Moshe Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 1 minute ago, PPQer said: I saw the video. I haven't seen much the shooters have said because it doesn't matter. My comments have only been around the "jogger" running around the front of the truck and attacking the shooter. It was stupid for the jogger to do that, and stupid for the shooters to be there. I doubt the shooters are denying that, and I suspect your take on their statements is seriously skewed, your need for virtue signalling and all. You say they said they "chased him down" when they probably said "they tried to talk to him". I've seen that much, but there is a big difference in the specifics. I couldn't care less about the minutia of the entire encounter. My point has been that he ran at them, and attacked them first, and at that point, the shooter had no choice. Again, you don't "chase someone down" by parking in the street and waiting for them to come to you. You can say they intercepted him, or even laid in wait. But they didn't chase him down, that is obvious in the video. He had every ability to get away, he preferred to kill or die. A partial video doesn't make an open and shut case. Nor, have they been convicted by the peers yet. In fact, the family got rid of the two men's attorney so they could have a better chance of being convicted. How, about we do that in all prosecutions. Get rid of the defendants good attorney, replace them with a subpar attorney. What does that lead to? An automatic appeal by incompetency of the attorney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBO Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 You know as well as I do, that you never catch someone on their first offense. The people I dealt with, would admit to 10 DWIs before getting the first one on their record, as if they were proud of it or something.Facts and direct evidence are what matter, not speculation. Sent from my Jackboot using Copatalk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moshe Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 I have laid in wait for criminals the first five year of my career, mostly in the dark. I arrested 1,000's over that time period that way. Was I bad? Two tried to back me over a cliff over the Rio Grande. I pulled my service pistol on them. Was that bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moshe Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 2 minutes ago, TBO said: Facts and direct evidence are what matter, not speculation. Sent from my Jackboot using Copatalk This whole thread has been about speculation. Guilty until proven innocent. Since when has that been Criminal Justice model? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBO Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 This whole thread has been about speculation. Guilty until proven innocent. Since when has that been Criminal Justice model?Habeas corpus...Probable cause....Etc...... Sent from my Jackboot using Copatalk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PPQer Posted May 10, 2020 Author Share Posted May 10, 2020 (edited) 13 minutes ago, TBO said: You can't snip & choose bits or focus on a single bit. Actually I can. I am not a LE investigator, prosecutor, defense attorney, judge or juror. I don't think I ever said they should have questioned him or detained him. I believe I've said they were stupid from the start. The sole basis for this thread was to discuss the moment of contact when the jogger ran around the vehicle, assaulted the shooter, and apparently try to take his shotgun away. And, to discuss what happens when idiots take the law into their own hands. Too many times I've seen videos, and so have you, where otherwise law abiding citizens made one simple\stupid mistake and it made them the aggressor, like the jogger in this situation. I have every right to say they didn't hunt him down and murder him when he ran at them and made first physical contact. All that matters for my opinion and this discussion, is what I saw in the video. At this point, as a juror, I would vote guilty on 2nd degree or manslaughter, but not 1st degree murder. What I saw on that video was not them running him down and murdering him. I saw them parked in the road, him running at them, and attacking them first. THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS TO ME, is to learn from this incident, and see that the shooters were stupid, and what happens to stupid, and I already knew that. And yes, that stupid will be fixed. When I see incidents like this, I realize there is no way I would ever be on either side of that equation. But I am the guy who during a FoF exercise, didn't walk up to the ATM, backed away, and stated I would go to another ATM. I have once again seen validation of my belief that a CCW or my HCP is not a badge. Edited May 10, 2020 by PPQer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK_Stick Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 11 minutes ago, PPQer said: I saw the video. I haven't seen much the shooters have said because it doesn't matter. My comments have only been around the "jogger" running around the front of the truck and attacking the shooter. It was stupid for the jogger to do that, and stupid for the shooters to be there. I doubt the shooters are denying that, and I suspect your take on their statements is seriously skewed, your need for virtue signalling and all. You say they said they "chased him down" when they probably said "they tried to talk to him". I've seen that much, but there is a big difference in the specifics. I couldn't care less about the minutia of the entire encounter. My point has been that he ran at them, and attacked them first, and at that point, the shooter had no choice. Again, you don't "chase someone down" by parking in the street and waiting for them to come to you. You can say they intercepted him, or even laid in wait. But they didn't chase him down, that is obvious in the video. He had every ability to get away, he preferred to kill or die. It’s interesting you accuse me of virtue signaling but your openly lying and attempting to create a fictional back story that vindicates the shooter, even when it requires you to discard statements made by the shooters. You go so far as to refuse to actually look into the case, to justify your position and accuse me of skewing it.... Why are you so invested in lying? Whats your investment in the outcome? Because you’re trying really hard to sell something that doesn’t fit what we know. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moshe Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 4 minutes ago, TBO said: Habeas corpus... Probable cause.... Etc...... Sent from my Jackboot using Copatalk Habeas Corpus (produce the defendant, fair and speedy trial), Probable Cause, (That which leads to an arrest). Mens Rea (Guilty mind)-intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PPQer Posted May 10, 2020 Author Share Posted May 10, 2020 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Moshe said: This whole thread has been about speculation. Guilty until proven innocent. Since when has that been Criminal Justice model? "Presumed" innocent in the eyes of the legal system (not Justice System). We are free to opine as we choose. Edited May 10, 2020 by PPQer change guilty to innocent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK_Stick Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 1 minute ago, PPQer said: Actually I can. I am not a LE investigator, prosecutor, defense attorney, judge or juror. I don't think I ever said they should have questioned him or detained him. I believe I've said they were stupid from the start. The sole basis for this thread was to discuss the moment of contact when the jogger ran around the vehicle, assaulted the shooter, and apparently try to take his shotgun away. And, to discuss what happens when idiots take the law into their own hands. Too many times I've seen videos, and so have you, where otherwise law abiding citizens made one simple\stupid mistake and it made them the aggressor, like the jogger in this situation. I have every right to say, they didn't hunt him down and murder him when he ran at them and made first physical contact. All that matters for my opinion and this discussion, is what I saw in the video. At this point, as a juror, I would vote guilty on 2nd degree or manslaughter, but not 1st degree murder. What I saw on that video was not them running him down and murdering him. I saw them parked in the road, him running at them, and attacking them first. THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS TO ME, is to learn from this incident, and see that the shooters were stupid, and what happens to stupid, and I already knew that. And yes, that stupid will be fixed. When I see incidents like this, I realize there is no way I would every be on either side of that equation. But I am the guy who during a FoF exercise, didn't walk up to the ATM, backed away, and stated I would go to another ATM. I have once again seen validation of my belief that a CCW or my HCP is not a badge. You don’t understand the law. The shooter was the aggressor. The jogger was never the aggressor at any point in the video. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PPQer Posted May 10, 2020 Author Share Posted May 10, 2020 3 minutes ago, AK_Stick said: It’s interesting you accuse me of virtue signaling but your openly lying and attempting to create a fictional back story that vindicates the shooter, even when it requires you to discard statements made by the shooters. You go so far as to refuse to actually look into the case, to justify your position and accuse me of skewing it.... Why are you so invested in lying? Whats your investment in the outcome? Because you’re trying really hard to sell something that doesn’t fit what we know. I am discussing the video, nothing more. The video shows the truth and the truth is, they DID NOT chase him down and MURDER him. That is YOUR lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moshe Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 Just now, PPQer said: "Presumed" guilty in the eyes of the legal system (not Justice System). We are free to opine as we choose. No. No, guilt has been established. After a jury of 12 peers hears the case and decides that, they are presumed innocent under the law. Unless, we just chucked out that part of the Constitution, as it bores us now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PPQer Posted May 10, 2020 Author Share Posted May 10, 2020 1 minute ago, AK_Stick said: You don’t understand the law. The shooter was the aggressor. The jogger was never the aggressor at any point in the video. You are just an internet nobody and pseudo intellectual. You don't have a degree in law. You know who does, Bren at GT. Go look at what he posted. I'll take his word over yours every time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PPQer Posted May 10, 2020 Author Share Posted May 10, 2020 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Moshe said: No. No, guilt has been established. After a jury of 12 peers hears the case and decides that, they are presumed innocent under the law. Unless, we just chucked out that part of the Constitution, as it bores us now? Sorry, error. Presumed innocent. But in this case, they are apparently presumed guilty. Edited May 10, 2020 by PPQer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK_Stick Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 7 minutes ago, PPQer said: You are just an internet nobody and pseudo intellectual. You don't have a degree in law. You know who does, Bren at GT. Go look at what he posted. I'll take his word over yours every time. That doesn’t validate the factually incorrect things you’re saying. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fnfalman Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 40 minutes ago, Moshe said: You know as well as I do, that you never catch someone on their first offense. The people I dealt with, would admit to 10 DWIs before getting the first one on their record, as if they were proud of it or something. So, the ex-cop and his son somehow knew this guy’s rap sheet and therefore dealt with him as though he’s a criminal even though they didn’t catch him red handed? or they assumed that he’s Black and according to their life experience, the 13% committed 75% of the crimes, ergo rightly treated him like a criminal? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fnfalman Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 45 minutes ago, Moshe said: So, you have already convicted them? Christine Blasey Ford would be proud of you. Unlike you, I’m not racist against people of different skin color from mine. I’m more than happy to let the justice system does its thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fnfalman Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 1 hour ago, PPQer said: All I know is what I saw in the video. Apparently the GBI wasn't much more informed at that time because they were only recently brought in to arrest the shooters. I suspect by now, the GBI has a much better view of the incident, including Arbery's criminal history, stolen property reports, and neighborhood eyewitness accounts. Most of us are going only by the video, and we've said nothing more. The video that shows Arbery running up to their truck, and physically assaulting the shooter. You don't "chase someone down and murder them" by parking in the road and letting him attack you. You could say they laid a trap, but I don't think they were smart enough for that. All I know is what I saw on the video too. And I saw a jogging black man getting harassed by two armed white guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fnfalman Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 28 minutes ago, PPQer said: I am discussing the video, nothing more. The video shows the truth and the truth is, they DID NOT chase him down and MURDER him. That is YOUR lie. The video shows the truth and the truth is they chased him down and killed him in cold blood. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AK_Stick Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 1 minute ago, Fnfalman said: The video shows the truth and the truth is they chased him down and killed him in cold blood. Hurrr durrr, that’s not what Brun sayed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fnfalman Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 28 minutes ago, Moshe said: No. No, guilt has been established. After a jury of 12 peers hears the case and decides that, they are presumed innocent under the law. Unless, we just chucked out that part of the Constitution, as it bores us now? We who pass judgements don’t have to presume guilt or innocence. That is the burden of the State. We are not representing the State. Last I checked we have this thing called the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights. Sounds familiar? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fnfalman Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 1 minute ago, AK_Stick said: Hurrr durrr, that’s not what Brun sayed Not my truth. Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PPQer Posted May 10, 2020 Author Share Posted May 10, 2020 5 minutes ago, AK_Stick said: That doesn’t validate the factually incorrect things you’re saying. But it is true. The shooters saying "we wanted to citizens arrest him and hold him for police" is not the same as saying "we were hunting him down to murder him". That's your lie. The shooters saying "we wanted to talk to him" is not the same as saying, "we hunted him down to murder him". That's your lie. And IMO it was not their place to interrogate him, and I think I've said that before. If the shooters said "we weren't armed, Arbery had a shotgun and I took it away and used it on him" you would say that is a lie because the video shows something different. And you would be right, the video shows what happened. If the video showed shooters using the truck to block his path, and jumping on him, that would be "hunting him down". What the video shows is the truck parked, the driver out and in front of the truck, and the jogger running up to it. That's not "running\hunting him down and murdering him", and is a lie. Your lie. What the video does show is the jogger running to the truck, attacking the shooter, fighting for the shotgun, and losing. That's not "running him down and murdering him". It IS creating a situation that lead to the death of the jogger. And it was a situation that gave the shooter two choices: live or die. Kill or be killed. He lived, but his life is pretty much over. And it's his own fault. That is the lesson for us all. If you couldn't twist their words you wouldn't believe a word they say anyway. And I wouldn't blame you. The fact is, the video shows exactly what happened at that time. It doesn't him breaking in to a construction site, it doesn't show the jogger being armed. It does show the jogger running up to a parked truck, running in front of the truck, then out to the left side fighting for control of a shotgun. No lie you tell changes what the video shows, and you do not know what was in their minds at the time. Remember what we are told when a cop mistakenly kills: it is the intent. They were stupid, but I don't think they were stupid enough to say they wanted to run him down and kill him and use the N-word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fnfalman Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 Just now, PPQer said: But it is true. The shooters saying "we wanted to citizens arrest him and hold him for police" is not the same as saying "we were hunting him down to murder him". That's your lie. The shooters saying "we wanted to talk to him" is not the same as saying, "we hunted him down to murder him". That's your lie. And IMO it was not their place to interrogate him, and I think I've said that before. If the shooters said "we weren't armed, Arbery had a shotgun and I took it away and used it on him" you would say that is a lie because the video shows something different. And you would be right, the video shows what happened. If the video showed shooters using the truck to block his path, and jumping on him, that would be "hunting him down". What the video shows is the truck parked, the driver out and in front of the truck, and the jogger running up to it. That's not "running\hunting him down and murdering him", and is a lie. Your lie. What the video does show is the jogger running to the truck, attacking the shooter, fighting for the shotgun, and losing. That's not "running him down and murdering him". It IS creating a situation that lead to the death of the jogger. And it was a situation that gave the shooter two choices: live or die. Kill or be killed. He lived, but his life is pretty much over. And it's his own fault. That is the lesson for us all. If you couldn't twist their words you wouldn't believe a word they say anyway. And I wouldn't blame you. The fact is, the video shows exactly what happened at that time. It doesn't him breaking in to a construction site, it doesn't show the jogger being armed. It does show the jogger running up to a parked truck, running in front of the truck, then out to the left side fighting for control of a shotgun. No lie you tell changes what the video shows, and you do not know what was in their minds at the time. Remember what we are told when a cop mistakenly kills: it is the intent. They were stupid, but I don't think they were stupid enough to say they wanted to run him down and kill him and use the N-word. Apparently GBI disagreed with your assertion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fnfalman Posted May 10, 2020 Share Posted May 10, 2020 35 minutes ago, PPQer said: "Presumed" innocent in the eyes of the legal system (not Justice System). We are free to opine as we choose. Indeed the first thing you said that I agree with. I opine that the two racist whiteys chased down and killed a poor, innocent, good boy black man who was trying to make a change in his life for the betterment of his family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts