I'm not putting myself or anyone else at risk doing so. Why is this such a hard concept?? When I see cases in our county (which is basically our metro area) actually go down significantly, I may change my mind. But I see zero evidence of that so far. And I fully expect a surge in two weeks after the opening of restaurants, salons, and, yes, gyms.
He didnt "cause" the men to shoot him. He was being held at gunpoint and reacted in self defense. It's enlightening that you consider the heavily armed men making a completely illegal citizens arrest the victims here.
There is no evidence in the video of anyone holding anyone up at gunpoint. It is these sort of casual lies that stir up emotional responses in people and pervert real justice.
In fact, when the person is in control of his own weapon and it is not being grabbed from him, he keeps the gun pointed towards the ground. Before that, we only see the moment where he charges at the man. Any accusations of them pointing weapons around in a threatening manner willy nilly, rather than just holding them, is not one you can make an evidence based case for at this time.
(And the "Citizen's arrest is completely illegal in this context. They would both need to have personally witnessed the crime, and the crime would have to have been a felony. Trespassing isnt a felony, and its my understanding they didnt directly witness it).
Citizens arrest is legal in this state provided you either witness or have first hand knowledge of a felony having been committed. Burglary, not trespassing, is a felony. It will all come down to what probable cause they had. You have no idea whether or not this particular case fits the legal definition any more than I do, and such bold statements only serve to show that you and many others have made up their minds the moment they read the headline.
There is also nothing in the law that states you can't open carry while making such an arrest.
These sorts of justifications sound reminiscent of "She shouldnt have made him angry if she didnt want to be beaten".
A very objective comment that would totally hold up in court.
And you are right, none of that did happen. All that happened was Abrery was ran off the road while jogging and assaulted by a person with a shotgun.
Manifestly untrue as we can see he initiated the fight. These sorts of casual lies seem to be inseparable from the case against the man.
The person with the shot gun should have kept a reasonable distance from the 'suspect,'
Not what the law states.
dictate to that suspect to place his hands over his head as he was being arrested for ___________________. The shotgun wielder should have stated clearly that Aubrey remain calm until the police arrive while still keeping a distance.
You have no idea whether or not he did, and are merely assuming he did not. I find it highly unlikely he didn't if we was intending to perform a citizens arrest.
The safety of the weapon should have been on to prevent the gun from mistakenly going off.
Not actually sure the type of weapon they are using, but some models don't have safety's at all and some models have a cross-bolt safety that can come loose during a struggle or even if you drop it. There is also the fact that he may simply have taken it off himself when he was being attacked and the gun was being taken away from him, a justifiable action.
The only good argument against the man is the basis for the chase in the first place. Most everything else is a misrepresentation of either the law or the facts as we know them.
One day, mob justice will be the law of the land in this country, given the current trajectory. There simply aren't enough people who care about the truth more than what they feel. It will become increasingly impossible for fair trials to exist in the age of the entire public having strong preconceived notions before a proper prosecution and defense can be had.
One day, mob justice will be the law of the land in this country, given the current trajectory. There simply aren't enough people who care about the truth more than what they feel. It will become increasingly impossible for fair trials to exist in the age of the entire public having strong preconceived notions before a proper prosecution and defense can be had.
You're afraid of "mob justice" but don't seem to have much of a problem with people threatening people on the street with weapons? Doesn't seem like a consistently held philosophy here. Again, if people stopped *you* on the street, told you "wait here" while holding guns, even if those guns weren't literally pointed at you, is that a threat? I would interpret it as such if it happened to me.
We've now reached the point where not just the lockdown, but completely reasonable safety measures and even BASIC HYGIENE have been turned into a battle in the culture war. But I'm sure it's the fault of "both sides"................
You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. What supposedly happens is that the leftist ministry of truth and its thought police henchmen have reached the point where they are recognized as a greater threat to society than covid. Which, admittedly, sends chills down the spine.
How could they have direct knowledge of a felony even if he DID take something (which the video we have been provided DOES NOT show) unless they were watching a live feed?? What did he take?? Did he use magic to apparate the drywall to another location??
You are ignoring a CLEAR break to the right Aubrey makes in the chase video as he attempts to get anyway, from, again, 3 men with guns who are attempting to box him into an area. He is STOPPED by one of these men. The idea he didn't TRY to get away is absurd. And this absurd insistence that 3 men chasing you with guns isn't "threatening" is just being willfully obtuse to back up your argument. If you have a gun, and I don't, you are the "threat". Period, end of story.
What you are suggesting, in both this AND the Zimmerman case, is that if you have a gun, you can initiate a confrontation with someone you have not actual authority or business initiating. Then, if that person feels legitimately threatened because they are being either stalked or chased by armed men who have deputized themselves, they have NO right to self-defense themselves. They have no right to attempt to NOT let random citizens arbitrarily strip them of their rights with no authority. And the moment they DO attempt to assert their rights, the people who started the whole fucking sequence of events in the first place can then shoot you because you "fought back".
What utter nonsense. Whether you know it or not, what you are suggesting is that, if ever confronted by vigilantes with guns, your only choice is to comply with them. Which is effectively giving them exactly what they wanted, which is total control over other citizens because they are armed. Another example of right-wing super-citizenship. As I've said this entire time, the gun itself is bestowing rights upon them other people clearly do not have.
One day, mob justice will be the law of the land in this country, given the current trajectory. There simply aren't enough people who care about the truth more than what they feel. It will become increasingly impossible for fair trials to exist in the age of the entire public having strong preconceived notions before a proper prosecution and defense can be had.
You're afraid of "mob justice" but don't seem to have much of a problem with people threatening people on the street with weapons? Doesn't seem like a consistently held philosophy here. Again, if people stopped *you* on the street, told you "wait here" while holding guns, even if those guns weren't literally pointed at you, is that a threat? I would interpret it as such if it happened to me.
If someone came up to me holding a gun, and I couldn't escape them, the very last thing I would do would be to sacrifice my life trying to attack the person and grab it. I'd try to talk my way out of it first. Such a simple thing could have prevented it all.
But it doesn't matter what I do or don't have a problem with, it matters what *the law* is and whether or not they were *acting within it*. If they were, you can't punish them, even if you hate what happened and the law itself. That's why we have trials, and don't hang people in the street whenever the public is against them. We are quickly heading back towards those times though.
Besides, I already stated I *do* have a problem with it, I don't think "citizens arrest" is a neccesary practice in this age and does more harm than good. Leave it to cops, security guards, anyone who has to do that as their occupation. Not random people who could just as well be violent attackers.
But that's not what the law says, the law says a citizen can do such things, under certain circumstances.
We've now reached the point where not just the lockdown, but completely reasonable safety measures and even BASIC HYGIENE have been turned into a battle in the culture war. But I'm sure it's the fault of "both sides"................
You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. What supposedly happens is that the leftist ministry of truth and its thought police henchmen have reached the point where they are recognized as a greater threat to society than covid. Which, admittedly, sends chills down the spine.
Wearing a mask and maintaining space in a store during an ongoing pandemic where nearly 100,000 people have died in two months is not a chapter from "1984". It's called having basic courtesy to all the people in the store with you who may soon be in contact with vulnerable members of the population. And any arguments to the contrary are absurd, scientifically and morally.
One day, mob justice will be the law of the land in this country, given the current trajectory. There simply aren't enough people who care about the truth more than what they feel. It will become increasingly impossible for fair trials to exist in the age of the entire public having strong preconceived notions before a proper prosecution and defense can be had.
You're afraid of "mob justice" but don't seem to have much of a problem with people threatening people on the street with weapons? Doesn't seem like a consistently held philosophy here. Again, if people stopped *you* on the street, told you "wait here" while holding guns, even if those guns weren't literally pointed at you, is that a threat? I would interpret it as such if it happened to me.
