• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Attempt at a 'Citizen's Arrest' in Georgia by 3 White Vigilantes results in death for 1 Black Man

jotathought said:
Insult aside, we know that Arbery had a criminal history and mental illness, we know Arbery was coincidentally running in the same neighborhood following a 911 call, which identified a black man burglarizing a newly constructed home in the neighborhood and we know that Arbery violently attacked the son when they asked Arbery to stop for questioning. We also know there was no probable cause to hold the men in custody.

What is unsettling is when one jumps to conclusions before they know the detail.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that Arbery was aware of any of those things in that context? How did he know what his attackers thought? They certainly didnt know his record.

And Arbery isnt (wasnt) in remotely responsible for any assumptions that his attackers made of his jogging in the neighborhood.

I'd speculate that their verbal attempts to get him to stop jogging were not particularly polite and would have seemed quite threatening. If he saw their firearms....shotgun's hard to hide...he wouldnt even have had the option to run away/escape.




This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Trippy Trekker said:
View attachment 67279500

On the left, the two white vigilante killers of Ahmaud Arbery. They still remain free.



VIGILANTE KILLERS OF BLACK MAN IN GEORGIA ARE FREE BECAUSE THEY ARE WHITE | Black Star News



Mom of Ahmaud Arbery says he was chased and shot to death while jogging: "An arrest should have been made" - CBS News

Well, dang! Arbery's past included a shoplifting conviction, the perps claim to have acted within the scope of Georgia's Citizen's Arrest Statute, and perp, Gregory McMichael, use to work as an investigator for the local State Attorney.

By Georgia standards, maybe the situation does not merit charges? Heck, why make a court case out of just one dead Black Man with a cloudy past who resisted 3 Good White Men?
Click to expand...

I’ll wait for the whole story to be out. I’ve seen enough fake cases and lies from the black lives matter crowd (Trayvon, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray) that at this point any time I see one of these stories I just assume the narrative isn’t true.
 
Aberration said:
You can’t assault people for being in your face.
Click to expand...

According to some interpretations of SYG laws, yeah you can. These guys tried to stop him and they were armed. If he felt threatened, he knew he couldnt outrun a bullet but maybe he could disarm one and get a firearm. :shrug:




This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
EMNofSeattle said:
I’ll wait for the whole story to be out. I’ve seen enough fake cases and lies from the black lives matter crowd (Trayvon, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray) that at this point any time I see one of these stories I just assume the narrative isn’t true.
Click to expand...

If an indictment comes down, the McMichael family might borrow the playbook from the Florida-based Curtis Reeves trial. In that case, the shooting occurred more than 6 years ago.
 
AmNat said:
They stated that they identified him as a burglary suspect based on footage from security cameras.

I get it though, you're offended that a white person defended themselves from a black criminal. And you're doubly offended that they haven't been punished for defending themselves.
Click to expand...

When/where did this burglary occur?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lursa said:
According to some interpretations of SYG laws, yeah you can. These guys tried to stop him and they were armed. If he felt threatened, he knew he couldnt outrun a bullet but maybe he could disarm one and get a firearm. :shrug:
Click to expand...

I have not read those interpretations. Standing ground refers to not retreating from reasonable threats. I don’t see how that would apply to someone in your face. How did they try and stop him? If it’s simply yelling at him to stop... Re-read the report. Missed him actually having the shotgun when exiting. Depends a lot on how they presented that shotgun.
 
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle said:
I’ll wait for the whole story to be out. I’ve seen enough fake cases and lies from the black lives matter crowd (Trayvon, Michael Brown, Freddie Gray) that at this point any time I see one of these stories I just assume the narrative isn’t true.
Click to expand...

It's been 73 days since his death..... How long should the family wait?
 
AmNat said:
Breaking and entering isn't a crime most people would have trouble identifying.
Click to expand...


Where did this breaking and entering in this case occur? They couldn't seem to be able to tell the 911 dispatcher..
 
There's video. It's disturbing.
 
Bok_Tukalo said:
There's video. It's disturbing.
Click to expand...

And the police and DA have been in possession of the video since the day of the shooting and refused to release it... It was leaked yesterday...
 
Aberration said:
It was just a confrontation. Zimmerman disobeying ‘orders’ has no bearing on Martin assaulting Zimmerman. You can make all the assumptions you want. But how you choose to act on those assumption might not give the results you anticipate.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. Do you “law abiding” people ever actually read into cases objectively? Or is it only white people that get to break the law? The actual police told numbnutz to stop yet he disobeyed orders. I’d have beaten the **** out of him too. I could say the exact same thing about Zimmerman.
 
A lot of dip**** ‘muricans think they have more authority than they actually have.
 
Aberration said:
I have not read those interpretations. Standing ground refers to not retreating from reasonable threats. I don’t see how that would apply to someone in your face. How did they try and stop him? If it’s simply yelling at him to stop... Re-read the report. Missed him actually having the shotgun when exiting. Depends a lot on how they presented that shotgun.
Click to expand...

It applied to the dead guy, who was confronted.

And it does depend on how they tried to stop him. If he saw firearms and demanded he stop...? That's a lethal threat from strangers.




This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa
Click to expand...
 
bomberfox said:
Yes it does. Do you “law abiding” people ever actually read into cases objectively? Or is it only white people that get to break the law? The actual police told numbnutz to stop yet he disobeyed orders. I’d have beaten the **** out of him too. I could say the exact same thing about Zimmerman.
Click to expand...

Zimmerman obeyed the dispatcher, you can actually hear him returning to the car and opening the door and climbing back inside after the dispatcher tells him this. It’s Martin who came to the scene to fight

Also you apparently have no idea what “objective” even means. It is an objective fact that there is no legal obligation to obey a police dispatcher, it is also an objective fact that it is irrelevant since Trayvon had no idea what Zimmerman was told by a dispatcher and thus a case for Martin acting in Self Defense cannot be based on that fact .
 
Last edited:
EMNofSeattle said:
Zimmerman obeyed the dispatcher, you can actually hear him returning to the car and opening the door and climbing back inside after the dispatcher tells him this. It’s Martin who came to the scene to fight

Also you apparently have no idea what “objective” even means. It is an objective fact that there is no legal obligation to obey a police dispatcher, it is also an objective fact that it is irrelevant since Trayvon had no idea what Zimmerman was told by a dispatcher and thus a case for Martin acting in Self Defense cannot be based on that fact .
Click to expand...

Continuing to pursue Martin was disobeying the officer. Zimmerman was continuing to pursue Martin when he was told not to. Zimmerman had absolutely no legal authority to pursue Martin but hey a black kid in a hoodie is awful suspicious apparently. Yes you have to obey orders when you are given them by the police.
 
This is the problem. White people have the privilege to act like they have the legal authority to enforce the law and “help” the police, like they are the perfect arbiters of justice when odds are these wannabe cops have no ****ing clue. We have a goddamn justice system for a reason. This is how lynching was done.
 
bomberfox said:
Continuing to pursue Martin was disobeying the officer. Zimmerman was continuing to pursue Martin when he was told not to. Zimmerman had absolutely no legal authority to pursue Martin but hey a black kid in a hoodie is awful suspicious apparently. Yes you have to obey orders when you are given them by the police.
Click to expand...

He did not continue to pursue Martin until Martin returner To the car to confront Zimmerman which was after the phone call.

No, you do not have to obey a police dispatcher. Most police dispatchers are not police officers and also they have no authority to make commands even when they are since they are not on the scene. Also the dispatcher never commanded Zimmerman to do anything. There is simply no argument you can make on this point. You’re wrong no matter which angle you take it.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
He did not continue to pursue Martin until Martin returner To the car to confront Zimmerman which was after the phone call.

No, you do not have to obey a police dispatcher. Most police dispatchers are not police officers and also they have no authority to make commands even when they are since they are not on the scene. Also the dispatcher never commanded Zimmerman to do anything. There is simply no argument you can make on this point. You’re wrong no matter which angle you take it.
Click to expand...

Actually police dispatchers know more about how to handle a situation than an untrained nobody. Im actually going to request some evidence on your claim of not having to obey the orders of a dispatcher thanks.

George Zimmerman's actions set a bad precedent - Sun Sentinel

Family of Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch seeks arrest - Reuters
This is the problem with people playing cop.
 
Last edited:
bomberfox said:
Actually police dispatchers know more about how to handle a situation than an untrained nobody. Im actually going to request some evidence on your claim of not having to obey the orders of a dispatcher thanks.

George Zimmerman's actions set a bad precedent - Sun Sentinel

Family of Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch seeks arrest - Reuters
This is the problem with people playing cop.
Click to expand...

Your sources are wrong. The initial narrative of Z confronting Martin was made by the Martin’s family attorney and not by investigators. The chain of events was conclusively proven at trial.

That’s not how law works. You need to prove that you are legally obligated to follow a dispatcher’s instructions.

Even if you were , Martin still was not justified in attacking Zimmerman. Martin had no idea the police were even called and thus couldn’t use Zimmerman’s response to requests to justify attacking him
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Your sources are wrong. The initial narrative of Z confronting Martin was made by the Martin’s family attorney and not by investigators. The chain of events was conclusively proven at trial.

That’s not how law works. You need to prove that you are legally obligated to follow a dispatcher’s instructions.

Even if you were , Martin still was not justified in attacking Zimmerman. Martin had no idea the police were even called and thus couldn’t use Zimmerman’s response to requests to justify attacking him
Click to expand...

That is how positive claims work :). You made a positive claim that he didnt have to obey the dispatcher so the burden of proof is on you. Martin is justified in attacking Zimmerman because Zimmerman was stalking Martin based on nothing but assumptions. If Zimmerman had not tried to play cop, this wouldnot have happened now would it? You stalk me with a deadly weapon, i am within my rights to defend myself.

Zimmerman actually stalked Martin to his own home.
 
Last edited:
bomberfox said:
That is how positive claims work :). You made a positive claim that he didnt have to obey the dispatcher so the burden of proof is on you.
Click to expand...

Yours is the positive claim. Dispatchers have no authority over private citizens.

Martin is justified in attacking Zimmerman because Zimmerman was stalking Martin based on nothing but assumptions. If Zimmerman had not tried to play cop, this wouldnot have happened now would it? You stalk me with a deadly weapon, i am within my rights to defend myself.
Click to expand...

We can't equate what Zimmerman did and what kidnappers did in this thread. If Zimmerman produced his firearm and told Martin that he could not leave, then Martin, as sure as the actual victim in this case, would have the right to employ lethal force. One cannot employ lethal force without a forcible felony, and without and gun and "stop" there's no forcible felony.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Yours is the positive claim. Dispatchers have no authority over private citizens.



We can't equate what Zimmerman did and what kidnappers did in this thread. If Zimmerman produced his firearm and told Martin that he could not leave, then Martin, as sure as the actual victim in this case, would have the right to employ lethal force. One cannot employ lethal force without a forcible felony, and without and gun and "stop" there's no forcible felony.
Click to expand...

The equating is people playing cop when they have absolutely no authority to do so and the stalking of an unarmed person with weapons. My claim is actually he disobeyed orders that dispatchers clearly gave him.

The positive claim is that he didnt have to listen to the dispatchers which has yet to be proven.
 
bomberfox said:
The equating is people playing cop when they have absolutely no authority to do so.
Click to expand...

The specifics are important. Detaining someone while brandishing a firearm is a forcible felony. It presents a situation from which there is no possible escape.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom