CDZ Were pursuit and killing of Ahmaud Arbery 'perfectly legal'? It's not that simple.

[Dr Grump]

if only arbrey didnt attack them and get killed he could sue them for something,,,,

If only they hadn't been chasing him in the first place.
He wasn't a threat to them.
Even if he was a burglar (and that is far from settled), they had no right to chase him. Now, if he was a mass murderer or had raped, severely injured somebody, I get that. But a suspicion of being on a building site? Fuck that. I hope both men go to prison. For a long time.

 

[Andylusion]

Can't believe some people are that paranoid they walk around with a gun in their hand.

I've had my car broken into twice. I've had my house broken into. I've had my stuff ransacked. I've had things broken, and stuff stolen. I've had debt collectors ringing me over the checks they stole and wrote fraudulently in my name.

We had so many break ins, and so many cases of vandalism, that we had to hire a private security firm, to patrol our condo area.

Look dude... if your life is so brilliant and wonderful, that you never have any crime in your area, count your blessings.

I don't have money to move where ever. I don't have money for expensive securities systems and monthly subscriptions. I don't even have cable TV, or an expensive smart phone. But I do have enough money for a gun.

Again, if your life is so fantastic, great. But the rest of us live with crime in our area, and we're a bit sick of it.

Maybe if you people that fixed crime in our area to, we wouldn't need guns. Maybe instead of getting more medicaid and food stamps, you put more police on the beat, and stopped this criminal nonsense, we wouldn't have to stop it ourselves.

 

[Andylusion]

And I know I never claimed that SCOTUS makes laws, the laws I'm referring to are the ones you correctly mentioned have to be "constitutional" such as what was determined in the Heller and MacDonld decisions which clarified that the right to keep & bear arms is a personal right and not a right reserved to the states as in a milita.

Funny how when the USSC rules in favour of gun lovers suddenly it;s doing a great job.

When they act right according to the constitution, then they are doing a good job. When they act wrong, and against the constitution, then they are doing a bad job.

 

[Dr Grump]

And I know I never claimed that SCOTUS makes laws, the laws I'm referring to are the ones you correctly mentioned have to be "constitutional" such as what was determined in the Heller and MacDonld decisions which clarified that the right to keep & bear arms is a personal right and not a right reserved to the states as in a milita.

Funny how when the USSC rules in favour of gun lovers suddenly it;s doing a great job.

When they act right according to the constitution, then they are doing a good job. When they act wrong, and against the constitution, then they are doing a bad job.

Ha!

 

[Dr Grump]

Can't believe some people are that paranoid they walk around with a gun in their hand.

I've had my car broken into twice. I've had my house broken into. I've had my stuff ransacked. I've had things broken, and stuff stolen. I've had debt collectors ringing me over the checks they stole and wrote fraudulently in my name.

We had so many break ins, and so many cases of vandalism, that we had to hire a private security firm, to patrol our condo area.

Look dude... if your life is so brilliant and wonderful, that you never have any crime in your area, count your blessings.

I don't have money to move where ever. I don't have money for expensive securities systems and monthly subscriptions. I don't even have cable TV, or an expensive smart phone. But I do have enough money for a gun.

Again, if your life is so fantastic, great. But the rest of us live with crime in our area, and we're a bit sick of it.

Maybe if you worthless piles of trash voted in people that fixed crime in our area to, we wouldn't need guns. Maybe instead of getting more medicaid and food stamps, you put more police on the beat, and stopped this criminal nonsense, we wouldn't have to stop it ourselves.

Your choices, your life. If you live in a bad area and can't afford certain things, whose fault is that? Not mine. It sounds like your life sucks. Whose fault is that?

 

[progressive hunter]

I've walked around outside my condo with my 9mm. If you ran at me and try and take the gun from me... I will shoot you.

Moving on.

Two questions:
1. When you're walking around your condo with your 9mm is it holstered or in your hand?
2. If someone rushed you, how would you know that they wanted your gun?

Hand. I don't own a holster.

Most people don't reach for a weapon in your hand, if they are trying to swat a bug off your clothing.

Kind of a dumb question. You are asking that as if a person could be holding something in their hand, and somehow not know if another person is trying to take it.

More questions:
1. Do you live in an open carry state and if it's not too personal, which state?
2. So when you're walking around your condo with your weapon in your hand, are you on your own property or in a common area that is accessible and used by other people who live in the community?

here in the USA its legal in all states because of the 2nd amendment,,,

Yes however how you keep & bear arms is regulated at the state level

And you're in Missouri?

I'm everywhere. Right now I'm in Kansas. Tomorrow I'll be in Illinois. Yesterday I was in Texas and Oklahoma. What difference does that make?

Because gun laws are regulated (lesgislated) at the state level.

Are either of you concealed carry holders?

not in this country,,,although democrats and republicans have got away with it because they are more willing to kill people that resist them,,,
at least for now,,,

I don't know what you mean by this. Do you not live in the United States? I'm only familiar with U.S. firearm laws.

As far as people being more willing to kill than resist, it all depends.

are you familiar with what we call the 2nd amendment???

Who is we?

"In order to ensure a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" - I didn't Google this so I'm not sure I got it exactly right but it should be close.

Are you familiar with SCOTUS, the Supreme Court of the United States whose job it is to "explain" what the U.S. Constitution says and means, including the 2nd amendment?

sorry I thought you were an american,,,

yes I know of the SCOTUS opinion,,,and remember its an opinion that can be changed later,,,but I dont need them to read simple english,,,

So you were intentionally insulting me when you asked if I were familiar with the 2nd Amendment by pretending to believe I am not American? No offense taken, I get that reaction a lot from guys when they find out I'm not a stupid as they thought.

SCOTUS decisions are the ultimate law of the land, they cannot be changed that is why the 14th Amendment was required to address the damage done by the landmark SCOTUS descision in the Dred Scott case which determined people of African descent were not citizens of the United States and therefore were not entitled to any of the protections provided by the U.S. Constitution.

The fact that you keep reverting back to the 2nd Amendment as the only authority that you need is a perfect example of what I was alluding to in my OP, that it's rarely simply one law that determines the legality of a case.

scotus doesnt make law,,,they can only rule if a law is constitutional with an opinion that can later be changed,,,

and the 2nd is not a law its a right that the government has no say in and is sworn to protect,,,

I know what the second amendment is, it's part of the Bill of Rights which are the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution which enumerates the rights of "the People of the United States" which the government is prohibited from infringing upon.

And I know I never claimed that SCOTUS makes laws, the laws I'm referring to are the ones you correctly mentioned have to be "constitutional" such as what was determined in the Heller and MacDonld decisions which clarified that the right to keep & bear arms is a personal right and not a right reserved to the states as in a milita.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.[1] It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militias.[2]
District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by either the Due Process Clause or Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Initially the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit had upheld a Chicago ordinance banning the possession of handguns as well as other gun regulations affecting rifles and shotguns, citing United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois, and Miller v. Texas.[2] The petition for certiorari was filed by Alan Gura, the attorney who had successfully argued Heller, and Chicago-area attorney David G. Sigale.[3] The Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association sponsored the litigation on behalf of several Chicago residents, including retiree Otis McDonald.

The oral arguments took place on March 2, 2010.[4][5] On June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision, reversed the Seventh Circuit's decision, holding that the Second Amendment was incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment thus protecting those rights from infringement by state and local governments.[6] It then remanded the case back to Seventh Circuit to resolve conflicts between certain Chicago gun restrictions and the Second Amendment.
McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

I can only partially agree with both of them,,,heller contradicts itself by both saying its an individual right and then saying it can be infringed upon through regulations which makes it a privilege,,,

the other fallls along some of the same lines,,,

 

[Dr Grump]

Heller sucks. It wasn't meant to be an individual right.

 

[progressive hunter]

if only arbrey didnt attack them and get killed he could sue them for something,,,,

If only they hadn't been chasing him in the first place.
He wasn't a threat to them.
Even if he was a burglar (and that is far from settled), they had no right to chase him. Now, if he was a mass murderer or had raped, severely injured somebody, I get that. But a suspicion of being on a building site? Fuck that. I hope both men go to prison. For a long time.

it all comes down to the final event,,

 

[Andylusion]

Can't believe some people are that paranoid they walk around with a gun in their hand.

I've had my car broken into twice. I've had my house broken into. I've had my stuff ransacked. I've had things broken, and stuff stolen. I've had debt collectors ringing me over the checks they stole and wrote fraudulently in my name.

We had so many break ins, and so many cases of vandalism, that we had to hire a private security firm, to patrol our condo area.

Look dude... if your life is so brilliant and wonderful, that you never have any crime in your area, count your blessings.

I don't have money to move where ever. I don't have money for expensive securities systems and monthly subscriptions. I don't even have cable TV, or an expensive smart phone. But I do have enough money for a gun.

Again, if your life is so fantastic, great. But the rest of us live with crime in our area, and we're a bit sick of it.

Maybe if you people voted in people that fixed crime in our area to, we wouldn't need guns. Maybe instead of getting more medicaid and food stamps, you put more police on the beat, and stopped this criminal nonsense, we wouldn't have to stop it ourselves.

Your choices, your life. If you live in a bad area and can't afford certain things, whose fault is that? Not mine. It sounds like your life sucks. Whose fault is that?

Crime is not my fault. My income is my fault.

But if your view is that it's my fault that society allows crime... no. I will never accept that "blame the victim" mentality.

That's exactly why I own a gun by the way. You want to blame me? Ok, I'll fix that. With a 9mm, and you can deal with it, when I start shooting criminals. Hopefully that never happens, but don't think I'll hesitate

 

[progressive hunter]

Heller sucks. It wasn't meant to be an individual right.

how so???

 

[Dr Grump]

Heller sucks. It wasn't meant to be an individual right.

how so???

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Why even mention militia? Why not just have the bit above that I haven't crossed out. That is an individual right IMO.

 

[progressive hunter]

Heller sucks. It wasn't meant to be an individual right.

how so???

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Why even mention militia? Why not just have the bit above that I haven't crossed out. That is an individual right IMO.

its clarifies the second half,,,

just read the damn thing,,,

 

[Dr Grump]

Heller sucks. It wasn't meant to be an individual right.

how so???

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Why even mention militia? Why not just have the bit above that I haven't crossed out. That is an individual right IMO.

its clarifies the second half,,,

just read the damn thing,,,

I have. It seems pretty straightforward to me.
In fact, you are supporting my point. The second half clarifies that you need to be in a militia. Thanks.

 

[progressive hunter]

Heller sucks. It wasn't meant to be an individual right.

how so???

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Why even mention militia? Why not just have the bit above that I haven't crossed out. That is an individual right IMO.

its clarifies the second half,,,

just read the damn thing,,,

I have. It seems pretty straightforward to me.
In fact, you are supporting my point. The second half clarifies that you need to be in a militia. Thanks.

no it doesnt,,,
thats your imagination,,,

 

[Andylusion]

Heller sucks. It wasn't meant to be an individual right.

how so???

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Why even mention militia? Why not just have the bit above that I haven't crossed out. That is an individual right IMO.

Everyone of age was considered part of the militia. Everyone. Do you understand that means everyone?

Being an individual right, is how it was intended.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry

Over and over and over and over, the people who created this country understood that the only ability of the people to have any liberty at all, was the INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BARE ARMS.

There is escaping this. The right to bare arms is an individual right. And honestly, Franklin was right.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin,

If you support giving up your freedoms for temporary safety, you'll end up with neither freedom, nor safety. You likely are too old to see how your ideology will play out, but your children might end up slaves in the future, thanks to this idiotic view.

 

[Missourian]

if only arbrey didnt attack them and get killed he could sue them for something,,,,

If only they hadn't been chasing him in the first place.
He wasn't a threat to them.
Even if he was a burglar (and that is far from settled), they had no right to chase him. Now, if he was a mass murderer or had raped, severely injured somebody, I get that. But a suspicion of being on a building site? Fuck that. I hope both men go to prison. For a long time.

Ya gotta pick your battles. But Zimmerman (supposedly) just followed Trayvon Martin and was (allegedly) attacked. Could be these guys figured a show of force would deter that.

 

[Picaro]

This kind of incident is ecactly why I'm opposed to ' open carry'; this could have gone both ways, with the criminal winning the contest for the gun and using it on the two innocent men protecting their neighborhood. This would be much easier if some would be killer could simply stalk some open carry tard around a mall or store and wait for an opportunity to grab it no need to run around trying to buy your own when there are so many idiots out there who desperately want attention and run around looking like bad asses and TV show heroes.

This would be criminal forced the fight, and the man was right to defend himself, but he should never have put himself in position to have to fight for his weapon. Bad tactics.

At the end of the day, the criminal won his Darwin Award and the only reason for charging the two men is because of the color of their skin. Their mistakes were not criminal, just stupid.