Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
kestrel

Ahmaud Arbery Case: Propaganda, §1983, and Police Body Cam Video

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

kestrel
6 minutes ago, Dutch13 said:

The story is not about race, it is about a good ole boys network that was trying to protect one of their own.  Had someone not shared that video publicly, we probably still would not have heard of this story.

That said......If the story is about race to you, then that says more about you and your thought process.

 

Dutch said: "The story is not about race"

Does anybody remember him being all ENRAGED! about some homeboy down in the south side of Chicago shooting some other homeboy or even innocent little kids in a drive by?..I don't remember your nuclear virtue signal blazing bright about when black people kill other black people..so is it safe to say that you only feel a social obligation to care if a POS Honky kills a innocent young black man?..If so then I think THAT says more about YOU AND YOUR (lack of) THOUGHT PROCESS..

  But whatever it suggests it shows that you obviously struggle with the English language..I've told you this was not...NOT...NOT about the incident itself..but rather about the media and how they twist things and why they do it..I'm not going to explain this to you again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg
5 minutes ago, Dutch13 said:

Gregory McMichael had no knowledge that Arbery had just come from that yard. 

That’s an unknown. That’s my whole point. Too many unknowns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
1 hour ago, Ladybird said:

A wide open construction site is not the same as walking into someone's unoccupied home, while they're at work, or getting in an unlocked car.

This is the house.

b8306be1-1f80-4569-81ff-f92e5f0a20e8_192

So if the construction is not complete then the owner of the property can have no legal recourse with regard to anybody at anytime trespassing on their property and scoping things out?...you avoided my previous question about if you or your buddies fell thru the "unfinished floor" and broke your neck..would the home (not owner apparently) possessor?...be liable?..again would you have a problem with POC's (thats "people of curiosity:):) walking thru your house or car or garage uninvited? would it matter if they were White or Black?

Kestrel...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dutch13
1 hour ago, zurg said:

That’s an unknown. That’s my whole point. Too many unknowns. 

No, it is logical and it is not an unknown.  Gregory McMichael was in the front yard.  It was not possible for him to see if Arbery had been on that property because it was too far away and there are things obstructing his view .  No one alerted him to anything.  The owner that had video didn't contact police until after Travis McMichael had already killed Arbery.

Did McMichael tell the police that he had been alerted by anyone when he gave his statement?  No, he said that he saw him in front of the house he was at and he was the guy they had seen before.

 

  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dutch13
1 hour ago, kestrel said:

Dutch said: "The story is not about race"

Does anybody remember him being all ENRAGED! about some homeboy down in the south side of Chicago shooting some other homeboy or even innocent little kids in a drive by?..I don't remember your nuclear virtue signal blazing bright about when black people kill other black people..so is it safe to say that you only feel a social obligation to care if a POS Honky kills a innocent young black man?..If so then I think THAT says more about YOU AND YOUR (lack of) THOUGHT PROCESS..

  But whatever it suggests it shows that you obviously struggle with the English language..I've told you this was not...NOT...NOT about the incident itself..but rather about the media and how they twist things and why they do it..I'm not going to explain this to you again.

For all that crap you just typed, can you tell me why the Glynn County police and the Prosecutor are both accusing each other of lying?

Can you tell me why Waycross Judicial Circuit District Attorney George Barnhill, who would later need to recuse himself, made so many efforts to try  to keep charges from being brought against the McMichael's?

Isn't the Glynn County Police Chief facing charges (from a separate case) of ignoring his officer's criminal actions?  Nobody has been convicted.....but there is a pattern emerging here.

 

  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taggart Transcontinental
21 hours ago, Diamond369 said:

Off topic:  Why are some people, esp. black people upset with Candace Owens when referring to her comments about Mr. Aubrey?  What did she say that was so bad?

I am also glad t hat one of you at least mentioned Zimmerman, a guy who I don't consider a hero but a troubled man who killed a guy in self defense.  I cannot say that this is the case here.  If Mr. Aubrey was white and the two shooters were black with all else being the same, what would have happened?  How differently, and not just here in the South but in the rest of the country?  While I still think that a death could have been prevented how much does race really play a role into what is going on here?  It is just a sad, tragic situation all the way around.

Everybody is troubled, there are no perfect people in this world. You learn that when you start investigating crimes. The people that present the most fluffy happy image are some of the stark most evil you will ever get to meet. That fluffy happy image is the little bunny they use to lure you into their trap.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
40 minutes ago, Ladybird said:

Didn't say I or anyone else was "entitled" to walk through an open house with no walls. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying you're making an apples to orange comparison.  

Walking through a wide open construction site does not merit being shot to death, especially since the McMichaels are not the owners of the property and no one has stated they saw Arbery stealing anything from there. .

 

 

So you agree that you are NOT entitled to access someone else's property just because of some arbitrary perception of it's status?..No Apples..No Orange's..I didn't "put" anything in your mouth because it's..well..er it's your mouth..(being open and empty notwithstanding:):) not mine..see how that works? admittedly not the best heuristic device but seemed apt.

And you are absolutely correct that trespassing on private property does not merit the death penalty under the aforementioned circumstance

and I will stipulate that the McMichaels do not own that property as to "What" they "Saw" is another matter on which we will have to wait for the trial to ascertain..BTW are you saying that the McMichaels killed Mr Arbery because he was trespassing?...I was under the impression that you thought he was killed because he was Black?..No? then why? in your view did they engage him?

