Poll of the Day > DA rules Ahmaud Arbery Killing JUSTIFIED, now asks FEDERAL GOV'T to take over!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Y'all just know the video evidence of him nurgling is gonna be like



Edit: didnt realize the media had actually obtained the security footage it's actually worse than that lmao

---

First of all, it's not illegal to be racist, and it's pretty hard to prove that this was a racist act. Shooting someone because of their race is certainly illegal, but there is no evidence that is why they shot him, and plenty of evidence that they had other reasons to do so.

I'm not defending them, just stating a fact.

Second of all one of the two men was a cop, and sadly, knew the laws in that state, which are rediculously one sided and do allow for a citizens arrest. According to the state laws, the men did nothing wrong (I'm not saying they did nothing wrong, just that legally in that state, they didn't).

Now if they had just plain out shot the black man, even if he kept running or ignored them etc, they would be in serious trouble, but....they did not. The man grabbed at the rifle that was being pointed in his direction. I certainly can understand him doing that (although it wasn't the smartest thing to do since ANOTHER person was pointing a gun at him from the truck), but hell, I would have probably done something similar (I'd just try to keep the guy with the rifle between me and the other dude).

But the sad fact is, he was attacking the guy with the rifle, and again, because of the rediculous laws in that state, that can be interpreted as threatening the life of the man with the rifle (with his own rifle lol), if he got control of it.

I believe the court already judged in their favor (the two white men), and they are sending it to the supreme court because of this.

This was almost certainly racially motivated, but in court you need to prove that (and that would be very difficult, unless one of em goes to KKK rallys or has posted racial things before. In addition one was a cop, which means he knew the laws, and therefore the fact that they followed them (Even if they are bad laws) validates their actions. The laws need to be changed.

This was all "swept" under the table though, and perhaps some of that might have been illegal. It was brought to light by a NY reporter after a friend of the victim sent a letter.

From all accounts though, based on the current laws in that state, nothing illegal was done.

---

Hope they get slapped with a hate crime or at least first degree murder.

---

Zeus posted...

By that suggestion, whoever won the fight could claim SYG, effectively making it a trial by combat.

Well yeah, that's basically the situation that SYG creates, allowing one to instigate a violent situation and then kill the other person instead of backing down.
If the jogger had wrested the gun from them and shot them dead, he could reasonably claim that he felt threatened and in fear for his life.

It's so weird in these situations how only the initial agressor w/ the gun is thought to have a right to defend himself w/o backing down. While as the Trayvon Martins and Ahmaud Arberys don't also have that right somehow, even though they're the ones who really should be fearing for their lives.

wolfy42 posted... I believe the court already judged in their favor (the two white men), and they are sending it to the supreme court because of this.

No, it never went to court. These guys were never arrested until the video came out and people were outraged.
The DA office where the older murderer used to work decided it was justified, and lied to the family, saying he was gunned down while burglarizing a house.
It's all super corrupt.

streamofthesky posted...

Well yeah, that's basically the situation that SYG creates, allowing one to instigate a violent situation and then kill the other person instead of backing down.
If the jogger had wrested the gun from them and shot them dead, he could reasonably claim that he felt threatened and in fear for his life.

Do you know what we've done?

We've created trial by combat.

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

Video of the dude that got killed walking into a house under construction and looking around for about 3 minutes right before the guys pull up on him if the news has the time line right.

Suggesting the killer had the time and the opportunity to decide not to kill?

---

streamofthesky posted...

If the jogger had wrested the gun from them and shot them dead, he could reasonably claim that he felt threatened and in fear for his life.

Obviously, it is easier to claim and justify self-defence when you used your assailant's weapon.

---

Shit happens, get over it. The color of the characters is irrelevant. Stop making this a racist story, we've had our fill.

---

wolfy42 posted...

According to the state laws, the men did nothing wrong (I'm not saying they did nothing wrong, just that legally in that state, they didn't).

Georgia Code
TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS
ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS
17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

According to the article they didn't witness any crime or have immediate knowledge of it. They suspected Ahmaud Arbery of a crime which is not good enough for a citizens arrest. The most you can say Arbery did was criminal trespassing which is a misdemeanor. They were unjust in detaining and shooting him.

---

awezomerobot posted...

According to the article they didn't witness any crime or have immediate knowledge of it. They suspected Ahmaud Arbery of a crime which is not good enough for a citizens arrest. The most you can say Arbery did was criminal trespassing which is a misdemeanor. They were unjust in detaining and shooting him.

this again is all that needs to be said. you could completely disregard the race of the individuals involved. It doesn't need to be a hate crime or a racially motivated killing. The two men involved in Arbery's killing were unjustified. that's it.

awezomerobot posted...

According to the article they didn't witness any crime or have immediate knowledge of it. They suspected Ahmaud Arbery of a crime which is not good enough for a citizens arrest. The most you can say Arbery did was criminal trespassing which is a misdemeanor. They were unjust in detaining and shooting him.

There are multiple takes on this right now. The article I read stated they had seen video of him entering a home under construction and that he matched the description of someone who had burgarallzed in the area.

Perhaps that is not true, but based on that article they were within their rights to detain him (obviously not to shoot him), but the shooting can be.....legalized, based on the fact he was grabbing the gun etc.

At least from what I read their actions did fall within state law. That could be untrue, since all the evidence and statements that were actually taken were from the two men who killed him lol.

But according to the evidence presented, and stated (if they did see video of him first), they fell within the legal code of that state.

---

Dont forget that kyuubi said racism against whites is more of a problem than racism against blacks in current america
Dont argue with this goon

---

why am i not surprised to see kyubi defending racism

---

You should not be allowed to go out and hunt people down. Thats what the cops are for, call them and let them handle it. If you go out and hunt someone down like they did here, you should not be allowed to claim self-defense/SYG.

wolfy42 posted...

There are multiple takes on this right now. The article I read stated they had seen video of him entering a home under construction and that he matched the description of someone who had burgarallzed in the area.

Perhaps that is not true, but based on that article they were within their rights to detain him (obviously not to shoot him), but the shooting can be.....legalized, based on the fact he was grabbing the gun etc.

At least from what I read their actions did fall within state law. That could be untrue, since all the evidence and statements that were actually taken were from the two men who killed him lol.

But according to the evidence presented, and stated (if they did see video of him first), they fell within the legal code of that state.

Well, the law states "A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge."

They didn't see him commit a crime in their presence and they said he matched the description of the person on the video which is a probable suspicion and not immediate knowledge.

---

awezomerobot posted...

Well, the law states "A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge."

They didn't see him commit a crime in their presence and they said he matched the description of the person on the video which is a probable suspicion and not immediate knowledge.

Which is even worse, since none of the surveillance video the news has been able to get that were supposedly of him are actually him. The only video that seems to be of him is the one were he trespassed into a house the same day but did no other crime.

Which yea police need to be involved, but not a drive by lynching.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Which is even worse, since none of the surveillance video the news has been able to get that were supposedly of him are actually him. The only video that seems to be of him is the one were he trespassed into a house the same day but did no other crime.

Which yea police need to be involved, but not a drive by lynching.

I agree. They should have taken a detail description and called the police. They should not have approached Arbery at all.

---

deoxxys posted...

So I'll just repost this from the other topic:

The story was originally supposed to be:
"white supremacists hunt down and murder innocent black man just going on his daily jog"

But it turns out its more like this:
"Man killed during struggle over weapon due to being confronted about property theft"

As it turns out, in the New York Times article, it is said there is video evidence of Mr. Arbery committing property theft.
These two knowing this confront him theirselves to try to do a citizens arrest. Mr. A continues running away from them after they ask to talk with him, they cut him off, he runs towards them, a fight over a gun begins, in the struggle, Mr. A is shot.

Media needs to stop trying to portray everything as racism to get a juicy story. I was RIGHT there alongside yall ready to have these two guys lynched for being hateful terrible racists. But I guess thats why they say not to fall into a mob mentality, especially when you dont have all the facts.

What is my opinion now? They should still go to jail for manslaughter and trying to take the law into their own hands, but at least I dont see them racists.

They wouldn't have stalked a white guy.

streamofthesky posted...

Well yeah, that's basically the situation that SYG creates, allowing one to instigate a violent situation and then kill the other person instead of backing down.
If the jogger had wrested the gun from them and shot them dead, he could reasonably claim that he felt threatened and in fear for his life.

It's so weird in these situations how only the initial agressor w/ the gun is thought to have a right to defend himself w/o backing down. While as the Trayvon Martins and Ahmaud Arberys don't also have that right somehow, even though they're the ones who really should be fearing for their lives.

At least Michael Drejka went to jail even with Stand Your Ground.
---

TheSlinja posted...

Dont forget that kyuubi said racism against whites is more of a problem than racism against blacks in current america
Dont argue with this goon

I said in the first world, I also regularly point out how the US is beneath first world civility.

PKMNsony posted...

You should not be allowed to go out and hunt people down. Thats what the cops are for, call them and let them handle it. If you go out and hunt someone down like they did here, you should not be allowed to claim self-defense/SYG.

They didn't hunt him? They followed him, he attacked, self-defense occured.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They didn't hunt him? They followed him, he attacked, self-defense occured.

Yeah they followed him with a shotgun

And then the shotgun pellets followed him as he ran away

---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They didn't hunt him? They followed him, he attacked, self-defense occured.

The fuck are you trying here?

Yellow posted...

Yeah they followed him with a shotgun

And then the shotgun pellets followed him as he ran away

They had a shotgun on their possession, which isn't illegal.

Shotgun pellets followed up his arm as he grabbed the gun.

BlackScythe0 posted...

The fuck are you trying here?

If he wasn't aggressive and did only run, he probably wouldn't have been shot or it'd be an open shut case.
---

I'm not watching the video but I think it's pretty clear who's in the wrong here.

---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They didn't hunt him? They followed him, he attacked, self-defense occured.

Self-defence? With a shotgun they just happened to have with them, loaded and ready?

---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

If he wasn't black and did only run, he probably wouldn't have been shot or it'd be an open shut case.

I fixed that for you again.
---

White supremacy is very much alive but people are largely going to ignore it or try to justify the racists actions someway somehow, by saying he needed to be killed because he smoked weed once at 15

---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Self-defence? With a shotgun they just happened to have with them, loaded and ready?

The shotgun that came in to contention because he was grabbing for it. They weren't threatened until then and they didn't shoot until then.

Revelation34 posted...

I fixed that for you again.

Fuck off with your racism, he grabbed at a gun and was a known house invader, he was fair game.
---

I hope you guys realize that if you collectively ignore Kyuubii and his alts, hell finally shut the fuck up lol

---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The shotgun that came in to contention because he was grabbing for it. They weren't threatened until then and they didn't shoot until then.

And he was supposed not to feel threatened by the shotgun?

---

Revelation34 posted...

At least Michael Drejka went to jail even with Stand Your Ground.

Even as badly as SYG laws are written, it was always going to be a tough sell that he felt the need to defend himself from an unarmed dude walking away from him that he then shot in the back.

So yeah, there's at least some very low standard in place. The law was still fuzzy enough to lead him to think he could get away with doing it and left the victim dead, so it's not much of a silver lining.
"Oh, you can avoid your killer getting away with murder if you run away."
"Yeah, but I'll still be dead. And I thought the whole point of SYG was enabling us to not have to just run away?"
"Yeah, but only for white people."

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I said in the first world, I also regularly point out how the US is beneath first world civility.

They didn't hunt him? They followed him, he attacked, self-defense occured.

If two strangers in civilian clothing pointed their guns at me I'd consider that an act of aggression. Doesn't seem like self-defense to me if you point your gun at someone you've never met and they try to wrestle it away from you. Just the opposite, it feels like Arbery was trying to defend himself...

DPsx7 posted...

Shit happens, get over it. The color of the characters is irrelevant. Stop making this a racist story, we've had our fill.

Not everyone cares about the color of the person, even if some do. Some people just care that it seems like 2 guys might possibly get away with killing someone...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I said in the first world, I also regularly point out how the US is beneath first world civility.

And just because you say it's not first world doesn't mean it's not...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The shotgun that came in to contention because he was grabbing for it. They weren't threatened until then and they didn't shoot until then.

He grabbed it because he felt threatened by them. It's pretty scary when two random armed people pull up on you when you're alone and unarmed...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

he grabbed at a gun and was a known house invader, he was fair game.

Wasn't he only a suspected house invader? And I'm glad you think it's fine to threaten people to get them scared, and then shoot them when they try to defend themselves...
---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

And he was supposed not to feel threatened by the shotgun?

He was supposed to run or comply, not start a fight with a guy with a gun. His fuck up got him killed.

streamofthesky posted...

"Oh, you can avoid your killer getting away with murder if you run away."
"Yeah, but I'll still be dead. And I thought the whole point of SYG was enabling us to not have to just run away?"
"Yeah, but only for white people."

He took a chance by standing his ground against somebody who wasn't attacking him with no gun and lost, it was a bad bet that escalated a situation. Having the right to stand your ground doesn't make it the best decision.

PKMNsony posted...

If two strangers in civilian clothing pointed their guns at me I'd consider that an act of aggression.

Turns out citizens arrest looks like that. Still don't grab at guns unless you want them to go off.

PKMNsony posted...

Doesn't seem like self-defense to me if you point your gun at someone you've never met and they try to wrestle it away from you. Just the opposite, it feels like Arbery was trying to defend himself...

He tried to defend himself from a threat that didn't exist, but he's legally fi e because of what he percieved. He did actually initiate a fight in his entirely legal and understandable misunderstanding and gave an armed person legal defense to shoot in self defense.

Moral of the story is don't try to wrestle a man for hos gun, who woulda thunk it.

PK_Spam posted...

I hope you guys realize that if you collectively ignore Kyuubii and his alts, hell finally shut the fuck up lol

Who are my alts?
---

LinkPizza posted...

And just because you say it's not first world doesn't mean it's not...

Just because you say it is, doesn't mean it is. China is third world according to aid and it's richer than the US and behaves as badly.

LinkPizza posted...

He grabbed it because he felt threatened by them. It's pretty scary when two random armed people pull up on you when you're alone and unarmed...

Fighting for a gun isn't a smart response though, life's not a jackie chan movie.

LinkPizza posted...

Wasn't he only a suspected house invader? And I'm glad you think it's fine to threaten people to get them scared, and then shoot them when they try to defend themselves...

He was a recorded house invader and accused burglar, it's pretty damning. Turns out the threat of arrest was terrifying enough to this supposedly innocent man that he felt the need to fight.
---

Imagine replying to someone claiming that America and china arent first world countries LOL

---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

He was supposed to run or comply, not start a fight with a guy with a gun. His fuck up got him killed.

That's a guess at best. And a bigger risk. Turning you back on a person who stalked you and had a gun. He probably thought he had a better chance at defending himself. It's possible they wouldn't have shot. But they most likely would have...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Just because you say it is, doesn't mean it is. China is third world according to aid and it's richer than the US and behaves as badly.

It's not just me, though. It's the literal definition...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Fighting for a gun isn't a smart response though, life's not a jackie chan movie.

Who said anything about life being a Jackie Chan movie? When you believe it's you're only chance at survival, you do what it takes. He was scared of being shot by a gun. He could either run and risk be shot in the back. Or could disarm he attackers.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

He was a recorded house invader and accused burglar, it's pretty damning. Turns out the threat of arrest was terrifying enough to this supposedly innocent man that he felt the need to fight.

From what people are saying in this topic, they found one video that was possibly him. And even then, that was only trespassing. So, not really that damning. And who knows if there was a threat of arrest. Pointing a gun at an unarmed person would filled many innocent people with the need to fight. Are you really trying to troll saying that only guilty people should use self-defense?
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

He was supposed to run or comply, not start a fight with a guy with a gun. His fuck up got him killed.

You expect anyone to respond calmly and logically when someone points a gun at them?

---

Apparently Ahmaud Arbery had no rights. If someone confronts you with a gun, you do not have the right to defend yourself.

---

LinkPizza posted...

But they most likely would have...

Because as we know, whitey just loves shooting black people for no reason. We're just a bunch of racists, you can tell by how pale we are.

I can't think of a single time in recent history someone's brought up an open shut case of racially motivated homicide. It's always hyped up shit with the black person having commited a crime or acted threateningly, there's always a normal common sense motivation and every time people come pouring out to sling shit at white people.

LinkPizza posted...

It's not just me, though. It's the literal definition...

There isn't a definition, it's just a marker to note what places are shitholes.

LinkPizza posted...

Who said anything about life being a Jackie Chan movie? When you believe it's you're only chance at survival, you do what it takes. He was scared of being shot by a gun. He could either run and risk be shot in the back. Or could disarm he attackers.

Or he could surrender and take the monumentally tiny risk of being the first man to get executed on the street for doing actually nothing by a non-police officer in decades.

He panicked and it got himself killed, this is why you try to keep calm.

LinkPizza posted...

From what people are saying in this topic, they found one video that was possibly him. And even then, that was only trespassing. So, not really that damning.

Oh yeah, people always take a self-guided tour around people's houses and don't take momentos.

LinkPizza posted...

And who knows if there was a threat of arrest. Pointing a gun at an unarmed person would filled many innocent people with the need to fight. Are you really trying to troll saying that only guilty people should use self-defense?

I'm saying only people who think they have a better chance fighting should fight. If you do not have a gun in a gun fight, you will probably lose so you should either comply with what they want or find an escape route. If they just wanted to shoot him, they didn't have to leave the car, he'd just be mowed down and that's that, but that's not what happened.

If you instigate a fight with a stronger force, don't be surprised if they wipe the floor with you.
---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

You expect anyone to respond calmly and logically when someone points a gun at them?

Yes, otherwise you're insane for allowing officers to use guns outside firefights.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Yes, otherwise you're insane for allowing officers to use guns outside firefights.

I would hope cops are trained in how to deal with peoples' responses to seeing their guns.

---

Kyuubi you are victim blaming hardcore

Nichtcrawler X posted...

I would hope cops are trained in how to deal with peoples' responses to seeing their guns.

They are, they shoot the guy grabbing their gun. Let's hope people practice common sense and don't grab at guns in future.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They are, they shoot the guy grabbing their gun.

Before then, obviously.

---

Zikten posted...

Kyuubi you are victim blaming hardcore

Victims can bring about their own suffering. You are at fault if you stub your toe because you refuse to turn on the light, you are at fault if you throw a piece of chicken in a deep fat fryer and the oil splashes on your bare junk and you are at fault if you grab a gun somebody's already holding.
---

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Before then, obviously.

They point there gun and say "Stop running, I'm putting you under arrest!"

I don't see your argument, one of these guys literally has police training.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They point their gun and say "Stop running, I'm putting you under arrest!"

I don't see your argument, one of these guys literally has police training.

And why the fuck would I listen to a random fat idiot walking up to me on my morning jog pointing a gun at me placing me under arrest?

If he wasn't threatening my life I'd cuss him out like any rational person would do.

---

Kyubiis clearly doing all this for attention. He knows hes being a dickhead lol

---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The shotgun that came in to contention because he was grabbing for it. They weren't threatened until then and they didn't shoot until then.

Fuck off with your racism, he grabbed at a gun and was a known house invader, he was fair game.

The fucking irony.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Because as we know, whitey just loves shooting black people for no reason. We're just a bunch of racists, you can tell by how pale we are.

I can't think of a single time in recent history someone's brought up an open shut case of racially motivated homicide. It's always hyped up shit with the black person having commited a crime or acted threateningly, there's always a normal common sense motivation and every time people come pouring out to sling shit at white people.

When did I ever say it was because of the color of their skin? The reason I think that is because they brought two shotguns to make a "citizen's arrest"...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

There isn't a definition, it's just a marker to note what places are shitholes.

Look it up. You can say whatever you want. Again, doesn't make it right. In the end, most people understand that whether you like it or not, or whether you agree or not, The US is a first world country...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Or he could surrender and take the monumentally tiny risk of being the first man to get executed on the street for doing actually nothing by a non-police officer in decades.

He panicked and it got himself killed, this is why you try to keep calm.

The risk wasn't that tiny. Especially to him. All he knew were two men were stalking him. And they had shotguns. He doesn't know what they want, or if they were going to make a citizen's arrest. He most likely thought they were going to kill him. Why surrender your life if you think you have a chance to live?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Oh yeah, people always take a self-guided tour around people's houses and don't take momentos.

We don't know what happened. There was only one house that might have been him. And if he didn't have anything on him, then they can't just say it was definitely him or anything. You sound ready to pronounce him guilty without any proof, though. But I mean, that's just how you are, so...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I'm saying only people who think they have a better chance fighting should fight. If you do not have a gun in a gun fight, you will probably lose so you should either comply with what they want or find an escape route. If they just wanted to shoot him, they didn't have to leave the car, he'd just be mowed down and that's that, but that's not what happened.

If you instigate a fight with a stronger force, don't be surprised if they wipe the floor with you.

He didn't have a gun, but probably thought they would shoot if he turned his back on them and ran. Not to mention, they had a truck, which is faster than him running. He probably figured he had a better chance to fight rather then fleeing. Also, why comply to two random strangers with guns. That's how you get killed for sure. I hear about it all the time from my mom. She's a cop and sees this stuff all the time. People get held at gunpoint for their car. People comply and give the person their car, and then get shot and killed after giving up the car. Same with money, as well. Complying can easily get you killed.

And if their plan was to get away with murder, then that's probably why they didn't just mow him down. They probably wanted to find a way to get away with their crime. Which they are somehow on the road to doing.

And he wasn't the instigator. The people stalking and pointing guns at him are. I like how you blaming the victim for everything... You're just a bad person...
---