Sign in to follow this  
CardinalBacker

Ahmaud Arbery Shooting

Recommended Posts

Once again, the narrative has turned to the epidemic of unarmed young black men being gunned down by racists.  I've gotta cry foul on this one. 

Let me start by saying that it is unfortunate that this young man lost his life so needlessly.  It is a tragedy.  I can't imagine what his family must be feeling.

However, the narrative of "he was just out for a jog when he was hunted down and killed by racists" is hollow, if not outright false.  

There is an epidemic in our country, but it's not one of white on black violence, but rather an epidemic of violent behavior by young black men.  The statistics speak for themselves, but you don't have to go all scientific.  Just scroll through Youtube... there are countless videos of young black men attacking people in fast foot restaurants, schools, parking lots at apartment complexes, and any other public place you can think of.  The black community refuses to acknowledge this fact.  This past Friday the community in Beaumont poured into the streets to protest the Arbery killing... yet I don't remember any such protest or show of support for any of the 2 dozen or so young men that were killed right here in our community last year.  That's so hypocritical that no one participating in Friday's protest can be taken seriously.  The Bible teaches us not to remove the mote from our brother's eye before removing the beam from our own... yet here we are again. 

Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown, and now Ahmaud Arbery.... and who knows how many others. The media tells us that these young men were just out buying skittles, or out for a jog when they were senselessly killed.  In reality, you have three documented cases where young black men got angry and attacked people who (unfortunately for the attackers) were armed.  That's the real story.  George Zimmerman was getting his skull bounced off of the sidewalk when he killed Trayvon Martin.  The photos are there.  Michael Brown was trying to walk down a uniformed police officer whose weapon was drawn after committing a strongarm robbery of a convenience store.  Young Mr. Arbery tried to fight a guy who was holding a shotgun.  I don't think he was scared.  I don't think he was brave or valiant.  I think he was just pissed.  Just like every other person of color that we see attacking a kid behind the counter at McDonald's.  People who have heard a lifetime of "leaders" trying to convince that segment of the population that all of the discomforts of their lives are the fault of others.  I'd be mad, too, if all I ever heard was that all of the struggles of life were the fault of someone else.  

You can talk all you want about "well, that neighborhood watch guy shouldn't have had a gun" or "that cop COULD have used a tazer" or "those rednecks had no right to stop that kid whether he'd just broken into a house or not."  That can be debated from both sides all day... but it's a lot harder to argue that none of those three young men could easily be alive today if they had kept their hands to themselves.  There are some bad people out there.  There are even a few bad people out there who would kill another for the color of their skin.  But there's not a murderous klansman behind every bush.  

Here's the thing that nobody is actually saying.  The eventual shooter had a constitutional right to be standing in the street holding a shotgun.  He also had a right to ask the deceased to stop.  The deceased had no obligation to stop.  If the deceased had been illegally detained, then the man holding the gun would have legal problems of his own.  Instead, the young man attempted to disarm the eventual shooter.  Don't get me wrong.... things were tense out there.  The possibility of someone getting hurt or killed was there as those young men initially approached one another.  But once they began to struggle over the gun, it's obvious that someone was going to get shot.  And I wonder how much of that kid's reaction was based on a lifetime of lies about being in danger of being killed by whitey?

Three takes.... 

1. That young man was out for a jog and he was hunted down and murdered for being black.  

2. That was a messy situation that should not have happened, but now it's up to us to figure out who was responsible and if (and in my opinion, how severely) someone needs to be punished.

3.  I literally saw that young man chase down that truck and attack the driver... luckily the driver was armed.

Only one of those three is rational.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1

From what I read and saw about the incident and read GA law on citizen arrest and self defense, in another forum a week ago I called it a murder. 

I don’t think he was out jogging but it didn’t matter. The only question should be, was deadly force legal at the time it was used? Prior criminal record, committed a crime that day or anything else didn’t seem to be the issue. Was pulling a shotgun on an apparently unarmed person lawful. 

 In this case you had two men trying to stop our arrest a man with no visible weapons. Even if he turns to fight (which stand your ground in GA probably gives him rights also), GA law (similar to Texas law) says that to use deadly force, the person had to reasonably  believe that he was about to suffer death or “great bodily harm”. Texas law is almost identical but says “serious bodily injury”. 

 So let’s play devil’s advocate and assume that Arbery had committed a felony. Let’s assume that the men witnessed it as required by law. Let’s assume that they were not trying to just detain him for questioning (I believe was their original statement)  which would be unlawful. Let’s assume that Arbery charges say the man unprovoked.  
 

Did two pretty good size men reasonably fear death or great bodily harm fool Arbery. I am not taking about a bloody nose or a black eye. Those aren’t grounds for deadly force in my opinion. If that were true then every high school fight could end up in a lawful killing.  
 

If everything went against Arbery as far as his actions, does it justify gunning him down? 
 

 I think no. 
 

Now of course there are facts that we do not know. Did Arbery have a knife in his hand or some other weapon? Did he yell, you piece of crap you’re not going to arrest me and lunge at the guys throat?

 There are lots of what ifs but even if Arbery was trying to get away from a felony or he might have punched a guy trying to arrest him, does that alone gives a legal option of deadly force? I don’t think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, tvc184 said:

From what I read and saw about the incident and read GA law on citizen arrest and self defense, in another forum a week ago I called it a murder. 

I don’t think he was out jogging but it didn’t matter. The only question should be, was deadly force legal at the time it was used? Prior criminal record, committed a crime that day or anything else didn’t seem to be the issue. Was pulling a shotgun on an apparently unarmed person lawful. 

 In this case you had two men trying to stop our arrest a man with no visible weapons. Even if he turns to fight (which stand your ground in GA probably gives him rights also), GA law (similar to Texas law) says that to use deadly force, the person had to reasonably  believe that he was about to suffer death or “great bodily harm”. Texas law is almost identical but says “serious bodily injury”. 

 So let’s play devil’s advocate and assume that Arbery had committed a felony. Let’s assume that the men witnessed it as required by law. Let’s assume that they were not trying to just detain him for questioning (I believe was their original statement)  which would be unlawful. Let’s assume that Arbery charges say the man unprovoked.  
 

Did two pretty good size men reasonably fear death or great bodily harm fool Arbery. I am not taking about a bloody nose or a black eye. Those aren’t grounds for deadly force in my opinion. If that were true then every high school fight could end up in a lawful killing.  
 

If everything went against Arbery as far as his actions, does it justify gunning him down? 
 

 I think no. 
 

Now of course there are facts that we do not know. Did Arbery have a knife in his hand or some other weapon? Did he yell, you piece of crap you’re not going to arrest me and lunge at the guys throat?

 There are lots of what ifs but even if Arbery was trying to get away from a felony or he might have punched a guy trying to arrest him, does that alone gives a legal option of deadly force? I don’t think so.

I believe the two men handled the situation poorly

but put yourself in the shooters place ...jogger is punching kicking wrestling with you. You have the gun....What are you thinking....

 

I can tell you what I’m thinking....this man is trying to get my gun from me and possibly do me great bodily harm

jogger ran around truck then towards the man with gun instead of running away.

jmo.

Again poor decisions by all involved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with 5GallinBucket, bad decisions by all.  What aggravates me is responses like the one from Lebron James, “We’re literally hunted”.  Not only is that 🐂💩, it extremely divisive, and creates fear & mistrust among the races.  An article on race on race crime for 2015 shows that 500 whites were killed by blacks, and 229 blacks killed by whites.   Those facts show how absurd Lebrons Tweet was.   Both numbers are atrocious.  Good grief, can’t we ever get along?   Not if folks like Lebron keep stirring the Hate pot.

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, tvc184 said:

From what I read and saw about the incident and read GA law on citizen arrest and self defense, in another forum a week ago I called it a murder. 

I don’t think he was out jogging but it didn’t matter. The only question should be, was deadly force legal at the time it was used? Prior criminal record, committed a crime that day or anything else didn’t seem to be the issue. Was pulling a shotgun on an apparently unarmed person lawful. 

 In this case you had two men trying to stop our arrest a man with no visible weapons. Even if he turns to fight (which stand your ground in GA probably gives him rights also), GA law (similar to Texas law) says that to use deadly force, the person had to reasonably  believe that he was about to suffer death or “great bodily harm”. Texas law is almost identical but says “serious bodily injury”. 

 So let’s play devil’s advocate and assume that Arbery had committed a felony. Let’s assume that the men witnessed it as required by law. Let’s assume that they were not trying to just detain him for questioning (I believe was their original statement)  which would be unlawful. Let’s assume that Arbery charges say the man unprovoked.  
 

Did two pretty good size men reasonably fear death or great bodily harm fool Arbery. I am not taking about a bloody nose or a black eye. Those aren’t grounds for deadly force in my opinion. If that were true then every high school fight could end up in a lawful killing.  
 

If everything went against Arbery as far as his actions, does it justify gunning him down? 
 

 I think no. 
 

Now of course there are facts that we do not know. Did Arbery have a knife in his hand or some other weapon? Did he yell, you piece of crap you’re not going to arrest me and lunge at the guys throat?

 There are lots of what ifs but even if Arbery was trying to get away from a felony or he might have punched a guy trying to arrest him, does that alone gives a legal option of deadly force? I don’t think so.

I’m not talking bad about you here... but I think you’ve illustrated a way of thinking that is prevalent regarding these incidents. 
 

There’s a segment of our population that believes that violence is an acceptable response to many, many situations, and that the person who is being attacked should simply take their beating. People are regularly beaten to death. People will often die because of injuries sustained from being knocked out and striking their head on the ground. An unarmed assault has a reasonable expectation of a deadly outcome. 
 

No one has to submit to a beating. There is a very real possibility that the person you intend to harm may kill you for attempting to injure them. Those are facts. 
 

To step back and say “oh, he was unarmed” doesn’t mean anything. I’m under no obligation to engage in unarmed combat with anybody. The simple fact that you are trying to hurt me gives me the right to protect myself by any means necessary.  Period.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Hagar said:

I agree with 5GallinBucket, bad decisions by all.  What aggravates me is responses like the one from Lebron James, “We’re literally hunted”.  Not only is that 🐂💩, it extremely divisive, and creates fear & mistrust among the races.  An article on race on race crime for 2015 shows that 500 whites were killed by blacks, and 229 blacks killed by whites.   Those facts show how absurd Lebrons Tweet was.   Both numbers are atrocious.  Good grief, can’t we ever get along?   Not if folks like Lebron keep stirring the Hate pot.

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers

This^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have (had) a good friend and former coworker from PA by way of Alabama. Solid dude (also happened to be black) from a solid family. PA firefighter and eventually went to work for one of the plants. Single Dad of a couple of great sons . I can’t express how solid of a guy he is. 

But he spends so much time worried that his boys will gunned down by bad cops. I’m just looking at him thinking..: your boys are so much more likely to get killed by bangers right there in PA than by a bad cop.  
 

We’re not friends on fb anymore and I’m sure it’s because of political views. I still like him, though. I just think he worries about the wrong stuff.

Share this post


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

This^

Correct me if I am wrong but havent we sort have been conditioned that when a crime is perpetrated by a black person, it is somehow wrong to mention skin color.  That doesnt seem to be the case in the above.  What am I missing?

Share this post


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

Correct me if I am wrong but havent we sort have been conditioned that when a crime is perpetrated by a black person, it is somehow wrong to mention skin color.  That doesnt seem to be the case in the above.  What am I missing?

How did he perpetuate the crime?

Share this post


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

I’m not talking bad about you here... but I think you’ve illustrated a way of thinking that is prevalent regarding these incidents. 
 

There’s a segment of our population that believes that violence is an acceptable response to many, many situations, and that the person who is being attacked should simply take their beating. People are regularly beaten to death. People will often die because of injuries sustained from being knocked out and striking their head on the ground. An unarmed assault has a reasonable expectation of a deadly outcome. 
 

No one has to submit to a beating. There is a very real possibility that the person you intend to harm may kill you for attempting to injure them. Those are facts. 
 

To step back and say “oh, he was unarmed” doesn’t mean anything. I’m under no obligation to engage in unarmed combat with anybody. The simple fact that you are trying to hurt me gives me the right to protect myself by any means necessary.  Period.  

Your ignorance is astonishing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sells. Nobody cares when the crimes are homogenous. I can’t name a single kid that was killed in Jeffco last year. 
 

But the sides are already chosen up when the crime is across racial lines. It gets us up in arms, trolling webpages and monitoring the news for updates. We emotionally react when there’s a racial aspect, so they (the media) runs with it. It also benefits us politically... whether you’re on the left decrying racist cops or on the right blaming those criminal illegal aliens... the powers that be push their agendas on the backs of crime victims. 
 

Before anybody says it, it’s not because white people go unpunished. Cody Crabtree was gunned down in the parking lot of an apartment complex in North Beaumont in broad daylight. He was a white kid who was in all likelihood down there looking to score... but nobody saw anything and if you ask me the cops kinda felt like he was asking for it. 
 

I don’t know how we fix it. There’s no amount of “sensitivity training” that would have saved young Mr Arbery’s life. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Big girl said:

Did you all watch the video? They persued him. Young white males are violent. They commit a majority of the school shootings.

You’re right on that point, my friend. White makes have committed a majority of the school shootings (and mass shootings in general).  
 

But I’m not talking about school shootings, because they make up such a tiny percentage of violent deaths in the US. Although that number is larger than the number of “unarmed black men killed by racists.” 
 

If you’d like to discuss the largest group of murders (black on black) or the second largest group of murders (black on white), join in the conversation. 
 

I’d also like to point out that contrary to what people keep saying, I don’t see the pursuit on that video... however the Atlanta Constitution is today reporting an earlier confrontation between the “rednecks” and Mr Arbery on 2/11 (less than two weeks prior)at the same construction site.  I guess Mr Arbery was just out jogging that night, too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Big girl said:

How did he perpetuate the crime?

You clearly, in your  desire to make things seem as they aren't, misunderstood my post.  I sad NOTHING. NADA, ZILCH about Mr. Arbery perpetrating anything.  I asked a very generalized question hoping to gain a better understanding that, when a black person commits a crime, it is somehow wrong to mention the skin color when reported by the media.   However, when an incident such as the above occurs, the main topic is reduced simply to a black person being wronged by a white person and is stated over,  and over, and over.  If you still dont understand my question, let me know and I will try to put it alternative terms.  

Share this post


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

I’m not talking bad about you here... but I think you’ve illustrated a way of thinking that is prevalent regarding these incidents. 
 

There’s a segment of our population that believes that violence is an acceptable response to many, many situations, and that the person who is being attacked should simply take their beating. People are regularly beaten to death. People will often die because of injuries sustained from being knocked out and striking their head on the ground. An unarmed assault has a reasonable expectation of a deadly outcome. 
 

No one has to submit to a beating. There is a very real possibility that the person you intend to harm may kill you for attempting to injure them. Those are facts. 
 

To step back and say “oh, he was unarmed” doesn’t mean anything. I’m under no obligation to engage in unarmed combat with anybody. The simple fact that you are trying to hurt me gives me the right to protect myself by any means necessary.  Period.  

But why did they confront him in the first place? I’m not playing ignorant, I sincerely can’t figure out how the confrontation started. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You’d have to ask them. However, it is every one of our constitutional right to stand in the street with a shotgun. It is also our right to confront anybody we want to for whatever we want to. That’s another fact. However, I stand to face criminal and civil actions if I attempt to do something that violates the rights of another. I could also be responsible for whatever mayhem erupts from my actions if I was mistaken. 
 

However a few points keep getting overlooked. This was not the first or second meeting between these “gentlemen” and Mr Arbery. The older one was personally responsible for having Mr Arbery’s prior probation revoked several years ago. It’s come to light today that prior to this confrontation on 2/23, there was also a confrontation between the same parties at the same construction site on the night of 2/11.  If you count the homeowner (English), the neighbor he called to investigate (Perez), the cameraman, the cop(s) that investigated the 2/11 intrusion, plus the shooter and his dad, no less than six people who were aware of this young man’s repeated entrances to a dwelling (under construction) to which he had no right to enter. That’s enough to warrant a confrontation. Does it justify a citizen’s arrest? Not in my opinion.  But it wasn’t much of an “arrest” because Mr Arbery began fighting with the son pretty much immediately. And you don’t have to ask who initiated contact because I not going to pretend that the son was holding his shotgun while attacking Mr Arbery with the other. 
I wish Mr Arbery was still alive. I wish those gentlemen had safely followed at a distance instead of trying to confront him. I wish that Mr Arbery hadn’t scuffled with an armed man. I wish a lot of things. 
 

Share this post


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

You’re right on that point, my friend. White makes have committed a majority of the school shootings (and mass shootings in general).  
 

But I’m not talking about school shootings, because they make up such a tiny percentage of violent deaths in the US. Although that number is larger than the number of “unarmed black men killed by racists.” 
 

If you’d like to discuss the largest group of murders (black on black) or the second largest group of murders (black on white), join in the conversation. 
 

I’d also like to point out that contrary to what people keep saying, I don’t see the pursuit on that video... however the Atlanta Constitution is today reporting an earlier confrontation between the “rednecks” and Mr Arbery on 2/11 (less than two weeks prior)at the same construction site.  I guess Mr Arbery was just out jogging that night, too. 

Black on black -93%

White on white crime- 89%

People kill most amongst their racial group.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

You’d have to ask them. However, it is every one of our constitutional right to stand in the street with a shotgun. It is also our right to confront anybody we want to for whatever we want to. That’s another fact. However, I stand to face criminal and civil actions if I attempt to do something that violates the rights of another. I could also be responsible for whatever mayhem erupts from my actions if I was mistaken. 
 

However a few points keep getting overlooked. This was not the first or second meeting between these “gentlemen” and Mr Arbery. The older one was personally responsible for having Mr Arbery’s prior probation revoked several years ago. It’s come to light today that prior to this confrontation on 2/23, there was also a confrontation between the same parties at the same construction site on the night of 2/11.  If you count the homeowner (English), the neighbor he called to investigate (Perez), the cameraman, the cop(s) that investigated the 2/11 intrusion, plus the shooter and his dad, no less than six people who were aware of this young man’s repeated entrances to a dwelling (under construction) to which he had no right to enter. That’s enough to warrant a confrontation. Does it justify a citizen’s arrest? Not in my opinion.  But it wasn’t much of an “arrest” because Mr Arbery began fighting with the son pretty much immediately. And you don’t have to ask who initiated contact because I not going to pretend that the son was holding his shotgun while attacking Mr Arbery with the other. 
I wish Mr Arbery was still alive. I wish those gentlemen had safely followed at a distance instead of trying to confront him. I wish that Mr Arbery hadn’t scuffled with an armed man. I wish a lot of things. 
 

He was within his right to jog, and to fight for his life. Did you watch the video?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Member Statistics

    41,746
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Hornetpride85
    Newest Member
    Hornetpride85
    Joined


  • Posts

    • No he just switches names 
    • No, it’s not all fair game. It has to be relevant to the trial however, if a defendant (or anyone)  takes the stand, you can impeach his testimony by trying to show that he is untruthful. For the guys to claim self defense in this case, I believe they are going to have to take the stand to explain their actions. They obviously don’t have to by law and their lawyers can try to make the case without it but it will be difficult with what I think the state attorney is going to bring. Dropping a case or being found not guilty has nothing to do with a lawful arrest. Probable cause is a way different standard than proof beyond s reasonable doubt. Yes I have seen officers sued and successfully. Deadly force is defined (at least in Texas) by statute. It isn’t merely “generally accepted”. DF used on a person is actual use of deadly force but the threat of deadly force (in Texas) with a deadly Weapon can get you up to 99 years in the hoosegow according who you threaten. Up to 20 years for everyone else. That is the mere threat and not even use. i disagree with your struggle over the weapon makes the use of DF would be “completely useable beyond question”. Welllll.... not so much. If a person displays a weapon and/or threatens DF when it isn’t lawful, he loses his use of self defense. I will quote Texas law (as an example as I don’t like looking at GA) on self defense not being lawful. In your terminology, if a mortal was initiated by the deceased. No, if the shooter had no legal standing for displaying the shotgun, morally initiating the struggle is legal by Arbery. He has just as much right of self defense and stand your ground against an unlawful use of force including the threat. This is Texas law when self defense is not lawful: >>>>>(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used. (b) The use of force against another is not justified: (1) in response to verbal provocation alone;<<<< Does not provoke... if the shooter had no lawful use of a shotgun to stop a man merely running (even away), then the shooter provoked the incident. Also, no defense when engaged in any crime other than C misdemeanor or in other words, a traffic citation. So if brandishing a firearm without the lawful use of self defense is a crime in GA, again (and I bet it is), the shooter broke the law and again, loses lawful self defense. So, you can’t commit a crime and then claim self defense. As my questions were, was an arrest lawful under GA law and was the display of a weapon to make that arrest in that situation lawful. If not lawful on either, case closed.  If the shooter displayed the shotgun unlawfully, it is Arbery that had the lawful right of self defense, not the shooter. I am not sure what the Michael Slager case has to do with this except even an officer can’t guess what “may” happen. If so the police could legally shoot anyone because they “may” do something. 
    • What’s your thoughts on Crenshaw?
    • At this rate, would this be any reason to kill an economy?!  Unless... https://reason.com/2020/05/24/the-cdcs-new-best-estimate-implies-a-covid-19-infection-fatality-rate-below-0-3/
    • Hey RaiderGirl, I think we sent FalconRus back under his rock!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...