Keep beating up that strawman if it makes you feel better. I think the rednecks that killed him should have minded their own business. The only reason I'm comparing the two is because shuckster is outraged by one story of an act of civilian interference and aghast by the lack of it in another story. It's kind of hard to know in the moment when a crime is being committed or not, but Monday morning quarterbacks will tell you what you should have done.
Pretty much every post I've made says that these 2 idiots should not have gotten involved. What exactly is the problem here?
What other stuff? Like mind your own business because the other person may have a gun?
Mind your own business? He was being CHASED by people in trucks with guns for crying out loud!!!
You serious bro? I was saying that Cletus and Cletus Jr should have minded their own business.
You keep mentioning that. Funny thing is, you ALSO said:
A "gray area" that probably makes sense for them to chase this jogger down??!? I'm guessing it's because they just knew in their guts that he had "a history of stealing" from the neighborhood. Is that it?
I didn't say Arbery was a career criminal, and I said that they shouldn't have gotten involved. The grey area is when you DO know the person and know what they are doing. Do you step in, or is the risk too great?
They didn't know the guy and didn't know what he was doing.
In all cases, you call the cops if you suspect something is wrong. There are hundreds of YouTube videos of Karens calling the cops on a Black man in her all-white neighborhood. Awkward? Yes. But at least the guy came out of it alive.
I hadn’t read this thread in awhile but Jesus Christ do you guys live in a world of moral absolutes. The justification is in the eyes of Ga law where citizen arrest was legal at the time. There’s no justification for killing him because he trespassed but it may or may not be that cut-and-dried. If they had legal justification for the apprehension, and if it is legal to apprehend at the point of a gun, then there might be a case to be made that if Arbery was fighting and trying to take the weapon, if that happened, was enough to give them a self defense case.
An objective rational brain?
It worked for George Zimmerman. Gun-toting George could stalk an unarmed kid walking through his neighborhood to the point where the kid feels compelled to defend himself.
You conveniently leave out the part where citizen’s arrest was legal in Georgia at the time. Tell me if you know the case law in Georgia about apprehension, because I don’t. It sure as hell wouldn’t be self defense in Florida but neither of us knows the Georgia precedents at the time.
Every time I hear 'citizen's arrest' my mind instantly goes back to the old Andy Griffith Show and Gomer Pyle shouting "Citizen's Arrest! Citizen's Arrest!" at Barney Fife.
State of delusion? Factually incorrect? Feel free to correct these facts.
> *charges someone holding a gun
Did I miss the videotape of the incident? Did I miss the eyewitness testimony?
The defense had asked the judge twice for a mistrial. Why you ask? First it was because Al Sharpton showed up in the audience. The second time was when Jesse Jackson showed up.
Can the redneck racists get away with murder after chasing a killing a Black man for the crime of jogging through their neighborhood?
They’ve been charged and are being tried…Not sure what else you want to happen.
If you'd paid attention to the thread, you'd know it was a sarcastic response to the whole "woke mob loot and burn" angle.
Of course I believe in due process. But pardon me, if I'm a tad bit skeptical that justice will prevail when ten Black potential jury members are successfully kicked off the final jury for 'potential bias' but an 11 to 1 white to black count is somehow certified, bias-free!
You'd have to ask the defense team who successfully asked that they be dismissed.
Are you gonna wait to see how that jury comes back with its verdict, or are you going to just assume they’re going to acquit based on nothing other than… the color of their skin?
I'd love to believe -- contrary to centuries of examples throughout our American history -- that the victim's skin color will have nothing to do with the jury's verdict.
You apparently think a jury of 11 Whites and 1 Black in a community where 55% of the residents are Black is cool. Or am I missing something?
The initial jury pool in the OJ Simpson murder trial in LA was: 40% White, 28% Black, 17% Hispanic, and 15% Asian American. But the final jury who decided Simpson's guilt or innocence was composed of 9 Blacks, 1 Hispanic and 2 Whites.
