I'm thrilled with the Rittenhouse verdict as it affirms that self defense against an attacker is legally justified, regardless of the force used to stop the attacker. Big win.
Fast forward to Arbery Case where the judge ruled on Friday, as a matter of law, that "Citizen's Arrest" was not a legally viable defense because the citizens arrest occurred 11 days after the alleged crime, and that a citizens arrest must be at or just following the alleged crime by actual witnesses of the crime. This guts the entire defense of the defendants, who put their entire defense upon a citizens arrest. They were in essence - vigilantes 11 days after an alleged crime that cornered a likely suspect, who then had a right to self defense because there was no legal justification for a citizens arrest arrest as no crime was actively being committed.
Anybody following that trial?
From what little I've read.... those boys may be guilty of murder......
Saw the video..... doesn't look good at all.
Gonna be interesting what this case does to GA's laws if anything.
Epstein's madame goes on trial at the end of the month.
I think those Georgia boys are up the creek without a paddle, and are missing their drain plugs, besides.
11 days after the incident? Difficult to justify that one.
It's pretty clear that they are screwed.
fine for them to track the guy down to see what he was up to. the mistake was bringing a shotgun along.
If you chase someone down because you think he’s a criminal, you’d better be right.
Signed,
Huber, Groosskruech, and the Georgia father son duo
they are screwed. and rightfully so. they f-ucked up when they brought out the gun. and from the looks of them, their IQ's don't add up to triple digits.
Fortunately, however this thing goes ( preferably with the three in prison) it is cooler outside and rioters hate the cold and 60 degrees down south is cold to many!
I don't agree with the father and son duo's action. But how is the guy just following and recording the incident liable for the others actions? Hell without him the prosecution probably wouldn't have a case.
Word to the wise, unless you can articulate your life is in immediate peril, don't brandish weapons. This case is a great example of why
"O.J. Simpson didn't use a gun- - - - - -Nicole should have!" It sounds like Arbery was in the same situation. If some redneck points a shotgun at me, he'd better have his affairs in order. His time left on this earth is going to be measured in seconds.
fine for them to track the guy down to see what he was up to. the mistake was bringing a shotgun along.
I'd tend to disagree. Nothing wrong with being armed. I think their mistake was in trying to detain a guy who wasn't in the process of committing a crime. That's where they crossed the line.
They were idiots for what they did. But didn't the black guy try to take the shotgun away from the redneck. If so thats not 1st. Degree murder in my opinion. Their intention was to detain not kill.
They knew the joglar was stealin from their neighborhood, and they were right.
They went ta try and identify him, so they could get the cops ta charge him with burglary, and they had the right ta do that.
They had weapons with em, and they had the right ta do that.
They yelled at the joglar ta stop, so they could try and get a name/description for the cops, and they had a right ta do that.
The joglar didn't wanna get caught in a felony, so he ran when caught, and he had a right ta do that.
The joglar tried ta pull a shotgun from another citizen's hand, and he didn't have the right ta do that.
So the only person that committed a crime that day, is dead.
Rosenbaum needing killed didn't matter in last week's trial.
Kyle deciding to bring a gun along wasn't really an issue either.
What mattered was when Rosenbaum appeared to be determined
to do harm to Kyle.
Trevor Martin hadn't committed a crime when George Zimmerman
followed him. He just looked suspicious. And Zimmerman didn't
commit a crime in observing him. Even displaying a gun would have
been a crime at that point.
When Martin first attacked Zimmerman, self defense came on the
board. With the percentage of justification ever rising.
When he was banging Zimmermans noggin on the sidewalk,
The percentage was over 100%
I don't see how the judge simplifies this.
It's very complicated, even for a cop.
As a situation evolves, the right to use lethal force can
change like a heartbeat monitor.
It simplifies down to self defense. There's some technical details that need ironing out. The law needs to preserve the right to come armed, then self defense even when you initiated the interaction. It's common sense. Cops do it regularly.
with the Citizens Arrest blown up, going to be hard to cover self defense
Sounds like the defense is looking for a deal at this point
I bet the prison population in Ga. is 70 percent black. these guys will have to be put in some kind of isolation, or they won't last a month.
It simplifies down to self defense. There's some technical details that need ironing out. The law needs to preserve the right to come armed, then self defense even when you initiated the interaction. It's common sense. Cops do it regularly.
And?
Were they required by their employment situation to take action? No.
Was it even their property? No.
Observe and report. Or grab your shotgun, go do what they did, and spend a significant amount of time in prison. Your choice.
Sad when a buncha pussies are acceptin the idea that ya can't go outside with a firearm, when ya want to.
I bet the prison population in Ga. is 70 percent black. these guys will have to be put in some kind of isolation, or they won't last a month.
They will be "recruited" by the white gangsters there, if GA prisons are like any others in the world. Or they will join willingly. If not either of those options, they will have to ask for a special place to stay and hope the officials see to it.
But, from the folks I know who have been through it, that's not the usual way it goes. They're not fallen cops, don't appear to be gays or child molesters, and they will likely be assigned to the general population. And they will work for the white gangsters or they will pay for it, from them and they'll get no protection from the black gangs.
Maybe they can join up with the Latinos?
Sad when a buncha pussies are acceptin the idea that ya can't go outside with a firearm, when ya want to.
You can. Just don't do dumb schiet with it.
It simplifies down to self defense. There's some technical details that need ironing out. The law needs to preserve the right to come armed, then self defense even when you initiated the interaction. It's common sense. Cops do it regularly.
And?
Were they required by their employment situation to take action? No.
Was it even their property? No.
Observe and report. Or grab your shotgun, go do what they did, and spend a significant amount of time in prison. Your choice.
Cops aren't required either. They have to show up but that's about it. And they regularly declined by sloth rather than documentable decision and action. When they do show up they act aggressively by choice then shoot when it goes bad. So that happens there. As for the rest of us, you're never going to work anything out as a society when you can't communicate without the law limiting you. You're within your rights to carry a shotgun. You must communicate with others to resolve problems. Involving law always makes it worse; i.e. don't call a cop because they'll shoot somebody. We'll never know but I really doubt they thought they'd end up killing the jogger.
Nobody who has ever been to a dove shoot or hunted rabbits would charge a shotgun. Handgun, yeah you might get inside, but not a shotgun.
Anyhow, this specific point isn't really an opinion thing. It's a murky area of the law in GA that is only at issue because someone was stupid or unstable enough to charge a shotgun. The law can't address everything and certainly doesn't appear to have adequately in this case.
It simplifies down to self defense. There's some technical details that need ironing out. The law needs to preserve the right to come armed, then self defense even when you initiated the interaction. It's common sense. Cops do it regularly.
And?
Were they required by their employment situation to take action? No.
Was it even their property? No.
Observe and report. Or grab your shotgun, go do what they did, and spend a significant amount of time in prison. Your choice.
Cops aren't required either. They have to show up but that's about it. And they regularly declined by sloth rather than documentable decision and action. When they do show up they act aggressively by choice then shoot when it goes bad. So that happens there. As for the rest of us, you're never going to work anything out as a society when you can't communicate without the law limiting you. You're within your rights to carry a shotgun. You must communicate with others to resolve problems. Involving law always makes it worse; i.e. don't call a cop because they'll shoot somebody. We'll never know but I really doubt they thought they'd end up killing the jogger.
Nobody who has ever been to a dove shoot or hunted rabbits would charge a shotgun. Handgun, yeah you might get inside, but not a shotgun.
Anyhow, this specific point isn't really an opinion thing. It's a murky area of the law in GA that is only at issue because someone was stupid or unstable enough to charge a shotgun. The law can't address everything and certainly doesn't appear to have adequately in this case.
Ya....OK.
Thank you for annotating your retardation.
I suggest the next you think someone is up to "no good", attempt to restrain their movement while pointing a firearm at them lol
Sad when a buncha pussies are acceptin the idea that ya can't go outside with a firearm, when ya want to.
You can. Just don't do dumb schiet with it.
If someone tries ta grab it outta your hand, what are ya supposed ta do?
The video I saw shows them stopping their truck and getting out, blocking his path and brandishing a shotgun. I kinda doubt that the law allows for that, but I may be wrong. When the deceased's path was blocked, he ran around the other side of the truck, only to have the defendant again move to obstruct his path. I am pretty sure the law doesn't allow for that, but I may be wrong. If I wrongly held someone at gunpoint, would they be justified in believing they may be in danger? If I am ever wrongly held at gunpoint, I am very likely to try to take the gun from the person wrongly holding me.
Sad when a buncha pussies are acceptin the idea that ya can't go outside with a firearm, when ya want to.
You can. Just don't do dumb schiet with it.
If someone tries ta grab it outta your hand, what are ya supposed ta do?
Is this before or after you attempt to seize someone, which by law you have no authority to do?
It simplifies down to self defense. There's some technical details that need ironing out. The law needs to preserve the right to come armed, then self defense even when you initiated the interaction. It's common sense. Cops do it regularly.
And?
Were they required by their employment situation to take action? No.
Was it even their property? No.
Observe and report. Or grab your shotgun, go do what they did, and spend a significant amount of time in prison. Your choice.
Cops aren't required either. They have to show up but that's about it. And they regularly declined by sloth rather than documentable decision and action. When they do show up they act aggressively by choice then shoot when it goes bad. So that happens there. As for the rest of us, you're never going to work anything out as a society when you can't communicate without the law limiting you. You're within your rights to carry a shotgun. You must communicate with others to resolve problems. Involving law always makes it worse; i.e. don't call a cop because they'll shoot somebody. We'll never know but I really doubt they thought they'd end up killing the jogger.
Nobody who has ever been to a dove shoot or hunted rabbits would charge a shotgun. Handgun, yeah you might get inside, but not a shotgun.
Anyhow, this specific point isn't really an opinion thing. It's a murky area of the law in GA that is only at issue because someone was stupid or unstable enough to charge a shotgun. The law can't address everything and certainly doesn't appear to have adequately in this case.
Ya....OK.
Thank you for annotating your retardation.
I suggest the next you think someone is up to "no good", attempt to restrain their movement while pointing a firearm at them lol
My bad. I did not realize what you are. I know exactly how to respond. Thanks.
Sad when a buncha pussies are acceptin the idea that ya can't go outside with a firearm, when ya want to.
You can. Just don't do dumb schiet with it.
If someone tries ta grab it outta your hand, what are ya supposed ta do?
Is this before or after you attempt to seize someone, which by law you have no authority to do?
Well, let's use the example of the joglar case, and I didn't seize anybody.
Sad when a buncha pussies are acceptin the idea that ya can't go outside with a firearm, when ya want to.
You can. Just don't do dumb schiet with it.
If someone tries ta grab it outta your hand, what are ya supposed ta do?
Is this before or after you attempt to seize someone, which by law you have no authority to do?
Well, let's use the example of the joglar case, and I didn't seize anybody.
I assume you mean jogger. They were actively attempting to seize him. They had no authority to do so. Some places refer to that as "felonious restraint"...it's actually a crime believe it or not.
Sad when a buncha pussies are acceptin the idea that ya can't go outside with a firearm, when ya want to.
You can. Just don't do dumb schiet with it.
If someone tries ta grab it outta your hand, what are ya supposed ta do?
Is this before or after you attempt to seize someone, which by law you have no authority to do?
Well, let's use the example of the joglar case, and I didn't seize anybody.
I assume you mean jogger. They were actively attempting to seize him. They had no authority to do so. Some places refer to that as "felonious restraint"...it's actually a crime believe it or not.
No, its joglar.
He was a known burglar, and had committed theft in this neighborhood before.
He's on video casing a place ta steal from, and there's more in the video that isn't good for his image, so it hasn't been shown.
The dead guy was a professional felon that cased his next victim by pretending ta be a jogger.
When ya hafta make up fake terms ta form an argument, you're losing. "actively attempting"? LOL
And no place on the planet is letting someone run around you, felonious restraint.
Except CNN, possibly MSNBC.
They had zero cause to detain him, by law. They are phuucked and you will be too if you do the same dumb schiet they did.
It's simple really.
How about in the act of trying to detain him, is that better for you? They did not have lawful justification to do so. Zero. None.
You can't claim self defense if you are committing a crime (in most states).
Just because you're a racist idiot doesn't make this incident what you want.
I don't agree with the father and son duo's action. But how is the guy just following and recording the incident liable for the others actions?
I've been wondering that from the start. Maybe they wanted to give the jury something to throw away?
The joglar was never detained, as is obvious in the video where runs around and attacks the guy with the shotgun, and got what he deserved.
No matter how you liberals want ta paint it, if the joglar wasn't black, this case is not filed.
If the joglar's shooter was black, this case is not filed.
This case will be subjected ta way more outside pressure, now that KR has been acquitted.
Liberals need a victory in a case against firearm carry, and ya got no problem ruinin the lives of a few white guys ta get it.
.
So what were they trying to do?
So what were they trying to do?
So, you have no idea what they were trying to do, yet you've assumed they're guilty.
they are screwed. and rightfully so. they f-ucked up when they brought out the gun. and from the looks of them, their IQ's don't add up to triple digits.
What's their handles here?
They knew the joglar was stealin from their neighborhood, and they were right.
They went ta try and identify him, so they could get the cops ta charge him with burglary, and they had the right ta do that.
They had weapons with em, and they had the right ta do that.
They yelled at the joglar ta stop, so they could try and get a name/description for the cops, and they had a right ta do that.
The joglar didn't wanna get caught in a felony, so he ran when caught, and he had a right ta do that.
The joglar tried ta pull a shotgun from another citizen's hand, and he didn't have the right ta do that.
So the only person that committed a crime that day, is dead.
JFC you are clueless.
Sad when a buncha pussies are acceptin the idea that ya can't go outside with a firearm, when ya want to.
You can. Just don't do dumb schiet with it.
If someone tries ta grab it outta your hand, what are ya supposed ta do?
Is this before or after you attempt to seize someone, which by law you have no authority to do?
Well, let's use the example of the joglar case, and I didn't seize anybody.
I assume you mean jogger. They were actively attempting to seize him. They had no authority to do so. Some places refer to that as "felonious restraint"...it's actually a crime believe it or not.
No, its joglar.
He was a known burglar, and had committed theft in this neighborhood before.
He's on video casing a place ta steal from, and there's more in the video that isn't good for his image, so it hasn't been shown.
The dead guy was a professional felon that cased his next victim by pretending ta be a jogger.
When ya hafta make up fake terms ta form an argument, you're losing. "actively attempting"? LOL
And no place on the planet is letting someone run around you, felonious restraint.
Except CNN, possibly MSNBC.
EVery single thing you said is either irrelevant or wrong.
So what were they trying to do?
So, you have no idea what they were trying to do, yet you've assumed they're guilty.
No I want you to try and explain, should be entertaining.
So what were they trying to do?
So, you have no idea what they were trying to do, yet you've assumed they're guilty.
No I want you to try and explain, should be entertaining.
So, you would agree that they're not guilty?
So what were they trying to do?
So, you have no idea what they were trying to do, yet you've assumed they're guilty.
No I want you to try and explain, should be entertaining.
So, you would agree that they're not guilty?
So you can't explain what they were doing, because you know they were trying to seize him, and were in the wrong.
Thanks.
So what were they trying to do?
So, you have no idea what they were trying to do, yet you've assumed they're guilty.
No I want you to try and explain, should be entertaining.
So, you would agree that they're not guilty?
No he wants you to EXPLAIN WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO.
So what were they trying to do?
So, you have no idea what they were trying to do, yet you've assumed they're guilty.
No I want you to try and explain, should be entertaining.
So, you would agree that they're not guilty?
No he wants you to EXPLAIN WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO.
Thanks for that.
Was uncertain whether jackoff handy was a lib troll, and your support clears that up.
What were they tryin ta do?
They were tryin ta stop a burglar from continuing his crime spree in their neighborhood.
So what were they trying to do?
So, you have no idea what they were trying to do, yet you've assumed they're guilty.
No I want you to try and explain, should be entertaining.
So, you would agree that they're not guilty?
No he wants you to EXPLAIN WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO.
Thanks for that.
Was uncertain whether jackoff handy was a lib troll, and your support clears that up.
What were they tryin ta do?
They were tryin ta stop a burglar from continuing his crime spree in their neighborhood.
So they were trying to stop him? I.e. seize him....thanks dumbazz
Lol
So what were they trying to do?
So, you have no idea what they were trying to do, yet you've assumed they're guilty.
No I want you to try and explain, should be entertaining.
So, you would agree that they're not guilty?
No he wants you to EXPLAIN WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO.
Thanks for that.
Was uncertain whether jackoff handy was a lib troll, and your support clears that up.
What were they tryin ta do?
They were tryin ta stop a burglar from continuing his crime spree in their neighborhood.
So they were trying to stop him? I.e. seize him....thanks dumbazz
Lol
Never posted anything like that, moron.
The joglar was obviously never seized, as he's movin freely throughout the video that's been posted.
You just wrote they were trying to stop him.
You think it was wise for the driver to jump out of the truck and point a shotgun at him when he wouldn't stop?
You would be incorrect.......again.
What were they tryin ta do?
They were tryin ta stop a burglar from continuing his crime spree in their neighborhood.
Bingo. With zero authority to do so.
You just wrote they were trying to stop him.
You think it was wise for the driver to jump out of the truck and point a shotgun at him when he wouldn't stop?
You would be incorrect.......again.
Nothin sets off a liberal like a white person keepin a black from committin a crime.
Even liberal socialists like you, tho, are entitled to your own opinion.
But not your own facts, especially when those "facts" come from CNN tell a vision.
Shotgun was never pointed at the joglar til the joglar tried ta pull it away from its rightful owner.
Which is what thieves do.
I'm not a liberal. But I am right and you are wrong.
How does it feel to be so stupid?
Stupid enough to stay on a site that hates you.
I'm not a liberal. But I am right and you are wrong.
How does it feel to be so stupid?
Only a liberal would even consider posting something so self centered, as that bullshit.
You've already admitted that the joglar was never stopped.
The video proves the shotgun was never pointed at the joglar prior to the joglar attacking the white guy.
Looks like you're left with yours and CNN's "attempted whiteness" argument.
I'm not a liberal. But I am right and you are wrong.
How does it feel to be so stupid?
Only a liberal would even consider posting something so self centered, as that bullshit.
You've already admitted that the joglar was never stopped.
The video proves the shotgun was never pointed at the joglar prior to the joglar attacking the white guy.
Looks like you're left with yours and CNN's "attempted whiteness" argument.
You've already stated they were attempting to stop him. It's OK. The video proves they started the altercation. We'll revisit this thread and your stupidity when they are found guilty.
Guilty or not the dumb groid grabbed a strangers weapon.
Probably about as smart as chasing a spook through your neighborhood. But in the mind of social justice champions like Jackson all crackers must hang.
I'm not a liberal. But I am right and you are wrong.
How does it feel to be so stupid?
Only a liberal would even consider posting something so self centered, as that bullshit.
You've already admitted that the joglar was never stopped.
The video proves the shotgun was never pointed at the joglar prior to the joglar attacking the white guy.
Looks like you're left with yours and CNN's "attempted whiteness" argument.
You've already stated they were attempting to stop him. It's OK. The video proves they started the altercation. We'll revisit this thread and your stupidity when they are found guilty.
You moron, I posted that they were trying to stop a burglar that was committing his crimes in their neighborhood.
Never posted that they were trying ta make a stop, or arrest, or anything else like that.
Gotta admit, I knew beforehand that your limited intelligence would cause you to focus on what you wanted to read, rather than what was actually written.
So now, the video only proves they "started the altercation" rather than the bullshit about pointin the shotgun.
Least ya pulled your head out a little bit, tho what good that will do remains ta be seen.
Relax, liberal, in this jurisdiction, you'll get the conviction, cause they're white.
What were they tryin ta do?
They were tryin ta stop a burglar from continuing his crime spree in their neighborhood.
Bingo. With zero authority to do so.
Ouch
How far from home did this murder take place?
Sad when a buncha pussies are acceptin the idea that ya can't go outside with a firearm, when ya want to.
You can. Just don't do dumb schiet with it.
If someone tries ta grab it outta your hand, what are ya supposed ta do?
If it's Jackson Handy, hopefully let himself get shot.
Sad when a buncha pussies are acceptin the idea that ya can't go outside with a firearm, when ya want to.
You can. Just don't do dumb schiet with it.
If someone tries ta grab it outta your hand, what are ya supposed ta do?
If it's Jackson Handy, hopefully let himself get shot.
Haha nice!
Liberals always give themselves away, with their stupid posts.
Example:
Einstein: E=mc2;
Liberal #1: I'm not a liberal. But I am right and you are wrong.
Liberal #2: EVery single thing you said is either irrelevant or wrong.
LOL
Sad when a buncha pussies are acceptin the idea that ya can't go outside with a firearm, when ya want to.
You can. Just don't do dumb schiet with it.
If someone tries ta grab it outta your hand, what are ya supposed ta do?
If it's Jackson Handy, hopefully let himself get shot.
Haha nice!
He's superior to us like that.
Liberals always give themselves away, with their stupid posts.
Example:
Einstein: E=mc2;
Liberal #1: I'm not a liberal. But I am right and you are wrong.
Liberal #2: EVery single thing you said is either irrelevant or wrong.
LOL
You literally proved yourself wrong with your own statement
What were they tryin ta do?
They were tryin ta stop a burglar from continuing his crime spree in their neighborhood.
Bingo. With zero authority to do so.
Lol
I would like to say the 3rd guy charged that filmed the incident is getting the shaft.
Only a Liberal would post: Don't take a firearm outside, it's stupid, but it's OK ta try and pull a shotgun from its owner's hands.
Only a Liberal would post: Don't take a firearm outside, it's stupid, but it's OK ta try and pull a shotgun from its owner's hands.
You are the dipshiiit that said don't take a gun outside lol
Sad when a buncha pussies are acceptin the idea that ya can't go outside with a firearm, when ya want to.
Lol
I'll just hafta ascribe this desperate stupidity ta the Rittenhouose factor.
I'll just hafta ascribe this desperate stupidity ta the Rittenhouose factor.
This has nothing to do with Rittenhouse. His actions were actually JUSTIFIED. Unlike the two numbuts in GA.
#winning
Your blood pressure would drop considerably, if you'd just come out of the closet as a liberal.
You already agree with SAcharlie.
Your blood pressure would drop considerably, if you'd just come out of the closet as a liberal.
You already agree with SAcharlie.
It's not my fault your opinion is so stupid that even Suck Azz Charlie agrees with me.
My blood pressure is fine, this is hilarious
Rittenhouse carried a firearm outside.
Cordin ta a liberal like you, that's stupid, and should put ya in jail.
Were they required by their employment situation to take action? No.
Was it even their property? No.
Observe and report. Or grab your shotgun, go do what they did, and spend a significant amount of time in prison. Your choice.
Rittenhouse grabbed an AR-15.
By your liberal logic, Rittenhouse should be in prison.
Rittenhouse carried a firearm outside.
Cordin ta a liberal like you, that's stupid, and should put ya in jail.
Yes and that's legal.
You are literally so ignorant you can't comprehend the entire debate. Or you're just deflecting and conflating because you know you're wrong.
Were they required by their employment situation to take action? No.
Was it even their property? No.
Observe and report. Or grab your shotgun, go do what they did, and spend a significant amount of time in prison. Your choice.
Rittenhouse grabbed an AR-15.
By your liberal logic, Rittenhouse should be in prison.
And he didn't try and conduct a citizens arrest without justification. That's actually not ok lol
Rittenhouse was attacked without provocation.
Keep trying lol
This is a clear case of racism!
This case and the Rittenhouse case are not all that similar. Rittenhouse was the chased in his case.
This case and the Rittenhouse case are not all that similar. Rittenhouse was the chased in his case.
There's differences, and similarities.
Both carried firearms ta protect themselves from criminals.
Both was attacked by a criminal, and defended themselves.
In both cases, if the criminal hadn't attacked the good guy, there wouldn't be a dead criminal.
The joglar defendants aren't as attractive as KR was, and the facts aren't as clearly on their side.
But the liberal propaganda machine, as you can see in this thread, is even more desperate ta get the southern white boys, usin the same tactic of misrepresentin the facts.
They knew the joglar was stealin from their neighborhood, and they were right.
They went ta try and identify him, so they could get the cops ta charge him with burglary, and they had the right ta do that.
They had weapons with em, and they had the right ta do that.
They yelled at the joglar ta stop, so they could try and get a name/description for the cops, and they had a right ta do that.
The joglar didn't wanna get caught in a felony, so he ran when caught, and he had a right ta do that.
The joglar tried ta pull a shotgun from another citizen's hand, and he didn't have the right ta do that.
So the only person that committed a crime that day, is dead.
What stolen items did he have on his dead body?
This case and the Rittenhouse case are not all that similar. Rittenhouse was the chased in his case.
There's differences, and similarities.
Both carried firearms ta protect themselves from criminals.
Both was attacked by a criminal, and defended themselves.
In both cases, if the criminal hadn't attacked the good guy, there wouldn't be a dead criminal.
The joglar defendants aren't as attractive as KR was, and the facts aren't as clearly on their side.
But the liberal propaganda machine, as you can see in this thread, is even more desperate ta get the southern white boys, usin the same tactic of misrepresentin the facts.
Impressive
Dumba$$ burglar/gangster type meets up with dumba$$ redneck, one is dead other will spend significant time in jail. Neither really deserve what they got or will get, but stupid hurts sometimes.
This case and the Rittenhouse case are not all that similar. Rittenhouse was the chased in his case.
There's differences, and similarities.
Both carried firearms ta protect themselves from criminals.
Both was attacked by a criminal, and defended themselves.
In both cases, if the criminal hadn't attacked the good guy, there wouldn't be a dead criminal.
The joglar defendants aren't as attractive as KR was, and the facts aren't as clearly on their side.
But the liberal propaganda machine, as you can see in this thread, is even more desperate ta get the southern white boys, usin the same tactic of misrepresentin the facts.
Impressive
You and fubar should rent a room.
Three questions:
1. Did they ( the white boys) have a legal right to be in that location?
2. Were they legally possessing a firearm?
3. Could Arbery simply have ran down the right side of that truck and either kept going straight or hung a right on the side street?
Those questions are what make it a little different to me than the media spin, the Campfire spin etc..
You and fubar should rent a room.
And you should roll back to democratic underground.
Jogger was a Jigger, not jogging, but running! Running from the crime of trespass and unlawful entry.. He was in fact already on probation.
Three questions:
1. Did they ( the white boys) have a legal right to be in that location?
2. Were they legally possessing a firearm?
3. Could Arbery simply have ran down the right side of that truck and either kept going straight or hung a right on the side street?
Those questions are what make it a little different to me than the media spin, the Campfire spin etc..
He took a left when he should have took a right or stopped. The left he took looked to be an offensive move then when he grabbed the man's gun it was clearly an offensive move.
g
Sad when a buncha pussies are acceptin the idea that ya can't go outside with a firearm, when ya want to.
I don't think anybody said you can't go out with a firearm. But if you do and you think you might have to use it, might be a good idea to get to know the law on use of deadly force in your state.
That way you can avoid sitting in jail for the rest of your life while the family of the guy you shot takes whatever you have left in the bank via a wrongful death suit.
Or you could at least ask the guy who was riding shotgun to delete the video he took, knowing it'd be used against you at trial.
if he was a pedophile and had been messing with children in the neighborhood while the police ignored it, then I bet this would be a different trial
but its theft and its called the Arbery case, not the McMichaels trial so the public at large already had him as a victim from the start.
definitely a lesson learned here about firearm use. Looks like they're going to get the benefit of hindsight from behind a prison wall.
Was Arbery a felon? If not, why wasn't he packing? If somebody gets close enough to me with a shotgun that I have to grab the barrel, I must be out of ammo!
they are screwed. and rightfully so. they f-ucked up when they brought out the gun. and from the looks of them, their IQ's don't add up to triple digits.
Yep
Three questions:
1. Did they ( the white boys) have a legal right to be in that location?
2. Were they legally possessing a firearm?
3. Could Arbery simply have ran down the right side of that truck and either kept going straight or hung a right on the side street?
Those questions are what make it a little different to me than the media spin, the Campfire spin etc..
Accurate except the law currently directs that bringing the gun with you to a confrontation you initiated removes your right to self defense if it goes sideways. I'm guessing their lawyer didn't like his odds campaigning that through the courts, which is why they bet on the citizens arrest story. Al guesses on my part.
We really need clearcut law supporting the inalienable right to self defense.
Also we need people to understand this is a huge country. People really are different. What works over yonder does not apply over here.
They knew the joglar was stealin from their neighborhood, and they were right.
They went ta try and identify him, so they could get the cops ta charge him with burglary, and they had the right ta do that.
They had weapons with em, and they had the right ta do that.
They yelled at the joglar ta stop, so they could try and get a name/description for the cops, and they had a right ta do that.
The joglar didn't wanna get caught in a felony, so he ran when caught, and he had a right ta do that.
The joglar tried ta pull a shotgun from another citizen's hand, and he didn't have the right ta do that.
So the only person that committed a crime that day, is dead.
This covers it nicely...but they're still f ucked...
"The joglar didn't wanna get caught in a felony, so he ran when caught, and he had a right ta do that."
I have heard differing accounts - do they have proof he was committing a felony that day? What I heard last night it was 11 days prior
"The joglar didn't wanna get caught in a felony, so he ran when caught, and he had a right ta do that."
I have heard differing accounts - do they have proof he was committing a felony that day? What I heard last night it was 11 days prior
He had not committed a felony that day. He had no stolen property in his possession. He was seen in a house that was under construction. I suspect most of us here have been in a house under construction. There was no apparent legal basis for their trying to detain him, and in fact trying to do so was very likely illegal.
"The joglar didn't wanna get caught in a felony, so he ran when caught, and he had a right ta do that."
I have heard differing accounts - do they have proof he was committing a felony that day? What I heard last night it was 11 days prior
He had not committed a felony that day. He had no stolen property in his possession. He was seen in a house that was under construction. I suspect most of us here have been in a house under construction. There was no apparent legal basis for their trying to detain him, and in fact trying to do so was very likely illegal.
And most of us smart enough to not act guilty when we aren't doing anything wrong.
"The joglar didn't wanna get caught in a felony, so he ran when caught, and he had a right ta do that."
I have heard differing accounts - do they have proof he was committing a felony that day? What I heard last night it was 11 days prior
He had not committed a felony that day. He had no stolen property in his possession. He was seen in a house that was under construction. I suspect most of us here have been in a house under construction. There was no apparent legal basis for their trying to detain him, and in fact trying to do so was very likely illegal.
And most of us smart enough to not act guilty when we aren't doing anything wrong.
By act guilty, you mean being black right? Whatever you mean, acting guilty isn't grounds for false imprisonment.
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-5/article-3/16-5-41/
Things sure must have changed...There was a time that if a cop, or a citizen had a firearm trained at your head, a person didn’t want to be shot and usually gave up.
The crazy ones, or the I’m never going back to prison types might have required a round to be fired.
🦫
Things sure must have changed...There was a time that if a cop, or a citizen had a firearm trained at your head, a person didn’t want to be shot and usually gave up.
The crazy ones, or the I’m never going back to prison types might have required a round to be fired.
🦫
If a civilian puts a gun to my head, I am very likely to take it from them. Best to stay out of arm's reach.
Things sure must have changed...There was a time that if a cop, or a citizen had a firearm trained at your head, a person didn’t want to be shot and usually gave up.
The crazy ones, or the I’m never going back to prison types might have required a round to be fired.
🦫
Overachievers … These dumb bastards cannot tell the difference between movies, video games, etc.
Most people, when a gun is pointed at them, are smart enough to say something like "Whatever you want".
He had not committed a felony that day. He had no stolen property in his possession. He was seen in a house that was under construction. I suspect most of us here have been in a house under construction. There was no apparent legal basis for their trying to detain him, and in fact trying to do so was very likely illegal.
yeah
Things sure must have changed...There was a time that if a cop, or a citizen had a firearm trained at your head, a person didn’t want to be shot and usually gave up.
The crazy ones, or the I’m never going back to prison types might have required a round to be fired.
🦫
If a civilian puts a gun to my head, I am very likely to take it from them. Best to stay out of arm's reach.
You missed the point, Paul.
🦫
You don’t have the right to detain someone stick your firearm in their face and demand ID especially if you did not see them commit a crime.
It would different if on that day they personally witnessed him comit a a serious crime on their property . Like catching him inside YOUR residence committing burglary
Would have to review Georgia law.
They phugged up and will serve time.
They knew the joglar was stealin from their neighborhood, and they were right.
They went ta try and identify him, so they could get the cops ta charge him with burglary, and they had the right ta do that.
They had weapons with em, and they had the right ta do that.
They yelled at the joglar ta stop, so they could try and get a name/description for the cops, and they had a right ta do that.
The joglar didn't wanna get caught in a felony, so he ran when caught, and he had a right ta do that.
The joglar tried ta pull a shotgun from another citizen's hand, and he didn't have the right ta do that.
So the only person that committed a crime that day, is dead.
This covers it nicely...but they're still f ucked...
He had not committed a felony that day.
Day wasn't over yet.
Jogger by day, joglar by night.
Only a liberal, and apparently a court, would pretend otherwise.
And if ya don't pretend otherwise, his refusal ta be questioned bout his presence in a neighborhood he didn't live in would be explained.
And his grabbin for the weapon would be explained.
So, what would explain how the death of the joglar happened, is bein withheld from the people decidin how the death of the joglar happened.
In a horse race, that's called fixing the outcome, and is frowned upon.
You don’t have the right to detain someone stick your firearm in their face and demand ID especially if you did not see them commit a crime.
And Kyle Rittenhouse was a white supremacist that crossed state lines with an illegal weapon and killed 2 blacks.
Media lies ain't facts.
Unfortunately for the McMichael/Bryan case, there isn't 20 angles of video that shows exactly what happened.
If KR hadn't had all the videos, he would have been convicted. In other words, the truth don't count. Only what it *looks* like.
So in this case, the jury hasta guess, and that ain't good for the defendants.
Sure he was jogging around ... it's called .. scoping, casing, clocking etc .... looking for stuff ... to steal later/place to burglarize
even his name gave it away ...
....
![[Linked Image from imagizer.imageshack.com]](https://imagizer.imageshack.com/img922/1444/a0efaW.jpg)
Sure he was jogging around ... it's called .. scoping, casing, clocking etc .... looking for stuff ... to steal later/place to burglarize
even his name gave it away ...
....
Yep. Looking for something to steal.
Old time Detective buddy of mine said any time you see a Groid riding a Bicycle late at night in a nice neighborhood, they’re casing out the area for a house to burglarize. .
He had not committed a felony that day.
Day wasn't over yet.
Jogger by day, joglar by night.
Only a liberal, and apparently a court, would pretend otherwise.
And if ya don't pretend otherwise, his refusal ta be questioned bout his presence in a neighborhood he didn't live in would be explained.
And his grabbin for the weapon would be explained.
So, what would explain how the death of the joglar happened, is bein withheld from the people decidin how the death of the joglar happened.
In a horse race, that's called fixing the outcome, and is frowned upon.
You didn't do well in school did you sweetie?
Revisiting this...
Feels good to be correct....yet again....
Futardski on the other hand is WRONG lol
![[Linked Image from media.giphy.com]](https://media.giphy.com/media/lReVblhSRtxXtfK81w/giphy.gif)
![[Linked Image from media.giphy.com]](https://media.giphy.com/media/126omQ0GgfVVmw/giphy.gif)