If someone came up to me holding a gun, and I couldn't escape them, the very last thing I would do would be to sacrifice my life trying to attack the person and grab it. I'd try to talk my way out of it first. Such a simple thing could have prevented it all.
But it doesn't matter what I do or don't have a problem with, it matters what *the law* is and whether or not they were *acting within it*. If they were, you can't punish them, even if you hate what happened and the law itself. That's why we have trials, and don't hang people in the street whenever the public is against them. We are quickly heading back towards those times though.
Besides, I already stated I *do* have a problem with it, I don't think "citizens arrest" is a neccesary practice in this age and does more harm than good. Leave it to cops, security guards, anyone who has to do that as their occupation. Not random people who could just as well be violent attackers.
But that's not what the law says, the law says a citizen can do such things, under certain circumstances.
Are you suggesting these guys aren't gonna get a trial?? Shit, they wouldn't have even been arrested if the video doesn't leak to the media. The person who didn't get a trial, or justice of any sort whatsoever, is Ahmad Aubrey. And there are millions of people who are not only ok with that, they think it's actually GOOD.
One day, mob justice will be the law of the land in this country, given the current trajectory. There simply aren't enough people who care about the truth more than what they feel. It will become increasingly impossible for fair trials to exist in the age of the entire public having strong preconceived notions before a proper prosecution and defense can be had.
You're afraid of "mob justice" but don't seem to have much of a problem with people threatening people on the street with weapons? Doesn't seem like a consistently held philosophy here. Again, if people stopped *you* on the street, told you "wait here" while holding guns, even if those guns weren't literally pointed at you, is that a threat? I would interpret it as such if it happened to me.
If someone came up to me holding a gun, and I couldn't escape them, the very last thing I would do would be to sacrifice my life trying to attack the person and grab it. I'd try to talk my way out of it first. Such a simple thing could have prevented it all.
But it doesn't matter what I do or don't have a problem with, it matters what *the law* is and whether or not they were *acting within it*. If they were, you can't punish them, even if you hate what happened and the law itself. That's why we have trials, and don't hang people in the street whenever the public is against them. We are quickly heading back towards those times though.
Besides, I already stated I *do* have a problem with it, I don't think "citizens arrest" is a neccesary practice in this age and does more harm than good. Leave it to cops, security guards, anyone who has to do that as their occupation. Not random people who could just as well be violent attackers.
But that's not what the law says, the law says a citizen can do such things, under certain circumstances.
That's fair but all you're saying is that the deceased is guilty of being stupid. Which is not a crime. Again, walking up to someone on the street, with the threat of force, even implied, is a crime! It's not just "unnecessary", it's a criminal act. You can only use the threat of force to detain someone in very very extreme circumstances. If you actually are against "mob justice" I would expect you to condemn this much more than people clamoring for the government to act decisively on this case.
This is a good legal take on the case, and one that assumes they are probably guilty on account of it not being a lawful citizens arrest, complete with case law.
Carrying guns while performing a chase will likely be considered unreasonable force, and I tend to agree. As I said before, it's a needless and dangerous escalation. There was no reason to think that guy was armed.
One day, mob justice will be the law of the land in this country, given the current trajectory. There simply aren't enough people who care about the truth more than what they feel. It will become increasingly impossible for fair trials to exist in the age of the entire public having strong preconceived notions before a proper prosecution and defense can be had.
You're afraid of "mob justice" but don't seem to have much of a problem with people threatening people on the street with weapons? Doesn't seem like a consistently held philosophy here. Again, if people stopped *you* on the street, told you "wait here" while holding guns, even if those guns weren't literally pointed at you, is that a threat? I would interpret it as such if it happened to me.
If someone came up to me holding a gun, and I couldn't escape them, the very last thing I would do would be to sacrifice my life trying to attack the person and grab it. I'd try to talk my way out of it first. Such a simple thing could have prevented it all.
But it doesn't matter what I do or don't have a problem with, it matters what *the law* is and whether or not they were *acting within it*. If they were, you can't punish them, even if you hate what happened and the law itself. That's why we have trials, and don't hang people in the street whenever the public is against them. We are quickly heading back towards those times though.
Besides, I already stated I *do* have a problem with it, I don't think "citizens arrest" is a neccesary practice in this age and does more harm than good. Leave it to cops, security guards, anyone who has to do that as their occupation. Not random people who could just as well be violent attackers.
But that's not what the law says, the law says a citizen can do such things, under certain circumstances.
Black people:
The only set of people who get blamed for being murdered.
One day, mob justice will be the law of the land in this country, given the current trajectory. There simply aren't enough people who care about the truth more than what they feel. It will become increasingly impossible for fair trials to exist in the age of the entire public having strong preconceived notions before a proper prosecution and defense can be had.
You're afraid of "mob justice" but don't seem to have much of a problem with people threatening people on the street with weapons? Doesn't seem like a consistently held philosophy here. Again, if people stopped *you* on the street, told you "wait here" while holding guns, even if those guns weren't literally pointed at you, is that a threat? I would interpret it as such if it happened to me.
If someone came up to me holding a gun, and I couldn't escape them, the very last thing I would do would be to sacrifice my life trying to attack the person and grab it. I'd try to talk my way out of it first. Such a simple thing could have prevented it all.
But it doesn't matter what I do or don't have a problem with, it matters what *the law* is and whether or not they were *acting within it*. If they were, you can't punish them, even if you hate what happened and the law itself. That's why we have trials, and don't hang people in the street whenever the public is against them. We are quickly heading back towards those times though.
Besides, I already stated I *do* have a problem with it, I don't think "citizens arrest" is a neccesary practice in this age and does more harm than good. Leave it to cops, security guards, anyone who has to do that as their occupation. Not random people who could just as well be violent attackers.
But that's not what the law says, the law says a citizen can do such things, under certain circumstances.
Black people:
The only set of people who get blamed for being murdered.
Nah, the endless racial propaganda has clearly gone to your head. Some of us can look at behavior and law alone and make judgements on it, some of us can't see the world in anything less than black and white at all times, forgive the pun.
I guess I just don't see this "mob justice" you're talking about with regards to people calling for their indictment. People engaged in peaceful protests in Georgia and petitioned their government to do something via things like social media and the news media. That's called democracy, not "mob justice." Unless you're arguing that people should just accept whatever decisions their governments make and only express protest by voting on election day. Petitioning the government to do something is not at all "mob justice."
Arming yourself and deputizing yourself into the role of police officer is.
The more national attention a case has the less likely it is for that case to get objective jurors who don't already have set opinions. When the nation at large believes and parrots a steady stream of manifest falsehoods that they will not be talked out of, as is quite evident, the possibility of a fair trial drops to near zero. Of course, this is all by design, since never anywhere is anyone given the idea that the presumption of innocence is an acceptable attitude to take. Quite the opposite, demonization is encouraged from all sides.
Repeat for every recent legal case with national attention to date. Legal verdicts do nothing to change peoples opinions, and if those same people were on that jury it's obvious justice would never be served from the outset because people believe headlines over their lying eyes.
This is why juries, especially in legal cases with national attention, are instructed to read nothing about the case. All it does is serve to poison the well.
And now that white liberals have gone off the deep end when it comes to belief in systemic racial injustice, far more so in many areas than every minority group, they are so blinded by ideological poison in general they can't be trusted to make accurate judgements about a person's character based on evidence at all. It's all secret racism, all the time.
What evidence do you have that jurors will be hard to find? They've already convened a grand jury for the indictment decision! This seems like a pretty fact-free analysis on your part, I have to say, the very thing you're accusing everyone else of being guilty of.
Comments
"Check out the Zinger
Best electric chair ever!"
is probably not one I would be queuing up for at the best of times ...
I get the humour but this is a zinger:
https://www.zingerchair.com/
The type of people who do shop at a store like this are probably the type that are the most vulnerable to this.
But what you'll see on many corners of the web today is the video being looped, in slow motion, to give the impression of a sinister motive, of the default danger of a dark-skinned man. The actual video shows someone looking around curious at what a home looks like in it's skeleton form. Has anyone here NOT walked into a construction site at some time in their life when work wasn't being done?? Again, the video of him at the house is being released (just like the idiot friend of the now arrested father and son intended with the first one) to somehow prove Aubrey was in the wrong, when it fact both videos do the complete opposite. This one clearly shows him stealing NOTHING and just casually observing for a short period of time. What people who are pointing to this video as incriminating are actually trying to say (without having the balls to do so) is that a.) he had no right to be in a "white neighborhood" and b.) he deserved to be summarily executed for doing so. But that story is as old as Emmett Till.
Make no mistake about it, anyone sharing this video and commenting "see, look at this" is saying that wandering into a house under construction is a legitimate reason for an armed posse to attempt to detain and then murder someone. And that it's completely justified. EVERY black man killed in this way is made out to be a demon posthumously. Even if they are 12-years old like Tamir Rice. They will find you casually looking at drywall. They will see if you had detention in middle-school. If you EVER smoked pot or were charged with ANY crime previously, it is used as iron-clad predicate that you deserved to be executed on the spot years later.
At BEST, what the new tape shows is that what was deserved if someone saw him was a yell along the lines of "hey, get out of there". Under no circumstances does it justify mounting up for an armed chase.
By the way, this is fucking brilliant. A white-man literally running down the street carrying a flat-screen under his arm. Of course, no one thought twice about it when they saw him:
Trespassing does not result in a death penalty.
Attempted robbery does not result in a death penalty.
Robbery does not result in a death penalty.
Assualt, the most you could probably throw at Arbery if he was alive for throwing a punch, does not result in the death penalty.
Hell even being generous, ARMED ROBBERY does not result in a death penalty.
Yet he's dead. It was an inexcusable use of excessive force where two people decided to be judge and jury. It's inexcusable that it took 2 and half months to press charges. It's sickening watching anyone defend the actions these people took, because, in their mind, they have the right to do it, and if they have the right, they may end up doing it in the future. And if these two walk, it will happen again in the future. . . who am I kidding, it'll happen in the future regardless.
None of this is what happened. He attacked the guy and grabbed his gun, causing him to get shot through the hand, and another time in the leg during the struggle. He wasn't shot for trespassing, that was the alleged probable cause that caused a chase, which is actually legal in that state, assuming this is what really happened. He wasn't even shot for assault. He was shot during a struggle for the gun itself, which looks to be an accident based on the report.
I already said I hope they get manslaughter for their unjustified chase, because running armed after a guy because you think he "may have" stole something is such a needless and *dangerous* escalation, but this isn't a case of cold blooded murder by any means, and they may very well walk free. You try to take a person's gun that they are legally carrying and a very reasonable self defense case can be made, assuming he ever intentionally fired shots in the first place.
I think "citizens arrest" is the b.s law that allowed this to happen. How is a person supposed to distinguish between a random person who wants to do them harm and a concerned citizen trying to detain you for the police? You can't know, and of course it would inevitably lead to something like this.
Small consolation when the law itself does more harm than good. Any form of citizens arrest, if it exists at all, should relate only to violent crimes, imo.
No then rent-a-cops can't detain someone for shoplifting, or vandalism for example. A state could always regulate these positions to acquire certain licencing (and some do but really, it's besides the point in this situation.
And you are right, none of that did happen. All that happened was Abrery was ran off the road while jogging and assaulted by a person with a shotgun. The person with the shot gun should have kept a reasonable distance from the 'suspect,' dictate to that suspect to place his hands over his head as he was being arrested for ___________________. The shotgun wielder should have stated clearly that Aubrey remain calm until the police arrive while still keeping a distance. The safety of the weapon should have been on to prevent the gun from mistakenly going off.
None of that happened because the person responsible for the weapon wasn't trained how to properly use it. Wasn't trained how to restrain a suspect. Wasn't trained on how to keep a situation from escalating. He and he alone is responsible for the death of Arbery. Anything else is just making an excuse for some idiot.
Blaming the guy who was murdered for his own death. Yikes.
He didnt "cause" the men to shoot him. He was being held at gunpoint and reacted in self defense. It's enlightening that you consider the heavily armed men making a completely illegal citizens arrest the victims here.
(And the "Citizen's arrest is completely illegal in this context. They would both need to have personally witnessed the crime, and the crime would have to have been a felony. Trespassing isnt a felony, and its my understanding they didnt directly witness it).
These sorts of justifications sound reminiscent of "She shouldnt have made him angry if she didnt want to be beaten".
The victim died in the process of this illegal act, which, imo, does raise it past manslaughter. It's no different than an originally unintended killing that took place during a robbery for example. In fact, what these men did very much resembles an armed robbery gone wrong, they walked up to a guy, pointed their guns at him and then subsequently shot him. That would be homicide in the case of a robbery and should be the same in the case of an illegal detention as well. No one should be able to use pointing a gun at strangers on the street, unprovoked, as an excuse.
There was no legal basis for the chase and attempted questioning (as there is no direct, immediate evidence of a felony). They had no reason to think their lives were in immediate danger. If they were going to give chase regardless, they damn sure could have chosen to leave their shotguns at home. Once they barricade him in between the two pick-ups, Aubrey has EVERY REASON as a black man in the deep south being literally TRAPPED by 3 white men with guns that his life is in danger. He makes one move to veer off to the right. He is STOPPED from doing so by one of the men. At that point, he goes into survival mode. It's either that, or be at the mercy of 3 vigilantes. When the gun goes off, even if it was because of a struggle, it's because these fuckers made the decision to bring the guns in the first place. They are 100% responsible for the weapon being there, and they are 100% responsible for the confrontation taking place. Aubrey is guilty of gut instinct and terror kicking in. Again, these aren't REMOTELY equal.
A murder conviction would appear possible. The Georgia penal code provisions on murder are:
(a) A person commits the offense of murder when he unlawfully and with malice aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of another human being.
(b) Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take the life of another human being which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof. Malice shall be implied where no considerable provocation appears and where all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.
(c) A person also commits the offense of murder when, in the commission of a felony, he causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice.
(d) A person convicted of the offense of murder shall be punished by death, by imprisonment for life without parole, or by imprisonment for life.
If a murder charge were to be brought, this would most likely be done under (c) as it would appear much easier to demonstrate an intention to commit the crime of false imprisonment than an express or implied intention to kill sufficient to meet the requirement in (b). In Georgia, false imprisonment is always a felony offence and that would be the crime rather than kidnapping (as the latter requires a victim to be moved).
I can see why the killer could claim he thought he himself was in danger ("if he got my gun, what if he used it on me?"), but trying to fight back against a random thug threatening you with illegal violence is an act of self-defense. The fact that the "thug" in this case was pretending to be a vigilante (with no probable cause, for that matter) doesn't invalidate a black man's right to self-defense just because his white killer consciously decided to threaten him with a lethal weapon.
Otherwise we have a situation where only certain people are allowed to practice self-defense.
I think we HAVE a situation where only certain people are allowed to practice self-defense. I think that's what is implicit in all of this, and goes right back to the Black Panthers open-carrying in California in the '60s and Ronald Reagan immediately calling for strict gun laws. I mean, this is a broader question than just this incident. You had dozens of people storming the Michigan state Capitol armed with assault rifles last week. Some of them were even allowed to take up positions on a higher floor than everyone else, in an almost tactical way. That protest wasn't about shut-down orders. It was about saying "we can kill any of you right now if we want to, and what's more, NO one is going to stop us from engaging in this armed takeover of the lobby, and we know it". Not a single person here, no matter how socially conservative, honestly believes that if that had been a couple dozen black men or Muslims that it would have been allowed. No one. Everyone accepts that this is the case. And to some, the double-standard isn't just ok, it's actually right and proper. Roger Taney, from the Dred Scott decision. Nothing has much changed in the grand scheme of things:
“of an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”
The open-carry in the midst of this pandemic is simply people with fragile egos flexing the fact that they can do something in public (carry assault rifles and implicitly threaten violence against state officials) that they KNOW no minority mob of the same number could EVER get away with. And they take comfort in knowing they have that special immunity. Because it means, in some way, they're "better". They may have a shitty job and their wife may have left them for the guy down the street, but by god, they can brandish their guns in front of cops and capitol security and not even get so much as a sideways glance.
If you don't believe me or think that's a serious statement, tell me WHY the guns were necessary. Was there any indication Michigan law enforcement was going to detain them?? What was the PURPOSE to bringing weapons of war to a protest about a local health directive?? There is only ONE reason for people to brandish these weapons in public, which is to say to EVERYONE they come across "I can kill you, and I'm the one in charge". That's all "open-carry" is. People with severe insecurities that have become pathological.
Point being, open-carrying a weapon (as is the case in both of these incidents) is, by default, an implicit threat to everyone who isn't carrying one. It may be "legal", but that doesn't make what I'm saying less true. The only purpose of a gun is to take life. The only reason to open-carry one is to convey to other people that you are willing to take theirs. It's almost indistinguishable from terrorism.
My gym IS open. Opened about 4 or 5 days ago. It's 24-hours. I've walked by, people are definitely there. To me, it seems like a petri dish. I'd LIKE to go. I suppose I could go at 2 or 3 am when there is usually no one else there. But at the moment, I've opted for walking about 5 or 6 miles a day instead. Downloaded a pedometer app on my phone. It's been relaxing. It's not the end of the world. Light breeze, peaceful. Throw in my headphones and have some time to myself with fresh air. And I'm not putting myself or anyone else at risk doing so. Why is this such a hard concept?? When I see cases in our county (which is basically our metro area) actually go down significantly, I may change my mind. But I see zero evidence of that so far. And I fully expect a surge in two weeks after the opening of restaurants, salons, and, yes, gyms.
There is no evidence in the video of anyone holding anyone up at gunpoint. It is these sort of casual lies that stir up emotional responses in people and pervert real justice.
In fact, when the person is in control of his own weapon and it is not being grabbed from him, he keeps the gun pointed towards the ground. Before that, we only see the moment where he charges at the man. Any accusations of them pointing weapons around in a threatening manner willy nilly, rather than just holding them, is not one you can make an evidence based case for at this time.
Citizens arrest is legal in this state provided you either witness or have first hand knowledge of a felony having been committed. Burglary, not trespassing, is a felony. It will all come down to what probable cause they had. You have no idea whether or not this particular case fits the legal definition any more than I do, and such bold statements only serve to show that you and many others have made up their minds the moment they read the headline.
There is also nothing in the law that states you can't open carry while making such an arrest.
A very objective comment that would totally hold up in court.
Manifestly untrue as we can see he initiated the fight. These sorts of casual lies seem to be inseparable from the case against the man.
Not what the law states.
You have no idea whether or not he did, and are merely assuming he did not. I find it highly unlikely he didn't if we was intending to perform a citizens arrest.
Not actually sure the type of weapon they are using, but some models don't have safety's at all and some models have a cross-bolt safety that can come loose during a struggle or even if you drop it. There is also the fact that he may simply have taken it off himself when he was being attacked and the gun was being taken away from him, a justifiable action.
The only good argument against the man is the basis for the chase in the first place. Most everything else is a misrepresentation of either the law or the facts as we know them.
You're afraid of "mob justice" but don't seem to have much of a problem with people threatening people on the street with weapons? Doesn't seem like a consistently held philosophy here. Again, if people stopped *you* on the street, told you "wait here" while holding guns, even if those guns weren't literally pointed at you, is that a threat? I would interpret it as such if it happened to me.
You are ignoring a CLEAR break to the right Aubrey makes in the chase video as he attempts to get anyway, from, again, 3 men with guns who are attempting to box him into an area. He is STOPPED by one of these men. The idea he didn't TRY to get away is absurd. And this absurd insistence that 3 men chasing you with guns isn't "threatening" is just being willfully obtuse to back up your argument. If you have a gun, and I don't, you are the "threat". Period, end of story.
What you are suggesting, in both this AND the Zimmerman case, is that if you have a gun, you can initiate a confrontation with someone you have not actual authority or business initiating. Then, if that person feels legitimately threatened because they are being either stalked or chased by armed men who have deputized themselves, they have NO right to self-defense themselves. They have no right to attempt to NOT let random citizens arbitrarily strip them of their rights with no authority. And the moment they DO attempt to assert their rights, the people who started the whole fucking sequence of events in the first place can then shoot you because you "fought back".
What utter nonsense. Whether you know it or not, what you are suggesting is that, if ever confronted by vigilantes with guns, your only choice is to comply with them. Which is effectively giving them exactly what they wanted, which is total control over other citizens because they are armed. Another example of right-wing super-citizenship. As I've said this entire time, the gun itself is bestowing rights upon them other people clearly do not have.
If someone came up to me holding a gun, and I couldn't escape them, the very last thing I would do would be to sacrifice my life trying to attack the person and grab it. I'd try to talk my way out of it first. Such a simple thing could have prevented it all.
But it doesn't matter what I do or don't have a problem with, it matters what *the law* is and whether or not they were *acting within it*. If they were, you can't punish them, even if you hate what happened and the law itself. That's why we have trials, and don't hang people in the street whenever the public is against them. We are quickly heading back towards those times though.
Besides, I already stated I *do* have a problem with it, I don't think "citizens arrest" is a neccesary practice in this age and does more harm than good. Leave it to cops, security guards, anyone who has to do that as their occupation. Not random people who could just as well be violent attackers.
But that's not what the law says, the law says a citizen can do such things, under certain circumstances.
Wearing a mask and maintaining space in a store during an ongoing pandemic where nearly 100,000 people have died in two months is not a chapter from "1984". It's called having basic courtesy to all the people in the store with you who may soon be in contact with vulnerable members of the population. And any arguments to the contrary are absurd, scientifically and morally.
Are you suggesting these guys aren't gonna get a trial?? Shit, they wouldn't have even been arrested if the video doesn't leak to the media. The person who didn't get a trial, or justice of any sort whatsoever, is Ahmad Aubrey. And there are millions of people who are not only ok with that, they think it's actually GOOD.
That's fair but all you're saying is that the deceased is guilty of being stupid. Which is not a crime. Again, walking up to someone on the street, with the threat of force, even implied, is a crime! It's not just "unnecessary", it's a criminal act. You can only use the threat of force to detain someone in very very extreme circumstances. If you actually are against "mob justice" I would expect you to condemn this much more than people clamoring for the government to act decisively on this case.
Carrying guns while performing a chase will likely be considered unreasonable force, and I tend to agree. As I said before, it's a needless and dangerous escalation. There was no reason to think that guy was armed.
https://arcdigital.media/the-ahmaud-arbery-killing-and-georgia-law-72ebb5c7643b
Black people:
The only set of people who get blamed for being murdered.
Nah, the endless racial propaganda has clearly gone to your head. Some of us can look at behavior and law alone and make judgements on it, some of us can't see the world in anything less than black and white at all times, forgive the pun.
Arming yourself and deputizing yourself into the role of police officer is.
Repeat for every recent legal case with national attention to date. Legal verdicts do nothing to change peoples opinions, and if those same people were on that jury it's obvious justice would never be served from the outset because people believe headlines over their lying eyes.
This is why juries, especially in legal cases with national attention, are instructed to read nothing about the case. All it does is serve to poison the well.
And now that white liberals have gone off the deep end when it comes to belief in systemic racial injustice, far more so in many areas than every minority group, they are so blinded by ideological poison in general they can't be trusted to make accurate judgements about a person's character based on evidence at all. It's all secret racism, all the time.