Ahmaud Arbery shot in Georgia by white men

bucky

Ostrich
I haven't been following this case closely, but it seemed pretty clear cut that the "vigilantes" were trying to detain him when he attacked them and tried to grab a gun. Has any of that actually been changed by new information? Or are these three (wait, I thought there were just two?) guys being sacrificed to appease the hate mob? Something here stinks.
I haven't been following this one too closely either but my understanding is that they were attempting a citizen's arrest which was entirely legal at the time when the jogger attacked them and tried to get the shotgun.

John Derbyshire did a good article recently over at unz.com on how guys like these ones and Chauvin are essentially our equivalent of the human sacrifices the Mayans and Aztecs used to offer to their bloodthirsty gods. The main difference being that our gods of diversity are far more cruel because the ancient Mexican victims' suffering was over in a matter of minutes, whereas our sacrificial victims are consigned to a lifetime of torment.
 
The "elites" are setting up a world of ultra violence in the future; people won't just give up on their neighborhoods, but now after self-defense people will just hide the body and pretend nothing happened. Way better than the kangaroo court. The world will become far more racist and vicious with the breakdown in law and order.

People are more instinctive in more violent situations. Prisoners who end up in prison often end up in a racial prison gang. Or else he either allies with others on the basis of religion(Islam,Christianity) or he is alone.
 

Saul

Pigeon
The son that pulled the trigger. The same reason Kyle Rittenhouse was found not guilty is the same reason these dudes are going to jail.

The son was inconsistent with his testimony. There was never any proof that Aubrey stole anything. They "thought" he was guilty. They pursued him. Aubrey fled at every instance. Never threatened anyone. Pulled a gun...whatever. Father, son and neighbor pursued him. They got out of vehicles with firearms. They cornered Aubrey. Whether Aubrey grabbed someones gun or not. The father and son had no justifiable reason to dobwhat they did. According to "law." Just because the father and son thought they had probable cause. They didnt.

Son had multiple inconsistencies in his testimony. Woman prosecutor got him to admit multiple times on the stand that at that instance, Aubrey was not the aggressor. They were.

To top it all off, most of this was apparently based on neighborhood gossip. There had been multiple break ins in the neighborhood. Dummy son had his pistol stolen out of his vehicle. He was following people around in the neighborhoods that he thought was guilty of stealing his gun. Or other things happening.

Inconsistencies in testimony. Setting a pattern for following people he thought did something, but actually didnt. Owner of boat and house under construction that Aubrey and multiple others are on camera entering property never saying anything was stolen or filed a police report. Son letting his mom influence him to the effect of it had to be Aubrey stealing things in neighborhood. Father and son following Aubrey down the street. According to the son, Aubrey didnt act scared or startled when initially approached. So this was reasoning that he had to be guilty. Because a normal peraon woukd get starteled when confronted, if they didnt do anything wrong. Father and son thinking they had probable cause to stop Aubrey. Because in their minds, he commited burglary.

This whole thing is a train wreck.

Whether some one was somewhere they "should not have been." Is not gonna cut the mustard. This boils down to people thinking in their head thay they know some one is guilty. They brought this on themselves.

Watch the whole testimony. I dare you! These guys are fools.

 

Samseau

Owl
Orthodox
Gold Member
Even if this guy is just a low-iq racist, the part no one has explained is this one:

Whether Aubrey grabbed someone's gun or not.

To me, this is the only relevant piece of information. Someone grabbing a gun from my hands is a direct danger to my life. The attacker could easily turn my own weapon against me, not to mention I wouldn't an attacker take my gun. If the gun accidentally discharges during a struggle then that's on the attacker.

Really, the trial (I will watch after T-day) seems to be nothing more than character defamation, and not actual legal reasoning as far as rights are concerned.

Both men had a right to be on that street, although the Arbury was trespassing that is still not a serious crime. Trespassing does create reasonable suspicion, but it's certainly not illegal to ask someone a question.

If Arbury simply ignored the White guys without talking to him or rushing at them, then Arbury would be 100% in the clear. But since he lunged, it's certainly impossible to judge how the defender reacted with the gun.

The precedent set here is do not help your Neighbors, do not defend their property, and do not defend yourself. Seems like the state wants Whites to be just good farm animals and wait patiently for their turn.

I fully admit that I could be missing something here, feel free to attack the above because I am curious.
 

get2choppaaa

Ostrich
Even if this guy is just a low-iq racist, the part no one has explained is this one:



To me, this is the only relevant piece of information. Someone grabbing a gun from my hands is a direct danger to my life. The attacker could easily turn my own weapon against me, not to mention I wouldn't an attacker take my gun. If the gun accidentally discharges during a struggle then that's on the attacker.

Really, the trial (I will watch after T-day) seems to be nothing more than character defamation, and not actual legal reasoning as far as rights are concerned.

Both men had a right to be on that street, although the Arbury was trespassing that is still not a serious crime. Trespassing does create reasonable suspicion, but it's certainly not illegal to ask someone a question.

If Arbury simply ignored the White guys without talking to him or rushing at them, then Arbury would be 100% in the clear. But since he lunged, it's certainly impossible to judge how the defender reacted with the gun.

The precedent set here is do not help your Neighbors, do not defend their property, and do not defend yourself. Seems like the state wants Whites to be just good farm animals and wait patiently for their turn.

I fully admit that I could be missing something here, feel free to attack the above because I am curious.
The problem is that while Arbery is no doubt a criminal.... The defendants chased the guy, hit him with a car, and attempted to falsely imprison him in their citizens arrest.

Since they had no direct observation of a felony they were not authorized to detain him.

Anyway that's what the Georgia law on citizens arrest and the jury concluded.

Frankly I don't feel too bad about it considering they forced the situation to escalate.

Criminal or not, if you chase me with a gun after hitting me with a car... I'm probably gonna view my life is in danger and if you corner me, I would assume you mean to kill me and if escalated have to kill you.
 

Saul

Pigeon
Samseau! THEY CHASED HIM DOWN WITH NO PROBABAL CAUSE. In their minds he did something. But according to whatbpertains to the law in THIS instance. He was chased. Watch his confession.

The prosecutor specifically asks him at any point in time: Did you tell the police or Mr. Aubrey that he was under arrest?

Georgia has some citiczens arrest balogna. But they never said it. And even if they did. It was bogus.

The same thing that happened to Kyle Rittenhouse...but under different circumstances happened to Aubrey.

No matter what he may have done before. No matter whether he was in a house or a different neighborhood or on the planet Mars: that has no bearing on this situation. Just like Kyle Rittenhouse.

You cannot chase some one down the street in pick uo trucks in the United States of America and start blasting with a shotgun. Because some one did not do what youbthink they should have.

Watch the testimony. Listen to everything that is said. These guys dug their own grave.

The owner of the house that Aubrey is supposedly on film never said anything was stolen or filed a police report that anything was actually stolen.

The guy that shot Aubrey was listening to things his MOTHER kept saying. Neighborhood gossip and rumors.

His momma told him. And based on what his motherbkept saying. They decided something had happened in their minds. That appreantly did not happen.

Two white guys chase a black guy down the street in pick up trucks and whip out shotguns in the year 2021.

And I know people arent watching the testimony video. Cause the triggerman couldnt keep his story straight during his confession tonthe police and what he was saying in court.

He told the prosecutor he was holding the shotgun across his chest at like the 10 oclock position. Then said he had it pointed at Aubrey. Then said he couldnt remember what he was actually doing, because of stress from the situation.

Regardless whether Aubrey was a criminal or did things at other times. That is irrelivant according to THIS instance.

That is why the court didnt let the defense bring up Aubrey's criminal record. Or the fact that the father and son were saying the N word while this was going on.

They did this to themselves. They killed. If the hillbilly neighbor would have never made the video. This never woukd have gone farther than what it did that original day.

Another thing to take from this situation. Do not talk to the cops. Cause even if you are innocent. They might twist what you say and use it against you in a court of law.
 

Seth_Rose

Pelican
Gold Member
Should William "Roddie" Bryan spend the rest of his life in prison for this though? I feel bad for the guy, honestly. Was hard to watch him listen to his verdict. Of course he was wrong here, and I'm no legal expert, but I can't wrap my mind around how his specific actions lead to life imprisonment. Am I the only one here or..?
 

Saul

Pigeon
If you record someone murdering someone else...or committing any kind of a crime. You are what is called an "accessory" to said crime. You are going to be someone's boyfriend in jail.

Here is more cross examination by the prosecutor. She sets the narrative that the father and son have had numerous instances where they decide to become neighbor hood watch captains in their town.

Start at 2:44:17

 

C-Note

Hummingbird
Gold Member
It's going to be harder for you to justify confronting someone with a gun if they're trespassing on someone else's property and that person hasn't asked you to defend their property, as in the Kyle Rittenhouse case. It's a completely different story if you're defending your own property or property that someone has asked you or paid you to defend.

If I understand right, neighborhood watch groups and Guardian Angels are usually instructed only to get into confrontations if an apparently innocent victim is being physically assaulted. Otherwise, they're supposed to observe and call the police. If you initiate a physical confrontation, you will likely be at least partially culpable for what happens. That's what appears to have happened in this case. These guys initiated a physical confrontation and someone ended up getting killed. It's not automatically self-defense when you're the one who initiated the confrontation.
 

Saul

Pigeon
These guys just straight up are in the wrong. I am not saying it is ok to just let people steal your stuff or let people ruin a community. But if this is supposed to be a Christian Forum. I have to say that in this instance, these guy commited murder. They are going to jail...or getting even worse, later on. They are cooked.
 
Should William "Roddie" Bryan spend the rest of his life in prison for this though? I feel bad for the guy, honestly. Was hard to watch him listen to his verdict. Of course he was wrong here, and I'm no legal expert, but I can't wrap my mind around how his specific actions lead to life imprisonment. Am I the only one here or..?
I agree with you. Life does seem a bit much, but you know they were going to over charge to appease the mob.
 

Crazy88

Pigeon
Roddie’s crime is similar to when you drive a gateway car during a robbery and a murder occurs, you’re just as guilty as whomever pulled the trigger.

Agreed that these 3 guys fouled up big time, no issues from me on the verdict.
 

Gimlet

Kingfisher
People defending these guys are as obtuse and dishonest as the leftists defending Pedo JoJo and wanting to see Kyle hang. You guys are embarrassing yourselves. This is simple, put down the ideology.

A man with a gun cannot chase someone down and kill them because his life is not in danger. There is no self defense at work. But if you chase down and threaten an armed man, he can indeed kill in self defense if his life is threatened. This was a good week, justice all around. No one should be complaining about either case.
 

M'bare

Woodpecker
Gold Member
Saul and others,

It's pretty astounding to me that a number of you on here are seeing this as a very cut and dry case...fully okay giving nearly all three of these guys serious convictions. Did you all agree with the Derek Chauvin conviction too?

Both of these reek of mob rule "justice" and show the mental brain rot of untruths from the get go. This case came off of the heels of George Floyd hysteria. Hell these guys were initially let go, and then all of the video and the false narrative was spun -- "black guy jogging and white guys loaded up and shot him in cold blood." I believe the video emerged slightly before George Floyd. Between that mental plant, the intimidation by activist groups and everything that has happened since, then this was another sacrifice to the ideology.

Would I have approached Ahmaud in the exact way these guys did? No, most likely not. I would have followed close behind, watched and potentially called police to question him. Or approach with a camera and question him to get his face on video and let him know he's being watched.

No one goes poking around someone else's property multiple times, sometimes at night just out of curiosity. Once, sure...but not multiple times (5 times). He was 13 miles from his home. Must have been training for a marathon I guess if that's really the case. I still have doubts he was just running through the neighborhood. No probable cause huh? A guy across the street saw him poking around, then he took off running when he saw that guy notice him. Do you recall that video of a muslim guy who's walking with a young British girl? The shit just didn't seem right...luckily someone approached and the guy ran off. The little girl was scared to death. Gut instinct man. Things can seem off, body language, reactions, etc. Maybe someone is wrong occasionally, and maybe trying to make a citizens arrest isn't the answer, but this notion there was no probable cause just because they didn't witness the crime is weak.

But despite what I would have done in THAT case, I can imagine sometime in the future where cops are all on the Left or there are no cops, and as Samseau pointed out, what do you do then? Just let people do whatever they want in your neighborhood? Have no sense of duty? Only protect YOUR property and to hell with everything else? At some point you won't even be allowed to do that. Look at the fine edge protecting ones own property led to with the McCloskeys in St. Lewis. Look what happened to that Army guy who confronted that guy in his neighborhood who was harassing others, mentally ill or not, who then ASKED the Army guy to take care of the offender.

You guys saying "fuck these guys they all deserve what they got" aren't seeing the big picture. Just like with putting Rittenhouse through the ringer, they're trying to give a chilling effect to the noble, and have overtly been emboldening the criminal elements.

What if police had shown up and tried to apprehend Ahmaud for questioning, Ahmaud refuses to comply, he starts escalating, then ran at the cop who had his gun drawn, punched him and grabbed at his gun. Cop would have shot. Almost guaranteed.

Watch the video. Ahmaud wasn't "boxed in." He had free reign to run just about any direction, but decided to change direction and engage the one guy. Yanking someone's firearm with their finger on the trigger could set it off. At that point, who's now in the right of self defense.

Just imagine a time in the future, where you might feel it's your duty to approach or take matters on yourself. In what situation might you have that obligation? Then imagine that person or persons escalating things... not complying, etc.

Our current system is setting people up to not act, or to be raked over the coals for acting. The system, just as in the soviet system is using the criminal class to take down and "chill" the noncriminal (political enemies) class.

Last thing, maybe these guys were idiots and can't keep the details straight. That's somewhat irrelevant to my points. But if you want to question character, then just look at Ahmaud's interaction with police sometime before all of this happened. Tell me he's the nice sweet guy in the tux from the photo they display incessantly. They're programming you, you know, to think he's a nice loving guy. Not to mention, bringing a gun to a high school game in the past.

 
Last edited:
Top