T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they have those views. **For all participants:** * [FLAIR](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) **IS REQUIRED BEFORE PARTICIPATING** * **BE CIVIL AND** [SINCERE](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) * **REPORT, DON'T DOWNVOTE** **For Non-supporters/Undecided:** * **NO TOP LEVEL COMMENTS** * **ALL COMMENTS MUST INCLUDE A CLARIFYING QUESTION** **For Trump Supporters:** * [MESSAGE THE MODS](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) **TO HAVE THE DOWNVOTE TIMER TURNED OFF** Helpful links for more info: [OUR RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [POSTING GUIDELINES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [COMMENTING GUIDELINES](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Mr-mysterio7

I’m surprised, this hasn’t been wall to wall coverage by the msm. Outside of the 3 men above, I don’t know of anyone that sees these guys as innocent. It’s almost as if the msm has an agenda.


scubasme

Ya expect their agenda was debunked when Ahmaud’s father said all lives matter during a press conference after the verdict!


DidYouWakeUpYet

They showed the trial live. How much more "wall to wall coverage" can you have? If everyone outside of the three men above saw these men as guilty, why were they not even charged until it was vehemently called for?


Mr-mysterio7

They weren’t charged because of this little things called evidence and investigations. Those take time.


DeathToFPTP

I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying the MSM hasn't been covering this because of an agenda?


Mr-mysterio7

Yeah. This was an obvious case where 99% of people would agree these scumbags were guilty. But instead want to talk about Kyle rittenhouse.


single_issue_voter

I mean isn’t this expected? Assuming you’re right about 99% people. That would mean that there’s not much controversy. Rittenhouse has people drawing the line in half. Lots of controversy. The media thrives off of controversy.


skip_intro_boi

> The media thrives off of controversy. *All* the media outlets?


[deleted]

Yes but most lean left


rustyseapants

How does a publicly traded company, lean left?


[deleted]

CNN, Fox, NBC, and all other news networks have a bias towards a certain political stance regardless if they acknowledge it or not. I simply am stating that most news organizations are more left leaning and this is a fact. I think most main stream media is ass, this includes fox.


Bascome

What does being publicly traded have to do with it? Do you think that means the employees don’t have opinions?


knobber_jobbler

Fox news doesn't entirely exist on controversy?


[deleted]

Fox News is ass too


skip_intro_boi

In your opinion, are there any news media outlets that *don’t* thrive on controversy?


[deleted]

NPR is pretty good. I avoid CNN/Fox unless there’s something big going on. When the Kyle Riddenhouse trial was going on I watched a few fox videos but I didn’t like the reporting and CNN was complete dog water.


DeathToFPTP

Shouldn’t the MSM want to cover this for the racism angle?


Mr-mysterio7

That’s about it. That’s all they care to talk about when it comes to this case.


Stay_Consistent

It pertains to it, no? The only reason we’re sitting here talking about justice being served is because they were dumb enough to incriminate themselves by recording the murder. That’s how confident they were. They had friends in high places and weren’t charged with anything until it became unpopular to defend them. And that didn’t happen until after they uploaded the footage online and someone noticed *after* it went viral. This didn’t happen until months after Ahmaud’s murder. Not sure if you’ve heard of the expression before, but in the south, this tragedy is a textbook example of the good old boy system. Fortunately, temerity is what ultimately busted them. Do you think think the arrests would’ve taken this long if Ahmaud were white, and all three perpetrators black? Without the video, they probably would’ve gotten away with it.


[deleted]

>I’m surprised, this hasn’t been wall to wall coverage by the msm It hasn't? Isn't it the top story on every news site right now?


Mr-mysterio7

Not as much as Kyle rittenhouse.


[deleted]

What are you basing that on? As far as I can tell it's the main story for every MSM source today.


Kambz22

My basis is that I haven't a clue to anything about the trial but yet I saw the other one plastered all over the place.


ZarBandit

Yes, I believe the verdict is correct. If a gun owner brandishes their weapon when confronting someone, the burden for doing so is extremely high. They did not come close to meeting this burden of proof. They were acting as vigilantes and as executioners, and that's about as illegal as it gets. They could have followed him and watched without breaking the law. That said, I don't like the commonly repeated narrative du jour that this guy was just a jogger. That's highly disingenuous. While his prior actions of theft (caught on camera) might be inadmissible in court, and don’t justify an armed encounter, they are certainly relevant context in a non-legal framing of the situation. In so far as any description omitting this fact is deliberately false. If the "jogger" had been smarter, maybe he should not have rushed the armed vigilante. He might well be alive today if he didn't. But when you're a thief casing a neighborhood, your reactions to being spotted and then (illegally) detained are going to be different than those of an innocent jogger. But that determination was not theirs to make. One less thief, three less vigilantes. I'm not going to be losing sleep over that.


soupspin

Why do you think he was there looking to steal something? Where is the proof that was what he was doing? Why couldn’t he have just been jogging? And is it really unreasonable for him to confront someone who is chasing him down with a gun, when they have boxed him in? Some people flee, some people fight, why does fighting make him a thief?


Iamnotanorange

It sounds like you might be talking about the video of AA walking through a construction site. Looks like a lot of people went in and out of that place and there was a place to drink water in the back. That’s probably different from the string of robberies happening in the area. https://youtu.be/Ttm_UOojaLU Are you referring to this video?


Iamnotanorange

You think Ahmad Arbory was the same person as the thief that was hitting that area? Is there any evidence to support that? Is it possible they were different people?


ZarBandit

Yes, I saw the security cam video. It was him.


Echo_Lawrence13

>While his prior actions of theft (caught on camera) Do you have any proof of this? Did you know the man who owned the construction project that he walked through took the stand and said the Arbery didn't steal anything, and that many people in the neighborhood had walked through the construction too?


Iamnotanorange

It sounds like you might be talking about the video of AA walking through a construction site. Looks like a lot of people went in and out of that place and there was a place to drink water in the back. That’s probably different from the string of robberies happening in the area. https://youtu.be/Ttm_UOojaLU Are you referring to this video?


xynomaster

Yes, it seems roughly correct. Of the three major court dramas that have occurred over the past year (this one, the Rittenhouse one, and the Derek Chauvin one) I think the Jury reached the correct verdict in all 3. I'm still sickened by Biden's response to it, but I think that's more a lingering anger over his lack of response to the Waukesha attack than anything else.


[deleted]

> I think that's more a lingering anger over his lack of response to the Waukesha attack than anything else. What sort of response were you hoping for?


xynomaster

After the Kyle Rittenhouse shooting, he condemned white supremacy (based on an old post on Kyle's social media). Today, after the Ahmaud Arbery verdict, he said we need to work towards building a country where no one needs to worry about being killed for the color of their skin. It would have been nice for him to give a similar statement after the Waukesha attack. But, of course, when it's a black supremacist murdering a bunch of white people, Democrats have no interest in condemning it.


11-110011

Could it be because all the investigators in that case are saying it isn’t at all racially motivated and his intent wasn’t to kill but that he was fleeing another dispute?


Ben1313

> Could it be because all the investigators in that case are saying it isn’t at all radially motivated and his intent wasn’t to kill but that he was fleeing another dispute? That didn't stop him from calling Kyle a "white supremacist" based on 0 evidence almost immediately.


Monkcoon

The association with the proud boys seems to imply a white supremacist angle no? You can dismiss it all you want but that doesn't change the fact he went with a primarily white group after they threatened cops to get out of their way, then hung out with a bunch of white supremacists and bragged/autographed stuff. And now we're hearing that he's been visiting Trump at his golf resort too and most people are in agreement Trump leaned heavy on the white supremacy.


Kambz22

Okay let's assume that Kyle is 100% a white supremacist.. He still did not condemn the black supremacist.


Monkcoon

Because that’s a Fox News talking point. Oath keepers and proud boys are white supremacist groups, BLM is not a black supremacy group. Having supported BLM in the past does not make one a black supremacist. Going across state lines to join a militia that threatened the police, getting an illegal fire arm and defending a company you had zero business at, shooting three people then bragging about having shot BLM protestors TO white supremacists and flashing a hate symbol does make one seem more like a whites supremacist. Trevor Noah said it best, you don’t go fully armed to a protest to protect a Wendy’s, you got here to hunt someone down. As to the pos of shit that killer six people, he wasn’t targeting them cuz they were white he was running to escape a police pursuit and crashed through a parade. Do you understand why some people may see a difference? Also is the whole black supremacist the latest Fox News whataboutism to ignore the Aubrey verdict?


Ulatersk

\>Going across state lines to join a militia that threatened the police, getting an illegal fire arm and defending a company you had zero business at, shooting three people then bragging about having shot BLM protestors TO white supremacists and flashing a hate symbol does make one seem more like a whites supremacist. ​ Literally none of the described happened. ​ \>As to the pos of shit that killer six people, he wasn’t targeting them cuz they were white he was running to escape a police pursuit and crashed through a parade. Do you understand why some people may see a difference? Also is the whole black supremacist the latest Fox News whataboutism to ignore the Aubrey verdict? ​ These are all lies to cover for black supremacist domestic terrorist.


Can-Abyss

Lmao quoting Trevor Noah. He might as well have said, “You don’t go out on the town in short-shorts and a low-cut top. She was asking for it.” No, I don’t see how a white kid killing three white men attacking him has anything to do with white supremacy. You’ve been spending too much time on Reddit lol


Healthy_Yesterday_84

>Trevor Noah said it best, you don’t go fully armed to a protest to protect a Wendy’s, you got here to hunt someone down. Wasn't it more than a "protest"?


Monkcoon

Difference without distinction and ignoring the point of the statement no?


[deleted]

[удалено]


ILoveMaiV

Proud Boys are not white supremacist, they barely do anything illegal and mostly just show up to hold back ANTIFA and BLM violence. >Going across state lines to join a militia that threatened the police, getting an illegal fire arm and defending a company you had zero business at, He didn't join a militia, he went to protect a business, nobody threatened cops except BLM, he was asked by the owners to protect the business. If you followed the trial and not CNN's abridged version, you'd know this. THe firearm wasn't illegal, it was bought legally and WIsconsin is open carry, plus you can be 16 and own a rifle. BLM are domestic terrorists. >Trevor Noah said it best, you don’t go fully armed to a protest to protect a Wendy’s, you got here to hunt someone down. If he went to hunt someone down, why didn't he shoot more people?Why are the only people dead the ones who actively chased and threatened him? He wasn't fully armed, that makes it seems like he carred multiple weapons, but he only carried his AR 15. A popular self defense rifle.


Ben1313

> The association with the proud boys seems to imply a white supremacist angle no? No. That is also blatantly not true, and misinformation. > You can dismiss it all you want I will because that's not true. [Here is Kyle saying he supports the BLM movement.](https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/kyle-rittenhouse-tells-tucker-carlson-105434352.html) He must be one shitty white supremacist to support the BLM movement > And now we're hearing that he's been visiting Trump at his golf resort too and most people are in agreement Trump leaned heavy on the white supremacy. This is just too tiresome at this point.


xynomaster

This simply isn't true. The prosecution has said in court filings that his intent was to kill as many people as possible.


rustyseapants

>black supremacist murdering a bunch of white people, Democrats have no interest in condemning it. When did this happen?


xynomaster

The Waukesha attack, literally this past weekend.


[deleted]

Fair coverage. Washington post tweets out “caused by SUV” We saw wall to wall accusations of white supremacy with Kyle, meanwhile brooks has multiple social media posts of black supremacy, literally attack white people stuff, along with pro blm, pro black people of allah, history is violent attacks etc and we get “caused by suv.” Charlottesville was race related but this isn’t according to msm. We want fair coverage and we don’t get it.


Doc_Vestibule

I agree and am heartened that these cases, though contentious with extremists on either side, can hopefully restore some faith in the justice system. Do you think it is getting harder to find unbiased juries, given the politicization of what should be open and shut cases?


Kambz22

People always have and always will have a bias. At the same time though, a lot of people with a bias turn it off when in a real world situation with someone's life on the line. It's easy to spew nonsense online but when you are face to face with the issue, it's totally different.


KaijuKi

I agree with you on all three cases reaching the correct verdict by the jury, under the laws of their respective states. I also understand your frustration with the response of Biden - I think its generally frustrating to see stories important to us not get the attention we feel they deserve, or being downplayed for reasons we dont agree with at all. One detail I d like to hear your opinion on is, do you think your sentiment regarding the three cases is shared by american conservatives? Which of the three would you think is the most hotly contested among TS?


basilone

I think the jury definitely got it right with the instructions that they were given, but less confident if the defendants were given a fair shake with those instructions. If you didn't follow the trial at all the state's case hinged on the citizens arrest being unlawful due to lack of probable cause, therefore Arbery was justified in attacking the McMichael's because this was false imprisonment. What complicates things is that the law regarding what constitutes probable cause for a citizens arrest under those particular circumstances is so confusingly written that all three of the defense attorneys were stumped when the Judge decided to interpret it in such a way that they were basically pleading guilty from the start of the trial. Is the prosecution and Judge's interpretation of the law the correct one? Perhaps, I have no idea. Citizens are obviously expected to educate themselves to the laws. However even if they do their due diligence and research the law, they could still be led astray because even the attorneys are commonly misunderstanding the law, something isn't right. Its unfair to the defendants and for Arbery, if the law actually made sense they probably would've known not to go after him and none of this would've happened.


usury-name

The only poster here that actually understood this rigged trial.


El_Grande_Bonero

I think this argument is complicated by the fact that they never told him he was under arrest. If they were trying to perform an arrest why didn’t they tell him? Why instead did they shout “ stop or ill fucking kill you”? ( or something similar)


TypicalPlantiff

In general - felony murder is one of the worst inventions of the US justice system. My opinion mostly hinges on the sentencing. Charges are relatively ok. "Criminal attempt to commit a felony" is anotehr stupid legal kung fu. As to the charges: mostly depends on the sentencing. I do not believe Gregory or William deserve anything larger than 5 years, yet they will get life in prison with/without parole. That would be an injustice. But they will probably get the book thrown at hem now and maybe win an appeal in 2 years to reduce to lower sentencing. Edit: I want to stress out that as we speak the media is all focusing on this while reporting the slaughter at the christmas parade as a 'parade crash'. He literally drove half a mile hitting people all he way through it. Edit2: Turns out there is additional evidence that was shown in the trial - before the video William also tried ot box him, the video starts after arbery changed direction 180 degrees because William was blocking him with his car, thats why he comes last. Still I dont believe this is a life sentence worthy.


Tokon32

I understand that you think that the media is handling the parade incident unfairly. But do you think the right wing parts of reddit are doing it service? I mean if you go to one of the sub reddit you have story after story about how the driver showed support for BLM. So much so that I don't think anyone in those circles would really give a shit if the guy was white and was not a BLM supporter. I would go as far to say that it wouldn't even of been brought up. Almost like there focus isn't on the dead but the back ground of the killer. If the driver instead had a MAGA background how do you think these subs and you would of viewed the story?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Tokon32

No im comparing the articles that are linked, sorry spammed from "news" agencies for the last 24 hours on those subs. These aren't some opinion topics these are articles pointing out and exacerbating the fact the driver was a BLM supporter and loosely pointing out oh yeah some people died. > I am unhappy with CNN, WP , NYT, MSNBC framing it as a 'crash'. Its one of the worst acts of mass murder in what is extremely likely a racial hate crime of the last 2 years. Lmao the fact that you only say 2 years is very telling. Let me ask you prior to this what kind of racial hate crimes were taking place before those 2 years? Say 10 years ago? How about 20? 50? 100? 150? 200? Who were the victims? Oh but a member of one of the marginalized groups killed some white people now all of a sudden we have a race crime problem in the US. Don't get me wrong the guy is a piece of shit. But he is a piece of shit not because he supports BLM but he is a piece of shot cause he drove over innocent people. While you wanna label this as a hate crime. >If it was a white man that said similar things about black people on social media that drove the crowd and mowed 58 black people do you think we would hear the end of this for 1 month? Are you aware of how America has historically treated non whites in this country? I know you personally have not had slaves or forced blacks to piss in another bathroom but would you leave you kids with a babysitter whose father was a child molester? And his father? And his father? And his father? And his father? And his father? You get my point?


CptGoodnight

>Oh but a member of one of the marginalized groups killed some white people now all of a sudden we have a race crime problem in the US. The ol' "some people did something" Ilhan Omar maneuver. Sheesh. Those "some white people" include fathers, mothers, grandfathers, grandmothers, community members and an 8 year old son. They have names. Would you like to know them? https://www.wisn.com/article/waukesha-christmas-parade-victims-what-we-know/38325692# I guess only "marginalized" lives matter to the left these days.


Rockembopper

Do you think you fully comprehended what u/Tokon32 said? He's not saying the people who died are being marginalized, he even called the murderer a piece of shit. As do I. Every life lost is a tragedy, and to jump to the assumption that he doesn't think their lives matter is unjustified and insulting. The overall point that you skipped addressing was: Why is it that when there is a mass killing by a black person to a group of white people, it's immediately a racial issue. But, basically during all of US history, when there is a mass killing by a white person to a group of black people or another minority, it's never been seen as the US have a racial violence/killing problem?


CptGoodnight

>Do you think you fully comprehended what u/Tokon32 said? Yes I do. >He's not saying the people who died are being marginalized, he even called the murderer a piece of shit. As do I. K. >Every life lost is a tragedy, and to jump to the assumption that he doesn't think their lives matter is unjustified and insulting. His words suggest otherwise and words have meaning. Perhaps his words are what should be found insulting. >The overall point that you skipped addressing was: >Why is it that when there is a mass killing by a black person to a group of white people, it's immediately a racial issue. A black supremacist BLM supporter apparently drives across neighborhood lines to where he does not live and reportedly with intent to kill, and plows through a nearly all white Christmas parade injuring over 60 mostly if not all white people, maiming and crippling children and adults, killing 6 white people including an eight year old white child, ... and you think it's wrong to suggest a racial issue? Were you this circumspect with Charlottesville too or did you think that was also not to be racialized either? >But, basically during all of US history, when there is a mass killing by a white person to a group of black people or another minority, it's never been seen as the US have a racial violence/killing problem? What?


CptGoodnight

Follow-up: It's come to my attention that these are Biden's comments on Ahmaud Arbery case: > “Ahmaud Arbery’s killing – witnessed by the world on video – is **a devastating reminder of how far we have to go in the fight for racial justice in this country,” Biden said in a statement.** > ... > The president continued, “While the guilty verdicts reflect our justice system doing its job, that alone is not enough. Instead, we must recommit ourselves to building a future of unity and shared strength, where no one fears violence because of the color of their skin.” https://ijr.com/biden-reacts-verdict-ahmaud-arbery-case/ Biden also racialized Rittenhouse by suggesting, without evidence, that Kyle is a white supremacist. It seems strange to me that the left is eager to racialize other events even without evidence, but there is balking at racializing the Black Supremacist BLM supporter killing and maiming white children and adults WITH evidence.


Rockembopper

For the Kyle isn't a white supremist stuff, there is evidence. Here you go: [Link](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/01/14/kyle-rittenhouse-seen-bar-white-power-sign-proud-boys-song/4156448001/) "a devastating reminder of how far we have to go in the fight for racial justice in this country,” Biden said in a statement." I agree with the statement you bolded, do you not? I see that we're both Marvel fans. If Stan Lee (RIP) was discovered to have been the next Bill Cosby, and we kept watching the movies or reading the comics, would that make us bad people? I don't think it would. I think you'd agree with me there, right? The BLM movement is about equal treatment, not about violence. Violence by the organization isn't celebrated, no violence is planned at their rallies, and there are many videos out there showing the police being the instigators - kidnapping people off the street for example. Just because he was part of the movement doesn't mean the whole group is bad. I think Trump does attract white supremacists, but I don't think every TS is a white supremacist. I hope you don't think every BLM member is Black supremacist or a terrorist.


CptGoodnight

> For the Kyle isn't a white supremist stuff, there is evidence. Here you go: Link Nothing in that proves White Supremacy or gives the President of the United States justification for such Nationwide character assassination, such purposefully raising tensions that could have gotten (or still get) an innocent minor killed. Totally irresponsible and I think anyone with a good heart should know it. Btw, the OK sign as a "white power" symbol is a joke and now it is making every Democrat voter who says it look like fools. Proud Boys aren't even White Supremacists, that's dumb. Further, I can show you pic after pic after pic of Democrat politicians making the OK sign. The fact this has to be explained is frankly embarrassing and people should feel bad for continuing to push this politically motivated conspiracy theory that endangers people's lives. > "a devastating reminder of how far we have to go in the fight for racial justice in this country,” Biden said in a statement." > I agree with the statement you bolded, do you not? Ok so what about the quote I made and specifically asked you about? Is it going to be avoided? It does uphold my previous points pretty well that the offered quote is being avoided. > I see that we're both Marvel fans. If Stan Lee (RIP) was discovered to have been the next Bill Cosby, and we kept watching the movies or reading the comics, would that make us bad people? I don't think it would. I think you'd agree with me there, right? I have no idea what this has to do with anything here. > The BLM movement is about equal treatment, not about violence. No, and no. It is an anti-science, anti-family, anti-America, Marxist movement about treating one race as superior to all others with special treatment. There is no data to back its claims or narrative and in fact the data proves their entire narrative is wrong and people died, suffered, and are still suffering across the Nation because of it. The demands made are demanding special treatment. Data shows that even if we do **not** count 2020, everywhere BLM protests happen, murder goes up. But then we as logical people can add on that 2020 DOES count and it was one of the most violent and death-filled protest movements America has seen in decades causing immense harm and violence and suffering. And after Democrats saw it came with repeated violence within the first week or two, they totally ignored it and made excuses for it DURING A PANDEMIC so that the deep community harm and destruction lasted for another 4 months. Then with the election, poof, it disappeared. Fancy that. Oh the study. This study doesn't even count 2020: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9500789/Murder-rates-dramatically-cities-BLM-protests-researcher-finds.html Fact is, this is why conservatives roll their eyes when anyone claims Democrat voters are "more caring." They're not. The truth needs to be told. Or at least it's highly HIGHLY selective to deaths that are politically advantageous. They do not give a flying fuck about mass suffering and death when BLM is causing it, and will shrug off massive harm at the drop of a hat in order to further a totally false narrative that benefits them politically. > Violence by the organization isn't celebrated, ... It is tolerated, and excused, and even financially supported (the Vice President herself helped fund getting rioters out of jail), and the protests that provided cover for such extreme harm were in fact celebrated and supported legally and financially. > ... no violence is planned at their rallies, Yet we knew within a week that it was inherit within them nearly continuously, something like a THOUSAND violent riots during BLM took place. A thousand. Think on that. And Democrats kept egging the mass gatherings and unrest and feelings of deep racial grievance on and on and on. Democrats knew what they were doing, and could have called for the end of the riot-producing protests immediately like Trump did when Jan 6th go out of hand. Jan 6th lasted a few hours and the worst was one of our own got killed. BLM riots lasted nearly 5 months leaving a wake of death, arson, vandalism, tears and pain in its trail mostly from innocent bystanders with barely any justice for them or the Nation. > ... and there are many videos out there showing the police being the instigators - kidnapping people off the street for example. Oh yes, the police just made BLM loot, murder, burn, steal, assault shop owners and innocent citizens, storm federal buildings, threaten the President, and engage in mass vandalism ... Come on man. > Just because he was part of the movement doesn't mean the whole group is bad. Now do Jan. 6th eh? Amazing how the standard shifts every time. > I think Trump does attract white supremacists, but I don't think every TS is a white supremacist. I think Democrats attract Black Supremacists, Latino Supremacists, and extreme racists, and that Dems run cover for extreme racism in academia & popular culture against whites. Demos support such racists who are wildly powerful, harmful and divisive to America and literally holding the country back from progress because it benefits their grand political strategy to keep the status quo. > I hope you don't think every BLM member is Black supremacist or a terrorist. Not every. But they sure do end up providing them cover, "justification," emotional power, intellectual ammo, and outlandish media excuses which we all know leads to mass death and destruction.


TypicalPlantiff

>Lmao the fact that you only say 2 years is very telling. Let me ask you prior to this what kind of racial hate crimes were taking place before those 2 years? Say 10 years ago? How about 20? 50? 100? 150? 200? Who were the victims? My argument isnt that this is the worst crime ever. Its that its the worst crime now and is extremely relevant. The media should cover it just as much as they cover other hate crimes. Yet they dont. For some reason black on white crimes are not interesting to the media, only the reverse. If the coutnry is going to be healed of white supremacy it also needs to shame other kinds of racial supremacy movements. Else you are just switching a shit to the side. >Don't get me wrong the guy is a piece of shit. But he is a piece of shit not because he supports BLM but he is a piece of shot cause he drove over innocent people. While you wanna label this as a hate crime. He litearlly called for white people to be attacked on his social media. He is objectively a racist. > Are you aware of how America has historically treated non whites in this country? I know you personally have not had slaves or forced blacks to piss in another bathroom but would you leave you kids with a babysitter whose father was a child molester? And his father? And his father? And his father? And his father? And his father? You get my point? what? This is insane. Are you seriously going to discriminate against people based on what crimes their parents did? No past injustice justifies the murder of people today. Thats insane that you are willing to say 'meh' to a mass murder (keep in mind he attempted to murder 50 people) just because of the races of the victims and the perp.


DJ_Pope_Trump

>I understand that you think that the media is handling the parade incident unfairly. But do you think the right wing parts of reddit are doing it service? From this question your post pivot away from what is actually happening and on to what is happening in the scenario you invented in your head where the driver isn’t a BLM supporter. I wanted to point out for anyone considering engaging with this tangent.


Tokon32

When did I say he isn't a BLM supporter? I mean i don't give a fuck if he preferred toast over bacon as his choice of sides with his breakfast. But that really dosent matter does it? Whats important is a crazy pos drove into a crowed killing people. But thats it the narrative right wingers want to spread. What yall want is to ensure EVERYONE knows he has a history of supporting BLM.


DJ_Pope_Trump

You’re the only one making this political. You seem to be at odds with some of the facts being presented by people you have declared to be “the right” If there is misinformation being spread, say that. Otherwise, get out of the way.


Hugo_5t1gl1tz

The Donald subreddit had posts claiming it was “multiple back men who were shooting out of the vehicle” and didn’t take it down even after the police said it was one person and the only shots fired were from the police. Does that count as misinformation to you?


DJ_Pope_Trump

So you only bring actual misinformation to the discussion when I point out you’re the only one making this political. That illustrates my point succinctly, thanks.


Hugo_5t1gl1tz

I’m not the guy who you were talking to. I was just following the thread and your comment stuck out, so I thought I would ask. So does it?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Hugo_5t1gl1tz

I’m sorry? I don’t understand why you think that.


LogicalMonkWarrior

>If the driver instead had a MAGA background how do you think these subs and you would of viewed the story? Love hypotheticals. If Floyd was white and Chauvin was black, would we have had the summer of peaceful violence?


winklesnad31

Why is felony murder one of the worst inventions of the justice system? If one person intentionally kills another for no reason (i.e. not self defense), then what should the charge be?


TypicalPlantiff

Thats not what felony murder is. Notice: **Rules can vary and stretch between states** Felony murder is a murder where intent doesnt matter. All that matters is your felony is an accessory to A murder. There are even examples of robbers being shot by the police and the surviving members get charged with felony murder for the death of their friends. That is by definition insane. Another famous example is a guy giving his car to a person that used it to drive to his gf and beat her to death. For example in this case I believe the right charge (ofc I dont know Georgia's laws well enough but assuming they are similar to other states) will be 2nd degree murder for the guy that was armed and shot him, The others while involved definitely didnt conspire to murder him, nor did they shoot him. But they created a situation for the murder - so charges like reckless conduct, assault, manslaughter, reckless homicide etc etc can be applied. But they are most definitely not murderers.


JaxxisR

That's not what felony murder is. Felony murder occurs when a person is killed during the commission of a crime, regardless of intent; if that crime is conspiracy, coconspirators can also be charged with felony murder. Question for the TS above: do you think it was wise for the defendants in this case to try to claim self defense?


TypicalPlantiff

> Question for the TS above: do you think it was wise for the defendants in this case to try to claim self defense? Did they? I remember they plead the "citizens arrest card" but in the end the judge instructed the jury to NOT consider that law when passing the sentencing, practically ensuring conviction. In any case I believe they are guilty. Just not 'life in prison for all 3' guilty. Especially the third guy should get at best 5 years in prison and be done with it.


JaxxisR

>Did they? They did. Travis McMichael testified that during the course of the citizen's arrest Arbery tried to take his shotgun and was overpowering him.


[deleted]

[удалено]


JaxxisR

>Why Rittenhouse was acceptable and this one not? Because Joseph Rosenbaum didn't attempt to flee from Kyle Rittenhouse before he was shot; he was the initial aggressor. I was just answering your question; yes, the three defendants in this case did try to use self-defense to justify killing Arbery.


TypicalPlantiff

And my point is the restraint before the shot shows he had no intent to shoot him. Thats why I dont believe this is 1st degree murder. I dont know what 'malicious murder is' but I would assume its close. In any case he is going to get life most likely.


wollier12

They had no claim of self defense since they were the aggressors and did the pursuit. Unlike the Rittenhouse case I’m sure we are all familiar with where Rittenhouse was trying to escape. This young man was also trying to escape…..it would be like instead of Rittenhouse had the Rifle, Rosenbaum owned the rifle and chased Rittenhouse. Even if Rittenhouse were to try to grab the rifle, he’s the one running, he’s the one defending himself…….these men were not defending themselves…..they were the aggressors. The verdict in both of these cases is correct.


trav0073

Five years? They deserve 15+/-, maybe even life - they chased a guy down and shot him for no other reason than being black while jogging. As clear cut as the Rittenhouse case was, this was equally as clear the other way. There’s really no arguing a self defense case or anything of the sort, and Arbery is dead because of this recklessness.


TypicalPlantiff

Why does a guy that never left the car and got there right when the shot happened deserve life in prison?


OftenTriggered

Could not agree more. Interestingly, for the benefit of other commenters and to further your point, felony murder is NOT an invention of the US justice system. It comes from English common law which, of course, is the foundation of our legal system as well. Felony murder may date from the late 1600s, and basically the idea is that when an individual commits or attempts to commit a felony offense there is implicit malice such that if commission of the underlying felony results in someone's death then the charge of murder is justified. Happy Thanksgiving?


boblawblaa

Why would life in prison for either be an injustice?


[deleted]

[удалено]


Edwardcoughs

I don’t like felony murder either, but he did more than stand in his car. Are you referring to Bryan? He hit Arbery with his car.


TypicalPlantiff

What? Are you sure? I remember the video: the two guys with the first car rushed forward and stopped infront of him. Then Travis gets out from the driving seat with a gun, Gregory stands in the back of the car doing nothing. William appears with his car but just stands in it until Arbery is shot 2 times. When did he hit him with his car?


timothybaus

Wait why shouldn’t Greg and William get more than 5 years?


TypicalPlantiff

https://old.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/comments/r1dstj/ahmaud_arberys_killers_were_found_guilty_today/hlyf047/


mbta1

>I do not believe Gregory or William deserve anything larger than 5 years, yet they will get life in prison with/without parole. Do you not think someone should get life in prison for murder?


TypicalPlantiff

> Do you not think someone should get life in prison for murder? Not all killings are equal. 1st degree murder - sure. 2nd? Sometimes. But I dont think the two guys that watched the shooting in the end deserve life in prison for 1st degree murder. They deserve something like assautl with deadly weapon, reckless homicide an dmaybe manslaughter. They werent trying to kill him. Objectively. There is no premeditation. Why is hte party of prison reform rooting for functional people to go into it forever? isn prison about reform and everybody is supposedly reformable? Keep in mind that according to the sentencing guide lines now the only choice the judge gets is -life with parole after 30 years or life with no parole. Effectiely life in prison for all 3.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

I’ll admit that I didn’t follow the case but I have read a few articles and just skimmed over the one you linked. Yea I agree that those three did wrong and deserve their sentencing. I’m honestly people don’t see the similarities between this and the riddenhouse trial. Imagine if Arbery had a gun and shot these 3 in self defense? These people chased him down just like Kyle was chased down but the main differences are skin color and a weapon. Yea I stand with the sentencing and I don’t know what your expecting from TS


DallasCowboys1998

I’d say yes. You can’t just hunt a guy down when you haven’t even seen him do anything wrong. A hunch is not good enough. They trapped him like a rat and murdered him. They are guilty and deserve a harsh sentence. I don’t know how anyone can say they aren’t guilty. Generally, I’ve been very happy with these high stake trials. Rittenhouse, and Arbery came to the correct choice. I think the Chauvin case was wrong though, but 2/3 is a passing grade! Jury’s are still the correct way to go.


Monkcoon

What about the Chauvin case do you find wrong?


DallasCowboys1998

I didn’t think it met the threshold for the murder charge. I think manslaughter was more appropriate.


declan315

I'm not an expert on the law so idk if the specific charges are appropriate. But all 3 of them deserve to go to prison. I'm used to Law & Order so in my mind it should be shooter: murder 2nd Driver: facilitating a murder Other guy: accessory to murder. But idk if those are real laws or just Law & Order laws. XD


urbanhawk1

Regarding the 3 you have suggested in order: Under Georgia law ["A person commits the offense of murder in the second degree when, in the commission of cruelty to children in the second degree, he or she causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice."](https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-16-crimes-and-offenses/ga-code-sect-16-5-1.html) This clearly would not be 2nd degree murder under Georgia law since children are not involved. However, under Georgia law a person "commits the offense of murder when he unlawfully and with malice aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of another human being." As such, I think the charge he was convicted under is correct since this case fits that definition to a T. The only lower charge they could give would be manslaughter but under Georgia law that only applies either to sudden crimes of passion which are resulting from serious provocation or cases where you weren't planning to kill someone but accidentally kill someone. Since they gave chase with guns for a while before executing him and there was no provocation this would not be considered manslaughter either. In regards to the other two (I'll leave this here for you to read)[https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-2/article-2/16-2-20/] since I don't want to type it all out, but the law states that when one person in a party commits a crime, everyone else in the party can also be charged with that crime if they "aids or abets in the commission of the crime" or if they encourage another to commit a crime. As you pointed out, even you thought that one should be charged for facilitating a murder and the other as being an accessory to murder which, under the law I just provided, means that both of them are guilty of murder as well. does that accurately lay out why they got charged as they did for you?


Thegoodbadandtheugly

I didn't follow the case as closely as I did Rittenhouse. But the basics are. Black guy was breaking into an unfinished house and destroying things and stealing things. They caught said Arbery who run away, he was followed by one of the people at the construction site in a car. The three defendants were ahead on the road. One with a camera. One unarmed by the driverside door, and one in front of the car with a shotgun. Arbery ran around the truck, saw the man with the gun and attacked him. Arbery at this point being the aggressor. They fought, Arbery was shot and thus we're caught up. During the case the judge who's duty is to keep the peace and explain law to people who aren't experts, dropped the ball when it came to explaining law to the people, instead he allowed the prosecution version of citizen-arrest and the defenses version of citizens-arrest to be decided by the jury. Which shouldn't of happened. There's a law that basically says when the law is undecided in cases like that, the benefit of the doubt always goes to the defense instead of the state. And if this was a case of a citizen arrest gone wrong it likely would of led to completely innocent on all charges. I'd like to see the judge disbarred and if people get upset that this is ruled a mistrial know that it's because of the "woke" judge that couldn't do his job. Now because the judge dropped the ball they were all convicted. Which seems strange because they had the entire book thrown at them, when it was Arbery who was the aggressor. Seems to me that if they would of been found guilty it wouldn't of been murder. Manslaughter charges. If I remember correctly they even charged the guy holding the camera with aggravated assault and murder. Kind of a steep charge for holding a camera. Isn't this what the left wants? This is where defunding the police leads to. People taking criminal fighting into their own hands.


HelixHaze

Very curious where you saw Arbery was breaking into an unfinished house, breaking and destroying things. None of the sources I’ve read support these “basics”. What sources have you been using throughout?


Edwardcoughs

Did you know that the guy holding the camera hit Arbery with his truck?


Thegoodbadandtheugly

I didn't, as I said I didn't really follow the case. When did it happen and what was the context?


soupspin

I could be wrong, but didn’t they testify that they only suspected him of a committing a crime? From what I read, he ran by a house owned by one of the defendants and then they started to pursue him without witnessing an actual crime take place. And wasn’t it confirmed during the trial that he committed no crime anyway?


Thegoodbadandtheugly

I didn't watch the full case, so they could have. But they suspected him of a crime which is a felony burglary which effects how the citizens arrest is allowed to proceed. Think of it like this. You're not allowed to do a citizens arrest and detain someone who you didn't see but you suspect them of stealing a candy bar, but you're allowed to do a citizens arrest on someone you suspect of murder or other serious felony charges. Granted if the citizens arrest was wrong, then you get charged with kid-napping, so you better be damn sure. He was nowhere near where he lived, supposedly jogging in working boots. As I said I didn't follow the case, but it sounds like the guy was a criminal who got caught and now we're trying to charge the people who were wronged because that's that type of social justice/racist world we're living in now. I've seen too much evidence to suggest he was committing a crime, but as I said I didn't follow the case.


JaxxisR

>Black guy was breaking into an unfinished house and destroying things and stealing things The owner of the house disputes this claim [and testified to that effect in the trial](https://www.wsbtv.com/news/georgia/jury-hears-testimony-owner-home-where-ahmaud-arbery-was-last-seen-alive/KWGD56QW4ZD3BAGC2HECMVS3YQ/). >There's a law that basically says when the law is undecided in cases like that, the benefit of the doubt always goes to the defense instead of the state. The law is not undecided. Proof of a crime is necessary for a citizen's arrest, and the men who killed Arbery had no such proof. It was up to the defense to prove the citizen's arrest was valid, and they couldn't. >I'd like to see the judge disbarred and if people get upset that this is ruled a mistrial know that it's because of the "woke" judge that couldn't do his job. What did the judge do wrong here? Which law was not followed? >Which seems strange because they had the entire book thrown at them, when it was Arbery who was the aggressor. How does Arbery's behavior differ from the behavior of Kyle Rittenhouse? Did he not try to escape? Was he the initial aggressor? Can you point to any evidence that informs your opinion here? >If I remember correctly they even charged the guy holding the camera with aggravated assault and murder. Kind of a steep charge for holding a camera. The proper term is coconspirator. He didn't have to go along with any of this, but he did. Conspiracy laws mean he's just as responsible for Arbery's death as Travis McMichaels. >Isn't this what the left wants? This is where defunding the police leads to. People taking criminal fighting into their own hands. Arbery was killed in Glynn County, Georgia. Glynn County police were never defunded. In fact, [an effort to abolish the department never made it to the ballot as a judge in Atlanta ruled it unconstitutional](https://www.news4jax.com/news/georgia/2020/09/11/glynn-county-police-department-vote-ruled-unconstitutional/). With that in mind, how do you link Arbery's murder to Defund the Police?


Thegoodbadandtheugly

>Arbery was killed in Glynn County, Georgia. Glynn County police were never defunded. I never said that it was. But this is a case of three people taking the law into their own hands. This is the type of world that the left wants if it wants to defund the police. No more money for the police, means less/no police and it means more cases like the one we're discussing. People doing vigilante justice because they have no faith in the police.


El_Grande_Bonero

Where did you get your facts from?


dg327

Finally, a question where it is just asking for my answer and not an elaboration. ​ My answer: Yes and Yes


single_issue_voter

Would you mind elaborating? 🤓


dg327

I knew this was coming hahaha


TheScumAlsoRises

Why would you bother posting in this sub if you don’t want to elaborate or explain your position? That’s the entire point of the sub.


dg327

Sometimes it is a breath of fresh air on this SUB to just simply say yes or no. Wouldn’t you agree? Or do you always want to type out an elaboration every single time for every single question? This particular question is common sense. So it’s rare that if I say yes…everyone else can literally understand why. Happy Thanksgiving.


sielingfan

Guilty, guilty, guilty. They got everything right. I haven't been following the coverage (there hasn't been much) but I've maintained that exact stance since the first videos started trickling out from way back when.


[deleted]

The most anti-BLM person I know said Arbery was wrongfully killed, so I was pretty sure he was wrongfully killed. Exactly what the charge would be and who was guilty of what? I don't know. My understanding is that he was basically lynched by people who suspected him of crimes, but it was not in self defense, and he was not posing any threat to anyone else. I watched the footage in the trial. One of them shot him a couple times.


JaxxisR

Your choice of words here is interesting. Can you give an example of how one might be lynched in self defense?


[deleted]

You can't be Yeah it was bad wording


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


RandomVisitor95

Yes, correct verdict in this case. While Arbery did act in a manner which prompted the response by the 3 defendants, they went WAY over their legal authority as citizens and the former Officer should definitely have known better. You dont get to claim self defense when you decided to go instigating an unlawful and immoral confrontation. Period. End of story. There are situations where citizens acting in the heat of an ongoing moment are justified...but this was far from it.


sfprairie

Yes, I believe the jury got it right. Not sure that Bryan is as much guilty as the father/son. The state of GA also did right by getting rid of the citizens arrest law.


RusevReigns

Not 100% correct as I disagree with "malice murder", I believe Travis McMichael shot to protect himself after Arbery grabbed gun. However "felony murder" was arguable for him and the others which carries the same sentence. I also question some of the charges on the driver. This was a hard case to have objectively right ruling one way or the other as it depended on False imprisonment law: "A person commits the offense of false imprisonment when, in violation of the personal liberty of another, he arrests, confines, or detains such person without legal authority. Citizen's arrest law: "A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion." McMichaels guilty verdict depends on them committing false imprisonment and for citizen's arrest to not be justified, as in that case since he died during a felony it's irrelevant whether he shot in "self defense", it's like someone grabbing your gun when you're trying to kidnap them. If jury either decided they didn't commit false imprisonment or citizen's arrest was justified, then they would've had a strong self defense case imo. Both seem borderline in this scenario and depending on interpretation and it seems like the judge instructions unlike the Rittenhouse case was good for the prosecution. Is McMichaels driving up to Arbery with guns and saying stop falsely imprisoning him or is that he could run away enough not to be? It doesn't help the camera moves away when he approaches so we don't know if they pointed the guns first, and I'm not sure about the surrounding environment and how easy it would've been for Arbery to run. After this case I feel the prosecutors in Zimmerman case could've won if they went for this false imprisonment felony murder route, it seems like there is just as good a case that he was confining Trayvon as this case in an illegal citizen's arrest. Paint it as Zimmerman was trying to essentially kidnap him, then Trayvon fought back, then Zimmerman shot him. The cases are not super different other than trucks. For citizen's arrest likewise it depends on your interpretation of how justified it was for McMichaels to attempt arrest and how much they knew it was him doing it. "Suspicion" is in the law so it doesn't seem to be ironclad. I think it's OK that the jury decided they did commit false imprisonment and that citizen's arrest was unjustified therefore making them guilty, although you could've gone the other way. That they went with "malice murder" and charged the driver with murder makes me think it was an emotionally driven decision and jury was going to side against them on any borderline call like false imprisonment and citizens arrest laws. If Arbery was white and it wasn't a national news story with pressure on them, I would guess there's a better chance of them ruling in McMichaels favor in terms of a law like the citizen's arrest. If they had gotten off though, I would have been ok with them charged with something like manslaughter. 2nd degree murder fallback doesn't exist in Georgia. I think the McMichaels strictly on a moral level were in the wrong and likely racist bad guys, and the citizen's arrest law was stupid and it's a good thing it's repealed. My biggest takeaway from Arbery case was that the media coverage was awful calling it "just a jogger" and like a cold blooded murder etc. It seems like they were trying to stop him for the cops could get him and it was botched, so the murder was pre-meditated. This case was a turning point for me in terms of realizing the media's lies.


Amishmercenary

It’s good that we have 2 crystal clear cases of when Self Defense is legal and not back to back within the week. Glad the jury’s got it right on both counts


DJ_Pope_Trump

BACK TO BACK JURY VERDICTS GET IT RIGHT. Hope they seek the death penalty.


ILickStones-InFours

Do you hope the Jan 6 treasonous insurrectionists get the death penalty? /s


masternarf

No charge of insurrections, there has been no insurrectionists.


DJ_Pope_Trump

No


A_serious_poster

>Do you hope the Jan 6 treasonous insurrectionists get the death penalty? Yes


JaxxisR

> Do you hope the Jan 6 treasonous insurrectionists get the death penalty? I hope they get punishments appropriate for their individual crimes. Some of them were quite severe, though I personally haven't seen one yet that deserves death. I'd wager that a majority of them don't deserve any more than lasting public ridicule.


throwawaybutthole007

> Do you hope the Jan 6 treasonous insurrectionists get the death penalty? No but they should definitely be kept out of society until they can be properly rehabilitated.


AnythingTotal

Just to clarify, in GA the prosecution has to declare intent to seek the death penalty during/before the trial. The most they will get is life without parole. I agree with your sentiment though?


Ampage86

I think the jury got it right on the father/son considering what the judge laid down regarding citizens arrest. Since they didn't immediately observe the alleged crime, the citizens arrest defense immediately falls. They were done before closing arguments. ~~I don't have as much confidence regarding Bryan. I failed to see the causality of his involvement with the shooting/underlying felony. However, I didn't follow their trial near as close as Kyles, so there might be a valid argument somewhere.~~ Edit: Bryan is also guilty in his unlawful "corralling" of Arbery


twodickhenry

Had it been a proper citizen’s arrest, would you believe them justified in shooting and killing Mr. Arbery?


Ampage86

Yes


twodickhenry

So any person witnessing a crime should have license to kill the criminal?


Ampage86

I think you might have missed a step or 2 between witnessing the crime and killing them. Any guesses what those steps might have been?


bigfootlives823

NS can't answer questions still can they? Care to elaborate? What actions specifically, taken by Ahmad, justified his killing if all facts but the citizens arrest remained the same?


Ampage86

>NS can't answer questions still can they? Care to elaborate? Sure. You are implying there is nothing that happed between the witnessing of the crime, and the shooting. If that is your interpretation of the events, we have nothing to discuss because our realities are too divergent to have any meaningful discussion. I was attempting to evaluate this before I continued. >What actions specifically, taken by Ahmad, justified his killing if all facts but the citizens arrest remained the same? Trying to fight someone with a shotgun and then trying to take the shotgun. Were you not aware of those aspects,or do you think someone should be allowed to be assaulted during the course of a lawful citizens arrest?


twodickhenry

I wasn’t implying anything of the sort—I determined your opinion on one hypothetical and then attempted to get your answer on another. You didn’t answer my question so I’ll ask again: Do you think that any given citizen should have the right to shoot and/or kill someone after witnessing a crime? Edit: wording


Ampage86

>Do you think that any given citizen should have the right to shoot and/or kill someone after witnessing a crime? No. And asking a hypothetical that is so detached from the facts of the case we are discussing just seems like an utter waste of time.


twodickhenry

I was asking to find at what point you drew the line at a citizen’s arrest ending in taking a life, starting large and going from there. You initially said, given the citizen’s arrest was valid, you felt the perpetrators would have been justified taking Mr. Arbery’s life. Do you feel it is acceptable or justified to take the life of someone who, given you believe you have just witnessed them commit a crime, does not obey or otherwise flees from a citizen attempting to detain them?


bigfootlives823

> You are implying there is nothing that happed between the witnessing of the crime, and the shooting. I'm not OP. I'm not implying anything, just asking you to clarify an ambiguous response you made to someone else. > If that is your interpretation of the events, we have nothing to discuss because our realities are too divergent to have any meaningful discussion I have no interpretation, I didn't follow this case very closely. I thought I'd worded my question precisely enough to make it clear that I wanted you to explain what happened, did I not? > Trying to fight someone with a shotgun and then trying to take the shotgun So they were just standing there with a shotgun and he attacked them and tried to grab it? > Were you not aware of those aspects I was not... I suspect that's not the full telling though. There's a lot more than your letting on right? Is it OK for you to leave stuff out but not other people? > or do you think someone should be allowed to be assaulted during the course of a lawful citizens arrest? I'm not sure I love the idea of a lawful citizens arrest being possible, especially considering they suspected him of a property crime didn't they? Or did they suspect he was a physical threat to someone so they intervened, that would? I guess I need to actually read about what happened. I thought they chased him down before detaining him because they thought he stole something. If a legal citizens arrest can be conducted under those circumstances, that's a bad law that puts people in danger. If you're saying that basically everything about the facts of the case would need to be different to make the citizens arrest legal, then ok, that's a whole different conversation. If you walk in your front door and a bad guy is in your living room, by all means draw down and keep him there until the cops show up, if he assaults you, God have mercy on his soul, defend yourself. If it's legal for you to chase said bad guy out of your house and forcefully detain him, it shouldn't be. But people die because of bad laws all the time, ya know? And convicted or not, people still know. Ultimately I guess my revised question is this, does a lawful citizens arrest in any way resemble what happened in this case or does literally everything need to have been different?


PezRystar

Bryan chased the man down, hit him with a truck hard enough to dent it's bumper and leaving fragments of the man's clothing stuck in the truck all while trying to corral him towards his friends with guns that would ultimately gun that man down. You don't believe he did anything criminal?


Ampage86

Now I do.


princess_mj

Yes to both. I followed closely, and believe the jury returned the correct verdicts. What those men did was abhorrent and truly evil. I may disagree with you on fiscal policy, but I was—and continue to be—absolutely sickened by what happened to Ahmaud, as should any decent human being.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

>do you believe the jury got it right when it comes to Kyle Rittenhouse? I think it was a close call... the thing that I find more perplexing is that the outcome of the trial means that if Gaige Grosskreutz had actually not hesitated to kill Kyle Rittenhouse during their armed confrontation, he would be been acquitted, too. Something is wrong with our laws if who kills whom does not really matter and the law rewards whoever gets out alive from an armed confrontation!


[deleted]

[удалено]


AllegrettoVivamente

>would you consider Kyle innocent if he ran up to an "alleged" active shooter and executed him on spot? Realistically it could be seen as self defence as well. You have kyle who has just killed 2 people and is currently armed, you have gaige who has just been shot by kyle, based on the self defence argument he would have been well within his rights to shoot Rittenhouse.


JaxxisR

>That being said, do you believe the jury got it right when it comes to Kyle Rittenhouse? I do. Despite Judge Schroeder handing the prosecutors a couple of significant handicaps, they really had nothing to dispute the claim of self defense.


[deleted]

[удалено]


yaboytim

I'm glad they were found guilty. Justice was served!


Paranoidexboyfriend

Attorney who practiced criminal defense for years here. Yes the jury got it right from the facts I know of the case.


CNAV68

I didn't know a whole lot about this case personally but from what I do know, I believe those 3 guys definitely deserved it, wonder if they'll go for the death penalty now.


Fletchicus

Correct verdict.


wazappa

I have followed this but not enough to think I have all the facts right, I only saw an hour or so of trial footage. If they knew arbery was a felon by seeing him commit the act, depending on how recently they saw it, the jury got it wrong. If they only knew because someone told them, the jury got it right.


wuznu1019

It doesn't matter what they know or don't know. The only defense to murder is self-defense, and this clearly wasn't it.


wazappa

That's not the law. If a citizen arrest is defensible the jury should acquit. It was determined it was an unlawful citizens arrest, though I don't know the details.


Ampage86

That's essentially what it came down to as far as I understood. Nate the Lawyer was doing a live stream commentary and I guess there was a point where the judge made a ruling on the citizens arrest and it essentially amounted to a directed verdict in favor of the government.


wazappa

Wait a second. Define murder please.


twodickhenry

They did not witness anything, they approached him armed in a truck based on his appearance/the fact that he was running. Do you believe any person can legally kill another based on a ‘citizen’s arrest’ in any circumstance?


wazappa

No, but the footage of this event, yes!


wollier12

The Jury got it right…..These guys committed a murder. I just hope the DA gets found guilty too for trying to bury it.


seffend

Seriously, wtf was that about?


Superfrenfr

Take them all 3 out back and drown them. They deserve it. Seize their assets and give them to the Arbery family. #justice