1) They found new video of him entering at night MANY TIMES 2) Scott Adams perfectly sums up what I have been thinking
(media.patriots.win)
posted ago by kek_saved_the_world
+782 / -0
Comments (40)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
Front
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
Well, the "jogging by and stopped one time to check out the cool site" narrative fell apart in record time.
They still refer to "motorist Rodney King".
Fucking called it, lol.
Holy shit he was casing it and then went in. There was no jogging. But he wuz joggin to cheerch he dindu nuffin he a good boy
The media needs their RACE BAIT STORY to get their troops activated to go vote.
Even when there was just the original footage, I was wondering what I was missing. Because it looked like he was running BEHIND the truck, and then in the next shot he had gone around the front and attacked a man, punching him in the head.
Like Scott Adams said this had fake news warning signs written all over it. Fit the media narrative too perfectly and was released right when other things were being exposed.
You’d think people would have learned from the Nick Sandman video.
Joe Biden said everyone should “buy a shotgun”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaGlTD8bUdg
He is therefore responsible for this death and can be sued, according to the radical authoritarian left’s own logic.
You...all?
All y'all
Yuns.
Yinz.
Night jogging!
Ahmaud Dindunuffin!
Too late. Its only a matter of time til they start rioting and destroying their own communities to somehow "stick it to the white man".
Say what you want about him, but Scott went ALL IN on that one.
Whew lad!
Maybe he'd just seen The Irishman? "Rush a guy with a gun! A knife, run away but always rush a guy with a gun!" Blame Hoffa. Or Pacino.
I mean there is always two sides to the story and the coverage is sensational and whips up a frenzy. The video doesn't give any context apart from the phone call and the struggle resulting in the shooting, but it doesn't give anything in between those two events. The media surrounding the case is turning us into a mob with pitchforks where the only acceptable result is to convict these guys without a trial. If anything other than a guilty verdict is found, there will be riots in the streets because the media is feeding the frenzy.
That being said, even if this guy was guilty of breaking and entering (or any crime for that matter), you should not be able to pull a gun on them and place them under arrest unless you catch them in the act of a crime where it is so urgent that the action of holding them for police is necessary. This is another George Zimmerman case and people need to stop acting like they can deliver vigilante justice like this. He called the police and they gave him instructions, he shouldn't have done anything further than that. The race angle might be a factor, but it's irresponsible for the media to call this a "lynching", when the 911 call clearly states their motive. At the same time, the media is trying to incite racial division when they refer to the guy repeatedly as a "jogger", when he is not even in workout clothing. He probably only started jogging once an altercation occurred or something gave him a reason to run--- he is not a "jogger".
Stop listening to liars. The guys went out with guns because guns had been stolen in their area.
They went with their guns to stop him, then the black guy rushed at them and attacked them, grabbing the gun. If you grab my gun out of my hands, I will pull the trigger on you as well.
Sounds like you just don't like guns. Would you have been happier if the two white men went and just kicked the shit out of the black guy and held him down?
That is what a gun is supposed to do, make them sit there. The black guy was a moron for trying to take the gun.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes, the black man is a regular criminal. He didn't deserve to die for that, but he did deserve to die for trying to take someone's gun out of their hand.
Just like the "hands up don't shoot" bullshit was a lie, so is this. Stop framing it
If I see a guy who I'm almost positive committed a murder last week and I take my gun to go detain the guy until the police arrive to arrest him. A struggle ensues wherein the guy happens to be shot and killed, that's the issue at hand. Was I defending myself because he tried to wrestle my gun away, or was he defending himself because I pulled a gun on him as an ordinary citizen and told him he was under arrest? I don't know the answer to that because I'm not a lawyer, I just think these encounters are very messy.
Then go educate yourself, don't just spout off lies.
Georgia, allowed to have gun in the car
Georgia self defense law
If someone is an aggressor, you are allowed to defend yourself by the "Stand your ground" doctrine.
So, was the guy who had a gun in the car or on him, both of which are legal in Georgia ... the 'aggressor'?
Or was the guy that ran over 15 feet, to grab a man's property (gun) and throw several punches at the man holding the gun, the 'aggressor'.
The white guy is allowed to carry the gun in Georgia.
The black guy IS NOT allowed to run up, punch the guy and try to steal his gun.
STOP TELLING LIES AND EDUCATE YOURSELF
I'm not telling any lies and I'm not intending on misleading anyone. I am just stating my opinion and asking a question.
In regard to "stand your ground": if you pull a gun on another citizen--- if you say "PUT YOUR HANDS UP" with a gun pointed at them, what if they pull their own gun out on you and tell you to do the same? Is the person who initially pulled the gun and said "put your hands up" the aggressor, or is the person who retaliated by pulling their own gun out the aggressor? I think a lot of people would say that the guy who first pulled a gun out is. You can't wrestle a gun away from someone if you don't see that they have one. The guy was on foot and the person with a gun had a pick-up truck, perhaps he thought that these ordinary citizens had no right to detain him (because they didn't) and if he ran, they would easily catch up to him with their pick up truck and shoot him. At that point in his mind, his only choice is to run (and die), or fight back.
Whether or not the guy was a burglar, you can't pull a gun out on somebody, kill them, and then claim self defense in my opinion. I am all in favor of the 2nd amendment and go hunting myself, I just think there is a big difference between having a gun on his person and pointing that gun at a man just because you suspect he committed robberies recently.
See, you are lying again.
"you can't pull a gun out on somebody, kill them, and then claim self defense in my opinion."
This is a lie by framing. That is not what happened, you are leaving out how he was physically attacked, in which case you can legally defend yourself.
Also, none of your hypothetical mean anything. They followed a criminal, I would think the criminal may be armed as well.
You CANNOT violently attack someone. Even if you feel threatened, if you throw the first punch you are the instigator.
The man easily could have put his hands up and waited for the cops, he didn't he ATTACKED.
I find it interesting you are willing to lie, frame and use hypothetical's to defend one side but not the other.
Can you please show me the law where you are required to surrender to an ordinary citizen who pulls a gun on you because he suspects you did something illegal in the recent past? There is a reason the 911 operator will tell you to keep your distance and wait for the police to arrive. Owning and carrying a firearm with a permit is completely separate from pulling that firearm on a man who hasn't been convicted of any crimes. In the 911 call, he says he THOUGHT he was looking at a guy who had been committing burglaries recently. If you go through the training programs when you first get your firearm and/or permit, they teach you that a gun is your LAST RESORT when all else fails.
Now, did the physical attack happen before or after a gun was pointed at him by a group of guys in a pickup truck (and not the police)? If I had a gun pointed at me by people who aren't police officers, I would be within reason to say that I feared for my life, would I not?
You said "they followed a criminal, I would think the criminal may be armed as well.". That is not true at all, he clearly stated in the 911 call that he was following someone who he THOUGHT was a criminal. You can't just "THINK" that someone is armed just because you also assumed they were a criminal. He could have easily put his hands up, but why would he? They weren't the police and they can't do anything about that by law-- it's not a citizen's arrest unless you see someone committing a crime that is so urgent that you cannot wait for police to arrive. They pulled a gun on him and he retaliated, that's called self-defense. Had they not pulled up on him and pointed a gun at him, he would never have been killed.
Furthermore, the man who fired the fatal shots somehow exited the vehicle with a shotgun in his hands while the victim was still unarmed. They had every opportunity to de-escalate the situation by driving off or trailing him from afar until police arrived, but instead the man ended up exiting his vehicle with a shotgun in his hands.
Again, I'm not saying the guy wasn't a thug. I'm not saying that IF they were attacked by him FIRST while they were in the safety of their vehicle, that they would have the right to defend themselves if they feared for their lives. How can you reasonably argue that three fully grown men fear for their lives when ONE UNARMED man is outside of their vehicle? If he attacked the vehicle, they could drive off without fearing for their lives, could they not? If you feared for your life, you would not leave the safety of your vehicle... with a weapon no less. You can't be rolling 3 deep in a vehicle, point a gun at an unarmed person demanding they put their hands up, and then end up fearing for your life.
What I am saying is that there are THREE armed men in a pickup truck trying to detain somebody when they aren't active duty law enforcement. The victim was unarmed and the suspects were in their vehicle. Instead of waiting for police....instead of having all 3 men exit the vehicle to physically overpower him and hold him there for police.... instead of trailing him, one man got out of the vehicle with a shotgun and the guy was ultimately killed. They were not in the right, so stop acting like this is a second amendment issue.
Still wrong. There is no evidence anyone was pointing a gun. The ex police officer in the back of the truck had his weapon holstered. The other man was in front of and on the opposite side from Arbery where the cab would block direct line of sight. Arbery ran around the vehicle to attack the man at the front.
I can show you in the morgue where you're required to surrender to someone who pulls a gun on you.
The father was former Law Enforcement Officer. Retired cops are allowed to make citizen arrests.
R̶e̶t̶i̶r̶e̶d̶ ̶c̶o̶p̶s̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶ ̶a̶l̶l̶o̶w̶e̶d̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶m̶a̶k̶e̶ ̶c̶i̶t̶i̶z̶e̶n̶ ̶a̶r̶r̶e̶s̶t̶s̶.̶
Citizens are allowed to make citizen arrests.
FTFY.
I don't know the rules surrounding that, but I do know that the one who stepped out of the car armed with a shotgun and delivered the fatal shots was his son, who was not a former law enforcement officer. If the man is not convicted, I promise you that "stand your ground" laws will cease to exist in the states that have them. They knew he wasn't armed and had three armed individuals in their vehicle and won't be able to make a reasonable claim that they "feared for their life". I predict that the son (possibly all 3) will be charged, unlike Zimmerman.
Its just called justice when its legal; which it is.
And watch your language, I thought we moved beyond the J-word.
Racism is disgusting.
Call him a criminal, call him a thief, call him a thug.
When you use racist words, and REAL racist words, not Post Modernist "Deconstruction/Inter sectionalism" bullshit, but actual racism:
Don't be the above