It's not known how the shotgun went off, and it's news to me that it was "the first shot that only grazed a wrist."
Who told you that?
Attacker Ahmaud Arbery - new information
- Thread starter Legion
- Start date
It's not known how the shotgun went off, and it's news to me that it was "the first shot that only grazed a wrist."
Who told you that?
From the OP. In a paragraph all by itself below the one describing the shotgun ones.
It doesn't say it was "the first shot", does it?
I'm not going to go into the "racial" component, real or imagined. I just want to watch and look at everything that gets
put out there and then the trial while forming my own opinions along the way.
That's nice.
And, there may well BE a racial "influence" to this with the father & son, the cops, the guy in the car who filmed it all, the trial..........who knows what and who else?
I like to follow cases along with all the evidence and trial and flotsam and jetsam, etc., etc. We'll see.
I like to follow cases along with all the evidence and trial and flotsam and jetsam, etc., etc. We'll see.
According to the leftist media, it's all because of Trump's racism:
..."he was targeted at least partly because he was black—a potent claim in a state and region that still carry the wounds of slavery, reconstruction, and segregation.
Off a busy, four-lane divided highway, the Satilla Shores neighborhood is a collection of ranch homes, bungalows, and a few McMansions lining only a handful of streets. Down one quiet lane, several homes are decorated with Trump flags, one bearing the president’s smiling face with the phrase, Make liberals cry again.
While Arbery didn’t live in Satilla Shores, his mother lives a few miles away in a neighborhood across the highway, where some fly Confederate flags in front yards".
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-shooting-of-ahmaud-arbery-an-unarmed-black-man-is-roiling-georgia?via=twitter_page
Well, we KNOW how the left media plays! Allllllllll things trace back to Trump for them.
Ponder this:
It is possible that there will be no further evidence that will be admissible at trial. Even the cellphone video may be excluded. The surveillance camera footage, the 911 calls, Arbery's record - it's possible that none of it may be introduced as evidence in a murder trial.
The McMichaels won't tried on the legitimacy of their suspicions regarding Arbery.
The McMichaels won't tried on their pursuit of Arbery.
The McMichaels won't tried on their possession of firearms.
They will be tried on the question of whether or not they murdered Arbery.
Only four individuals were there, and only three of them can be called upon to testify.
Where do you suppose the State is going to get evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convict the McMichaels on murder charges against these defendants - especially since the autopsy proves that one of them absolutely did not kill Arbery?
That was previously reported and clearly not near the two shotgun wounds.
All things are possible. As far as the last question? This is why I will be watching, listening, reading, learning along the way to the trial.
All I have right now at this moment is my opinion, and the comment I posted of what I personally saw in the video.
By whom?
The media. Not sexy as it basically missed so the focus was on the shotgun tussle.
Face it, bottom line is that those two were not qualified to stop the jogger because they did not see him commit a crime.
Furthermore, with a two on one, a firearm was not needed. And, don't forget, false imprisonment is also against the law.
Lastly, say what you will, this is a blatant case of stupidity with a firearm. Assholes like these make us responsible gun
owners look bad and the media piles on. Oh, yeah, I DO have 20 years teaching firearms training over you. That is obvious.
They didn't need to shoot the guy, but the guy didn't need to be trespassing either. Given that Arbery had come to that property on multiple occasions, it does beg the question of what he was doing there.
Was he looking for something to steal? Was he using the location as a dead drop? There are many possibilities, but the media's characterization of him just being a "jogger" is naive at best and in bad faith at worst.
Since this case is becoming yet another Trayvon fiasco, I can't really side with Arbery on this one. Clearly, many celebrities and athletes are turning this into a circus for political gain.
Meanwhile, when a black man kills white people (like Sheldon Francis), no one cares. No one cares about the FBI statistics that tell a very different story in terms of interracial violence either.
Was he looking for something to steal? Was he using the location as a dead drop? There are many possibilities, but the media's characterization of him just being a "jogger" is naive at best and in bad faith at worst.
Since this case is becoming yet another Trayvon fiasco, I can't really side with Arbery on this one. Clearly, many celebrities and athletes are turning this into a circus for political gain.
Meanwhile, when a black man kills white people (like Sheldon Francis), no one cares. No one cares about the FBI statistics that tell a very different story in terms of interracial violence either.
'THINKING' someone "MIGHT BE" a possible burglar on someone else's property =/= you get to run him/her down with a shotgun in the streets.
I pity the fucking private citizen(s) who think he gets to wield deadly force against me because he "THINKS I might have done something".
I pity the fucking private citizen(s) who think he gets to wield deadly force against me because he "THINKS I might have done something".
No, there was no need to even have a firearm and they had no right to stop him for trespassing on another's property unless a crime had been witnessed (obvious theft). The questions arise whether he was just there observing the progress of the building, admiring the architecture, etc. And just wearing a pair of shorts, a tee shirt and it being in broad daylight along him with leaving without taking anything gave those two no legitimate reason to stop him in the first place. They clearly were not law enforcement. And as I've said before, with two against one, there was no need to have a firearm, much less a shotgun.
I agree the media, many celebrities and athletes are blowing this case out of proportion and the black community is making this out to be racist (whether it was or not remains to be seen, if ever) and trying to make this political in the hopes of pushing more restrictions on us responsible gun owners. Those two were clearly not responsible gun owners. They were unquestionably wimps for their size.
Yes, liberals don't seem to care about that elderly couple who was shot in a veteran's cemetery, which was possibly motivated because of this case. If it was, that is three people who died needlessly.
I agree the media, many celebrities and athletes are blowing this case out of proportion and the black community is making this out to be racist (whether it was or not remains to be seen, if ever) and trying to make this political in the hopes of pushing more restrictions on us responsible gun owners. Those two were clearly not responsible gun owners. They were unquestionably wimps for their size.
Yes, liberals don't seem to care about that elderly couple who was shot in a veteran's cemetery, which was possibly motivated because of this case. If it was, that is three people who died needlessly.
I'd like to see links to a report that says the shot that grazed the attacker's wrist was the first shot fired.
You are incorrect on all counts. They had the legal right to do everything that was done based on the evidence.
Whether they should have done what they did is another question. But that ship has sailed, and now they are accused of murder.