@Secret Asshole: God I hate that glitch:
"
Click to expand...Uh, because there's more than one black man in the state of Georgia? I don't know. Well, if you don't know the law, maybe, just maybe, you should not attempt to fucking enforce it.
Then why do people keep proclaiming Ahmaud was so well known for his jogging routine and people brought up that specific (Ahmaud) had appeared mutliple times on different cameras. I can buy there may have been more than one black man doing it, but it seems iffy when many people claim he was commonly known for jogging in the area, and had been supposedly spotted multiple times by different people.
Merely my point is most people don't know the law, judging by us having alternative names to our actual ones which violates the law originally (but everyone disregards it anyway) are we then unaware despite that concept? I'd argue no but I'm not trying to justify knowing the law and disregarding it, merely the law should be more practical instead of made complex. Merely I'm suggesting law reform needs to be done in the first place.
Again, they saw a black man multiple times. They didn't see HIM. There is NO EVIDENCE, NONE, that he was in the neighborhood PRIOR to this. How many times do I have to say this? Just because he fit the description does not mean it was him.
Which disregards the detail that people are pedaling about him being well known in the neighborhood as a frequent jogger from what I've heard and guy showing up at multiple locations. McMichael's didn't know this by their testimony, but that doesn't mean others didn't. We'll never know since most people are afraid after BLM got involved and basically intimidated a lot of witnesses into lying about their own original claims.
During the fact? You're joking right? This is literally an example of how you CAN'T accurately gauge how someone acted during the fact. He didn't take anything. He didn't steal anything. He did NOTHING WRONG. But the appearance is that 'hey, he's running from the scene, he must have done something!' Everything speaks to how they INACCURATELY judged the situation. 2
How about when they saw each other before the chase he just ran and didn't want to try to figure out why Billy bob and crew were on him? One witness said when he saw Arbery (not McMichael's) he tried to talk to Arbery coming from his construction and Arbery ignored him. On the property he owned. I can see the argument ignoring McMichael's I am hard pressed to figure out why you would just blatantly disregard a guy questioning who you are on his property leading up to the event in question.
Ok, so that's what you would do. Not someone who is charged on adrenaline, who has been chased down in a car. They might act a little fucking irrationally. This is why you don't fucking do what they did.
I can't wait for future events like this to be excused by this same line of reasoning. I'm not saying the McMichael's didn't pull multiple boners, I am arguing that the person in response shouldn't be handed a bigotry of low expectations just by being a little irrational on adrenaline or even better the "400 years of slavery" quip to be considered a logical argument now due to "Well three hillbillies chasing a black man with shotguns and confederate flags." defense. It's a slippery slope that many are making that will be used in the future.
This is an insane line of reasoning. He's mentally ill, unpredictable and charged on adrenaline. I'll give you one better, if these dumb fucks hadn't played posse, Aubrey would still be alive. That's why they're in FUCKING JAIL.
I don't disregard some of the charges would have maintained, but do I believe all 23 charges would have maintained, do I believe witnesses would have lied about previous testimony, and do I believe Arbery should have been out there if he was so mentally ill jogging by himself? No. My issue with these concepts is that if we go "He's mentally ill" line, then why is he 2 miles away from his house, if he's so erratic where is his family to watch over him or someone to make sure he isn't so "unpredictable?"
This feels like a alternate version of Tamir Rice. The mother was negligent, but the cop was obviously trigger happy. The funny thing many do bring up the mother's responsibility in Tamir's case, despite BLM actually being somewhat right about the cop in that situation.
Uh, right. The law doesn't say Aubery needed to take precautions.
Survival requires more than just legal sense, it also requires common sense. People are critical of Arbery's behavior, just like many other BLM pedestal choir boys before him. Just because you don't have to legally lock your door at night doesn't make it any less stupid not too. Just because it's not illegal to dress in skimpy attire doesn't make it less stupid when risking sexual assault and rape. Just because it's not illegal to act irrational doesn't make it any less stupid to grab a gun from someone. Technically grabbing a gun would be arguably assault and battery which is a felony but let's ignore that legal argument for a mere second.
He thought they were going to kill him because they ran him down, blocked him off and corralled him with a shotgun. Maybe, just fucking maybe, you shouldn't have done that.
I don't believe this. If you want to argue he thought they might kidnap him, I could potentially buy that. If they were going to kill him all they had to do was shoot him when he was right next to him, one of the trucks open windows was next to him for a few seconds. "Yeah but he was irrational." - Chaos theory argument doesn't give me good faith on that argument. We're not supposed to mind read him based on his past history but we can mind read him based on our own willingness of our own projection?
Baby him? Jesus fucking christ. They ran him down in a fucking truck. Are you malfunctioning or something? They did the most fucking aggressive actions humanly possible. "It was Aubrey's fault for getting shot, if he had just talked to these aggressors who had no authority to chase him down and came at him with shotgun in hand!"
I never said it wasn't aggressive or stupid. I'm merely saying if a similar event happens again, if people don't want the defensive subject to not die just don't reach for the gun or better yet pay attention to details. I get your going with "He was erratic and mentally ill" angle and if that was the case, say the cops had come and talked to McMichaels and Arbery, would he have done the same thing to them as well had they decided to talk to him for testimony about McMichael's actions? Would he have suicided by cop had they pursued him to ask him? If the argument is he was on adrenaline, why wouldn't he do the same to the police, or any other people to intervene? Let's say someone else had intervened would he have still grabbed for the shotgun or attacked the person intervening?
No one is saying it was his fault for getting shot initially, until he grabbed for the shotgun, as soon as he did that he sealed his fate. Had he yelled, screamed, got angry, told them back the fuck off or 100s of other actions any other outcome then him struggling with the shotgun owner would have happened and likely he wouldn't have got shot, that's even disregarding him talking to his "aggressors." But one main line of action "Grabbing and wrestling the shotgun" led to a coffin. Like I don't see how hard this line of reasoning is to accept. If you want to argue their intent was to kill him anyway, then I guess it doesn't matter, because they were going to get him either way so then what legality argument matters. It's obviously not the reality, but since it can be argued "He was mentally ill and adrenaline fueled" and couldn't control himself or act rationally I guess he's just a mindless ape with no possible recourse for not chimping out and charging a shotgunner or just using some rational reasoning. The reason I say this is just because someone is adrenaline fueled and mentally ill doesn't deprive them of agency or making rational decisions. It's a cop out that makes him sound like a low IQ mong, I get it that irrational things can happen when panicked, but I don't think it throws all rational or cognizant abilities out the window and you then become a living tornado of irrationality.
They. broke. the. law. Period. End. Aubrey did not. You don't get to shoot someone for acting irrationally while you are in the process of breaking the fucking law.
My question is what happens if he had taken the shotgun, would he have killed all three of them? Would that have been justified by everyone's logic does limitations on self-defense [in this case with regards to Arbery committing it if you wish to argue it] without having any limits because "adrenaline" "because schizo." Where do you draw the line. To me it seems people want to disregard how far people are allowed to go when doing self defense. It doesn't help with Georgia's "stand your ground laws." Maybe the argument is "Arbery should have been allowed to kill them all alongside any passerbys" because he was adrenlaine fueled and mentally ill, what if he thought people spectating the event were in on it with the hillbillies? I want to know where people are drawing the line on Arbery's line of self-defense.
I'm being partially facetious but I have serious reservations where people felt his line of self-defense ended. I get the feeling I know and it's just as much a perversion of law. Feel free to correct me.
www.tmz.com
