patrick.net

Tenpoundbass says

I'm saying if you're going to own a gun, there should be laws that protect, or makes the case for or against the result of the commission of that gun.

We have already had many decades of common sense gun legislation, we don’t need anymore good ideas, in fact we need to review and remove any laws that violate the 2A. There are many.

No doubt it is reasonable and prudent to hold every person accountable for their actions, and if people use 2A arms for criminal activity they deserve accountability. And if people wrongly accuse others of race crime, they deserve accountability for that.

The evidence I have seen is one person trespassing on an empty construction site, then it appears he attacked an armed man who was forced to defend himself, resulting in the death of his attacker. And now we have a bunch of fools trying to accuse the men who were attacked of a crime. It is the false accusations that need to be withdrawn in order to see justice served.

Answer the question, did you see anything wrong with the the way Father and Son went about it?
Would have done the same thing, or would you have done things much differently?

Why didn't father and son both get out of the truck unarmed and take the suspect down?

One guy jumps out and the other stayed in the truck. They were not qualified to try to do what they did.


Why were they using long guns, you don't use rifles and shotguns for close quarter law enforcement.
It's a point and shoot operation, things can get ugly if you get within grabbing distance.

I like how everybody is arguing about this case as if the law mattered.

The law is hundreds of thousands of pages long, you couldn't read the entire thing in your lifetime, what gets enforced is from pick and choice to get a desired outcome.

richwicks says

I like how everybody is arguing about this case as if the law mattered.

The law is hundreds of thousands of pages long, you couldn't read the entire thing in your lifetime, what gets enforced is from pick and choice to get a desired outcome.

True. In this case, though, people think that the suspect's entry into a construction site was justification to hunt him down and kill him as a matter of law. I don't think so. People seem to think he was violating the law in some way, and rather contrary to your point there is actually a lot of leeway given to what is "criminal" with regards to trespassing and / or burglary. If I see someone walking through your unfenced backyard, does a legal principle exist that says that that person would have been detained? Not typically. And certainly not tracked down and then murdered.

That he "resembled a burglary suspect" is a non-starter. Leave that to the police.

Tragic.

krc says

Even breaking and entering is "iffy" - did he actually take something or not? If you break down a door (or even just push a door) to get access but no intent to steal, in CA you would be charged with simple trespassing (non-felony).

Actually, in LA County, you wouldn't.

When you have homeless people screaming at you on your property, when the cops FINALLY show up hours later, they ask the homeless leading questions so they don't have to make an arrest.

https://twitter.com/COsweda/status/1262891249448738818

personal

This thing is probably over. The lawyers in the Clerisy have decided they're unlikely to win, the media backed away real fast from coverage. Time to wait until the next Juicy Smolley.

To my knowledge we have not seen any video evidence of a crime on the night in question other than trespassing and assault, and those were clearly committed by the departed.

It is clear from the video footage I have seen that the men who were attacked desired to have a peaceful resolution to the matter. If they wanted violence why did they wait til attacked to use deadly force? When they were attacked the departed took any possible peaceful resolution away. The departed initiated the violence that culminated in his own death.

How we feel about it, whether we would have behaved differently does not change the law or facts of this case.

I didn't see the video that way at all. I saw someone confronted by someone with a weapon for no reason, chased by multiple cars. If someone did that to me and I thought I had a chance to take them out, I would- because the alternative is that they will kill me anyway. Same as being on a plane - we all know that if someone is trying to take over a plane, you do whatever you can to the end of your life to stop them because you know there is no more "hostage" taking - you are going to be crashed into some skyscraper. If anyone points a gun and you, you need to move fast. Most likely you will be dead otherwise. Remember - those who understand guns know that if you are going to point at something you had better shoot it. And then we condemn people for reacting immediately when a gun pointed at them.

Too funny how we excuse poor gun ownership here when I for one firmly believe in the right to bear arms. But these guys were idiots and if they get away with this then you will see more Karens wanting gun control. At that point, if enough people believe this is crap, then a constitutional amendment WILL take place.

If we can't even condemn idiots acting irresponsibly, there is not much hope to see the 2nd amendment continue.

astronut97 says

Sounds like you should have been aborted as you can't even answer a simple question. The stupid people were the McMichaels and you it appears.

Why are you so butthurt, buddy?

krc says

I didn't see the video that way at all. I saw someone confronted by someone with a weapon for no reason, chased by multiple cars. If someone did that to me and I thought I had a chance to take them out, I would- because the alternative is that they will kill me anyway.

Weird logic. You don't know if they are going to kill you. But if you attack them you are giving them a good reason to do so. Practically forcing them.

krc says

If we can't even condemn idiots acting irresponsibly, there is not much hope to see the 2nd amendment continue.

Bingo,

Like the guy that brings a gun to go talk to neighbors about their loud music, and end up having to shoot someone.
When his actions created everything that happened up to that point. While the Pro 2@ people and the Gun Grabbers hijack the real crime, and turn it into a race tinged gun rights battle. Look we don't need registration and gun license. But there should be laws that if you do buy a gun, it's your responsibility to read a book that outlines the law and where you are protected as a gun owner, and where you would be instigating criminal liable outcomes.
If those thinking I'm venturing too close to Liberal gun grab laws.
Didn't read where I keep saying if you have a gun, and you are in a situation you didn't run to, you have defensive rights with the use of that gun.
In my idea scenario, gun owners would be required to know their boundaries, either read a book or take a course, but it would be on them.
But it would encourage more people to actually carry their gun on them, rather than keeping it in their car, or at home.
But just because you have gun, and you hear about a robbery, you're not Charles Bronson, you can't go running over to stop the bad guy with your gun and have a shoot out with them. Or chasing people down the street, you think cased your neighbors property.

Did not see any gun pointing, until the departed attacked. The fact that they were attacked, and needed to defend themselves, and the armed man survived the attack thanks to last resort of use of his weapon shows why the 2A is so important to protect.

covid_shmovid says

krc says

I didn't see the video that way at all. I saw someone confronted by someone with a weapon for no reason, chased by multiple cars. If someone did that to me and I thought I had a chance to take them out, I would- because the alternative is that they will kill me anyway.

Weird logic. You don't know if they are going to kill you. But if you attack them you are giving them a good reason to do so. Practically forcing them.

I think must be kidding but not sure. Take for example a plane. Post 9/11 are you saying you would let someone take over a plane simply because they were armed with a gun? For me, and perhaps I am different than you, I KNOW what they are going to do. And I would do whatever it takes to take them down even if that means we have to mass charge and lose a number of passengers.

Same with anyone pointing a gun at you. If you have a chance - and the "suspect" did have a chance - you TAKE it. I have never seen any self defense training that would say otherwise - check out the numerous youtube videos on CC actual videos. You make the assumption you will be a victim. He was not confronted by a police officer where you might actually have a chance to figure out what was going on. This is some oddball asshole and his friends confronting you - you have no idea what is going on but you had better assume the worse.

He did the right thing - because likely he would have been killed anyway. Anyone brazen enough to confront someone else outside their castle with a gun is "off." The confrontation was not managed well by those tracking down the suspect (I am still not sure he even did anything wrong...). Perhaps if they had better training, they would have been in a position to force a different outcome. But they didn't - and they should be held accountable.

I guess we should just start shooting anyone we think is "suspicious". Forget calling the police. Just kill-em-all.

We have not seen any evidence that the victims of the attack desired to kill anyone. If that was the desire why did they wait till attacked to use a weapon? They could have run him down with the car if they intended to hurt him. In fact they did not resort to violence until the departed attacked them.

PeopleUnited says

We have not seen any evidence that the victims of the attack desired to kill anyone. If that was the desire why did they wait till attacked to use a weapon? They could have run him down with the car if they intended to hurt him. In fact they did not resort to violence until the departed attacked them.

I am sorry, anyone following me in a vehicle with someone in the back in the position to get a bead on me has to be treated as someone that wants to end my life. I really am confused how folks who purportedly believe in the right to bear arms don't see this as negligent in every way. If your idea is that the right to bear arms entails the right to confront - that is NOT the case at all.

The ones in the truck promoted the violence simply by threatening the "suspect" with violence. I don't get it. Am I the only one that would do whatever I could to stop someone from killing me? The "suspect" doesn't know what the intention of these crazy dudes are - he can only assume the worst.

Are you seriously saying that if someone came up and chased you down in a truck with guns that you would stay there and say " please shoot me sir." .

I am 100% 2A - and vote that way. But this is an example where we should all agree these guys were out of line and should be held responsible. Forget about race, etc... This was pure negligence.

Historically in America, people involved in the shooting of someone has always been very scrutinized, no matter how Liberal the open carry of guns have been.
People dying at the hands of anther, has always been scrutinized. Especially when it didn't occur on their property and the other person was unarmed.
People didn't use it for an excuse to politicize our second amendment, they let justice do it's job. And applicable laws were applied. Something you barely ever hear about anymore is Man Slaughter. Used to be common, if anyone died and you in any way liable in that persons death, you went to jail. Today everyone's incompetence getting people killed is just an accident.
Today the event is politicized and it is called an accident, he didn't mean to. Those Man Slaughter charges were all people who didn't mean to, that why they weren't charged with murder.

krc says

But this is an example where we should all agree these guys were out of line

Why should we all agree? What crime was committed?

What if we don’t agree?

PeopleUnited says

What crime was committed?

Manslaughter?

krc says

The ones in the truck promoted the violence simply by threatening the "suspect" with violence.

Not enough info to say that. I thought i read the police discussed citizen's arrest w mcmichaels during a prior convo about arbery's tresspassing. The police were called by multiple neighbors that day, suggesting guilty behavior.

Ex: lets say i shoplift $20 worth of stuff in Georgia and someone watches me do it. They wouldnt be allowed to citizens arrest me BUT i would know damn well why they wanted to talk to me w a gun.

Arbery knew damn well why he was being confronted.

Also, didnt the police report suggest the gun accidentally discharged as arbery pulled the barrel? I dont think Mcmichaels was trying to shoot him during the scuffle.

From what we know so far, id suggest zero criminal guilt but perhaps they owe some wrongful death $$. Perhaps a manslaughter conviction is justified.

We dont know yet.

Murder seems WAY out there though.

PeopleUnited says

krc says

But this is an example where we should all agree these guys were out of line

Why should we all agree? What crime was committed?

What if we don’t agree?

They were negligent at minimum. Their irresponsibility ended a man's life. The arrogance that they knew how to handle the situation was negligent. Manslaughter, as an earlier post posited, would be the appropriate response. They decided that they were the law. I bet the prosecutor over-charges unfortunately. And, the fact they charged the person videotaping the incident again should tell us all to turn off our camera!

Hard to see how the 2A survives with the constant attacks from the left and the 2A supporters that can't even bring themselves to condemn basically a horrible decision by a couple of idiots. At some point, little by little, these examples erode the confidence that most should have in the sacrosanct value of 2A. Remember that 2A relies on the support of the people.

Sad.

krc says

And, the fact they charged the person videotaping the incident again should tell us all to turn off our camera!

So true. Or at least, don’t post the video!

krc says

condemn basically a horrible decision by a couple of idiots

Was a bad idea to get involved, would be more productive and patriotic have to let suspect go and went back to watching TV.

krc says

Remember that 2A relies on the support of the people.

We are doomed if a man can trespass, refuse to agree to explain himself to the cops, and attack another human being without right of self defense on the part of those attacked, and yet that is what is being said here. Apparently there are many people who support trespassing, resisting arrest and violent attacks. Glad those rights are NOT granted in the Constitution.

PeopleUnited says

krc says

And, the fact they charged the person videotaping the incident again should tell us all to turn off our camera!

So true. Or at least, don’t post the video!

krc says

condemn basically a horrible decision by a couple of idiots

Was a bad idea to get involved, would be more productive and patriotic have to let suspect go and went back to watching TV.

krc says

Remember that 2A relies on the support of the people.

We are doomed if a man can trespass, refuse to agree to explain himself to the cops, and attack another human being without right of self defense on the part of those attacked, and yet that is what is being said here. Apparently there are many people who support trespassing, resisting arre...

Police have sad that no crime was committed by the "suspect." They have said that multiple times - you can dispute that if you want but that is the fact and the way the case will be presented to the jury. The owner of the property himself said nothing was disturbed, and no one has stated that he cross over a fence or broke into the site. If we want to track down and shoot anyone who walks through a construction site, then the law should be explicit: "You have the right to kill anyone you "think" was trespassing on a construction site". Stupid. To kill someone over a "trespass" situation or thinking there was burglary when that was not the case, again, is negligent. We can excuse these dopes all we want - they were simply wrong.

I shouldn't have to explain myself to anyone unless the "state" has a reason to subpoena me and exercise a search warrant. It is interesting that many believe government over-reaches, but then excuse "non-police" fools that either deliberately or mistakenly evaluate the situation and believe it requires "armed intervention." Any citizen that tried to "arrest me" at gun point when I have done nothing wrong - well I know they are mistaken and that could mean I am dead anyway since they obviously "think" I did something seriously enough to justify threats of death - and that is what carrying a gun represents. I will resist and exercise my right to live.

Ever see "Hang-em-High"? :)

These are not "cops". Where did you read that? One was a retired investigator - right? The other his son. They are relying on georgia law that lets you make essentially a citizen arrest. And again, it was done negligently. I don't see how anyone, looking at the video and the statements so far, couldn't see these guys were morons.

You are also "assuming" he attacked the person with the gun - which I would probably have done myself in that situation if I felt I could get the upper hand. Wouldn't you? Anyway - I couldn't see that in the video. Where are you seeing that? If you are simply representing what the killers are saying, then if I were them that is what I would say as well. Since the main "suspect" was killed, the killers can say whatever they want. Too funny.









.

OccasionalCortex says

krc says

The owner of the property himself said nothing was disturbed

So? That doesn't define 'trespassing'.

Actually it does. It is not trespassing when there are no obstacles such as a fence or closed door, That is why I fence my property line where I want no one to be. The fact that he didn't disturb anything means, I believe, that he had access to the property without limitation. He did not "occupy" it so it doesn't rise to trespass - and that is why the police are saying the same. Even if he did open a door, wouldn't it make more sense to call the police. Isn't that the responsible course of action? They chose to be irresponsible. Pure and simple.

Good trolling though... I took that bait!

I seriously can't believe that anyone who walks through a construction site should be confronted and killed. The "suspect" did nothing that you and I wouldn't have done. The confrontation clearly started when the suspect was beside the truck and out of the camera view. Of course the killers are going to say whatever they want,. The fact they were in this position to begin with was negligent.

The actual video so everyone can see it. If there is another video, let me know. I clearly hear a gunshot while the truck shields them.
And, if I am the only one left alive of course I am going to say "I was attacked." The only ones who know the truth are the ones alive and they are motivated to put their actions in the best possible light. Frankly, though, I would have attacked him myself as he clearly was not well prepared and simply thought wielding a gun would enforce "obedience" - but I can't say that the "suspect" did the same based on the video.

IF they were trying to arrest, they were in poor position and did a negligent job. They decided that they were the jury and executioner - and should face the appropriate consequences.

https://www.tmz.com/2020/05/05/shooting-video-unarmed-black-man-killed-ahmaud-arbery-georgia-jogging/

I was curious how different the law is between CA and GA....

https://bixonlaw.com/georgia-trespassing-101/

Trespassing seems intwined with property damage > $500.00. Video from the site shows that dozens of people over the course of a day wandered through the site, including women and children, implying there was no access restriction to the property. I don't see how this is trespassing. The owner clearly didn't care enough to lock up the site apparently.

Is there a video where the suspect damaged the property? I couldn't find one....

OccasionalCortex says

krc says

It is not trespassing when there are no obstacles such as a fence or closed door,

Again, you twist reality when actual reality doesn't suit you.

The owner of the property himself said nothing was disturbed does not equate to It is not trespassing when there are no obstacles such as a fence or closed door

And you do it again:

krc says

I seriously can't believe that anyone who walks through a construction site should be confronted and killed

Because nobody got killed for that. Confronted yes, as is the case in Georgia law. Trespassing on a construction site is a felony. Citizens can make an arrest in that case.

And he wasn't killed for trespassing. He was killed for grabbing a gun and the owner had no choice other than the cede control of said gun and th...

Where is trespassing of a construction site a felony? I am not seeing that. The laws I have looked up so far all seem to indicate the max for trespassing is a misdemeanor. Burglary is a felony. I don't think the suspect committed either - if that actually matters. The killers definitely didn't know whether he committed no crime, a misdemeanor crime, or a felony crime. And they didn't care to know either - which is just confirmation of their negligence.

When people get around to recognizing that a man was trespassing on a construction site, perhaps with theft being the purpose of the trespassing, as witnessed by a concerned neighbor. Then the suspect ran away from those questioning him and eventually violently attacking an armed man. When people recognize this clear video evidence, then we can have a serious conversation about who committed the crime.

PeopleUnited says

When people get around to recognizing that a man was trespassing on a construction site, perhaps with theft being the purpose of the trespassing, as witnessed by a concerned neighbor. Then the suspect ran away from those questioning him and eventually violently attacking an armed man. When people recognize this clear video evidence, then we can have a serious conversation about who committed the crime.

Next time some folks with guns come chasing you in a truck with clear intent to harm, then you can accept for yourself the risk that you will be killed and go ahead and stop and say "what's up dude?" Too funny. If you think it is okay for anyone to come up to you and pull you over armed with guns with clear intent to harm in public - well - we will have to disagree.

Another reason that the suspect should have been armed himself. If he had a CC then he would have had a better chance.

I doubt the law in the US will change w.r.t trespass. The west was settled only after fencing - which was required to segregate property from the common. Clearly, most states enforce the "enclosed" statues. Of course Georgia may be an exception but everyone stating it is a felony or a serious crime are kidding themselves. And intent to burglar - really? You know this? I didn't see him carrying anything. Hard to image killing someone over a perceived burglary - and doing it so negligently.

These killers were seriously negligent at best. But now it has become a racial issue and damage to 2A continues because of two complete morons.

There is other video from the construction site and you can clearly see there is no fencing, no signage - nothing. Many people are seen walking onto and into the site, just curious to see what is going on. I guess they are all burglars? :)

krc says

now it has become a racial issue and damage to 2A continues because of two complete morons.

Look in the mirror.

PeopleUnited says

krc says

now it has become a racial issue and damage to 2A continues because of two complete morons.

Look in the mirror.

Too funny. Again, the jogger should have had a CC permit. He would have had a better chance when confronted.

Beware the morons - they are the most dangerous as they take a thread (man walks onto a construction site, therefore he is trespassing, therefore he is a burglar, therefore he should be confronted, therefore he should be killed) and escalate any situation to a "its him or me" situation. Brilliant.

We should expect responsible use of weapons - and that was not exhibited here.

And if you kill someone don't send the video to the press or even make the video! Without the video, this would all be he said/she said and the suspect is dead so they could have said whatever they wanted and agreed to it before talking to the police. That they didn't demonstrates their idiocy.

Let's call a spade a spade. This Arbery kid was arrested stealing a TV. Most shoplifters get away with much more than they were ever arrested before. The kid was a thief. When a thief enters a construction site, he/she is likely looking for something to take to sell real quick, copper pipe or tools something like that. He probably didn't see anything and was on his way. So did he steal anything or commit a crime? No. Would he have if someone left anything of value there? Probably.

These two rednecks represent the very worst of 2nd amendment gone wild. Instead of calling the police (even though they didn't actually see a crime committed), they follow him with guns and literally get into an altercation with him. Guns are for self defense, not for playing vigilante.

Everyone involved in this situation is an idiot. Arbery, the 2 rednecks, and the 3rd idiot that filmed it.

theoakman says

Let's call a spade a spade. This Arbery kid was arrested stealing a TV. Most shoplifters get away with much more than they were ever arrested before. The kid was a thief. When a thief enters a construction site, he/she is likely looking for something to take to sell real quick, copper pipe or tools something like that. He probably didn't see anything and was on his way. So did he steal anything or commit a crime? No. Would he have if someone left anything of value there? Probably.

These two rednecks represent the very worst of 2nd amendment gone wild. Instead of calling the police (even though they didn't actually see a crime committed), they follow him with guns and literally get into an altercation with him. Guns are for self defense, not for playing vigilante.

Everyone involved in this situation is an idiot. Arbery, the 2 rednecks, and the 3rd idiot that filmed it.

I'd agree with that, also TPBs assessment. Good summary. Nevertheless if no (state) laws were broken (not an expert on Georgia law), then the "rednecks" shouldn't get arrested and prosecuted. People need to petition to change the law instead. That's called the rule of law. we can't abolish the rule of law cause the victim was a skittlez boy instead of a honkee. That would be the very definition of racism.

krc says

Remember that 2A relies on the support of the people.

No it doesn't. It's a right not given by law. It's a right that can't be taken by law. It's our right to overlook any law established that try's to overthrow our rights. Rights are not given to us by the law and cannot be taken away by the law.

That doesn't mean a despotic government won't try.

krc says

man walks onto a construction site, therefore he is trespassing, therefore he is a burglar, therefore he should be confronted, therefore he should be killed)

That is the narrative the left is peddling, support for self defense is what they want to eliminate. The left wants the public to rely on the state for everything. Don’t believe it, don’t promote it. Wake up and see they wish to tell us all what we can and can’t do to protect ourselves. If people don’t wake up now, they will soon wake up in a world where all choices are removed, and dissent is not tolerated.

Everyone in this story made at least some choices different than we would have made, but other than attempting to take the weapon that did not belong to him, we have yet to see any evidence of an actual crime. And the man who committed the assault is dead, proving the only thing botched is his assault on an armed man. Let them all have their day in court, the departed could have had his too, had he sought a peaceful outcome.

My Good Guy with gun legislation would have protected this Church's right to blast to hell the first Commie Satanic Scumbag cop that followed Mayor Satan's orders to storm the church with guns. My GGWAG act would have made a 3rd degree murderer out of Mayor Clam Smoocher, for everyone killed in the massacre from her unconstitutional orders.
It would have clearly expressed why we allow Americans to own AR-15's for this very reason.

Quit fighting the wrong fight you stupid wankers, you're going to cost American our greatest fundamental right, because you think people living in a fantasy world that think of their physical capabilities greater than what they really are. Has the right to play Rambo at the slightest gut feeling there's a crime in progress.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/05/chicago-mayor-lightfoot-defies-president-trump-sends-armed-police-squad-shut-black-baptist-church-southside-chicago/

PeopleUnited says

krc says

man walks onto a construction site, therefore he is trespassing, therefore he is a burglar, therefore he should be confronted, therefore he should be killed)

That is the narrative the left is peddling, support for self defense is what they want to eliminate. The left wants the public to rely on the state for everything. Don’t believe it, don’t promote it. Wake up and see they wish to tell us all what we can and can’t do to protect ourselves. If people don’t wake up now, they will soon wake up in a world where all choices are removed, and dissent is not tolerated.

Everyone in this story made at least some choices different than we would have made, but other than attempting to take the weapon that did not belong to him, we have yet to see any evidence of an actual crime. And the man who committed the assault is dead, proving the only thing botched is his assault on an armed man. Le...

There is no way you can construe this as "self defense". That is a joke - right?
They instigated the confrontation. They were morons in how they made the approach. They had the weapons. The numbers. And they still ended up killing him. Whatever.