Ahmaud Arbery

48,031 Views | 433 Replies | Last: 2 yr ago by concordtom
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This happened almost 3 months ago:












AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Waiting for GB4L or bearlyamazing or Bear Force2 to come and tell us why this shooting is justified and that the rednecks in both pickup trucks are American Patriots...
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
GoOskie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

Waiting for GB4L or bearlyamazing or Bear Force2 to come and tell us why this shooting is justified and that the rednecks in both pickup trucks are American Patriots...

You are wrong. They will say how it's really the demoncrats and leftists that are the true racists and the party of slavery. And the Nazis were socialists. And they will post great memes proving this. And pics of a great wall of conspiracy links showing that Obama was really a muslim.

Cave Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

Waiting for GB4L or bearlyamazing or Bear Force2 to come and tell us why this shooting is justified and that the rednecks in both pickup trucks are American Patriots...
"Conservatives" will claim the thug with the shotgun was defending himself, and the pair had reasonable grounds (racial profiling) to suspect him of criminal activity. They will deny racism and pervasive LE corruption as factors in either the decision by the armed men to attack the kid or the failure to prosecute the killers. Later in other conversations they will affirm that society would be safer if everyone carried guns all of the time.
BearChemist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Be patient, gentlemen. Perhaps Breitbart has not distributed the taking points.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?

smh
How long do you want to ignore this user?
nyt snip..
.. In a particularly disturbing case, Olivia Pearson, a grandmother and lifelong resident of Coffee County, Ga., found herself on trial this year on charges of felony voter fraud. It began six years ago, on the first day of early voting in Georgia, when a black woman named Diewanna Robinson went to cast her ballot. Ms. Robinson, then 21, had never voted before and didn't know how to operate the electronic voting machine, reported Buzzfeed. She asked Ms. Pearson, more than 30 years her senior, for help. Ms. Robinson would later testify that Ms. Pearson informed her where the card went in the machine and told her to "just go through and make my own selections on who I wanted to vote for." Ms. Pearson walked away before Ms. Robinson started voting.
muting ~250 handles, turnaround is fair play
BearNIt
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:

This happened almost 3 months ago:













Sickening just sickening that a young man out on a jog could be chased down by two IDIOTS and killed because they made assumptions. When will this stop?
BearForce2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

Waiting for GB4L or bearlyamazing or Bear Force2 to come and tell us why this shooting is justified and that the rednecks in both pickup trucks are American Patriots...
You and those who starred your post are quite possibly just as inhumane and disgusting as those rednecks but we already knew that. It's only a matter of time before you do something similar if you haven't done so already.



GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
My brother just alerted me to this case this morning.

This is a tough case but of course the MSM is delusional on this one and it appears many who yearn to soak up its narrative are parroting it without a critical eye.

There are facts about Ahmed and what preceded the incident that do not affect the possible culpability of the two armed gunmen but the MSM media does not want to broadcast loudly as it of course harms the reputation of the suspect and enhances the case for the residents involved in the incident.

Ahmed was a criminal. He had been busted on theft, probation violations, and possession of a firearm. It's not relevant to the legality of the case, but please stop painting a ridiculously false image of the guy to serve binary narratives. His mother claims he was a "sweet boy" who was on a path to being an electrician. No corroboration of whether he was enrolled in classes and where, and any employment.

A 911 call from was made and gave the dispatcher an eyewitness account identified the suspect and described his clothes. Nobody in the neighborhood was looking to harass a black man. They were, in arguably an inadvisable fashion, tracking a down a suspect who had just trespassed a partially constructed property and who may have been the suspect in a string of robberies in the neighborhood. They wanted to address the suspect and make a "citizens' arrest", who continued fleeing them. Not my cup of tea, and I wouldn't advise it, but I understand the well intentioned motive behind it.

He was unarmed. An irrelevant fact to the legal proceedings. The suspect does not need to be armed to trigger a legal claim to self defense. Nobody involved ever claim he possessed a gun, outside of the gun that was in the hands of one of the two other men that they were in a struggle with .

Among the headlines and egregious statements made:

"They were vigilantes looking to commit a lynching in the middle of the street." No, they had reason to believe he was had just committed a crime, and may be behind a string of robberies in the neighborhood. The sensible move and the move that would have freed them from any possible legal liability or recourse was to follow the suspect until Police arrived. They sought out the conflict, and Ahmed escalated the conflict by engaging in an altercation with the man.

"He died doing what he loved"...only if you mean he loved trespassing.

So it's no surprise the prevailing narrative is purposefully being misreported when it really doesn't need to be to make your case, from either side.

While it's probable that Ahmed likes to jog through neighborhoods to spot opportunities to steal and can then resume jogging as his cover (that's what I suspect; it looks like he's wearing jean shorts but it's too tough to tell for sure), it doesn't have any relevance to the legal culpability of the two armed men.

It's also irrelevant (legally) whether Ahmed was a choir boy or Satan. It matters in terms of how we as individuals mourn his loss. But MSM and emotionally and politically driven actors know that it's hard to get the public behind it when the character of the deceased is deplorable. So they lie.

It also doesn't matter if we could peak into the gunmen's soul and discover they hate blacks.

This seems similar to the Trayvon case, where it's a tough one and even though the gunmen initiated the confrontation, and the result was a lost life, legally they have a viable claim to self defense. But as a former DA in Georgia noted the law does not permit "armed posses" to chase down a suspect of a crime"

AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Yeah, yer right. He prolly had it coming. And if he didn't now, he would have.

God bless our American Vigilante Patriots! Keeping white, gun totin', Christian 'Murica safe!
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
That's not what I wrote. You could try attacking positions I actually hold. Or you can try and formulate a coherent perspective. Or not.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery - Wikipedia


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If indicted for 2nd degree murder, the defense will argue the victim was the aggressor and fought the man for his gun; the man just wanted to talk to him. The prosecution will say that the mere fact of blocking the street with a shotgun and preventing the victim from proceeding was effectively the aggressor.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/ahmaud-arbery-lynching/










okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?

okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
1
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Father and son arrested for murder. Don't take your guns to town, son.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Anarchistbear said:

Father and son arrested for murder. Don't take your guns to town, son.
Not surprised they were indicted. I will be surprised if they're convicted
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Even though the video appears to show Ahmaud initiating a physical altercation and the aggressor in the actual conflict, the defendants initial mistake may be too much to overcome, which is the manner in which they confronted Ahmaud. Yes, you can see Ahmaud as the aggessor and striking blows and on one of the men, and in isolation a self defense claim seems totally valid.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Why is she lying? He was killed for attacking a man. The two men are being charged because you can't chase down and confront a suspect with a weapon on public property, no matter how honest and innocent your intentions. Ahmaud killed himself by engaging in a fight, but he probably knew if he let the men hold him until the police came he would be spending the night in prison.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

Why is she lying? He was killed for attacking a man. The two men are being charged because you can't chase down and confront a suspect with a weapon on public property, no matter how honest and innocent your intentions. Ahmaud killed himself by engaging in a fight, but he probably knew if he let the men hold him until the police came he would be spending the night in prison.


So if somebody points a gun at you, and you fight back out of fear for your life, you're the attacker?

GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:

GBear4Life said:

Why is she lying? He was killed for attacking a man. The two men are being charged because you can't chase down and confront a suspect with a weapon on public property, no matter how honest and innocent your intentions. Ahmaud killed himself by engaging in a fight, but he probably knew if he let the men hold him until the police came he would be spending the night in prison.


So if somebody points a gun at you, and you fight back out of fear for your life, you're the attacker?


LOL you're asserting that he started a fist fight with a guy who had a gun and whose friend had a gun because he was scared for his life? Don't make your bias so obvious. You don't have to lie and spin and exaggerate the facts and circumstances of this incident like you're MSM to make a valid legal argument that an indictment is justified here.

There's no one correct way to respond to something like that, but I know if I were an innocent man on a jog and two guy with guns in a very fierce manner commanded I stop to talk. I wouldn't think I, as an unarmed man, should run into them and challenge them to a fight and tear their shotgun away from them. I'd probably hear what they had to say.

But if I were somebody who had broken into numerous homes and just heard a civilian call the police on me for trespassing onto private property and I was on probation and didn't want to go to jail, I might take some risks and make a run for it.

They tried to stop him numerous times. If I'm not mistaken, what was caught on videotape was not their first attempt to stop him. I totally get the grand jury and the indictment. The spinning of the facts and circumstances to assert "racism" and two men with the intent to murder a black man is demonstrably false. You can refute this propaganda AND still justify a moral and legal disapproval of the two men's conduct.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Probable scenario: Vigilantes lookin' to do some law enforcin'. Police don't recommend that...maybe there is a reason for that. Zimmerman cut from the same cloth as these dudes.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They were looking to perform a citizens arrest, a concept that almost never makes sense from a risk perspective as it can escalate the situation and the suspect's behavior, and generally puts themselves and others in greater danger.

The overzealous neighborhood watchdog aspect certainly aligns with Zimmerman's misconduct. In both circumstances, they would have been perfectly reasonable "watchdogs" had they just followed the suspect in their vehicles as they stayed on the line with the 911 dispatcher until LE arrived on the scene.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

okaydo said:

GBear4Life said:

Why is she lying? He was killed for attacking a man. The two men are being charged because you can't chase down and confront a suspect with a weapon on public property, no matter how honest and innocent your intentions. Ahmaud killed himself by engaging in a fight, but he probably knew if he let the men hold him until the police came he would be spending the night in prison.


So if somebody points a gun at you, and you fight back out of fear for your life, you're the attacker?


LOL you're asserting that he started a fist fight with a guy who had a gun and whose friend had a gun because he was scared for his life? Don't make your bias so obvious. You don't have to lie and spin and exaggerate the facts and circumstances of this incident like you're MSM to make a valid legal argument that an indictment is justified here.

There's no one correct way to respond to something like that, but I know if I were an innocent man on a jog and two guy with guns in a very fierce manner commanded I stop to talk. I wouldn't think I, as an unarmed man, should run into them and challenge them to a fight and tear their shotgun away from them. I'd probably hear what they had to say.

But if I were somebody who had broken into numerous homes and just heard a civilian call the police on me for trespassing onto private property and I was on probation and didn't want to go to jail, I might take some risks and make a run for it.

They tried to stop him numerous times. If I'm not mistaken, what was caught on videotape was not their first attempt to stop him. I totally get the grand jury and the indictment. The spinning of the facts and circumstances to assert "racism" and two men with the intent to murder a black man is demonstrably false. You can refute this propaganda AND still justify a moral and legal disapproval of the two men's conduct.

Sorry. I just assumed it would be natural if 2 guys were following you and threatening you with guys, you'd be scared for your life. I didn't think it'd be a funny response. But LOL!

So if two armed men are threatening you with guns, and you fear for your life, the correct response is to sotp and have a friendly chat and try to reason with them?


By the way, can i have your address? I just want to see how you'd react if I send my friends with some rifles to stalk you on the street.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:




Sorry. I just assumed it would be natural if 2 guys were following you and threatening you with guys, you'd be scared for your life. I didn't think it'd be a funny response. But LOL!
The LOL was at YOU and your egregious assertion. I absolutely would be scared. I wouldn't feel the urge to essentially commit suicide.

Quote:


So if two armed men are threatening you with guns, and you fear for your life, the correct response is to sotp and have a friendly chat and try to reason with them?
I don't know what's "correct", but I know what not to do is to challenge two men with firearms to a fight -- IF self-interest is my goal. I don't compound a problem by walking straight into a wall and pound my head against it. I think his aggression there was ill advised and it'd be tough to argue otherwise, in my view. For the same reason I wouldn't attack two policemen who cornered me with their guns pointed at me, no matter how unreasonable they were being. But remember, this is coming from a perspective of someone who in these hypothetical scenario is innocent. I'd assume LE was making a mistake and confused me for a suspect who had committed a crime.
Quote:

By the way, can i have your address? I just want to see how you'd react if I send my friends with some rifles to stalk you on the street.
That's odd. Again, you're just not being very honest here. They were confronting a suspect of burglary to apprehend him until LE arrived. They did it in an ill advised and arguably an illegal manner.

The normal reaction, it seems to me, is to be scared. Not to belligerently initiate a physical altercation with two people who would be "justified" in shooting me. It's a scenario I could not win.

The strange thing to contemplate is had these two men behaved in the same manner without a gun. If Ahmed was willing to tussle with two men with guns, he certainly wouldn't have felt less emboldened to attack them had they not had guns. And then we might talking about a story about a white man who was beaten nearly to death. But then again, a story like that wouldn't make the news and we wouldn't be talking about it. At least not until Netflix filmed an advocacy piece on Ahmed, who'd be sitting in prison, telling us was simply the victim of racist thugs who were racial profiling intent on beating up a black man on a jolly afternoon run.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

okaydo said:




Sorry. I just assumed it would be natural if 2 guys were following you and threatening you with guys, you'd be scared for your life. I didn't think it'd be a funny response. But LOL!
The LOL was at YOU and your egregious assertion. I absolutely would be scared. I wouldn't feel the urge to essentially commit suicide.

Quote:


So if two armed men are threatening you with guns, and you fear for your life, the correct response is to sotp and have a friendly chat and try to reason with them?
I don't know what's "correct", but I know what not to do is to challenge two men with firearms to a fight -- IF self-interest is my goal. I don't compound a problem by walking straight into a wall and pound my head against it. I think his aggression there was ill advised and it'd be tough to argue otherwise, in my view. For the same reason I wouldn't attack two policemen who cornered me with their guns pointed at me, no matter how unreasonable they were being. But remember, this is coming from a perspective of someone who in these hypothetical scenario is innocent. I'd assume LE was making a mistake and confused me for a suspect who had committed a crime.
Quote:

By the way, can i have your address? I just want to see how you'd react if I send my friends with some rifles to stalk you on the street.
That's odd. Again, you're just not being very honest here. They were confronting a suspect of burglary to apprehend him until LE arrived. They did it in an ill advised and arguably an illegal manner.

The normal reaction, it seems to me, is to be scared. Not to belligerently initiate a physical altercation with two people who would be "justified" in shooting me. It's a scenario I could not win.

The normal reaction is to fight back because these 2 dudes are about to kill you. You fight back. Or you become a sitting duck and be shot dead. You fight back because you're scared that 2 people have guns on you. You fight back because it's your only chance to make it out alive. His reaction of self defense from 2 people threatening to kill him is the "normal" one.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:




The normal reaction is to fight back because these 2 dudes are about to kill you. You fight back. Or you become a sitting duck and be shot dead. You fight back because you're scared that 2 people have guns on you. You fight back because it's your only chance to make it out alive. His reaction of self defense from 2 people threatening to kill him is the "normal" one.

Dude you're projecting the most convenient narrative for you. You're presuming, without any reasoned evidence, that they conveyed they wanted to stop him for the sake of killing him. They didn't need to get out of their vehicles to kill him. They weren't trying to get away with a homicide. They tried to stop him multiple times and shouted to him "we want to talk to you". There is no reason to think Ahmued thought he was going to get killed. Aside from this, fist fighting two men with guns is not fighting for your life. It's called committing suicide. But that's moot because the premise you set up -- that it was two men whose intent was to murder him, and that they conveyed that to him and he knew it -- was ridiculous.

Propagandizing the race dynamic pollutes these stories. The MSM and political pundits know it, and they do it anyways.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

okaydo said:




The normal reaction is to fight back because these 2 dudes are about to kill you. You fight back. Or you become a sitting duck and be shot dead. You fight back because you're scared that 2 people have guns on you. You fight back because it's your only chance to make it out alive. His reaction of self defense from 2 people threatening to kill him is the "normal" one.

Dude you're projecting the most convenient narrative for you. You're presuming, without any reasoned evidence, that they conveyed they wanted to stop him for the sake of killing him. They didn't need to get out of their vehicles to kill him. They weren't trying to get away with a homicide. They tried to stop him multiple times and shouted to him "we want to talk to you". There is no reason to think Ahmued thought he was going to get killed. Aside from this, fist fighting two men with guns is not fighting for your life. It's called committing suicide. But that's moot because the premise you set up -- that it was two men whose intent was to murder him, and that they conveyed that to him and he knew it -- was ridiculous.

If 2 guys were stalking you with guns, it's a perfectly normal to assume they are 1) threatening you and 2) want to kill you.

You're the one who's projecting their innocent intentions.

Pointing guns at somebody is a threat.

Trying to stop somebody who is threatening you with a lethal weapon is defending yourself and is indeed fighting for your life.



GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:




If 2 guys were stalking you with guns, it's a perfectly normal to assume they are 1) threatening you and 2) want to kill you.

You're the one who's projecting their innocent intentions.

Pointing guns at somebody is a threat.

Trying to stop somebody who is threatening you with a lethal weapon is defending yourself and is indeed fighting for your life.
He knew what they wanted to confront him about. He had just trespassed a property in the neighborhood. They declared they wanted to talk to them when they could have popped a cap in his arse and they could have NOT called the Police if their intent was to get away with murder.

You can make these assertions all you want to demonize the white racist archetype and eulogize the black sweet boy archetype so you can unleash your animus and affirm your own racial ideology but it doesn't change the legal realities. The two men arguably were breaking the law by trying to apprehend a suspect of a crime and creating a self-defense situation that was illegal, and now a jury will determine if they are liable for Ahmued's death.

What I think is the difference between myself and folks who come at these incidents from your perspective is that I'm not trying to rest a broader social narrative on the anecdotes of one incident. I don't think if it came out that the two men hate blacks or that Ahmed was into cannibalism would affirm or refute any broader narrative held be us both. I'm merely trying to assess this incident and the circumstances of it. I don't think your broader narrative is jeopordized merely because of a tragic incident where the black victim was in fact killed in a legally and morally justified manner (not this one, but in many others). What is actually true about this incident, whatever that is, does not impact any overarching truths as we see them.
okaydo
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

okaydo said:




If 2 guys were stalking you with guns, it's a perfectly normal to assume they are 1) threatening you and 2) want to kill you.

You're the one who's projecting their innocent intentions.

Pointing guns at somebody is a threat.

Trying to stop somebody who is threatening you with a lethal weapon is defending yourself and is indeed fighting for your life.
He knew what they wanted to confront him about. He had just trespassed a property in the neighborhood. They declared they wanted to talk to them when they could have popped a cap in his arse and they could have NOT called the Police if their intent was to get away with murder.

You can make these assertions all you want to demonize the white racist archetype and eulogize the black sweet boy archetype so you can unleash your animus and affirm your own racial ideology but it doesn't change the legal realities. The two men arguably were breaking the law by trying to apprehend a suspect of a crime and now a jury will determine if they are liable for Ahmeud's death.

Both men are literally part of the law enforcement community. And they literally almost got away with murder because of who they are.

Under normal circumstances, they should've been arrested on the spot.

But it took nearly 3 months because they knew they could get away with murder.

Until that video got out.

And then it became a national story with everybody from Taylor Swift to President Trump weighing in.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/ahmaud-arbery-arrest-prosecutors-grand-jury.html



GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
okaydo said:

GBear4Life said:


He knew what they wanted to confront him about. He had just trespassed a property in the neighborhood. They declared they wanted to talk to them when they could have popped a cap in his arse and they could have NOT called the Police if their intent was to get away with murder.

You can make these assertions all you want to demonize the white racist archetype and eulogize the black sweet boy archetype so you can unleash your animus and affirm your own racial ideology but it doesn't change the legal realities. The two men arguably were breaking the law by trying to apprehend a suspect of a crime and now a jury will determine if they are liable for Ahmeud's death.

Both men are literally part of the law enforcement community. And they literally almost got away with murder because of who they are.

Under normal circumstances, they should've been arrested on the spot.

But it took nearly 3 months because they knew they could get away with murder.

Until that video got out.

And then it became a national story with everybody from Taylor Swift to President Trump weighing in.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/ahmaud-arbery-arrest-prosecutors-grand-jury.html
I see you've pivoted to a different aspect of the story -- LE's handling of the situation -- once you discovered your needless propagandizing of the incident wasn't allowed to sit unchecked.

Even though we essentially agree on this aspect -- that LE mishandled the situation -- you couldn't help but to spin these circumstances as well. LE should have at least brought it to a grand jury upon the completion of the investigation regardless of how many "celebrities" and twitter losers chimed in. Celebrities will chime in to create injustice too (the list is too long to write, but I don't think you'd be moved at all by the citing of those injustices). Persons charged with the duties of carrying out justice should now bow to the whims of public outcry, which is almost always irrational and based on incomplete information.

The DA had complete information and should have taken action.
bearlyamazing
How long do you want to ignore this user?


As they say in the ol' South, fire up Old Sparky.

There's no place in the world for vermin like them. And they almost got away with it, too. What a joke.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.