New video of Arbery swearing at cops, almost got tased

[JoeB131]

Do you have an answer? Do I as a white man have a right to defend myself against the black person? Using deadly force?

Would depend on the circumstances. If he's got a gun and you have a gun, and his intent it to kill you, no one would have an issue with that.

That isn't the case here, where they used lethal force against a guy who was just out jogging.

 

[SavannahMann]

Is it ever OK for a white man to defend himself against a black man in the eyes of racist?

Are you talking to yourself now.

Do you have an answer? Do I as a white man have a right to defend myself against the black person? Using deadly force?

The question is situation, not race. For example, in Georgia again, there was a woman who had three men enter her home. She shot and killed one of the three. Nobody charged her with a crime. Nobody even considered it.



Those men were black. What was the difference? First the woman did not jump in her car, or truck, and set off searching for the baddies. Second, they were on HER property, in HER home. Even if they were not armed, the shooting would have been no problem legally speaking. Gwinnet County is up around Atlanta by the way, where all the Blacks you are so terrified of are in abundance. Yet, no protests, no marches, nothing.

The situation, was totally different. The woman was not the aggressor. The woman was not breaking the law confronting the others. The woman was minding her own damned business and that is the difference. Not the colors of the participants. Not the race of the people involved.

What is really killing you is that even in Georgia, we don’t allow people to shoot others for some made up bullshit reason. We have laws that are basically extensions of the old rule. Live, and let live. Mind your own damned business, and don’t bother nobody. The McMichaels set off as Vigilante’s and bad news for them, the laws that got them in trouble, stemmed from the Civil Rights era. When Georgia had endured enough of the Masked morons running around protecting whites. So they passed laws, so that a group of armed white folks outside a home of a black man could not claim they weren’t doing nothing when the cops drove by.

So now, those laws are decades old. And they’re working today just as they were intended before. If you are armed, handle it safely and properly with restraint. Don’t go running around causing problems, or you’ll have the problem. If you’re attacked by someone, and you’re not doing anything illegal, yes, it is Self Defense, and have a nice day. If you’re doing something wrong, and somebody dies because of what you are doing, well enjoy your stay in the Grey Bar Hotel. Because that is where you’re going.

You’re looking at this as a black versus white thing. It isn’t. They were not confronting a thug, they were harassing a man who had committed no crime in their view. They were attempting to commit the crime of false imprisonment. They were committing the crime of Aggravated Assault as it stands at this moment. That means they do not get to claim self defense.

Let’s say you accidentally walk into the wrong apartment. You see a black guy and shoot him. Should that be legal? He attacked you when he saw you in the apartment right? Well. You should not have been in his apartment. You had no business being there. So you can’t claim self defense.

If Arbury had come up on the McMichaels land and attacked them there, nobody would be saying a word about it. Oh there would be a few on the internet, and maybe a news report or two, but nobody would be facing charges. If the McMichaels had been at a store, and were attacked in the parking lot, nobody would say boo at it. But the McMichaels were in the middle of the street committing two felonies, and that means they were not innocent folks minding their own business when they were viciously attacked. They were the thugs. They were the criminals. And that is why they are arrested, and that is why it is most probable that they will be found guilty in a trial.

Because in Georgia, you don’t get to pick a fight, and then claim self defense. I was afeared for my life only counts if you were really innocent and minding your own business legally. They weren’t.

 

[Norman]

Is it ever OK for a white man to defend himself against a black man in the eyes of racist?

Are you talking to yourself now.

Do you have an answer? Do I as a white man have a right to defend myself against the black person? Using deadly force?

The question is situation, not race. For example, in Georgia again, there was a woman who had three men enter her home. She shot and killed one of the three. Nobody charged her with a crime. Nobody even considered it.



Those men were black. What was the difference? First the woman did not jump in her car, or truck, and set off searching for the baddies. Second, they were on HER property, in HER home. Even if they were not armed, the shooting would have been no problem legally speaking. Gwinnet County is up around Atlanta by the way, where all the Blacks you are so terrified of are in abundance. Yet, no protests, no marches, nothing.

The situation, was totally different. The woman was not the aggressor. The woman was not breaking the law confronting the others. The woman was minding her own damned business and that is the difference. Not the colors of the participants. Not the race of the people involved.

What is really killing you is that even in Georgia, we don’t allow people to shoot others for some made up bullshit reason. We have laws that are basically extensions of the old rule. Live, and let live. Mind your own damned business, and don’t bother nobody. The McMichaels set off as Vigilante’s and bad news for them, the laws that got them in trouble, stemmed from the Civil Rights era. When Georgia had endured enough of the Masked morons running around protecting whites. So they passed laws, so that a group of armed white folks outside a home of a black man could not claim they weren’t doing nothing when the cops drove by.

So now, those laws are decades old. And they’re working today just as they were intended before. If you are armed, handle it safely and properly with restraint. Don’t go running around causing problems, or you’ll have the problem. If you’re attacked by someone, and you’re not doing anything illegal, yes, it is Self Defense, and have a nice day. If you’re doing something wrong, and somebody dies because of what you are doing, well enjoy your stay in the Grey Bar Hotel. Because that is where you’re going.

You’re looking at this as a black versus white thing. It isn’t. They were not confronting a thug, they were harassing a man who had committed no crime in their view. They were attempting to commit the crime of false imprisonment. They were committing the crime of Aggravated Assault as it stands at this moment. That means they do not get to claim self defense.

Let’s say you accidentally walk into the wrong apartment. You see a black guy and shoot him. Should that be legal? He attacked you when he saw you in the apartment right? Well. You should not have been in his apartment. You had no business being there. So you can’t claim self defense.

If Arbury had come up on the McMichaels land and attacked them there, nobody would be saying a word about it. Oh there would be a few on the internet, and maybe a news report or two, but nobody would be facing charges. If the McMichaels had been at a store, and were attacked in the parking lot, nobody would say boo at it. But the McMichaels were in the middle of the street committing two felonies, and that means they were not innocent folks minding their own business when they were viciously attacked. They were the thugs. They were the criminals. And that is why they are arrested, and that is why it is most probable that they will be found guilty in a trial.

Because in Georgia, you don’t get to pick a fight, and then claim self defense. I was afeared for my life only counts if you were really innocent and minding your own business legally. They weren’t.

It is so incredibly stupid see you fall for the leftist media lies.

The only reason there is an outcry is because they manufactured the news. And that is because the hero was a white MAN.

Citizen arrest is perfectly legal and they had reasonable suspicion. No wrong doing occurred.

 

[SavannahMann]

Is it ever OK for a white man to defend himself against a black man in the eyes of racist?

Are you talking to yourself now.

Do you have an answer? Do I as a white man have a right to defend myself against the black person? Using deadly force?

The question is situation, not race. For example, in Georgia again, there was a woman who had three men enter her home. She shot and killed one of the three. Nobody charged her with a crime. Nobody even considered it.



Those men were black. What was the difference? First the woman did not jump in her car, or truck, and set off searching for the baddies. Second, they were on HER property, in HER home. Even if they were not armed, the shooting would have been no problem legally speaking. Gwinnet County is up around Atlanta by the way, where all the Blacks you are so terrified of are in abundance. Yet, no protests, no marches, nothing.

The situation, was totally different. The woman was not the aggressor. The woman was not breaking the law confronting the others. The woman was minding her own damned business and that is the difference. Not the colors of the participants. Not the race of the people involved.

What is really killing you is that even in Georgia, we don’t allow people to shoot others for some made up bullshit reason. We have laws that are basically extensions of the old rule. Live, and let live. Mind your own damned business, and don’t bother nobody. The McMichaels set off as Vigilante’s and bad news for them, the laws that got them in trouble, stemmed from the Civil Rights era. When Georgia had endured enough of the Masked morons running around protecting whites. So they passed laws, so that a group of armed white folks outside a home of a black man could not claim they weren’t doing nothing when the cops drove by.

So now, those laws are decades old. And they’re working today just as they were intended before. If you are armed, handle it safely and properly with restraint. Don’t go running around causing problems, or you’ll have the problem. If you’re attacked by someone, and you’re not doing anything illegal, yes, it is Self Defense, and have a nice day. If you’re doing something wrong, and somebody dies because of what you are doing, well enjoy your stay in the Grey Bar Hotel. Because that is where you’re going.

You’re looking at this as a black versus white thing. It isn’t. They were not confronting a thug, they were harassing a man who had committed no crime in their view. They were attempting to commit the crime of false imprisonment. They were committing the crime of Aggravated Assault as it stands at this moment. That means they do not get to claim self defense.

Let’s say you accidentally walk into the wrong apartment. You see a black guy and shoot him. Should that be legal? He attacked you when he saw you in the apartment right? Well. You should not have been in his apartment. You had no business being there. So you can’t claim self defense.

If Arbury had come up on the McMichaels land and attacked them there, nobody would be saying a word about it. Oh there would be a few on the internet, and maybe a news report or two, but nobody would be facing charges. If the McMichaels had been at a store, and were attacked in the parking lot, nobody would say boo at it. But the McMichaels were in the middle of the street committing two felonies, and that means they were not innocent folks minding their own business when they were viciously attacked. They were the thugs. They were the criminals. And that is why they are arrested, and that is why it is most probable that they will be found guilty in a trial.

Because in Georgia, you don’t get to pick a fight, and then claim self defense. I was afeared for my life only counts if you were really innocent and minding your own business legally. They weren’t.

It is so incredibly stupid see you fall for the leftist media lies.

The only reason there is an outcry is because they manufactured the news. And that is because the hero was a white MAN.

Citizen arrest is perfectly legal and they had reasonable suspicion. No wrong doing occurred.

Citizens arrest is legal, but not for Reasonable Suspicion. You have to be 100% sure, or you commit the crime of False Imprisonment. Look at the charge against Roddy, the neighbor who was following. Murder, and attempted false imprisonment.

In Georgia, if you hold someone for police, even without a gun. And they have committed no crime you can arrest them for, the one being charged is you. You committed a Felony. Roddy according to the Prosecutor, who had to describe it for the Judge to get a Warrant, was apparently able to show that AA committed no crimes, and Roddy was more than an innocent bystander recording video. Or at least that they had probable cause to believe that Roddy was more than an innocent bystander.

The Reason to believe is if a woman screams at you that this man is robbing her. You have no reason to believe the woman is lying and you rush to her aid. Then the Reasonable Belief comes into play. You were going off of what a victim told you. It would be reasonable to assume that the woman was telling the truth. The McMichaels had neither. The victim of the suspected crime, was not present to shout help this man is stealing. They did not see him stealing anything, so they had no reason to believe based upon fact. That makes the pursuit, and attempted arrest, a crime. Using the firearm in the crime makes it another felony. Two right there, and now we’re to the shooting. The shooting can not be self defense, Travis and Greg were committing Felonies. That means the Shooting was a criminal act as well.

Sorry, your link is inaccurate, and requires a lot of Conspiracy Theory crap that isn’t going to get into the trial. Because Citizens Arrest requires a crime committed right here and now, not five years ago, or two years ago. Or five hours ago. And if you are right, and Daddy McMichaels knew AA, he should have said so on the phone. “I recognize this guy. I interviewed him when I worked for the DA.“ Not doing so withholds evidence.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Is it ever OK for a white man to defend himself against a black man in the eyes of racist?

Are you talking to yourself now.

Do you have an answer? Do I as a white man have a right to defend myself against the black person? Using deadly force?

The question is situation, not race. For example, in Georgia again, there was a woman who had three men enter her home. She shot and killed one of the three. Nobody charged her with a crime. Nobody even considered it.



Those men were black. What was the difference? First the woman did not jump in her car, or truck, and set off searching for the baddies. Second, they were on HER property, in HER home. Even if they were not armed, the shooting would have been no problem legally speaking. Gwinnet County is up around Atlanta by the way, where all the Blacks you are so terrified of are in abundance. Yet, no protests, no marches, nothing.

The situation, was totally different. The woman was not the aggressor. The woman was not breaking the law confronting the others. The woman was minding her own damned business and that is the difference. Not the colors of the participants. Not the race of the people involved.

What is really killing you is that even in Georgia, we don’t allow people to shoot others for some made up bullshit reason. We have laws that are basically extensions of the old rule. Live, and let live. Mind your own damned business, and don’t bother nobody. The McMichaels set off as Vigilante’s and bad news for them, the laws that got them in trouble, stemmed from the Civil Rights era. When Georgia had endured enough of the Masked morons running around protecting whites. So they passed laws, so that a group of armed white folks outside a home of a black man could not claim they weren’t doing nothing when the cops drove by.

So now, those laws are decades old. And they’re working today just as they were intended before. If you are armed, handle it safely and properly with restraint. Don’t go running around causing problems, or you’ll have the problem. If you’re attacked by someone, and you’re not doing anything illegal, yes, it is Self Defense, and have a nice day. If you’re doing something wrong, and somebody dies because of what you are doing, well enjoy your stay in the Grey Bar Hotel. Because that is where you’re going.

You’re looking at this as a black versus white thing. It isn’t. They were not confronting a thug, they were harassing a man who had committed no crime in their view. They were attempting to commit the crime of false imprisonment. They were committing the crime of Aggravated Assault as it stands at this moment. That means they do not get to claim self defense.

Let’s say you accidentally walk into the wrong apartment. You see a black guy and shoot him. Should that be legal? He attacked you when he saw you in the apartment right? Well. You should not have been in his apartment. You had no business being there. So you can’t claim self defense.

If Arbury had come up on the McMichaels land and attacked them there, nobody would be saying a word about it. Oh there would be a few on the internet, and maybe a news report or two, but nobody would be facing charges. If the McMichaels had been at a store, and were attacked in the parking lot, nobody would say boo at it. But the McMichaels were in the middle of the street committing two felonies, and that means they were not innocent folks minding their own business when they were viciously attacked. They were the thugs. They were the criminals. And that is why they are arrested, and that is why it is most probable that they will be found guilty in a trial.

Because in Georgia, you don’t get to pick a fight, and then claim self defense. I was afeared for my life only counts if you were really innocent and minding your own business legally. They weren’t.

It is so incredibly stupid see you fall for the leftist media lies.

The only reason there is an outcry is because they manufactured the news. And that is because the hero was a white MAN.

Citizen arrest is perfectly legal and they had reasonable suspicion. No wrong doing occurred.

Too bad for them you don't get to write the laws.

 

[texmaster]

Is it ever OK for a white man to defend himself against a black man in the eyes of racist?

Are you talking to yourself now.

Do you have an answer? Do I as a white man have a right to defend myself against the black person? Using deadly force?

The question is situation, not race. For example, in Georgia again, there was a woman who had three men enter her home. She shot and killed one of the three. Nobody charged her with a crime. Nobody even considered it.



Those men were black. What was the difference? First the woman did not jump in her car, or truck, and set off searching for the baddies. Second, they were on HER property, in HER home. Even if they were not armed, the shooting would have been no problem legally speaking. Gwinnet County is up around Atlanta by the way, where all the Blacks you are so terrified of are in abundance. Yet, no protests, no marches, nothing.

The situation, was totally different. The woman was not the aggressor. The woman was not breaking the law confronting the others. The woman was minding her own damned business and that is the difference. Not the colors of the participants. Not the race of the people involved.

What is really killing you is that even in Georgia, we don’t allow people to shoot others for some made up bullshit reason. We have laws that are basically extensions of the old rule. Live, and let live. Mind your own damned business, and don’t bother nobody. The McMichaels set off as Vigilante’s and bad news for them, the laws that got them in trouble, stemmed from the Civil Rights era. When Georgia had endured enough of the Masked morons running around protecting whites. So they passed laws, so that a group of armed white folks outside a home of a black man could not claim they weren’t doing nothing when the cops drove by.

So now, those laws are decades old. And they’re working today just as they were intended before. If you are armed, handle it safely and properly with restraint. Don’t go running around causing problems, or you’ll have the problem. If you’re attacked by someone, and you’re not doing anything illegal, yes, it is Self Defense, and have a nice day. If you’re doing something wrong, and somebody dies because of what you are doing, well enjoy your stay in the Grey Bar Hotel. Because that is where you’re going.

You’re looking at this as a black versus white thing. It isn’t. They were not confronting a thug, they were harassing a man who had committed no crime in their view. They were attempting to commit the crime of false imprisonment. They were committing the crime of Aggravated Assault as it stands at this moment. That means they do not get to claim self defense.

Let’s say you accidentally walk into the wrong apartment. You see a black guy and shoot him. Should that be legal? He attacked you when he saw you in the apartment right? Well. You should not have been in his apartment. You had no business being there. So you can’t claim self defense.

If Arbury had come up on the McMichaels land and attacked them there, nobody would be saying a word about it. Oh there would be a few on the internet, and maybe a news report or two, but nobody would be facing charges. If the McMichaels had been at a store, and were attacked in the parking lot, nobody would say boo at it. But the McMichaels were in the middle of the street committing two felonies, and that means they were not innocent folks minding their own business when they were viciously attacked. They were the thugs. They were the criminals. And that is why they are arrested, and that is why it is most probable that they will be found guilty in a trial.

Because in Georgia, you don’t get to pick a fight, and then claim self defense. I was afeared for my life only counts if you were really innocent and minding your own business legally. They weren’t.

It is so incredibly stupid see you fall for the leftist media lies.

The only reason there is an outcry is because they manufactured the news. And that is because the hero was a white MAN.

Citizen arrest is perfectly legal and they had reasonable suspicion. No wrong doing occurred.

Too bad for them you don't get to write the laws.

You and your racism will lose again just like Trayvon and Brown. And I'll sit back again laughing

 

[Faun]

So? Were there cops present when he was assaulted by the vigilante McMichaels?

You really need to educate yourself on the terms you use. Arbery assaulted McMichaels not the other way around.

If you really need yet another lesson in the law I'll be happy to provide it.

Actually. I live in Georgia. So chances are that I know the terms I am using. But I am not alone.

brandish

That is written by an experienced defense attorney in Georgia who has handled capital cases before. So what qualifications do you have? Are you a lawyer with experience in Georgia? Otherwise I do not think you are in a position to teach.

Its pretty clear you don't.

Let's review the law itself.

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 5 - CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
ARTICLE 2 - ASSAULT AND BATTERY
§ 16-5-20 - Simple assault
O.C.G.A. 16-5-20 (2010)
16-5-20. Simple assault


(a) A person commits the offense of simple assault when he or she either:

(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another; or

(2) Commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.

(b) Except as provided in subsections (c) through (h) of this Code section, a person who commits the offense of simple assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(c) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault in a public transit vehicle or station shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. For purposes of this Code section, "public transit vehicle" means a bus, van, or rail car used for the transportation of passengers within a system which receives a subsidy from tax revenues or is operated under a franchise contract with a county or municipality of this state.

(d) If the offense of simple assault is committed between past or present spouses, persons who are parents of the same child, parents and children, stepparents and stepchildren, foster parents and foster children, or other persons excluding siblings living or formerly living in the same household, the defendant shall be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. In no event shall this subsection be applicable to corporal punishment administered by a parent or guardian to a child or administered by a person acting in loco parentis.

(e) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against a person who is 65 years of age or older shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

(f) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against an employee of a public school system of this state while such employee is engaged in official duties or on school property shall, upon conviction of such offense, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. For purposes of this Code section, "school property" shall include public school buses and stops for public school buses as designated by local school boards of education.

(g) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against a female who is pregnant at the time of the offense shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

(h) Nothing in this Code section shall be construed to permit the prosecution of:

(1) Any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

(2) Any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(3) Any woman with respect to her unborn child.

For the purposes of this subsection, the term "unborn child" means a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb.



Now, go ahead and point to any part of that law based on the video where Arbury was assaulted.

I can easily point to where he was guilty of assault:

(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another;

Your thief is on video attacking McMichaels without anyone moving toward him or raising any weapon at him.


Go ahead, can't wait to see this dance

Not that it matters because you don't have to actually point the gun at someone for it to be aggravated assault ... but let's see your evidence Travis didn't point his gun at Arbery....

lol So you want to play too.

Here is the Georgia law in aggravated assault

2017 Georgia Code
Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses
Chapter 5 - Crimes Against the Person
Article 2 - Assault and Battery
§ 16-5-21. Aggravated assault
Universal Citation: GA Code § 16-5-21 (2017)

• (a) A person commits the offense of aggravated assault when he or she assaults:
  • (1) With intent to murder, to rape, or to rob;
  • (2) With a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury;
  • (3) With any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in strangulation; or
  • (4) A person or persons without legal justification by discharging a firearm from within a motor vehicle toward a person or persons.
• (b) Except as provided in subsections (c) through (k) of this Code section, a person convicted of the offense of aggravated assault shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years.
• (c)
  • (1) A person who knowingly commits the offense of aggravated assault upon a public safety officer while he or she is engaged in, or on account of the performance of, his or her official duties shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished as follows:
    • (A) When such assault occurs by the discharge of a firearm by a person who is at least 17 years of age, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than 20 years and shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of ten years and no portion of the mandatory minimum sentence imposed shall be suspended, stayed, probated, deferred, or withheld by the sentencing court; provided, however, that in the court's discretion, the court may depart from such mandatory minimum sentence when the prosecuting attorney and defendant have agreed to a sentence that is below such mandatory minimum;
    • (B) When such assault does not involve the discharge of a firearm by a person who is at least 17 years of age, and does not involve only the use of the person's body, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years and, for persons who are at least 17 years of age, shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of three years and no portion of the mandatory minimum sentence imposed shall be suspended, stayed, probated, deferred, or withheld by the sentencing court; provided, however, that in the court's discretion, the court may depart from such mandatory minimum sentence when the prosecuting attorney and defendant have agreed to a sentence that is below such mandatory minimum; or
    • (C) When such assault occurs only involving the use of the person's body, by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years.
  • (2) A person convicted under this subsection shall be punished, in addition to any term of imprisonment imposed, by a fine as provided by law which shall be at least $2,000.00. With respect to $2,000.00 of the fine imposed, after distributing the surcharges and deductions required by Chapter 21 of Title 15, Code Sections 36-15-9 and 42-8-34, and Title 47, it shall be earmarked for the Georgia State Indemnification Fund for purposes of payment of indemnification for death or disability as provided for in Part 1 of Article 5 of Chapter 9 of Title 45.
  • (3) As used in this subsection, the term "firearm" means any handgun, rifle, shotgun, or similar device or weapon which will or can be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or electrical charge.
• (d) Any person who commits the offense of aggravated assault against a person who is 65 years of age or older shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than three nor more than 20 years.
• (e) Any person who commits the offense of aggravated assault in a public transit vehicle or station shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than three nor more than 20 years.
• (f) Any person who commits the offense of aggravated assault upon a person in the course of violating Code Section 16-8-2 where the property that was the subject of the theft was a vehicle engaged in commercial transportation of cargo or any appurtenance thereto, including without limitation any such trailer, semitrailer, container, or other associated equipment, or the cargo being transported therein or thereon, shall upon conviction be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years, a fine not less than $50,000.00 nor more than $200,000.00, or both such fine and imprisonment. For purposes of this subsection, the term "vehicle" includes without limitation any railcar.
• (g) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this Code section, a person convicted of an offense described in paragraph (4) of subsection (a) of this Code section shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years.
• (h) Any person who commits the offense of aggravated assault involving the use of a firearm upon a student or teacher or other school personnel within a school safety zone as defined in Code Section 16-11-127.1 shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years.
• (i) If the offense of aggravated assault is committed between past or present spouses, persons who are parents of the same child, parents and children, stepparents and stepchildren, foster parents and foster children, or other persons excluding siblings living or formerly living in the same household, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three nor more than 20 years.
• (j) Any person who commits the offense of aggravated assault with intent to rape against a child under the age of 14 years shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than 25 nor more than 50 years. Any person convicted under this subsection shall, in addition, be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Section 17-10-6.2.
• (k) A person who knowingly commits the offense of aggravated assault upon an officer of the court while such officer is engaged in, or on account of the performance of, his or her official duties shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years.

Now please, cite the specific law that justified Arbery attacking McMichaels with evidence from the video.

Go ahead new player

LOLOL

a) Brandishing a firearm during a dispute is illegal in Georgia...

​

Georgia senators are pursuing a bill that would make it legal to brandish a gun during a dispute.​

​

The bill put forth by state Sen. Tyler Harper passed out of committee Monday, and would allow residents to pull a gun if they feel threatened, so long as they don’t aim it at anybody.​

​

Under current Georgia law, brandishing a firearm can earn a felony aggravated assault charge, carrying a sentence of up 20 years, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.​

b) You forgot to post your evidence that Travis wasn't pointing his shotgun at Arbery.....

Sign. Another lesson in the dictionary for you.

bran•dish brăn′dĭsh
►

• transitive verb
  To wave or flourish (something, often a weapon) in a menacing, defiant, or excited way. synonym: flourish.
• n.
  A menacing, defiant, or excited wave or flourish of something.
• 
  To move or wave, as a weapon; raise and move in various directions; shake or flourish about: as, to brandish a sword or a cane.

Try having a clue what words mean before you use them genius not after. No weapon was ever brandished at your thief anywhere in that video. The dictionary wins again.

Merriam, you left out one of the definitions that does not require waving...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brandish​

​

to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner​

 

[Desperado]

So he could not take it as a warning and change his pattern.
too bad so sad,,,, n tears for him

 

[Jitss617]

So? Were there cops present when he was assaulted by the vigilante McMichaels?

You really need to educate yourself on the terms you use. Arbery assaulted McMichaels not the other way around.

If you really need yet another lesson in the law I'll be happy to provide it.

Actually. I live in Georgia. So chances are that I know the terms I am using. But I am not alone.

brandish

That is written by an experienced defense attorney in Georgia who has handled capital cases before. So what qualifications do you have? Are you a lawyer with experience in Georgia? Otherwise I do not think you are in a position to teach.

Its pretty clear you don't.

Let's review the law itself.

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 5 - CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
ARTICLE 2 - ASSAULT AND BATTERY
§ 16-5-20 - Simple assault
O.C.G.A. 16-5-20 (2010)
16-5-20. Simple assault


(a) A person commits the offense of simple assault when he or she either:

(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another; or

(2) Commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.

(b) Except as provided in subsections (c) through (h) of this Code section, a person who commits the offense of simple assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(c) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault in a public transit vehicle or station shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. For purposes of this Code section, "public transit vehicle" means a bus, van, or rail car used for the transportation of passengers within a system which receives a subsidy from tax revenues or is operated under a franchise contract with a county or municipality of this state.

(d) If the offense of simple assault is committed between past or present spouses, persons who are parents of the same child, parents and children, stepparents and stepchildren, foster parents and foster children, or other persons excluding siblings living or formerly living in the same household, the defendant shall be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. In no event shall this subsection be applicable to corporal punishment administered by a parent or guardian to a child or administered by a person acting in loco parentis.

(e) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against a person who is 65 years of age or older shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

(f) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against an employee of a public school system of this state while such employee is engaged in official duties or on school property shall, upon conviction of such offense, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. For purposes of this Code section, "school property" shall include public school buses and stops for public school buses as designated by local school boards of education.

(g) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against a female who is pregnant at the time of the offense shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

(h) Nothing in this Code section shall be construed to permit the prosecution of:

(1) Any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

(2) Any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(3) Any woman with respect to her unborn child.

For the purposes of this subsection, the term "unborn child" means a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb.



Now, go ahead and point to any part of that law based on the video where Arbury was assaulted.

I can easily point to where he was guilty of assault:

(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another;

Your thief is on video attacking McMichaels without anyone moving toward him or raising any weapon at him.


Go ahead, can't wait to see this dance

Not that it matters because you don't have to actually point the gun at someone for it to be aggravated assault ... but let's see your evidence Travis didn't point his gun at Arbery....

lol So you want to play too.

Here is the Georgia law in aggravated assault

2017 Georgia Code
Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses
Chapter 5 - Crimes Against the Person
Article 2 - Assault and Battery
§ 16-5-21. Aggravated assault
Universal Citation: GA Code § 16-5-21 (2017)

• (a) A person commits the offense of aggravated assault when he or she assaults:
  • (1) With intent to murder, to rape, or to rob;
  • (2) With a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury;
  • (3) With any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in strangulation; or
  • (4) A person or persons without legal justification by discharging a firearm from within a motor vehicle toward a person or persons.
• (b) Except as provided in subsections (c) through (k) of this Code section, a person convicted of the offense of aggravated assault shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years.
• (c)
  • (1) A person who knowingly commits the offense of aggravated assault upon a public safety officer while he or she is engaged in, or on account of the performance of, his or her official duties shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished as follows:
    • (A) When such assault occurs by the discharge of a firearm by a person who is at least 17 years of age, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than 20 years and shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of ten years and no portion of the mandatory minimum sentence imposed shall be suspended, stayed, probated, deferred, or withheld by the sentencing court; provided, however, that in the court's discretion, the court may depart from such mandatory minimum sentence when the prosecuting attorney and defendant have agreed to a sentence that is below such mandatory minimum;
    • (B) When such assault does not involve the discharge of a firearm by a person who is at least 17 years of age, and does not involve only the use of the person's body, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years and, for persons who are at least 17 years of age, shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of three years and no portion of the mandatory minimum sentence imposed shall be suspended, stayed, probated, deferred, or withheld by the sentencing court; provided, however, that in the court's discretion, the court may depart from such mandatory minimum sentence when the prosecuting attorney and defendant have agreed to a sentence that is below such mandatory minimum; or
    • (C) When such assault occurs only involving the use of the person's body, by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years.
  • (2) A person convicted under this subsection shall be punished, in addition to any term of imprisonment imposed, by a fine as provided by law which shall be at least $2,000.00. With respect to $2,000.00 of the fine imposed, after distributing the surcharges and deductions required by Chapter 21 of Title 15, Code Sections 36-15-9 and 42-8-34, and Title 47, it shall be earmarked for the Georgia State Indemnification Fund for purposes of payment of indemnification for death or disability as provided for in Part 1 of Article 5 of Chapter 9 of Title 45.
  • (3) As used in this subsection, the term "firearm" means any handgun, rifle, shotgun, or similar device or weapon which will or can be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or electrical charge.
• (d) Any person who commits the offense of aggravated assault against a person who is 65 years of age or older shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than three nor more than 20 years.
• (e) Any person who commits the offense of aggravated assault in a public transit vehicle or station shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than three nor more than 20 years.
• (f) Any person who commits the offense of aggravated assault upon a person in the course of violating Code Section 16-8-2 where the property that was the subject of the theft was a vehicle engaged in commercial transportation of cargo or any appurtenance thereto, including without limitation any such trailer, semitrailer, container, or other associated equipment, or the cargo being transported therein or thereon, shall upon conviction be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years, a fine not less than $50,000.00 nor more than $200,000.00, or both such fine and imprisonment. For purposes of this subsection, the term "vehicle" includes without limitation any railcar.
• (g) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this Code section, a person convicted of an offense described in paragraph (4) of subsection (a) of this Code section shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years.
• (h) Any person who commits the offense of aggravated assault involving the use of a firearm upon a student or teacher or other school personnel within a school safety zone as defined in Code Section 16-11-127.1 shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years.
• (i) If the offense of aggravated assault is committed between past or present spouses, persons who are parents of the same child, parents and children, stepparents and stepchildren, foster parents and foster children, or other persons excluding siblings living or formerly living in the same household, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three nor more than 20 years.
• (j) Any person who commits the offense of aggravated assault with intent to rape against a child under the age of 14 years shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than 25 nor more than 50 years. Any person convicted under this subsection shall, in addition, be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Section 17-10-6.2.
• (k) A person who knowingly commits the offense of aggravated assault upon an officer of the court while such officer is engaged in, or on account of the performance of, his or her official duties shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years.

Now please, cite the specific law that justified Arbery attacking McMichaels with evidence from the video.

Go ahead new player

LOLOL

a) Brandishing a firearm during a dispute is illegal in Georgia...

​

Georgia senators are pursuing a bill that would make it legal to brandish a gun during a dispute.​

​

The bill put forth by state Sen. Tyler Harper passed out of committee Monday, and would allow residents to pull a gun if they feel threatened, so long as they don’t aim it at anybody.​

​

Under current Georgia law, brandishing a firearm can earn a felony aggravated assault charge, carrying a sentence of up 20 years, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.​

b) You forgot to post your evidence that Travis wasn't pointing his shotgun at Arbery.....

Sign. Another lesson in the dictionary for you.

bran•dish brăn′dĭsh
►

• transitive verb
  To wave or flourish (something, often a weapon) in a menacing, defiant, or excited way. synonym: flourish.
• n.
  A menacing, defiant, or excited wave or flourish of something.
• 
  To move or wave, as a weapon; raise and move in various directions; shake or flourish about: as, to brandish a sword or a cane.

Try having a clue what words mean before you use them genius not after. No weapon was ever brandished at your thief anywhere in that video. The dictionary wins again.

Merriam, you left out one of the definitions that does not require waving...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brandish​

​

to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner​

Was Arbery running towards him?

 

[Jitss617]

Do you have an answer? Do I as a white man have a right to defend myself against the black person? Using deadly force?

Would depend on the circumstances. If he's got a gun and you have a gun, and his intent it to kill you, no one would have an issue with that.

That isn't the case here, where they used lethal force against a guy who was just out jogging.

Lol jogging hahahah I see your trolling

 

[bendog]

New video released of Ahmaud Arbery's confrontation with cops when approached in a park

A 2017 video has emerged showing slain Georgia man Ahmaud Arbery angrily confronting cops in a park, with an aggressive officer pulling his Taser.

www.bizpacreview.com

This video shows Arbery disrespect the cops, refused to take commands a couple of times, tazer malfunctioned, to bad.
This kid obviously has some issues, stemming from his parenting, I think that’s a females jacket he’s wearing, he’s exposing his underwear in a public park.

he almost attacked the cops just doing his job

the area is known for drugs and but AA couldn’t understand what he was saying.

The OP:Glynn County Police Department, first approached Arbery, who was alone in a park the officer later said was known for drug activity.

 

[Faun]

So? Were there cops present when he was assaulted by the vigilante McMichaels?

You really need to educate yourself on the terms you use. Arbery assaulted McMichaels not the other way around.

If you really need yet another lesson in the law I'll be happy to provide it.

Actually. I live in Georgia. So chances are that I know the terms I am using. But I am not alone.

brandish

That is written by an experienced defense attorney in Georgia who has handled capital cases before. So what qualifications do you have? Are you a lawyer with experience in Georgia? Otherwise I do not think you are in a position to teach.

Its pretty clear you don't.

Let's review the law itself.

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 5 - CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
ARTICLE 2 - ASSAULT AND BATTERY
§ 16-5-20 - Simple assault
O.C.G.A. 16-5-20 (2010)
16-5-20. Simple assault


(a) A person commits the offense of simple assault when he or she either:

(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another; or

(2) Commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.

(b) Except as provided in subsections (c) through (h) of this Code section, a person who commits the offense of simple assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(c) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault in a public transit vehicle or station shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. For purposes of this Code section, "public transit vehicle" means a bus, van, or rail car used for the transportation of passengers within a system which receives a subsidy from tax revenues or is operated under a franchise contract with a county or municipality of this state.

(d) If the offense of simple assault is committed between past or present spouses, persons who are parents of the same child, parents and children, stepparents and stepchildren, foster parents and foster children, or other persons excluding siblings living or formerly living in the same household, the defendant shall be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. In no event shall this subsection be applicable to corporal punishment administered by a parent or guardian to a child or administered by a person acting in loco parentis.

(e) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against a person who is 65 years of age or older shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

(f) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against an employee of a public school system of this state while such employee is engaged in official duties or on school property shall, upon conviction of such offense, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. For purposes of this Code section, "school property" shall include public school buses and stops for public school buses as designated by local school boards of education.

(g) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against a female who is pregnant at the time of the offense shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

(h) Nothing in this Code section shall be construed to permit the prosecution of:

(1) Any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

(2) Any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(3) Any woman with respect to her unborn child.

For the purposes of this subsection, the term "unborn child" means a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb.



Now, go ahead and point to any part of that law based on the video where Arbury was assaulted.

I can easily point to where he was guilty of assault:

(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another;

Your thief is on video attacking McMichaels without anyone moving toward him or raising any weapon at him.


Go ahead, can't wait to see this dance

Not that it matters because you don't have to actually point the gun at someone for it to be aggravated assault ... but let's see your evidence Travis didn't point his gun at Arbery....

lol So you want to play too.

Here is the Georgia law in aggravated assault

2017 Georgia Code
Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses
Chapter 5 - Crimes Against the Person
Article 2 - Assault and Battery
§ 16-5-21. Aggravated assault
Universal Citation: GA Code § 16-5-21 (2017)

• (a) A person commits the offense of aggravated assault when he or she assaults:
  • (1) With intent to murder, to rape, or to rob;
  • (2) With a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury;
  • (3) With any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in strangulation; or
  • (4) A person or persons without legal justification by discharging a firearm from within a motor vehicle toward a person or persons.
• (b) Except as provided in subsections (c) through (k) of this Code section, a person convicted of the offense of aggravated assault shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years.
• (c)
  • (1) A person who knowingly commits the offense of aggravated assault upon a public safety officer while he or she is engaged in, or on account of the performance of, his or her official duties shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished as follows:
    • (A) When such assault occurs by the discharge of a firearm by a person who is at least 17 years of age, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than ten nor more than 20 years and shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of ten years and no portion of the mandatory minimum sentence imposed shall be suspended, stayed, probated, deferred, or withheld by the sentencing court; provided, however, that in the court's discretion, the court may depart from such mandatory minimum sentence when the prosecuting attorney and defendant have agreed to a sentence that is below such mandatory minimum;
    • (B) When such assault does not involve the discharge of a firearm by a person who is at least 17 years of age, and does not involve only the use of the person's body, such person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years and, for persons who are at least 17 years of age, shall be sentenced to a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of three years and no portion of the mandatory minimum sentence imposed shall be suspended, stayed, probated, deferred, or withheld by the sentencing court; provided, however, that in the court's discretion, the court may depart from such mandatory minimum sentence when the prosecuting attorney and defendant have agreed to a sentence that is below such mandatory minimum; or
    • (C) When such assault occurs only involving the use of the person's body, by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years.
  • (2) A person convicted under this subsection shall be punished, in addition to any term of imprisonment imposed, by a fine as provided by law which shall be at least $2,000.00. With respect to $2,000.00 of the fine imposed, after distributing the surcharges and deductions required by Chapter 21 of Title 15, Code Sections 36-15-9 and 42-8-34, and Title 47, it shall be earmarked for the Georgia State Indemnification Fund for purposes of payment of indemnification for death or disability as provided for in Part 1 of Article 5 of Chapter 9 of Title 45.
  • (3) As used in this subsection, the term "firearm" means any handgun, rifle, shotgun, or similar device or weapon which will or can be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or electrical charge.
• (d) Any person who commits the offense of aggravated assault against a person who is 65 years of age or older shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than three nor more than 20 years.
• (e) Any person who commits the offense of aggravated assault in a public transit vehicle or station shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than three nor more than 20 years.
• (f) Any person who commits the offense of aggravated assault upon a person in the course of violating Code Section 16-8-2 where the property that was the subject of the theft was a vehicle engaged in commercial transportation of cargo or any appurtenance thereto, including without limitation any such trailer, semitrailer, container, or other associated equipment, or the cargo being transported therein or thereon, shall upon conviction be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years, a fine not less than $50,000.00 nor more than $200,000.00, or both such fine and imprisonment. For purposes of this subsection, the term "vehicle" includes without limitation any railcar.
• (g) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this Code section, a person convicted of an offense described in paragraph (4) of subsection (a) of this Code section shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years.
• (h) Any person who commits the offense of aggravated assault involving the use of a firearm upon a student or teacher or other school personnel within a school safety zone as defined in Code Section 16-11-127.1 shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years.
• (i) If the offense of aggravated assault is committed between past or present spouses, persons who are parents of the same child, parents and children, stepparents and stepchildren, foster parents and foster children, or other persons excluding siblings living or formerly living in the same household, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than three nor more than 20 years.
• (j) Any person who commits the offense of aggravated assault with intent to rape against a child under the age of 14 years shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than 25 nor more than 50 years. Any person convicted under this subsection shall, in addition, be subject to the sentencing and punishment provisions of Code Section 17-10-6.2.
• (k) A person who knowingly commits the offense of aggravated assault upon an officer of the court while such officer is engaged in, or on account of the performance of, his or her official duties shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 20 years.

Now please, cite the specific law that justified Arbery attacking McMichaels with evidence from the video.

Go ahead new player

LOLOL

a) Brandishing a firearm during a dispute is illegal in Georgia...

​

Georgia senators are pursuing a bill that would make it legal to brandish a gun during a dispute.​

​

The bill put forth by state Sen. Tyler Harper passed out of committee Monday, and would allow residents to pull a gun if they feel threatened, so long as they don’t aim it at anybody.​

​

Under current Georgia law, brandishing a firearm can earn a felony aggravated assault charge, carrying a sentence of up 20 years, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.​

b) You forgot to post your evidence that Travis wasn't pointing his shotgun at Arbery.....

Sign. Another lesson in the dictionary for you.

bran•dish brăn′dĭsh
►

• transitive verb
  To wave or flourish (something, often a weapon) in a menacing, defiant, or excited way. synonym: flourish.
• n.
  A menacing, defiant, or excited wave or flourish of something.
• 
  To move or wave, as a weapon; raise and move in various directions; shake or flourish about: as, to brandish a sword or a cane.

Try having a clue what words mean before you use them genius not after. No weapon was ever brandished at your thief anywhere in that video. The dictionary wins again.

Merriam, you left out one of the definitions that does not require waving...

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/brandish​

​

to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner​

Was Arbery running towards him?

Until he saw the gun. Then he tried running around the truck with Travis on the other side; only to find Travis coming at him as he reached the front of the truck.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Is it ever OK for a white man to defend himself against a black man in the eyes of racist?

Are you talking to yourself now.

Do you have an answer? Do I as a white man have a right to defend myself against the black person? Using deadly force?

The question is situation, not race. For example, in Georgia again, there was a woman who had three men enter her home. She shot and killed one of the three. Nobody charged her with a crime. Nobody even considered it.



Those men were black. What was the difference? First the woman did not jump in her car, or truck, and set off searching for the baddies. Second, they were on HER property, in HER home. Even if they were not armed, the shooting would have been no problem legally speaking. Gwinnet County is up around Atlanta by the way, where all the Blacks you are so terrified of are in abundance. Yet, no protests, no marches, nothing.

The situation, was totally different. The woman was not the aggressor. The woman was not breaking the law confronting the others. The woman was minding her own damned business and that is the difference. Not the colors of the participants. Not the race of the people involved.

What is really killing you is that even in Georgia, we don’t allow people to shoot others for some made up bullshit reason. We have laws that are basically extensions of the old rule. Live, and let live. Mind your own damned business, and don’t bother nobody. The McMichaels set off as Vigilante’s and bad news for them, the laws that got them in trouble, stemmed from the Civil Rights era. When Georgia had endured enough of the Masked morons running around protecting whites. So they passed laws, so that a group of armed white folks outside a home of a black man could not claim they weren’t doing nothing when the cops drove by.

So now, those laws are decades old. And they’re working today just as they were intended before. If you are armed, handle it safely and properly with restraint. Don’t go running around causing problems, or you’ll have the problem. If you’re attacked by someone, and you’re not doing anything illegal, yes, it is Self Defense, and have a nice day. If you’re doing something wrong, and somebody dies because of what you are doing, well enjoy your stay in the Grey Bar Hotel. Because that is where you’re going.

You’re looking at this as a black versus white thing. It isn’t. They were not confronting a thug, they were harassing a man who had committed no crime in their view. They were attempting to commit the crime of false imprisonment. They were committing the crime of Aggravated Assault as it stands at this moment. That means they do not get to claim self defense.

Let’s say you accidentally walk into the wrong apartment. You see a black guy and shoot him. Should that be legal? He attacked you when he saw you in the apartment right? Well. You should not have been in his apartment. You had no business being there. So you can’t claim self defense.

If Arbury had come up on the McMichaels land and attacked them there, nobody would be saying a word about it. Oh there would be a few on the internet, and maybe a news report or two, but nobody would be facing charges. If the McMichaels had been at a store, and were attacked in the parking lot, nobody would say boo at it. But the McMichaels were in the middle of the street committing two felonies, and that means they were not innocent folks minding their own business when they were viciously attacked. They were the thugs. They were the criminals. And that is why they are arrested, and that is why it is most probable that they will be found guilty in a trial.

Because in Georgia, you don’t get to pick a fight, and then claim self defense. I was afeared for my life only counts if you were really innocent and minding your own business legally. They weren’t.

It is so incredibly stupid see you fall for the leftist media lies.

The only reason there is an outcry is because they manufactured the news. And that is because the hero was a white MAN.

Citizen arrest is perfectly legal and they had reasonable suspicion. No wrong doing occurred.

Too bad for them you don't get to write the laws.

You and your racism will lose again just like Trayvon and Brown. And I'll sit back again laughing

You're right if they are able to stack the jury with racist like you.

 

[Jitss617]

Is it ever OK for a white man to defend himself against a black man in the eyes of racist?

Are you talking to yourself now.

Do you have an answer? Do I as a white man have a right to defend myself against the black person? Using deadly force?

The question is situation, not race. For example, in Georgia again, there was a woman who had three men enter her home. She shot and killed one of the three. Nobody charged her with a crime. Nobody even considered it.



Those men were black. What was the difference? First the woman did not jump in her car, or truck, and set off searching for the baddies. Second, they were on HER property, in HER home. Even if they were not armed, the shooting would have been no problem legally speaking. Gwinnet County is up around Atlanta by the way, where all the Blacks you are so terrified of are in abundance. Yet, no protests, no marches, nothing.

The situation, was totally different. The woman was not the aggressor. The woman was not breaking the law confronting the others. The woman was minding her own damned business and that is the difference. Not the colors of the participants. Not the race of the people involved.

What is really killing you is that even in Georgia, we don’t allow people to shoot others for some made up bullshit reason. We have laws that are basically extensions of the old rule. Live, and let live. Mind your own damned business, and don’t bother nobody. The McMichaels set off as Vigilante’s and bad news for them, the laws that got them in trouble, stemmed from the Civil Rights era. When Georgia had endured enough of the Masked morons running around protecting whites. So they passed laws, so that a group of armed white folks outside a home of a black man could not claim they weren’t doing nothing when the cops drove by.

So now, those laws are decades old. And they’re working today just as they were intended before. If you are armed, handle it safely and properly with restraint. Don’t go running around causing problems, or you’ll have the problem. If you’re attacked by someone, and you’re not doing anything illegal, yes, it is Self Defense, and have a nice day. If you’re doing something wrong, and somebody dies because of what you are doing, well enjoy your stay in the Grey Bar Hotel. Because that is where you’re going.

You’re looking at this as a black versus white thing. It isn’t. They were not confronting a thug, they were harassing a man who had committed no crime in their view. They were attempting to commit the crime of false imprisonment. They were committing the crime of Aggravated Assault as it stands at this moment. That means they do not get to claim self defense.

Let’s say you accidentally walk into the wrong apartment. You see a black guy and shoot him. Should that be legal? He attacked you when he saw you in the apartment right? Well. You should not have been in his apartment. You had no business being there. So you can’t claim self defense.

If Arbury had come up on the McMichaels land and attacked them there, nobody would be saying a word about it. Oh there would be a few on the internet, and maybe a news report or two, but nobody would be facing charges. If the McMichaels had been at a store, and were attacked in the parking lot, nobody would say boo at it. But the McMichaels were in the middle of the street committing two felonies, and that means they were not innocent folks minding their own business when they were viciously attacked. They were the thugs. They were the criminals. And that is why they are arrested, and that is why it is most probable that they will be found guilty in a trial.

Because in Georgia, you don’t get to pick a fight, and then claim self defense. I was afeared for my life only counts if you were really innocent and minding your own business legally. They weren’t.

It is so incredibly stupid see you fall for the leftist media lies.

The only reason there is an outcry is because they manufactured the news. And that is because the hero was a white MAN.

Citizen arrest is perfectly legal and they had reasonable suspicion. No wrong doing occurred.

Too bad for them you don't get to write the laws.

You and your racism will lose again just like Trayvon and Brown. And I'll sit back again laughing

You're right if they are able to stack the jury with racist like you.

I want to be on the jury of the civil case against arberys mother! I’ll take every dime she every makes!

 

[texmaster]

Is it ever OK for a white man to defend himself against a black man in the eyes of racist?

Are you talking to yourself now.

Do you have an answer? Do I as a white man have a right to defend myself against the black person? Using deadly force?

The question is situation, not race. For example, in Georgia again, there was a woman who had three men enter her home. She shot and killed one of the three. Nobody charged her with a crime. Nobody even considered it.



Those men were black. What was the difference? First the woman did not jump in her car, or truck, and set off searching for the baddies. Second, they were on HER property, in HER home. Even if they were not armed, the shooting would have been no problem legally speaking. Gwinnet County is up around Atlanta by the way, where all the Blacks you are so terrified of are in abundance. Yet, no protests, no marches, nothing.

The situation, was totally different. The woman was not the aggressor. The woman was not breaking the law confronting the others. The woman was minding her own damned business and that is the difference. Not the colors of the participants. Not the race of the people involved.

What is really killing you is that even in Georgia, we don’t allow people to shoot others for some made up bullshit reason. We have laws that are basically extensions of the old rule. Live, and let live. Mind your own damned business, and don’t bother nobody. The McMichaels set off as Vigilante’s and bad news for them, the laws that got them in trouble, stemmed from the Civil Rights era. When Georgia had endured enough of the Masked morons running around protecting whites. So they passed laws, so that a group of armed white folks outside a home of a black man could not claim they weren’t doing nothing when the cops drove by.

So now, those laws are decades old. And they’re working today just as they were intended before. If you are armed, handle it safely and properly with restraint. Don’t go running around causing problems, or you’ll have the problem. If you’re attacked by someone, and you’re not doing anything illegal, yes, it is Self Defense, and have a nice day. If you’re doing something wrong, and somebody dies because of what you are doing, well enjoy your stay in the Grey Bar Hotel. Because that is where you’re going.

You’re looking at this as a black versus white thing. It isn’t. They were not confronting a thug, they were harassing a man who had committed no crime in their view. They were attempting to commit the crime of false imprisonment. They were committing the crime of Aggravated Assault as it stands at this moment. That means they do not get to claim self defense.

Let’s say you accidentally walk into the wrong apartment. You see a black guy and shoot him. Should that be legal? He attacked you when he saw you in the apartment right? Well. You should not have been in his apartment. You had no business being there. So you can’t claim self defense.

If Arbury had come up on the McMichaels land and attacked them there, nobody would be saying a word about it. Oh there would be a few on the internet, and maybe a news report or two, but nobody would be facing charges. If the McMichaels had been at a store, and were attacked in the parking lot, nobody would say boo at it. But the McMichaels were in the middle of the street committing two felonies, and that means they were not innocent folks minding their own business when they were viciously attacked. They were the thugs. They were the criminals. And that is why they are arrested, and that is why it is most probable that they will be found guilty in a trial.

Because in Georgia, you don’t get to pick a fight, and then claim self defense. I was afeared for my life only counts if you were really innocent and minding your own business legally. They weren’t.

It is so incredibly stupid see you fall for the leftist media lies.

The only reason there is an outcry is because they manufactured the news. And that is because the hero was a white MAN.

Citizen arrest is perfectly legal and they had reasonable suspicion. No wrong doing occurred.

Too bad for them you don't get to write the laws.

You and your racism will lose again just like Trayvon and Brown. And I'll sit back again laughing

You're right if they are able to stack the jury with racist like you.

LOL Look Shaun King. You are fooling no one here.

You are the one who judges people based on their race and you keep proving it in every thread you make and participate in.

You have no evidence whatsoever these men were racist towards your thief. Zero.

You have no evidence of past racism from either of these men. Zero.

Therefore your conclusion they were being racist because they are white makes you the racist not them.

 

[SavannahMann]

More information coming out. And in this it explains why the Neighbor Roddy was arrested.

It does not help the McMichaels.



To the defenders of the indefensible I suggest you should find someone else to celebrate. The McMichaels are not the heroes you wanted them to be.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

More information coming out. And in this it explains why the Neighbor Roddy was arrested.

It does not help the McMichaels.



To the defenders of the indefensible I suggest you should find someone else to celebrate. The McMichaels are not the heroes you wanted them to be.

If you are a racist POS they are definitely your heroes.

 

[texmaster]

More information coming out. And in this it explains why the Neighbor Roddy was arrested.

It does not help the McMichaels.



To the defenders of the indefensible I suggest you should find someone else to celebrate. The McMichaels are not the heroes you wanted them to be.

LOL Just like a liberal you take the word of the attorney for the thief's mother. Another perfect example of how clueless you are about the law.

Nowhere does it state that you cannot coordinate with neighbors keeping a theif in view as you wait for the police and since Arbery was never aware of any of those conversations you cannot lie and claim he was in fear for his life when he attacked McMichaels.

Keep digging that hole my little liberal friend

 

[Faun]

More information coming out. And in this it explains why the Neighbor Roddy was arrested.

It does not help the McMichaels.



To the defenders of the indefensible I suggest you should find someone else to celebrate. The McMichaels are not the heroes you wanted them to be.

LOL Just like a liberal you take the word of the attorney for the thief's mother. Another perfect example of how clueless you are about the law.

Nowhere does it state that you cannot coordinate with neighbors keeping a theif in view as you wait for the police and since Arbery was never aware of any of those conversations you cannot lie and claim he was in fear for his life when he attacked McMichaels.

Keep digging that hole my little liberal friend

It shows they tried to trap him with their vehicles but that he escsped; so then they tried again to detain him with lethal force.

 

[SavannahMann]

More information coming out. And in this it explains why the Neighbor Roddy was arrested.

It does not help the McMichaels.



To the defenders of the indefensible I suggest you should find someone else to celebrate. The McMichaels are not the heroes you wanted them to be.

LOL Just like a liberal you take the word of the attorney for the thief's mother. Another perfect example of how clueless you are about the law.

Nowhere does it state that you cannot coordinate with neighbors keeping a theif in view as you wait for the police and since Arbery was never aware of any of those conversations you cannot lie and claim he was in fear for his life when he attacked McMichaels.

Keep digging that hole my little liberal friend

The thing is that the McMichaels are starting week four in jail. A bail hearing has not even been set to get them out. It should be set when the Lawyers make a motion, and so far no motion.

Lawyers say public shouldn’t rush to judge men charged in Arbery shooting • Georgia Recorder

Attorneys representing Greg and Travis McMichael in the Ahmaud Arbery murder case said their clients are being unfairly portrayed as racist killers.

georgiarecorder.com

The promise of proof to come that the McMichaels did not commit these crimes has not been fulfilled. So far, nothing presented by the defenders, including all the promises of four minutes of video that shows AA ditching a hammer that is not seen as he leaves the house has not materialized.

Now this explains why the Prosecutor was able to get a Warrant for the neighbor Roddy. The affidavit signed by the GBI agents and presented by the prosecutor to the judge showed probable cause. Warrants are not issued without them you know.

Now. Repeating my earlier statement. If the police or the prosecutor has broken the rules. Lied. Withheld evidence. Any of the usual tricks then I believe the charges should be dropped or dismissed. The same way they were in the Bundy case and Flynn case.

For you. I want you to do something for me. I want you to close your eyes and play the video in your head. Only I want you to imagine the McMichaels are black and AA is white. Would you feel differently about the justification if the races were reversed? My answer is no. I would still say it was not justified. I would still say it was a crime. What do you say?