SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1637254613

Message started by Serowbot on 11/18/21 at 08:56:52

Title: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Serowbot on 11/18/21 at 08:56:52

This trial has been somewhat overshadowed by Rittenhouse.
A case of "running while black".
Any comments?

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by WebsterMark on 11/18/21 at 09:47:28

Did you ever think it was just a case of a suspected burglar running away?

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/18/21 at 11:25:11

I don't know much about it.

I might see what I think, dunno.

I'm still wondering what you think about Kyle.

All murder?
Some, and some self defense
All self defense?

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by verslagen1 on 11/18/21 at 12:09:57

043631202736211E322138530 wrote:

Did you ever think it was just a case of a suspected burglar running away?

One of the pundits said they have surveillance video of him in the house for the previous 5 nights and stuff was missing.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/18/21 at 14:25:15

4553445941545942360 wrote:

This trial has been somewhat overshadowed by Rittenhouse.
A case of "running while black".
Any comments?

Funny how you fail to respond.

Here's a question
What will be the guiding factor for the jury?
Will their fear of the mob force them to declare Kyle guilty?
If they deliver a guilty verdict after seeing the pressure from the mob,can you celebrate, knowing the judgement was tainted? Ohh,yesss you can. Because you're a lefty and nothing matters except the agenda. Truth means Nothing.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Serowbot on 11/18/21 at 14:55:35

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Eegore on 11/18/21 at 16:27:43

Have you noticed that in both cases, Travis McMichael and Kyle Rittenhouse claim that they were in fear for their lives because the victim might take away their gun?
This would make carrying gun, justification for killing.

Kinda' catcha' 22 iish?... Huh

If you leave out things like the law. Imminent harm and capacity to engage have to be taken into account. For instance I can't shoot someone in the back of the head 50 yards away from me because I am afraid they will take my gun away. They have to actually be able to take my gun away.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by WebsterMark on 11/19/21 at 04:41:25

7066716C74616C77030 wrote:

So the girl in the short skirt and the nice legs gets sexually assaulted and it’s her fault because she should’ve wore pants. Kinda a catch 22 huh?

Is that really what you wanna say?

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Serowbot on 11/19/21 at 08:02:24

First it was skateboards and plastic bags,... now it's skirts.
Are you sure sharpened flagpoles aren't weapons?

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by WebsterMark on 11/19/21 at 08:56:17

Sure, but they’re not part of an armed insurrection to overthrow the United States government.

I think you’re taking ridiculous positions because this has been turned into a left versus right contest so you feel the need to defend your team.

If someone says that if they get you alone, they’re going to kill you and now they’re chasing you, along with a couple of other people, and there’s a gunshot and you’re trapped between cars, I don’t understand how anybody could have a problem with what he did.

Jump-kick man nail him in the head and someone else came right along and smashed him with a skateboard and then some guy comes up with a gun. What would you expect is going to happen. You can’t expect him to just sit there and take a beating, that’s ridiculous.

No, he didn’t know the criminal history of these three people all he knew was they were attacking him with the intent to hurt or kill him.

The onus is on the people instigating the situation and that was the three people who were shot. And as I’ve said plenty of time before, Ashley Babbitt put herself in that position so she’s ultimately the most to blame, but the guy who shot her should’ve been adjudicated in public not in private.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Serowbot on 11/19/21 at 09:34:51

685A5D4C4B5A4D725E4D543F0 wrote:

Did you ever think it was just a case of a suspected burglar running away?

We shoot people for that, right?

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by WebsterMark on 11/19/21 at 10:04:07

Did he shoot him in the back when he was running away? I hadn’t heard that before.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by WebsterMark on 11/21/21 at 04:47:42

I watched a little of the main defendant’s testimony and I read an article with the information I didn’t know about and I think the main defendant is sacrificing himself for his father who is ill. But one way or another, this guy is likely going to be convicted. I’m not sure if it’ll be murder or manslaughter or second-degree or what but this was not a self-defense case in the sense that the Rittenhouse case was. The defendants instigated the event.

On the other hand, this Aubrey guy seems like all the evidence points to him to being a burglar in the neighborhood knew it. Let’s assume for a minute the guys were right and he was robbing houses in the neighborhood under construction. Do you have the right to chase down someone surround them and confront them? I kind of think so. You’ve seen those videos of people pulling your cars up in front of stores and just robbing them blind knowing that the store attendants are ordered to stand down. If five or six men from the parking lot gathered around these people to stop them, who would object to that? And if during that confrontation a fight broke out, a weapon was displayed and the thief tried to grab it from the person and he was shot and killed, is that murder?

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by WebsterMark on 11/21/21 at 05:34:58

I think this addresses my previous points.

https://jonathanturley.org/2021/11/21/arbery-trial-judge-delivers-massive-blow-to-the-defense-on-the-eve-of-closing-statements/

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/21/21 at 06:51:33

I'm not sure that Row quite understands that Trump was correct in the beginning when he agreed it was self defense for Kyle to shoot those people.
I have not seen anything from him that makes me think he gets it. I'm not sure how to proceed.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by WebsterMark on 11/24/21 at 06:59:13

I didn’t know this: A police officer testified that he had warned neighbors about Arbery's alleged trespassing. He also testified that he had told the defendants about this -- and that he told the owner of the house to call the defendants if he saw such trespassing occurring.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Eegore on 11/24/21 at 07:26:57

LEO Rash sent a text: "please call him day or night when you get action on your cameras."

Which I am sure seems like a normal thing to do, neighbors helping neighbors. I'm not sure this text is specific to Arbery since the video footage that is available shows no trespassing specifically by Arbury. It seems he was part of an overall group at that time.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Eegore on 11/24/21 at 07:38:14

"Do you have the right to chase down someone surround them and confront them?"

In CO you do not. There is no protected "right" to chase anyone for the means of protecting or retrieving personal property. So in that case you assume the responsibility of your choice to chase somebody.

Deadly force is not an option to protect property in CO unless that protection is against arson. Arson is the only exclusion.

"If five or six men from the parking lot gathered around these people to stop them, who would object to that?"

Typically law enforcement, and the defense attorney(s) of each of those men. The general consensus is that stopping crime is not everyone's responsibility, reporting is. Now if looters were endangering the store's Staff, that's different as the 6 men are assisting people, not objects.

"And if during that confrontation a fight broke out, a weapon was displayed and the thief tried to grab it from the person and he was shot and killed, is that murder?"

Yes. Now it isn't premeditated, but pulling a gun out to protect some items from a store is not good and won't win a self defense argument. Pulling a gun out to protect Staff, or Yourself is different, and a more plausible use of that weapon. However one needs to articulate that the use of deadly force was reasonable, which that in itself has tons and tons of variables.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by WebsterMark on 11/24/21 at 21:28:13

Assuming what you say is correct, then I’d say we’re in for a change soon. (I’m in Colorado visiting my daughter and I promise I won’t chase anyone down)
But if thieves are running away with your livelihood and police aren’t going to do anything, (see recent video in Walnut Creek) would we as a nation be better off if they did chase these thieves down. I don’t know but there doesn’t seem to much fear of police.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Eegore on 11/25/21 at 10:19:27

I agree that people may not stand for having their property taken, the issue of them not being taken to court most likely won't change unless we remove or alter those laws.

If I gun down 2 out of 20 people robbing my shop there is no legal protection for that. None.

So in that case I would have to change law to allow for deadly force to be used in the protection of personal property. Of course arguments against it will be people gunning down kids stealing a lawn ornament as a joke, people killing someone for stealing a pack of gum etc.

I think in the Walnut Creek situation there are more effective means of dealing with mass theft than murder, but not more efficient. Killing a person stealing from Nordstrom and having it be allowable by US law would go a long way.

I just can't see a large degree of acceptance by the general public for this idea. I once had a pair of plyers I missed at a checkout counter in Lowes which could have been a death sentence if some trigger happy security staff noticed.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/26/21 at 02:11:07

LMAO!!!

once had a pair of plyers I missed at a checkout counter in Lowes which could have been a death sentence if some trigger happy security staff noticed.

Because Dumbass rednecks can't tell the difference between looters with crowbars breaking displays and grabbing stuff and tossing it in a bag and someone behaving normally and going through the check out and paying..

You have real problems with your equivalence

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by WebsterMark on 11/26/21 at 07:37:07

I agree with Jog. No one’s going to shoot someone because they forgot to pay for a pair of pliers at Lowe’s. Large scale smash and grabs are another matter. And I’m not proposing sharpshooters on rooftops. Now, when large scale riots with mass looting like last summer, I’ve no problem with shop owners and .22 rounds into the legs however.

Setting aside the hyperbole, I’m not sure if this organized “run in and run out” is a trend. If it is, we’ve got to do something.

Let’s imagine me, Eegore, Jog, Mnspring and Sew are asking across the parking lot and observing the events in the video below. Would you intervene?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5liV1m1LuF0

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Serowbot on 11/26/21 at 12:27:41

I'd get the plate number and vehicle description.
...maybe a phone pic...

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Eegore on 11/26/21 at 13:03:19

"Because Dumbass rednecks can't tell the difference between looters with crowbars breaking displays and grabbing stuff and tossing it in a bag and someone behaving normally and going through the check out and paying.."

I am not saying it is equivalent, I am saying that US law prohibits deadly force to protect property and for a reason. I also said nothing about Rednecks.

If US law states we can use deadly force to protect property, then it is legal to kill someone over property, even a pair of plyers, gum etc. Unless the law is now stating there must be more than X-number of shoplifters, X-amount of value (what if an item is "priceless" due to sentimental value?

It gets messy real fast trying to implement into law how to create a value structure and limits on how many humans must be partaking in order to allow, by law, deadly force to prevent inanimate objects from leaving a specific area.

"Now, when large scale riots with mass looting like last summer, I’ve no problem with shop owners and .22 rounds into the legs however."

Again how would this legal definition be written to allow the maiming of humans to stop inanimate objects from leaving a specifically defined area? That's going to be a very difficult thing to write, and enforce fairly, which is the point of laws.

As for the video I would have recorded the VIN number since the plates were off, if I could, and had reasonable and reliable assistance that could keep an eye on the thieves as I did it. I wouldn't physically intervene as no laundry soap is worth my life, or my time. If one of you wanted to go intervene I would ask you this:

If one or both of those jerks pull out guns would your daughter want to visit you in a morgue or sit in court behind you? Is anything in that cart worth your daughter's time burying you or supporting you at trial? It's just groceries.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by MnSpring on 11/26/21 at 20:23:20

0B2B29213C2B4E0 wrote:

" ... I once had a pair of plyers I missed at a checkout counter in Lowes which could have been a death sentence if some trigger happy security staff noticed.

Yet comparing;

‘Banning a AR-15 LOOKING firearm,
because it was used in a school shooting,
will STOP school shootings’

to

‘Banning Red Cars,
because a Red car was used in a bank robbery,
will STOP bank robberies’

Is a BAD, comparison ?

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by MnSpring on 11/26/21 at 20:26:47

586A6D7C7B6A7D426E7D640F0 wrote:

" ... observing the events in the video below. Would you intervene?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5liV1m1LuF0

Yep !

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Eegore on 11/27/21 at 19:51:51

"Yet comparing;

‘Banning a AR-15 LOOKING firearm,
because it was used in a school shooting,
will STOP school shootings’

to

‘Banning Red Cars,
because a Red car was used in a bank robbery,
will STOP bank robberies’

Is a BAD, comparison ?

Yes because people won't agree to banning red cars.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by WebsterMark on 11/28/21 at 06:29:28

I’ve been in smaller variations of this a couple of times. I stepped between two guys getting ready to fight in a bar and survived to tell the tale. I used my card to block someone attempting a road rage incident. I caught a kid stealing a bottle of wine at a grocery store but decided to let him go which I’ve always felt bad about.

Apparently yesterday a security guard was shot and killed in one of these incidents.

I think we as a society have to do something. So I think if I was in the situation I would point to all the men I could see and mount some type of defense.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Serowbot on 11/28/21 at 08:04:45

043631202736211E322138530 wrote:

I caught a kid stealing a bottle of wine at a grocery store but decided to let him go which I’ve always felt bad about.

If only you had been armed with an AR15... ;D

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by WebsterMark on 11/28/21 at 12:54:07

True, but he was a white suburban kid so white privilege came into play so he was safe.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Eegore on 11/28/21 at 14:20:30

"I think we as a society have to do something. So I think if I was in the situation I would point to all the men I could see and mount some type of defense."

Over laundry soap?

No way I'd put my safety on the line for somebody else's soap. I would however offer to show them the newer methods for theft prevention like internal exit gates, facial recognition cameras, parking lot barriers etc.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by WebsterMark on 11/28/21 at 17:23:20

You’re not doing it for soap. You’re doing it for civilized society.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Eegore on 11/28/21 at 19:48:02

"You’re not doing it for soap. You’re doing it for civilized society."

Yeah I see your point. I've been in to many shoot/stab first situations to assume it won't happen. At the end of the day my judicial defense can't be I was doing it for civilized society, and I don't care to have that on my obituary.

This is the stuff we study and develop training programs for, so I think my personal risk assessment could be skewed towards the violent outcomes of civil interference.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/teen-worker-brooklyn-bodega-shot-142900216.html

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/29/21 at 05:31:54

I just hate seeing both sides. Sometimes doing what sure sounds like
The Right Thing just might not be wise.
Assessing the situation and making a decision to act could get a guy shot.
If someone is legally carrying,, what then? IDK the law on using a weapon to stop a property crime.
What happens when a dozen valedictorians descend like locusts on a store and smash displays and grab the stuff and cram it in the backpack they brought?
To me, shooting them down is the right answer.
If it's not legal
It needs to be.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Eegore on 11/29/21 at 06:30:49

"If someone is legally carrying,, what then? IDK the law on using a weapon to stop a property crime."

Depends on your State. In CO one can only use deadly force to protect against arson. Otherwise you can not use deadly force to protect property.

My understanding is that in TX you can not use deadly force to protect property. You must be justified under Texas Penal Code section 9.41 to use "Force" but not "Deadly Force" to stop a trespasser or an interference with your property.

"To me, shooting them down is the right answer.
If it's not legal
It needs to be."

It is definitely not legal.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by MnSpring on 11/29/21 at 08:21:58

7C5C5E564B5C390 wrote:

" ... the violent outcomes of civil interference.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/teen-worker-brooklyn-bodega-shot-142900216.html

And that is happening,
Because,
The Ultra Liberal, Progressive, Fairy Dust Sprinkling DFI Socialists,
have, Allowed and ENCOURAGED, it to happen.
by NOT holding people responsible for their actions.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/29/21 at 09:04:58

5575777F6275100 wrote:

Watching a gang rip off a store, like a bank robbery, yeah, law needs changed to
Shoot them.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by WebsterMark on 11/29/21 at 10:20:56

Sounds strange but it may be true to say in a more civilized time civilians would shoot them heading out the door before they got on their horses and got away with the loot.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/29/21 at 10:44:18

Ayupp!

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Eegore on 11/29/21 at 11:31:04

As long as we are ok with other random people around being judge jury and executioner this would work out fine.

Just make sure you aren't walking out of a store to get away from the chaos when a mob shoplifts so you don't get killed.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/29/21 at 12:47:01

Yeah, the people Without the crowbar and bag are the target.
You seem to be unaware of the innocent bystanders shot by cops.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by WebsterMark on 11/29/21 at 13:42:40

Not that hard to figure out who’s who.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50qXWSfozFI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6preTw28GWE

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Eegore on 11/29/21 at 15:16:53

My point is that we have a structure of law and if we allow for everyone to be judge jury and executioner this is going to get messy fast.

While it may be easy for you to define criminal from non-criminal during an active crime, everyone is an expert when watching a YouTube video. Just like everyone can beat Mike Tyson when they don't put gloves on and put in the personal risk.

My concerns are

1: Idiots that look for any theft so they can kill someone.

2: The general increase in murders as anyone can claim they witnessed a theft to kill. Get into an argument, kill them, toss a pencil by their body so you can say you were protecting your personal property.

3: The general reduction of Due Process of law by giving people the ability to kill based off of the location of inanimate objects. No more trial by peers if perceived theft is involved.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by MnSpring on 11/29/21 at 15:56:03

013334252233241B37243D560 wrote:

Sounds strange but it may be true to say in a more civilized time civilians would shoot them heading out the door before they got on their horses and got away with the loot.

150 years ago, (+/-)
In one town/area/district, West of the Mississippi.
Someone that was caught stealing Horses, then convicted, was Hung, with everybody looking on.

In another town/area/district, West of the Mississippi.
Someone that was caught stealing Horses, then convicted,
was slapped on the wrist, or did a little stint in Jail,
and told; "Do Not Do That Again".

Which town had more people,
STEALING Horses ?,

Today, the Ultra Liberal, Progressive, Fairy Dust Sprinklers,
have, HIDDEN, the punishment.
School Teachers have Taught, that a person has NO responsibility for their actions.
Civic, 'leaders', shout and yell that it is, 'Racist', and no harm should come to the criminal.
Certain color skin/religion/heartridge persons, are TAUGHT, they can say and do almost anything they want, with total impunity.

And UL, DFI, FDS, Socialists, Wonder Why,
their is much more crime ???????

And a number of them say;
"You Must
Give up,
freedom,
to be safer"

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by MnSpring on 11/29/21 at 16:01:16

665453424554437C50435A310 wrote:

Not that hard to figure out who’s who.

Watched the first one.
Golly Gee Wally,
they all walked/ran, right by,
the table full of computers ?????

Why ??????

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by WebsterMark on 11/30/21 at 06:39:44

5C7C7E766B7C190 wrote:

All valid points. But consider the places in the world, the sh!t holes in the world, places we deem far too dangerous to go. The remaining decent people there wish at some point in the past they would’ve stepped up and stopped the decline before they reached the depths of where they are right now.

Stretches of many (most?) major metropolitan areas are beginning to look like Haiti. There are places in North St. Louis where the level of criminal activity must rise to very serious before police even bother with it. We just don’t have enough police who want to work in that area and we’re not the only city like that. Major retailers are closing locations in those areas. The phrase food desert or grocery desert is because major grocery stores pull out of those areas because they’re unprofitable and not just due to sales, but due to theft.

Look at those videos again. Now tell me just exactly how those people become a functioning part of a civilized and law abiding society? What needs to be done to change that? Actually the question is can anything be done to change that short of divine intervention?

No, lining up with guns and shooting people as they come out of stores carrying big screen TVs after lotting them is clearly not the answer. But neither is letting it happen over and over again. The black nationalist that ran over and killed six people so far was a criminal joke. Dozens of arrest with a little or no bail. At some point we’ve got to protect the civilized members of society. Or we will all fall.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/30/21 at 07:48:21

Idiots that look for any theft so they can kill someone.

2: The general increase in murders as anyone can claim they witnessed a theft to kill. Get into an argument, kill them, toss a pencil by their body so you can say you were protecting your personal property.

3: The general reduction of Due Process of law by giving people the ability to kill based off of the location of inanimate objects. No more trial by peers if perceived theft is involved.

Doesn't seem like you think much of your fellow citizens

You also seem confused about what we are talking about

A PENCIL??How ridiculous..
Ohh,how many dollars before you shoot?
Oh how many thugs with crowbar before you shoot?

Depends..

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Eegore on 11/30/21 at 09:00:28

Doesn't seem like you think much of your fellow citizens

Why are we having this discussion? Because our fellow citizens are so law abiding?

You also seem confused about what we are talking about

A PENCIL??How ridiculous..
Ohh,how many dollars before you shoot?
Oh how many thugs with crowbar before you shoot?

You want to be able to use deadly force, by law, to protect property. A pencil is property unless otherwise defined by law.

If law says you can use deadly force to protect "property" then by law I could kill someone for taking a pencil. Unless some other parameters are defined a pencil is property.

You guys want to go simple and just say we should be able to kill people stealing things. Have you ever actually looked at real US laws and case law instead of lies put up on Facebook?

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Eegore on 11/30/21 at 09:08:27

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/30/21 at 10:02:48

I think stores can be designed better..

Ohh,BOTHER..

Let's blame the victim.

Property crimes are different in a bank.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by MnSpring on 11/30/21 at 11:41:23

2404060E1304610 wrote:

" ... they have a government that isn't run by the people in any capacity and has historically murdered anyone who doesn't comply.

Are you saying the government here, in the US,
(as apposed to any other government, that you say, is Not run by the people)
because it is, ’technically’, run by the people,

Does not enlist a Tax collection service to target certain people because of their views/actions ?
Does not enlist a high level crime investigating unit, to target certain people because of their views/actions ?
(Actions/Views both within the limits of a Government ‘run by the People’)

Allows one type/group/skin color/religion, of people to do something,
Does Not allow another, type/group/skin color/religion, to do the same thing.

Gives non Citizens money, food, shelter, health care,
Does Not help, Citizens, who sleep under bridges in cardboard boxes.

Allows some people to have a Freedom, and others not,
(when the only thing separating them is a political party)

And on and on and on !

Yea killing a person over a pencil is
JUST AS ridiculous
as Calf, allowing people to STEEL
just under $1,000.00 of stuff,
with NO repercussions.

“California’s Proposition 47 downgraded a variety of “non-serious, nonviolent crimes” that had previously been considered felonies to misdemeanors. These include shoplifting, grand theft, receiving stolen property, forgery, fraud, and writing bad checks. As long as the total value of the stolen property is under $950, only a ghost of an offense has occurred. A thief may now steal something under that limit on a daily basis and it will never rise to felony status.”

“In the event that a perpetrator is pursued and apprehended, the consequence can be a small fine or a brief stay in jail, In reality, these repercussions are rare. In addition, DNA samples aren’t collected from misdemeanor offenders.”

“For law enforcement, however, there is little incentive to chase down low-level criminals. Even if the person is escorted to the station, odds are great he’ll be back on the street in an hour or so.”

““Every bicycle in our building has been stolen,” says Karen Burns, president of a San Francisco condo association. “I’ve caught so many people stealing packages. They don’t care. They know nothing will happen to them. It’s crazy. It’s horrible. I feel like these people need to go to jail.””

“In San Fransisco, for example, shooting up in public is commonplace, whether it’s on the steps of City Hall, in front of a supermarket, or at the entrance to a children’s playground.”

“There has been a grassroots reaction to weakened laws, however. People are beginning to assume control. They’re not waiting for an authority figure to make everything alright. They’ve been hit by thieves too many times, and are tired of seeing their neighborhoods crumble under the weight of open drug use and commerce. Many have stopped believing that city leaders will ever come to their rescue. A type of vigilantism is emerging. Neighbors are posting on social sites such as Nextdoor, and monitoring crime with apps such as Citizen. Residents film perpetrators, then post photos and videos online with messages such as: “Be on the lookout for this man. He stole packages from my door-stoop last night.” and “This woman is selling Fentanyl-dipped cigarettes in front of a preschool. I’ve told her to leave and she did, but if you see her; do the same.” They are forming neighborhood watch groups, and, for those who can afford them, employing private security guards. People are mobilizing, getting creative, and leaning on technology, themselves, and each other for real help. Still, crime victims are pained and livid.”

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by WebsterMark on 11/30/21 at 11:41:51

No. I don’t want to pass through 3 sets of staggered doors with walls like a maze just to go into a store. I want to walk in and buy something.

Crackdown. Hard. Do it now before it’s too late.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Eegore on 11/30/21 at 12:37:38

"Crackdown. Hard. Do it now before it’s too late."

I would think lobbying to allow deadly force for the protection of personal property would take several years and would have a low chance of success.

Maybe some sort of licensing exists for armed security staff and an amendment to current law could allow for those individuals to implement deadly force specific to the prevention of property theft.

The intentional maiming of people would be very difficult to implement into law. Talk about a way to lower your customer base. If looting starts when you are in there look out because bullets will be flying.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/30/21 at 13:12:25

Reee! You Value YOUR STUFF over someone else's LIFE!!??

Well, apparently THEY value MY stuff over their life.

E.you have a Real problem with Equivalency.

You desperately need to maintain the gang of thugs, ARMED with crowbars, with shoplifters.

When staff run out the back door in FEAR, that is AC

Shoot them in the face
Moment.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Eegore on 11/30/21 at 13:28:05

E.you have a Real problem with Equivalency.

There seems to be a real problem thinking I am saying things are equal.

You desperately need to maintain the gang of thugs, ARMED with crowbars, with shoplifters.

When staff run out the back door in FEAR, that is AC

When staff run out the back door in FEAR, and people protect them, would that be protecting staff or property? I am very clearly indicating the use of deadly force to protect property when I disagree that killing people running out of a store with a TV is not protecting staff and thus is illegal. Property is not Staff.

Allowing any citizen the ability to use deadly force to protect property is a long road to go down and seems futile given the outstanding level of variable. I see a kid stealing a candy bar can I kill that kid? If the law says deadly force is allowed to protect "property" then yes I can.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/30/21 at 13:52:53

Yes, E,, absolutely, because it's the breakdown of society and the little prick got a pencil you didn't see.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/30/21 at 13:53:41

What grade was it when you volunteered to be a hall monitor?

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Eegore on 11/30/21 at 14:53:39

"Yes, E,, absolutely, because it's the breakdown of society and the little prick got a pencil you didn't see."

Well it's not like the proposal here is to allow deadly force to stop the breakdown of society. It's to allow citizens to use deadly force to protect property. Gun down looters, it's legal. Gun down a shoplifter at a gas station, it's legal. Gun down someone that stole your credit info, it's legal.

Oh let people use their better judgement right? Except those thieves that started this discussion get the same treatment under law you and I do. So yes they could kill someone for theft as well, even with their level of moral fabric.

So basically the idea is only good people will use deadly force and only when it applies to the breakdown of society. All these thieves wouldn't abuse making deadly force to protect "property" legal.

And lets not forget protecting people is not protecting property.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by MnSpring on 11/30/21 at 18:37:36

133331392433560 wrote:

... Well it's not like the proposal here is to allow deadly force to stop the breakdown of society. ..."

Perhaps some people in Calf think otherwise.

“ There has been a grassroots reaction to weakened laws"
" People are beginning to assume control"
" They’re not waiting for an authority figure to make everything alright" "
" (They) are tired of seeing their neighborhoods crumble under the weight
of open drug use and commerce"
" A type of vigilantism is emerging"

Golly Gee Wally,
their is a REASON the sign says;
"Don't Feed The Wildlife"

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/01/21 at 05:20:10

E,A GANG organized thugs,is quite different from
A Shoplifter.
The gangs are strong arm robbers. They are ARMED, and killing the bastards is good.

Shoplifters try to sneak stuff and be invisible.

You should be able to apprehend and prosecute.
If that includes a beat down..
Okay

Reeee!

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Eegore on 12/01/21 at 07:49:50

"E,A GANG organized thugs,is quite different from
A Shoplifter.
The gangs are strong arm robbers. They are ARMED, and killing the bastards is good."

Yes but we are proposing the legalization of deadly force to protect property. A person shoplifting is taking property. Now we need an exemption for shoplifters?

So how when lobbying to legalize use of deadly force to protect property would it be defined?

If One's perception of property protection is to stop the moving of an inanimate object by a group of X-number or more that are ARMED, one can use deadly force to stop inanimate objects from being moved.

What number is X?

How do we define how many people should be involved in theft before I am allowed by law to kill them?

"You should be able to apprehend and prosecute.
If that includes a beat down..
Okay"

What would be the method for me to prosecute?
What would "beat down" be defined as in law? I am allowed to physically damage a perceived thief by a certain percentage?

Maybe replace "person" with "property" in general and just leave it at "reasonable degree of force".

This way in the mob footage provided in this thread one could consider it "reasonable" to unload hundreds of rounds into that crowd running in the doors.

Again, to be clear, this is only to protect objects, not people.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by WebsterMark on 12/01/21 at 11:10:21

There is something of a bottom line here and it’s seems to be some will accept changing their preferred lifestyle and sense of safety, others object and demand legislative actions, others decide to pick and choose when to step in if unfortunately put in that spot.

It all comes down to the situation at the moment and honestly your mood at the time. It’s impossible to say what you will or will not do when confronted in a criminal situation. I honestly don’t know. I’d like to think I would proceed as I have done a couple of times in the past and step in to protect the week, but I’ve never been faced with overwhelming odds. I saw another BLM protest last night in Minneapolis were a bunch of people piled onto a car and the person was trying to drive slowly away. I’m not sure I would be that patient but who knows. If my granddaughter were in the car and she was scared , I would run over anybody to get her out of that situation. Again, it’s hard to say what anyone will or will not do. It’s always different in real life.

Which by the way is why Rittenhouse was found not guilty. The videos didn’t lie. It’s also why those three guys in Atlanta were convicted. The video didn’t lie.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by MnSpring on 12/01/21 at 12:41:22

About 20 years ago.
In a cold country,
where people fish in the winter through the ice.

Their was a lake, that a number of, ice houses, were broken into and vandalized.
Couple of nights later,
a number of ‘kids’,
fell and slipped on the very slippery ice,
each breaking a leg, or a arm.

I believe it was 12-14 years later,
before any ‘Fish House’, theft/vandalism was again reported.
And then,
it was reported only,
One Time !

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/01/21 at 15:21:18

1973,I was in Biloxi, the news was full of reports of car jackings in Louisiana. It was almost daily. Some were killed, caught up in the seatbelt, dragged to death..

Finally the Guvnah went on TV. He said
If you are afraid you might be car jacked and you want a gun,get a gun.
The next week was full of reports of Attempted car jackings. Several thugs were treated to a belly full of lead. They flopped and screamed and bled in the street.
It took a coupla weeks before they decided it wasn't such a fun game.
Car jackings were rarely in the news after that.

Make the game cost THEM to play.

Knock off the bullshit. Gangs, ripping through a store, breaking things and emptying out your store, the store that FEEDS Your family and the families of your employees is NOT THE SAME as someone stealing pencil.

Shoot them in the FACE. This crap would come to a halt.

If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore what he must be taught to fear is his victim.

Jeff Cooper

When the
Property Crime
Bankrupts a member of society, what then?
Ooopsies, too bad? That is the price of living in a big city? Who pays the bills? The property may be leased.. Who makes the payments? Shrug at
It's only Stuff,, you can't stop them. You only worked all your life, only to watch thugs take it away.

I think Walgreens has closed six stores in California. Pharmacists out of work. Stockers, cashiers, out of a job. Customers needing a new pharmacy. People who lived close, maybe don't have a car, now how do they get what they had relied on the neighborhood Walgreens for?

Yeah,, someone is going to be a
Looter Shooter.
Being pushovers means it won't stop.

If the law can't or won't
The Victims must
Or It Will Not Stop.

Or maybe I'm not seeing right.
Maybe it's not supposed to stop..
I guess it's not. Because it's illegal to stop illegal activity.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Eegore on 12/01/21 at 18:48:23

"Finally the Guvnah went on TV. He said
If you are afraid you might be car jacked and you want a gun,get a gun."

This may be what we need to happen now. If a Governor can sign an executive order of some kind allowing people to protect property, not themselves like during a carjacking, but somebody stealing things from Walmart then it should be done.

I'm all for starting at tear gas and flash-bangs and taking out the escape vehicles and then working into mass murder inside the stores. Cleaning up 50+ dead bodies at a Wal-mart will take some time.

"Knock off the bullshit. Gangs, ripping through a store, breaking things and emptying out your store, the store that FEEDS Your family and the families of your employees is NOT THE SAME as someone stealing pencil."

Yes it is if we legalize deadly force to protect "property". Unless provisions are in place that establish that if X-amount of people are engaging then you can kill to stop theft. Just like in CO where there is a provision for arson. What is Bullsh!t is pretending we can just legalize the use of deadly force to protect "property" and not have some specifications.

"Or maybe I'm not seeing right.
Maybe it's not supposed to stop..
I guess it's not. Because it's illegal to stop illegal activity."

That's what people say when they want to make it sound worse than it actually is. It's also illegal to kill people for identity theft. Does that mean it's illegal to try to stop identity theft?

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/01/21 at 20:23:48

People rarely come into a jewelry store or a high end shop with crowbars, threatening people and breaking nuts
To steal your identity.

The Problem is
It's illegal to kill thugs.

And if enough of them got dead or forever crippled, then the
Allure would fade,except for the hardest of the hard cases.
Never going to Stop crime, but when there are no consequences ,cops can't or won't do anything, the chosen victims are the last defense for an orderly society.

Money is property.
Walk into a bank and wave a gun around and see how it goes.
On duty, gun carrying cops hanging out in banks here is a common thing.

Fella could get shot by a guy protecting
Property..

I know you are Correct about the law.
I'm saying it's screwed up.
I say a store that is how a man makes his living and provides for his family is worth killing over. Else he winds up under a bridge. We have the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and we weren't intended to be made impotent by statute.

The
REEE! You value your Stuff over someone else's LIFE???

Well,, that piece of nuts values my stuff over his life.

Shoot them in the face!

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by MnSpring on 12/02/21 at 07:54:57

2606040C1106630 wrote:

" ... I think stores can be designed better.

Some gun stores, have, cages inside the main door.
You go in, you are in a cage/something, then you need to be, 'buzzed' in.
Most Coin Shops have them.

Guess tomorrow,
ALL other kind of stores will be installing them !
After all, the answer is,
"Prevent someone who WANTS to commit a crime,
from being able to, commit a crime"
Instead of;
"Prevent someone from wanting to commit a crime'

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/02/21 at 08:45:48

I walked into a store, famous for kit furniture, IKEA I think. The place was designed to make you walk a path to the other side. I didn't like it, I went back, and was told I couldn't get out the door I came in. I had to walk through that store the way they wanted me to. I ,once I figured out what was going on ,didn't look at anything to buy. I just wanted OUT. Never again will I go back in a store like that.
I suppose cages would work. A line of them at the grocery store! You go in get searched, prove you have the money to cover your order, and if they like you, you can do your own shopping. If not you have to give them your list and let them bring you the bent cans.

Yeah,, designing the stores to make crime nearly impossible is how to live.
Everyone wants to live in a society where there is Zero trust and contact through a speaker system ,because a 4" hole in the glass might spread the Rona. SSAAAFETY bars and bulletproof barriers, like criminals being allowed in the cafeteria. Uhh,no,, it's worse than convict lunch time.

I want a comfortable, open society. Everyone does. That is why it's what we built. We live openly and comfortably, until hooligans screw up our day.
Then

Shoot them in the face!

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Serowbot on 12/02/21 at 14:58:30

233C3A3D20271626162E3C307B490 wrote:

Shoot them in the face!

It has been pointed out to me,... that this is a little over the top.
Did you see the photo of that guys arm in the Rittenhouse case?

Your online presence will be incriminating in any future violence you may consider.
Even in Texas.
Think about it.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Eegore on 12/02/21 at 18:02:48

"People rarely come into a jewelry store or a high end shop with crowbars, threatening people and breaking nuts
To steal your identity."

Again you are mixing threatening humans with taking property. Property is not Humans. The proposal is to use deadly force to protect "property" and only property with the exclusion of all other known things.

"Money is property.
Walk into a bank and wave a gun around and see how it goes.
On duty, gun carrying cops hanging out in banks here is a common thing."

Show me a non-licensed security bank employee that is instructed to kill people taking that money. They are very specifically taught to give the money over.

You are comparing law enforcement to regular citizens. It is expected law enforcement intervene if somebody "waves a gun around" anywhere at anytime, not just banks. It's like saying there's a fire and watch the fire department come put their lives on the line to stop it. Yeah I'd expect that.

Well,, that piece of nuts values my stuff over his life.

Shoot them in the face!

The problem comes when people start killing each other over pencils, online identities, etc. We can't assume only reasonable people will use this privilege. Property is property, a guy just took a reflector from the post on the corner of my property. Should I shoot him in the face? Do I have to do it at the time, or can I plan it out and go do it later? What's the statute of limitations for using deadly force to protect inanimate objects?

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/02/21 at 23:34:16

Yeah,, hadn't thought about it

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by WebsterMark on 12/03/21 at 04:11:57

76696F6875724373437B69652E1C0 wrote:

Yeah,, hadn't thought about it

Thank you JOG for acknowledging that. Most wouldn’t, you did. Thanks.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Eegore on 12/03/21 at 05:40:35

Personally I think there could be room for allowing the protection of property in two components. One is "Personal" property, and another as "Known" property.

Personal property is obviously property I own.

Known property is owned by a business, neighbor etc. that I as a person choosing to kill another human has assessed, accurately, that the property is owned by an entity or person I know.

The problem is a group looting a store and then I kill a guy who legally purchased an item, or a lady who already owned that purse and did not steal it. So I would have to prove I knew that the property I killed someone over was indeed not theirs or face murder charges.

Another issue would be killing someone before they committed the crime. Running into a Wal-Mart in itself is not a crime. Although we are making the person shooting the Judge, Jury, and Executioner so this is circumventing Due Process.

I do think some sort of property line would need to be in effect. For instance if I work at Home Depot I can kill anyone within the property lines that is in possession of Known Property. But if they make it to a public street I can't go shoot them in the face.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/03/21 at 17:36:55

7656545C4156330 wrote:

So, because someone might take unjustified action, action must be illegal.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Eegore on 12/04/21 at 00:19:02

So, because someone might take unjustified action, action must be illegal.

No. I am just saying that law applies equally. Legalize deadly force to protect property and criminals can now kill because you stole their pencil.

You get that?

Law applies to everyone, not just those that use it correctly. By this logic one should be allowed to gun down anyone that is in possession of any item they do not own.

If a guy steals a reflector from my fencepost I can go kill him a month later because the protection of "property" is now law.

Oh but only reasonable law abiding people will take advantage of this?

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by WebsterMark on 12/04/21 at 05:12:15

6C4C4E465B4C290 wrote:

OK, we get it. Your theory is for honest citizens to change everything in their lifestyle, pay far more money for common items, be fearful outside in public retail spaces, rather than try to take sensible steps to stop this nonsense. Got it.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by MnSpring on 12/04/21 at 06:45:05

7F4D4A5B5C4D5A65495A43280 wrote:

Yep

Some people believe :
Preventing, from being able to, commit a crime.
Is better than,
Preventing from wanting to commit a crime.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by MnSpring on 12/04/21 at 07:24:05

6646444C5146230 wrote:

" ... I am just saying that law applies equally. ... "
"... Law applies to everyone, not just those that use it correctly. ..."

Laws do NOT, 'apply' equally to everybody !

Thousand of examples, (that are known of)
Just a few examples,
Clinton, Clinton, Clinton, Clinton ... ... ...
Obama, Holder, Franklin, Omar, Polisi,
and on and on and on ...

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Serowbot on 12/04/21 at 07:29:16

Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump,...

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by WebsterMark on 12/04/21 at 07:35:14

Again, there are two people to whom the law legally does not apply equally. The President and to a lessor degree, The Vice President.

For the rest of us, no kidding Captain Obvious. Of course the law is unequally applied. My biggest beef at the moment is the parents of the Michigan kid who killed students are charged with involuntary manslaughter while the DA and other State officials (and the mother of Darrell Brooks who posted his bail) face no repercussions for their actions that lead directly to 6 murders currently.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Eegore on 12/04/21 at 11:18:07

"OK, we get it. Your theory is for honest citizens to change everything in their lifestyle, pay far more money for common items, be fearful outside in public retail spaces, rather than try to take sensible steps to stop this nonsense. Got it."

Wal-Mart employees dumping hundreds of rounds of ammunition into crowds of people to prevent theft is a "sensible step"? You don't think maybe people will be fearful if they can be executed by anyone that thinks they have an item they didn't pay for?

I go up and put one bullet in the face of each of those two shoplifters taking soap in that video and I won't end up in prison? Murdering those two idiots to protect society is a sensible step?

What I am saying is I would recommend an employer engage in currently legal actions to reduce theft, before lobbying thousands and thousands of dollars and most likely a decade of legal debate to legalize deadly force to protect property.

Does anyone really think Wal-Mart could have killed a bunch of people in that video and not lose a ton of customers and spend years in court? Would you really have murdered 20 of those people because you don't want them stealing TV's?

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Eegore on 12/04/21 at 11:25:25

"Yep

Some people believe :
Preventing, from being able to, commit a crime.
Is better than,
Preventing from wanting to commit a crime."

There's nothing wrong with preventing desire to commit crime, that is called psychological deterrence.

What do you think will happen first?

1: Wal-Mart lobbies Congress to legalize an ability to kill anyone that hasn't paid for an item and is outside the doorway, and permission to kill anyone running inside that might steal something. All US citizens are given legal permission to kill anyone they know has stolen something or they think will steal something.

2: Wal-Mart locks up more items, creates more point-of-purchase barriers and increases incentives to purchase certain items online only or at employee manned counters. Like how they sell guns.

I wonder which route Wal-Mart would choose.

How about this:

I kill two people stealing soap to protect society that were not engaging me in any way.

How many people will rise up and start doing the same thing to protect society?

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by WebsterMark on 12/05/21 at 06:55:07

The bottom line is I think we have an obligation to at the very least consider stepping in if possible. Otherwise, law and order will continue to degrade.

And as far as letting the legal system handle this, I read the 14 smash and grab thieves in LA who were arrested…….were released with no bail.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Eegore on 12/05/21 at 15:15:47

"The bottom line is I think we have an obligation to at the very least consider stepping in if possible. Otherwise, law and order will continue to degrade."

I agree with this. I don't agree that shooting people in the face or gunning down groups running into stores is the primary method to choose.

I see this a lot like protests and riots etc. It eventually wears off and another thing takes it's place. Combine this with deterrence and reduction is bound to happen.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by WebsterMark on 12/20/21 at 12:42:47

Returning to this topic with a video. Seems reasonable to me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw9AUXR8etE

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by Eegore on 12/20/21 at 12:56:07

It's reasonable. I can however see the criminal lawyering up and having them challenge that once the criminal was down, and not fighting back, why he was punched and kicked in the head.

He was curled up in the fetal position, no longer had possession of the purse and the Good Samaritan continued to punch and kick the criminal.

No big deal here, but if the Criminal had ended up in the hospital or died I think the Good Samaritan would have ended up being prosecuted. Hopefully with no charges, but I imagine it would have happened.

Title: Re: Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 12/20/21 at 13:16:38

d[ch601][ch712]t[ch601]r[ch601]ns]
NOUN
the action of discouraging an action or event through instilling doubt or fear of the consequences.

If violent crime is to be curbed, it is only the intended victim who can do it. The felon does not fear the police, and he fears neither judge nor jury. Therefore what he must be taught to fear is his victim.

Jeff Cooper

Making it okay for the victims to make perpetrators suffer is necessary. It won't last long. Just like the carjackers in Louisiana figured out it was not such a fun game after the Guvnah said
The people need to arm themselves
And shortly after reports of carjackers screaming and bleeding, flopping and dying in the streets became common, it faded into the background.
Sure, initially it would be horrible. Tough schitt! It's NOT Goin to be a long term issue. Just change the dynamic. In a few weeks, criminals will stop pretending they have a right to your inventory.