JOGGING WHILE BLACK

[Clang McFly]

You are exhausting.

I'm just getting warmed up. 

Indeed. I just realized who you remind me of....Oswald.

https://youtu.be/ruRYa5KLVNU

[rothschild]

You are exhausting.

I'm just getting warmed up. 

Indeed. I just realized who you remind me of....Oswald.

https://youtu.be/ruRYa5KLVNU

Oswald?

[username]

Without going through the exact wording there’s the “reasonable person” expectation:

“All members of the community owe a duty to act as a reasonable person in undertaking or avoiding actions with the risk to harm others”.

Georgia has changed its citizen arrest law but there will always be assholes who act unreasonably and then look for the loopholes in the laws. Glad they didn’t skate.

Someone who doesn't bend over backwards for criminals is an "asshole"? Really?

Your homey was on parole when he was trespassing, and was shot as he attempted to grab McMichael's firearm.

If you were consistent you'd be working to legalize trespassing, because it's "harmless", right?

Stop making shit up. I said “assholes who act unreasonably”. I’m pretty sure the confederate flag carrying pricks who chased him were assholes to begin with (nobody I’d want to hang with) but their unreasonable actions are what landed them in jail. 
After chasing him for so many minutes they basically cut him off and cornered him. Why wouldn’t he try to grab the firearm? Did he not have the right to defend himself? Hmmm, because he was black and jogging? IIRC the defendants didn’t bring up the citizens arrest claim until weeks if not months after the event.

[Duchess]

Those fuckers got exactly what they deserve and I have no doubt being locked up surrounded by blacks will be hell on earth for them. I'm sick of so many of those fuckin' crackers thinking their way is the only way simply because they are white.

[BigMark]

Usually the truth is somewhere in the middle.

[rothschild]

Without going through the exact wording there’s the “reasonable person” expectation:

“All members of the community owe a duty to act as a reasonable person in undertaking or avoiding actions with the risk to harm others”.

Georgia has changed its citizen arrest law but there will always be assholes who act unreasonably and then look for the loopholes in the laws. Glad they didn’t skate.

Someone who doesn't bend over backwards for criminals is an "asshole"? Really?

Your homey was on parole when he was trespassing, and was shot as he attempted to grab McMichael's firearm.

If you were consistent you'd be working to legalize trespassing, because it's "harmless", right?

Stop making shit up. I said “assholes who act unreasonably”. I’m pretty sure the confederate flag carrying pricks who chased him were assholes to begin with (nobody I’d want to hang with) but their unreasonable actions are what landed them in jail. 
After chasing him for so many minutes they basically cut him off and cornered him. Why wouldn’t he try to grab the firearm? Did he not have the right to defend himself? Hmmm, because he was black and jogging? IIRC the defendants didn’t bring up the citizens arrest claim until weeks if not months after the event.

Maybe they all got what they deserved, which was my takeaway from the Trayvon Martin incident. As for citizen arrests, that was referenced in the initial prosecutors report, which I posted a link to.

But hey, libcunt commando, let's not stop at legalizing trespassing, let's end the racist criminalization of breaking and entering. People who break into your home aren't criminals, they're human beings coming to visit you, and you should show them the same courtesy you extend to friends and family. So stop locking your doors and windows, because that's racist!

[Duchess]

People in America can't just arm themselves like they are in a damn posse and hunt down someone they think perpetrated something. They were the aggressor. 

[rothschild]

People in America can't just arm themselves like they are in a damn posse and hunt down someone they think perpetrated something. They were the aggressor. 

The law in effect at the time of the shooting allowed for that very thing. Considering it goes back to the civil war era, and was most certainly used for rounding up escaped slaves, you'd think that the libs in Georgia would have taken it upon themselves to update or abolish it decades ago.

Why is it that libs don't think trespassing is aggressive? Arbery would still be alive if he'd kept his nose clean -- which you would think he'd be inclined to do, being on probation. Dewd was arrested for trying to shoplift a tv at Walmart, and was convicted of gun possession in school. He resisted arrest and injured an officer in the process, and was still given leniency, being allowed to serve his sentence on probation. So this was a man you would NOT want to have prowling around your neighborhood -- day or night. He was NOT a jogger. He had serious mental health issues, for which he chose to not take his prescribed medication.

In short, he was not long for this world, given the path he chose to walk.

[Duchess]

I would think that ALL people would have wanted it changed to reflect society and not just those with liberal politics.

[rothschild]

I would think that ALL people would have wanted it changed to reflect society and not just those with liberal politics.

This is why I hate the people who have used propaganda to polarize society to the point that it's almost impossible to have reasoned discussion. It's not for no reason that "wedge issues" are called that.

[username]

Without going through the exact wording there’s the “reasonable person” expectation:

“All members of the community owe a duty to act as a reasonable person in undertaking or avoiding actions with the risk to harm others”.

Georgia has changed its citizen arrest law but there will always be assholes who act unreasonably and then look for the loopholes in the laws. Glad they didn’t skate.

Someone who doesn't bend over backwards for criminals is an "asshole"? Really?

Your homey was on parole when he was trespassing, and was shot as he attempted to grab McMichael's firearm.

If you were consistent you'd be working to legalize trespassing, because it's "harmless", right?

Stop making shit up. I said “assholes who act unreasonably”. I’m pretty sure the confederate flag carrying pricks who chased him were assholes to begin with (nobody I’d want to hang with) but their unreasonable actions are what landed them in jail. 
After chasing him for so many minutes they basically cut him off and cornered him. Why wouldn’t he try to grab the firearm? Did he not have the right to defend himself? Hmmm, because he was black and jogging? IIRC the defendants didn’t bring up the citizens arrest claim until weeks if not months after the event.

Maybe they all got what they deserved, which was my takeaway from the Trayvon Martin incident. As for citizen arrests, that was referenced in the initial prosecutors report, which I posted a link to.

But hey, libcunt commando, let's not stop at legalizing trespassing, let's end the racist criminalization of breaking and entering. People who break into your home aren't criminals, they're human beings coming to visit you, and you should show them the same courtesy you extend to friends and family. So stop locking your doors and windows, because that's racist! 

There ya’ go again, putting words in my mouth. Plus taking a hard ride down your own made up slippery slope. I didn’t say trespassing should be made legal and I certainly didn’t suggest intruders should be invited into one’s home. You’re desperately reaching ya’ cuntservative redneck. I have no problem with people REASONABLY defending themselves or their property. Or intervening if they witness a crime. This case wasn’t that (regardless of what you think about Aubrey’s criminal history). There was much about the defendant’s racist histories that wasn’t allowed in trial. The jury found them guilty despite the fact that the prosecution didn’t spend more than a moment talking about race in closing arguments.

[rothschild]

Without going through the exact wording there’s the “reasonable person” expectation:

“All members of the community owe a duty to act as a reasonable person in undertaking or avoiding actions with the risk to harm others”.

Georgia has changed its citizen arrest law but there will always be assholes who act unreasonably and then look for the loopholes in the laws. Glad they didn’t skate.

Someone who doesn't bend over backwards for criminals is an "asshole"? Really?

Your homey was on parole when he was trespassing, and was shot as he attempted to grab McMichael's firearm.

If you were consistent you'd be working to legalize trespassing, because it's "harmless", right?

Stop making shit up. I said “assholes who act unreasonably”. I’m pretty sure the confederate flag carrying pricks who chased him were assholes to begin with (nobody I’d want to hang with) but their unreasonable actions are what landed them in jail. 
After chasing him for so many minutes they basically cut him off and cornered him. Why wouldn’t he try to grab the firearm? Did he not have the right to defend himself? Hmmm, because he was black and jogging? IIRC the defendants didn’t bring up the citizens arrest claim until weeks if not months after the event.

