Yet Another Killer Cop Thread....Phoenix edition

[dainthomas]

A social worker would have been perfect for something like that and wouldn't straight up murder someone.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I haven't bent over backwards at all. I've only defended the shootings of Trayvon Martin, and Michael Brown once all the evidence was out there. I did say early on in the shooting of Jordan Davis by Michael Dunn with the early evidence it was self defense until evidence came out that he shot after the fleeing vehicle. I also said that currently the evidence for the Ahmed Arbery isn't enough, but what we do know publicly is problematic for the prosecution. I haven't in one way or another with Ahmed Arbery said it was a 100% justified shooting or not. We are still missing too much evidence and I have said as much. Unlike your race baiting ass, I don't jump to conclusion base on race. If the evidence in court shows the shooting was unjustified the McMichaels will end up in jail for it and good riddance. I have stated that emphatically several times. You are on the other hand wish to push out lies and call me the liar when you do. Shame on you.

The guy who links white nationalist websites wants you to be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't care that others were on the camera. Those are irrelevant facts. The fact is that Ahmed was trespassing and committing a crime. Plain and simple. We'll find out the rest in court, but according to public statements by the defense, Ahmed had been approached before by the McMichaels and knew he wasn't suppose to be there. It wasn't just the McMichaels with that statement but Deigo as well.

So smooth. When you can't defend a white cop shooting a white guy, you divert into defending racist white vigilantes murdering a black guy.

 

[HumblePie]

The guy who links white nationalist websites wants you to be ashamed of yourself.

I linked an article some here want to call white nationalist as it was linking DoJ lists. Same ones on Rand.org which is a research site that I linked later. But don't let facts stand in the way of your grandstanding like many others here.

 

[HumblePie]

So smooth. When you can't defend a white cop shooting a white guy, you divert into defending racist white vigilantes murdering a black guy.

LOL, I am not the one who transitioned the topic. Kind of like you and many others here are trying to do.

 

[Jhhnn]

I linked an article some here want to call white nationalist as it was linking DoJ lists. Same ones on Rand.org which is a research site that I linked later. But don't let facts stand in the way of your grandstanding like many others here.

One of your regular haunts, I take it.

 

[HumblePie]

if your point is that looking around a construction site is illegal, then you have to recognize that many people, including families with children looked around that construction site and they are all alive. the simple fact is that Ahmaud is dead because he was murdered by racists.

hell, i was looking around a similar construction site earlier this year, if it's a crime, it's akin to speeding or jaywalking.

I never said looking at a construction site is illegal. That isn't what it was specifically either. You obviously don't have a clue about the case to make such claims. It was someone's home being redone. It had stuff stored there. It wasn't owned by some property construction company. According to the original complaint by the home owner to other residents, he was missing stuff and having things moved around. So he asked fellow people in the neighborhood to help him out when he couldn't watch the house and installed a security camera system. Your average building under construction by a property management company doesn't installed security cameras around while it is going on.

After an alert, the McMichaels and another homeowner in the area, Deigo, went to go check it out. The found Ahmed at that time according their reports. Ahmed pretended he had a gun when they went to ask what he was doing there and they all ran away. If that was Ahmed, he knew at that point he wasn't allowed on the property because they said as much before he faked he had a gun according to them. Again, this is all under the assumption that it was Ahmed they saw that night according to their testimony and what was caught on camera. Again, the court will figure this all out when the trial begins. If it was Ahmed then he certainly knew he was trespassing when he returned to the location again. That would be a criminal activity at that time. If you don't like it, which many on this forum seem to dislike the statements I have made, then I am sorry that you hate laws in our country.

 

[HumblePie]

One of your regular haunts, I take it.

Not at all, but believe what you want. I was searching for an article to help my claim of guns and suicide for crap another dumbass was posting and that one was first on google. There were others which I posted in later replies. Again, dont' let facts get in the way of your outrage grandstanding and lies.

 

[Jhhnn]

Not at all, but believe what you want. I was searching for an article to help my claim of guns and suicide for crap another dumbass was posting and that one was first on google. There were others which I posted in later replies. Again, dont' let facts get in the way of your outrage grandstanding and lies.

So persecuted. Maybe you should go load some magazines to calm your fears.

 

[HumblePie]

Didn't the actual owner of the property end up saying that it was fine he was there? I can't remember, but even if he trespassed, which would probably require a warning or a sign, it would have been just a misdemeanor. That wouldn't give them the license to go after him like that. He would have had to stolen something for them to have something to latch to, but that appears to have not happened.

My speculation that Arbery got angry (supported more so by while being harassed, got hit by them aggressively maneuvering the trucks) when he was behind the truck may have been correct. Arbery had to have known why they were following from the descriptions I've read, and the fact that it lasted as long as it did indicated they weren't out to just kill him. Travis admitted when he was at the right side of the truck, he ordered Arbery to get on the ground while pointing the shotgun. I believe Arbery was angry and thought he could surprise Travis by turning at the other side of the truck with the small difference of distance between them (basically he would think Travis wouldn't realize this until very close proximity). Travis screwed up by not keep enough distance and making an ill-advised (and not legally defensible) order which turned into a shit outcome for everyone. He thought no one would be dumb enough to rush a guy with a shotgun, but someone angry with a path to surprise just might do it. Basically it seems like a case of two assholes colliding.

Actual property owner said he didn't believe it was trespass AFTER all the media controversy started. He already had statements counter to that previously though. Also, there were signs. If you want to understand the case and what the public knows about thus far I highly suggest reading up on it from sources that aren't posters from here. I can link several lawyers, criminologists, police officers, and other public 3rd party people not affiliated with the case to have them regurgitate most of the publicly known facts and their opinions. Point being, we don't know enough to know how to decide that case from information available to the public at this point. The McMichaels may have been out to hunt down a black man to harass him and ended up killing him unjustly, or it could have been a series of tragic events that led to them have to defend themselves. I am not claiming one way or another. Many posters around here already have their minds made up though and seek blood from the McMichaels. For those people, anyone not towing the line is a racist white supremacist or something.

 

[nickqt]

Not at all, but believe what you want. I was searching for an article to help my claim of guns and suicide for crap another dumbass was posting and that one was first on google. There were others which I posted in later replies. Again, dont' let facts get in the way of your outrage grandstanding and lies.

Keep to defending white men murdering black people on video, champ. At least you can stay consistent with a narrative.

Otherwise you're not only bad with facts, but you're bad with words.

Thanks.

 

[HumblePie]

So persecuted. Maybe you should go load some magazines to calm your fears.

Again with the insults when you have nothing to contribute. I only respond in kind to assholes when they are being assholes. Want to keep conversation civil with me and I am fine with that. I have no problem doing so and having a civil argument with people. When your entire argument is to just insult another poster all the time it really doesn't show well on you.

 

[HumblePie]

Keep to defending white men murdering black people on video, champ. At least you can stay consistent with a narrative.

Otherwise you're not only bad with facts, but you're bad with words.

Thanks.

Grandma let you online again? Ask her to buy you another fake tactical jacket for your next protest.

 

[nickqt]

Grandma let you online again? Ask her to buy you another fake tactical jacket for your next protest.

Sick burn white supremacist!

 

[HumblePie]

Sick burn white supremacist!

Certainly better than the same tired crap you vomit online.

 

[Jhhnn]

Actual property owner said he didn't believe it was trespass AFTER all the media controversy started. He already had statements counter to that previously though. Also, there were signs. If you want to understand the case and what the public knows about thus far I highly suggest reading up on it from sources that aren't posters from here. I can link several lawyers, criminologists, police officers, and other public 3rd party people not affiliated with the case to have them regurgitate most of the publicly known facts and their opinions. Point being, we don't know enough to know how to decide that case from information available to the public at this point. The McMichaels may have been out to hunt down a black man to harass him and ended up killing him unjustly, or it could have been a series of tragic events that led to them have to defend themselves. I am not claiming one way or another. Many posters around here already have their minds made up though and seek blood from the McMichaels. For those people, anyone not towing the line is a racist white supremacist or something.

So dishonest. They were under no obligation to chase down a jogger & kill him. The notion of self defense is absurd.

 

[nickqt]

So dishonest. They were under no obligation to chase down a jogger & kill him. The notion of self defense is absurd.

...Unless you're a white supremacist.

The white supremacist is so transparent I find it hilarious that people debate the white supremacist "on the merits".

What a waste of time.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I linked an article some here want to call white nationalist as it was linking DoJ lists. Same ones on Rand.org which is a research site that I linked later. But don't let facts stand in the way of your grandstanding like many others here.

yawn, some here want to call it, lol

 

[alien42]

I never said looking at a construction site is illegal. That isn't what it was specifically either. You obviously don't have a clue about the case to make such claims. It was someone's home being redone. It had stuff stored there.

when you start with complete bullshit, i stop reading. i know exactly what a construction site is and the one i was on was nearly identical. the only stuff stored there was light construction equipment.

you straight lie and then tell me i don't have a clue about the case? i suggest you take a look in the mirror after this pic.

 

[mxnerd]

This is ridiculous.

U.S. police are really a bunch of cowards with licenses to kill.

 

[ch33zw1z]

when you start with complete bullshit, i stop reading. i know exactly what a construction site is and the one i was on was nearly identical. the only stuff stored there was light construction equipment.

you straight lie and then tell me i don't have a clue about the case? i suggest you take a look in the mirror after this pic.

lol, he don't care. that guy is crazy with a capital C.

 

[nickqt]

lol, he don't care. that guy is crazy with a capital C.

He's not crazy. He's a white supremacist. There's a rhyme and reason for everything he says.

 

[ch33zw1z]

He's not crazy. He's a white supremacist. There's a rhyme and reason for everything he says.

Ok, good point. Him saying www.amren.com is only white supremacists from some people's perspective is pretty crazy to me, but I guess his play there is to try and pretend like it's not

 

[brycejones]

So far today we've learned that humbly not a lawyer is really only tots cool with extra judicial murder when blacks are shot by whites. That and I apparently hate white people. So all of you crackers can fuck right off!

 

[Maxima1]

Actual property owner said he didn't believe it was trespass AFTER all the media controversy started. He already had statements counter to that previously though. Also, there were signs. If you want to understand the case and what the public knows about thus far I highly suggest reading up on it from sources that aren't posters from here. I can link several lawyers, criminologists, police officers, and other public 3rd party people not affiliated with the case to have them regurgitate most of the publicly known facts and their opinions. Point being, we don't know enough to know how to decide that case from information available to the public at this point. The McMichaels may have been out to hunt down a black man to harass him and ended up killing him unjustly, or it could have been a series of tragic events that led to them have to defend themselves. I am not claiming one way or another. Many posters around here already have their minds made up though and seek blood from the McMichaels. For those people, anyone not towing the line is a racist white supremacist or something.

What felony did he commit? Simple trespass isn't enough for what they tried to do. It had to be a felony.

Here is the Georgia code for criminal trespass:

(a) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she intentionally damages any property of another without consent of that other person and the damage thereto is $500.00 or less or knowingly and maliciously interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without consent of that person.

(b) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she knowingly and without authority:

(1) Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person for an unlawful purpose;

(2) Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant that such entry is forbidden; or

(3) Remains upon the land or premises of another person or within the vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant to depart.

(c) For the purposes of subsection (b) of this Code section, permission to enter or invitation to enter given by a minor who is or is not present on or in the property of the minor's parent or guardian is not sufficient to allow lawful entry of another person upon the land, premises, vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft owned or rightfully occupied by such minor's parent or guardian if such parent or guardian has previously given notice that such entry is forbidden or notice to depart.

(d) A person who commits the offense of criminal trespass shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(e) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she intentionally defaces, mutilates, or defiles any grave marker, monument, or memorial to one or more deceased persons who served in the military service of this state, the United States of America or any of the states thereof, or the Confederate States of America or any of the states thereof, or a monument, plaque, marker, or memorial which is dedicated to, honors, or recounts the military service of any past or present military personnel of this state, the United States of America or any of the states thereof, or the Confederate States of America or any of the states thereof if such grave marker, monument, memorial, plaque, or marker is privately owned or located on land which is privately owned.

This is the code for citizen's arrest:

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE :: CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS :: ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS :: § 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest

law.justia.com

"A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion. "