testtest

Ahmaud Arbery Shooting

Keystone19250 said:
The 2nd amendment gives law abiding citizens of the USA the right to keep and bear arms. It does not grant those same Americans The right to use those weapons to be a vigilante. Those two men took the law into their own hands and became judge, jury and executioner.
As xdman noted in the Zimmerman case that action has done nothing but set us back on the fight to keep the 2nd amendment going in the defense of law abiding citizens. This is a travesty and murder.
Click to expand...

Perspective: I had a .22 before I had a bike. Packs of kids walked through my neighborhood with rifles. Obviously a different time and place. I never really think about 2A or worry about it. I admit I take this situation differently than most. My perspective is zero emotion and the races to me do not even matter.

I’m telling you guys, when a jury has to decide who started a confrontation where an armed person is attacked by an unarmed person, this guy will walk. Watch. There’s more to this, and like it or not, it does not look good for the jogger’s family, or the millions of hysterical bots wanting “justice”. The only way those guys will be convicted is if it’s proven he was jogging. His criminal record is irrelevant if he was jogging. If he was running around in houses and acting crazy, they’ll walk. It’s one or the other. I don’t care. I just want people to be sensible and stop the hysterics. It’s destroying our country.
 
HansGruber said:
Right.

So in this situation, a man has a right to drive up to you, get out, and point a gun at you...and If you try to defend yourself, it’s your fault?

I dont think I want to live in your world...sounds like one of pure thuggery, to me.
Click to expand...

Watch the video. It wasn’t pointed at him until he was running at the guy at the earliest. It looked to me that the shooter pulled the gun up at the same time two fists were hitting his head. Watch it and maybe I’m wrong.
 
The real problem here is now there is only a one sided story being told. There is always 3 sides to a story each persons side and the truth. The shooter may have a right to defend him self but did he really have the right to pull the gun to begin with.
 
adam sr said:
Even if he was stealing dose not give them the right to pull a gun and end up killing him.
Click to expand...

That is debatable. It’s not about emotion and morality. It’s about law.

I agree with the above comment that I hope the guy was just jogging. I do. But I think we’re about to hear something else.

It just feels like Treyvon but worse because of his background.
 
The background of each of them has nothing to do with it. Yes they called the cops they should have just followed him to keep the cops informed. They still do not have the right to pull a gun even if he did steal something. They have phones get picture of him and his face and let the cops do their jobs. Its not even their property. He did not show any harm to them to warrant them to pull the gun in the first place.
 
The question of who was right or wrong needs to be based on the laws in Georgia and currently brandishing a firearm is felony aggravated assault. The crime these men claim to have occurred and was the basis of attempting to detain him was a non-violent felony.

www.ajc.com

Georgia panel approves bill aiming to make it legal to brandish a gun

A Georgia Senate panel approved legislation late Monday that would make it legal for a gun owner to pull or show their firearm during a dispute as long as he or she doesn’t “aim it offensively” at someone.
www.ajc.com www.ajc.com
 
OkiePewPew said:
The question of who was right or wrong needs to be based on the laws in Georgia and currently brandishing a firearm is felony aggravated assault. The crime these men claim to have occurred and was the basis of attempting to detain him was a non-violent felony.

www.ajc.com

Georgia panel approves bill aiming to make it legal to brandish a gun

A Georgia Senate panel approved legislation late Monday that would make it legal for a gun owner to pull or show their firearm during a dispute as long as he or she doesn’t “aim it offensively” at someone.
www.ajc.com www.ajc.com
Click to expand...
Exactly, non violent!
 
TEXASforLIFE said:
I thought it might get edited? Makes sense! I wasn't bickering! Doesn't it make people wonder if that is/was the case? It was a an adult question! I can handle the criticism. Possible a good call on xd's part?
Click to expand...

I called it bickering, more like just the back and forth. Just because I deleted your post, might not mean you broke rules. Its more to remove the ”off topic” threads.
 
Last edited:
There is something called the use of force continuum, it was not followed and even if the jogger was Al Capone the shooting was bad. You cant claim self defense if you purposely chased the man down and put your self in that situation especially if you are not commissioned to do so. If they would never have made contact, things would have been radically different.
 
Last edited:
OkiePewPew said:
The question of who was right or wrong needs to be based on the laws in Georgia and currently brandishing a firearm is felony aggravated assault. The crime these men claim to have occurred and was the basis of attempting to detain him was a non-violent felony.

www.ajc.com

Georgia panel approves bill aiming to make it legal to brandish a gun

A Georgia Senate panel approved legislation late Monday that would make it legal for a gun owner to pull or show their firearm during a dispute as long as he or she doesn’t “aim it offensively” at someone.
www.ajc.com www.ajc.com
Click to expand...

And as I’ve said, no telling what laws they broke, but they were arrested for murder.
 
xdman said:
There is something called the use of force continuum, it was not followed and even if the jogger was Al Capone the shooting was bad. You cant claim self defense if you purposely chased the man down and put your self in that situation especially if you are not commissioned to do so. If they would never have made contact, things would have been radically different.
Click to expand...
Exactly that young man would be alive.
 
OkiePewPew said:
The question of who was right or wrong needs to be based on the laws in Georgia and currently brandishing a firearm is felony aggravated assault. The crime these men claim to have occurred and was the basis of attempting to detain him was a non-violent felony.

www.ajc.com

Georgia panel approves bill aiming to make it legal to brandish a gun

A Georgia Senate panel approved legislation late Monday that would make it legal for a gun owner to pull or show their firearm during a dispute as long as he or she doesn’t “aim it offensively” at someone.
www.ajc.com www.ajc.com
Click to expand...

I watched the video again and I don’t see brandishing of the firearm. It was hanging at his side until he was hit with closed fists on his head.

This will come down to the letter of the law and literal definitions of words, if you ask me.

“Brandish”: wave or flourish (something, especially a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top