2562
Comments (764)
sorted by:
203
fishoutofwater 203 points ago +212 / -9

If it doesnt get overturned on appeal... The dude was wanted on felony burgalary and charged the guy with the shotgun...

192
sorrytodisagree 192 points ago +196 / -4

The third guy did nothing but follow and record shit. Guy who recorded George Floyd overdose is still on the loose though for some reason...

38
thekindlyman555 38 points ago +63 / -25

The argument was that he used his truck to box Arbery in and trap him. They counted this as Aggravated Assault and False Imprisonment, which are both felonies. Which means that he's guilty of felony murder on both counts.

109
45fan 109 points ago +110 / -1

He stopped his truck like 30 yards back. This wasnt like they circled the wagons on him. It was wide open space everywhere.

128
XxxRDTPRNxxX 128 points ago +130 / -2

Yep... Idiots on reddit and youtube are acting like he was a cornered animal that went into fight or flight mode to avoid a lynching.

No. He was a worthless criminal and he went into fight or flight mode to avoid going to jail.

If he was really scared they were coming to kill him, he could have just ran away from them screaming "CALL THE POLICE, CALL THE POLICE" at the top of his lungs.

But we all know why he chose to fight instead of wait for the cops.

54
halcyondream 54 points ago +55 / -1

The same morons were arguing a couple weeks ago that Kyle Rittenhouse should have turned himself over to the mob and dropped his weapon because they were "putting him under citizen's arrest." Meanwhile he was a block away from the police line.

These guys were detaining him waiting for the police, everything they did was legal at the time that they did it, and when Arbery charged and struck the guy with the shotgun and grabbed the weapon it became a matter of self-defense.

9
XxxRDTPRNxxX 9 points ago +9 / -0

everything they did was legal at the time that they did it

The judge disagreed. He basically instructed the jury that the stop was not legal because the crime Arbery was suspected of committing didn't happen immediately prior to the stop. That's why they got convicted. Because it changed the context of rolling up on Arbery from a citizens arrest to a felony assault and false imprisonment.

Apparently, if someone gets away you aren't allowed to go citizens arrest them at a later time.

4
SomeRandomGuy77 4 points ago +4 / -0

Imagine seeing a guy rape your mom, he escapes out the window, then you spot the same guy 3 days later, attempt to arrest him because violent felon presumed armed and in resisting arrest, dies like a retard and you and 2 others go to prison forever because of that ruling.

4
notCIA 4 points ago +4 / -0

That is the common definition of the law. You can't citizen's arrest someone the day after a crime. You can't arrest them hours after, you have to witness or otherwise have knowledge of the crime as it has occurred and react immediately. The point is that the crime is a felony and the citizen's arrest assumes a need to stop something in progress. No one is immediately in danger when that situation has come to a close. The judge's ruling was correct and these ex cops should have known the law.

3
Highspergamy 3 points ago +3 / -0

Moral of the story, there is no citizens arrest.

3
notCIA 3 points ago +3 / -0

You had it, right until you said they had the right to detain him. They didn't as all he had done at the time was tresspass. If they wanted to detain him legally they should have done it when they claimed to have encountered him before when he actually committed felonies. Instead, they waited until a situation arose where he hadn't actually done anything much. They jumped the gun and brandished firearms at someone running away from them.

4
RandallSavage 4 points ago +4 / -0

You pretty much nailed it. The joke shill crowd that has flooded this site lately keeps saying “he didn’t steal anything!” Not this time he didn’t, there was nothing left at the job site for him to steal anymore. I get it from their angle but also get how the scenario that played out that particular day was not favorable to them in court.

2
SomeRandomGuy77 2 points ago +2 / -0

all he had done at the time was tresspass

Which is irrelevant, the actual facts of the matter are (ironically given what I am saying I know) determined in court, people are arrested on suspicion of having done something, they're never arrested on "You are guilty of having done this thing for sure", lastly, being in someone's property at night is already felony burglary so it's not simple trespass. Felony burglary is breaking and entering a property with felonious intent, there's no lawful reason to be inside someone's house in the middle of the night unless your intention is burglary or something equally bad.

2
halcyondream 2 points ago +2 / -0

He had work boots on from the site when he charged at the guy that shot him. Before that he had athletic shoes. https://files.catbox.moe/nmxb6l.png

-1
doug2 -1 points ago +1 / -2

I never once heard someone say kyle was being put under citizens arrest

4
MasklessMarvel [S] 4 points ago +4 / -0

In the Arbery case, the shooter, Mr. McMichael who testified in the case, said that they were — he was trying to make a citizen's arrest, which came out for the first time really at trial, and that, in the very end, when he struggled with Mr. Arbery, they were both struggling for a gun, and McMichael feared that, if Mr. Arbery got the weapon, McMichael would be the one who would be shot, and so he, too, feared for his own life.

2
halcyondream 2 points ago +2 / -0

Good for you, you never heard it doesn't mean it wasn't an NPC talking point for a while https://twitter.com/anajade18/status/1455821916879654913

21
Id10tech 21 points ago +21 / -0

Underrated comment!

15
deleted 15 points ago +15 / -0
2
XxxRDTPRNxxX 2 points ago +2 / -0

He may not have been LEGALLY obligated to do that, but it sure would have saved his life, Huh?

-1
notCIA -1 points ago +3 / -4

There is a lot of things that could save your life, someone brandishes a firearm at me I'm going to kill them even if it means they might shoot at me back because I have no reason to believe they won't anyway.

1
notCIA 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is the real answer.

10
WakeMeUpTrump 10 points ago +10 / -0

So many people on here too were using the same kind of language that these guys were idiots, etc...

Okay, sure maybe all parties involved were involved in questionable shenanigans leading up to the moment. But when the jogger tried to take the man's gun, things changed. In that moment, nothing matters. Race, religion, what led up, nothing.

All that matters is that in that moment it was a FIGHT TO THE DEATH. Before Ahmaud grabbed the gun, it was maybe a citizens arrest, it was maybe something else. But when he fought, and tried to grab the gun, someone was going to die.

These guys could have been charged with unlawful pursuit, harassment, etc. but when someone is TRYING TO KILL you, you have the right to self defense.

7
XxxRDTPRNxxX 7 points ago +8 / -1

But when the jogger tried to take the man's gun, things changed. In that moment, nothing matters. Race, religion, what led up, nothing.

To a point I agree.

To another point I don't want armed posses of random jack asses rolling on up people with guns based on their own subjective suspicions.

Everyone here played a stupid game. Every won a stupid prize.

3
doug2 3 points ago +4 / -1

Well luckily for me I don't prowl the streets with no ID phone or identification of any kind robbing people

0
notCIA 0 points ago +1 / -1

The ex cops could have gone about this in a way that the jogger couldn't have claimed they posed a deadly threat to him, but running up on him, shotgun at the ready, while on public property after simple tresspass was a massive fuckup. I've had to follow trespassers and wait for the cops before. Firearms were ready and available but I wasn't waving them around like a faggot and the tresspasser was arrested.

3
notCIA 3 points ago +4 / -1

That's not how it works. Brandishing a firearm is a lethal threat. When they grabbed shotguns and carried them at the ready they changed the situation, not Arbory. That is the legal definition. If they had so much as just slung the shotguns at the ready they would have been way better off as they could claim he didn't have a credible threat to his life, but they did brandish them. When someone chases you down, firearm at the ready, if you have not (in the state of Georgia) committed a felony right then or there or otherwise posed a credible threat to someone's life, you have the right to defend yourself by any means.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
9
Retardloserimsogay 9 points ago +9 / -0

You just changed my mind a bit, I’m not for people boxing me in repeatedly, i would not however allow the boxing to continue. I don’t have a criminal mindset either. What a fucked up case I haven’t really wrapped my mind around.

8
notCIA 8 points ago +8 / -0

Arbory was a worthless criminal and the ex cops overstepped their boundaries and put him in a position that he had justifiable self defense. They were the good guys right up until the tried to use their 2A to detain someone that wasn't trying to attack them or anyone else. All they had him for at the moment was tresspassing and they should have known better. It triggers people around here but both are true.

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
5
XxxRDTPRNxxX 5 points ago +6 / -1

I presume Arbery had a phone too... and could have called the police himself.

8
BonnieBlueFlag 8 points ago +8 / -0

He didn't have anything with him, he was identified by his fingerprints.

10
LostMyPWinMyBoyPussy 10 points ago +19 / -9

You can't chase someone down, get out of a truck with a weapon, and then claim self defense. Its just the law of self defense, he failed to maintain that affirmative defense. This was Felony Murder in GA, by the letter of the law.

4
JimmyJ 4 points ago +4 / -0

Not anymore as a private citizen.

Governor Kemp Announces Overhaul of Citizen's Arrest Statute February 16, 2021

Section 2 repeals Georgia’s citizens’ arrest statutes.

Section 3 creates Code Section 17-4-80 and creates specific instances in which a private person may detain someone:

https://gov.georgia.gov/press-releases/2021-02-16/governor-kemp-announces-overhaul-citizens-arrest-statute

Under the revised law, a private person typically cannot legally detain someone, even if they’ve witnessed or been told that they committed a crime. There are exceptions for business owners, such as store owners who’ve seen someone shoplifting or restaurant owners who see someone leaving without paying, as well as for security guards.

Before the repeal

The citizen's arrest law, largely repealed by lawmakers after Arbery's death, required a person to see or have immediate knowledge of a crime being committed or have REASONABLE SUSPICION that someone is fleeing a felony in order to justify a citizen’s arrest.

What sunk these guys were their own words and the mob justice outside the court house everyday.

My opinion, these guys were going to get some charges but nobody murdered anyone.

Statements that lawyers cringe over...

“He was trapped like a rat,” Greg McMichael said, according to a transcript of their recorded interview Nohilly read in court. “I think he was wanting to flee and he realized that something, you know, he was not going to get away.”

“He had an opportunity to flee further, you know,” Greg McMichael told Nohilly. “We had chased him around the neighborhood a bit, but he wasn’t winded at all. I mean this guy was, he was in good shape.”

Bryan, 52, was on his front porch when he saw Arbery run past with the McMichaels’ truck close behind. “I figured he had done something wrong,” Bryan said. “I didn’t know for sure.”

“I didn’t hit him,” Bryan said, according to an interview transcript Lowrey read in court. “Wish I would have. Might have took him out and not get him shot.”

“I don’t think the guy has actually stolen anything out of there, or if he did it was early in the process. But he keeps going back over and over again to this damn house," Greg McMichael said

Statements like that allowed prosecutors to give context to the short video that didn't show the entire shooting and had little of the five minutes that the men chased Arbery.

“It’s those statements that screwed the defense more than the video. If they had never talked to police and they said we saw him taking something from the property and running — there’s an OK shot the jury might have acquitted them,"

The attorney for William “Roddie” Bryan filed a motion for mistrial on Monday, arguing that the presence of protesters outside, some with “large weapons,” had tainted the Ahmaud Arbery murder trial.

The Rev. Al Sharpton spoke with reporters outside the Glynn County courthouse, where he held the hands of Arbery’s parents while leading a prayer for justice. Sharpton criticized the disproportionately white makeup of the jury.

“It’s an insult to the intelligence of the American people,” Sharpton said. “If you can count to 12 and only get to one that’s Black, you know something’s wrong.”

Kevin Gough, the attorney for Bryan, 52, has made several such requests throughout the trial, and none have been granted. This time, however, he said the “figurative mob” had become a “literal mob,” complete with a fake coffin, reports 11Alive. CNN reports that the coffin is an “art installation” that bears names of black people killed in “incidents involving police violence.”

According to The Washington Post, Nasiy Nasir X, leader of the Lion of Judah Armed Forces, was also outside the courthouse armed with an AR-15. Nasir X said the justice system itself was on trial, and “the reason why it’s on trial is our beloved brother Ahmaud Arbery was shot dead in the streets, like he was an animal, by three White vigilantes.”

Judge Timothy Walmsley denied the motion, saying the people outside hadn’t been brought to his attention by security.

3
notCIA 3 points ago +3 / -0

The issue is everyone is basing the not murder opinion purely off the subjective "reasonable suspicion" and "immediate knowledge" portion of that law. You could argue those points to crazy extremes, but most commonly they do not apply so situations like this one, and the court continued to apply them as such. This was the expected outcome, people are just taking personal liberties with the wording and declaring their opinions of the interpretation to be correct.

3
JimmyJ 3 points ago +3 / -0

You brandished a deadly weapon in an angry, rude or threatening manner while engaged in a fight—mandatory minimum jail sentence of 30 days.

When you attempt to disarm my weapon, you are no longer unarmed. I just don't see murder, the fact that they perhaps were in the wrong did not take away a life that day. With all 3 involved convicted of murder is obvious jury tampering.

3
C_Macks 3 points ago +8 / -5

Don't speak facts here you'll just get downvotes.

3
IWI9000 3 points ago +3 / -0

That's a bingo. Self defense goes out the window when your the agressor. This is nothing like the Rittenhouse case.

These gents acted like they were police while being citizens and bad police at that.

-5
DonuteaterReturns -5 points ago +4 / -9

I don't care. At it's core, this case is no different from Rittenhouse. People arming themselves and taking action to protect their community. You cannot have an issue with these guys but praise Rittenhouse.

6
Testamernt 6 points ago +6 / -0

Wow, that's an interesting opinion. Not quite sure how you get to the situations being the same when one involved a kid being chased by a mob that would likely have beaten him to death after defending himself when one, then 2, then 3+ attacked him and the other was a guy being chased because he knew he was wrong and didn't want to get picked up by the police so he decided to attack 3 armed men that were holding him waiting for the police to show up as if he wasn't going to get himself shot as a result of the bad decision.
The 2 situations are not the same at their core. Kyle was running for his life. These men chased after the jogger. They weren't wrong to try and get this guy into police custody. But they were the aggressors here.

5
Dominion3 5 points ago +5 / -0

The mob wouldn't have just beaten him to death, these guys were actually armed.

They were trying to kill Rittenhouse. Arbery wasn't threatening anyone. That alone is a massive difference between these two cases.

I get why people are not on Arbery's side, but these two cases are nothing alike.

1
DonuteaterReturns 1 point ago +4 / -3

And? They were protecting their community from a criminal. They were doing what the police couldn't. All anyone needed to do in either situation was not go for the gun. What's the point of the second amendment if you can't protect your community? Sure, they were dumb, but they were doing the right thing.

1
notCIA 1 point ago +1 / -0

Exactly. They just simply shouldn't have brandished the shotguns. Sling it over your shoulder for fucks sake, just don't brandish it when he hasn't posed a threat to anyone yet. It sucks, but the good guys are subject to reaction, criminals aren't.

2
notCIA 2 points ago +2 / -0

There is no parallel between Rittenhouse and this situation. Kyle didn't carry his firearm to stop the crimes, he carried it for self defense. He ran away when attacked and only fired when he had no escape. These guys chased a tresspasser down and held him at gunpoint.

1
deleted 1 point ago +8 / -7
12
LucretiaReflection 12 points ago +19 / -7

It is shills, this place has been full of them lately.

6
C_Macks 6 points ago +11 / -5

Or people are allowed to have varied opinions and change them as facts come to light and discussion continues.

People aren't all shills just because the entire site doesn't follow the narrative initially set forward.

4
notCIA 4 points ago +5 / -1

Not shills, people who are logically consistent. Chase someone down and hold them at gunpoint for tresspassing and you've crossed a line. Pretty simple.

3
doug2 3 points ago +3 / -0

TD is not a monolith retard

-5
Elfer -5 points ago +8 / -13

He hit him with the truck during the chase

1
Yawnz13 1 point ago +3 / -2

"Hit"

0
Elfer 0 points ago +3 / -3

How hard do you have to hit someone with a truck for you to consider it an act of aggression?

-3
Yawnz13 -3 points ago +1 / -4

How many times do we have to say that Arbery was in the process of committing a crime, thus making any claim of self-defense on his part irrelevant?

For a man who was "hit by a truck", he sure seemed well enough to keep running AND try to take a man's gun from him too.

Or are you the LeBron sort?

12
sorrytodisagree 12 points ago +12 / -0

How many BLM rioters and "protesters" were charged this creatively when mobs boxed in pedestrians and motorists, or seized entire city blocks?

4
thekindlyman555 4 points ago +5 / -1

Far fewer than should have, in all likelihood.

9
deleted 9 points ago +9 / -0
3
markjefferson 3 points ago +3 / -0

Wtf

2
concealedaces 2 points ago +2 / -0

He was also charged with felony murder

1
thekindlyman555 1 point ago +2 / -1

That's literally what I said lol. He was charged with felony murder because he was charged with felonies which led to a person dying.

4
ComradeSanders 4 points ago +4 / -0

“For some reason..,” lol

3
Threaper666 3 points ago +3 / -0

Must have been his non white privilege

77
ohnojoe 77 points ago +80 / -3

He grabbed the gun! I don't care what the scenario is, if a person grabs my gun, that person will be shot.

With that said, the entire situation was ridiculous.

38
Junionthepipeline 38 points ago +47 / -9

I really have no sympathy for anyone involved in that shitstorm of stupid

36
deleted 36 points ago +68 / -32
46
Illinois4Trump 46 points ago +47 / -1

Same, have more respect for them then cowards who stand by and watch as dindus destroy their communities.

11
Retardloserimsogay 11 points ago +12 / -1

In my town sadly is a bunch of white faggot retards do the worst, stole my motorcycle, too fucking stupid to realize the engine cutoff on the handlebar while they ripped everything apart and abandoned it in an alley. I have a ring and people who upload videos of their shit… always ALWAYS a white guy with a back pack. Don’t know why I typed this all out, blacks in a congregation such as the bigger cities are clearly an issue. Edit: but so are white retards.

10
RandallSavage 10 points ago +10 / -0

I have hatred for all low or no character people, regardless of race. Pieces of shit exist in all races.

4
trump1aj 4 points ago +5 / -1

No problem man, both statements can be right

3
Retardloserimsogay 3 points ago +3 / -0

Thanks fren, this has been a topic I’ve been afraid to comment on, lack of info, still learning.

1
MedPede2 1 point ago +1 / -0

If we prosecuted the worst criminals and kept them in jail for long periods of time, I think the number of such crimes and the number of people willing to go back to jail would diminish. It's horrible that a lot of people celebrate violent thugs as if there's something there to respect. If this glorifying of thug culture wasn't a big thing, I think we'd see a lot less crime.

It's not hard to kill or harm someone. It's not that hard for someone to accidentally harm or kill themself. Glorifying criminals (with a few exceptions like Killdozer) is like glorifying someone just because they vomited in public.

19
JoeHasAids 19 points ago +20 / -1

Yo, you cant admit theres a race war. Othwrwise, muh optics will be lost

10
Sexual-Assault-Rifle 10 points ago +10 / -0

"Muh optics" has turned us into a bunch of do-nothing faggots.

3
JoeHasAids 3 points ago +3 / -0

Bro, what do you mean. We're voting people like youngkin in. What more could we possibly do? We're in Australia friend, we don't have rights.

3
Sexual-Assault-Rifle 3 points ago +3 / -0

I agree with you.

2
JoeHasAids 2 points ago +2 / -0

Lol, 1 month later and the faggots deleted your comment.

1
Sexual-Assault-Rifle 1 point ago +1 / -0

I can't even remember what my comment said and if it was even mine. Why would the mods/admins delete a comment?

10
FORMERCHILDSTAR 10 points ago +10 / -0

After all is said and done, I'd rather have the Mcmichaels as my neighbors than Ahmaud Arbery.

-5
GoingCamaro -5 points ago +1 / -6

The only menace here is you, faggot.

-8
carhd6 -8 points ago +2 / -10

Okay confederate.

1
ohnojoe 1 point ago +1 / -0

Same.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
7
WakeMeUpTrump 7 points ago +7 / -0

THIS!

It's very simple: someone tries to grab your gun, someone is dying. Either the person takes the gun and kills the gun owner. Or the gun owner holds on and kills the grabber.

3
LUXURY_USERNAME 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yeah that is the entire legal problem, someone ended up dead and they traced back the events that lead up to it to see who was most to blame.

-4
BeerAndCope -4 points ago +12 / -16

You really can’t imagine any scenario where you would not be justified in shooting someone that grabs your gun?

How about you are acting irresponsibly with a gun and someone tries to take it from you because of that?

How about you pull a gun on a random person your passing on the sidewalk?

How about you chase down a guy you think might have shoplifted from the gas station next door and jump out of your truck with a shotgun in hand?

5
glow-operator-2-0 5 points ago +5 / -0

I would've just marked that asshole then go back into the home and wait.

Secrets between two people are best kept when one of the pair are dead.

3
ohnojoe 3 points ago +5 / -2

Correct. I would never put myself in such a situation. For me, self defense only, or stopping rape, kidnapping, or stopping serious harm to another.

Your scenarios would never apply to me.

-2
BeerAndCope -2 points ago +2 / -4

Lmao. You said you don’t care what the scenario is, then when given scenarios you say those scenarios don’t apply. Just take the L.

The last scenario I gave is the exact scenario these idiots played out. Just swap out shoplift from gas station with steal from construction site.

0
ohnojoe 0 points ago +2 / -2

Don't be a retard.

Nevermind, you probably can't help it.

0
BeerAndCope 0 points ago +3 / -3

Cry more. Cry these idiots a river I don’t give a shit. Keep crying and call anyone that doesn’t follow your npc boomer con script a retard through your tears.

2
OrcLivesMatter 2 points ago +4 / -2

This. The justification for grabbing a gun and the justification for brandishing a gun are inversely related.

1
WakeMeUpTrump 1 point ago +1 / -0

Your scenarios are all faggotty.

-5
SwampFox45 -5 points ago +8 / -13

So if someone approached you threateningly with a gun you would just lay down and let them do what ever?

14
Deporter 14 points ago +16 / -2

Is that what happened? 🤪

4
deleted 4 points ago +13 / -9
10
deleted 10 points ago +16 / -6
4
Yawnz13 4 points ago +4 / -0

JINOs

1
doug2 1 point ago +1 / -0

Best take

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
-2
GoingCamaro -2 points ago +6 / -8

One, he didn't take anything. Two, theft is not in the jurisdiction of a citizen's arrest. Your local Sheriff will advise not to make any such actions unless you are intervening on a violent crime. If he has stolen something of theirs then it's a different situation. But he was suspected of stealing the construction equipment, a third party victim.

Unless every child from here on will go through police academy training in high school, these laws must remain as they are. I am not opposed to making every citizen a cop, but it requires education first.

1
TD_Covfefe_Crusader 1 point ago +1 / -0

Two, theft is not in the jurisdiction of a citizen's arrest.

It is in Georgia:

https://www.zimmermanatlantalaw.com/georgia-and-citizens-arrest/index.html

1
borntacticool 1 point ago +1 / -0

One) burglary is a crime of intent.

Two) he was clearly intending to steal shit.

Three) that's felony burglary, it doesn't matter if he actually successfully stole anything.

Four) SCOTUS has already said that merely running from the scene is enough to establish probable cause a felony was committed.

Five) there are now at least two paths for them to have both probable cause and reasonable suspicion to arrest him.

Six) The idea that someone who entered and secretly remained in a dwelling and then bolted when spotted was simply "jogging", or was "looking around because he's into construction" (both during the dark and in the daytime after being run off once already), or "adjusting his pants" instead of reaching for a firearm or whatever other parade of excuses you can concoct is an unreasonably stupid rationalization.

The simplest answer is most likely the correct one and is most certainly the most reasonable one.

He was a burglar.

He got caught in the act.

He attempted to flee.

When his flight was unsuccessful, he thought he could grab a gun and shoot his way out of it.

He thought wrong.

Simple, concise, reasonable. You'd have to be the ultimate simp for black people to believe otherwise - and that makes you a benevolent racist at the expense of justice.

4
ohnojoe 4 points ago +4 / -0

I'm just speaking from the legal perspective. Once his hands were on the gun, he was legally armed and it seems self defense could be in play; however, those men didn't have a legal case for citizens arrest, so this is why I say it's messy.

2
Mintap 2 points ago +2 / -0

Put your hands up or run away.

14
zigZag590 14 points ago +27 / -13

The Malace murder should get overturned because nothing about race came up in the trial. However, the felony murder charges are correct and I think they will stick. As bad as Arbery is, these guys should have known the law on citizen's arrests.

25
modded 25 points ago +26 / -1

Have you read the two sentences of law that the jury had to interpret?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3MbwbVxlxo&t=1330s&ab_channel=TimcastIRL

"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."

18
BeerAndCope 18 points ago +18 / -0

This means that to make a citizen’s arrest for all crimes that are not a felony the crime must be committed in your presence or you have immediate knowledge of the crime. In the case of felonies you can make a citizen’s arrest if you have probable cause to believe it happened. This is the same standard as for cops.

5
BrewSwillis 5 points ago +7 / -2

They thought this jogger stole a pistol from their car a day or two before. Is stealing a handgun a felony?

11
BeerAndCope 11 points ago +15 / -4

Yes stealing a handgun is a felony. “Thought” is not “probable cause.” Thought is more in line with reasonable suspicion. Not enough to make a citizen’s arrest.

If you are going to chase someone down gun in hand you better be damn sure they are the person that did it.

5
Dirk_Diggler 5 points ago +6 / -1

“Stealing a gun is a felony.” Ahmaud tries to steal one from someone’s hands. You work for the Kenosha DA by chance?

10
BeerAndCope 10 points ago +12 / -2

You are working for the Kenosha DA if you are trying to argue a person doesn’t have a right to defend themselves when a group of complete strangers rolls up on them in a vehicle and jump out guns in hand.

If Kyle had been walking down the streets of Kenosha and a van full of antifa tards rolled up on him and jumped out guns in hand to “arrest” him he would’ve been justified in mowing them down on the spot. Your Binger ass would be arguing “why would he have possibly felt threatened by this?”

3
Hattmall 3 points ago +4 / -1

Would probable cause be running out of a house that had been repeatedly burglarized after the police asked you for help keeping an eye on it?

3
BeerAndCope 3 points ago +3 / -0

No. That would be reasonable suspicion.

3
deleted 3 points ago +8 / -5
-1
GoingCamaro -1 points ago +6 / -7

Unfortunately there are a lot of glowies and racist assholes who use this place as their safe space and a lot of times the back and forth you see is being provoked by both groups.

One of the reasons I hang out at GAW so much is because they have rules that prevent such faggotry.

2
BrewSwillis 2 points ago +2 / -0

But this was the supposed criteria:

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."

Now, someone else is saying that it has to be immediately after the suspected felony, which was not spelled out in the quote of the law. So, if that's the case, then I guess their "reasonable suspicion" of him stealing their gun (felony) would not be grounds for following and detaining him?

1
BeerAndCope 1 point ago +2 / -1

Idk that it has to be immediately. I also saw those comments, idk if that’s true could be though. Reasonable suspicion is not grounds to detain someone according to the statute. Reasonable AND probable suspicion. These guys did not have that regardless of when the gun was stolen.

6
Elfer 6 points ago +6 / -0

It was nearly two months beforehand, and they didn't have any particular reason to connect that to Arbery, other than a hunch.

Apart from that, another notable part of the jury instruction, based on Georgia case law, is that the citizen's arrest has to take place immediately after the felony, and if they fail to make the arrest at that time, their right to do so is extinguished.

2
Yawnz13 2 points ago +2 / -0

That would require them to chase him, would it not?

1
Tendies_or_GTFO 1 point ago +2 / -1

No, it would require them to apprehend him in the commission. Catching him after chasing is, well, afterwards.

1
Elfer 1 point ago +1 / -0

It would require them to chase him at the time of the felony.

1
Harper42190 1 point ago +1 / -0

It was 11 days previous I believe is what was said at trial.

2
Elfer 2 points ago +2 / -0

I believe it was early January when the gun was stolen vs late February when Arbery was shot, either way it was way too late and the connection was flimsy at best.

2
MrSir 2 points ago +2 / -0

Weeks before.

1
Harper42190 1 point ago +1 / -0

The "immediate knowledge" part is slightly confusing because what does that mean? To me it means, I saw him do it... So if I saw him do it 11 days previous, I would say that is immediate knowledge. That's were it went all the way straight downhill for the defense.

-3
zigZag590 -3 points ago +6 / -9

THe judge read the law verbatim to the Jury.... Obviously the way they interpreted it shows in the verdicts they handed down.

14
FinishTheBorderWall 14 points ago +15 / -1

I’m not surprised. Your average person doesn’t even know the difference between burglary and robbery or murder and homicide. God help anyone who gets charged for political purposes.

20
Libertas_Vel_Mors 20 points ago +23 / -3

...especially the former cops among them.

5
Unzipped_Patriot 5 points ago +16 / -11

Cops are used to killing people with impunity, those guys acted well within expectations.

1
Unboosted 1 point ago +2 / -1

Only liberal cops wake up in the morning hoping to kill a black man that day. Normal cops dont.

3
Unzipped_Patriot 3 points ago +4 / -1

I don't know if any cop wakes up wanting to kill people, they just rarely face any repercussions when they do. Whether or not the killing was justified still has little bearing on cops facing consequences similar to those of the general public.

1
doug2 1 point ago +1 / -0

Bc they usually have the right to do it?

1
Unzipped_Patriot 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah like that cop who had the right to protect the capital building, right?

1
Cacciali_Via 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ofc Chauvin would beg to differ.

7
thekindlyman555 7 points ago +9 / -2

Closest thing I heard was apparently in the police statement one of the McMichaels stated that they cornered him like a rat, or something along those lines.

0
TD_Covfefe_Crusader 0 points ago +1 / -1

Right, which has no racial connotations at all. This is all just piling on to an already malicious prosecution.

1
Yawnz13 1 point ago +2 / -1

They acted within the law.

-3
zigZag590 -3 points ago +2 / -5

That explains why they were all given guilty sentences... Being delusional should be a quality only retarded leftists have. Don't be like them.

6
Yawnz13 6 points ago +6 / -0

Implying that the jury wasn't tainted or that the judge did not offer up the most jaundiced interpretation of the law in jury instruction.

The law does not preclude pursuit, being armed, etc.

Arrest on probable grounds of suspicion is allowed for felonies as opposed to requiring "immediate knowledge".

How did the McMichaels know to chase him in the first place? He was seen on camera in the house moments before the encounter and was seen running from the house, so clearly someone saw him.

0
zigZag590 0 points ago +4 / -4

The Judge gave the Jury a verbatim reading of the law. The other instruction he was gonna give them was even worse for them. Every lawyer bar, like 1 or 2 on the Rakieta panel, agreed that they were guilty. As I said, being delusional should be a leftist trait.

2
TD_Covfefe_Crusader 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yeah, because our justice system is fair and totally not corrupt in any way. And this trial was by no means a malicious political prosecution.

Honk.

1
Oktheone 1 point ago +2 / -1

This is why bad people are bad for communities.. This bad guy brought nothing but pain..in life and death

14
SquiggyMcPepe 14 points ago +15 / -1

No way murder charges are going to stand for all three. Manslaughter should have been the highest charge given the evidence so they will have plenty of standing for appeals. The hate crime charges are just the fed piling it on and probably what awaits Kyle.

16
Libertas_Vel_Mors 16 points ago +16 / -0

Feds can't do shit against Kyle; all of the faggots he injured and wasted 1) had it coming due to obvious self-defense, and 2) they're white boys.

Feds are fucking up in this case, though. They'll end up making martyrs instead of examples.

12
SquiggyMcPepe 12 points ago +13 / -1

I bet they still go for federal hate crime charges on Kyle just to use the process as another penalty and drag him through the mud again in the media and drain any legal funds he has going. Remember that given the evidence there shouldn't have been a trial for Kyle to begin with let along being locked away for nearly three months over a two million dollar bail. If they were willing to do that and lose spectacularly they will do this.

-1
NotProgCensored -1 points ago +2 / -3

Came here to say this.

11
Bb1776 11 points ago +12 / -1

This was complete bullshit, absolutely nothing to do with race, they were pursuing a thief, guy went for his gun. Problem was the guy was black so he is a protected class.

6
Cacciali_Via 6 points ago +6 / -0

They made a bad decision in chasing him but I stand with them. It wasn't murder.

2
zoangelic 2 points ago +2 / -0

black privilege.

98
somedaysoon 98 points ago +100 / -2

The left always overplays their hands. These guys, from what I know (which is admittedly only from the lying media) probably deserve some charges. However they were not deserving of rest of their life in prison nor was this a "lynching."

This is such a joke that I have to defend these idiots, but they are being railroaded because they're white, and it's obvious. We have such a double standard of a criminal justice system.

24
MR_ROBOT1776 24 points ago +29 / -5

I try to picture how I would think of the situation if 3 antifa or BLM killed Kyle after he attempted fleeing and then fighting back. I would consider it murder, especially after following up the first shotgun shot with another to the chest.

If you don’t have proof of a crime, you can’t chase someone down, hit them with your car, then kill them when they try fighting back. It’s a stupid mistake to bring multiple guns, verbally tell the fleeing suspect you’ll blow their head off if they don’t stop, then drop the n-word on video next to their corpse and only moving it to check for a weapon.

This guy already tried fleeing until reaching exhaustion and honestly had every right to fight back at that point. Dumb move, yes, but eventually fighting back against 3 armed strangers trying to capture you doesn’t make you the aggressor.

12
Graceunderfire 12 points ago +16 / -4

Nope, this is getting overturned on appeal 100%, self defense lawyer on Tim Pool laid down the case and its fucking solid.

All you need for citizens arrest is probable cause that a felony has been committed and the suspect is on the run. Like if an old lady tells "HELP HE JUST STOLE MY PURSE" you are allowed to stop the thief even if you didnt see it.

The cops had showed a picture of Mr. "jogger" and warned he might be armed because a firearm had been stolen.

Is there at LEAST a 50% chance they had probable cause? Yes. Period.

Everyone is in agreement that they had no intention of killing him and it only happened because he attacked them, just like he attacked the police when he was arrested for bringing a gun to a school ball game.

The judge broke the rules because he didnt want to be the one behind the political mess. Hes a coward and should be tossed off the bench.

4
KILLARY4PRISON 4 points ago +8 / -4

There are a lot of problems with what you wrote here, but I'll just say this:

Just because someone may perceive you of committing a crime and then tries to physically stop you does NOT magically remove your right to self defense.

You are perfectly within your right to attack if you feel you're in eminent danger. The jury sided on the right to self defense in this case.

3
Graceunderfire 3 points ago +3 / -0

It really just depends if you are correct or not, like if kyle rittenhouse really HAD been a mass shooter then gay grossfag would have been perfectly within his rights to point the gun at him.

So I guess the lesson to take away is to make sure you are correct if you EVER think about using a weapon or approaching someone you think is a criminal threat.

I think these guy are dumb fucks, dont get me wrong, but by the letter of the law they should be free.

3
Handy499 3 points ago +6 / -3

A lot of people in this thread either do not understand, or do not agree with the law as written. From what I followed in the case, the court ruled correctly. I think they were a bit overcharged, but the way Georgia law is written, it doesn't really matter, they are going to get huge sentences either way

If you are thinking about doing a citizens arrest, you better be damn clear of the laws and facts surrounding the situation.

0
BeefChucker 0 points ago +1 / -1

They’re insane. You can’t roll up out of uniform and pull guns on someone not actively committing a crime. Lucky they didn’t get shot.

3
kilr0y 3 points ago +3 / -0

Like if an old lady tells "HELP HE JUST STOLE MY PURSE" you are allowed to stop the thief even if you didnt see it.

Stop him how? It doesn't give anyone the right to brandish their weapon at him, otherwise Gaige Grosskreutz aiming at Kyle rittenhouse would not have been grounds for self defense

1
Graceunderfire 1 point ago +1 / -0

Depends what you mean by brandish, you are allowed to walk around holding your weapon, pointing it at them no not unless you're being attacked. Which DID happen in this case. This will get overturned on appeal, you can bet your bottom dollar.

2
MR_ROBOT1776 2 points ago +3 / -1

I disagree, citizen's arrest does not give you the right to chase an unarmed citizen down with two vehicles, multiple firearms, and strike them with a vehicle until they can't run any further. That argument removes the other person's right to self-defense just because there's an accusation or suspicion. Guns are for self-defense, and self-defense should be prioritized over citizen's arrests, at least as long as you believe in "innocent until proven guilty".

The man's past crimes are irrelevant. Let's say a woman accused you of rape and you have a criminal record. Does that give me or anyone else not carrying a badge the right to chase you with weapons drawn and threaten your life unless you do as your told? If you decide armed strangers chasing you are a threat and try to defend yourself, do we then have the right to kill you?

2
BeefChucker 2 points ago +2 / -0

Everyone on here is pretending they wouldn’t start shooting if randoms with guns came at them

0
Graceunderfire 0 points ago +1 / -1

Only if I'm actively fleeing, AND you have probable cause to believe I just committed a felony, that's the requirement in Georgia law anyway.

If you walk in a room and your daughter tells "help dad he raped me" and you see a man fleeing, you can stop him. Period. If he resists you can escalate your force.

0
Graceunderfire 0 points ago +1 / -1

That's why there is the requirement of probable cause.

11
JS_Mill 11 points ago +11 / -0

Boils down to we wish we could defend property with weapons, but can't.

4
c_programmer 4 points ago +4 / -0

It probably was legal in Georgia at the time... It has since been revised but Georgia had some the most permissive citizens arrest laws in the nation. The judge did not properly instruct the jury so they have a serious chance at appeal.

4
MAGAborn 4 points ago +5 / -1

They weren’t defending property

2
Illinois4Trump 2 points ago +2 / -0

If that happened they would claim 3 heros stopped white supremacist from going on mass shooting against peaceful black people who just want to be treated like humans.

2
MR_ROBOT1776 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don't disagree with you here and would voice my concern in that case as well, just as we / they did with Kyle. In the meantime, I would like to keep everyone's right to defend themselves against armed strangers, no matter who they are.

Anyone suspecting someone of a crime should just call the cops and give them as much info as possible. Only brandish or use lethal force if your life is in danger. You'll increase your chances of staying out of prison and staying alive.

2
somedaysoon 2 points ago +3 / -1

Yes if that's the situation I completely agree. However, I just don't know enough of the facts to make that determination and I don't quite trust the sources not have I followed the trial.

However, I doubt that the DOJ would pursue hate crimes charges if the situation were reversed. They have proven themselves to be very political in their actions and that is my main concern.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
Flynski 2 points ago +4 / -2

Incident leading to death is what I feel is right. However I haven’t followed this trial

9
n00tch 9 points ago +12 / -3

The incident that led to Aurbery's death is he grabbed McMichael's shotgun and fought for control. If he had simply jogged through a yard or two with his Timberlands, and called the cops.. he'd still be alive. So now, if someone attacks you and grabs for your gun, you better not shoot them! "You give up your right to self defense when you have a gun"...

4
SaltiTaralli 4 points ago +4 / -0

Everyone needs to take a beating sometimes (paraphrasing Fatlock).

2
doug2 2 points ago +2 / -0

Pretty sure that's an exact quote

1
n00tch 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yep. The other quote from Kyle's trial that applies (although the idiot cucks here didn't pick up on it) is "if you bring a gun, you lose the right to self-defense."

3
MAGAborn 3 points ago +4 / -1

Except that’s a slice of the whole story.

1
n00tch 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah, that's the slice that led to the joggers death. Delete your account and go back to CNN.

0
MAGAborn 0 points ago +1 / -1

It also led to life in prison for the slack jawed idiots, lol. Anyone who disagrees with you is from CNN? Man you are as bad as the fascist left. Clearly off the deep end. I don’t defend idiots like this.

1
n00tch 1 point ago +1 / -0

No, just npc aids commies like yourself that are blinded by race.

1
carhd6 1 point ago +1 / -0

yes, if someone grabs your gun(illegally), you have the right to fight back.

4
Tendies_or_GTFO 4 points ago +5 / -1

Not if you're not legally justified in deploying the gun.

0
n00tch 0 points ago +1 / -1

It's called open carry.. ever heard of it? The gun wasn't deployed until the kid ran 50+ yards toward the men standing still in the middle of the road and attacked them.

I swear.. this trial brought out all of the commie infils and cucks on this board. /smh

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
KILLARY4PRISON 1 point ago +4 / -3

That's just not true. If I try to grab a gun from someone who is using it in an unjustified way I'm well within my right to do that. The jury sided on the right to self defense in this case.

1
n00tch 1 point ago +1 / -0

The jury sided with the mob outside the courthouse, the commie media, and the cucks on this board apparently. /smh

-1
MR_ROBOT1776 -1 points ago +1 / -2

If you chase someone down the street and threaten them with your gun, they have every right to try grabbing it. You're taking this out of context just as leftist media would.

0
n00tch 0 points ago +1 / -1

Show me the timestamp where they "chased" him down the street with a gun.

"You're taking this out of context just as leftist media would." - You're projecting like a typical commie.

1
MR_ROBOT1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

Have you watched any of the trial? They made contact with their vehicles while attempting to entrap him with them. They had a pistol and a shotgun in their hands, with the shotgun aimed at him when he came around the front of the vehicle and decided to swing. They told him they'd blow his head off if he didn't stop. Which part of that is not chasing someone with a gun and threatening their life? He made an attempt to flee before fighting.

You're the commie not siding with a jury and only telling part of the story. Rittenhouse's case was self-defense and so was this. Suspecting someone of a crime doesn't take that right away from them.

0
n00tch 0 points ago +1 / -1

Yeah and I saw the video. Terrible trap leaving 350 degrees of escape vectors. You can see from his perspective that they are standing in the middle of the road with firearms, why did he run towards them instead of any other direction than forward or backwards? Was that him “fleeing”? Can you please give me the time stamp of when the McMichaels chased him with their guns pointing at him? I didn’t see that video! Show me the time stamp when McMichaels lunged at him with his gun too while you’re at it.. or when McMichaels head butted his hand.

Lmfao I’m the commie effectively arguing Bingers “if you have a gun you’re not allowed to self defense”? nah, that’s you and the rest of the aids commie cucks virtue signaling.

Swap races and my opinion stays the same, I’m guessing yours wouldn’t.

The jogger grabbed the gun just like Huber did with the same result. This will now be precedent the next time a criminal attacks a lawfully armed citizen. FUVM

0
MR_ROBOT1776 0 points ago +1 / -1

It has nothing to do with virtue signaling. These are two different circumstances that race has nothing to do with. Kyle's case was self defense, he was running AWAY from his aggressors, that's why people weren't debating it here. These guys were chasing someone, not fleeing.

I'm not sure why you think 'lawfully armed' means you can grab your gun and pursue someone with it. You can't defend property with a weapon, no crime was witnessed, and they weren't on their own property. Self defense works in their favor at that point, not yours, as you can see from the verdict. The dude ran for 5 minutes before they even called the cops and some more time after, comes around the front of the truck and meets the barrel of a shotgun. Fight or flight makes people do irrational things; he tried flight and it didn't work so he attempted fighting.

Lol okay, so in your opinion if you're walking through a neighborhood and a bunch of black dudes chase you in their vehicles, tell you they'll blow your head off if you don't stop, hit you with their vehicle, and one of them happens to aim their weapon in you direction, you can't fight back after trying to flee.

In this case, the burden wasn't even on him to flee. He could have fought back in the very beginning if he chose. The second you threaten someone's life with a weapon, you're the aggressor.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
wharfthrowaway 1 point ago +1 / -0

The Charlottesville guy got multiple life sentences for 1 person hit who died of other complications after the fact

72
dankai420 72 points ago +78 / -6

They're being railroaded.

31
TheLion 31 points ago +32 / -1

I mean look how quickly the White House responded to the verdict of this trial.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
66
Iteachfuckingscience 66 points ago +73 / -7

I think Jogger man was in the middle of robbing the construction site (again) then assaulted a man with a gun and got shot as a result.

Change my mind.

21
Just_An_Idahoan 21 points ago +23 / -2

Yep! Jogger FAFO 👌

21
sorrytodisagree 21 points ago +22 / -1

If only everything was caught on video unfolding exactly as you say... oh wait.

4
DemonkkkRatSlavers 4 points ago +4 / -0

On the construction site video he looks like someone casing the joint. That neighborhood had been having recent burglarie problems. One of the 3 recognized the jogger from prowling around before and escaping when pursued. They had every reason in the world to be suspicious. So they called police and were even told to detain the jogger if they could. Jogger knew he was in trouble. If they were going to kill him they could have shot at any point. Instead they tried to hold him accountable so the police could question him, they didn't attack him, touch him or block him, his response was a typical jogger response, aggression and physically assaulting them, he was in no danger until he attacked them. Such a tragic story with some lessons. Main one being never trust the police in this political climate in a situation like this. Communicate thru a lawyer. Delete the evidence, the court system is politically corruptable filled with enough biased judges and juries being intimidated that it's not worth the gamble. F the truth because the courts don't care about that either, if it happens to align with their judgment hooray, but it's not always the case, courts care more about the appearance of justice from truth as a facade than the actual facts & truth of the matter.

2
doug2 2 points ago +2 / -0

The police said that?

1
DemonkkkRatSlavers 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think I was probably wrong on the police saying that, at least definitely directly. So I'm going to assume that I was wrong because I've been unable to find the full 911 transcripts, only snippets and realistically don't care that much beyond voicing my opinion so I'll take the L. I'm definitely not going to record this on camera or speak to the police without a lawyer about it though 😅

1
doug2 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ya I was gonna say if the police told them to detain him that changes everything, or it should.

2
_Eric_Ciaramella_ 2 points ago +2 / -0

World is safer place 🤗

-4
deleted -4 points ago +9 / -13
13
Iteachfuckingscience 13 points ago +16 / -3

So the video of him entering the construction site then running away and getting caught is imaginary?

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
3
steeltwotired 3 points ago +9 / -6

Is trespassing a felony?

9
Graceunderfire 9 points ago +13 / -4

The guy was a fucking burglar and was terrorizing their neighborhood. Fuck off with your "poor gud boi" bullshit.

Did they have probable cause to believe he was fleeing from another burglary, as he had done many times? If there is even a doubt then they are innocent.

This shouldn't have even gone to trial.

1
steeltwotired 1 point ago +1 / -0

They had reasonable suspicion at best. That's not grounds to citizens arrest someone. It's also not grounds to chase someone down and hit with their truck. Did you even watch the trial? These guys were stupid and shouldn't have done what they did.

I would run if Cletus and Jimbo were heeing and hawing and running me over with their truck. When there was nowhere else to go and they shove a gun in my face I would sure as shit fight for my life.

1
Graceunderfire 1 point ago +1 / -0

You're right I didn't watch the trial, i only watched a breakdown from a self defense attorney on Tim Pool, which was very persuasive, but would be biased I supposed. Maybe you could check it out and tell me your thoughts?

My problem is with this whole situation that we constantly get bombarded with false accusations of racism and racism motivated behavior, and I'm sick to my stomach thinking these two dumbos just wanted to protect their neighborhood and now they will spend their lives behind bars.

2
steeltwotired 2 points ago +2 / -0

I agree with you. They probably only really had good intentions. I wish they had handled it differently because it's only served to fan the flames.

Although Tim Pool may be responsible for red pilling me in the beginning I rarely watch him now but I will try to check that one out.

MSM is ruining this country pushing all the racism BS. The fact these 2 are going to now be facing federal hate crime charges really bothers me. Meanwhile the Waukesha psychopath had a whoopsie and it toooootally wasn't motivated by hate.

0
KILLARY4PRISON 0 points ago +4 / -4

I get downvoted for this fact often here but I'll say it again:

You simply CANNOT threaten or use deadly force to protect property in any state in this country unless it's in your home. This is settled law.

This trespasser does not forfeit his right of self defense.

4
DemonkkkRatSlavers 4 points ago +5 / -1

They didn't threaten him, they didn't touch him. He attacked them, instead of being civilized because he didn't want to wait to speak to the police for his actions. He was in no danger until he attacked a guy holding a gun, that wasn't even pointed at him. It's all on video. The DA didn't recommend charges because of this the first go round. Until the social justice warriors in BLM made it racially political and a media firestorm. Better do something because of muh racism.

-1
Vulveeta57 -1 points ago +4 / -5

“They didn’t threaten him” Yeah sure they just pointed a gun at him because that’s the traditional greeting of peace and friendship in Georgia. At Thanksgiving, my whole family gathers round the table, whips out our loaded weapons, and shoves them in each other’s faces before we say Grace. My favorite part, if one of us accidentally pulls a trigger and kills somebody, that person has to wear a Christmas sweater that says HI I’M OOPSIE THE ELF!!! Such fun.

2
Graceunderfire 2 points ago +2 / -0

Except the police told them he was probably armed, since he stole a gun. That's why they felt the need to bring the weapons.

No one wants to use deadly force to protect property, they only wanted to make him stop and wait until the police got there. When he attacked they used deadly force.

Get your head right.

2
n00tch 2 points ago +2 / -0

I get why commies don't understand this.. but I thought this board was full of thinkers, not cucks. /smh

2
Illinois4Trump 2 points ago +3 / -1

Yes he was in the area breaking into the construction site again.

41
BurgerChef90 41 points ago +42 / -1

How can you prove someone murdered someone because of their race? Unless they posted racist stuff online, like the “parade crasher” in Wisconsin did, there’s no way to prove it.

30
deleted 30 points ago +32 / -2
21
FinishTheBorderWall 21 points ago +21 / -0

Hate crimes are inherently unconstitutional. All lives should be protected equally under the law.

5
45best45 5 points ago +5 / -0

I think the idea is because it's a "worse" or more reprehensible crime to harm someone just because they're a fag/jogger/troon than if they made you mad, slept with your wife, or stole your shit.

It's like your motivation is worthy of greater punishment - that you think it's justified to attack someone for what they are, rather than what they might have done.

Hate crime laws are implemented terribly though, and what we have today should be done away with. Especially considering the bias on what is and isn't a hate crime ie: Holiday SUV Tragedy.

3
Graceunderfire 3 points ago +5 / -2

Nope, just a sneaky way to control whites.

1
ParadigmShift2070 1 point ago +1 / -0

the only difference is people who are smart enough to shut their mouth when attacking someone because of 'hate' get less punishments than the dumb ass who said things out loud and post it on their Facebook/Twitter

1
Harper42190 1 point ago +1 / -0

Felony murder is unconstitutional. The guy videoing should not spend life in jail.

4
Skyfire 4 points ago +4 / -0

Yep a good standard to judge this on is whether the law is utilized equally, or simply as a tool for political persecution

Don't know about you, but I've never heard of a perp attacking a straight, white victim being charged with a hate crime...

2
Foreign_Aid_is_Theft 2 points ago +2 / -0

Hate crime implies there is love crime. Like I shot that dude because we were such good friends and shit. Crime is either hate or in deference. Anyways not caring is actually the opposite of love not hate.

5
MR_ROBOT1776 5 points ago +7 / -2

It doesn’t help if there’s audio of you dropping the n-word next to their corpse. That’s automatically gonna make a jury think it’s a hate crime

2
Handy499 2 points ago +2 / -0

Damn, I didn't follow this one much, but I did not know that

3
Jkend0740 3 points ago +4 / -1

They consider the confederate flag on the truck a hate symbol

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Mathelm 1 point ago +1 / -0

Felony Murder (Which is a bullshit charge in my opinion)
If someone dies while you're committing a felony, but does not require you to even have any violence done.
ie. if you've Robbed something, and an old guy has a heart attack because he watched you rob someone ; you go to jail on felony murder.

36
npc_NULL 36 points ago +37 / -1

Hate crime statutes are gay

Did those negros that tied up the white boy and tortured him get charged????

18
Qteepie 18 points ago +19 / -1

hate crime enhancements are only meant for white defendants. Just like diversity only means less white people.

3
randomuser9193 3 points ago +3 / -0

And Indians and Asians in college

28
deleted 28 points ago +33 / -5
10
MobileDev4Trump 10 points ago +10 / -0

Yep it's the wild west in places that have Soros DAs

4
BeerAndCope 4 points ago +4 / -0

Murder doesn’t have to be premeditated. If you intended to kill them it is murder. Manslaughter applies if you kill someone but it was an accident, you didn’t try to kill them but you did something reckless that caused them to die. Like driving drunk and killing someone in a crash or cold cocking a guy in a bar and he dies. Would be very hard to claim you intentionally shot someone but did not intend to cause death/great bodily harm.

1
Philhelm 1 point ago +1 / -0

Or intentionally giving them AIDS...

-1
deleted -1 points ago +1 / -2
-1
deleted -1 points ago +2 / -3
2
BeerAndCope 2 points ago +2 / -0

Idk enough about this case to say. If the filming guy truly was just a neighbor there catching the happenings on camera I would say no.

1
NoFucksman 1 point ago +1 / -0

Why are you commenting then?

1
BeerAndCope 1 point ago +2 / -1

I don’t need to know all the details of the case to know that murder doesn’t have to be premeditated.

1
Harper42190 1 point ago +1 / -0

Felony murder is unconstitutional

1
MasklessMarvel [S] 1 point ago +2 / -1

How could they be charged with murder if it wasn't premeditated?

i am guessing the argument is that they had planned to to find and detain him and were carrying guns with the intent to use them

they didn't just come across some guy who pulled a gun on them

1
c_programmer 1 point ago +1 / -0

In most states that would be correct, but Georgia had an incredibly permissive citizens arrest statue. It was made before modern policing. Had the arrest been completed peacefully they wouldn't have been arrested (they weren't initially), it never would have made he news and they would never had been railroaded.

Citizens arrests are almost always a bad idea though regardless of your state. So much can go wrong and you get none of the immunity or general favor of a jury that officers get.

I don't think they got a fair trial (as in reversible on appeal) but I don't feel as sympathetic towards them as say Rittenhouse. What they did was right at the border of the most permissive state in the country. You also have to know it's a bad look to chase a black guy down in your pickup with a shotgun... Stupid games beget stupid prizes and all.

1
doug2 1 point ago +1 / -0

See how you feel when that black guy starts breaking into your shit

1
c_programmer 1 point ago +1 / -0

My personal opinion is that it should be completely legal to detain people who act like that. When the police do nothing to property criminals but neuter citizens they are subsidizing property crime.

I understand why they did it, but the US doesn't have a legal framework that's sympathetic to people who do so. Your actions will also be played out in front of a jury of very average to below average people. Like it or not looks matter.

-10
deleted -10 points ago +5 / -15
2
KILLARY4PRISON 2 points ago +5 / -3

You can't just declare a citizens arrest and unilaterally remove the right of self defense from your subject.

-2
deleted -2 points ago +1 / -3
1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
23
Blackpill1776 23 points ago +29 / -6

This is what u get for being white in America these days

3
NoFucksman 3 points ago +3 / -0

Lots of cucks here these days

1
Bozwat 1 point ago +3 / -2

"muh justice was served."

18
deleted 18 points ago +25 / -7
18
covok48 18 points ago +18 / -0

We should have picked our own cotton.

5
Meddlesom 5 points ago +5 / -0

The democrats should have picked their own cotton... we were busy farming and pioneering and panning for gold and striking out on our own.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
5
NoFucksman 5 points ago +5 / -0

Yeah nigs would still be swatting bugs and hollering in swahili

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
5
canofbeans 5 points ago +5 / -0

Goddamn this comment makes me sad, not because I think you’re ignorant, but because I completely understand why you would feel that way. I sometimes feel that way too, and it sucks. I don’t want there to be hate, but at the same time how the fuck am I going to ignore that 51% off all crime in the US is committed by 13% of the population (actually 7% if you exclude black females)? I wish the conservative side could reach the black community’s heart, but how do we undue DECADES of media propaganda and racial instigations in one conversation?

I mean for fucks sake George Floyd and Jacob Black both assaulted their own race multiple times and are still held as heroes. Fentanyl Floyd has two statues erected for him while they tore down Frederick Douglas’ statue in 2020. Maybe blacks are too far gone down the blue pill hole to ever rescue. I don’t know what the solution is, but being neighbors is not one :/

4
Schifftmypants 4 points ago +4 / -0

when the media asks who radicalized me, I will look them in the eye and say "you"

3
Pinochet_Was_Right 3 points ago +3 / -0

Part of my statement was a shitty joke.

I do understand what you are saying though. It’s nearly impossible to not start harbouring racist feelings if you watch the news. You see headline about teenagers beating up an elderly person — guess they are black and 90% chance they are. That’s the same for any fucked up crime or incident that shows a spiralling society. As you said, their heroes are Fentanyl Floyd and Jacob Blakes. I mean, they cheer if they get off, even though know these people are pieces of shit!

Me joking I wish there are white supremacist really comes down to always feeling victimised by minority groups. They murder, steal, and riot without penalty — while they will attack us with full powers of the law.

They are making us racist.

15
BoughtByBloomberg2 15 points ago +16 / -1

Biden wants his little race win.

16
AdrenochromeIsWeird 16 points ago +17 / -1

war*

2
NoFucksman 2 points ago +2 / -0

wig*

12
XlDEN 12 points ago +15 / -3

The jogger had a right to burglarize houses? Okay. 🤡🌎

11
concealedaces 11 points ago +11 / -0

Roddy Bryan's story is a warning to all Americans. Don't talk to the police, don't try to help the police.

5
MasklessMarvel [S] 5 points ago +5 / -0

NEVER talk to the police

nothing you say can help you

and remember, anything you say to them at any time can be used against you

you only get the Miranda warning when you are arrested

if a cop says "hey, you're not in trouble. I just want to talk to you" you can bet he is trying to get you to incriminate yourself

didja ever notice that, after you get a ticket and start driving away, the cop is still in his car writing?

that is because he is recording everything you said on the back of the ticket

"Do you know how fast you were going?" "Why are you in a hurry" etc are all bait to get you to admit you are guilty

10
RIPIsaacKappy 10 points ago +11 / -1

They going after the death penalty in the federal case? Otherwise what's the point? Malice murder and felony murder all have 3 sentences in GA: Death, life without parole, or life with possibility of parole (after 30 years).

I certainly don't support that, or the sentencing. Guilty? According to the judge's poor interpretation of the law, yes. Deserving of never walking free again? Fuck no.

No death penalty possible for GA conviction since prosecution didn't seek the death penalty.

9
nickybops 9 points ago +9 / -0

A cameraman... thats all im gonna say. Yall can try to die on the dad an son not guilty hill, which I understand (i join u in that) but the fact a fucking cameraman in another car got felony murder should haunt you.

1
Harper42190 1 point ago +2 / -1

Felony murder is unconstitutional

8
JohnVoight 8 points ago +8 / -0

Hate crimes only go one way. The whole concept of “hate crime” is a farce I’ve always believed. It’s a cudgel against whites.

7
Ez_mac 7 points ago +8 / -1

Why are federal charges even necessary other than to virtue signal? Isn’t it a life sentence?

9
Cyer6 9 points ago +10 / -1

They are sending a message to all the Trump Supporters and everyone who supported Kyle. What they wanted from Kyle's trial is what they're going for here.

If you fight us or even attempt to use your guns against us, we will see to it that your life is destroyed. This is their goal and their message.

1
Elfer 1 point ago +1 / -0

Life sentence with possibility of parole - basically if you get out you're on parole the rest of your life. Bryan may get a lesser no-parole term than the others.

7
Keiichi81 7 points ago +8 / -1

Was there any shred of evidence that they targeted Arbery because of his race and not because he was a stranger caught poking around in a private construction site that had previously been burglarized multiple times?

7
Brellin 7 points ago +8 / -1

I still don't understand how the guy that ended up recording the event got charged with 2nd degree murder. The dude was unaffiliated and just happened to be there when it happened, how the fuck does that make him guilty of murder?

4
Elfer 4 points ago +5 / -1

If you followed the trial, he was very much a participant in the chase, and struck him with his truck in the process.

2
Harper42190 2 points ago +2 / -0

Felony murder is unconstitutional

0
MasklessMarvel [S] 0 points ago +1 / -1

if someone is killed in the commission of a felony anyone involved in that felony is guilty or murder

if you are the getaway driver sitting outside while your homies rob a store and the store owner shoots and kills one of said homies, you are guilty of murder

it's called felony murder

7
LostMyPWinMyBoyPussy 7 points ago +11 / -4

This is not the hill to die on, these idiots broke the law by chasing Arbery, none of them had the affirmative defense of self defense to claim. Because they acted in concert, the prosecution could argue conspiracy. I still think their lawyers are shit for letting that argument win, but the shooter himself is ABSOLUTELY, by the LETTER OF THE LAW OF GA, guilty of felony murder. Don't support brain dead idiot Barney Fifes who pop off and try to play vigilante. This is NOT Rittenhouse, this is NOT self defense. These guys are NOT worth tainting your name defending because their actions are defenseless by the letter of the law. Don't be Democrats and twist this to fit your narrative. These idiots deserve to be in jail.

4
here2red 4 points ago +6 / -2

This is not the hill to die on

exactly. Some people on here see their whiteness and getting mad. For what? Dont be the left.

0
LostMyPWinMyBoyPussy 0 points ago +1 / -1

Amen, we got stupid people over here too unfortunately. Thankfully they are smart enough not to vote Democrat, but Jesus Christ, the "feelings over facts/law" brigade that has come out of the cracks to defend these morons is incredible.

2
n00tch 2 points ago +2 / -0

You said: "we got stupid people over here too unfortunately." Agreed.

The problem is that this is about 2A and the law of self-defense; the left knows this, but apparently you and others on this board are too worried about virtue signaling that you can't see what's right in front of your face. Remember Binger saying "if you bring a gun, you aren't allowed self-defense"? That's what you're cheering for in this verdict, smart guy.

The kid ran 50+ yards toward two armed men with the intent to fight them, ignoring multiple avenues of escape e.g. through yards, knocking on doors, yelling for help, calling the cops, etc. Why are you and the rest of the cucks/commie infils here that support the verdict ignoring this fact? Are you blinded by race or just stupid?

I'd have the same view regardless if the races were reversed.. would you?!

Even Tim Pool (TIM POOL!) can see this.. Andrew Branca an actual lawyer (not an internet one like yourself) even breaks GA law down and believes the judge is a fucking pussy for not doing his job of interpreting ambiguous law and pawning it off to the jury to do for him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3MbwbVxlxo B. Tatum - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gma9ggYQf2o

1
MasklessMarvel [S] 1 point ago +2 / -1

👏

6
RealityKnocking 6 points ago +6 / -0

Joggers gonna jog

"Conservatives" celebrating this verdict is why we are losing

2
Axiom502 2 points ago +3 / -1

Like that faggot beta cuck DC Draino and that other retard Ian Smith

1
MasklessMarvel [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

"Conservatives" celebrating this verdict is why we are losing

just because the perps are white?

6
deleted 6 points ago +10 / -4
2
Meddlesom 2 points ago +2 / -0

We know that blacks are simply being used as a weapon, manipulated into hating us through the tribalization warfare that Charles Krauthammer was warning us about decades ago... but some day we're going to have to fight back because it's going to be us or them.

The biggest mistake ever made in the history of the world was bringing slaves to the new world. Second biggest mistake was not castrating every last one of them. Then we failed to truly free them in the 1860s, and they're more enslaved now by the democrats than they ever were... body, mind, and soul.

...but they are just so god damned stupid. There's no reaching them. We've tried. They've tried. The blacks that have seen through it are treated like dog shit by other blacks and white liberals and their evil jew masters. Most blacks don't want to be free. They enjoy their perpetual victim status. They enjoy being feared and handled with kid's gloves, even after they commit atrocities (or when their SUV's commit atrocities). They love getting away with acting like subhuman trash. They love being orcs.

Fuck em.

2
americandrunk 2 points ago +2 / -0

Reality is a harsh one. It does not care how, only that we survive.

The huge challenge for us is build all those things necessary to lower the barrier to exit the intellectual gulags built for them. It is a giant project and requires as much help as we can get, but I believe, it can be done.

2
Bozwat 2 points ago +3 / -1

There's still a lot based on the reaction to this verdict. They're still trying to convince their enemies that they're not racist. They will literally be doing this up until their execution.

2
americandrunk 2 points ago +2 / -0

Absolutely.

Another way to think about it is that people say and believe only things they are allowed to say. Those words are not their own, they say those things because they are afraid of what "others" might think and just repeat what they have been taught.

There is a way out though and it requires great sacrifice on our part. We have to build all of the off-ramps from the intellectual gulags that have been built around them so they can easily and safely get to a new emotional and philosophical state.

Part of that work is building out the narrative framework that helps them understand that you cannot fully love and cherish non-white people until you first love and cherish your own. If you don't love your own people, you end up using non-whites as surrogates for that missing psychological pieced that everyone needs.

It is a little like a marriage. If you suffered early in life and get married before you figure out how to stop hating your self, that marriage won't last very long.

We have a lot of work ahead of us to help our people get to know their own fully at a spiritual level.

2
MasklessMarvel [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

what everyone is missing is that this is not just blacks hating whites

the government has weaponized blacks and is using them as their shock troops

you all are waiting for Biden to send in the military

his troops are here and the war has begun

2
americandrunk 2 points ago +2 / -0

Of the people I hang with, no one wants a war. You are absolutely correct on all points.

1
MasklessMarvel [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

no one wants a war but appears we will not have a choice

-3
Vulveeta57 -3 points ago +1 / -4

Paranoid racist shit clowns like you give the rest of us a bad name. Delete your account, go dig a hole, crawl in it, and I’ll hire a crew of legal immigrants to help me build an outhouse over your hole.

2
doug2 2 points ago +2 / -0

Handshake lol. They are so obvious

1
americandrunk 1 point ago +1 / -0

I accept your rebuke. No offense taken at all, I totally understand where you are coming from.

If you are ever lucky enough to meet your own people over our spiritual bridge, the first lesson that we would teach you is this: Do not worry so much about what others think, your people stand by your side, weapon in hand.

The second lesson we would teach you is this: You cannot love your enemy until you learn to love your own kind like your enemy loves his.

We patiently await. The bonfire rages in the darkness, stew is in the cauldron and we have plenty of drink waiting for you.

Our ancient gods smile upon your route home, it is a treacherous journey you must make on your own.

5
Bozwat 5 points ago +7 / -2

If you are white and sneeze in the direction of a magic American, you will be charged with a hate crime. If you are black and mow down 50 white people, it will be blamed on the SUV.

5
deleted 5 points ago +7 / -2
4
AmericanKulak 4 points ago +6 / -2

Watch Andrew Branca on this subject.

These dudes are fucked either way, you NEVER EVER chase anyone. If they are fleeing you call the police and let them catch heat.

What they did was really fucking stupid, what they said was really fucking stupid, what the jogger did was really fucking stupid.

TLDR: learn your states stand your ground laws and never chase anyone, get good CCW/CHL insurance.

2
GFortune 2 points ago +2 / -0

You follow but don't confront. Keep eyes on the subject call the police.

That's how that should have been handled.

4
Terry_Davis 4 points ago +6 / -2

Ask yourself why McMichael's was charged with 6 separate felony murder counts for killing one person but Brooks gets the same 6 charges yet he killed 6 people. Why not 64 charges?

10
QuickMaths 10 points ago +10 / -0

Because 6 x 6 is 36, not 64. Oof…

3
deleted 3 points ago +6 / -3
1
NoFucksman 1 point ago +1 / -0

Still doesn’t explain anything, genius.

3
QuickMaths 3 points ago +3 / -0

Their comment consists of two sentences. The first is a statement. The second is a question.

They asked “Why not 64 charges?”

I answered the only question that was asked.

1
NoFucksman 1 point ago +1 / -0

I’m just being a literal autist. He never said that it had to be x6 charges. He just said “Why not 64 charges?”

1
QuickMaths 1 point ago +2 / -1

Well it was easy to figure out what math he was attempting, but failing, to do.

They stated that McMichaels faced 6 counts of murder for killing one man, but that Brooks is only facing 6 counts for killing 6 people. Seemed safe to assume he was rhetorically asking why Brooks isn’t also facing 6 charges of murder for each murder victim. And as I pointed out 6 x 6 is 36. 64 isn’t even divisible by 6 so there isn’t any logical way for him to come up with the number 64 without just simply being bad at math.

4
XxxRDTPRNxxX 4 points ago +9 / -5

This is bullshit anyways. The entire case hinged on weather or not they were doing a legal citizens arrest. The jury decided they werent.

But it was never in question by anyone that Arbery needed to be arrested. He was a suspect in burglaries, he was on camera, and the police were actively looking for him.

If this exact same scenario played out on the same day he was filmed in the empty house, they would have been found not guilty. Because they tried to arrest him on another day they were.

If they had just called the cops then it would have been the cops rolling up on Arbery and taking him to jail "just for being black and walking down the street".

1
Harper42190 1 point ago +1 / -0

It all boiled down to what does "immediate knowledge" mean. To me "witness a crime or have immediate knowledge of them commiting a crime" , means if you have first hand knowledge they committed a crime then you can conduct a citizen arrest... Not sure what immediate knowledge means if it doesn't mean that.

1
MeinDonald 1 point ago +1 / -0

If this exact same scenario played out on the same day he was filmed in the empty house, they would have been found not guilty

No. Whites can't harm a single hair on the head of jogger-bois. If Rittenhouse shot 3 blacks, he would've been found guilty and you're a dumbass for thinking blacks abide by the same rules we do.

If they had just called the cops

What's the point in 2A if you have to rely on the worthless police for help? The 3 never arrested anyone and following behind someone very slowly with a truck isn't a crime. They also never pointed a firearm at the jogger so Arbery wasnt trying to defend himself. Having your firearm which is a god given right, wrestled from you by a jogger and then being brutally punched in the face, is a crime tho.

Your white fragility is whats fuckin up this country. You're an embarrassment to your family. Be better

1
XxxRDTPRNxxX 1 point ago +1 / -0

No. Whites can't harm a single hair on the head of jogger-bois. If Rittenhouse shot 3 blacks, he would've been found guilty and you're a dumbass for thinking blacks abide by the same rules we do.

They were convicted because the judge told the jury a citizens arrest has to happen immediately following a crime.

If this happened on the day he was sneaking around that jury instruction would have saved the defendants.

What's the point in 2A if you have to rely on the worthless police for help?

They didn't actually need help. They were in no danger and there was no crime being committed against them when they rolled out.

That's why they're all going to prison for life.

1
MeinDonald 1 point ago +1 / -0

I have yet to see any evidence of them performing a citizens arrest. Walking up to someone with a firearm pointed at the ground is not a citizens arrest. I don't care what any liberal judge says since we have plenty of them unloading all these joggers freely into our communities, ex: Waukesha.

They were in no danger and there was no crime being committed against them when they rolled out.

No, but beating someone in the face and grabbing their weapon is a crime. Youre having trouble seeing how similar this trial is to the Rittenhouse trial because Kyle shot 3 whites instead of blacks. You're even using liberal talking points like "why was he there in the first place" and "he had no business being there". Kyle didn't see either of his attackers commit any crimes yet he was still allowed to defend himself. And so should the 3 defendants in the Arbery trial.

0
NoFucksman 0 points ago +1 / -1

They should be freed once the Constitution is restored.

0
MasklessMarvel [S] 0 points ago +1 / -1

in order to detain you, the cops have to have a reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed at the time

they can't just hold you because they think you committed a crime

it would be the same for a citizens arrest

these guys did not see a crime in progress. they had no reason to stop, let alone detain him

so you are right. if they saw him inside an empty house that would generate a reasonable suspicion so they could stop and question him

but the could not detain him, which is what they tried to do in this case

even worse, they approached him with weapons at the ready when he was not presenting a threat to them

again, the cops cannot just walk up to you with their guns drawn when you are merely walking down the street

1
XxxRDTPRNxxX 1 point ago +1 / -0

in order to detain you, the cops have to have a reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed at the time

they can't just hold you because they think you committed a crime

it would be the same for a citizens arrest

Wrong. If there's evidence you committed a crime the cops can come pick you up any time they see you, not just at the moment you did it.

That's the difference between an actual arrest and a citizens arrest. Actual cops can arrest you whenever.

They had video of Arbery trespassing on a property that had been burglarized. That's plenty of probable cause for the cops to arrest him, even 3 weeks later.

1
MasklessMarvel [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

that is completely incorrect

if there is evidence you committed a crime in the past, they have to get an arrest warrant

actual cops can arrest you if they have probable cause or they have an arrest warrant

That's plenty of probable cause

probable cause means they have evidence at hand that directly connects you to the crime

if a store gets robbed of $5000 and the cops stop you 15 minutes later and see $5000 on your seat, that's probable cause

if there is video of you robbing the store a week ago, the cops have to get an arrest warrant before they can bust you

i.e. the court has to agree you prolly did it

1
XxxRDTPRNxxX 1 point ago +1 / -0

You have zero clue what you're talking about. Cops don't need a warrant to arrest you or detain you. They just need probable cause. Probable cause is not tied to a specific time period.

BTW.... A cop can't even check a person's warrant status without detaining them in the first place, Genius.

1
MasklessMarvel [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

you don't know the difference between detaining- stopping you while they investigate and arresting- taking you to jail

Cops don't need a warrant to arrest you or detain you.

true, they can detain you if they have a reasonable suspicion you are committing a crime- i.e. they see you doing something indicative of that

they can arrest you if they have probable cause- they find something directly connecting you to the crime

if they have evidence you have committed a crime but they can't see anything directly tying you to it, the court has to issue a warrant to search and/or arrest you

it's the court's decision, not the cop's

and excuuuuse me, anytime a cop pulls you over he has already run your tags. he knows if you have warrants before he gets out of the car

as far as ID goes, no, he cannot demand ID to check your record unless you have been detained

but it is not a good idea to dispute it if they ask such as at a drunk driving checkpoint

prove me wrong with facts, Neinstein

1
XxxRDTPRNxxX 1 point ago +2 / -1

Bro. Im honestly done with your shit.

You said cops can only arrest people they have warrants for unless the crime was committed right then and there.

You obviously dont know shit about the law or what warrants are for.

1
MasklessMarvel [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

i didn't see any facts there dumbass

you are fucking retarded. you did not understand anything I said

i hope you get busted so you can learn the lesson firsthand

0
MasklessMarvel [S] 0 points ago +1 / -1

that is not true.

there has to be a reasonable suspicion for the police to detain you

a car just yours was spotted at the scene of a robbery that happened five minutes ago two blocks away. that would generate reasonable suspicion so the cops could stop you

if someone said they heard you committed a robbery last week, that would not be sufficient for the cops to detain you

to arrest you there has to be probable cause, which means there has to be sufficient evidence to connect you to the crime

if your car was spotted at the scene of the robbery, $5000 was stolen and the cops find $5000 in your car, that's probable cause

if the robbery was committed last week, the cops would need a warrant to arrest you

these good ol boys fucked up from the start. they had no reasonable suspicion justifying their detention of the guy

2
XxxRDTPRNxxX 2 points ago +2 / -0

there has to be a reasonable suspicion for the police to detain you

Having video of you trespassing inside of a construction site at a time that corresponds with reported thefts is absolutely reasonable suspicion for cops to detain you. Doesn't matter if its 5 mins ago or 5 days ago.

And in the process of detaining you, perhaps the cops find some drugs in your pocket or a weapon you shouldn't have.

That gives them probable cause to search your car.

Then perhaps in your car they find some of the stolen property tying you to the burglary.

This is how good policing works.

0
MasklessMarvel [S] 0 points ago +1 / -1

Having video of you trespassing inside of a construction site at a time that corresponds with reported thefts is absolutely reasonable suspicion for cops to detain you. Doesn't matter if its 5 mins ago or 5 days ago.

you can cal that evidence but reasonable suspicion that the crime is currently being committed

And in the process of detaining you, perhaps the cops find some drugs in your pocket or a weapon you shouldn't have.

That gives them probable cause to search your car.

You got that backward

The cop has a reasonable suspicion you have broken the law before he can detain you

He sees you run a stop sign

That gives him reasonable suspicion that you broke the law and he can stop you

He comes up to your car and smells pot

Now he has probable cause and can search you and your car

They have to have probable cause before they can search you

Then perhaps in your car they find some of the stolen property tying you to the burglary.

if they had probable cause, you're busted

if they don't, they can do nothing

this is why you never consent to a search

4
Genericwhitemale 4 points ago +4 / -0

"Georgia did not bring hate crime charges against the three men because Georgia law did not have a hate crime statute. Arbery’s death, however, sparked lawmakers in the state to pass a law that allows for extra penalties for those who commit crimes based on race or other identities, such as sexual orientation."

So, Georgia invented a law to bury these guys further?

1
OrangeManOffical 1 point ago +1 / -0

No it can only be used against people in the future, the feds are the ones over reaching with hate crime laws. You can't pass a law then use it against an act that has already happened (except for financial penalties in the same year which the finance law was past which is bullshit).

1
n00tch 1 point ago +1 / -0

lol, you seem to still believe we live in the United States of America.. laws today in this Soviet era are very fluid depending on who is on trial..

1
OrangeManOffical 1 point ago +1 / -0

People like you are funny you think things were less corrupt when there were no camera's in the court room and the only information you got was from the media if they even bothered to cover the case at all. Just because you know about the corruption now does not mean it was less corrupt in the past.

1
n00tch 1 point ago +1 / -0

Who are you talking to? My point was that we live in a two tiered "justice" system.. one for the elites and their pawns, and another for us plebes. They create and ignore laws at their whim. This has really picked up speed in the last 15-20 yrs.. they're not even trying to hide it anymore.

1
OrangeManOffical 1 point ago +1 / -0

and? that's not new, it's about time you noticed that was the case. Now stop being a doomer about it and help us fix it.

1
n00tch 1 point ago +1 / -0

lmfao.. it's about time? You were the one stating law like that's the way it works still.. that they would never change a law after the fact and charge them with it. I disagree.. these people will do anything for power. Come off the doomer bs copout. First step to solving a problem is stating the problem and waking normies to the facts.. which you apparently still are? Have a nice evening.

0
OrangeManOffical 0 points ago +1 / -1

That is the way it works for the McMicheals dumbass. The newly passed hate crime law can't be used against them it was passed after the incident. You on the other hand are just now learning that there is a two tier system, and seem to think that is some kind of new change. The system has always been 2 tier just because you just noticed it doesn't negate the way the law has been and will continued to be applied. Just because there is corruption in the system doesn't mean there are no rules. You obviously have a lot of learning to do.

4
DemonkkkRatSlavers 4 points ago +4 / -0

White privilege is the privilege of being murdered by a black man. While the black worshipping media looks the other way and encourages more anti-white violence with their reporting. Everytime a death results in white vs black, the headlines amplify and white killing blacks is stated at every opportunity, a white person killed a black all day long, no matter if racism was or wasn't part of the event, the media makes it part of it. This goes double if LEO is involved. If the races are reversed, black kills white, the media hides this fact, downplays it, even omits it, crickets. More so if the black is a social justice BLM activist that has social media calling for violence against whites, again the media looks the other way crickets. You have to rely on 3rd party truthseekers to get the truth before allies scrub the murderers social media. Speaking of which, the "official" fact checkers only serve to bolster the media's propaganda. For some reason, coincidence maybe, members of the desert tribe cult choose to push this subversion.

2
MasklessMarvel [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Look at things end to end- CRT, media bias, special laws that only apply to white people, no penalties for blacks even if the commit murder, extreme penalties and politcal imprisonment for white people for the smallest misstep

What it all boils down to is that blacks and their supporters are now an armed group of mercenaries fighting at the behest and under the protection of the government

They have free reign and motivation to steal, destroy and to kill white people - even little kids

Meanwhile, the government uses its full force to keep white people from fighting back

Y'all thought Biden was going to use the military to subdue us

He is using the blacks

4
SteelDriver 4 points ago +4 / -0

"Hate crimes" are bullshit. All crime is hate. Tring to claim some crimes are more hateful than others, which is already inane, has devolved into merely tacking on years for white criminals who've victimized any minority for any reason.

4
FreddyThePatriot 4 points ago +5 / -1

Nothing supports this.

These charges themselves are a hate crime. They're being charged for being white.

3
AlphaOmaga 3 points ago +3 / -0

Serious question. Who attacked Aubrey? Who even said “I’ll hurt you” to him that day? Ad far as I know, no one even verbally assaulted Aubrey that day. He kept stealing from a neighborhood and they approached him (shitily but legally) and he attacked them. You lunge at and grab someone’s gun they are legally carrying and you get shot, that’s your fault. Even if the people are being assholes. Call the police and have them… oh wait. That doesn’t work out for you when your a criminal and have warrants. Hrm.

0
MasklessMarvel [S] 0 points ago +1 / -1

ima be the jogger's advocate and say that, if someone approaches you with a gun, trying to disarm them would be a reasonable response

just assuming they were taking it to use on you when you are the aggressor would not be a reasonable assumption

if the jogger was still jogging and had taken and used the gun, he would have a good case for self defense

2
AlphaOmaga 2 points ago +2 / -0

I’ll start out by saying I don't agree with rolling up on people with a gun even if you are 90% sure they are a criminal. But I’ll play the other side for healthy discourse. You make fantastic points. Let me explain from the three dopes perspective.

Robberies in neighborhood.

Guy gets caught on camera.

Guy gets seen in neighborhood looking suspicious.

“We got him” “let’s protect our neighborhood”

Ok being a shotgun in case dude is violent.

Roll up on dude and ask him where he lives in shit (this is where I have a problem but back to the story I guess)

You question dude and dude decides to lunge at and grab your buddies gun.

No. Never do this. If some dumbasses roll up on you in a peaceful neighborhood, do not lunge at them and grab their gun. Or even “defend” yourself if you are not being physically attacked or threatened. Even if they illegally “detain” or citizens arrest you. The police will fuck them up if they did something wrong.

You could say he felt threatened and lashed out, and that’s what shame does. Dude had warrants.

Which is why you don’t roll up on people like a posse in the first place but now I’m making your argument lol.

1
MasklessMarvel [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

if they had been successful and took him into some sort of custody, the would be liable for charges of unlawful detention and perhaps kidnapping

Zimmerman did it the right way

he lived in an area plagued by burglaries. he saw a guy sneaking around between the houses, called the cops and stayed on the line feeding them information

St Skittles attacked him which gave him the right to defend himself

if had just jumped out of his car and tried to hold obama's son at gunpoint before he was attacked, he would be sitting in prison right now

1
AlphaOmaga 1 point ago +1 / -0

I would argue it was kinda the same thing. Except with a shotgun. Well and they detained him. Bad gamble really. If it was just some random dude out for a walk, they’d be in deeper shit. Was Aubrey ever at gun point? Or just in the presence and a twit with a shotgun? How else do you open carry a shotgun?

1
n00tch 1 point ago +1 / -0

Did you watch the video? Please give the timestamp of when the McMichaels "approched" Aubery. In the video I saw, Aubery ran 50+yards toward a stationary vehicle with two men STANDING outside of it and proceeded to try and wrestle a shotgun away from one of them.

0
MasklessMarvel [S] 0 points ago +1 / -1

they were tailing him

3
RogueLeaderX 3 points ago +3 / -0

Haven’t they already been convicted? Why are they charging them twice?

3
SauronWasFramed 3 points ago +4 / -1

To teach us lessons

3
RealityKnocking 3 points ago +3 / -0

I hate joggers

1
MasklessMarvel [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

run that by me again?

3
Chosimbaone 3 points ago +3 / -0

Man, I get the felony murder charge, I do, they didn't see him actually commit a burglary so they didn't have probable cause (Not saying I agree, just that I understand how they got there) but what they definitely weren't doing was hunting black people. I have zero idea how this could possibly be brought up for federal charges.

1
MasklessMarvel [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

its a warning

white people hands off the joggers

3
n00tch 3 points ago +6 / -3

This is another obvious attack on 2A. So now, if someone attacks you and grabs for your gun, you'd better not shoot them! Especially if the attacker is a protected class and you are not!

Anyone who thinks the verdict handed down is correct, is either a racist or a cuck. Both are unwanted here.

Andrew Branca was on Timcast last night and spoke about how the judge was a bitch and abdicated his duty.. good interview. https://rumble.com/vprpo6-lawyer-says-ahmaud-arbery-cases-judge-ruled-incorrectly-all-three-defendant.html

2
here2red 2 points ago +2 / -0

I wanted to hear Branca's take on this. The judge and the specific law did fail these guys. Hopefully they can win on appeal.

-1
MasklessMarvel [S] -1 points ago +1 / -2

for it to be self defense there has to be an immediate danger to you or someone else

when they confronted the guy, he was not posing any danger

they sparked the incident by threatening him.

you can't say you defended yourself if you raise your fist and the other guy punches you before you can swing

1
n00tch 1 point ago +1 / -0

What immediate danger was Auberry in until he ran 50+yards toward the armed men standing still in the middle of the street and tried to wrestle a shotgun away? Why couldn't he have ran through yards, knocked on doors, yelled "help!", called the cops.. ANYTHING but run TOWARDS armed men? I think you know the reason. This is an attack on 2A and the right to self-defense. But I'm guessing you and the others that support this verdict know and approve of this.
You'd better just let your attacker take your gun away from you and do what he will from now on.. /smh

-1
MasklessMarvel [S] -1 points ago +1 / -2

those guys were there with shotguns with the clear intent to cause him harm

i cannot explain his reasoning

why didn't the shotgun guys call the cops? they could have followed him from a distance and guided the cops to him?

their intent from the beginning was to take the law into their own hands

this has nothing to do with self defense

they were armed, he was not.

they were after him, he was not after them.

they were not out hunting ducks. they carried those shotguns with clear intent to intimidate or illegally detain him

yes I do agree with the verdict

i am not a hypocrite who thinks the verdict should be based on their race

them shooting the jogger did more harm to the 2A than the verdict did

0
n00tch 0 points ago +1 / -1

They called the cops. Multiple burglaries and robberies in the area. A gun was stolen less than a month ago. Cops had been out several times.. shockingly after the perp was long gone. The neighbors wouldn’t let their kids play outside because they were scared.

Jogger ran towards men standing in the street when multiple avenues of escape were clearly visible.

This is all out there for anyone who’s not intellectually lazy or dishonest. You do you commie.. just do it somewhere else.

1
MasklessMarvel [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

communists (like you) do not believe in a system of laws

the posse should have called the cops and stayed in the car, keeping him in sight

you sound not different than some BLM thug trying to justify assaulting whitey

This is all out there for anyone who’s not intellectually lazy or dishonest.

you go steal something, dindu

0
n00tch 0 points ago +1 / -1

Who's helping the commies dismantle 2A by defending the BLM thug? Look in the mirror idiot.

0
MasklessMarvel [S] 0 points ago +1 / -1

first, there is no indication he was BLM

the people helping to dismantle the 2A are the ones like these three stooges

they did everything the left accuses gun owners of doing

they took the law into their own hands, armed themselves then went out, hunted down and killed an innocent black man

i know what you are going to say

Here in America, you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law

doofus

-1
MAGAborn -1 points ago +3 / -4

If I put my pistol to your head, and you try to grab it, does that justify when I pull the trigger?

5
NoFucksman 5 points ago +5 / -0

Thats not what happened.

-2
MAGAborn -2 points ago +1 / -3

Of course not, but it’s a similar situation. They had no reason to chase and brandish weapons on him. THEY created the situation, chased him and put him at gun point. That is not self defense.

1
n00tch 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is entirely false.. are you a commie troll or just blinded by race?

0
MAGAborn 0 points ago +1 / -1

If you watched the video, the circumstances, and still think it’s self defense, you’re a knuckle dragging idiot who gives patriots a bad image. BTW, you replied 3 times. Such a soy boy move.

1
n00tch 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ok commie. Delete your account, you’ve been outed.

0
MAGAborn 0 points ago +1 / -1

You’re what we call a “smoothbrain” around here.

1
n00tch 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's fucking stupid... not even the same circumstance. The jogger saw them standing there 50+ yards out, ignored all avenues of escape and ran towards them because he thought he could beat up those fat whyte boys. Did you even watch the video? Switch the races and I'd have the same opinion, would you?

0
MAGAborn 0 points ago +1 / -1

Of course I have, and I would. And it is the same circumstance. Those “fat whyte boys” had absolutely no reason to corral and brandish weapons at him. There’s laws against that also. It’s exactly like the circumstance I mentioned. That trio were idiots and they got their comeuppance.

1
n00tch 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's called open carry.. ever heard of it? Please give me a timestamp of when they pointed/brandished.
Why are you ignoring the fact that Aubery had multiple chances to get away, but chose to run 50+ yards toward two armed men standing stationary in the middle of the street and attack them?

0
MAGAborn 0 points ago +1 / -1

If there were leftist versions of you on Rittenhouse's jury, he’d be guilty. Look up the difference between open carry and brandishing, you armchair lawyer.

1
n00tch 1 point ago +1 / -0

Again, you make no sense… but commies never do.

3
johnqpublic864 3 points ago +6 / -3

Dinger privilege is real. I'd still shoot any foolish enough to eff around.

3
becky21k1 3 points ago +4 / -1

The only thing I've learned from this case is they should have either buried the jogger in the back 40 or dumped him in the hood somewhere and destroyed the gun and the camera footage.

3
deleted 3 points ago +6 / -3
3
Wcvarn 3 points ago +3 / -0

American justice is now nothing but African Kangaroo court. Department of joggers (DOJ) has an empty docket for innocent White people to be punished for being White.

1
MasklessMarvel [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

African Kangaroo court.

it's a damn shame that African Kangaroos are so lawless that they need their own court

3
learntocode 3 points ago +4 / -1

Their lives are over because of a cartoon of a racial stereotype was out "jogging" and they figured they would be allowed to police their own neighborhood the way all the gangsters in political office get to. Tricks on us for being normal working people and thinking we could act like the elites do.

3
FlacidNation3 3 points ago +3 / -0

Welcome to The Banana Republic!

1
MasklessMarvel [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

i hear you are having a big sale

3
notCIA 3 points ago +3 / -0

Hate crimes aren't real

3
Tellsyouhow 3 points ago +3 / -0

They planned on him being their George Floyd to inject race into the 2020 election...... Then George took an overdose and the rest is history

1
MasklessMarvel [S] 1 point ago +2 / -1

this is what I don't get

you have three white literal vigilantes who pursued and killed a black

Jesse Jackson and other race baiters attended the trial

there were armed black militants milling around the courthouse during the trial

it was a perfect storm for the dems to use to justify more anti white violence

Rittenhouse got weeks of top story coverage but the media barely spoke about this

when the trial ended, there were not any demonstrators around

why would the commies blow such a golden opportunity to generate more hate?

3
Unboosted 3 points ago +3 / -0

I think its safe to assume that the world is a better place without Aubrey in it. Theres a small chance he could have turned a new leaf and stopped living the rap lifestyle but stastically thats one of the longest shots to ever be made.

3
f_bastiat 3 points ago +5 / -2

The charges were way too harsh, but this wasn't anything like Kyles situation, or even Zimmerman.

We all know the dude was the one in the house trying to find shit to steal, he wasn't jogging, but they went out of their way to put themselves in that situation. I do believe the killing itself was self defense, but they could have let the police handle it, follow him until the police arrived, they gave the crook no choice but to surrender or fight and he chose fight, that in itself is self defense as well.

They made some very poor choices that day imho

2
NoFucksman 2 points ago +2 / -0

Bullshit. In the old days when people didn’t rely on state enforcers, good citizens could apprehend bad guys.

1
KILLARY4PRISON 1 point ago +3 / -2

The defender acted in self defense and ultimately failed. His right to self defense was found by the jury to be violated.

Honestly this is why citizen's arrests are such a bad idea. You have two people who have equal amounts of rights.

0
f_bastiat 0 points ago +1 / -1

I truly believe they thought they were doing the right thing, I don't believe race or anything else was an issue, they weren't out to murder that day. But they didn't apprehend him, they killed him, they were judge and jury, and they decided whatever they perceived he did warranted death or they wouldn't have put him in the situation of no escape, I'm 100% positive they expected him to stop, but when he didn't that was it.

3
redpillthenormies 3 points ago +6 / -3

If the races were reversed no one would question it was self defense. If a White criminal hit, kicked, charged at, and tried to steal the gun of a black man who was just trying to help out his community and got killed, I wouldn't care.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
3
dagoat4l 3 points ago +3 / -0

That boy wasn't jogging. They shouldn't got in their vehicles with guns and confronted him. They should of stayed in their vehicle and tried to talk to him and record him. Then if he attacked its self defense.

0
MasklessMarvel [S] 0 points ago +1 / -1

they should have called the cops and then stayed back and followed him

2
Yawnz13 2 points ago +3 / -1

How dare they infringe on his right to use a public street to run away from a crime.

2
mass55th 2 points ago +3 / -1

So where are the Federal hate crime charges for Darrell Brooks who, because of the race of people he didn't even know, used deadly physical force with his vehicle, and threats of force (pushing through people with said vehicle), and deliberately running people over with his vehicle, thus interfering with the rights of every individual attending the parade to use a public street.

2
MasklessMarvel [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

you mane the Brooks who's facebook page was filled with videos and posts which prove he wanted all white people to be killed?

2
Platinum 2 points ago +9 / -7

They had no right to kill Arbery. And the whole thing would have been avoided if they just told the police. Thee 3 hicks wanted to be Rambo. They got what they deserved.

6
Bueller 6 points ago +7 / -1

Have you seen the video? The fucking idiot grabbed the shotgun and practically shot himself. It was and accident. Should have been a manslaughter charge. There was no intent to kill the idiot.

1
Platinum 1 point ago +1 / -0

Again, it all would have been avoided if they just reported him instead of trying to play Rambo. Yes, it was an accident, and Manslaughter would fit better. But either way they deserve ail time and I doubt they will get life.

1
Bueller 1 point ago +1 / -0

Fair enough. But, after the lawless summer of 2020 its no wonder

-1
KILLARY4PRISON -1 points ago +2 / -3

He grabbed the gun because he was threatened by the shooter. That's a pretty reasonable reason to defend oneself.

3
Bueller 3 points ago +3 / -0

From 50 yards away? Bullshit.

The dude ran at him chimping out like a psycho.

They were trying to intimidate him not murder him.

-1
Vulveeta57 -1 points ago +2 / -3

As someone who actually owns and understands firearms, I’ll give you a tip: you never point a gun at someone unless you are, in fact, intending to shoot them.

2
Bueller 2 points ago +2 / -0

He was standing there holding the shotgun, not pointing it at him. Then psycho dipshit jogger charged him and grabbed the shotgun and pointed it into his own body.

So yeah, never grab the shotgun barrel end from someone and shove it into your own abdomen. Unless you intend to kill yourself or you are a chimping out idiot.

Obviously the guy with the shotgun had no intention to shoot or "murder" otherwise he would have shot that idiot (Arbury) as he was running at him . . . before he grabbed.

This is the same behavior we've seen with black guys freaking outwith cops and esacalating a situation. . . getting shot. They are taught to do this in their culture and movies. Then they pretend it's because of "racism" No, it's not racism, its people trying to stop crime. Had they simply surrendered they would be alive. But they are brainwashed to fear cops and fear "whitey" to the point of irrationality (stupidity)

-1
KILLARY4PRISON -1 points ago +2 / -3

It doesn't matter. Intimidating someone with a deadly weapon in an unjustified way can wind up with you legally dying by the defender. Don't risk it.

3
Bueller 3 points ago +3 / -0

Sure. A manslaughter charge would be appropriate, not murder 1 with hate crime suce added.

0
Pence_Brigade 0 points ago +1 / -1

End of the video after he shot him he said “f-ing n*gger”. Ya, they doomed themselves and I don’t feel sorry for their Darwinian minds.

1
MeinDonald 1 point ago +1 / -0

Are you implying Arbery wasn't?

1
Bueller 1 point ago +1 / -0

Name calling justfies inappropriate application of law? I don't think so.

Many many people have been victmized by the crime and violence and rape that emanates from F'd up thug/criminal culture promoted in rap music and pervading the "black community" in . . . this causes resentment and name calling . . . does that surprise you? Do you recognize the cultural problems ? Do you think black people in inner cities refrain from name calling? Of course not.

Love and humility and honesty are the answers. And belief in God and desire to avoid hell (on earth and hereafter) is the answer.

-1
KILLARY4PRISON -1 points ago +1 / -2

Probably more than manslaughter since the killing was no accident. Hate crime laws are victimless fake ass thought crimes and must be abolished.

4
Bozwat 4 points ago +5 / -1

Imagine still relying on the police after they let dindus burn down half the country and arrested white people for not wearing masks.

1
here2red 1 point ago +1 / -0

You should, especially if you live in a blue state. Unless you wanna end up where the McMichaels are now.

1
Bozwat 1 point ago +2 / -1

You'd still have your life destroyed for calling the cops on a "jogger."

White woman faces charge after calling 911 on Black man in Central Park

1
here2red 1 point ago +2 / -1

Saving this story?

This is a one in million story. Anyways the lesson here is DONT get involved. Especially in blue states. Or do so at your own risk.

1
Bozwat 1 point ago +2 / -1

Fort Jackson soldier found guilty of assault for shoving Black man

The Richland County Sheriff's Department said in April there were two previous incidents reported to deputies involving the young man, one allegedly involving him touching a woman without consent. The other involved him allegedly picking up a baby without permission.

1
here2red 1 point ago +1 / -0

Pentland said a neighbor banged on his door and asked for help,

call the cops AND LET THEM FUCKING HANDLE IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1
MeinDonald 1 point ago +1 / -0

Why even own a firearm if you're such a cucked faggot?

0
here2red 0 points ago +1 / -1

how many more articles did you save?

1
Bozwat 1 point ago +2 / -1

Enough to prove you wrong.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
1
Platinum 1 point ago +1 / -0

He wasn't a threat to them til after THEY stalked him and then THEY pulled the gun out. Ye, he panicked and did the stupid thing, but like I said, it all would have been avoided if they just called the police.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0