Jump to content

Ahmad Arbery Trial.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 635
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I look forward to the trial of the DA who swept it under the rug. 

When they picked up their 2nd Amendment they thought that would protect them.  It's been my point about the gun-culture all along. For most people it's about 10x more likely to ruin their lives t

Posted Images

5 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

I'm betting on an acquittal. Old, white ex-cop kills a black kid in that region?

Apparently the defense managed to get only one black juror.  The defense objected that jurors were being excluded entirely because of race and the judge agreed with them but it’s allowed under Georgia law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

True…but this trial will absolutely be about putting the dead person on trial. Wait. Can we call him the victim or is this like the case where the dead guy shot in the back is a rioter not a victim? 

Nope, can't call him a victim. Nosirreee says @The Joker and @jzk

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

So, here we have a classic case of self defense. The accused chased down the guy, but in the end, the guy decided to fight. In that case, you can kill to avoid being hurt, yes? @The Joker @jzk

Can you show the video of Rittenhouse chasing down someone?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

True…but this trial will absolutely be about putting the dead person on trial. Wait. Can we call him the victim or is this like the case where the dead guy shot in the back is a rioter not a victim? 

Who was shot in the back?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jzk said:

Can you show the video of Rittenhouse chasing down someone?

What does this have to do with Rittenhouse, we're talking about McMichael/Bryan allegedly murdering one Ahmaud Arbery. The story is that Arbery attacked the defendants. After being chased down of course. The defendants feared for their safety. Is this a case of justifiable self defense?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

What does this have to do with Rittenhouse, we're talking about McMichael/Bryan allegedly murdering one Ahmaud Arbery. The story is that Arbery attacked the defendants. After being chased down of course. The defendants feared for their safety. Is this a case of justifiable self defense?

Nothing.  Sorry, wrong thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Joker said:

I think these guys are guilty as hell.

Of what?  Just trying to understand how one person with a gun can shoot an unarmed person with a gun, and claim self defense, after threatening actions earlier, but how it's different with this case. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus they’re showing unblurred  body camvideo of Arbery lying on the ground after the shooting.  Blood everywhere and he appears to be breathing.  I read somewhere that he was not provided medical assistance for more than 5 minutes and indeed the officers appear to be standing around 

won’t get that out of my head for a while.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

Jesus they’re showing unblurred  body camvideo of Arbery lying on the ground after the shooting.  Blood everywhere and he appears to be breathing.  I read somewhere that he was not provided medical assistance for more than 5 minutes and indeed the officers appear to be standing around 

won’t get that out of my head for a while.

They were hunting. Hunters don't save their prey. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Of what?  Just trying to understand how one person with a gun can shoot an unarmed person with a gun, and claim self defense, after threatening actions earlier, but how it's different with this case. 

Different cases.  Ahmad was simply jogging through the neighborhood.  They decided he shouldn’t be there.   They confronted him and he ended up dead.   

Kyle didn’t tell anyone they didn’t belong.  He didn’t confront any of the people shot, they confronted him. 

You are assigning the wrong roles.  
Ahmed = Kyle 

The McMichael clan = those that chased Kyle down.  
 

Kyle defended himself. If Ahmad had a gun and shot the guys confronting him he would be more than justified claiming self defense.  
 


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Joker said:

Different cases.  Ahmad was simply jogging through the neighborhood.  They decided he shouldn’t be there.   They confronted him and he ended up dead.   

Kyle didn’t tell anyone they didn’t belong.  He didn’t confront any of the people shot, they confronted him. 

You are assigning the wrong roles.  
Ahmed = Kyle 

The McMichael clan = those that chased Kyle down.  
 

Kyle defended himself. If Ahmad had a gun and shot the guys confronting him he would be more than justified claiming self defense.  
 


 

In the articles I've read since the incident, there are multiple discussions about "did Kyle threaten the crowd.?" It's certainly unclear at best, so up to a jury to decide, but, it doesn't matter as in Wisconsin, there's nothing in the law that says the aggressor can't also claim self defense if he/she feels in danger. In fact, it's specifically allowed.

What about in Georgia? Is the law also so poorly written as to let an instigator claim self defense when the shit goes against you?

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

In the articles I've read since the incident, there are multiple discussions about "did Kyle threaten the crowd.?" It's certainly unclear at best, so up to a jury to decide, but, it doesn't matter as in Wisconsin, there's nothing in the law that says the aggressor can't also claim self defense if he/she feels in danger. In fact, it's specifically allowed.

What about in Georgia? Is the law also so poorly written as to let an instigator claim self defense when the shit goes against you?

 

 

 

Worse.  There was an ancient citizens arrest law in place at the time the boys went a huntin. 

 

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/11/995835333/in-ahmaud-arberys-name-georgia-repeals-citizens-arrest-law

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Worse.  There was an ancient citizens arrest law in place at the time the boys went a huntin. 

 

https://www.npr.org/2021/05/11/995835333/in-ahmaud-arberys-name-georgia-repeals-citizens-arrest-law

"Georgia’s laws were formally codified in 1861 by Thomas Cobb, a lawyer and slaveholder who died at the Battle of Fredericksburg in 1862. It was the first formal codification of state common law in the United States. It was also racist. In the original code, African Americans were assumed to be enslaved unless they could prove free status. Georgia’s Citizen’s Arrest statues were first entered into the Law Code of Georgia in 1863."

"Thomas Cobb was the author of An Inquiry into the Law of Negro Slavery in the United States of America (1858). In the book, Cobb argued “[T]his inquiry into the physical, mental, and moral development of the negro race seems to point them clearly, as peculiarly fitted for a laborious class. The physical frame is capable of great and long-continued exertion. Their mental capacity renders them incapable of successful self-development, and yet adapts them for the direction of the wiser race. Their moral character renders them happy, peaceful, contented and cheerful in a status that would break the spirit and destroy the energies of the Caucasian or the native American” (46). Cobb’s views on race and slavery shaped the Georgia legal code."

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/175619

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

"Georgia’s laws were formally codified in 1861 by Thomas Cobb, a lawyer and slaveholder who died at the Battle of Fredericksburg in 1862. It was the first formal codification of state common law in the United States. It was also racist. In the original code, African Americans were assumed to be enslaved unless they could prove free status. Georgia’s Citizen’s Arrest statues were first entered into the Law Code of Georgia in 1863."

"Thomas Cobb was the author of An Inquiry into the Law of Negro Slavery in the United States of America (1858). In the book, Cobb argued “[T]his inquiry into the physical, mental, and moral development of the negro race seems to point them clearly, as peculiarly fitted for a laborious class. The physical frame is capable of great and long-continued exertion. Their mental capacity renders them incapable of successful self-development, and yet adapts them for the direction of the wiser race. Their moral character renders them happy, peaceful, contented and cheerful in a status that would break the spirit and destroy the energies of the Caucasian or the native American” (46). Cobb’s views on race and slavery shaped the Georgia legal code."

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/175619

Good lord.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Raz'r said:

If I had a son in a red state, I’d say it’s time to carry. Shoot first, claim fear.

If I had a son in a red state, I’d say it’s time to GTFO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

"Georgia’s laws were formally codified in 1861 by Thomas Cobb, a lawyer and slaveholder who died at the Battle of Fredericksburg in 1862. It was the first formal codification of state common law in the United States. It was also racist. In the original code, African Americans were assumed to be enslaved unless they could prove free status. Georgia’s Citizen’s Arrest statues were first entered into the Law Code of Georgia in 1863."

"Thomas Cobb was the author of An Inquiry into the Law of Negro Slavery in the United States of America (1858). In the book, Cobb argued “[T]his inquiry into the physical, mental, and moral development of the negro race seems to point them clearly, as peculiarly fitted for a laborious class. The physical frame is capable of great and long-continued exertion. Their mental capacity renders them incapable of successful self-development, and yet adapts them for the direction of the wiser race. Their moral character renders them happy, peaceful, contented and cheerful in a status that would break the spirit and destroy the energies of the Caucasian or the native American” (46). Cobb’s views on race and slavery shaped the Georgia legal code."

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/175619

Hey, you might have just triggered a rightie snowflake. That's teaching history, and we know that's not how we do it anymore. At least THAT history.(CRT!!! Oh My!)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

What about in Georgia? Is the law also so poorly written as to let an instigator claim self defense when the shit goes against you?

Pick a fight, lose and take a beating then claim you were assaulted. :lol:

Sounds much like the Canadian legal system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a source of frustration, dig into the history of things like felony disenfranchisement, tipping , war on drugs, highway placement, redlining, segregation of diocese and you find the same strain.  In some of the testimony during debate of the Gun Control Act of 1934, there was the statement that nothing in this proposed law "prevented an honest man from arming himself against the nigger". Or words to that effect.  It's the carrier wave of American History.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

Different cases.  Ahmad was simply jogging through the neighborhood.  They decided he shouldn’t be there.   They confronted him and he ended up dead.   

Kyle didn’t tell anyone they didn’t belong.  He didn’t confront any of the people shot, they confronted him. 

You are assigning the wrong roles.  
Ahmed = Kyle 

The McMichael clan = those that chased Kyle down.  
 

Kyle defended himself. If Ahmad had a gun and shot the guys confronting him he would be more than justified claiming self defense.  
 


 

Now do Trayvon.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

Trayvon. Ok

Trayvon = Ahmed UNTIL he decided to circle back and confront Zimmerman.  Then he became Rosenbaum.  

Got it.  So in all cases an unarmed victim should just allow an armed vigilante to follow, stalk, police, whatever you want to call it, for as long as they want, for no reason, and if the eventual victim didn't respond to it correctly his murder is justified?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, roundthebuoys said:

Got it.  So in all cases an unarmed victim should just allow an armed vigilante to follow, stalk, police, whatever you want to call it, for as long as they want, for no reason, and if the eventual victim didn't respond to it correctly his murder is justified?

By accounts Ahmed fought back. So doesn’t that give the killers the right to defend themselves in the act of executing a citizens arrest?

I really don’t see the difference you guys see between kyle and the other killers. Both found themselves getting attacked. Both responded.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, roundthebuoys said:

Got it.  So in all cases an unarmed victim should just allow an armed vigilante to follow, stalk, police, whatever you want to call it, for as long as they want, for no reason, and if the eventual victim didn't respond to it correctly his murder is justified?

Just like the Rittenhouse case the facts elude you. 
Trayvon had gotten away his best option was to go home.  If he had done that the final confrontation never happens.   Instead he circled back confronted Zimmerman and to all accounts had him on the ground pounding his head into the concrete.   Once he decided to become the aggressor everything that happened before is irrelevant 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

By accounts Ahmed fought back. So doesn’t that give the killers the right to defend themselves in the act of executing a citizens arrest?

I really don’t see the difference you guys see between kyle and the other killers. Both found themselves getting attacked. Both responded.

How does anyone know if someone is legit "executing a citizens arrest"?  I've never met a single person who has executed a citizens arrest or been citizen arrested, if that's what it's called.  I know people who have called the police, which is what should happen every single time, but who are these armed idiots going around making law and order decisions (clearly deadly ones) for kicks?  America is stupid.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, roundthebuoys said:

How does anyone know if someone is legit "executing a citizens arrest"?  I've never met a single person who has executed a citizens arrest or been citizen arrested, if that's what it's called.  I know people who have called the police, which is what should happen every single time, but who are these armed idiots going around making law and order decisions (clearly deadly ones) for kicks?  America is stupid.

This self defense stuff with lots of people armed is impossible to figure out. By all indications Kyle will walk and the Georgia guys will do time. But no one can explain why the difference.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

By accounts Ahmed fought back. So doesn’t that give the killers the right to defend themselves in the act of executing a citizens arrest?

I really don’t see the difference you guys see between kyle and the other killers. Both found themselves getting attacked. Both responded.

Ahmed Arbery didn't "fight back" he was trying to protect himself.

 You got 3 red necks chasing you down with a shot gun and a truck, as well as a video camera while you're jogging through your neighborhood. They try to run you off the road. You run faster until you're trapped by the vehicle and the guy with the gun. You have no place to go. You run, you get shot in the back. You stand your ground, you have a chance that someone might think twice. These 3 guys did think twice. They killed an apparently innocent man. And never said a fucking word about it until pressured. The police dept. kept it hush hush until it was made public.

 If this guy Ahmed Arbery was such a menace to society why was there not a great celebration when he was cut down?

 Because the fucking red necks, and their buddies knew how it would look.

"In the Heat of The Night" was just a prelude. At least Rod Steiger's character was honest, even if it was forced upon him.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

Ahmed Arbery didn't "fight back" he was trying to protect himself.

 You got 3 red necks chasing you down with a shot gun and a truck, as well as a video camera while you're jogging through your neighborhood. They try to run you off the road. You run faster until you're trapped by the vehicle and the guy with the gun. You have no place to go. You run, you get shot in the back. You stand your ground, you have a chance that someone might think twice. These 3 guys did think twice. They killed an apparently innocent man. And never said a fucking word about it until pressured. The police dept. kept it hush hush until it was made public.

 If this guy Ahmed Arbery was such a menace to society why was there not a great celebration when he was cut down?

 Because the fucking red necks, and their buddies knew how it would look.

"In the Heat of The Night" was just a prelude. At least Rod Steiger's character was honest, even if it was forced upon him.

I’m with you 100%, so why do the guys Kyle killed, who were trying to disarm what to everyone looked like an active shooter, not get the same sympathy?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, roundthebuoys said:

How does anyone know if someone is legit "executing a citizens arrest"?  I've never met a single person who has executed a citizens arrest or been citizen arrested, if that's what it's called.  I know people who have called the police, which is what should happen every single time, but who are these armed idiots going around making law and order decisions (clearly deadly ones) for kicks?  America is stupid.

A citizens arrest does not entitle you to use deadly force unless you fear for your life, or the life of someone else in close proximity.

 In fact a citizens arrest does not entitle you to use physical restraints (cuffs, Zip ties etc.) on the person you are arresting, unless there is reasonable thought that the arrestee could cause physical harm to others, themselves, or property.

All a citizens arrest really does is make a note of activity before law enforcement shows up.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

A citizens arrest does not entitle you to use deadly force unless you fear for your life, or the life of someone else in close proximity.

 In fact a citizens arrest does not entitle you to use physical restraints (cuffs, Zip ties etc.) on the person you are arresting, unless there is reasonable thought that the arrestee could cause physical harm to others, themselves, or property.

All a citizens arrest really does is make a note of activity before law enforcement shows up.

Seems reasonable

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

I’m with you 100%, so why do the guys Kyle killed, who were trying to disarm what to everyone looked like an active shooter, not get the same sympathy?

It's not a sympathy thing.

 Kyle was not jogging unarmed down a suburban street, being chased by guys with a p/u truck and a shotgun. He went to an urban environment embroiled ina racially charged protest rally, armed with an assault weapon, which he clearly used to intimidate people. When people stood up to him, he shot, and killed. Ahmed Arbery did not have a weapon, and he did not try to intimidate anyone (that I saw).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:

A citizens arrest does not entitle you to use deadly force unless you fear for your life, or the life of someone else in close proximity.   ...

This makes no sense. If you fear for your life because of a situation that you willingly created, that gives you the right to kill?

You're making a citizen's arrest. OK, the person you're arresting says "Fuck you" and walks away. You pull a gun on him and yell "Stop, or I'll shoot!" He doesn't stop. You shoot him. .... have you just committed a crime?

Scenario 2- the person you attempt to arrest citizenly smacks the gun out of your hand. You're afraid he'll grab it and shoot you, so you grab it first and shoot him.... have you committed a crime?

What makes people think that showing up with a gun somehow makes it OK to shoot people?

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Steam Flyer said:

This makes no sense. If you fear for your life because of a situation that you willingly created, that gives you the right to kill?

You're making a citizen's arrest. OK, the person you're arresting says "Fuck you" and walks away. You pull a gun on him and yell "Stop, or I'll shoot!" He doesn't stop. You shoot him. .... have you just committed a crime?

Scenario 2- the person you attempt to arrest citizenly smacks the gun out of your hand. You're afraid he'll grab it and shoot you, so you grab it first and shoot him.... have you committed a crime?

What makes people think that showing up with a gun somehow makes it OK to shoot people?

- DSK

Ask the Joke, he's really passionate about this for some reason.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

This makes no sense. If you fear for your life because of a situation that you willingly created, that gives you the right to kill?

You're making a citizen's arrest. OK, the person you're arresting says "Fuck you" and walks away. You pull a gun on him and yell "Stop, or I'll shoot!" He doesn't stop. You shoot him. .... have you just committed a crime?

Scenario 2- the person you attempt to arrest citizenly smacks the gun out of your hand. You're afraid he'll grab it and shoot you, so you grab it first and shoot him.... have you committed a crime?

What makes people think that showing up with a gun somehow makes it OK to shoot people?

- DSK

In Wisconsin, regardless of who started the interaction, you have a right to kill if you’re afraid. Seems stupid. But it is what it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

This makes no sense. If you fear for your life because of a situation that you willingly created, that gives you the right to kill?

You're making a citizen's arrest. OK, the person you're arresting says "Fuck you" and walks away. You pull a gun on him and yell "Stop, or I'll shoot!" Up until now you're good He doesn't stop. You shoot him. .... have you just committed a crime? If he was walking away, and not threatening your life, or the life of another nearby person, you have committed a crime.

Scenario 2- the person you attempt to arrest citizenly smacks the gun out of your hand. You're afraid he'll grab it and shoot you, so you grab it first and shoot him.... have you committed a crime? Why did you draw a gun on him if he was un-armed? If you were afraid for your life, or the life of another person near by, then in theory, depending on other witness testimony, you're probably OK. But drawing a gun on an un-armed person might raise some questions in some places...

What makes people think that showing up with a gun somehow makes it OK to shoot people? This I can not answer.

- DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, roundthebuoys said:

Ask the Joke, he's really passionate about this for some reason.

Because he (and Burning Jeff, and tens of millions of other fellow RWNJs) think it's OK, as long as the people being killed have colored skin or are libby-rulls or something. They have adopted Kyle as their mascot and don't care what really happened.

 

17 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

In Wisconsin, regardless of who started the interaction, you have a right to kill if you’re afraid. Seems stupid. But it is what it is.

Florida and a bunch of other states (mostly red) too.

And the rest of the world thinks we USAnians are death-crazed maniacs, this is why. What started out as the right to self-defense has turned into "it's OK to kill anybody if you can justify somehow that they are scary and needed killin'....."

 

12 minutes ago, Mrleft8 said:
23 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

What makes people think that showing up with a gun somehow makes it OK to shoot people?

This I can not answer.

We're good. I did not mean to put you on the spot.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites

We have achieved the stage where it comes down to 'who was scared first and most?", while also disproving the "armed society is a polite society" theory.

The Kyle trial is based upon the assumption that property is more important than life, even if it wasn't his property.  It gets complicated since a reasonable person would have fear for his safety from an assault rifle armed person in the street during a riot.  Under the current environment, wouldn't carrying a defensive weapon be reasonable?

In the other trial, would the discussion be the same if the race of those involved were flipped?  A white guy goes jogging in the hood and is hunted down because he 'doesn't belong here" and a shooting develops.  Would we trying to blame the victim somehow? Or if Arbury had a gun and shot his pursuers?

These are the natural outgrowths of encouraging the carrying of weapons on the street. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

We have achieved the stage where it comes down to 'who was scared first and most?", while also disproving the "armed society is a polite society" theory.

The Kyle trial is based upon the assumption that property is more important than life, even if it wasn't his property.  It gets complicated since a reasonable person would have fear for his safety from an assault rifle armed person in the street during a riot.  Under the current environment, wouldn't carrying a defensive weapon be reasonable?

In the other trial, would the discussion be the same if the race of those involved were flipped?  A white guy goes jogging in the hood and is hunted down because he 'doesn't belong here" and a shooting develops.  Would we trying to blame the victim somehow? Or if Arbury had a gun and shot his pursuers?

These are the natural outgrowths of encouraging the carrying of weapons on the street. 

Who is blaming Ahmed?  I haven’t heard or read that.  Could you provide a source.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

VOICES FROM THE SINGLE WIDE

Please, this is what vigilantism looks like. The defense itself said Ahmed's physical reaction to the confrontation caused a need for their "self defense"... during a provocation, dressed up as a fucking "citizen's arrest." @Burning Man

46 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

We have achieved the stage where it comes down to 'who was scared first and most?", while also disproving the "armed society is a polite society" theory.

Yes. What a mess... and it was entirely predictable (for 700 years BTW). People do not behave the same when a gun is around. Benign reactions are not what we get with "the weapons effect." To wit: bystanders are terrorized: they feel stripped of domestic tranquility, or something. They get the ol' "fight or flight," then the shit happens. It was set up for predictable shit to happen, with many Boothy types out there.

In the Kyle situation, we had multiple guns, with APC's and LE nearby... and the outcome was another mess. This one was set up as a self-righteous, illegally-armed confrontation, with the BLM scene, in the name of protecting a car dealer's gig...where the shootings did not occur.

^^^ Vigilantism. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Who is blaming Ahmed?  I haven’t heard or read that.  Could you provide a source.  

Is that not the basis of a "self-defense" claim? That the victim caused his condition by scaring the guy with the gun?  The one that claimed he was trying to "de-escalate" the situation by pointing a shotgun at the victim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Who is blaming Ahmed?  I haven’t heard or read that.  Could you provide a source.  

Why not? He attacked a guy with a gun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, learningJ24 said:

Is that not the basis of a "self-defense" claim? That the victim caused his condition by scaring the guy with the gun?  The one that claimed he was trying to "de-escalate" the situation by pointing a shotgun at the victim.

Using the defense presented by his lawyers is not what I’m talking about I’m talking about the repeated mantra that  those of us on the right blindly support one side regardless of the actual facts.   
So again outside the lawyers involved in the defense where have you seen claims that Ahmed was at fault?
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Joker said:

Using the defense presented by his lawyers is not what I’m talking about I’m talking about the repeated mantra that  those of us on the right blindly support one side regardless of the actual facts.   
So again outside the lawyers involved in the defense where have you seen claims that Ahmed was at fault?
 

Why haven’t we? You guys are all woke. Admit it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Joker said:

Using the defense presented by his lawyers is not what I’m talking about I’m talking about the repeated mantra that  those of us on the right blindly support one side regardless of the actual facts.   
So again outside the lawyers involved in the defense where have you seen claims that Ahmed was at fault?
 

Unquestionable cold blooded racist vigilante murder committed by confederate flag waiving hillbillies is where your people draw the line.  But admit it, you sort of wish, just a little, Ahmaud did something hinky to get these patriot friends of yours off, right?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, roundthebuoys said:

Unquestionable cold blooded racist vigilante murder committed by confederate flag waiving hillbillies is where your people draw the line.  But admit it, you sort of wish, just a little, Ahmaud did something hinky to get these patriot friends of yours off, right?

Fuck off with the Your people crap.    I’m fact you just got put in my penalty box. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

Fuck off with the Your people crap.    I’m fact you just got put in my penalty box. 

What do you have against your people.  Are you hanging out with blacks and/or immigrants?  I know you'd have a problem with that!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder why Joker and the Jizz aren’t consistent with how they treat “self defense”

In their opening statements, attorneys for the McMichaels contended their clients were trying to conduct a citizen's arrest of Arbery, whom they suspected of burglary after they and several neighbors had become concerned about individuals entering a home under construction. Travis McMichael only shot Arbery in self-defense, they said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, The Joker said:

Using the defense presented by his lawyers is not what I’m talking about I’m talking about the repeated mantra that  those of us on the right blindly support one side regardless of the actual facts.   
So again outside the lawyers involved in the defense where have you seen claims that Ahmed was at fault?
 

How about the initial prosecutor?

Face it.  These guys were not charged because law enforcement saw the video.  They were charged because WE saw the video. 

Absent that, Ahmad Arbery was just another black guy who got what he deserved for daring to live his life in a way the racists around deemed unacceptable.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

How about the initial prosecutor?

Face it.  These guys were not charged because law enforcement saw the video.  They were charged because WE saw the video. 

Absent that, Ahmad Arbery was just another black guy who got what he deserved for daring to live his life in a way the racists around deemed unacceptable.

I agree on your first.  Your second is not a view I or the majority of Americans share. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Joker said:

I agree on your first.  Your second is not a view I or the majority of Americans share

The outrage from the public was what it took to get these guys charged would indicate your assertion is incorrect.

Left to the good old boy network, this would never have been national news.  Then, the video came out.

Feel free to correct me with a credible cite that supports your position.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

How about the initial prosecutor?

Face it.  These guys were not charged because law enforcement saw the video.  They were charged because WE saw the video. 

Absent that, Ahmad Arbery was just another black guy who got what he deserved for daring to live his life in a way the racists around deemed unacceptable.

So, the initial prosecutor bought the self-defense argument. Interesting. 
 

looks like a jury will weigh in. Nice to see @The Jokeramd @jzkare consistently inconsistent.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2021 at 1:26 PM, Raz'r said:

So, here we have a classic case of self defense. The accused chased down the guy, but in the end, the guy decided to fight. In that case, you can kill to avoid being hurt, yes? @The Joker @jzk

Trayvon Martin?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

The outrage from the public was what it took to get these guys charged would indicate your assertion is incorrect.

Left to the good old boy network, this would never have been national news.  Then, the video came out.

Feel free to correct me with a credible cite that supports your position.

I don’t need a cite.  I don’t live in GA. 
So my position is the same as yours.  When I and most Americans outside that redneck area saw that video we were outraged and had no sympathy for those that killed him.  
I’m  not saying there are not racists just that they are not in the numbers you and others think.  I should clarify it depends on the definition of racist.  When I think racist I’m talking people who hate people because of their skin color.  Not those with political or policy differences with some of the leaders of the black community.
Let’s use our favorite ICON AOC.

I think what she did by winning was huge.  I think she is a passionate  young woman with a powerful talent for communication.  I think her policies and beliefs are so far away from mine that I dismiss most of what she says.  Does that make me a racist?  Some would argue yes. I hate her because of her skin tone.  Skip to Winsome Sears I listened to  her on election night and since then.  I share her views and found her incredibly intelligent, articulate and funny. So am no longer a racist - no wait because of the letter after her name I’m still a racist. And sadly  enough some would call her a white supremacist simply for being on the other team 
 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Joker said:

I don’t need a cite.  I don’t live in GA. 
So my position is the same as yours.  When I and most Americans outside that redneck area saw that video we were outraged and had no sympathy for those that killed him.  
I’m  not saying there are not racists just that they are not in the numbers you and others think.  I should clarify it depends on the definition of racist.  When I think racist I’m talking people who hate people because of their skin color.  Not those with political or policy differences with some of the leaders of the black community.
Let’s use our favorite ICON AOC.

I think what she did by winning was huge.  I think she is a passionate  young woman with a powerful talent for communication.  I think her policies and beliefs are so far away from mine that I dismiss most of what she says.  Does that make me a racist?  Some would argue yes. I hate her because of her skin tone.  Skip to Winsome Sears I listened to  her on election night and since then.  I share her views and found her incredibly intelligent, articulate and funny. So am no longer a racist - no wait because of the letter after her name I’m still a racist. And sadly  enough some would call her a white supremacist simply for being on the other team 
 

 

Congratulations.  You've just contradicted yourself in record time.

2 hours ago, The Joker said:

I agree on your first.  Your second is not a view I or the majority of Americans share. 

I am ignoring the second part of your recent post, as it is just another attempt to deflect the discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I've never met a single person who has executed a citizens arrest

I have.   Caught a guy sitting inside my car after he broke in.  He was rifling through my passenger glovebox when I removed and physically detained him.  After the police arrived they made me do an official citizens arrest and press charges.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, solosailor said:

I have.   Caught a guy sitting inside my car after he broke in.  He was rifling through my passenger glovebox when I removed and physically detained him.  After the police arrived they made me do an official citizens arrest and press charges.

Huh, cool.  That seems like a good time to do it.

I'm glad he didn't shoot you in self defense, we would have reams of posts from Joker defending him over our own solo.  That would suck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

Congratulations.  You've just contradicted yourself in record time.

I am ignoring the second part of your recent post, as it is just another attempt to deflect the discussion.

Not even close to a contradiction.  
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, The Joker said:

Not even close to a contradiction.  
 

Really?

 

10 hours ago, The Joker said:

When I and most Americans outside that redneck area saw that video we were outraged and had no sympathy for those that killed him.  

10 hours ago, The Joker said:

I agree on your first.  Your second is not a view I or the majority of Americans share. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

Really?

 

 

Don't hold him to any standard of truth or honesty. I seriously wonder if Joker is actually six different people who log in and make bullshit posts that he or the others may or may not have any clue about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The outrage from the public was what it took to get these guys charged would indicate your assertion is incorrect


 I agree with this and wrote this 

When I and most Americans outside that redneck area saw that video we were outraged and had no sympathy for those that killed him.  

Below is the second post The first part is what I agree with The second part in bold is what I do not agree with - that I and most Americans saw him as just another black guy who got what he deserved 

.  They were charged because WE saw the video. 

Absent that, Ahmad Arbery was just another black guy who got what he deserved for daring to live his life in a way the racists around deemed  Unacceptable 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, The Joker said:

The outrage from the public was what it took to get these guys charged would indicate your assertion is incorrect


 I agree with this and wrote this 

When I and most Americans outside that redneck area saw that video we were outraged and had no sympathy for those that killed him.  

Below is the second post The first part is what I agree with The second part in bold is what I do not agree with - that I and most Americans saw him as just another black guy who got what he deserved 

.  They were charged because WE saw the video. 

Absent that, Ahmad Arbery was just another black guy who got what he deserved for daring to live his life in a way the racists around deemed  Unacceptable 

And, you don't see the congruity in the two statements.

When the racist Georgia folks looked into it, it was a clear case of self-defense.  When the video showed otherwise, the good old boys got rightfully charged. 

Shirley hauling out the shotgun was going to "de-escalate" the situation.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bus Driver said:

And, you don't see the congruity in the two statements.

When the racist Georgia folks looked into it, it was a clear case of self-defense.  When the video showed otherwise, the good old boys got rightfully charged. 

Shirley hauling out the shotgun was going to "de-escalate" the situation.  

Hell, even the OPer, a liberal, has the victim on trial here. Yet when the dead guys are white, the title of the thread is names for the accused. Interesting, no?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites