• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Black Lives Matter

scaramanga said:
The article I read:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-shooting-of-ahmaud-arbery-an-unarmed-black-man-is-roiling-georgia

And quotes from the police in this article:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/26/us/ahmed-arbery-shooting-georgia.html

If it was him, this case is likely to land one way or the other on a technicality of the break in. This is going to get a little law geeky, so strap in.

In Georgia, a citizen's arrest is valid if the crime being commited is a felony. You are allowed to pursue and detain a suspect awaiting the police. Breaking and Entering is not a felony, Burglary is. The difference between the two is stealing or intent to steal as a part of the B&E. So if the defendants can show an intent to steal then they have demonstrated they had the right to pursue and detain a suspect.

Georgia is not a full open carry state, but you can open carry with a state license - the fact that the defendants were not immediately charged with carrying weapons leads me to believe that they probably had the relevant licenses. Plus they're rednecks so they probably carry all the time. So they can also demonstrate that they were within their legal rights to have their guns with them.

In terms of the shooting itself, thing are a little unclear. If statements from the defendants/their friend in the truck behind and the video we've all seen is the totality of the evidence, it's not an easy prosecution to win. The "action" starts behind the truck - the defendants will almost certainly claim that Arbery attacked them and tried to take the gun off of the one out of the truck. It's an unlikely event, but let's not forget that the standard is "proof beyond reasonable doubt" and they only need one juror to have enough doubt.

Georgia also has the "Stand your ground" self defence statute. This means that anyone being attacked is able to use force (potentially unlimited force) to defend themselves. If the defendants can convince the jury of the paragraph above, then they pass this test fairly easily.

So what it will likely boil down to is whether or not an intent to steal can be shown, as everything else will hinge on that.

Please note, this is not a moral judgement on the case, simply an explanation of why it will not be easy to convict - especially in front of a jury in Georgia.
Click to expand...

You’re right, it won’t be easy. The prosecution is already preparing a ‘stand your ground’ defence and that the victim attacked first. They’ve also brought up previous felonies and mental health issues surrounding Arbery.

This citizens arrest law essentially gives hicks that think they’re John Wayne the opportunity to legally place a bullseye on other individuals they deem to look suspect. In a large number of cases, for individual read ‘random black dude’
 
AuroRaman said:
You’re right, it won’t be easy. The prosecution is already preparing a ‘stand your ground’ defence and that the victim attacked first. They’ve also bought up previous felonies and mental health issues surrounding Arbery.

This citizens arrest law essentially gives hicks that think they’re John Wayne the opportunity to legally place a bullseye on other individuals they deem to look suspect. In a large number of cases, for individual read ‘random black dude’
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm fairly sure they wouldn't have reacted the same way had it been a white man they were after. They're clearly racist clams.

I don't have an issue with citizen's arrest per se, the problem I do have with it comes to the fore around blurred lines like this. How does an ordinary citizen decide if there's intent to burgle during a B&E? It's impossible.
 
AuroRaman said:
Even more is coming out about the shooters relationship with law enforcement and the Mayor/Governor.
Click to expand...
What's that? I know the father was a cop, so obviously would know the local prosecutor and judges reasonably well.

I assume it goes further than that.
 
scaramanga said:
It's a genuine question. There's a truck full of rednecks and guns, they're apparently chasing him and he runs at them unarmed?

Why would anyone do that?
Click to expand...

Perhaps, in some naive and ignorant fantasy land, he was simply running and had not thought that he was being followed by racists. Perhaps, the poor fool, he reasonably thought he could run around a truck in the road without encountering a gun.
Perhaps he had not heard the news that 911 dispatch had already received two "hero" calls announcing they'd seen "a black man running" and when asked what he was doing simply repeated that.
 
scaramanga said:
Oh, I'm fairly sure they wouldn't have reacted the same way had it been a white man they were after. They're clearly racist clams.

I don't have an issue with citizen's arrest per se, the problem I do have with it comes to the fore around blurred lines like this. How does an ordinary citizen decide if there's intent to burgle during a B&E? It's impossible.
Click to expand...
The biggest issues I have with citizens arrest is that it hardly ever ends without blood shed. Because arresting people is not easy, amateurs cannot so it easily. Apprehending is another thing IMO.

Sadly, being black in America, especially the south, is an increasingly dangerous thing (disgracefully). I wonder what Wizzy would say?!!!!!!!!!!
 
"According to the police report, Arbery fell to the ground with one of his hands landing underneath him, and Travis McMichael rolled Arbery over to see if he was holding a weapon. He wasn’t. But the McMichaels would tell police that day that Arbery had recently been seen sticking “his hand down his pants,” leading them to believe he might be armed, they said."

If putting your hand down your pants causes people to believe you might be armed, then I have likely survived several close scares. Pathetic!

The leaking of irrelevant "facts" and half-truths in early establishment of a full gaslighting operation disgust me.
 
scaramanga said:
What's that? I know the father was a cop, so obviously would know the local prosecutor and judges reasonably well.

I assume it goes further than that.
Click to expand...

My bad, its was the District Attorney. Jackie Johnson, McMichael worked under her at some point I believe. Two government officials confirmed they wanted to arrest the shooters on the day but she told them no to do it.
 
SteveAWOL said:

Click to expand...

Another episode of the keystone cops. The one with the taser hasn't got two braincells to rub together, yet he's given a gun and tazer. The other cop actually does quite a good job in calming the situation. As we've learned with all the other shootings, in a country full of so many guns and idiots, today's news, tomorrow's fish and chips paper.

Good luck USA!
 
SteveAWOL said:

Click to expand...
Interesting edit.

The full version shows a suspect aggressive enough to cause a (very calm and polite) officer to have to call for backup twice. The second officer isn't responding to a quiet and amiable suspect as the video shows, he's responding to someone who has been aggressive and threatening.

Also, very smart of him to jump out of the car as the first officer arrives, meaning that they can't get a proper look inside the car.

I don't understand the need from the media to try and paint Arbery as some kind of saint. He was a regular criminal, who was clearly up to no good the day he got shot. Obviously what happened to him was a tragedy, but all the misinformation coming from our side does our cause no good whatsoever. The events were bad enough when represented accurately, why continue to bend the truth so much in representing it?

No wonder there's a section of nutjobs with weapons that feel "THE MSM" is against them.
 
awesome dawson said:
Another episode of the keystone cops. The one with the taser hasn't got two braincells to rub together, yet he's given a gun and tazer. The other cop actually does quite a good job in calming the situation. As we've learned with all the other shootings, in a country full of so many guns and idiots, today's news, tomorrow's fish and chips paper.

Good luck USA!
Click to expand...
Why was the situation ever not calm in the first place? Whilst I generally believe the work done by police is excellent, I despise traffic police. That doesn't make me aggressive or threatening when they stop me. Patronising and sarcastic maybe, but there's no reason to threaten them.
 
awesome dawson said:
Another episode of the keystone cops. The one with the taser hasn't got two braincells to rub together, yet he's given a gun and tazer. The other cop actually does quite a good job in calming the situation. As we've learned with all the other shootings, in a country full of so many guns and idiots, today's news, tomorrow's fish and chips paper.

Good luck USA!
Click to expand...


The second video highlights how tense the situation must be, the expectation that it can escalate is right there, at various stages they are all bricking it that its going to turn into a firefight.
What should really be just a citizen having some down time and a police officer doing his job and both respecting each other and their position could so easily have turned into another fudge up.
A fudged up situation in a fudged up bit of the world.
 
scaramanga said:
Why was the situation ever not calm in the first place? Whilst I generally believe the work done by police is excellent, I despise traffic police. That doesn't make me aggressive or threatening when they stop me. Patronising and sarcastic maybe, but there's no reason to threaten them.
Click to expand...


We all get narked when we have a run in with authority, especially when we are innocent, knowing the history and tensions there I would hope that I would act differently. But he doesn't do much wrong IMHO.
So glad we don't have gun carrying police here.
 
scaramanga said:
Interesting edit.

The full version shows a suspect aggressive enough to cause a (very calm and polite) officer to have to call for backup twice. The second officer isn't responding to a quiet and amiable suspect as the video shows, he's responding to someone who has been aggressive and threatening.

Also, very smart of him to jump out of the car as the first officer arrives, meaning that they can't get a proper look inside the car.

I don't understand the need from the media to try and paint Arbery as some kind of saint. He was a regular criminal, who was clearly up to no good the day he got shot. Obviously what happened to him was a tragedy, but all the misinformation coming from our side does our cause no good whatsoever. The events were bad enough when represented accurately, why continue to bend the truth so much in representing it?

No wonder there's a section of nutjobs with weapons that feel "THE MSM" is against them.
Click to expand...

Where did you read he was 'up to no good' that day? He went into a house that many other people had gone into previously and not had people chase them with guns.
 
glasgowspur said:
We all get narked when we have a run in with authority, especially when we are innocent, knowing the history and tensions there I would hope that I would act differently. But he doesn't do much wrong IMHO.
So glad we don't have gun carrying police here.
Click to expand...
He approached him aggressively twice (admittedly interpretation can factor here, bit pushed him when he was looking in the window of his car.

I'm fairly sure pushing a police officer would have bad results in most countries.
 
scaramanga said:
That's still a crime as far as I'm aware.
Click to expand...

Probably. He was the only one to get chased by thugs with guns though. I get the point you're making regarding 'sainthood', but it was common knowledge he has had previous run-ins with the law. He was the only one out of a multitude of nosey people entering the premises to be killed for it. It's a point that doesn't need highlighting in this instance at least. Due to the institutionalised nature of oppression and racism in the US (not your personally), we're discussing the merits of a murdered man's character, which very likely wouldn't have been the case had he been white. In fact, the evidence in this case alone strongly suggests he would still be alive if he was white.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back