Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ahmaud Arbery

Options
1…1516182021…40

Comments

  • Options
    #512
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Then the question is was there legal basis.
    If they were trying to make a citizens arrest and were attacked by Arbery then I would suspect they were covered under "stand your ground"


    A citizen's arrest for what?


    They admitted that they chased and confronted him because he resembled someone who allegedly committed a crime at another date.


    Do you want to stop now or continue to make a fool of yourself?


  • Options
    #513
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    ELM327 wrote: »
    I would.
    Sounds like a good tight knit community watch, with an ex police man in the vicinity. Perfect place to live.


    Yeah, macho man. Until one of these redneck knuckledraggers takes a dislike to your teenage son who was hanging around with his buddies, playing music, chatting to girls, etc. Redneck boy approaches him and tells him to move on and doesn't like the response your son gives him, i.e. to go FCUK himself. Later on Redneck boy decides to get back at your kid by confronting him on the street with a few other neanderthals and blow his brains out.


    Enjoy your serene neighbourhood safe in the knowledge that the area is better off without your kid and that you owe a debt of gratitude to Redneck boy and his gang of primates.


  • Options
    #514
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,491 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    ShatterAlan wrote: »
    Yeah, macho man. Until one of these redneck knuckledraggers takes a dislike to your teenage son who was hanging around with his buddies, playing music, chatting to girls, etc. Redneck boy approaches him and tells him to move on and doesn't like the response your son gives him, i.e. to go FCUK himself. Later on Redneck boy decides to get back at your kid by confronting him on the street with a few other neanderthals and blow his brains out.


    Enjoy your serene neighbourhood safe in the knowledge that the area is better off without your kid and that you owe a debt of gratitude to Redneck boy and his gang of primates.

    Don't let him wind you up with indefensible comments he knows are nonsense.


  • Options
    #515
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Danzy wrote: »
    The question is whether it was reasonable force used.

    These things are never clear cut or, pun intended, a black and white issue.

    What we can all agree on is th aee t the wider community and his immediate neighbours are safer now that he is gone, that is just a side outcome.


    I think that I speak for many when I say that the wider community will be immeasurably safer when the despicable 3-man lynch mob who slaughtered him are serving life without parole.


  • Options
    #516
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    ELM327 wrote: »
    You can believe what you want but ultimately it's irrelevant. Same as my or anyone else's beliefs.


    What matters is the law of the land where the alleged offence took place and the outcome of the court of said land


    You seem to play fast and loose with your interpretation of the law.


    Walking onto private property and then leaving is not a crime. Confronting someone with guns and threatening them IS a crime. You are not within the law to chase and accost someone whom you suspect of committing a crime. Jogging at night is NOT a crime. Brandishing a weapon at someone IS a crime. Trying to defend yourself from someone brandishing that weapon is NOT a crime.


    Keep digging there, bud.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #517
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    blinding wrote: »
    Can the Chinese be racist ?

    Can Indians be racist ?

    Can Arabs be Racist ?

    Can Iranians/ Persians be Racist ?

    But for some reason a Powerful Wealthy Black Person cannot be Racist or any Black person for that matter Are you saying a Black Person ‘ Is not of enough quality “ to be Racist ?:eek:

    Are you saying Black people are better than other People so cannot be Racist ?:eek:


    Whites are racist against non-whites because they see them as inferior.


    Non-whites are racist against whites, not because they see them as inferior but because they see them as violent, untrustworthy, privileged exploiters of non-whites.


    Trying to dress it up any other way just makes you look like a bigot.


  • Options
    #518
    LillySV
    Registered Users Posts: 1,750 ✭✭✭LillySV


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    irrelevant excuse to try justify a killing




    He didnt fumble around with anyone, they came after him.

    You must just come on this to try confront people ... ain’t working ...I clearly said in my post that they were wrong to kill him... didn’t justify it in any way ... but at same time I pointed out that this man they murdered was not harmless either as they make out in the press .... and he did Lunge at one of the men... which led to the shots being fired... it’s fairly clear in the video ... or maybe u didn’t see the vid ?


  • Options
    #519
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    LillySV wrote: »
    but at same time I pointed out that this man they murdered was not harmless

    But he was unarmed and had committed no crime .


    He got arrested and probation but it's made out on here that he was some major crime lord .


    He was in fear for his life and justifiably so ,he was executed moments later
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #520
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    ELM327 wrote: »
    By whom, and referring to which act in GA law.
    State? Federal? Otherwise it's just some randomer's opining on the internet which is quite frankly not worth the paper it ain't written on.


    No murder has occurred yet, that can only be decided by a court.
    A death has occurred.




    Jesus...it's like trying to explain simple things to a mushroom with a learning difficulty.


  • Options
    #521
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    Regardless, if you run towards the fella with the knife, going on about your rights, then you are a potential recipient for a Darwin award.


    Better to be alive and in the wrong then dead and in the right.


    BTW, carrying a knife like that would be illegal in Ireland. Is there any suggestion that these men did not have a licence to carry guns?


    Let's exchange the knife for a hammer. That should nullify your dumb last sentence.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #522
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    LillySV wrote: »
    You must just come on this to try confront people ... ain’t working ...I clearly said in my post that they were wrong to kill him... didn’t justify it in any way ... but at same time I pointed out that this man they murdered was not harmless either as they make out in the press .... and he did Lunge at one of the men... which led to the shots being fired... it’s fairly clear in the video ... or maybe u didn’t see the vid ?

    Totally disagree, he was confronted by armed men he was totally and absolutely entitled to defend himself.
    Maybe it wasn't the wisest action for him but he was entitled to defend himself.
    There can be no justification for the McMichael's actions. They took it upon themselves to act like macho vigilantes and a young man is dead. Let's not forget the tragedy that is.
    And please don't talk about his past or he might have been planning to steal something. Totally irrelevant to this outcome just trying to muddy the waters and spread the blame. Despicable really.
    I have more respect for people who say they support the shooting at least they're honest. Assholes but honest.
    Those talking nonsense about the shootings were wrong but then again he was looking into a building site.....
    He was blameless in the shooting simple as that.


  • Options
    #523
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,856 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    ShatterAlan wrote: »
    Let's exchange the knife for a hammer. That should nullify your dumb last sentence.


    "Dumb sentence" is ironic dude


    It would be illegal to be carrying a Hammer in O'Connell street and brandishing it as a weapon.

    A hammer isn't illegal if you have a genuine reason for having it in your possession, but neither is a stanley blade.





    What is your point anyway? Given that I was only telling the fella that if he saw someone with a knife and ran towards him he'd be a potential Darwin award winner? I take it that you like hammers so if you saw a fella brandishing one around O'Connell St. you'd run towards him? That's up to you. Do it if you want.


  • Options
    #524
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 18,483 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    ShatterAlan wrote: »
    Whites are racist against non-whites because they see them as inferior.


    Non-whites are racist against whites, not because they see them as inferior but because they see them as violent, untrustworthy, privileged exploiters of non-whites.


    Trying to dress it up any other way just makes you look like a bigot.

    that can be argued , a lot of racism by whites is down to feeling inferior to non whites. Its not logical to suggest that someone can feel superior to another group yet feel threatened that they will take their jobs and houses.

    Also if you look at somewhere like NY there is a lot of racism by blacks towards Asians and Jews

    Its all very complicated

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #525
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,491 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    What is your point anyway? Given that I was only telling the fella that if he saw someone with a knife and ran towards him he'd be a potential Darwin award winner? I take it that you like hammers so if you saw a fella brandishing one around O'Connell St. you'd run towards him? That's up to you. Do it if you want.

    You might not have a choice if him and his 2 other friends chase you around for 4+ minutes.


  • Options
    #526
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,856 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Overheal wrote: »
    You might not have a choice if him and his 2 other friends chase you around for 4+ minutes.




    That's right


    And if my Aunt had balls she'd be my uncle


  • Options
    #527
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Gatling wrote: »
    Would you rather he just kneel on the ground and await a round to the back of the head .


    Or is it a case or how dare he stand up to several armed white men

    Unless I'm picking it up wrong. I think he's suggesting Arbery attacked the McMichaels in the video?

    Am I Jeff?
    mynamejeff wrote: »

    or in case as clearly seen in the video that person attacked you


  • Options
    #528
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,491 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    That's right


    And if my Aunt had balls she'd be my uncle

    And if 3 armed thugs chased you around with knives you wouldn't surrender to them and beg for the police to materialize.


  • Options
    #529
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    LillySV wrote: »
    and he did Lunge at one of the men... which led to the shots being fired... it’s fairly clear in the video ... or maybe u didn’t see the vid ?

    Round and round we go. He didnt lunge at him. He's running up the road being chased by the camera car. The McMichaels are stopped onthe road. The dad in the bed of the truck, Travis standing to the left of it as we look at it. Arbery dodges around the truck to the right to avoid them, Travis goes from the left to the front to head him off and thats where the struggle starts.

    If Travis McMichaels hadnt gone around from the left to the front of the truck to head him off, Arbery would have continued on running down the road. Theres nothing to suggest otherwise. Why would he change direction to go the opposite side of the truck if he wanted to lunge at Travis McMichaels?


  • Options
    #530
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,856 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Overheal wrote: »
    And if 3 armed thugs chased you around with knives you wouldn't surrender to them and beg for the police to materialize.




    Maybe I would and maybe I wouldn't. Nobody knows how you'd react until you are actually in that situation. Maybe I'd run away from them or maybe I'd foolishly try to take them on or maybe I'd be a fucking eejit and run for 4 minutes to tire myself out and then run towards them. There's no point in speculating. If they had knives and they're more than 2m away, not only are they social distancing - which of course is very important in these times of Covid - but they wouldn't be able to inflict any pesky stab wounds on me.


  • Options
    #531
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    "Dumb sentence" is ironic dude


    It would be illegal to be carrying a Hammer in O'Connell street and brandishing it as a weapon.

    A hammer isn't illegal if you have a genuine reason for having it in your possession, but neither is a stanley blade.





    What is your point anyway? Given that I was only telling the fella that if he saw someone with a knife and ran towards him he'd be a potential Darwin award winner? I take it that you like hammers so if you saw a fella brandishing one around O'Connell St. you'd run towards him? That's up to you. Do it if you want.

    Whether running at your assailant is clever or not is not the point. The important point is that you would be entitled to do so and if you were to end up getting hurt it would not be your fault.
    You or maybe it was someone else was trying to imply that because Arbery tried to disarm his attackers he was at least partially to blame.
    That is the idiotic suggestion that was been made. I can't remember now who was saying that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #532
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    joe40 wrote: »
    Whether running at your assailant is clever or not is not the point. The important point is that you would be entitled to do so and if you were to end up getting hurt it would not be your fault.
    You or maybe it was someone else was trying to imply that because Arbery tried to disarm his attackers he was at least partially to blame.
    That is the idiotic suggestion that was been made. I can't remember now who was saying that.

    there was a couple of them. Danzy for one


  • Options
    #533
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,856 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    joe40 wrote: »
    Whether running at your assailant is clever or not is not the point. The important point is that you would be entitled to do so and if you were to end up getting hurt it would not be your fault.
    You or maybe it was someone else was trying to imply that because Arbery tried to disarm his attackers he was at least partially to blame.
    That is the idiotic suggestion that was been made. I can't remember now who was saying that.




    Entitled is fine. But as I said, I'd rather be in the wrong and alive than in the right and dead.


    He did run at the fella with the shotgun. But this happened in a matter of seconds and I reckon he didn't have time to think. And he doesn't have the benefit of hindsight. That is advice that you hear - if someone pulls a gun at you at close range, then your best chance is to run at them. But it is usually given in the context of a handgun. That is possibly why he ran at your man. Maybe he was bollixed after his 4 minute jog and out of breath? Maybe he was a headcase. Or maybe he was in fear and panicked. Who knows? Nobody knows.



    I am sure that you also heard advice/talk when you were young not to carry a knife. And that you should never pull a knife on someone unless you are prepared to use it. Because if you do it, and the person gets it from you, you're getting a stabbing.


    The fellas shouldn't have pulled a gun on him. It's the US though. They're nuts in general over there etc. Those people cannot be blameless. When you have a shotgun pointed at someone and they run to try to take it off you, what do you do? Maybe he panicked too. Or maybe he just wanted to shoot a black fella. It's up to the US courts to decide how culpable they are legally.


  • Options
    #534
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Donald Trump wrote: »


    He did run at the fella with the shotgun. But this happened in a matter of seconds and I reckon he didn't have time to think. .

    Youre seeing what suits you. Travis had to move from the side of the truck to the front to get to where Arbery was going. How is that Arbery running at him?

    We're back to the "hes going in the general direction of him" stance again.

    why would Arbery change direction and go around the right side of the vehicle when Arbery is on the left if he wanted to go at him?


  • Options
    #535
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    Entitled is fine. But as I said, I'd rather be in the wrong and alive than in the right and dead.


    He did run at the fella with the shotgun. But this happened in a matter of seconds and I reckon he didn't have time to think. And he doesn't have the benefit of hindsight. That is advice that you hear - if someone pulls a gun at you at close range, then your best chance is to run at them. But it is usually given in the context of a handgun. That is possibly why he ran at your man. Maybe he was bollixed after his 4 minute jog and out of breath? Maybe he was a headcase. Or maybe he was in fear and panicked. Who knows? Nobody knows.



    I am sure that you also heard advice/talk when you were young not to carry a knife. And that you should never pull a knife on someone unless you are prepared to use it. Because if you do it, and the person gets it from you, you're getting a stabbing.


    The fellas shouldn't have pulled a gun on him. It's the US though. They're nuts in general over there etc. Those people cannot be blameless. When you have a shotgun pointed at someone and they run to try to take it off you, what do you do? Maybe he panicked too. Or maybe he just wanted to shoot a black fella. It's up to the US courts to decide how culpable they are legally.

    Yeah, I can agree with all that.
    But as I said the knife (or hammer analogy) was in response to people trying to spread the blame for the shooting, not the wisdom of otherwise of running at your attacker.
    Glad we seem to be agreed, blame for the shooting lies solely with the McMichaels


  • Options
    #536
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,856 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    joe40 wrote: »
    Yeah, I can agree with all that.
    But as I said the knife (or hammer analogy) was in response to people trying to spread the blame for the shooting, not the wisdom of otherwise of running at your attacker.
    Glad we seem to be agreed, blame for the shooting lies solely with the McMichaels


    I didn't say solely. I'd say the majority of it lies with them. The US courts can decide whether that in 90% or 99% or 99.999%


  • Options
    #537
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,467 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    I didn't say solely. I'd say the majority of it lies with them. The US courts can decide whether that in 90% or 99% or 99.999%

    the whole thing lies with them. they initiated the confrontation. i wonder what execution method georgia is using now.


  • Options
    #538
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,856 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Youre seeing what suits you. Travis had to move from the side of the truck to the front to get to where Arbery was going. How is that Arbery running at him?

    We're back to the "hes going in the general direction of him" stance again.

    why would Arbery change direction and go around the right side of the vehicle when Arbery is on the left if he wanted to go at him?




    I don't know who was who in terms of names for the fellas with guns.



    But the fella in the white t-shirt rounded the front of the van, and made a 90-degree turn and ran at Mr shotgun. Sure they tussled and ended up on the other side of the road.



    If you see something different then there is nothing I can do about that


  • Options
    #539
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Donald Trump wrote: »

    If you see something different then there is nothing I can do about that

    When the video starts, Travis McMichaels is standing to the left of the car, at the drivers door. Arbery is running down the road, towards their car, being chased by the camera car.

    He then cuts right to go around the right hand side of the car, the opposite side Travis McMichaels is on .

    Travis McMichaels then moves from the left, to the front, to head Arbery off.

    Thats where the struggle starts.

    If Travis had stayed at the left of the car where he was, Arbery continues to run off down the road.


  • Options
    #540
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,856 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    the whole thing lies with them. they initiated the confrontation. i wonder what execution method georgia is using now.


    I don't know. As I said earlier in the thread I don't support the death penalty or anything like that.





    Ironically I said it in the context of people being killed when committing crimes (I think I said it in relation to Frog Ward).




    Are you ok with it though? Genuine question


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #541
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    I mean, you've already said before that he moved from the side to stop Arbery from running away

    Donald Trump wrote: »


    I was initially responding to a question asking why your man had moved to the side of the truck. I had responded with the (what I thought was obvious) suggestion that maybe he wanted to stop the other fella from running away. I did not think much of the remark at the time.
    .

    So, together with your opinion that Arbery going to the construction site leads to him getting shot, surely McMichael doing what he did (moving from where he was to where Arbery was going) is what resulted in the confrontation.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement