Also In The News

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

If he's refusing arrest I don't see their actions as excessive. People can't expect the law and the rules around it to be different because they choose to take their child with them when they break the law. 

 

As you've replied after I said I was gone...... 

 

If he continued to resist arrest for some time, I'd agree with you. But we don't know that was the case.

Can't re-view the clip now, apparently, but as I recall they were holding his arms, he was resisting that slightly and clearly arguing. They then released his arms, he stood there and did nothing for a couple of seconds - and they then tasered him, leaving his kid clearly traumatised.

 

It's at least possible that he'd have gone quietly with some brief persuasion - and that he was partly bothered about his kid seeing him restrained and cuffed.

 

Forget for a moment the assumption that he's guilty (though he may be). Imagine if, when your child/children were small, you'd been stopped by the police while you were with them. Imagine that you felt you shouldn't be arrested for whatever reason. Would the police have been justified in immediately tasering you or might another approach have been better for your kid(s) and for the justice process? No special rules for people with kids, but maybe greater police sensitivity re. presence of children?

 

Didn't intend to get into this so deeply so I'm gone now! 

 

 

[Mike Oxlong]

Looks like a precipitous use of force from the brief clip in the video 

[Alf Bentley]

6 minutes ago, Mike Oxlong said:

Looks like a precipitous use of force from the brief clip in the video 

 

What a massive cock.............................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...............you have! 

[Mike Oxlong]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

What a massive cock.............................

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...............you have! 

Guilty on both counts 

[Leicester_Loyal]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8303091/Harry-Potter-star-Miriam-Margolyes-admits-wanted-PM-Boris-Johnson-DIE-COVID-19.html

 

What a lovely human being!

[Countryfox]

Last night in the village near me there was a gathering of people (all well apart) celebrating VE Day ...  the local gypsies turned up and joined in and brought some food and drink to share ..  I recognised several of them as I’d seen them helping out by delivering some provisions to old people and picking up their prescriptions for them ...   and this morning I noticed about 10 of them doing some litter picking on the road into the village ...

 

Then I woke up ..  

 

 

[Guest MattP]

2 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-8303091/Harry-Potter-star-Miriam-Margolyes-admits-wanted-PM-Boris-Johnson-DIE-COVID-19.html

 

What a lovely human being!

Can you even begin to imagine having this little self awareness?

 

Going on television to tell the public you wanted a man (with a heavily pregnant partner) to die and then managing to finish off that statement by saying you hope it makes them a better person.

[Leicester_Loyal]

33 minutes ago, MattP said:

Can you even begin to imagine having this little self awareness?

 

Going on television to tell the public you wanted a man (with a heavily pregnant partner) to die and then managing to finish off that statement by saying you hope it makes them a better person.

Appalling stuff. Hopefully it's the end of what career she had.

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Appalling stuff. Hopefully it's the end of what career she had.

Won't be, it's acceptable in the circles she moves in to say these things about people whose politics you disagree with.

[Facecloth]

39 minutes ago, MattP said:

Can you even begin to imagine having this little self awareness?

 

Going on television to tell the public you wanted a man (with a heavily pregnant partner) to die and then managing to finish off that statement by saying you hope it makes them a better person.

She's never had any self awareness, she's completely mental. Typical think before she speak type. She only seems to get on tv on chat shows these days as some kind of circus act, but that was obviously too far. I was watching the show, and you could tell once the presenter (in Australia) had picked up on it after a slight delay he tried to finish the section quickly.

[Guest MattP]

Just now, Facecloth said:

She's never had any self awareness, she's completely mental. Typical think before she speak type. She only seems to get on tv on chat shows these days as some kind of circus act, but that was obviously too far. I was watching the show, and you could tell once the presenter (in Australia) had picked up on it after a slight delay he tried to finish the section quickly.

Yeah she's proper bonkers, I watched the last leg special after the election and when asked what Labour should have done she replied "come out for Remain" which showed her to have the political knowledge of a potato.

 

I actually didn't even know who she was before that but when I looked at wiki page she conformed to every single stereotype I had of her.

[Rain King]

[Mike Oxlong]

9 hours ago, pds said:

 

 “Organisers said entries had come in from all corners of the UK, including Castle Donington, Ellesmere Port and Cockermouth” 

 

 

 

 

Edited 10 May 2020 by Mike Oxlong

[Carl the Llama]

On 07/05/2020 at 22:16, MC Prussian said:

Well, that's pretty grim. There's self-defense, and then there's idiots thinking they are above the law.

No way did this warrant the use of firearms, unless they were being shot at first (which they weren't based on the unedited video I could find).

Although Arbury was allegedly shot at because of the struggle over the one guy's shotgun. I suppose a taser would be the more appropriate choice then?

 

The two dimwits up front (plus the guy who was in it, filming it all) belong to prison.

 

However, one has to ask oneself why this story has only made it to the front of the news now? The incident took place about two months ago.

Cui bono?

On 08/05/2020 at 14:05, Carl the Llama said:

The correct question is why was the story of an unarmed civilian being stalked by a group of men, threatened with firearms, then shot down for defending himself not headline news when it happened?

Further to this.

 

Weird, I was sure there'd be some kind of Dem false flag operation going on in the background, that's normally the rational explanation when someone tries to hide these unprovoked minority killings.

 

Edited 10 May 2020 by Carl the Llama

[MC Prussian]

10 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Further to this.

 

Weird, I was sure there'd be some kind of Dem false flag operation going on in the background, that's normally the rational explanation when someone tries to hide these unprovoked minority killings.

I don't see why this warrants another one of these odd digs at people on here for their alleged political affiliations.

 

Most of all, this case again highlights the issue with media, their coverage and local corruption in the US.

 

According to some reports, Arbury had a history of run-ins with the law himself and there were reports of a burglary in the neighborhood.

I'm not excusing what the McMichaels did, just imagine the scenario where you see one of your own family members struggle with a suspect over a shotgun.

How would you react?

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, MC Prussian said:

I don't see why this warrants another one of these odd digs at people on here for their alleged political affiliations.

 

Most of all, this case again highlights the issue with media, their coverage and local corruption in the US.

 

According to some reports, Arbury had a history of run-ins with the law himself and there were reports of a burglary in the neighborhood.

I'm not excusing what the McMichaels did, just imagine the scenario where you see one of your own family members struggle with a suspect over a shotgun.

How would you react?

Given I'm standing there with my magnum because we've both just driven out there to harass an unarmed black man on suspicion of being a criminal with zero evidence then yeah, I'm probably a stupid enough piece of shit to unload every cylinder into the guy.

 

If your family members told you they'd spotted a criminal, called the police, then grabbed their guns and went out to their truck how would you react?

 

If your family members, who aren't badge-carrying police officers, then created a scenario where this unarmed 'criminal' had no means of escape without engaging them in melee combat to try and disarm them, how would you react?

[ozleicester]

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/coronavirus-australia-dramatic-arrest-of-a-mother-protesting-in-sydney-shocks-bystanders/news-story/b628c2ba966d54a4170cc5288bddc088

[MC Prussian]

15 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Given I'm standing there with my magnum because we've both just driven out there to harass an unarmed black man on suspicion of being a criminal with zero evidence then yeah, I'm probably a stupid enough piece of shit to unload every cylinder into the guy.

 

If your family members told you they'd spotted a criminal, called the police, then grabbed their guns and went out to their truck how would you react?

 

If your family members, who aren't badge-carrying police officers, then created a scenario where this unarmed 'criminal' had no means of escape without engaging them in melee combat to try and disarm them, how would you react?

Georgia has a law in place that allows neighborhood intervention - until the police arrives. So they were in their right to try and stop the jogger based on that suspicion.

He had no means to escape? There was a left, there was a right. He was an athlete, and in great physical shape.

The harassment part is pure conjecture at this point in time. According to the McMichaels, they were chasing after a suspect and unsuccessful in cutting him off.

Like I've said before, the McMichaels are scum for letting it come this far and shooting a guy. Way too trigger-happy.

 

What if Arbury had simply handed himself in? I mean, he's seen jogging towards the car at first. Doesn't look like the typical behaviour of a criminal to me in that moment.

I just think about the situation when you have a person you consider to be a burglar (and Arbury had an alleged criminal history) struggles over a shotgun, potentially grabbing it out of a family member's hands. Risking your family member's life and your own, what would you do?

 

I suppose they could've incapacitated him instead of killing him, targeting his limbs. At least he'd still be alive and able to give his side of the story.

It certainly wasn't a murder in cold blood, as some media outlets suggest.

[Leeds Fox]

23 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Georgia has a law in place that allows neighborhood intervention - until the police arrives. So they were in their right to try and stop the jogger based on that suspicion.

He had no means to escape? There was a left, there was a right. He was an athlete, and in great physical shape.

The harassment part is pure conjecture at this point in time. According to the McMichaels, they were chasing after a suspect and unsuccessful in cutting him off.

Like I've said before, the McMichaels are scum for letting it come this far and shooting a guy. Way too trigger-happy.

 

What if Arbury had simply handed himself in? I mean, he's seen jogging towards the car at first. Doesn't look like the typical behaviour of a criminal to me in that moment.

I just think about the situation when you have a person you consider to be a burglar (and Arbury had an alleged criminal history) struggles over a shotgun, potentially grabbing it out of a family member's hands. Risking your family member's life and your own, what would you do?

 

I suppose they could've incapacitated him instead of killing him, targeting his limbs. At least he'd still be alive and able to give his side of the story.

It certainly wasn't a murder in cold blood, as some media outlets suggest.

They put themselves in that position. Trying to apprehend a suspected criminal who you may think is armed only has a few outcomes. Arbury was ending that day either dead, in prison or seriously injured. From what it seems, through absolutely no fault of his own.

Edited 10 May 2020 by Leeds Fox

[StanSP]

Can't believe what I've been reading on this page. Wow  

[MC Prussian]

56 minutes ago, Leeds Fox said:

They put themselves in that position. Trying to apprehend a suspected criminal who you may think is armed only has a few outcomes. Arbury was ending that day either dead, in prison or seriously injured. From what it seems, through absolutely no fault of his own.

Surrender was no option?

Prison? Detention at first, sure. If he hadn't done anything, he'd walk free again after a while. But at least he wouldn't be dead. As much as I hate people getting shot and as much as the father-son combo is to blame to a large extent for what happened, it's not as if Arbury didn't have other options.

Then again, that's easy to say in hindsight. At least the shooters will get their sentence and end up in prison for a long time. Here's hoping.

[Leeds Fox]

11 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Surrender was no option?

Prison? Detention at first, sure. If he hadn't done anything, he'd walk free again after a while. But at least he wouldn't be dead. As much as I hate people getting shot and as much as the father-son combo is to blame to a large extent for what happened, it's not as if Arbury didn't have other options.

Then again, that's easy to say in hindsight. At least the shooters will get their sentence and end up in prison for a long time. Here's hoping.

He could’ve surrendered of course, but faced with 2 gun toting vigilantes I’d probably try and scarper or resist too. 
 

When I said jail, I was ignoring the option he had to surrender (in hindsight you’re right there, it would’ve been best). I meant that the gun was very likely to be fired by either the people who challenged him, or him in self-defence. Awful and needless situation regardless. 

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Georgia has a law in place that allows neighborhood intervention - until the police arrives. So they were in their right to try and stop the jogger based on that suspicion.

He had no means to escape? There was a left, there was a right. He was an athlete, and in great physical shape.

The harassment part is pure conjecture at this point in time. According to the McMichaels, they were chasing after a suspect and unsuccessful in cutting him off.

Like I've said before, the McMichaels are scum for letting it come this far and shooting a guy. Way too trigger-happy.

 

What if Arbury had simply handed himself in? I mean, he's seen jogging towards the car at first. Doesn't look like the typical behaviour of a criminal to me in that moment.

I just think about the situation when you have a person you consider to be a burglar (and Arbury had an alleged criminal history) struggles over a shotgun, potentially grabbing it out of a family member's hands. Risking your family member's life and your own, what would you do?

 

I suppose they could've incapacitated him instead of killing him, targeting his limbs. At least he'd still be alive and able to give his side of the story.

It certainly wasn't a murder in cold blood, as some media outlets suggest.

Ok so to answer my question if your family members did those things, instead of explaining to them that it's a bad idea and their judgement might be clouded by being a racist piece of shit, you'd perform the necessary gymnastics to explain how their victim is the one at fault for not surrendering to the strangers threatening him with their guns.

To answer your question a second time I'm not enough of a racist fvckhead to get myself in a situation like that in the first place let alone go on the defence for a stranger who is.

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

Ok so to answer my question if your family members did those things, instead of explaining to them that it's a bad idea and their judgement might be clouded by being a racist piece of shit, you'd perform the necessary gymnastics to explain how their victim is the one at fault for not surrendering to the strangers threatening him with their guns.

To answer your question a second time I'm not enough of a racist fvckhead to get myself in a situation like that in the first place let alone go on the defence for a stranger who is.

Who said anything about racism? You're the first one to bring it up here in the context of this case.

Whether the two dimwits went after him because of his race is pure conjecture, as far as we know today, they went after him because he was a suspect in a burglary. They have to answer to the law as to how their checkpoint antics went so out of control.

As much as they are at fault for letting it get that far, Arbury could've made the whole situation easier also.

[Carl the Llama]

17 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

Who said anything about racism? You're the first one to bring it up here in the context of this case.

Whether the two dimwits went after him because of his race is pure conjecture, as far as we know today, they went after him because he was a suspect in a burglary. They have to answer to the law as to how their checkpoint antics went so out of control.

As much as they are at fault for letting it get that far, Arbury could've made the whole situation easier also.

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this.  When I saw the notification I figured it would just be more disingenuous alt-right talking points and gave myself the afternoon off. I think this might be my new thing, every time somebody defends blatant racism I'll just let them have a day thinking they've won the argument with facts and logic.

 

It's not like there's any point in taking the effort of replying any sooner to point out where the racism is, however many times a person like you is proved wrong there's always another 'reasonable suspicion' and it's always dog-whistle politics.  Your way of thinking is so stupidly warped that you claim not to see the problem with assuming a person fits the profile of a burglar because black, or why any law abiding individual might not look upon 2 rednecks chasing them down with guns as safe situation to be in.  You apparently don't see that racism is integral to this case, I say apparently because we both know you're doing the tired alt right thing of feigning shock at racism being brought up.  "I didn't mention racism, you must be the racist one for seeing it in the first place", right? 

 

But I will humour you.

 

So let's just assume for a second that there's nothing racist about 2 rednecks chasing down and murdering a black man because they assume he's a criminal and have no evidence, after all there had been a string of burglaries in the area, that's something black men do, right?  That's all the evidence you need, right?

 

Let's just assume that this burglary defence isn't compromised by the fact that the local bobbies' most recent call-out for a burglary was Jan 1st, about 7 weeks before the murder.  This string of burglaries they're defending neighbours from had probably just been kept secret from the police, right?  After all it's their legal right and duty to perform neighbourhood detentions apparently, who needs to get the police involved at that point, right?

 

Let's just assume that there's nothing telling about this most recent burglary call being to the McMichael home itself after one of their guns was taken from an unlocked truck.  Let's just ignore that, it's inconvenient to the story. It portrays these upstanding citizens as having a character for being irresponsible gun owners which we know can't be true because we've all seen the video of them being very responsible with their guns.

 

Let's just assume that there's nothing at all dodgy about them not being immediately detained or about the case being kept quiet for months before the McMichaels' lawyer leaked the footage, hilariously thinking it would help his clients in court.  Yep let's just assume there's nothing concerning about how this wouldn't even be something we knew about if it wasn't for that woeful error of judgement.  This is all perfectly normal, right?

 

Now that we're done making those assumptions I can't remember what my point was anymore but I'm sure the black guy did it and that seems reasonable now.