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

(+) Yeah! (+)

PK_Spam posted...

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

He does it all the time. He just wants to be argumentative. He says ridiculous things that don't make sense, or that are just flat out dumb. And he knows it.
---

Cool. Now I know I can stand my ground and start killing inbred hillbilly hicks.

---

LinkPizza posted...

He does it all the time. He just wants to be argumentative. He says ridiculous things that don't make sense, or that are just flat out dumb. And he knows it.

yeah i stopped replying to him in this topic because he's super dense or just trolling hardcore. it's sad though, because there are actually people in the real world who think like him. He's literally the only person in this topic defending the killers.

you'd think if 99% of the population is telling you "this isn't right" you would eventually accept it's not right. guess some people just like burying their heads in the sand.

sodium-chloride posted...

you'd think if 99% of the population is telling you "this isn't right" you would eventually accept it's not right.

closer to 50% if that

much less depending on where you live

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

closer to 50% if that

much less depending on where you live

I'm talking about in this topic for that percentage. I'd be very surprised if this issue was a 50/50 split among Americans' opinions. My bet is that more people are against the killing.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

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.

Horse shit. Holding a gun doesn't make you god.

Someone comes at me with a gun I promise you for damn sure I'm going to do whatever I think I need to do to make it out alive. Dude is well within his rights to defend himself when two randoms jump out of a truck and immediately start physically assaulting him and he has no clue wtf is going on.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Horse shit. Holding a gun doesn't make you god.

Someone comes at me with a gun I promise you for damn sure I'm going to do whatever I think I need to do to make it out alive. Dude is well within his rights to defend himself when two randoms jump out of a truck and immediately start physically assaulting him and he has no clue wtf is going on.

exactly. Kyuubi seems to think these gunmen had all the rights and their victim had none.

LinkPizza posted...

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"...

Because Texas is full of people just getting shot in the street due to all the trucks with guns. That's a bullshit excuse and you know it, they're hicks, of course they do this nonsense.

LinkPizza posted...

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?

You think it was a silent movie because it was filmed over 100m away? They spoke, that's what humans do, and we know what they intended to do so we can assume what they said too.

Don't be so disingenuous, it's ridiculous to assume people are acting out of normal without evidence.

LinkPizza posted...

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...

They saw the evidence and ID'd him. Clearly it was enough to convince the homeowner and the ex-cop.

I'm only ready to give the guys on trial the benefit of the doubt because that's how legal judgements work. I don't care if he actually did anything or not, but I do care what a normal person would do based on what they reasonably percieved as that gives the most accurate understanding of what actually happened. I would like to understand the situation, not just label all hicks racist assassins.

LinkPizza posted...

He didn't have a gun, but probably thought they would shoot if he turned his back on them and ran.

That's when you stand still then. They didn't shoot from the car, he wasn't being attacked.

LinkPizza posted...

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.

That's why they cut him off, because he fled a citizens arrest.

LinkPizza posted...

Also, why comply to two random strangers with guns. That's how you get killed for sure.

Yup, every arrest ever has ended in death.

You die when you resist people with guns, that's why they have the guns, to force compliance.

LinkPizza posted...

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.

Then he was fucked regardless, still doesn't mean they acted illegally, it means the law allowed this to happen.
---

LinkPizza posted...

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.

What's more likely, the guys who said "I'm going to do a citizens arrest!" going and doing a citizen's arrest or going over to blow his head off?

LinkPizza posted...

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...

They both instigated eachothers actions and had legal defenses for their actions, but it lead to one side dying (legally).

Stop injecting morals and emotion in to a legal stance, that's not how the law works and you'd understand the world a lot easier if you separated the two concepts. What should happen is not the same as what does happen and the law is what has been written down, it's not flexible to its own failings.

sodium-chloride posted...

you'd think if 99% of the population is telling you "this isn't right" you would eventually accept it's not right. guess some people just like burying their heads in the sand.

See above, this is an argument of law, not ethics or best practice.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Horse shit. Holding a gun doesn't make you god.

Someone comes at me with a gun I promise you for damn sure I'm going to do whatever I think I need to do to make it out alive. Dude is well within his rights to defend himself when two randoms jump out of a truck and immediately start physically assaulting him and he has no clue wtf is going on.

And if you saw some guys going to a gun range and you started maniacally grabbing at their guns thinking they were gunman about to start a shooting, they would be within their rights to gun down what appears to be an immediate threat to their lives.

It's a matter of perception in self-defense as you can't expect somebody to understand a situation they're not given information on.

Zikten posted...

exactly. Kyuubi seems to think these gunmen had all the rights and their victim had none.

You seem to think the complete opposite, while the reality is that both have all their rights, and that caused a legal killing of a person just looking to protect themself.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Because Texas is full of people just getting shot in the street due to all the trucks with guns. That's a bullshit excuse and you know it, they're hicks, of course they do this nonsense.

Not everyone does, though. I currently live in Texas, but not everybody just rides around with guns in their vehicles. Some do, sure. But many don't unless they are going out to shoot them. Usually at a range. The only one people carry in their car often (if not always) is usually a handgun of some sort for defense. Not a shotgun. And even when people go to the range to shoot, they usually aren't carrying a shotgun. So what you said is a bullshit excuse, and you definitely know it.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You think it was a silent movie because it was filmed over 100m away? They spoke, that's what humans do, and we know what they intended to do so we can assume what they said too.

Don't be so disingenuous, it's ridiculous to assume people are acting out of normal without evidence.

Except no one heard it. You talk about me not having evidence. But the same goes to you. How do we know they said anything? Are we just taking them at their word? Because whether they said it or not, they'll still claim they did. Stop acting like you know everything when you know as much as us at best.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They saw the evidence and ID'd him. Clearly it was enough to convince the homeowner and the ex-cop.

I'm only ready to give the guys on trial the benefit of the doubt because that's how legal judgements work. I don't care if he actually did anything or not, but I do care what a normal person would do based on what they reasonably percieved as that gives the most accurate understanding of what actually happened. I would like to understand the situation, not just label all hicks racist assassins.

Why does it matter that is was enough to convince random people who aren't the cops. They couldn't be 100% sure. So, they shouldn't have handled it like vigilantes. And not everyone is labeling them racist hicks assassins. But they did kill the guy. And without any proof of anything.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That's when you stand still then. They didn't shoot from the car, he wasn't being attacked.

Nobody wants to stand still and give the killers a clean shot. When a random strangers points a gun at you, standing still is one of the dumbest things you can do. And the most instinctual thing to do it fight or flight. They had shotguns, which probably meant they would have to be closer to get a good shot. And if they were trying to kill him, shooting without being able to hit means they might miss and the victim flees. So, what they did actually does make more sense if they were trying to kill him...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That's why they cut him off, because he fled a citizens arrest.

He fled stalkers with guns. Because as far as he knew, that's what they were. That's what most people would assume. Most people would run because they fear for their lives when strangers with guns are following them. If you wanna stay, go right ahead. But my mom taught me to try to live. Not to just give up my life on the off chance they might not kill me...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Yup, every arrest ever has ended in death.

You die when you resist people with guns, that's why they have the guns, to force compliance.

Except they are police. They are random strangers. He might not even have known they were doing a citizen's arrest. Why do you keep acting like civilians and police are the same thing? And why do random civilians get the right to gun down anyone they want because they have guns? You want killers to get away scot free? Because it sure sounds like it? Why are you trying to troll this hard? What's wrong with you?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Then he was fucked regardless, still doesn't mean they acted illegally, it means the law allowed this to happen.

No. They still acted illegally. They killed a person for no reason. If they would have acted like responsible human beings, a man would most likely still be alive.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

What's more likely, the guys who said "I'm going to do a citizens arrest!" going and doing a citizen's arrest or going over to blow his head off?

Honestly, the second. Why is this even a question? I don't really ever hear about people doing a citizen's arrest. Very rare. But I sure hear about murder an awful lot...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They both instigated eachothers actions and had legal defenses for their actions, but it lead to one side dying (legally).

Stop injecting morals and emotion in to a legal stance, that's not how the law works and you'd understand the world a lot easier if you separated the two concepts. What should happen is not the same as what does happen and the law is what has been written down, it's not flexible to its own failings.

Do you even know what you're saying? The law is super flexible. That's why two cases that are almost identical can have different outcomes. Because the law is rock solid. And why should I not inject emotions. That's what caused this. The murderers obviously weren't thinking with their brain. They were angry (an emotion) and figured they (stupidly) fix things themselves. The victim was most likely scared (an emotion) of his attackers. He tried to fight to save his life and died in the process. He had more legal right then thy did.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Not everyone does, though. I currently live in Texas, but not everybody just rides around with guns in their vehicles. Some do, sure. But many don't unless they are going out to shoot them. Usually at a range. The only one people carry in their car often (if not always) is usually a handgun of some sort for defense. Not a shotgun. And even when people go to the range to shoot, they usually aren't carrying a shotgun. So what you said is a bullshit excuse, and you definitely know it.

You have just freely admitted there's plenty of people with guns in their trucks who aren't murdering people, you are my proof it's not bullshit. You don't know why his guns are in his truck but even if he got it for an arrest, that's fair as the suspect could have been armed too.

LinkPizza posted...

Except no one heard it. You talk about me not having evidence. But the same goes to you. How do we know they said anything? Are we just taking them at their word? Because whether they said it or not, they'll still claim they did. Stop acting like you know everything when you know as much as us at best.

Like I said, we know they said something because they're human and there's no reason to be deadly silent. When there's no evidence of acting one way or another, it's reasonable to presume they'd act like a human.

LinkPizza posted...

Why does it matter that is was enough to convince random people who aren't the cops. They couldn't be 100% sure. So, they shouldn't have handled it like vigilantes. And not everyone is labeling them racist hicks assassins. But they did kill the guy. And without any proof of anything.

Because their motivation is based on their experience and people are prosecuted on what they believed at the time, not what they should have done if they were omnipotent. They killed what they believed to be a house invader and burglar based on strong evidence when he tried to get a gun and turn an arrest in to a firefight. He was as far as they could tell, a felon who is violent.

LinkPizza posted...

Nobody wants to stand still and give the killers a clean shot. When a random strangers points a gun at you, standing still is one of the dumbest things you can do. And the most instinctual thing to do it fight or flight. They had shotguns, which probably meant they would have to be closer to get a good shot. And if they were trying to kill him, shooting without being able to hit means they might miss and the victim flees. So, what they did actually does make more sense if they were trying to kill him...

It makes more sense to not attack someone in broad daylight if you want to kill them. A shotgun is typically zeroed to 100m, this isn't CoD, shotguns are hunting tools and a truck on a paved path isn't an unstable platform. It's very practical to pick off a man from a distance on foot without cover, they definitely had no need to get within arms reach to plant a clean hit.

They went within arms reach to restrain him, like you would in a citizens arrest against a guy who's running.

LinkPizza posted...

He fled stalkers with guns. Because as far as he knew, that's what they were. That's what most people would assume. Most people would run because they fear for their lives when strangers with guns are following them. If you wanna stay, go right ahead. But my mom taught me to try to live. Not to just give up my life on the off chance they might not kill me...

That doesn't stop the "stalkers" from percieving him as resisting arrest escaping a crime scene, both parties are justified in their choices.

LinkPizza posted...

Except they are police. They are random strangers. He might not even have known they were doing a citizen's arrest. Why do you keep acting like civilians and police are the same thing?

Because regardless of person, you comply to a guy pointing a gun in your face for the same reason: because you don't want to get shot. It doesn't matter who they are, what matters is not getting shot.

LinkPizza posted...

And why do random civilians get the right to gun down anyone they want because they have guns? You want killers to get away scot free? Because it sure sounds like it? Why are you trying to troll this hard? What's wrong with you?

I expect them to be punished as the law is written, not how it should be written. Why do you think I want hillbillies to be allowed to shoot people? It's your fucked up laws, you can't do that shit in the UK. The problem isn't the hillbillies doing what they did, the problem is the law being so spastic it allows this.

What's wrong with your country? Maybe if you spent two seconds changing your laws instead of getting in to race wars, you might have a respectable country by now.
---

LinkPizza posted...

No. They still acted illegally. They killed a person for no reason.

They killed an assailant who has demonstrated a lack of respect for the law. They killed in self-defense.

LinkPizza posted...

f they would have acted like responsible human beings, a man would most likely still be alive.

If the suspect recognised the hillbillies' right to citizen's arrest, he might have surrendered. If ifs and buts were coconuts, we'd never starve.

LinkPizza posted...

Honestly, the second. Why is this even a question? I don't really ever hear about people doing a citizen's arrest. Very rare. But I sure hear about murder an awful lot...

How? When someone says they're out to get milk, do you assume they're actually going something completely different? You have no reason to assume they're doing anything other than what they claim, you don't know them.

LinkPizza posted...

Do you even know what you're saying? The law is super flexible. That's why two cases that are almost identical can have different outcomes. Because the law is rock solid.

Pickone.

It's rock solid, it's predictable, it's consistent, it does not change. That means it doesn't mean anything else because you don't feel like it.

LinkPizza posted...

And why should I not inject emotions.

Because the law is written text, you can't just really dislike a situation and suddenly it's illegal! You are arrested or not because of contradicting the law, not because of how nasty what you did was.

LinkPizza posted...

The murderers obviously weren't thinking with their brain. They were angry (an emotion) and figured they (stupidly) fix things themselves.

...and proceeded to act within the law. Their emotion doesn't make their actions illegal.

LinkPizza posted...

The victim was most likely scared (an emotion) of his attackers. He tried to fight to save his life and died in the process. He had more legal right then thy did.

No, they both had legal right to their actions.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You have just freely admitted there's plenty of people with guns in their trucks who aren't murdering people, you are my proof it's not bullshit. You don't know why his guns are in his truck but even if he got it for an arrest, that's fair as the suspect could have been armed too.

No. I said some people do have guns in their vehicles. But not all like you claim. Though, most of the time, the people carrying guns are headed somewhere to fire them safely. Like a range. Most are carrying them to go enact vigilante justice like you seem to think... So, I'm not you proof of anything other then you being filled with bullshit. Thinking you know anything about this place based off of watching tv shows about here. And it sounds like they brought the guns for the arrest. Especially since they both had them. And were following him. And if they thought he might have been armed, they was even more reason to call the cops. Though, even if he was armed, it wouldn't have been bug based on the clothes he was wearing (from what I could see in the video). Though, since they were following him, they may have believed him to be unarmed, anyway...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Like I said, we know they said something because they're human and there's no reason to be deadly silent. When there's no evidence of acting one way or another, it's reasonable to presume they'd act like a human.

There's plenty of reason to be silent. Like if they knew they were going to kill him. Or maybe hesitated on what they were going to say. Or because they didn't want to say anything. You can say that they said anything at all. Or maybe they did say something. Maybe they said, "We're going to kill you for breaking into all those houses." The fact is, we don't know what they said, or if they even said anything at all... You can just claim they probably said something because I think so. So we don't know they said anything. Nor do we know what they said if they even said something...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Because their motivation is based on their experience and people are prosecuted on what they believed at the time, not what they should have done if they were omnipotent. They killed what they believed to be a house invader and burglar based on strong evidence when he tried to get a gun and turn an arrest in to a firefight. He was as far as they could tell, a felon who is violent.

And that was wrong of them. They aren't omnipotent, so they shouldn't have acted like they were. They should have called actual police who could do things the right way. Instead, they killed a guy based on nothing, and should go to jail for it. Maybe if they do, it will stop people from acting like vigilantes.

Also, as far as anyone was concerned, he wasn't a felon (IIRC)...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It makes more sense to not attack someone in broad daylight if you want to kill them. A shotgun is typically zeroed to 100m, this isn't CoD, shotguns are hunting tools and a truck on a paved path isn't an unstable platform. It's very practical to pick off a man from a distance on foot without cover, they definitely had no need to get within arms reach to plant a clean hit.

They went within arms reach to restrain him, like you would in a citizens arrest against a guy who's running.

Broad daylight works for what they may have wanted to do. I mean, they are doing well so far, aren't they. Also, from the looks of it, they are houses around where it happened. If they just wanted to kill him, why shoot up and damage other people's property, or accidentally kill someone. Also, since they were following him, it's much easier to do during the day. And if they didn't know where he lived, they might not have been able to find him if they didn't do it then. And it seemed like he went to them, instead of them going to him. So, that means that they didn't seem to be getting close enough to perform a citizen's arrest. And why do you keep mentioning running? It's not illegal to run from random strangers with guns. Especially since he was suppose to be out jogging anyway...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That doesn't stop the "stalkers" from percieving him as resisting arrest escaping a crime scene, both parties are justified in their choices.

No. They weren't. They aren't cops, so that means he had no reason to believe they were performing a citizen's arrest. Especially since it's a very abnormal thing to happen. Even if they said they were performing one (which they might not have said), there was no reason for him to believe that. Most people wouldn't. Most people would probably think it was a ploy to get someone to come closer for whatever reason (like a mugging, or killing, for example). So, while he was justified, they were not. Especially since I don't think they were actually at the crime scene, were they? I just don't remember it saying anything like that in the articles I saw. But I don't really remember where he was in relation to the "crime scene".

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Because regardless of person, you comply to a guy pointing a gun in your face for the same reason: because you don't want to get shot. It doesn't matter who they are, what matters is not getting shot.

Except you still might get shot. If it's a police, I'd feel fine complying. But a random person with a gun? I feel like they'll shoot me either way. As it happens a lot where I'm from. So, no. People shouldn't just comply with a random stranger. That's how you get shot. They shouldn't have even used guns in the first place. That's escalating the situation. If they didn't think they could handle him without guns, they should have called the cops.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I expect them to be punished as the law is written, not how it should be written. Why do you think I want hillbillies to be allowed to shoot people? It's your fucked up laws, you can't do that shit in the UK. The problem isn't the hillbillies doing what they did, the problem is the law being so spastic it allows this.

What's wrong with your country? Maybe if you spent two seconds changing your laws instead of getting in to race wars, you might have a respectable country by now.

Just look at what's happening. It looks like they're trying to let killers go scot free. And it's probably because they're cop buddies who watch out for each other. The law is written so loosely that they could easily prosecute thees guys. But instead, they use the loosely written law to protect them instead. You keep saying the law is solid, but it's the exact opposite. It so flexible, they can bend the law to do whatever they want. People fight to change laws, but it's not easy. I've seen lawyer who talk about trying to change laws. But it takes a long time. And even then, it might not get changed. Just like the cops, you're bending the law so it fits you delusional ideas of these two being innocent. You're trying to victi blame so hard... And for no real reason. The only reason anyone here can think of is just you being you. Which means you're doing it just to be argumentative... Is saying stupid shit to get a rise out of people really that fun for you?
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They killed an assailant who has demonstrated a lack of respect for the law. They killed in self-defense.

They killed a person for no reason. They shouldn't have had the guns. And they shouldn't have tried to perform an arrest they couldn't do. He showed no disrespect for the law since the lawmen (police) weren't there. Just random hill billies with guns...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

If the suspect recognised the hillbillies' right to citizen's arrest, he might have surrendered. If ifs and buts were coconuts, we'd never starve.

Maybe random people shouldn't hold others at gunpoint. Especially when they had no right to. Or if they knew they couldn't restrain him without killing him.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

How? When someone says they're out to get milk, do you assume they're actually going something completely different? You have no reason to assume they're doing anything other than what they claim, you don't know them.

Depends on the person. If that person is known to lie, then I probably wouldn't believe them. Also, I have a harder time believing people I don't know about certain things. I wouldn't believe a random person who came up to me with a gun saying they wanted to perform a citizen's arrest. Not only that, but if I let them, then the police would probably think I did something since I did something idiotic like letting a random person arrest me. It actually looks worse for people. As for these guys, They can't really say they wanted to kill him. So, whether they actually wanted to perform a citizen's arrest or just kill him, they would definitely say the first. You say I don't know them, but the same goes for you. Neither of us know them. So, we can't really say what they were doing...

Also, theres a difference between someone saying theyre going out for milk, and theyre going to perform a citizens arrest. Going out for milk is a pretty normal and common thing. There are still reasons to suspect certain people of lying, but not all the time. But performing a citizens arrest is very rare. And pretty stupid, as well. So, I would have an easier time believing somebody going out for milk instead of performing a citizens arrest...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Pickone.

It's rock solid, it's predictable, it's consistent, it does not change. That means it doesn't mean anything else because you don't feel like it.

It was suppose to say isn't rock solid. There you go. Based on what I said earlier, it should have been easy to understand. People make typos.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Because the law is written text, you can't just really dislike a situation and suddenly it's illegal! You are arrested or not because of contradicting the law, not because of how nasty what you did was.

Then maybe the cops should do that. All they do is use emotion because this guy is their buddy. So, they twist the law to get the outcome they want instead of looking at it objectively. I think they were even saying stuff like don't arrest him because he's a nice guy or something. But it's ok if the people working on it use emotions. Just not anyone not on their side...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

...and proceeded to act within the law. Their emotion doesn't make their actions illegal.

It does, though. Doesn't the law state they have to see the crime or have immediate knowledge of it? Because I don't think they had either. They didn't see it happening, as they said they saw a video. And even then, there's laws on the amount of force they could use.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

No, they both had legal right to their actions.

They shouldn't have been pointing guns at him. They shouldn't have even been performing a citizen's arrest. You saying stuff like this is why people don't like you. You just troll the board constantly...
---

You guys are wasting your time typing up thoughtful, reasoned responses to Kyuubi.
Dude earns the tag I gave him more and more with each post.

Lol LinkPizza. You're giving him way too much attention. Nothing you say will convince him he is a lunatic.

"Attorney J. Elizabeth Graddy, who represents Larry English, owner of the home under construction, said a motion-activated camera installed at the site captured no criminal activity."

https://www.ajc.com/news/local/arbery-case-new-prosecutor-new-evidence-new-investigations-next/5aCejAF1AB23ZiDRFNHZrK/

@Kyuubi4269

Does this change anything for you or nah

sodium-chloride posted...

"Attorney J. Elizabeth Graddy, who represents Larry English, owner of the home under construction, said a motion-activated camera installed at the site captured no criminal activity."

https://www.ajc.com/news/local/arbery-case-new-prosecutor-new-evidence-new-investigations-next/5aCejAF1AB23ZiDRFNHZrK/

@Kyuubi4269

Does this change anything for you or nah

For some people it might but not for others. My question is what do the people that killed the jogger have to hide? After all if it really was self-defense, why did they want it swept under the rug or hidden? I'm starting to think that this is more of a revenge story than a self-defense, revenge on someone for something that was alleged years earlier (supposedly having stolen a gun out of one of the guys' truck when he was a kid) because they were found not guilty for THAT crime. The last I heard, trespassing on private property is a misdemeanor, unless you're a minority when it becomes punishable not by a fine or ticket, but by death at a vigilante's hands.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

And if you saw some guys going to a gun range and you started maniacally grabbing at their guns thinking they were gunman about to start a shooting, they would be within their rights to gun down what appears to be an immediate threat to their lives.

The fuck is wrong with you?

This isn't a gun range. This is two dudes jumping out of a truck to physically assault someone and that dude has no clue why.

SYG is a law that in my opinion is deeply rooted in racism period.

---

LinkPizza posted...

No. I said some people do have guns in their vehicles. But not all like you claim. Though, most of the time, the people carrying guns are headed somewhere to fire them safely. Like a range. Most are carrying them to go enact vigilante justice like you seem to think...

I didn't say all, but some do and he is some. Most are carrying them to a range, and he may have, but even you admit some have guns in their car and aren't going to a range.

LinkPizza posted...

And it sounds like they brought the guns for the arrest. Especially since they both had them.

They could have planned to go to the range then they got new information, you don't know.

LinkPizza posted...

if they thought he might have been armed, they was even more reason to call the cops.

Why not both? Also, the point of a citizens arrest is to stop the person before they escape, if they didn't stop him then there'd be no person for the police to catch. Presumably the homeowner called.

LinkPizza posted...

Though, even if he was armed, it wouldn't have been bug based on the clothes he was wearing

Or just sensible precautions against a presumed criminal. Your mom doesn't leave her gun behind when called on a burglary call, so why would this ex-cop?

LinkPizza posted...

There's plenty of reason to be silent. Like if they knew they were going to kill him. Or maybe hesitated on what they were going to say. Or because they didn't want to say anything.

That requires excess presumption. You need proof that was their intent or that something made him hesitate or chose to act differently from how people normally do.

LinkPizza posted...

Or maybe they did say something. Maybe they said, "We're going to kill you for breaking into all those houses." The fact is, we don't know what they said, or if they even said anything at all... You can just claim they probably said something because I think so. So we don't know they said anything. Nor do we know what they said if they even said something...

It's innocent until proven guilty for a reason. You presume the person acted the way they claimed or how a reasonable person would until there's evidence they did not. You don't go "Well, he looks like a nasty man so I'm going to imagine he was nasty", you have to assume they're a blank slate normal person.

LinkPizza posted...

And that was wrong of them. They aren't omnipotent, so they shouldn't have acted like they were.

They acted on what they believed to be good evidence, which is what we expect from people.

The suspect also wasn't omnipotent, so he acted wrongly in the grand scheme of things, but because we prosecute based on what they believed was happening, he was legally fine too despite grabbing the gun of a citizen who was acting entirely within the law.
---

LinkPizza posted...

They should have called actual police who could do things the right way.

Legally they could do what they did, so they did do it the "right" way.

LinkPizza posted...

Also, as far as anyone was concerned, he wasn't a felon (IIRC)...

As far as they were informed, he had commited a felony.

LinkPizza posted...

Broad daylight works for what they may have wanted to do. I mean, they are doing well so far, aren't they.

Because he grabbed at the gun, which people shouldn't do. Also I don't really consider a media circus and a witxh hunt "doing well". This is why murderers try to keep things quiet.

LinkPizza posted...

Also, from the looks of it, they are houses around where it happened. If they just wanted to kill him, why shoot up and damage other people's property, or accidentally kill someone.

That's what knives and house invasion are for. There are a million ways to kill somebody, this would be one of the worst, don't be dense.

LinkPizza posted...

Also, since they were following him, it's much easier to do during the day. And if they didn't know where he lived, they might not have been able to find him if they didn't do it then.

They cut him off when he didn't stop, the following stopped because he was non-compliant.

They could have followed to his house to find where he lives, that's not a valid argument. They chose to stop him in broad daylight, and if I was performing a citizens arrest, I'd want people to see so I had evidence. Turns out in this case the suspect immediately escalated to a firefight so self-defense was required.

LinkPizza posted...

And it seemed like he went to them, instead of them going to him.

Like he was lunging for the gun. They kept sufficient distance to avoid being disarmed and this is why.

LinkPizza posted...

And why do you keep mentioning running? It's not illegal to run from random strangers with guns. Especially since he was suppose to be out jogging anyway...

Because he was (knowingly or unknowingly) fleeing arrest. He gave the people coming to arrest him reason to believe he wouldn't comply so guns become important to force compliance.
---

LinkPizza posted...

No. They weren't. They aren't cops, so that means he had no reason to believe they were performing a citizen's arrest. Especially since it's a very abnormal thing to happen. Even if they said they were performing one (which they might not have said), there was no reason for him to believe that. Most people wouldn't. Most people would probably think it was a ploy to get someone to come closer for whatever reason (like a mugging, or killing, for example).

His perspective isn't relevant for the hillbillies' perspective, they aren't able to reas his mind and the law doesn't expect him to.

LinkPizza posted...

So, while he was justified, they were not. Especially since I don't think they were actually at the crime scene, were they? I just don't remember it saying anything like that in the articles I saw. But I don't really remember where he was in relation to the "crime scene".

No, they both acted legally off what the percieved. Change your laws if you don't like it. He was jogging away when he was informed of the house invasion, that's good reason to believe he was running from the crime scene.

LinkPizza posted...

Except you still might get shot. If it's a police, I'd feel fine complying. But a random person with a gun? I feel like they'll shoot me either way. As it happens a lot where I'm from.

Then where you're from is a shithole that trains people to act erratically. That doesn't mean the law doesn't protect citizens arrest.

LinkPizza posted...

They shouldn't have even used guns in the first place. That's escalating the situation. If they didn't think they could handle him without guns, they should have called the cops.

We're not dealing in shoulds and should nots, we're dealing in cans and cannots. They can perform a citizens arrest and they can bring a gun to protect themselves.

LinkPizza posted...

Just look at what's happening. It looks like they're trying to let killers go scot free.

That is how self-defense law works. It's how you're allowed to kill in the military. If a killing is legal, there is no punishment.

LinkPizza posted...

And it's probably because they're cop buddies who watch out for each other.

Prove it, otherwise it's slander.

LinkPizza posted...

The law is written so loosely that they could easily prosecute thees guys. But instead, they use the loosely written law to protect them instead. You keep saying the law is solid, but it's the exact opposite. It so flexible, they can bend the law to do whatever they want.

It's not flexible, it's lax. It means you could kill me the same way in self-defense and you would also get away with it. It has a wide catch net with a sharp edge, a good lawyer knows how to get their client comfortably in the centre.
---

LinkPizza posted...

People fight to change laws, but it's not easy. I've seen lawyer who talk about trying to change laws. But it takes a long time. And even then, it might not get changed.

That sucks for you buddy, still doesn't mean he acted illegally because you wish the law was different.

LinkPizza posted...

Just like the cops, you're bending the law so it fits you delusional ideas of these two being innocent. You're trying to victi blame so hard... And for no real reason. The only reason anyone here can think of is just you being you. Which means you're doing it just to be argumentative... Is saying stupid shit to get a rise out of people really that fun for you?

I'm pointing out what the law says, not what you want it to say. I'd like for you to understand how your country's law works instead of just blanket calling whitey racist because you don't understand it. You don't get to choose the game, you only get to choose how you play it.

LinkPizza posted...

They killed a person for no reason.

Self-defense.

LinkPizza posted...

He showed no disrespect for the law since the lawmen (police) weren't there.

Well shit, I never knew house invasion was legal as long as an active cop didn't see it!

LinkPizza posted...

Maybe random people shouldn't hold others at gunpoint. Especially when they had no right to. Or if they knew they couldn't restrain him without killing him.

They had the right, citizens arrest. Again though, fuck off with your shoulds.

LinkPizza posted...

Depends on the person. If that person is known to lie, then I probably wouldn't believe them.

It's a blank slate person, you know nothing about them or their history, go.

LinkPizza posted...

You say I don't know them, but the same goes for you. Neither of us know them. So, we can't really say what they were doing...

Innocent until proven guilty, bud.
---

LinkPizza posted...

Also, theres a difference between someone saying theyre going out for milk, and theyre going to perform a citizens arrest. Going out for milk is a pretty normal and common thing. There are still reasons to suspect certain people of lying, but not all the time. But performing a citizens arrest is very rare. And pretty stupid, as well. So, I would have an easier time believing somebody going out for milk instead of performing a citizens arrest...

I'm not asking if it's easier to believe somebody's going for milk or going to do a citizens arrest, I'm asking if it's more believable somebody's doing what they said, or doing something completely different but chose to tell you that for no discernable reason.

If you were going to kill somebody, I wouldn't expect you to tell me what you're up to.

LinkPizza posted...

It was suppose to say isn't rock solid. There you go. Based on what I said earlier, it should have been easy to understand. People make typos.

You saying two similar cases can be ruled two different ways means there's a sharp delineating edge that can differentiate between similar cases, this is rock solid. Your words showed you know it is solid so I hoped you would pick up on how your understanding of flexible is backwards.

LinkPizza posted...

Then maybe the cops should do that. All they do is use emotion because this guy is their buddy. So, they twist the law to get the outcome they want instead of looking at it objectively. I think they were even saying stuff like don't arrest him because he's a nice guy or something. But it's ok if the people working on it use emotions. Just not anyone not on their side...

They don't want to bring him to the station when they have sufficient proof already. Their emotions are only deciding if they need to act further than necessary to decide if it's worth taking in front of a judge. They know him already, they are character witnesses so they have a good idea as to whether his claims sound realistic and they believe his claim of acting legally is in line with how he was.

The law is defined and he is within it.

LinkPizza posted...

It does, though. Doesn't the law state they have to see the crime or have immediate knowledge of it? Because I don't think they had either. They didn't see it happening, as they said they saw a video. And even then, there's laws on the amount of force they could use.

The video is immediate knowledge and they used zero force until he attacked and then self-defense allowed deadly force.

LinkPizza posted...

They shouldn't have been pointing guns at him. They shouldn't have even been performing a citizen's arrest. You saying stuff like this is why people don't like you. You just troll the board constantly...

Again, your shouldn'ts aren't worth anything.

Feel free to call disagreement trolling all you want but you'd get a lot less if your argument was water tight.

sodium-chloride posted...

Does this change anything for you or nah

Not really, we'll see in court how valid any claims are.

GastroFan posted...

My question is what do the people that killed the jogger have to hide? After all if it really was self-defense, why did they want it swept under the rug or hidden?

A year long legal battle that'll drain all his retirement money?
---

BlackScythe0 posted...

The fuck is wrong with you?

This isn't a gun range. This is two dudes jumping out of a truck to physically assault someone and that dude has no clue why.

1) they didn't touch him, no assault occured.
2) his perspective isn't relevant, the shooter's perspective is what matters for determining self-defense. His perspective was a recorded criminal lunging at his gun, that's a threat to life and so he got a green light to shoot.

BUMPED2002 posted...

SYG is a law that in my opinion is deeply rooted in racism period.

I'm curious about this because we don't have that.
---

kyuubi is the type of person who would defend The Purge from those movies if it was real

"Its the law! It's OK!"

Jesus fucking christ dude. You are literally defending a murder. I can't belive you haven't been banned yet

Zikten posted...

kyuubi is the type of person who would defend The Purge from those movies if it was real

"Its the law! It's OK!"

That is literally the case.

This is like somebody killing during the purge then the next day everybody going "That's not cool, let's arrest him now even though we said it was legal yesterday!"
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

1) they didn't touch him, no assault occured.

LOL

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I didn't say all, but some do and he is some. Most are carrying them to a range, and he may have, but even you admit some have guns in their car and aren't going to a range.

I would believe that a little more it if they weren't out following him. So, it doesn't seem likely.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They could have planned to go to the range then they got new information, you don't know.

Sure. And you don't know they weren't out to go kill someone...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Why not both? Also, the point of a citizens arrest is to stop the person before they escape, if they didn't stop him then there'd be no person for the police to catch. Presumably the homeowner called.

They could do that without exiting the car. They could have actually called the cops sooner, as well. They also could have just kept following him. Maybe even to his house so they have a place to send the cops. But it seems like they decided against it. Which seems weird if they really thought he was armed.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Or just sensible precautions against a presumed criminal. Your mom doesn't leave her gun behind when called on a burglary call, so why would this ex-cop?

Because he's a citizen who shouldn't be out on burglary calls. Not a police officer anymore. The police should be going out on burglary calls. If he wanted to play cop again after not being one, then call the police first and go with them, instead of going out vigilante style with family.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That requires excess presumption. You need proof that was their intent or that something made him hesitate or chose to act differently from how people normally do.

The same goes for you, though. You're just assuming he said something for literally no reason at all.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's innocent until proven guilty for a reason. You presume the person acted the way they claimed or how a reasonable person would until there's evidence they did not. You don't go "Well, he looks like a nasty man so I'm going to imagine he was nasty", you have to assume they're a blank slate normal person.

Well, we already know they shot him. So, all that's left is to find out the circumstances around it. But it starts looking bad for the suspect when the police are lying and trying to sweep things under the rug, and not arresting the ones who actually did kill someone for months. As for assuming he's a blank slate, I don't have to. No one has to. And no one will. People has very strong bias. Even the juries. Not many people are going to see a blank slate person. If they know anything about the case, then they will most likely be thinking more in favor one way or the other before court starts. It doesn't really mean anything, though. I had a friend recently do jury duty. He got picked while I was lucky enough to not get picked. Even in his case, they said they knew the guy did it. But couldn't give him a guilty verdict. I've have to ask again why, but that's how it is. Even if you know someone's guilty, you can't always judge them that way...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They acted on what they believed to be good evidence, which is what we expect from people.

The suspect also wasn't omnipotent, so he acted wrongly in the grand scheme of things, but because we prosecute based on what they believed was happening, he was legally fine too despite grabbing the gun of a citizen who was acting entirely within the law.

Maybe you. Not me. I expect people to call the cops. Not act like cops because they think they have good evidence. That's the problem. They aren't cops. One may have been at some point, but not anymore. They shouldn't be acting like them. They should be calling them.

As for the victim (not suspect), he didn't act wrongly in the situation. He acted in self-defense. Though the real suspects (the killers) apparently weren't acting entirely within the law. I think they released something that said the video showing the victim had him doing nothing illegal. And if that's true, then they were legally acting within the law...
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Legally they could do what they did, so they did do it the "right" way.

And it sounds like they didn't...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

As far as they were informed, he had commited a felony.

Which means nothing. Since they was no proof of that. You being talking about no assuming, yet that's exactly what they did. Which you should do in a citizen's arrest. If you're not sure, they call the cops... Especialy since to make a citizen's arrest, you need to see the crime or have immediate knowledge. Which is sounds like they had neither.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Because he grabbed at the gun, which people shouldn't do. Also I don't really consider a media circus and a witxh hunt "doing well". This is why murderers try to keep things quiet.

They seem like they might get away with it. And for a murderer, that would be considered doing well. As for grabbing the gun, he had to try to save his life.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That's what knives and house invasion are for. There are a million ways to kill somebody, this would be one of the worst, don't be dense.

Knives are definitely close range weapons. And they probably do less damage than a gun. Not to mention, they probably had more guns available. So, using a gun to kill him makes more since. Don't be dense.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They cut him off when he didn't stop, the following stopped because he was non-compliant.

They could have followed to his house to find where he lives, that's not a valid argument. They chose to stop him in broad daylight, and if I was performing a citizens arrest, I'd want people to see so I had evidence. Turns out in this case the suspect immediately escalated to a firefight so self-defense was required.

Yes. As normal people would be. No one wants to just listen to stalkers with guns when they tell you what to do. Also, you don't follow him to perform a citizen's arrest. You follow him to tell the cops to arrest him.And it was a firefight or self-defense (for anyone except the victim). It was a killing.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Like he was lunging for the gun. They kept sufficient distance to avoid being disarmed and this is why.

What I'm saying is the victim went toward them in the video instead of them going to toward him to arrest, like you claim.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Because he was (knowingly or unknowingly) fleeing arrest. He gave the people coming to arrest him reason to believe he wouldn't comply so guns become important to force compliance.

Guns should not be used. Especially since civilians should go around threatening people, guilty or not. Only actually current law enforcement should. Are you really ok with civilian militias going around telling people what to do just because they have guns? And unknowingly "fleeing arrest" from civilians means nothing. As they aren't police and had no right to do what they did.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

His perspective isn't relevant for the hillbillies' perspective, they aren't able to reas his mind and the law doesn't expect him to.

And the law doesn't expect civilians to believe what other civilians are saying. They why they have police with uniforms. And why police even say to not just trust anybody. Like how police are telling people to not leave their cars and call the police when you see a body in the middle of the road. Or when you see a crime to call them immediately. I heard citizen's arrest can even make things more complicated. So, I don't really think they want people doing it. Citizen's arrest is apparently from medieval times...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

No, they both acted legally off what the percieved. Change your laws if you don't like it. He was jogging away when he was informed of the house invasion, that's good reason to believe he was running from the crime scene.

Haha. No it's not. I don't think you actually believe that bullshit that just came from your mouth. That is absolutely not a good enough reason... AT ALL!

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Then where you're from is a shithole that trains people to act erratically. That doesn't mean the law doesn't protect citizens arrest.

It's not the normal citizen's shooting people. It's the criminals. Normal people don't perform citizen's arrest. They call the police like they are suppose to. Like a normal person. And it happens more than where I am. Just because you don't hear about it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Sometimes, they are just labeled murders. I know about it because my mom tells me about stuff so I can protect myself.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

We're not dealing in shoulds and should nots, we're dealing in cans and cannots. They can perform a citizens arrest and they can bring a gun to protect themselves.

Except they weren't suppose to perform the citizen's arrest. And they weren't suppose to bring guns. Like I said, I believe there was a law talking about how much force could be used. And I don't think shooting or threatening injury or death was part of that force.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That is how self-defense law works. It's how you're allowed to kill in the military. If a killing is legal, there is no punishment.

Killing should be legal. And it shouldn't be self-defense for them. It should just be a manslaughter charge. You're one of the very few people who think it should be charged as self-defense...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Prove it, otherwise it's slander.

Read the articles. One of them said something about the a DA saying not to arrest them. I think they had 3 DAs say no because they didn't want to charge their friend. Whether or not they would have had to not take the case due to a conflict of interest, it shows the connections he has within the law system. As a retired cop, he also has ties to the police station. And only being arrested after the video leaked shows even more issues that the cops may have been trying to help him. Especially since the cops apparently lied to the family.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's not flexible, it's lax. It means you could kill me the same way in self-defense and you would also get away with it. It has a wide catch net with a sharp edge, a good lawyer knows how to get their client comfortably in the centre.

The problem is when the good lawyer is help the wrong people. The law is easily twisted to fit whatever people want it to fit. It's also easier when you have the cops helping you...
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That sucks for you buddy, still doesn't mean he acted illegally because you wish the law was different.

But it still does mean he did as he didn't follow the proper procedures for a citizen's arrest. And ignorance shouldn't help him if he was wrong about the crime.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I'm pointing out what the law says, not what you want it to say. I'd like for you to understand how your country's law works instead of just blanket calling whitey racist because you don't understand it. You don't get to choose the game, you only get to choose how you play it.

How about don't put words in my mouth? When did I ever say they were definitely racist. Even earlier on, I said I didn't care about skin color. I care because they waited so long to arrest them. You've used the race card more than I have in this conversation. Maybe you should check your own self before insulting other. And you can point out what the law says all you want. It doesn't matter if they didn't follow them...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Self-defense.

Only the victim had that. They shouldn't...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Well shit, I never knew house invasion was legal as long as an active cop didn't see it!

Sure it is. But what did he do that was illegal? And where did he show disrespect to the law? And if you're going to the say the killers, they aren't the law, just to let you know...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They had the right, citizens arrest. Again though, fuck off with your shoulds.

How about fuck off with "They had the right"? For a citizen's arrest, you are suppose to use the minimum force required. They went straight to guns. They shouldn't have. Also, as said earlier, Apparently, he did nothing wrong in the video he was in. According to to owner's attorney, the camera caught no illegal activity...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

It's a blank slate person, you know nothing about them or their history, go.

Then I definitely wouldn't believe them. Mainly because I don't know them. Why would I just believe anybody?

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Innocent until proven guilty, bud.

Sure. And hopefully, they're guilty. I'm not on the jury, so I'll just believe what I want for now. Maybe their attorney can convince me otherwise, but I doubt it...
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

I'm not asking if it's easier to believe somebody's going for milk or going to do a citizens arrest, I'm asking if it's more believable somebody's doing what they said, or doing something completely different but chose to tell you that for no discernable reason.

If you were going to kill somebody, I wouldn't expect you to tell me what you're up to.

Exactly. If you were going to kill somebody, you would lie. That's the whole point. As for believing someone, it depends on a lot of things. For example, with citizen's arrest being so rare, I wouldn't believe a person who says they were out performing one unless I knew that person and knew they would do something like that. It's not something I would believe from most people.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

You saying two similar cases can be ruled two different ways means there's a sharp delineating edge that can differentiate between similar cases, this is rock solid. Your words showed you know it is solid so I hoped you would pick up on how your understanding of flexible is backwards.

No. I said it was flexible earlier. Which is different that rock solid. The reason I said two similar cases could be rules differently is because the law is flexible enough for one case to be ruled one way, and another to be ruled another way. There's no sharp edge. Just flimsy laws that can go either way because they are written poorly, or just bad laws in general. Idk what you're talking about...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

They don't want to bring him to the station when they have sufficient proof already. Their emotions are only deciding if they need to act further than necessary to decide if it's worth taking in front of a judge. They know him already, they are character witnesses so they have a good idea as to whether his claims sound realistic and they believe his claim of acting legally is in line with how he was.

The law is defined and he is within it.

Doesn't seem like that. They apparently lied to the family. And didn't even do anything with the two guys until after the video leaked. It looks more like they were trying to protect someone rather than looking for evidence. I think an article even said someone was asking them not arrest him...

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The video is immediate knowledge and they used zero force until he attacked and then self-defense allowed deadly force.

Except the video apparently didn't show him doing anything illegal. Meaning they acting out of the law. And using a gun to threaten isn't zero force.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Again, your shouldn'ts aren't worth anything.

Feel free to call disagreement trolling all you want but you'd get a lot less if your argument was water tight.

Shouldn't do matter when the courts say it, though. If the courts tell them they shouldn't have, then that will matter.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Post #123 to Post #127

You do know you can reply to each quote with more writing instead of breaking up each quote into multiple quotes, right? Or is this part of you trolling, as well.

Zikten posted...

kyuubi is the type of person who would defend The Purge from those movies if it was real

"Its the law! It's OK!"

Jesus fucking christ dude. You are literally defending a murder. I can't belive you haven't been banned yet

I wouldn't worry about it too much. He's just a bad person...
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

That is literally the case.

This is like somebody killing during the purge then the next day everybody going "That's not cool, let's arrest him now even though we said it was legal yesterday!"

Lmfao he just defended the fucking purge

---

Dude LinkPizza you are giving Kyuubi way too much attention lmao.

I still find it funny that he called me the racist.
---

EvilMegas posted...

This'll be good.

Told y'all

---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

1) they didn't touch him, no assault occured.
2) his perspective isn't relevant, the shooter's perspective is what matters for determining self-defense. His perspective was a recorded criminal lunging at his gun, that's a threat to life and so he got a green light to shoot.

I'm curious about this because we don't have that.

Objectively false

how are you this desperate for attention

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

Lmfao he just defended the fucking purge

On the one hand, I'm horrified and appalled.

On the other hand, I'm morbidly curious what else he'll claim was fine because "it was the law."

I wonder if he'd defend the Fugitive Slave Act?

streamofthesky posted...

On the one hand, I'm horrified and appalled.

On the other hand, I'm morbidly curious what else he'll claim was fine because "it was the law."

I wonder if he'd defend the Fugitive Slave Act?

Based on what he's said so far, I'm sure he'd agree with anything that was considered law...
---

Bulbasaur posted...

remember: the only reason those guys got arrested in the first place isn't because they murdered a guy, but because the public saw the video where they murdered a guy.

---

Wow, everybody in the thread doesn't know the difference between the law and morals.
---

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Wow, everybody in the thread doesn't know the difference between the law and morals.

Says the guy making bizarre fantasy based arguments.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/us/ahmaud-arbery-wednesday-surveillance-video/index.html

---

"But no string of break-ins wasreported in more than seven weeks prior to Arbery's death and there was only a burglary report after a gun was stolen from an unlocked vehicle in front of the McMichaels' home, police said."

Cool, what else are they lying about?

---

Don't expect kyuubi to reply to that. I @ him yesterday and never replied lol

BlackScythe0 posted...

Says the guy making bizarre fantasy based arguments.

You mean referencing the law and offering plausible explanations beyond "Well why wouldn't whitey want to execute a black man for jogging?"

sodium-chloride posted...

Don't expect kyuubi to reply to that. I @ him yesterday and never replied lol

See post 124, bud.
---