Sign in to follow this  
CardinalBacker

Ahmaud Arbery Shooting

Recommended Posts

On 5/13/2020 at 4:21 PM, stevenash said:

Was going into the home under construction part of the jogging routine?

people go into homes under construction in my neighborhood all the time Steve. Although I own a home in this area, I look at the new homes also. 

Share this post


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

You been there, huh?

How many of those boat races, fishing tournaments, and local celebrations happen in the middle of the night? You get what I’m saying though. Sometimes, whether we like it or not, we are conspicuous by only our presence. You can debate whether that’s right or wrong all you want, but it is the way it is. 

Simple question for you that nobody else will answer. Do you feel like there’s a violence problem in the black community?

Yes, indeed I have, for good and bad. I also have first hand experience of how police have treated both sides. Just being in the wrong place at the wrong time isn't a crime. And it sure pisses em off when they cant find nothing to justify the mistreatment of those they feel are guilty. Police are the first step of the justice system. Not the judge, jury, and executioner.

My response was only to show the errors of your ways. Before you, or anyone else, attempts to prove a point, check the facts. Simmons is much different now than it was in my day, and probably yours as well.

https://m.orangeleader.com/2019/06/12/mayor-change-the-name-of-simmons-drive/

Sorry, I will plea the 5th on the last question. Not my place to judge. Not yours either. American society, as a whole, has a violence problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of these side bar arguments and questions are mostly a diversion to prove one way or the other. 

 It didn’t matter if there is a video showing Arbery arguing with the cops two years earlier. It doesn’t matter if he wasn’t completely stable mentally, it doesn’t matter about race relations and who has the most violent community,  it doesn’t matter if he was jogging and so on. 

 What matters is GA law on citizen arrest (CA), what the required knowledge is to justify such an arrest and what force or threats can be used. 
 

These are the questions that in my opinion matter. 

 Was Arbery committing a crime that GA law allows for a CA? 

 If that existed, did the men have the required direct knowledge of the crime?

What force does GA law allow for a CA and is displaying a firearm lawful without provocation of deadly force by the suspect?

If the men unlawfully displayed a weapon to apprehend Arbery for a non-violent, did Arbery have the right of self defense and stand your ground against the men?

 Short of knowing these answers...... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if the answer to either of my first questions is “no”, we need not proceed any further down the list.

 If the answer to either is no, the Murder charge is valid. If both are yes, more details are needed but the first two are critical. No valid crime to justify a CA or not having the required knowledge to justify such an arrest and thesec guys need to make the best plea possible.

 I am not saying those are the facts as I don’t know (nor anyone else reading this)  but if you can’t get past both of those, these guys are rightfully in deep trouble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WOSdrummer99 said:

Yes, indeed I have, for good and bad. I also have first hand experience of how police have treated both sides. Just being in the wrong place at the wrong time isn't a crime. And it sure pisses em off when they cant find nothing to justify the mistreatment of those they feel are guilty. Police are the first step of the justice system. Not the judge, jury, and executioner.

My response was only to show the errors of your ways. Before you, or anyone else, attempts to prove a point, check the facts. Simmons is much different now than it was in my day, and probably yours as well.

https://m.orangeleader.com/2019/06/12/mayor-change-the-name-of-simmons-drive/

Sorry, I will plea the 5th on the last question. Not my place to judge. Not yours either. American society, as a whole, has a violence problem.

You’re a weak person.

Deflect, deflect, deflect.... And everybody wonders why nothing ever changes.  You have no problems judging law enforcement.  You have no problems judging my beliefs... but you’re too “woke” to address the elephant in the room.

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

And if the answer to either of my first questions is “no”, we need not proceed any further down the list.

 If the answer to either is no, the Murder charge is valid. If both are yes, more details are needed but the first two are critical. No valid crime to justify a CA or not having the required knowledge to justify such an arrest and thesec guys need to make the best plea possible.

 I am not saying those are the facts as I don’t know (nor anyone else reading this)  but if you can’t get past both of those, these guys are rightfully in deep trouble.

If the initial narrative was true (he was just out jogging) and these yayhoos tried to stop him on suspicions about past burglaries alone, they’d be guilty of murder in my book.

ALL of the evidence that indicates that Mr Arbery was repeatedly going into a dwelling that wasn’t his, and was literally being filmed by a man that had just watched him enter and flee the dwelling.  Both of the other suspects made 911 phone calls in the minutes leading up to the shooting. The father was on the line when the shooting occurred.

Obviously all three of the men being held without bail at the moment believed that a crime had been committed based on their actions that day. I personally think that CA laws are stupid...  Even if we sit back and say that based on all that we know now, Mr Arbery has not committed a crime prior to the attempted arrest, the men involved would still be justified in trying to stop Mr Arbery from fleeing. 

Whenever a suspect is arrested and eventually has his/her charges dropped, he doesn’t get to file suit for unlawful arrest. The officer believed that a crime was committed, and in this case all three believed.  It’s a stretch, I know. 
 

At the end of the day, this case will be heard by a jury that will see videos of Mr Arbery in a house that he has no right to be in. They’ll hear of Mr Arbery’s previous theft-related arrest. I have no doubt that they will see the videos of prior confrontations with LEOs that we’ve seen lately. They’ll also watch the video of the final confrontation in which Mr Arbery initiated a life and death struggle over the shotgun. 

Mr Arbery has no claim of self defense in my opinion. If I get stopped by loss prevention leaving Walmart and I slug him/her, I can’t claim self defense, even if it turns out that I owned what they thought I was stealing. Mr Arbery wasn’t jogging... he was fleeing. It’s obvious. 

 

Share this post


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

If the initial narrative was true (he was just out jogging) and these yayhoos tried to stop him on suspicions about past burglaries alone, they’d be guilty of murder in my book.

ALL of the evidence that indicates that Mr Arbery was repeatedly going into a dwelling that wasn’t his, and was literally being filmed by a man that had just watched him enter and flee the dwelling.  Both of the other suspects made 911 phone calls in the minutes leading up to the shooting. The father was on the line when the shooting occurred.

Obviously all three of the men being held without bail at the moment believed that a crime had been committed based on their actions that day. I personally think that CA laws are stupid...  Even if we sit back and say that based on all that we know now, Mr Arbery has not committed a crime prior to the attempted arrest, the men involved would still be justified in trying to stop Mr Arbery from fleeing. 

Whenever a suspect is arrested and eventually has his/her charges dropped, he doesn’t get to file suit for unlawful arrest. The officer believed that a crime was committed, and in this case all three believed.  It’s a stretch, I know. 
 

At the end of the day, this case will be heard by a jury that will see videos of Mr Arbery in a house that he has no right to be in. They’ll hear of Mr Arbery’s previous theft-related arrest. I have no doubt that they will see the videos of prior confrontations with LEOs that we’ve seen lately. They’ll also watch the video of the final confrontation in which Mr Arbery initiated a life and death struggle over the shotgun. 

Mr Arbery has no claim of self defense in my opinion. If I get stopped by loss prevention leaving Walmart and I slug him/her, I can’t claim self defense, even if it turns out that I owned what they thought I was stealing. Mr Arbery wasn’t jogging... he was fleeing. It’s obvious. 

 

I disagree on several points.

 Yes you can sue for unlawful arrest.

I don’t that GA or any state laws allow bringing things like a confrontation with the police. Those types of evidence can normally only come out in a punishment phase of s trial and only after a conviction.

 Arbery can’t claim self defense because he is dead but the DA will be able to bring up self defense laws. Even if Arbery has no right of self defense, that doesn’t negate murder. If you are in Walmart arguing with someone and he bops you in the nose, you would have a hard time claiming self defense by deadly force. A bloody nose doesn’t justify getting shot.

 It doesn’t matter if he was jogging or fleeing. Neither justifies deadly force. 

Share this post


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

I disagree on several points.

 Yes you can sue for unlawful arrest.

I don’t that GA or any state laws allow bringing things like a confrontation with the police. Those types of evidence can normally only come out in a punishment phase of s trial and only after a conviction.

 Arbery can’t claim self defense because he is dead but the DA will be able to bring up self defense laws. Even if Arbery has no right of self defense, that doesn’t negate murder. If you are in Walmart arguing with someone and he bops you in the nose, you would have a hard time claiming self defense by deadly force. A bloody nose doesn’t justify getting shot.

 It doesn’t matter if he was jogging or fleeing. Neither justifies deadly force. 

Okay... they can’t bring about prior arrest records and such of the defendant(s) as they’d be prejudicial towards them. In this case where we’re talking about the victim, it’s all fair game (as I understand it).  In rape cases, they don’t wait until the punishment phase to  sling mud at the accuser. 
 

Has you or anybody you’ve worked with or trained with been sued for wrongful arrest after a person was found not guilty? Or by an arrestee who eventually had their charges dropped? If that was the case, you’d run out of enrollees at the academy. 
 

I disagree with your “bop on the nose” scenario. What if I defend myself with a bat? Is that reasonable? Or am I, when criminally assaulted, only allowed to match my assailant’s weapon of choice? He hits me, I can hit him back. But I’d better not use a weapon.  However, if my assailant pulls a weapon of his own, now I am willing to engage him with a like weapon, but if I have a bigger stick, or match his knife with my gun, I’ll face murder charges. 
 

And I guarantee that if I bop a cop on the nose, I’d be lucky to get out with just a felony and not a couple of bullet wounds. You, as a police officer, have no more rights to defend yourself than do I.  
 

Lastly... what is the generally accepted definition of deadly force? Do you believe that brandishing a weapon is considered deadly force, or does that come it when the weapon is used? Because my interpretation of deadly force would be when the weapon was actually used. In this case that didn’t happen until the struggle over the weapon... and in instance deadly force would be completely usable beyond question.  Deadly force wasn’t used to stop anybody from jogging or fleeing. There was a mortal struggle initiated by the deceased when deadly force was used. Unless my definition is too restrictive.  I think of that cop from SC that shot a man in the back from about 50 feet away on camera. He’s rightfully in jail now.  There was a brief struggle and the victim made a break for it. He might have gotten the best of the officer in the struggle. It was just a traffic stop, nothing criminal if my memory is correct. THAT was wrong all of the way around.  

Share this post


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

Okay... they can’t bring about prior arrest records and such of the defendant(s) as they’d be prejudicial towards them. In this case where we’re talking about the victim, it’s all fair game (as I understand it).  In rape cases, they don’t wait until the punishment phase to  sling mud at the accuser. 
 

Has you or anybody you’ve worked with or trained with been sued for wrongful arrest after a person was found not guilty? Or by an arrestee who eventually had their charges dropped? If that was the case, you’d run out of enrollees at the academy. 
 

I disagree with your “bop on the nose” scenario. What if I defend myself with a bat? Is that reasonable? Or am I, when criminally assaulted, only allowed to match my assailant’s weapon of choice? He hits me, I can hit him back. But I’d better not use a weapon.  However, if my assailant pulls a weapon of his own, now I am willing to engage him with a like weapon, but if I have a bigger stick, or match his knife with my gun, I’ll face murder charges. 
 

And I guarantee that if I bop a cop on the nose, I’d be lucky to get out with just a felony and not a couple of bullet wounds. You, as a police officer, have no more rights to defend yourself than do I.  
 

Lastly... what is the generally accepted definition of deadly force? Do you believe that brandishing a weapon is considered deadly force, or does that come it when the weapon is used? Because my interpretation of deadly force would be when the weapon was actually used. In this case that didn’t happen until the struggle over the weapon... and in instance deadly force would be completely usable beyond question.  Deadly force wasn’t used to stop anybody from jogging or fleeing. There was a mortal struggle initiated by the deceased when deadly force was used. Unless my definition is too restrictive.  I think of that cop from SC that shot a man in the back from about 50 feet away on camera. He’s rightfully in jail now.  There was a brief struggle and the victim made a break for it. He might have gotten the best of the officer in the struggle. It was just a traffic stop, nothing criminal if my memory is correct. THAT was wrong all of the way around.  

You’re a silly man. 

Share this post


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

Okay... they can’t bring about prior arrest records and such of the defendant(s) as they’d be prejudicial towards them. In this case where we’re talking about the victim, it’s all fair game (as I understand it).  In rape cases, they don’t wait until the punishment phase to  sling mud at the accuser. 
 

Has you or anybody you’ve worked with or trained with been sued for wrongful arrest after a person was found not guilty? Or by an arrestee who eventually had their charges dropped? If that was the case, you’d run out of enrollees at the academy. 
 

I disagree with your “bop on the nose” scenario. What if I defend myself with a bat? Is that reasonable? Or am I, when criminally assaulted, only allowed to match my assailant’s weapon of choice? He hits me, I can hit him back. But I’d better not use a weapon.  However, if my assailant pulls a weapon of his own, now I am willing to engage him with a like weapon, but if I have a bigger stick, or match his knife with my gun, I’ll face murder charges. 
 

And I guarantee that if I bop a cop on the nose, I’d be lucky to get out with just a felony and not a couple of bullet wounds. You, as a police officer, have no more rights to defend yourself than do I.  
 

Lastly... what is the generally accepted definition of deadly force? Do you believe that brandishing a weapon is considered deadly force, or does that come it when the weapon is used? Because my interpretation of deadly force would be when the weapon was actually used. In this case that didn’t happen until the struggle over the weapon... and in instance deadly force would be completely usable beyond question.  Deadly force wasn’t used to stop anybody from jogging or fleeing. There was a mortal struggle initiated by the deceased when deadly force was used. Unless my definition is too restrictive.  I think of that cop from SC that shot a man in the back from about 50 feet away on camera. He’s rightfully in jail now.  There was a brief struggle and the victim made a break for it. He might have gotten the best of the officer in the struggle. It was just a traffic stop, nothing criminal if my memory is correct. THAT was wrong all of the way around.  

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. 

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...