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…5681011…40

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,466 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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.

    i'm sure you are capable of reading back through the thread yourself. i have no intention of humouring you by doing so.


  • Options
    #213
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,642 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-3-21
    (a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23 , a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

    (b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:

    (1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;

    (2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or

    (3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.


  • Options
    #214
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,856 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    it has already been established that you cannot claim self defence if you initiate a confrontation. what part of that do you not understand?


    States have "stand your ground" laws.


    Nothing has been established. The court will do that. Not some randomer on a message board in Ireland


    Edit: I'm interested to hear your response on the Padraig Nally/Frog Ward question though all the same!!


  • Options
    #215
    Gatling
    Registered Users Posts: 40,291 ✭✭✭✭Gatling


    ELM327 wrote: »
    No murder has occurred yet, that can only be decided by a court.
    A death has occurred.

    No a murder was committed and only a court can decide if they are guilty of that charge .

    Which they are currently charged with
    360_F_102352090_ie3kLjDIvgrT1sxVDknWCUh8PxgMYzM7.jpg




  • Options
    #216
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,466 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    States have "stand your ground" laws.


    Nothing has been established. The court will do that. Not some randomer on a message board in Ireland


    Edit: I'm interested to hear your response on the Padraig Nally/Frog Ward question though all the same!!

    you're right, georgia does have a stand your ground law and it is very clear
    When the Use of Deadly Force is Not Justified

    If you're the initial aggressor

    https://statelaws.findlaw.com/georgia-law/georgia-self-defense-laws.html

    *cue howls that findlaw is lefty biased media*


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,856 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    you're right, georgia does have a stand your ground law and it is very clear



    https://statelaws.findlaw.com/georgia-law/georgia-self-defense-laws.html

    *cue howls that findlaw is lefty biased media*




    Well you are going to have to argue then what constitutes "initial aggressor"


    The first aggression in that video appears to be the fella who runs around the truck and grabs the fella with the shotgun!


  • Options
    #218
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,466 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    Well you are going to have to argue then what constitutes "initial aggressor"


    The first aggression in that video appears to be the fella who runs around the truck and grabs the fella with the shotgun!

    when you chase people and make demands of them while armed then you are the aggressor. FFS


  • Options
    #219
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    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.

    A killing has occurred is more accurate. I'm no lawyer but in any civilised society I'm pretty sure unless it is self defense a killing is unlawful.


  • Options
    #220
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    Well you are going to have to argue then what constitutes "initial aggressor"


    The first aggression in that video appears to be the fella who runs around the truck and grabs the fella with the shotgun!

    So I'm walking down a Dublin street and some fcuker confronts me with a knife. That pisses me off I have a right to walk down the street. So I grab for the knife to protect myself get stabbed and I'm the aggressor....
    Ridiculous.


  • Options
    #221
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,856 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    when you chase people and make demands of them while armed then you are the aggressor. FFS




    Have another look at the video. The truck was stopped and the now deceased man tried to run around it and then ran and grabbed the man who was on the left.



    Anyway, it is for the US courts to decide. The people charged aren't going to care what you or I or anyone else interprets the law there.



    And yes, if your man was acting the bollix then he removes some of the blame from the people who stopped/shot him. Did I say he was acting the bollix? No I did not. Is it completely spurious to suggest he might have been? No - he was caught on video entering someone else's property and then racing out of it a few minutes later when he was spotted. Did I say he deserved to be shot for it - no I did not.



    Still awaiting your opinion on whether you think Frog Ward's actions, historical and on the day of the shooting, removed some of the blame from Padraig Nally's shoulders. If you don't want to answer, then we can assume your answer is such that you don't want to give it because it will contradict the oul' virtue signalling here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    CrankyHaus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,281 ✭✭✭CrankyHaus


    Poor kid. Whatever he was really doing that day the McMichaels acted far too aggressively.
    The cops were on the scene in minutes. The McMichaels could have followed him at a safe distance in their vehicle until then.
    Instead they blocked his path while carrying weapons, effectively guaranteeing that the struggle would escalate to a shooting.
    If escalating a situation like that is how an experienced retired Law Enforcement Officer acts then it suggests a problem with policing there.

    No time for the deliberate misinformation, race-baiting and rabble rousing you get from the media over these cases either.
    I wonder if Spike Lee will incite a lynch mob against innocent people with no connection to the case again?
    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/nov/12/spike-lee-sued-tweet-george-zimmerman


  • Options
    #223
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,856 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    joe40 wrote: »
    So I'm walking down a Dublin street and some fcuker confronts me with a knife. That pisses me off I have a right to walk down the street. So I grab for the knife to protect myself get stabbed and I'm the aggressor....
    Ridiculous.




    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?


  • Options
    #224
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    CrankyHaus wrote: »
    Poor kid. Whatever he was really doing that day the McMichael's acted far too aggressively.
    The cops were on the scene in minutes. The McMichael's could have followed him at a safe distance in their vehicle until then.
    Instead they blocked his path while carrying weapons, effectively guaranteeing that the struggle would escalate to a shooting.
    If escalating a situation like that is how an experienced retired Law Enforcement Officer acts then it suggests a problem with policing there.

    No time for the deliberate misinformation, race-baiting and rabble rousing you get from the media over these cases either.
    I wonder if Spike Lee with incite a lynch mob against innocent people with no connection to the case again?
    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/nov/12/spike-lee-sued-tweet-george-zimmerman

    It doesn't look good for race relations when this went on for weeks without charges or arrest, until video of the incident appeared.


  • Options
    #225
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,466 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    Have another look at the video. The truck was stopped and the now deceased man tried to run around it and then ran and grabbed the man who was on the left.



    Anyway, it is for the US courts to decide. The people charged aren't going to care what you or I or anyone else interprets the law there.



    And yes, if your man was acting the bollix then he removes some of the blame from the people who stopped/shot him. Did I say he was acting the bollix? No I did not. Is it completely spurious to suggest he might have been? No - he was caught on video entering someone else's property and then racing out of it a few minutes later when he was spotted. Did I say he deserved to be shot for it - no I did not.



    Still awaiting your opinion on whether you think Frog Ward's actions, historical and on the day of the shooting, removed some of the blame from Padraig Nally's shoulders. If you don't want to answer, then we can assume your answer is such that you don't want to give it because it will contradict the oul' virtue signalling here.
    you mean the same padraig nally that stood over a man with a shotgun and finished him off?


  • Options
    #226
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,856 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    you mean the same padraig nally that stood over a man with a shotgun and finished him off?


    Yeah that Padraig Nally.



    Not to be mixed up with all the other Padraig Nallys that shot individuals called Frog Ward


  • Options
    #227
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,466 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    Yeah that Padraig Nally.



    Not to be mixed up with all the other Padraig Nallys that shot individuals called Frog Ward

    well i hope that answers your query.


  • Options
    #228
    CrankyHaus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,281 ✭✭✭CrankyHaus


    joe40 wrote: »
    It doesn't look good for race relations when this went on for weeks without charges or arrest, until video of the incident appeared.


    I agree but it's a two-way street. Whose interests are helped by exclusion of some facts and distortion of others to suit a media narrative?

    It just entrenches both sides into more polarised positions.


  • Options
    #229
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    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?

    Yes agreed it wouldn't be smart, but that's not the issue. You are suggesting I would be the initial aggressor in that exchange.


  • Options
    #230
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,856 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    well i hope that answers your query.




    No it doesn't


    And deliberately so.



    Do you think that Frog Ward's actions on that day, or historical actions in tormenting that man constantly for so long that he took to staking out his property from a shed, removed some of the blame from Nally?



    It's a simple question.


  • Options
    #231
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 22,001 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    you mean the same padraig nally that stood over a man with a shotgun and finished him off?
    And the man deserved it too.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,466 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    No it doesn't


    And deliberately so.



    Do you think that Frog Ward's actions on that day, or historical actions in tormenting that man constantly for so long that he took to staking out his property from a shed, removed some of the blame from Nally?



    It's a simple question.

    His behaviour explains Nallys state of mind and if he hadnt finished him off he probably would have got off entirely. shooting him the first time was an act of self defence. standing over him and finishing him off was plain murder.


  • Options
    #233
    pjohnson
    Registered Users Posts: 23,764 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    Was Ward not trespassing on Nally's property?


    Dont see relevance the the Batman wannabee's. As its nothing like this.


  • Options
    #234
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,466 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    pjohnson wrote: »
    Was Ward not trespassing on Nally's property?


    Dont see relevance the the Batman wannabee's. As its nothing like this.

    it isn't relevant at all but DT thinks he is somehow scoring internet points by bringing it up.


  • Options
    #235
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,483 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    silverharp wrote: »
    Im sure everyone is aware of that, its not legal or moral to shoot someone for stealing "a loaf of bread". It will be up to the courts to decide if the guy tried to take the gun off the guy in the vehicle as that would introduce self defense.

    No it doesn’t.

    That theft occurred weeks before this incident and they have afaik no evidence it was Arbery.

    So they have no immediate knowledge of him stealing or possessing any weapon.

    So it’s not self defense to chase down a Black for a gun you think he stole weeks ago.


  • Options
    #236
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,856 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    joe40 wrote: »
    Yes agreed it wouldn't be smart, but that's not the issue. You are suggesting I would be the initial aggressor in that exchange.


    Well, were the two fellas acting illegally in what they were attempting to do, or claimed to have been attempting to do? It hasn't been made clear to me that they were.


    They might have been acting the prick but might have been legally allowed to do so.


    If I am in a pub and a bouncer comes over telling me that I need to leave the premises then I cannot punch him and call him the aggressor. He might be completely in the wrong in the sense that I have not been misbehaving but legally he can be a prick and tell me to leave.

    If another random punter comes over and tells me to leave, then I might be justified to consider that as aggression or a threat.




    If they genuinely believed that he had committed a crime, they probably were legally allowed to stop him. They didn't have the right to shoot him on sight, but they did have the right to shoot him when he ran at them.


  • Options
    #237
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,483 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    blinding wrote: »
    The McMichaels are guilty of being Good Neighbours, guilty of being Community Minded, guilty of having impeccable records re; Law enforcement. Two guys doing their best for their community.

    If this is the hill you wish to die on let me get my popcorn.


  • Options
    #238
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,483 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    suicide_circus wrote: »
    one black man is murdered per day in the south side of Chicago

    And CCPD isn’t in the practice of covering it up.

    This case is going to grand jury for a reason and it’s not for the reason you seem to think so.


  • Options
    #239
    Donald Trump
    Registered Users Posts: 19,856 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    His behaviour explains Nallys state of mind and if he hadnt finished him off he probably would have got off entirely. shooting him the first time was an act of self defence. standing over him and finishing him off was plain murder.




    Nally first shot hit the man in the back as he was running down the driveway.


    All well and good to virtue signal in one case and then dodge the question when it comes to something else.


    And no, it was not murder. If it was murder, he would still be in prison. He is not. He was convicted of manslaughter and that conviction was later quashed!


  • Options
    #240
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,466 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    Well, were the two fellas acting illegally in what they were attempting to do, or claimed to have been attempting to do? It hasn't been made clear to me that they were.


    They might have been acting the prick but might have been legally allowed to do so.


    If I am in a pub and a bouncer comes over telling me that I need to leave the premises then I cannot punch him and call him the aggressor. He might be completely in the wrong in the sense that I have not been misbehaving but legally he can be a prick and tell me to leave.

    If another random punter comes over and tells me to leave, then I might be justified to consider that as aggression or a threat.




    If they genuinely believed that he had committed a crime, they probably were legally allowed to stop him. They didn't have the right to shoot him on sight, but they did have the right to shoot him when he ran at them.

    they claim they were making a citizens arrest. in order to make a citizens arrest you have to see the person committing the offence. they did not see Arbery committing an offence. he just looked like somebody who they thought did commit and offence. Believing he had committed an offence is not enough. so their whole basis for confronting him was bogus.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    Donald Trump wrote: »
    Well you are going to have to argue then what constitutes "initial aggressor"

    3 armed men (possibly only 2 are armed) in cars chasing an unarmed man thats on foot up and down a road for 5 minutes before boxing him in might lean that in a certain direction.

    For most right thinking people anyway.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement