patrick.net

WookieMan says

RC2006 says

The two guys are not what put everything in motion.

That was kind of my point. If he just kept walking down the street there would have been zero problem. Even if he just stopped and was like shit, those guys got guns. Let me just explain what I was doing. Or just make up some shit, the cops come, you have nothing stolen on you so you explain you were just checking out a vacant house. You get hit with a small fine and move on with your life.

I've been confronted by neighbors and cops a couple dozen times breaking into foreclosed properties at the direction of the bank. Some situations got tense. Never once did I ever think of going after the people confronting me or talking shit back to someone. You deescalate the situation if you're there on legal grounds. If you're not, apparently you run and try to grab a guys gun.

Am I taking crazy pills or something? The w...

Nothing. Don't let assholes gaslight you.

RC2006 says

Then somehow running from the scene not in his neighborhood, now he is a “jogger”.

You have no idea whether he was running before visiting that house under construction or not. If you were ever a runner you would know it's not unusual to slow down for a walk in the middle of a run.

We know very little, other than that he checked out a home under construction, which in some peoples books is not a big deal. That, and that he started running out of the neighborhood after that. Maybe he had been out for a walk (something a lot of people do these days when your cooped up the rest of the time), and then it changed to a run when he got dirty looks for, you know, being black in the wrong place.

That and the one other thing we know is that a couple of assholes chose to stop him armed to the hilt guns drawn. I don't think we know how that feels in that situation. Maybe he resisted becasue he's heard of people going to prison for less.

We just don't know all that much. My claim is more about what we don't know than what we do know. You guys are the ones coming up with the narrative that somehow justifies those guys stopping him with guns drawn.

There simply is no justification. Period !

marcus says

We know very little, other than that he checked out a home under construction, which in some peoples books is not a big deal

It's illegal if uninvited. There's not even an argument to be had at this point. You and anyone disagreeing are 100% wrong. Flat out wrong. He committed a crime regardless of how minor anyone thinks it is, which I do. It was illegal.

marcus says

RC2006 says

Then somehow running from the scene not in his neighborhood, now he is a “jogger”.

You have no idea whether he was running before visiting that house under construction or not. If you were ever a runner you would know it's not unusual to slow down for a walk in the middle of a run.

We know very little, other than that he checked out a home under construction, which in some peoples books is not a big deal. That, and that he started running out of the neighborhood after that. Maybe he had been out for a walk (something a lot of people do these days when your cooped up the rest of the time), and then it changed to a run when he got dirty looks for, you know, being black in the wrong place.

That and the one other thing we know is that a couple of assholes chose to stop him armed to the hilt guns drawn. I don't think we know how that feels in that situation. Maybe he resis...

Marcus,

Get the law changed if you don't like it. Maybe even run for office. Your tagline could be...

"Private property is for trespassing." or some other ridiculousness like that.

It's amazing how Black Males shrink in age when they fall victim to self-defense.

They showed Trayvon Martin's 8th Grade Pic, and they're trying to say a 26-year old with prior gun violations is also a "Kid".

marcus says

armed to the hilt guns drawn.

Come on!
They had a shotgun and a revolver. Not even semi with extra clips. The minimal patnet standard of armed to the hilt is belt-fed with a thousand rounds.

And you better like yams.

WookieMan says

marcus says

We know very little, other than that he checked out a home under construction, which in some peoples books is not a big deal

It's illegal if uninvited. There's not even an argument to be had at this point. You and anyone disagreeing are 100% wrong. Flat out wrong. He committed a crime regardless of how minor anyone thinks it is, which I do. It was illegal.

I agree but there's always the principle of a response relative to the threat or crime. One may be able to argue a citizens arrest with arms drawn is not an appropriate response since there was no immediate threat and the extent of the crimes of any was also not established. However 99% would have come out alive of such a situation by not attacking/assaulting the person wanting to talk to you. So I'd call it tragic but mostly self inflicted. Certainly no grounds for any murder or hate crime charges, even lesser manslaughter is very likely too much. This is Trayvon Martin reloaded and the leftoid race baiters and their lamestream media accomplices will lose this fight once again.

mell says

WookieMan says

marcus says

We know very little, other than that he checked out a home under construction, which in some peoples books is not a big deal

It's illegal if uninvited. There's not even an argument to be had at this point. You and anyone disagreeing are 100% wrong. Flat out wrong. He committed a crime regardless of how minor anyone thinks it is, which I do. It was illegal.

