By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - The US Politics |OT|

Bofferbrauer2 on 11 May 2020
KLAMarine said:
sundin13 said:

Typically when you are an unarmed individual in a confrontation with an armed individual, your best tactic is to close the distance and disarm that individual. If you believe your life is in danger, standing around 10 feet from a guy with a gun is a pretty terrible tactical move.

Again, you have to think of this as a self-defense issue from the victim's perspective. These individuals chasing him with guns had no legal right to apprehend him. As such, I believe a reasonable person in this situation would see themselves as being in danger. In such a situation, he has the legal right to engage physically in self-defense.

"Typically when you are an unarmed individual in a confrontation with an armed individual, your best tactic is to close the distance and disarm that individual."

>That depends on the distance. If the distance is long, the armed individual will have plenty of time to point and shoot you and the video shows Arbery having to close a considerable distance before reaching the truck. Arbery had to run to get to the truck even!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHo_C_rsuKg

"If you believe your life is in danger, standing around 10 feet from a guy with a gun is a pretty terrible tactical move."

>Arbery's best move would have been to continue running away, he stands no chance against multiple armed men. But he didn't.

"Again, you have to think of this as a self-defense issue from the victim's perspective. These individuals chasing him with guns had no legal right to apprehend him. As such, I believe a reasonable person in this situation would see themselves as being in danger. In such a situation, he has the legal right to engage physically in self-defense."

>I'm not a lawyer but from the sound of the linked letter, https://georgiarecorder.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Barnhill-letter-Brunswick-shooting.pdf , the gunmen might have had a legal right to apprehend...

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.

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2006/17/17-4-60.html

Bolded the important parts

1. This means they must know that he was the perpetrator from first source, not a second or even third source. Basically what it says is that you may arrest a person you catch in flagranti. Since that wasn't the case, this part doesn't apply.

2. It was clear that he wasn't escaping or trying to escape justice, just working out, so they had no jurisdiction to arrest him on that ground either. He was trying to flee from 2 heavily armed stalkers in the end as he felt his life threatened, and those stalkers gunned him down. But that has nothing to do with escaping in the sense of the text you presented and is unrelated to it in any way.

3. "Arrest" doesn't mean "gun down"

@underlined: There's a point where you can't run away anymore or would risk endanger others, possibly friends and family members when doing so, so what do you do? In his case and from his point of view, the only choices were "fight and survive", "going down with a fight" and "going down without a fight". Only the first one would have been a favorable outcome for him, so he had to fight. Is that really so hard to understand that he was running out of options by that point?



The Nintendo eShop rating Thread: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=237454 List as Google Doc:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aW2hXQT1TheElVS7z-F3pP-7nbqdrDqWNTxl6JoJWBY/edit?usp=sharing

The Steam/GOG key gifting thread: https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread/242024/the-steamgog-key-gifting-thread/1/ 

Free Pc Games thread: https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread/248138/free-pc-games/1/

Around the Network
zorg1000 on 11 May 2020
Bofferbrauer2 said:
KLAMarine said:

"Typically when you are an unarmed individual in a confrontation with an armed individual, your best tactic is to close the distance and disarm that individual."

>That depends on the distance. If the distance is long, the armed individual will have plenty of time to point and shoot you and the video shows Arbery having to close a considerable distance before reaching the truck. Arbery had to run to get to the truck even!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHo_C_rsuKg

"If you believe your life is in danger, standing around 10 feet from a guy with a gun is a pretty terrible tactical move."

>Arbery's best move would have been to continue running away, he stands no chance against multiple armed men. But he didn't.

"Again, you have to think of this as a self-defense issue from the victim's perspective. These individuals chasing him with guns had no legal right to apprehend him. As such, I believe a reasonable person in this situation would see themselves as being in danger. In such a situation, he has the legal right to engage physically in self-defense."

>I'm not a lawyer but from the sound of the linked letter, https://georgiarecorder.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Barnhill-letter-Brunswick-shooting.pdf , the gunmen might have had a legal right to apprehend...

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.

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2006/17/17-4-60.html

Bolded the important parts

1. This means they must know that he was the perpetrator from first source, not a second or even third source. Basically what it says is that you may arrest a person you catch in flagranti. Since that wasn't the case, this part doesn't apply.

2. It was clear that he wasn't escaping or trying to escape justice, just working out, so they had no jurisdiction to arrest him on that ground either. He was trying to flee from 2 heavily armed stalkers in the end as he felt his life threatened, and those stalkers gunned him down. But that has nothing to do with escaping in the sense of the text you presented and is unrelated to it in any way.

3. "Arrest" doesn't mean "gun down"

@underlined: There's a point where you can't run away anymore or would risk endanger others, possibly friends and family members when doing so, so what do you do? In his case and from his point of view, the only choices were "fight and survive", "going down with a fight" and "going down without a fight". Only the first one would have been a favorable outcome for him, so he had to fight. Is that really so hard to understand that he was running out of options by that point?

the-pi-guy said:
>Arbery's best move would have been to continue running away, he stands no chance against multiple armed men. But he didn't.

He stands no chance running away from a truck.

>the gunmen might have had a legal right to apprehend

That doesn't mean they could do whatever. They have limits on the use of force.

https://www.firstcoastnews.com/mobile/article/news/crime/citizens-arrest-law-works-but-prohibits-the-use-of-deadly-force/77-bdd2d172-b837-4576-a033-1748b113ca49

There is also the fact that people probably aren't capable of critical thinking when a gun is being pointed at them so arguing about what someone should have done is kind of pointless.



When the herd loses its way, the shepard must kill the bull that leads them astray.

vivster on 11 May 2020
Dulfite said:
vivster said:

Basically yes, but I would still consider Bernie defectors worse than even Trump voters. Probably because I hold people who support Bernie to a higher standard than people who have already given up and support a barely sentient orange. Bernie supporters aren't supposed to be assholes, which makes it worse when they are.

There is no country easier to vote in than the US, so people who fuck up making the simplest decision piss me off.

When you say people that have voted for Trump have given up, you really shut down conversations and polite discourse from happening. I don't like Trump, but I did vote for him. And why? Because policy. Here are a few things he has done or worked on that I agree with:

1. I am against the murdering of babies. He has appointed like-minded judges.

2. I think people should respect the borders of every nation.

3. I want criminal justice reform. People shouldn't be in prison for years/decades for non violent crimes.

4. I want to stop losing money to China by having massive trade deficits. It may not be a massive issue now, but if we keep going this way for the next 50 years it's going to be a big problem. Better to resolve this now.

5. I want to not lose jobs to countries that pay employees dirt cheap and have a lower cost of life. It's not fair on American families.

6. I want every American to continue to have the right to protect themselves and their loved ones with weapons, not just their bare hands. Mass shootings occur when no one has anything to defend themselves with. Banning guns means the only people that have them obtained them illegally and probably are up to no good, which makes the rest of us unsafe. Also it's a huge determent to someone invading us if we have an instant militia available.

7. People should be able to run their businesses as they wish, hire who they want, and allow whoever they want in the door. It's not business of mine making those decisions for a company I invested no money into.

8. People should be able to practice whatever religion they want as long as they aren't physically hurting others.

There are things I disagree with that Trump does, for sure, and I don't like his personality, but policy wise he is mostly satisfying, whereas Biden/Bernie would not be. I'm not strictly conservative either, I have some liberal and some libertarian perspectives, but mostly when it comes down to it Trump is the most in line with my hot button issues. At least so far. If Biden was still pro life like he used to be, and didn't swing to the Warren/Bernie/Aoc wing then I'd probably be more independent. Sadly these aren't the blue dog democrats anymore and have been taken over by extremists.

Oh boy. You really didn't need to come here and confirm everything I already hate about Trump supporters. Seriously, I would've respected you more if you just said "I voted because I like his hair and golf shoes". I guess I can respect you for voting for policy instead of just character, even though I consider both absolutely intolerable and not compatible with human rights or decency.

But before you say I'm shutting down conversation let's humor you for a bit.

1. Embryos aren't babies.

2. So does everyone else, doesn't mean a border wall or stricter controls are useful in the slightest.

3. I am not aware that that particular point was on his platform. I am also not aware that he has done anything to deal with that issue.

4. That is not how trade deficits work. It's also nothing any politician can do anything about, even if he claims so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etkd57lPfPU

5. American job loss is 100% on American companies. Republicans in particular have pushed for so many monetary incentives for companies to outsource jobs. US companies are already swimming in subsidies and not one of them is using them to employ more people. And why would they when they are rewarded by politicians for every shitty thing they do? Just recently Trump rewarded the richest people with a massive tax break. Do you think that is the best way to support the unemployed? If you want to vote by policy, maybe you shouldn't vote for the party that gives the least shit about workers and their unemployment.

6. There is no evidence that the presence of guns can prevent mass shootings. There is however evidence that the presence of guns causes shootings, for example by being present. If you are so scared that you feel the need of a gun to protect yourself you should ask yourself in what kinda country you live. Maybe the first priority shouldn't be to be able to defend yourself but instead to reduce the chance of people hurting you? Ask yourself why people in other countries do not feel the need to protect themselves from constant mortal danger.

7. My libertarian bones are right with you on that one, but don't forget to consider that absolute freedom goes both ways. You cannot grant freedom to everyone because on person's freedom is the other person's prison. What I'm saying is that voting Rebublican on that issue won't do you any good when those decisions are struck down by courts anyway.

8. Christianity, especially in the US, is physically hurting people by blocking legislation meant to save lives. So I guess by your standards that means Christianity should be banned. I am absolutely with you on that one. But then you should really consider voting another party.

Those Democrats you call extremists would be called moderates in any other country because they demand the humane treatment for people that is already common place everywhere else. You know, those places where people do not have to fear for their life every day.

Last edited by vivster - on 11 May 2020

If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

JWeinCom on 11 May 2020
KLAMarine said:
sundin13 said:

Typically when you are an unarmed individual in a confrontation with an armed individual, your best tactic is to close the distance and disarm that individual. If you believe your life is in danger, standing around 10 feet from a guy with a gun is a pretty terrible tactical move.

Again, you have to think of this as a self-defense issue from the victim's perspective. These individuals chasing him with guns had no legal right to apprehend him. As such, I believe a reasonable person in this situation would see themselves as being in danger. In such a situation, he has the legal right to engage physically in self-defense.

"Typically when you are an unarmed individual in a confrontation with an armed individual, your best tactic is to close the distance and disarm that individual."

>That depends on the distance. If the distance is long, the armed individual will have plenty of time to point and shoot you and the video shows Arbery having to close a considerable distance before reaching the truck. Arbery had to run to get to the truck even!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHo_C_rsuKg

"If you believe your life is in danger, standing around 10 feet from a guy with a gun is a pretty terrible tactical move."

>Arbery's best move would have been to continue running away, he stands no chance against multiple armed men. But he didn't.

"Again, you have to think of this as a self-defense issue from the victim's perspective. These individuals chasing him with guns had no legal right to apprehend him. As such, I believe a reasonable person in this situation would see themselves as being in danger. In such a situation, he has the legal right to engage physically in self-defense."

>I'm not a lawyer but from the sound of the linked letter, https://georgiarecorder.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Barnhill-letter-Brunswick-shooting.pdf , the gunmen might have had a legal right to apprehend...

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.

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2006/17/17-4-60.html

Even if we assume what you're saying is right and that there is a reasonable doubt that the killing was unjustified here's the problem.

The DA's job is to prevent the strongest case possible against a defendant.  A DA refusing to press charges means either they feel that they cannot or will not (due to some public policy reason) make a case against a defendant. The suggestion that there is no possible case to be made here is kind of absurd, and in the letter, they've failed to justify that position.

They're essentially saying that this is such a clear cut situation that we don't even have to really argue about it.  There's no legal question (for instance is this a circumstance where they are allowed to perform a citizen's arrest, or can you threaten deadly force in a citizen's arrest) for a judge to determine, and no factual determination (did they actually have adequate knowledge to act) for a jury to decide.  Which considering the evidence available seems kind of batshit crazy.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 11 May 2020

vivster on 11 May 2020
Ka-pi96 said:
vivster said:

1. Embryos aren't babies.

Some of the people that guns kill are babies though.

Really can't get over how ironic it is that somebody who claims to be "pro-life" is also pro-gun. Those things aren't compatible. Guns are tools used to kill. They don't protect, they kill! If you're "pro-life" then you should be anti-gun.

But guns save lives from other guns. Checkmate.

Bandorr said:

I'm using the reply feature at @vivster.

I'm choosing reply because I don't wants to quote that gigantic block of text, but I also want them to know their being replied too.

That was well written and I found "You cannot grant freedom to everyone because on person's freedom is the other person's prison." quite poetic.

It's the ultimate fallacy in the US. It is actually quite insidious to be indoctrinating people with it from early childhood. But it is the perfect tool to control the masses, while at the same time giving them a sense of control of their lives, which they don't have. It's funny when "freedom fighters" recite laws or point out what is illegal when laws are the antithesis of freedom. The presence of laws is proof that the US's definition of freedom is a lie.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network
JWeinCom on 11 May 2020

@vivster Easy with that opening. Only address the arguments. No need for any commentary on the person making them.



vivster on 11 May 2020
JWeinCom said:
@vivster Easy with that opening. Only address the arguments. No need for any commentary on the person making them.

Noted. Thanks for the warning.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

vivster on 11 May 2020
Ka-pi96 said:
vivster said:

But guns save lives from other guns. Checkmate.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just like two bullet riddled corpses, rather than just one, don't save a life

Well, according to certain people the danger of death is always present with or without guns, so better play the odds.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Bofferbrauer2 on 11 May 2020
vivster said:

8. Christianity, especially in the US, is physically hurting people by blocking legislation meant to save lives. So I guess by your standards that means Christianity should be banned. I am absolutely with you on that one. But then you should really consider voting another party.

Those Democrats you call extremists would be called moderates in any other country because they demand the humane treatment for people that is already common place everywhere else. You know, those places where people do not have to fear for their life every day.

I'll just leave this here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Upa2Rk_Y1Z0



The Nintendo eShop rating Thread: http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=237454 List as Google Doc:  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aW2hXQT1TheElVS7z-F3pP-7nbqdrDqWNTxl6JoJWBY/edit?usp=sharing

The Steam/GOG key gifting thread: https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread/242024/the-steamgog-key-gifting-thread/1/ 

Free Pc Games thread: https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread/248138/free-pc-games/1/

sethnintendo on 11 May 2020

Friend said supposedly video of him snooping around at construction site. I haven't seen it so can't say for sure. Even if he was up to no good they handled it way wrong.