Maybe they all got what they deserved, which was my takeaway from the Trayvon Martin incident. As for citizen arrests, that was referenced in the initial prosecutors report, which I posted a link to.

But hey, libcunt commando, let's not stop at legalizing trespassing, let's end the racist criminalization of breaking and entering. People who break into your home aren't criminals, they're human beings coming to visit you, and you should show them the same courtesy you extend to friends and family. So stop locking your doors and windows, because that's racist! 

There ya’ go again, putting words in my mouth. Plus taking a hard ride down your own made up slippery slope. I didn’t say trespassing should be made legal and I certainly didn’t suggest intruders should be invited into one’s home. You’re desperately reaching ya’ cuntservative redneck. I have no problem with people REASONABLY defending themselves or their property. Or intervening if they witness a crime. This case wasn’t that (regardless of what you think about Aubrey’s criminal history). There was much about the defendant’s racist histories that wasn’t allowed in trial. The jury found them guilty despite the fact that the prosecution didn’t spend more than a moment talking about race in closing arguments.

I know you didn't, cuntypoo, I'm saying if you were consistent with your librul, dewshbag sensibilities, you WOULD do those things. But consistency isn't something librul dewshbags are terribly familiar with -- surprise surprise.

They were within the boundaries of the law that was on the books when Arbery's time expired. The reason that jury convicted is because the Judge left it in their hands to interpret the law, which may come back to bite him in the ass. Judges interpret law, Juries interpret evidence. Capiche?

[username]

I’m an independent which is something you might not comprehend. Neither a liberal or conservative (so fuck you for trying to pigeonhole my opinions on this specific case).

Their claims under the former citizens arrest law and self defense didn’t hold up. They hadn’t witnessed any crime and they were the aggressors. If you think you can find some excuse for what they did in nit picking the legalese, good for you but I’m pleased justice isn’t always blind. 

I didn’t know you were so obtuse.

[rothschild]

I’m an independent which is something you might not comprehend. Neither a liberal or conservative (so fuck you for trying to pigeonhole my opinions on this specific case).

Their claims under the former citizens arrest law and self defense didn’t hold up. They hadn’t witnessed any crime and they were the aggressors. If you think you can find some excuse for what they did in nit picking the legalese, good for you but I’m pleased justice isn’t always blind. 

I didn’t know you were so obtuse.

You're wrong again. Travis DID witness Arbery trespassing at least one time, and wouldn't you know it, dewd was trespassing the day his life expired.

That law clearly allowed for citizen arrests with respect to misdemeanors. Were that not the case there'd have been no stipulation for having to witness an offense, as felonies only require probable cause. If you don't care about the letter of the law -- which I personally think is secondary to the spirit of the law -- then maybe you're more OK with vigilante justice than you think you are. Either way, I think you're a twit.

[username]

But tell me how exactly they attempted to carry out a legal citizens arrest?

When Can a Private Citizen Make an Arrest?

Most states authorize private citizens to make arrests if the suspect:

has actually committed a felony, or
is committing a breach-of-the-peace misdemeanor in the presence of the citizen. Whether a misdemeanor breaches the peace is typically a case-by-case determination—for example, illegally carrying a firearm might qualify. (But it's generally not a good idea to try to personally arrest someone carrying a gun!)
While state laws vary, many states require the citizen to turn over the suspect to the police without delay. (The citizen cannot take justice into his or her own hands.)

Not the best quote I could find but they didn’t do that. Their actions were unreasonable.

[rothschild]

But tell me how exactly they attempted to carry out a legal citizens arrest?

When Can a Private Citizen Make an Arrest?

Most states authorize private citizens to make arrests if the suspect:

has actually committed a felony, or
is committing a breach-of-the-peace misdemeanor in the presence of the citizen. Whether a misdemeanor breaches the peace is typically a case-by-case determination—for example, illegally carrying a firearm might qualify. (But it's generally not a good idea to try to personally arrest someone carrying a gun!)
While state laws vary, many states require the citizen to turn over the suspect to the police without delay. (The citizen cannot take justice into his or her own hands.)

Not the best quote I could find but they didn’t do that. Their actions were unreasonable.

Here's the initial prosecutor's report. Worth a read, IMO.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/...d/full.pdf


Here's the Georgia statute re citizen arrests:

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.


It dates back to the Civil War, and was definitely in need of updating, being very broad and ambiguous.

[MirahM]

I'm not going through and reading this shit from you again. It is exhausting. Have you picked up on my consistency yet?

Did those fuckers know that Ahmed had been in that house that day when they decided to chase him down? Even if they did, it is still fucked up, and you know it.

You also know that we don't support tresspassing or criminal activity and that we believe in defending ourselves. Stop acting like we don't.

[MirahM]

Also..as I already posted before:

Police records show one report of theft in the neighbourhood between 1 January and 23 February 2020, US media report. That incident involved Travis McMichael's pistol going missing from the family's unlocked pickup truck on 1 January.

[username]

But tell me how exactly they attempted to carry out a legal citizens arrest?

When Can a Private Citizen Make an Arrest?

Most states authorize private citizens to make arrests if the suspect:

has actually committed a felony, or
is committing a breach-of-the-peace misdemeanor in the presence of the citizen. Whether a misdemeanor breaches the peace is typically a case-by-case determination—for example, illegally carrying a firearm might qualify. (But it's generally not a good idea to try to personally arrest someone carrying a gun!)
While state laws vary, many states require the citizen to turn over the suspect to the police without delay. (The citizen cannot take justice into his or her own hands.)

Not the best quote I could find but they didn’t do that. Their actions were unreasonable.

Here's the initial prosecutor's report. Worth a read, IMO.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/...d/full.pdf


Here's the Georgia statute re citizen arrests:

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.


It dates back to the Civil War, and was definitely in need of updating, being very broad and ambiguous.

Yeah not too impressed with the initial prosecutor’s report. Of course they were going to write a CYA narrative that supported their decision not to charge.

And when you say the law was not only dated but “ambiguous” you’re just confirming that it was open to some interpretation. Ergo, the jury interpreted it and probably factored in the reasonable person expectation. Rightfully so.

[rothschild]

But tell me how exactly they attempted to carry out a legal citizens arrest?

When Can a Private Citizen Make an Arrest?

Most states authorize private citizens to make arrests if the suspect:

has actually committed a felony, or
is committing a breach-of-the-peace misdemeanor in the presence of the citizen. Whether a misdemeanor breaches the peace is typically a case-by-case determination—for example, illegally carrying a firearm might qualify. (But it's generally not a good idea to try to personally arrest someone carrying a gun!)
While state laws vary, many states require the citizen to turn over the suspect to the police without delay. (The citizen cannot take justice into his or her own hands.)

Not the best quote I could find but they didn’t do that. Their actions were unreasonable.

Here's the initial prosecutor's report. Worth a read, IMO.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/...d/full.pdf


Here's the Georgia statute re citizen arrests:

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.


It dates back to the Civil War, and was definitely in need of updating, being very broad and ambiguous.

Yeah not too impressed with the initial prosecutor’s report. Of course they were going to write a CYA narrative that supported their decision not to charge.

And when you say the law was not only dated but “ambiguous” you’re just confirming that it was open to some interpretation. Ergo, the jury interpreted it and probably factored in the reasonable person expectation. Rightfully so.

You're showing a serious degree of ignorance with respect to criminal/civil law: It is NOT the role of a jury to interpret law. Their function is to interpret the *evidence* presented at trial. Interpretation of law is reserved exclusively for judges. So the ambiguity should have been resolved BEFORE the jury began deliberations.