Killing people is always a last resort reserved for self defense, defense of others or conviction via due process. I agree with that.
Since there is some question even on this point over who was threatened and at what point, once again I have to reference a lack of verified information.
I would if they attacked me and tried to take my gun.
Now, depending on local laws, you are often not permitted to brandish a weapon without immediate threat or that is considered armed assault. If anything, maybr they should not have had their guns drawn but I also don't know all the details and this sounds like it could have been a situation where they felt enough danger to justify unholstering their guns. If it is and it is true that Arbery attacked them and tried to take their gun, i would have pulled the trigger faster than this guy.
Amen. Nothing gives an individual citizen the right to carry a gun and chase someone down. Get a pic, tail the person at a distance...don't confront. Its both dangerous and wrong.
That is a city folks perspective. Country folks often assist law enforcement in the capture of criminals because they know the police can't be there in a timely manner.
That is not to say that they acted appropriately or not. It's just a different perspective between people raised in different environments. Country folks take care of themselves and city folks expect others to take care of them.
I live on the border in AZ and have a loaded pistol laying on my end table. I'm plenty country. These people were not involved in the original crime (from what I know) and chased the person down with loaded guns, blocking his path. It COULD be said they engineered this for a violent confrontation.
I completely support protecting your own property and person, and protecting others when they can't protect themselves. I don't support pushing a confrontation when one isn't needed.
Then we're not that far apart. The question which has not been answered is whether the actions were appropriate or not. There is not enough known to make that determination yet. Only information that supports a predetermined cause is out there now.
One side thinks it's a jogger and the actions are horrible and another thinks he was a thief and attacked those who were catching a thief.
Usually, there are problems with both narratives. We just don't have the facts required to draw a definitive conclusion yet.
OK, I can get with the "not enough information" crowd as far as who the victim? was. I just can't get behind people chasing someone down, regardless of actions, and seemingly forcing a confrontation. I'll reserve final judgment for more info, however.
How far should you go in this setting to protect yourself or neighbors? Reasonable people can disagree and often do. Is it even what happened here? I don't know.
But finding out should be very important before jumping to conclusions. I just wanted to point out that what appropriate responses are differ based on situations, your background and perspective. In this case, a typical difference in background is city vs rural setting. There is definitely variation of opinion in both groups.
Nothing on the big networks, FOX or CNN etc, about this. So you know this is truth.
The cancer would sure feel stupid about this if we find out he was an actual burglar. Lol nah, none of them have any sort of integrity.
Got the video?
Damage is already done. Agenda accomplished. Convenient timing too what with Obozo now undeniably implicated.
This is a really shitty and retarded hill for Republicans and conservatives to die on.
If they thought the man was guilty, they should have tailed him and called the cops.
I think they were in the process of that, but the cops showed up too slowly and then the perp tried to grab a gun. We'll never really know now though.
Exactly. Apparently everyone hates rule of law in this particular case
There is not sufficient information to conclude whether Rule of Law was followed or not. Only echo chambers at this point.
I think we can all say we aren’t killing someone if we aren’t sure who they are or what they did
Killing people is always a last resort reserved for self defense, defense of others or conviction via due process. I agree with that.
Since there is some question even on this point over who was threatened and at what point, once again I have to reference a lack of verified information.
I would if they attacked me and tried to take my gun.
Now, depending on local laws, you are often not permitted to brandish a weapon without immediate threat or that is considered armed assault. If anything, maybr they should not have had their guns drawn but I also don't know all the details and this sounds like it could have been a situation where they felt enough danger to justify unholstering their guns. If it is and it is true that Arbery attacked them and tried to take their gun, i would have pulled the trigger faster than this guy.
Amen. Nothing gives an individual citizen the right to carry a gun and chase someone down. Get a pic, tail the person at a distance...don't confront. Its both dangerous and wrong.
That is a city folks perspective. Country folks often assist law enforcement in the capture of criminals because they know the police can't be there in a timely manner.
That is not to say that they acted appropriately or not. It's just a different perspective between people raised in different environments. Country folks take care of themselves and city folks expect others to take care of them.
I live on the border in AZ and have a loaded pistol laying on my end table. I'm plenty country. These people were not involved in the original crime (from what I know) and chased the person down with loaded guns, blocking his path. It COULD be said they engineered this for a violent confrontation.
I completely support protecting your own property and person, and protecting others when they can't protect themselves. I don't support pushing a confrontation when one isn't needed.
Then we're not that far apart. The question which has not been answered is whether the actions were appropriate or not. There is not enough known to make that determination yet. Only information that supports a predetermined cause is out there now.
One side thinks it's a jogger and the actions are horrible and another thinks he was a thief and attacked those who were catching a thief.
Usually, there are problems with both narratives. We just don't have the facts required to draw a definitive conclusion yet.
Stay Safe.
OK, I can get with the "not enough information" crowd as far as who the victim? was. I just can't get behind people chasing someone down, regardless of actions, and seemingly forcing a confrontation. I'll reserve final judgment for more info, however.
How far should you go in this setting to protect yourself or neighbors? Reasonable people can disagree and often do. Is it even what happened here? I don't know.
But finding out should be very important before jumping to conclusions. I just wanted to point out that what appropriate responses are differ based on situations, your background and perspective. In this case, a typical difference in background is city vs rural setting. There is definitely variation of opinion in both groups.