New development in the shooting case of the black georgia jogger

[protectionist]

Except for one small problem. There were no burglaries reported to the actual police. No burglary reports for months up to the shooting.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8302641/Attorney-leaked-Ahmaud-Arbery-lynching-video-thought-CLEAR-friends.html

Burglary or no burglary, Arbery attacked McMichael, and was punching him in the face, with full force. McMichael was 100% justified in shooting Arbery.

Ok. Let’s review. Self Defense does not apply when you chase the guy down. It is not stand your ground when you are the aggressor. Any questions?

Does being right make libs bullet proof?

obviously not

But it does make the attackers guilty. And it should serve as a lesson for the next delusional dolt who sees himself as the vigilante for the hood.

Guilty of what?

we still do not have the full story

That hardly matters to liberals. They can go with incomplete stories, or fully fabricated concoctions. Either way.

 

[protectionist]

Except for one small problem. There were no burglaries reported to the actual police. No burglary reports for months up to the shooting.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8302641/Attorney-leaked-Ahmaud-Arbery-lynching-video-thought-CLEAR-friends.html

Burglary or no burglary, Arbery attacked McMichael, and was punching him in the face, with full force. McMichael was 100% justified in shooting Arbery.

Ok. Let’s review. Self Defense does not apply when you chase the guy down. It is not stand your ground when you are the aggressor. Any questions?

Does being right make libs bullet proof?

obviously not

But it does make the attackers guilty. And it should serve as a lesson for the next delusional dolt who sees himself as the vigilante for the hood.

Guilty of what?

we still do not have the full story

These stories have a way of changing over time, particularly as evidence is accumulated. Remember Baltimore's Fred Gay? Supposedly killed in cold blood by the Baltimore PD? Turned out to be bullshit, the 6 charged officers were ruled to be as Innocent as New Born Babes. Ditto with the Ferguson Missouri police office and Gentle Giant, or so many others.

Exactly right. This is a common theme nowadays. Black (really stupid) thug attacks armed white guy. Gets shot in self-defense. Politicians force cops to arrest white guy to pacify wildeyed, racist nutjobs in the black community, to keep their vote counts up to par.

Jury, not worried about being re-elected, hears evidence, and acquits white guy as a legal self-defense shooter. I've already named some of those cases, earlier in this thread.

 

[esalla]

Except for one small problem. There were no burglaries reported to the actual police. No burglary reports for months up to the shooting.https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8302641/Attorney-leaked-Ahmaud-Arbery-lynching-video-thought-CLEAR-friends.html

Burglary or no burglary, Arbery attacked McMichael, and was punching him in the face, with full force. McMichael was 100% justified in shooting Arbery.

Ok. Let’s review. Self Defense does not apply when you chase the guy down. It is not stand your ground when you are the aggressor. Any questions?

Does being right make libs bullet proof?

obviously not

But it does make the attackers guilty. And it should serve as a lesson for the next delusional dolt who sees himself as the vigilante for the hood.

Guilty of what?

we still do not have the full story

These stories have a way of changing over time, particularly as evidence is accumulated. Remember Baltimore's Fred Gay? Supposedly killed in cold blood by the Baltimore PD? Turned out to be bullshit, the 6 charged officers were ruled to be as Innocent as New Born Babes. Ditto with the Ferguson Missouri police office and Gentle Giant, or so many others.

Exactly right. This is a common theme nowadays. Black (really stupid) thug attacks armed white guy. Gets shot in self-defense. Politicians force cops to arrest white guy to pacify wildeyed, racist nutjobs in the black community, to keep their vote counts up to par.

Jury, not worried about being re-elected, hears evidence, and acquits white guy as a legal self-defense shooter. I've already named some of those cases, earlier in this thread.

Yea you know everything...................................

Except how to pay off your trailer

 

[protectionist]

But it does make the attackers guilty. And it should serve as a lesson for the next delusional dolt who sees himself as the vigilante for the hood.

There ARE NO "attackers".. The only attacker (as shown by the video) is Arbery. And the only lesson is that in communities with sizable black voting populations, you can't rely on the politicans and police to back you up, for your legal rights of self-defense, if/whenever the person attacking you is black.

I wonder how many of these "Blame the white guy" cases there now have been in America. Must be 100, just since the Zimmerman fiasco.

No you see the aggressor is the two idiots who grabbed their guns and went to chase Ahmad down.

Ok. Let’s review. Self Defense does not apply when you chase the guy down. It is not stand your ground when you are the aggressor. Any questions?

Yeah, let's review.
Simply going to somebody to ask some questions, isn't being an aggressor.

Firing a gun when somebody (Arbery) is attacking you with their fists, is stand your ground self-defense.

What incompetency the schools are exhibiting these days. Sad.

OK. Let’s say you are running down the street. A Pick Up drives around you and two black guys get out with shotguns. Are you being attacked? Are they being aggressive?

1. Neither the fact that they grabbed (and carried) guns or chased after Arbery, makes the McMichaels aggressors. If you think somebody has done something wrong, and you want to identify him, and maybe report him to police, you have the absolute right to go to him to see who he is, and question him too. It's all part of a community watch program. Good stuff.

2. No, just because to any race guys get out of a (any kind) vehicle with guns (of any kind), that does not make them a threat, at that point. They may seem to be a bit aggressive, but there isn't anything wrong with being aggressive. It does not make me being attacked, of course not.

3. Aggressiveness, in and of itself, isn't a crime or even a wrong. If our fathers had not been somewhat aggressive toward our mothers, we wouldn't be here now. 3 cheers for aggressiveness.

 

[esalla]

But it does make the attackers guilty. And it should serve as a lesson for the next delusional dolt who sees himself as the vigilante for the hood.

There ARE NO "attackers".. The only attacker (as shown by the video) is Arbery. And the only lesson is that in communities with sizable black voting populations, you can't rely on the politicans and police to back you up, for your legal rights of self-defense, if/whenever the person attacking you is black.

I wonder how many of these "Blame the white guy" cases there now have been in America. Must be 100, just since the Zimmerman fiasco.

No you see the aggressor is the two idiots who grabbed their guns and went to chase Ahmad down.

Ok. Let’s review. Self Defense does not apply when you chase the guy down. It is not stand your ground when you are the aggressor. Any questions?

Yeah, let's review.
Simply going to somebody to ask some questions, isn't being an aggressor.

Firing a gun when somebody (Arbery) is attacking you with their fists, is stand your ground self-defense.

What incompetency the schools are exhibiting these days. Sad.

OK. Let’s say you are running down the street. A Pick Up drives around you and two black guys get out with shotguns. Are you being attacked? Are they being aggressive?

1. Neither the fact that they grabbed (and carried) guns or chased after Arbery, makes the McMichaels aggressors. If you think somebody has done something wrong, and you want to identify him, and maybe report him to police, you have the absolute right to go to him to see who he is, and question him too. It's all part of a community watch program. Good stuff.

2. No, just because to any race guys get out of a (any kind) vehicle with guns (of any kind), that does not make them a threat, at that point. They may seem to be a bit aggressive, but there isn't anything wrong with being aggressive. It does not make me being attacked, of course not.

3. Aggressiveness in and of itself isn't a crime or even a wrong. If our fathers had not been somewhat aggressive toward our mothers, we wouldn't be here now. 3 cheers for aggressiveness.

Georgia law does not allow for a person to be harassed or detained because you think he might have done something wrong. Since they did not know that he had done something wrong and there is no proof after the fact that he did do something wrong they had no right to interfere in his jog.

 

[protectionist]

Yea you know everything...................................


Except how to pay off your trailer

I don't have a trailer, and my living quarters are 100% secure. Maybe yours aren't, and that's what made you bring up the idea. Not my problem.

Looks like you're not too much equipped to comment in this thread.

 

[esalla]

Yea you know everything...................................


Except how to pay off your trailer

I don't have a trailer, and my living quarters are 100% secure. Maybe yours aren't, and that's what made you bring up the idea. Not my problem.

Looks like you're not too much equipped to comment in this thread.

The facts do not change geezer

Georgia law does not allow for a person to be harassed or detained because you think he might have done something wrong. Since they did not know that he had done something wrong and there is no proof after the fact that he did do something wrong they had no right to interfere in his jog.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Exactly...no one tried to arrest him or put handcuffs on him or restrain him in any manner...he had complete freedom of movement the whole time.

The No. Koreans or soldiers on the front line have complete "freedom of movement" according to you.

 

[protectionist]

But it does make the attackers guilty. And it should serve as a lesson for the next delusional dolt who sees himself as the vigilante for the hood.

There ARE NO "attackers".. The only attacker (as shown by the video) is Arbery. And the only lesson is that in communities with sizable black voting populations, you can't rely on the politicans and police to back you up, for your legal rights of self-defense, if/whenever the person attacking you is black.

I wonder how many of these "Blame the white guy" cases there now have been in America. Must be 100, just since the Zimmerman fiasco.

No you see the aggressor is the two idiots who grabbed their guns and went to chase Ahmad down.

Ok. Let’s review. Self Defense does not apply when you chase the guy down. It is not stand your ground when you are the aggressor. Any questions?

Yeah, let's review.
Simply going to somebody to ask some questions, isn't being an aggressor.

Firing a gun when somebody (Arbery) is attacking you with their fists, is stand your ground self-defense.

What incompetency the schools are exhibiting these days. Sad.

OK. Let’s say you are running down the street. A Pick Up drives around you and two black guys get out with shotguns. Are you being attacked? Are they being aggressive?

1. Neither the fact that they grabbed (and carried) guns or chased after Arbery, makes the McMichaels aggressors. If you think somebody has done something wrong, and you want to identify him, and maybe report him to police, you have the absolute right to go to him to see who he is, and question him too. It's all part of a community watch program. Good stuff.

2. No, just because to any race guys get out of a (any kind) vehicle with guns (of any kind), that does not make them a threat, at that point. They may seem to be a bit aggressive, but there isn't anything wrong with being aggressive. It does not make me being attacked, of course not.

3. Aggressiveness in and of itself isn't a crime or even a wrong. If our fathers had not been somewhat aggressive toward our mothers, we wouldn't be here now. 3 cheers for aggressiveness.

Georgia law does not allow for a person to be harassed or detained because you think he might have done something wrong. Since they did not know that he had done something wrong and there is no proof after the fact that he did do something wrong they had no right to interfere in his jog.

FALSE! They were neither harrassing or detaining. The video indicates that as soon as the subjects got close to each other, Arbery attacked McMichaels. If he had not done that, and simply allowed McMichaels to ask him a question, he could have answered, or just walked away, without saying anything,

Instead, he committed a violent crime, attacking McMichaels, and if not for the spineless, pandering, jellyfish politicans, the McMicheals duo would be free, and hailed as heros, for trying to defend their community from burglars, or whatever. And to many in that community, that's probably just what is being said about them.

 

[esalla]

But it does make the attackers guilty. And it should serve as a lesson for the next delusional dolt who sees himself as the vigilante for the hood.

There ARE NO "attackers".. The only attacker (as shown by the video) is Arbery. And the only lesson is that in communities with sizable black voting populations, you can't rely on the politicans and police to back you up, for your legal rights of self-defense, if/whenever the person attacking you is black.

I wonder how many of these "Blame the white guy" cases there now have been in America. Must be 100, just since the Zimmerman fiasco.

No you see the aggressor is the two idiots who grabbed their guns and went to chase Ahmad down.

Ok. Let’s review. Self Defense does not apply when you chase the guy down. It is not stand your ground when you are the aggressor. Any questions?

Yeah, let's review.
Simply going to somebody to ask some questions, isn't being an aggressor.

Firing a gun when somebody (Arbery) is attacking you with their fists, is stand your ground self-defense.

What incompetency the schools are exhibiting these days. Sad.

OK. Let’s say you are running down the street. A Pick Up drives around you and two black guys get out with shotguns. Are you being attacked? Are they being aggressive?

1. Neither the fact that they grabbed (and carried) guns or chased after Arbery, makes the McMichaels aggressors. If you think somebody has done something wrong, and you want to identify him, and maybe report him to police, you have the absolute right to go to him to see who he is, and question him too. It's all part of a community watch program. Good stuff.

2. No, just because to any race guys get out of a (any kind) vehicle with guns (of any kind), that does not make them a threat, at that point. They may seem to be a bit aggressive, but there isn't anything wrong with being aggressive. It does not make me being attacked, of course not.

3. Aggressiveness in and of itself isn't a crime or even a wrong. If our fathers had not been somewhat aggressive toward our mothers, we wouldn't be here now. 3 cheers for aggressiveness.

Georgia law does not allow for a person to be harassed or detained because you think he might have done something wrong. Since they did not know that he had done something wrong and there is no proof after the fact that he did do something wrong they had no right to interfere in his jog.

FALSE! They were neither harrassing or detaining. The video indicates that as soon as the subjects got close to each other, Arbery attacked McMichaels. If he had not done that, and simply allowed McMichaels to ask him a question, he could have answered, or just walked away, without saying anything,

Instead, he committed a violent crime, attacking McMichaels, and if not for the spineless, pandering, jellyfish politicans, the McMicheals duo would be free, and hailed as heros, for trying to defend their community from burglars, or whatever. And to many in that community, that's probably just what is being said about them.

Yawn

Is there a Klan meeting tonight?

 

[protectionist]

The facts do not change geezer

Georgia law does not allow for a person to be harassed or detained because you think he might have done something wrong. Since they did not know that he had done something wrong and there is no proof after the fact that he did do something wrong they had no right to interfere in his jog.

Do you always post the same post twice ? And even after the first one has already been refuted ? HA HA.

 

[protectionist]

Yawn

Is there a Klan meeting tonight?

Maybe you're looking for a BLM or New Black Panthers meeting. Actually NAACP is just about as racist.

 

[esalla]

Yawn

Is there a Klan meeting tonight?

Maybe you're looking for a BLM or New Black Panthers meeting. Actually NAACP is just about as racist.

Which one are you

 

[protectionist]

That's irrelevant. The two white guys had no right to chase and detain him. That's where the real issue is. Who knows what they said to him as he tries to avoid them by running around the right side of the truck. Why does Travis move the front of the truck to meet him? What is clear by their own lawyers admission is they were attempting to apprehend him in a citizens arrest. Based on Georgia law it was an illegal citizens arrest. At the point Ahmaud can sit down, but if he feels his life is in danger he can defend himself.

1. They have a perfect right to chase after him.

2. Where does the video show either McMicheals detaining him ?

 

[protectionist]

Which one are you

Which one are you ?

 

[protectionist]

when did they not let him leave???
they didnt,,

That is a racist lie.

We know the murderers blocked the joggers path and his freedom of movement. They were using a pickup truck as a weapon against an unarmed man. It’s highly probable the killers were brandishing their weapons the when they tried to stop him.

The gun goobers were violating the jogger’s civil rights the very first time they obstructed his freedom of movement to the final second that they shot him on a public road.

What means of escape from his armed attackers using two vehicles did the jogger have? Run ono Private Prioerty and then be shot for trespassing?

Add yourself to the confirmed racist list.

obviously you didnt watch the video cause the truck was stopped in the road and not turned crossways to traffic and the black guy swerved to attack the driver when he could have ran on straight uninterrupted,,,

The two men are already on record saying they had been attempting to cut him off several times before the final confrontation.

The idea that they weren’t attempting to impede him is ignorant. Not even the accused murderers have claimed that.

to bad he decided to attack them which resulted in his death or he could have been here to defend his actions,,,

It’s unfortunate the two men put him in a position where he felt necessary to defend himself.

Which is why these two men are now in legal jeopardy when their actions led to his death.

hes the one that put his own life in jeopordy when he decide to attack them instead of run any of the other 359 different directions

when did they not let him leave???
they didnt,,

That is a racist lie.

We know the murderers blocked the joggers path and his freedom of movement. They were using a pickup truck as a weapon against an unarmed man. It’s highly probable the killers were brandishing their weapons the when they tried to stop him.

The gun goobers were violating the jogger’s civil rights the very first time they obstructed his freedom of movement to the final second that they shot him on a public road.

What means of escape from his armed attackers using two vehicles did the jogger have? Run ono Private Prioerty and then be shot for trespassing?

Add yourself to the confirmed racist list.

obviously you didnt watch the video cause the truck was stopped in the road and not turned crossways to traffic and the black guy swerved to attack the driver when he could have ran on straight uninterrupted,,,

The two men are already on record saying they had been attempting to cut him off several times before the final confrontation.

The idea that they weren’t attempting to impede him is ignorant. Not even the accused murderers have claimed that.

to bad he decided to attack them which resulted in his death or he could have been here to defend his actions,,,

It’s unfortunate the two men put him in a position where he felt necessary to defend himself.

Which is why these two men are now in legal jeopardy when their actions led to his death.

hes the one that put his own life in jeopordy when he decide to attack them instead of run any of the other 359 different directions

The only action they were sure he was doing was running. If he had run in any other direction but the road he would have been shot. Running in the road the truck can catch him. Running towards someone’s house in a neighborhood? One of those idiots would have shot him.

Nonsense....if being stupid was illegal you would get at least 20yrs.

How does anyone get so stupid? Do you take a stupid pill when you wake up in the morning?

Again........pointed out before.....but again since you obviously just post crap without checking out what has already been said....the father....the former policeman had investigated the black criminal back when he was a policeman....thus he recognized him on the video doing the burglary....so he knew who he was dealing with.....a black criminal. (Though the media will not report that....they never can be counted on to report the truth.)

The black suspect would not have been shot if he had not attacked the guy with the shot gun....if they just wanted to shoot him they could have done that at any time.

Are you black or just a stupid airhead brainwahed by some sociology professor at some junior college?

No citizen has any right to detain anyone with a firearm because they think they looked like someone on a video.

End of story.

they never tried to detain him,,,all he had to do was continue on his way,,,cause if he did and they tried to detain him he would be alive to file a complaint against them,,,

They were shouting at him to stop, chased him down in their trucks, got out in front of him and then emerged from the truck holding a shotgun.

Unless you’re a complete idiot, that’s attempting to detain someone

attempting is not the same as doing it,,,

in this case both parties have fault,, but the death is a result of arbreys stupidity,,,

Legally it is. The only reason it’s an attempt is because he fought back.

Do we now fault people for acting in self defense? Do we now say people are stupid for defending themselves?

we only suspect he was defending himself,,,if he only complied he would be alive and the rednecks would be in jail,,,

Would they be in jail? I doubt it. The local prosecutor already was brushing this under the rug.

His actions are entirely consistent with self defense. Furthermore, the two accused murderer have demonstrated they were behaving outside the law and their legal rights. They are responsible for the outcome of a situation they created.

they were right up until the time abrey attacked them,,,

Nope. They were attempting to detain him. By their own admission. They created a situation that lead to a man’s death and are responsible for the outcome even if that isn’t what they wanted to happen.

they hold a partial responsibility,,,

They are solely responsible for the situation that led to the murder.

But I guess you want us to believe that people have to comply with strangers chasing you with guns?

1. The situation that came before the self-defense killing, in no way caused the killing. The killing was caused by Arbery attacking McMichael. No one is responsible for Arbery's death, except Arbery himself.

2. Big difference between "comply" and attack with fists. The video does not indicate in any way that Arbery could not have just walked away, and ignored the McMichaels father & son. Instead he chose to fight. Dumbass.

 

[colfax_m]

That's irrelevant. The two white guys had no right to chase and detain him. That's where the real issue is. Who knows what they said to him as he tries to avoid them by running around the right side of the truck. Why does Travis move the front of the truck to meet him? What is clear by their own lawyers admission is they were attempting to apprehend him in a citizens arrest. Based on Georgia law it was an illegal citizens arrest. At the point Ahmaud can sit down, but if he feels his life is in danger he can defend himself.

1. They have a perfect right to chase after him.

2. Where does the video show either McMicheals detaining him ?

The McMicheals are already on record stating it was their intention to detain him.

Sorry, but the suspects have blown up that narrative for you.

 

[protectionist]

Actually the second amendment says that the jogger had the right to defend himself against the tyrants depriving him of his liberty to jog

Try again

You still working at the gas station

Fill me up honkey

They didn't deprive him of anything. No reason why he couldn't jog or walk.

So you've got racist words to go along with your ageist ones too, huh ?

 

[protectionist]

The McMicheals are already on record stating it was their intention to detain him.

Sorry, but the suspects have blown up that narrative for you.

But they did not detain him or attempt to, and if they were going to make a citizens arrest, they could detain him. No problem there.

But you have a problem. You are making statements about what is on "record, with no source link to back you up.

 

[colfax_m]

Which one are you

Which one are you ?

View attachment 333958

Can you describe what if anything these men are doing wrong in this picture?