Posted on 11/24/2021 10:42:23 AM PST by jroehl
.
I don’t distrust they hurt. They got it right. In some ways this is like the Rittenhouse case except the victim was unarmed.
“I have no doubt he was looking for things to loot”
Did they find anything he’d looted over the past months when they claimed he was looting?
States laws are written in English and available on the WWW. Why would someone be required to “take a class” OIT to defend themselves?
We likely agree that when uses a weapon they had better know the limits and requirements. It’s implicit on the person to know what lawful vice unlawful use of force is. That way they would know who is being unlawful and when.
I do recommend that everyone who decides to defend themselves, armed or unarmed, knows the laws to an extent a reasonable person would be expected.
If one carries a firearm, then the lethal force equation becomes a critical aspect, but being unarmed is not without risk of being the unlawful aggressor either. Get a CCW, it is top cover or condemnation, depending on the instance at hand. Having a state issued license (vomit) to carry shows good faith even if it is (necessarily) burdensome on liberty.
Didn't I see video of Arbery going around behind the men and trying to grab the shotgun from the man holding it?
And I don't remember anyone pointing the gun at him before that point--when he grabbed hold of it and tried to wrestle it away from the white guy.
If Arbery was out for a jog, I don't get why he didn't just pull out his phone and dial 9-11 if he thought the guys in the truck had dangerous intentions. (And I find it hard to believe he didn't have a phone.)
Defend your property anonymously from a distance.
The only safe way to do it.
Yep, an innocent jogger. I recall reading the following information:
13 miles from home.
Wearing cargo shorts.
Wearing work boots.
You know, typical running gear.
That said, the defendants were Olympic Class knuckleheads.
Three times.
I don’t remember the exact sequence of events, but whether they pointed the gun at him first should not matter. The reason being is that they were chasing him with vehicles and were the aggressors, he was trying to defend himself.
I don’t like thieves or crime and I understand that it is frustrating waiting for the police to act, but even if he had stolen something it would not justify chasing him down with guns. Had he raped or killed a family in their home then by all means chase him down, but if anything he only committed a property crime.
I don’t remember the exact sequence of events, but whether they pointed the gun at him first should not matter. The reason being is that they were chasing him with vehicles and were the aggressors, he was trying to defend himself.
I don’t like thieves or crime and I understand that it is frustrating waiting for the police to act, but even if he had stolen something it would not justify chasing him down with guns. Had he raped or killed a family in their home then by all means chase him down, but if anything he only committed a property crime.
He wasn’t an innocent jogger. Read the record.
I didn’t realize it was legal to chase down and shoot suspects.
He was not wearing work boots. Don’t know where that lie originated, but that is bad info. In the video you can see he isn’t wearing boots. At the trial his bloody tennis shoes were entered into evidence as the clothes he was wearing.
confusing for me too. courtv explained that there were 4 felonies(assault, false imprisonment, etc.) and therefore 4 felony murder charges. Must be a GA thing.
The clincher is this - Bryan told officers he joined the pursuit and helped cut off Arbery's escape.
So he chose to be an active participant in the pack, as opposed to being a witness or videographer who happened to be in the right place at the right time.
property was stolen. no evidence he took it. he was caught on security camera in the house multiple times.
i heard work boots too but tennis shoes were presented as evidence
“He was an innocent jogger. Get over it.”
Thanks for the laugh.
The guy shooting video is somehow a "murderer."
Yeah right. Bullsh*t all the way down.
Disagree completely. This is a thoroughly botched verdict and was only motivated by fear of riots if they were found not guilty.
In face, from my reading of other cases, Juries get it wrong about half the time.
This institution is failing.
How can reality ever fight back against these media lies?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.