I agree but there's always the principle of a response relative to the threat or crime. One may be able to argue a citizens arrest with arms drawn is not an appropriate response since there was no immediate threat and the extent of the crimes of any was also not established. However 99% would have come out alive of such a situation by not attacking/assaulting the person wanting to talk to you. So I'd call it tragic but mostly ...

They likely want to lose so they can say, "see, systemic racism is alive".

Almost all violent racism is assault and murder of white people by black people.

Almost never the other way around.

WookieMan says

Am I taking crazy pills or something? The weapon was legal. If Georgia allows citizen arrests, then the confrontation was legal. The person that was visibly seen entering a property was confronted and decided to go after the people thinking he was there illegally. What am I missing here?

Visibly entering a construction site doesn't mean anything. I am 40+ year old and I have interest in house construction, whenever there is construction going on in my neighborhood, I stop by and look around multiple times, I talk to construction workers, and sometimes go and in one particular property that was under construction for many months, I often used to stop by and look around at the quality of work. They even had cameras installed and not once was I stopped. My white neighbor has a habit of going around the neighborhood, opening peoples gates, taking their trash cans, and then returning them later. When you live in a community some curious eyes and curious behavior is expected. That doesn't mean you take out your gun and start chasing the first black guy you see that is acting curious.

alpo says

That doesn't mean you take out your gun and start chasing the first black guy you see that is acting curious.

And if someone does, the correct response is to try to take their gun away right?

alpo says

When you live in a community some curious eyes and curious behavior is expected.

So when you are snooping around a vacant construction site you might expect to gather some curiosity and maybe some of the curious people in the neighborhood might want to know what you are doing and stop to talk to you right? So the correct response is to run away and if that doesn’t work, attack the people who out of curiosity wanted to talk to you?

alpo says

WookieMan says

Am I taking crazy pills or something? The weapon was legal. If Georgia allows citizen arrests, then the confrontation was legal. The person that was visibly seen entering a property was confronted and decided to go after the people thinking he was there illegally. What am I missing here?

Visibly entering a construction site doesn't mean anything. I am 40+ year old and I have interest in house construction, whenever there is construction going on in my neighborhood, I stop by and look around multiple times, I talk to construction workers, and sometimes go and in one particular property that was under construction for many months, I often used to stop by and look around at the quality of work. They even had cameras installed and not once was I stopped. My white neighbor has a habit of going around the neighborhood, opening peoples gates, taking their trash cans, and then returni...

You're not comparing apples to apples. If I see my NEIGHBOR doing something, and I know him/her, it's not NEARLY as CURIOUS as a stranger. You're being racist.

Knowing many of the facts, calling these white dudes racist is racist. Why are you a racist? Why do you hate white people for protecting their neighbors?

We are not going to accept your racist comments anymore. Lines are being drawn. If I was on the jury, at this point, I would vote NOT GUILTY.

alpo says

I am 40+ year old and I have interest in house construction, whenever there is construction going on in my neighborhood, I stop by and look around multiple times, I talk to construction workers, and sometimes go and in one particular property that was under construction for many months, I often used to stop by and look around at the quality of work.

If there are workers there I've already mentioned no biggie. They can tell you to leave or let you walk around. I can promise you, not one intelligent builder would want someone walking around their site unaccompanied. Hence why they put cameras and alarms on site. If they make a decision if they get an alert via camera and choose to not do anything, that's their choice. You have a choice to enter another persons property, but that doesn't take away that it's still illegal to do so.

There's always a potential negative out come when you commit an illegal act. The two guys went over the top for sure. I haven't downplayed that. The chain reaction that commenced after Ahmaud committed an illegal act is all on him though. From entering the property and then rush dudes with guns? Was is necessary for them to draw guns, no. But that really doesn't matter as it was all legal in the state of Georgia. The only illegal act was performed by Ahmaud in this circumstance.

1. The guy stopped and walked through a house under construction. The owner of the home has no problem with his presence.
2. The "men" who followed him, then confronted him, shot and killed him.

Seems like many of you live in the Bay Area, where houses are crammed together and construction sites are pillaged. I'm from the rural west, where a house under construction can be walked through with no problem. It's only an illegal act if the "injured party" claims it to be one. HE DID NOT.

My son has had a couple of run-ins with the law - starting with a pocket-rocket that broke a window when he and his friends were nine. He's a white man, employed, with a college degree. He jogs. If he were to stop and look at a house, it's doubtful the situation would end in his murder by two non-related people who have no claim to the property and are acting on their own hysteria. Most certainly, they wouldn't bring up the pocket-rocket incident, and probably not the ticket for smoking dope.

They didn't own the property. They didn't have a claim to it. There was no active threat. They weren't protecting themselves, they weren't protecting their own property. If they felt that there was a problem with a man walking onto a construction site, they could have called 911. By taking their version of the law into their own hands, IMHO they deserve life in prison at the very least.
--------------------------------------
WookieMan says

I've never heard of an adult doing it with no contractors on site. It's trespassing at minimum and most definitely suspicious. White, black, brown, yellow, etc. The only time it's appropriate to even enter someone's yard is to grab a real estate flyer or to knock on the door to present yourself and ask a question if you don't know the owner. Otherwise, just stay on the public easement/sidewalk or the street. Zero reason to enter a random persons property EVER regardless of occupancy. You're only asking for negative outcomes, regardless of who you are.

Call the cops, I did it last Sunday.

WookieMan says

Trespassing is trespassing though. If the owner didn't explicitly invite Ahmaud, then it's trespassing regardless of whether or not the owner wants/would press charges.

Ya might want to brush up on your trespass laws. I'll wait.

WookieMan says

There's really not much else to discuss.

Agreed. and yet, you're spouting what you believe to be salient facts.

WineHorror1 says

Knowing many of the facts, calling these white dudes racist is racist

You don't know "many of the facts." You know the teeny bit that has been released.

GEORGIA LAW:
"(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."

Your buddies were not acting on the behalf of the owner. They weren't authorized representatives. And they didn't confront him on the property, he was committing no crime before or during the altercation that caused his death.

WineHorror1 says

Knowing many of the facts, calling these white dudes racist is racist. Why are you a racist? Why do you hate white people for protecting their neighbors?

We are not going to accept your racist comments anymore. Lines are being drawn. If I was on the jury, at this point, I would vote NOT GUILTY.

Yes there was nothing racist about the botched citizens arrest, and it is most certain. The Liberal scumbags there are going to taint this cut and dry case, with their race baiting bullshit. The duo will be tried on being racists, and the evidence will show they weren't racist. Just liable and reckless with their pursuit to citizen arrest him.
They'll beat the racist rap in court and never be tried for their negligence.

Democrats are always stapling their Dicks to their foreheads, what else is new.

The only one who botched the legal citizen's arrest is Arbery.

He was to stay there until the police arrived.

Instead of standing or running away, he actively engaged the citizens by charging them while they were holding firearms.

Tenpoundbass says

The duo will be tried on being racists, and the evidence will show they weren't racist.

No they will be tried for murder. And just like in this thread, Trump cultists will be defending that those idiots had good reason to make a citizens arrest with guns drawn.

The fact that Trump cultists are arguing in that direction, and that the guy was black is strictly a coincidence.

elliemae says

If he were to stop and look at a house, it's doubtful the situation would end in his murder by two non-related people who have no claim to the property and are acting on their own hysteria.

Exactly because the problem is not so much the trespassing on a vacant construction site, problem is the departed tried to grab another man’s gun. That is illegal in Georgia. In fact it is illegal to take another person’s gun in Commifornia too isn’t it?

elliemae says

he was committing no crime before or during the altercation that caused his death.

This is not true. He tried to take another person’s firearm. That is illegal, and I might add, stupid. The departed won his award. It is the Darwin Award.

That's right. He could have fled or waited for the police.

The video indisputably shows Arbery, who begins standing in the middle of the road at least a few dozen feet away from the truck and younger McMichaels, charging McMichael and throwing several hooks at his face, while McMichaels was holding a shotgun.

It's not a case of McMichaels walking up to Arbery and pointing a firearm directly at him.

Also, no lib has explained why good boy Arbery has a prior gun conviction.

That is 110% the fault of Arbery and nobody else.

Jesus Christ. I'm kind of astonished how many people think it's just okay to enter someone's property regardless of condition. I don't own a gun yet, but this thread has made it very apparent that I need to if this many people think this way. You learn something new every day.

I'd call the cops and confront the person 10 out of 10 times if I saw them going into my neighbors house. Regardless of the intent of the person going in or my relationship with the neighbors. One of my own neighbors I've never met chewed out my friends for fucking with our xmas decorations in the lawn as a prank this past winter. My friends were pissed, I told them I'm happy I have neighbors like that.

The guns were over the top. I don't think anyone posting here is disputing that. Just because you don't know the neighbor or because the owner is okay with it, still doesn't make trespassing on another's property okay. As I said in a previous comment, if they didn't call the cops at all, they're going to have issues. The fact remains none of this would have ever happened if Ahmaud didn't enter a property that wasn't his, for no reason. Everyone can say they do it all the time, that doesn't make it right.

WookieMan says

alpo says

I am 40+ year old and I have interest in house construction, whenever there is construction going on in my neighborhood, I stop by and look around multiple times, I talk to construction workers, and sometimes go and in one particular property that was under construction for many months, I often used to stop by and look around at the quality of work.

If there are workers there I've already mentioned no biggie. They can tell you to leave or let you walk around. I can promise you, not one intelligent builder would want someone walking around their site unaccompanied. Hence why they put cameras and alarms on site. If they make a decision if they get an alert via camera and choose to not do anything, that's their choice. You have a choice to enter another persons property, but that doesn't take away that it's still illegal to do so.

There's always a potential negative out come when...

Wookie,

You fall just a bit short on getting it right.

Everything they did was legal = they DID NOT go over the top in their actions.

elliemae says

1. The guy stopped and walked through a house under construction. The owner of the home has no problem with his presence.
2. The "men" who followed him, then confronted him, shot and killed him.

Seems like many of you live in the Bay Area, where houses are crammed together and construction sites are pillaged. I'm from the rural west, where a house under construction can be walked through with no problem. It's only an illegal act if the "injured party" claims it to be one. HE DID NOT.

My son has had a couple of run-ins with the law - starting with a pocket-rocket that broke a window when he and his friends were nine. He's a white man, employed, with a college degree. He jogs. If he were to stop and look at a house, it's doubtful the situation would end in his murder by two non-related people who have no claim to the property and are acting on their own hysteria. Most certainly, they wouldn't bring up the pocket-rocket incident, and probably not the ticket for ...

You are a scary person because your belief is that the law doesn't matter...only your feelings about the outcome matter. I have a suggestion...

DO NOT BREAK THE LAW

elliemae says

he was committing no crime before or during the altercation that caused his death.

You're kidding, right? Attacking someone and trying to steal from them (the gun) isn't a crime?

WineHorror1 says

Everything they did was legal = they DID NOT go over the top in their actions.

I don't think you're wrong, I'm just more or less talking about how I would have reacted in the situation. I would have just confronted him without a gun, even if open carry was legal in IL. My whole take is the chain reaction leading to Ahmaud's death would have never happened if he just didn't enter someone else's home. They should have just called the cops and confronted him is all I'm getting at.

The guns were legal and their actions appear to be legal regardless of how I would have handled it. Ahmaud made multiple poor decision that day and it cost him his life. I think the two guys had poor judgement in how they handled the situation, but legally they'll very likely get off unless new information comes out. That's really all that matters instead of people's feelings or some here admitting they like to trespass.

WineHorror1 says

So, people aren't able to protect their own neighborhood?

I fairly regularly confront people who are snooping around neighbor's houses, and my neighbors do the same for our house if we are away. A year ago on our block this resulted in a few sons of Obama running away, cops were called, sons were traced down with police chopper and arrested for burglary (not me who called cops/confronted them). Note that we are in TX with probably one of the most liberal gun laws in US of A, we have home burglars shot every week in our city with population cheering and saying that shooter should get a medal, or, if burglar is not dead, that shooter needs to improve his marksmanship skills.

I have TX CC permit, but I will not go around drawing guns on random people, even if they trespass. Furthermore, I will confront people only for immediate neighbors, where I more or less know who should be around here. There is a big difference in shooting someone who assaults you (like in Zimmerman case), and this case where they drew guns on a guy without an immediate danger to their lives. Just call the damned cops and let them deal with it - they get paid for it, and if they do not come on time, vote in different sheriff. If you use (or even pull) your gun, be damned sure that this is not even close to gray area legally.

WookieMan says

Jesus Christ. I'm kind of astonished how many people think it's just okay to enter someone's property regardless of condition.

I don't think it's acceptable at all, and I'm not in anyway advocating for the deceased.
Nor do I think he was unjustly indiscriminately shot down out of malice and spite.
But if we're going to have gun rights, then people need to answer and be accountable when they use them.
Your gun isn't a tool to make people submit to your will under any circumstance.

Not to bring back to a location you left, to settle a disagreement.
Not to chase someone down, you think is getting away with a crime.
And Shotguns should never be justified for holding criminals at bay. They are best used for making the intruder breaking in your home, see the pearly gates of Hades.
Perhaps the guy would still be alive had they brandished a handgun instead.
Shotguns are not for close quarter fighting. That's what sawed off shot guns were made for.

I think the optics of the Father and Son, wouldn't be as bad, had they confronted him with this.

Tenpoundbass says

But if we're going to have gun rights, then people need to answer and be accountable when they use them.
Your gun isn't a tool to make people submit to your will under any circumstance.

Not to bring back to a location you left, to settle a disagreement.
Not to chase someone down, you think is getting away with a crime.

+10000000000000000000
best summary I have seen here
I am all for guns (living in TX has really changed the way how I think about them), but you need to go an extra mile in being careful if you have them.

Tenpoundbass says

But if we're going to have gun rights, then people need to answer and be accountable when they use them.

100% agree. That's why I said it was a bit over the top. The issue at hand though was it illegal to brandish the weapons in the manner they did? From what I've seen no. Does that make their action ethical or right? No.

I think some here are conflating that I think the outcome was proper. I don't. I'm looking at it from purely a legal aspect. I don't care about the people in all honesty. The media is portraying this as something it is not. That's of bigger concern, especially with our current circumstances with CV-19. Manipulation is a scary thing and it needs to be defeated every time it shows it's ugly face.

WookieMan says

The media is portraying this as something it is not.

WookieMan says

The issue at hand though was it illegal to brandish the weapons in the manner they did? From what I've seen no. Does that make their action ethical or right? No.

I thought the two men who were arrested are accused of a crime? The media and BLM types are portraying this as a race crime. They are saying the men murdered the departed. They claim that justice means putting these men in prison. They claim the departed was innocent and the two men with guns are guilty. If the two men did something unethical then is this not evidence of guilt? That is the danger of taking the position that they should not have carried weapons to defend themselves. The very fact that an unarmed man attacked them despite clearly seeing they were armed is evidence that every citizen needs the right to bear arms to defend themselves. The armed men are alive, the unarmed man WHO ATTACKED another human being is dead.

I personally would NOT advise intervening by calling the police NOR by confronting the intruder, unless he/she is threatening you or physical harm to another person. Take photos, take video, and if you witness a crime bring the video to the police after the situation is over. But calling the police just brings increased risk of violence and poor outcomes to your own personal health and could cost you your life. Just ask Justine Damond’s fiancee.

PeopleUnited says

Take photos

And post them on patrick.net.

Get an anonymous email to register before posting the image, like from https://www.mailinator.com/ and post it from a library, say, so I won't even have your IP address if I get subpoenaed.

Well, no libraries are open at the moment, but you get the idea.

Arbery's arrest for stealing a TV from a Walmart

www.youtube.com/embed/cD0m1Ar7Kfg

He wuz a good boy, dindu nuttin'. Jus' the victim of Ray Cism by da Whites.

Yet another incident: Arbery gets nasty with police, tries to return to vehicle after being told his license is suspended and he cannot drive it away.

https://www.nbc12.com/2020/05/19/video-shows-georgia-officer-tried-stun-ahmaud-arbery/

Media Biased Headlines:

Nah man, I dindu nufin.

Just went out for som ice T n' skittlez ma!

A low IQ is a very dangerous thing to have.

WineHorror1 says

A low IQ is a very dangerous thing to have.

He was smart enough to wear a parka in summer to reduce the risk of being tased. Probably was not his first time being tased either.

PeopleUnited says

WineHorror1 says

A low IQ is a very dangerous thing to have.

He was smart enough to wear a parka in summer to reduce the risk of being tased. Probably was not his first time being tased either.

Your smart meter is just a bit weak. Check your batteries.