Georgia shooting of a black man

[noway2]

I still look at it this away. Would a LEO be charged for murder in that case? IMHO, No and they would have had the Law of the Land if thier side and the most instinctive law if all in their side. Self preservation.
If they should have charged with anything maybe if illegally detaining him.

As I've said in other threads, I am not s supporter of having govt super citizens with rights and powers above the common peasant. Not only do I believe it is impossible to legitimately create such super citizens because it's impossible to bestow upon another that which you don't possess, trying to do so is a recipe for tyranny.

Go back to the principles of the founding fathers, they would have eschewed govt police and said the citizenry needs to be responsible for upholding the law and keeping society civil.

 

[noway2]

It's no surprise to me that the folks arguing that there's even a shred of legitimacy to the shooting...

1. didn't pay attention to the trial
and
2. are on the short list of folks to keep an eye on whenever there's a racially charged thread.

In other words if we don't agree with your take on the situation, we're racists. Hmmm, where do we regularly hear that one?

 

[Tim]

In other words if we don't agree with your take on the situation, we're racists. Hmmm, where do we regularly hear that one?

Yup, that’s exactly what I said. Gotcha. 👍

 

[Majicmike]

In other words if we don't agree with your take on the situation, we're racists. Hmmm, where do we regularly hear that one?

Bahahahahahaha,, I read the response hearing Rachel Maddow’s voice.

 

[Tailhunter]

Do you honestly believe that? Or are you just pushing buttons?

I have no use for a thief. Read it anyway you’d like.

 

[Catfish]

Nor do I. and ok. Your naive attempt at folksy wisdom suggests that innocence somehow protects a person. I'm sure we both know it doesn't. and im sure we both hate a thief.

 

[Tailhunter]

Nor do I. and ok. Your naive attempt at folksy wisdom suggests that innocence somehow protects a person. I'm sure we both know it doesn't. and im sure we both hate a thief.

Folksy wisdom?

If the thief had stayed home, he’d still be alive. Heck if he hadn’t tried to take the gun he’d still be alive.

I do agree with Texas’ stand on thieves and property.

 

[Catfish]

Educate me. Is it established fact that the dead guy was the thief?

 

[Tim]

Educate me. Is it established fact that the dead guy was the thief?

No. Nothing was taken.

 

[BlackGun]

It's no surprise to me that the folks arguing that there's even a shred of legitimacy to the shooting...

1. didn't pay attention to the trial
and
2. are on the short list of folks to keep an eye on whenever there's a racially charged thread.

Wow.

 

[Wahoo95]

No. Nothing was taken.

Nor was it proven that anything was taken by him prior to that day. But obviously it was assumed he must have been the thief because well.......[emoji2958]

I couldn't help but notice the difference in how they handled the interaction with the homeless guy who happened to be armed with a machete. No guns drawn and no assumptions of guilt.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

 

[BatteryOaksBilly]

Sooooooooooooooo..........................................is everybody WOKE now???????????????????????????? Just checking..........🤦‍♀️

 

[Tim]

Sooooooooooooooo..........................................is everybody WOKE now???????????????????????????? Just checking..........🤦‍♀️

There is nothing “woke” about calling a murder murder.

Just like there was nothing “right wing” about calling Rittenhouse’s verdict righteous self-defense.

For as many off the hinge leftists “woke” types we (society) have running around spewing horseshit we have a mostly equal number of right wingers that can’t see past their self-righteousness to even consider “their side” may have messed up.

We - as a society - have by and large lost the ability to be discerning. We’ve certainly lost the art of self-reflection. It’s all been sacrificed on the altar of Us vs. Them.

 

[BatteryOaksBilly]

self-righteousness

We’ve certainly lost the art of self-reflection

About the second or third post you ever directed to me was about You staying on Your High Horse. I'm not certain You are the right one to take on the two things above. These morons in Georgia got the fruit they sewed.

There is nothing “woke” about calling a murder murder.

But.......this seems to have hit a note with you.........The "woke" part.......I really don't care if You are or aren't......I am sure neither of Us is really the one to be calling out Anybody ....specifically..................

 

[Tim]

About the second or third post you ever directed to me was about You staying on Your High Horse. I'm not certain You are the right one to take on the two things above. These morons in Georgia got the fruit they sewed.

But.......this seems to have hit a note with you.........The "woke" part.......I really don't care if You are or aren't......I am sure neither of Us is really the one to be calling out Anybody ....specifically..................

I am most certainly not perfect. I hope you and yours have a great Thanksgiving.

 

[fieldgrade]

I’m gonna step right in here...probably into doo doo.

There’s a poster up thread who used to be a mod at the big forum we came from. Probably helped me more with just his answers to my posts than anyone else on the entire forum when I was getting started in earnest with my "escalated interest" in firearms nine or ten years ago. He was always active on the forum. Had a brazilian posts at the last forum. Been by my house when he was advising me on rebuilding a grill. He’s a heckuva good cook, and a damn good shooter. Been to firearms training with him.

I don’t know what his politics are these days in this whacko upside down world we live in, but he once described himself as a conservative, and is certainly a supporter of the 2A.

I imagine it’s not as easy to post here when you are born with a different skin color. I have plenty of my own biases, PLENTY, and can say I probably don’t agree with a fair number of his positions, as he probably doesn’t agree with all of mine, but because of what I know about him, his past participation in this community, and the fact I’ve never walked a mile in his shoes, I try to respect his views.

 

[Majicmike]

This case is about race only if you choose to see it that way. If these guys are guilty of murder Rittenhouse should have been convicted also. In both cases people were trying to protect what they considered their communities. If Rosenberg wouldn’t have charged KR he might be dead. If Aubrey wouldn’t have charged the guy with the shotgun he might not be dead.

 

[Sleazy P. Martini]

This case is about race only if you choose to see it that way. If these guys are guilty of murder Rittenhouse should have been convicted also. In both cases people were trying to protect what they considered their communities. If Rosenberg wouldn’t have charged KR he might be dead. If Aubrey wouldn’t have charged the guy with the shotgun he might not be dead.

I think you're comparing apples to oranges here. Aubrey only charged after being run down by two separate vehicles. I think most people on this forum would've fought back after being chased by multiple armed men in vehicles. At no point did Aubrey say "If I see you alone, then I will kill you." to any of the perps. I mean no offense by this, but I cannot fathom how the Aubrey situation and KR situation can be paralleled.

 

[Majicmike]

I think you're comparing apples to oranges here. Aubrey only charged after being run down by two separate vehicles. I think most people on this forum would've fought back after being chased by multiple armed men in vehicles. At no point did Aubrey say "If I did you alone, then I will kill you." to any of the perps. I mean no offense by this, but I cannot fathom how the Aubrey situation and KR situation can be paralleled.

Aubrey instead of running through the woods or through the subdivision on the left he chose to run toward the truck around the front charging the guy with the shotgun. He was being followed but at no time was he cornered. Video shows all that. Unless I’m cornered I’m not charging anyone with a weapon. I dont think the guy had the intent to kill the guy. Nor did I think Rittenhouse went out just to kill 2 guys.

 

[TrappyBoy]

Aubrey instead of running through the woods or through the subdivision on the left he chose to run toward the truck around the front charging the guy with the shotgun. He was being followed but at no time was he cornered. Video shows all that. Unless I’m cornered I’m not charging anyone with a weapon. I do t think the guy had the intent to kill the guy. Nor did I think Rittenhouse went out just to kill 2 guys.

Yikes

 

[pinkbunny]

In many ways, this is both similar and completely different from the Rittenhouse shooting.

Rittenhouse shot Grosskreutz when he was pointing a gun at him. Clear self defense, IMO.
If Grosskreutz had shot Rittenhouse in the head, I still would have argued that Grosskreutz had a clear case of self defense. He sees a man chasing a fleeing guy with a gun after shots were fired, and was told he shot someone. He interrogates the guy, and, in his words(which turned out to be wrong), though he heard the guy admit to it(he was wrong, he admitted this later on viewing the video). He sees him kill a man. I would argue self defense if he'd shot Rittenhouse. I'm glad he didn't. But I'd defend it.

Ahmaud Arbery is chased by some guys, and sees an armed civilian ordering him to stop. If Arbery had taken that shotgun and shot those two, I'd have argued self defense.

The key here is whether what the father/son did falls under self defense. I think it entirely rests on a repealed law, and the Rule of Lenity(never heard about this till yesterday: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_lenity ). IMO, the father/son deserve to be both convicted and acquited. Convicted, cause I think they were in the wrong, and committed murder. Acquited, because of the whole 'better 10,000 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be convicted,' and the need to have given the defense the favor in the reading of the law to the jury, which was not done. I'm really conflicted about this.

 

[Majicmike]

In many ways, this is both similar and completely different from the Rittenhouse shooting.

Rittenhouse shot Grosskreutz when he was pointing a gun at him. Clear self defense, IMO.
If Grosskreutz had shot Rittenhouse in the head, I still would have argued that Grosskreutz had a clear case of self defense. He sees a man chasing a fleeing guy with a gun after shots were fired, and was told he shot someone. He interrogates the guy, and, in his words(which turned out to be wrong), though he heard the guy admit to it(he was wrong, he admitted this later on viewing the video). He sees him kill a man. I would argue self defense if he'd shot Rittenhouse. I'm glad he didn't. But I'd defend it.

Ahmaud Arbery is chased by some guys, and sees an armed civilian ordering him to stop. If Arbery had taken that shotgun and shot those two, I'd have argued self defense.

The key here is whether what the father/son did falls under self defense. I think it entirely rests on a repealed law, and the Rule of Lenity(never heard about this till yesterday: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_lenity ). IMO, the father/son deserve to be both convicted and acquited. Convicted, cause I think they were in the wrong, and committed murder. Acquited, because of the whole 'better 10,000 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be convicted,' and the need to have given the defense the favor in the reading of the law to the jury, which was not done. I'm really conflicted about this.

IMO The best and most thought provoking post in this thread. I just get tired of everyone wanting to drag race into it. If the races were reversed I still see it the same way.

 

[Majicmike]

I have held someone at Gun point over a theft I held the guy ( a neighbors kid 17 at the time) on my garage floor until the Sheriffs dept got here. If he would have made a break and ran I 1000% wouldn’t not have shot him. If he would have charged me I don’t know what I would have done. I don’t think if he did charge that he was coming at me to shake my hand.

 

[Sleazy P. Martini]

I have held someone at Gun point over a theft I held the guy ( a neighbors kid 17 at the time) on my garage floor until the Sheriffs dept got here. If he would have made a break and ran I 1000% wouldn’t not have shot him. If he would have charged me I don’t know what I would have done. I don’t think if he did charge that he was coming at me to shake my hand.

Which is different than the case being discussed in this thread. He was in your dwelling. I don't think many here would fault you for keeping him at gunpoint until police arrived in that circumstance.

 

[TrappyBoy]

Which is different than the case being discussed in this thread. He was in your dwelling. I don't think many here would fault you for keeping him at gunpoint until police arrived in that circumstance.

Bbbut mmy anecdotal evidence!

 

[B00ger]

I think the comment in this thread that makes the most sense as to what I think of many posts in this thread is “yikes”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Variable]

I think the jury got it right as most of us agree. It also appears more cases may come because of the potential cover-up that was attempted. I think both sides had good lawyers which are important to a fair trial. I think my first impressions upon seeing the video were correct and born out by the decision.

 

[Murtaugh]

I am sure this guy who got caught carrying a gun to school and stealing a tv from Walmart was just out innocently jogging and studying construction. The videos seemed to indicate that he walked to the house under construction and then began his jog as he exited the front door after concluding his studies, nothing suspicious about that. Racists!

I also agree that cops are the only people allowed to yell that they are going to blow your head off and chase you in vehicles while trying to detain you. Their training also helps them put down suspects well before there is any struggle for a gun or even resistance for that matter. If they happen to execute a suspect who isn't crawling properly they get their pensions early and can retire to the Philippines. These matters should be left to the cops.

 

[HMP]

The videos seemed to indicate that he walked to the house under construction and then began his jog as he exited the front door after concluding his studies, nothing suspicious about that. Racists!

-What video showed him walking at all?
-What studies are you on about?
-Or are you just making up BS to support your pathetic views on this?

We, members of this site, often complain about folks (typically far leftists) not using FACTS, but, instead, their FEELINGS. Sounds like youre doing the same here.
I didnt know of his priors before now (and maybe I had heard but forgotten in all of this time, for that I apologize), and I DO think prior history can/should matter. But facts is facts duder - guy had nothing on him at the time of the murder-no property or weapon. Guy didnt communicate any threats to the guys in the truck (and this comes from the guy who shot him/the son via courtroom proceedings, in case youre one of ones who 'didnt really follow the case"). Guy wasnt SEEN stealing a dang thing.
But you push this rhetoric, feel good about it.

 

[P01135809]

text if the repealed code

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

https://www.senate.ga.gov/committees/Documents/17-4-60Arrestbyprivateperson.pdf

The problem is they couldn’t meet the requirements of the first sentence. nothing occurred in their presence or they did not have “immediate knowledge” of arbury doing anything remotely resembling a felony. the felony burglary occurred way earlier and they didn’t have any evidence it was committed by arbury. it certainly didn’t happen in their presence and they never presented their immediate knowledge as evidence.

the reasonable suspicion mentioned in the second sentence only applies if they meet the elements of the first sentence.

it’s pretty straight forward from a legal standpoint which is why the prosecution didn’t make race a big deal in this case (they only mentioned once quoting one of the defendants). the media (both msm and social) are the ones that made race a big deal.

those arguing against prosecution seem to be arguing based on what they wish the law was.

 

[Stogies]

In many ways, this is both similar and completely different from the Rittenhouse shooting.

Rittenhouse shot Grosskreutz when he was pointing a gun at him. Clear self defense, IMO.
If Grosskreutz had shot Rittenhouse in the head, I still would have argued that Grosskreutz had a clear case of self defense. He sees a man chasing a fleeing guy with a gun after shots were fired, and was told he shot someone. He interrogates the guy, and, in his words(which turned out to be wrong), though he heard the guy admit to it(he was wrong, he admitted this later on viewing the video). He sees him kill a man. I would argue self defense if he'd shot Rittenhouse. I'm glad he didn't. But I'd defend it.

Ahmaud Arbery is chased by some guys, and sees an armed civilian ordering him to stop. If Arbery had taken that shotgun and shot those two, I'd have argued self defense.

The key here is whether what the father/son did falls under self defense. I think it entirely rests on a repealed law, and the Rule of Lenity(never heard about this till yesterday: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_lenity ). IMO, the father/son deserve to be both convicted and acquited. Convicted, cause I think they were in the wrong, and committed murder. Acquited, because of the whole 'better 10,000 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be convicted,' and the need to have given the defense the favor in the reading of the law to the jury, which was not done. I'm really conflicted about this.

I'd say the 2 cases are polar opposites. Very minor theft at best here versus 40 businesses burned down and looted so completely they never made it back. One guy just being there not advancing on anybody, here we have 3 guys actively chasing somebody down and cornering him.

 

[Sleazy P. Martini]

I am sure this guy who got caught carrying a gun to school and stealing a tv from Walmart was just out innocently jogging and studying construction. The videos seemed to indicate that he walked to the house under construction and then began his jog as he exited the front door after concluding his studies, nothing suspicious about that. Racists!

I also agree that cops are the only people allowed to yell that they are going to blow your head off and chase you in vehicles while trying to detain you. Their training also helps them put down suspects well before there is any struggle for a gun or even resistance for that matter. If they happen to execute a suspect who isn't crawling properly they get their pensions early and can retire to the Philippines. These matters should be left to the cops.

You posted this about 12 hours too early. Delete this and repost it after most of us have some ethanol in our systems.

 

[dubnali]

I think the jury got it right as most of us agree. It also appears more cases may come because of the potential cover-up that was attempted. I think both sides had good lawyers which are important to a fair trial. I think my first impressions upon seeing the video were correct and born out by the decision.

You are correct on additional cases. Just saw a headline yesterday that the former AG has been booked for obstruction.

 

[Button Pusher]

Anyone know any details on how the phone video was leaked?

 

[Murtaugh]

-What video showed him walking at all?
-What studies are you on about?
-Or are you just making up BS to support your pathetic views on this?

We, members of this site, often complain about folks (typically far leftists) not using FACTS, but, instead, their FEELINGS. Sounds like youre doing the same here.
I didnt know of his priors before now (and maybe I had heard but forgotten in all of this time, for that I apologize), and I DO think prior history can/should matter. But facts is facts duder - guy had nothing on him at the time of the murder-no property or weapon. Guy didnt communicate any threats to the guys in the truck (and this comes from the guy who shot him/the son via courtroom proceedings, in case youre one of ones who 'didnt really follow the case"). Guy wasnt SEEN stealing a dang thing.
But you push this rhetoric, feel good about it.

He walking to the house, stops to look around, enters...no "jogging" until he leaves the home. Before you say "hey he was moving real fast to be walking" like some clowns, notice how fast the time stamp is moving...compare it to a stopwatch if you must. Is that video BS or were you just ignorant of the facts again?

You posted this about 12 hours too early. Delete this and repost it after most of us have some ethanol in our systems.

This is pre Friday 4D chess strategery!!

 

[blewis3]

It's no surprise to me that the folks arguing that there's even a shred of legitimacy to the shooting...

1. didn't pay attention to the trial
and
2. are on the short list of folks to keep an eye on whenever there's a racially charged thread.Or i

Or is somebody who is not an opinionated (insert descriptive noun), and will debate without aspersions to character.

 

[blewis3]

I am sure this guy who got caught carrying a gun to school and stealing a tv from Walmart was just out innocently jogging and studying construction. The videos seemed to indicate that he walked to the house under construction and then began his jog as he exited the front door after concluding his studies, nothing suspicious about that. Racists!

I also agree that cops are the only people allowed to yell that they are going to blow your head off and chase you in vehicles while trying to detain you. Their training also helps them put down suspects well before there is any struggle for a gun or even resistance for that matter. If they happen to execute a suspect who isn't crawling properly they get their pensions early and can retire to the Philippines. These matters should be left to the cops.

I agree when you have a functioning law enforcement department. But what happens when law enforcement abrogates their responsibility to enforce the law. According to some this is what happened in Georgia. I do not know if that is true, but I have definitely seen it happen in videos from California, especially around the San Francisco areas. All I have seen is video of thefts from large retailers, but I am sure that there are thefts occurring from smaller retailers as well as individuals. What does the private citizen do when the police and legal establishment refuse to enforce the law?

 

[blewis3]

text if the repealed code

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

https://www.senate.ga.gov/committees/Documents/17-4-60Arrestbyprivateperson.pdf

The problem is they couldn’t meet the requirements of the first sentence. nothing occurred in their presence or they did not have “immediate knowledge” of arbury doing anything remotely resembling a felony. the felony burglary occurred way earlier and they didn’t have any evidence it was committed by arbury. it certainly didn’t happen in their presence and they never presented their immediate knowledge as evidence.

the reasonable suspicion mentioned in the second sentence only applies if they meet the elements of the first sentence.

it’s pretty straight forward from a legal standpoint which is why the prosecution didn’t make race a big deal in this case (they only mentioned once quoting one of the defendants). the media (both msm and social) are the ones that made race a big deal.

those arguing against prosecution seem to be arguing based on what they wish the law was.

Why do you need the second sentence about a felony given the first sentence. If the offense was committed in their presence or within their immediate knowledge that itself is "reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion" and the second sentence is moot and serves no purpose.

 

[Murtaugh]

I agree when you have a functioning law enforcement department. But what happens when law enforcement abrogates their responsibility to enforce the law. According to some this is what happened in Georgia. I do not know if that is true, but I have definitely seen it happen in videos from California, especially around the San Francisco areas. All I have seen is video of thefts from large retailers, but I am sure that there are thefts occurring from smaller retailers as well as individuals. What does the private citizen do when the police and legal establishment refuse to enforce the law?

I believe citizens should be able to club thieves and trespassers on sight. I am not saying that is how the law is currently written.

 

[P01135809]

Why do you need the second sentence about a felony given the first sentence. If the offense was committed in their presence or within their immediate knowledge that itself is "reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion" and the second sentence is moot and serves no purpose.

i think it means you can only pursue if the offense committed in your presence was a felony. can’t do it for a misdemeanor.