Kestrel...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Holland25
18 hours ago, zurg said:

Yes, I remember that now too. I should have added that to my list of "Not sure if..."

Part of my point was to make what MR referred to more explicit. All the things we may THINK we know, but being a complete bystander and reading the stories, really have no real idea whether the statements are true or false. We all need to make up our own minds - which is where personal bias comes in as a desire for something to be true. When this article was first posted, it seemed like a slam dunk, but it's turning out not to be quite that way, not even a layup, maybe a contested 2-point jumper.

Ladybird most definitely is no less biased that anyone else, and same with Dutch, but they surely believe they're being impartial.

In general, I am not pointing anyone out, but I have never met a Leftest or liberal who ever thought or admitted to being bias. In fact, the adamantly always claim they are unbiased and objective. The difference, conservatives always admit they have a bias. We know that things like believing in God, morality, patriotism and more are a reason for being bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
34 minutes ago, Dutch13 said:

For all that crap you just typed, can you tell me why the Glynn County police and the Prosecutor are both accusing each other of lying?

Can you tell me why Waycross Judicial Circuit District Attorney George Barnhill, who would later need to recuse himself, made so many efforts to try  to keep charges from being brought against the McMichael's?

Isn't the Glynn County Police Chief facing charges (from a separate case) of ignoring his officer's criminal actions?  Nobody has been convicted.....but there is a pattern emerging here.

 

But whatever it suggests it shows that you obviously struggle with the English language..I've told you this was not...NOT...NOT about the incident itself..but rather about the media and how they twist things and why they do it..I'm not going to explain this to you again.

that's twice I've tried to help you here now I'm about out of pearls...and I really have no interest in providing you a stage to perform your virtue signaling opera.

Last time: We don't know what actually happened in the incident

                   We have no idea that WHAT is being reported by the media is the real story (ala George Zimmerman)

                    We need to discuss the terrible effect that the media has on our country our consciousness and our justice system

   In other words I don't give a rats ass at this juncture of what you think the sheriff or the prosecutors or Race Inc has to say about this..like I said..AT THE TRIAL.

Kestrel...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
19 minutes ago, Holland25 said:

In general, I am not pointing anyone out, but I have never met a Leftest or liberal who ever thought or admitted to being bias. In fact, the adamantly always claim they are unbiased and objective. The difference, conservatives always admit they have a bias. We know that things like believing in God, morality, patriotism and more are a reason for being bias.

True Dat!...My point in this whole thing was to formulate discussion about media bias and the destruction it causes..the obligatory "Racist" Sermonette that invariably gets preached is, in the words of Shelby Steel, "just a way to keep whitey on the hook" or for the left as a "Public Square" to proclaim their own piety..very tiresome. I was interested in seeing, in the months ahead the differentiation between what we are told by the media now and what really happened..Hopefully the trial will reveal that truth. 

Kestrel...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
4 hours ago, kestrel said:

as you said "fast forward to today" things are different probably cuz people do steal more than they used to..But come to think of it I worked for a company in L.A. that put guard dogs in construction sites and that was in 1970..and Honestly I have no memory of going on anyone else's property and not thinking I wasn't supposed to be doing that.

Kestrel...

Similar here. Might have been '69 or '70-ish, last place we lived in Ohio for about 6 mos or so before moving to southern Indiana was on the outskirts of Dayton. New subdivision going up a street or two over. We kids used to play there all the time. But that was when it was little more than concrete slabs with re-bar and pipes sticking up where future house would be. Somehow even as kids we somehow "Knew" that once the house started going up and "stuff" started to get stacked outside, it was off limits.

Come to think of it, it must've been '70. My dad worked at Wright-Patterson AFB as a contractor, and I distinctly remember Wright-Pat going in to lockdown because of Kent State, and that would have been May of '70. Probably my last major memory of living in Ohio as a kid. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
1 minute ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

Similar here. Might have been '69 or '70-ish, last place we lived in Ohio for about 6 mos or so before moving to southern Indiana was on the outskirts of Dayton. New subdivision going up a street or two over. We kids used to play there all the time. But that was when it was little more than concrete slabs with re-bar and pipes sticking up where future house would be. Somehow even as kids we somehow "Knew" that once the house started going up and "stuff" started to get stacked outside, it was off limits.

Come to think of it, it must've been '70. My dad worked at Wright-Patterson AFB as a contractor, and I distinctly remember Wright-Pat going in to lockdown because of Kent State, and that would have been May of '70. Probably my last major memory of living in Ohio as a kid. 

Tin Solders and Nixon coming...hard to believe that I was contemplating enlisting..that was 50 yrs ago.

K...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg
1 hour ago, Dutch13 said:

No, it is logical and it is not an unknown.  Gregory McMichael was in the front yard.  It was not possible for him to see if Arbery had been on that property because it was too far away and there are things obstructing his view .  No one alerted him to anything.  The owner that had video didn't contact police until after Travis McMichael had already killed Arbery.

Did McMichael tell the police that he had been alerted by anyone when he gave his statement?  No, he said that he saw him in front of the house he was at and he was the guy they had seen before.

 

It is an unknown. You’re saying what you’ve read in the media as “that’s known”. But that’s a bad assumption. We have found over and over and over again that the media doesn’t report fully not honestly. 
 

Why did they go after the black dude? The reason needs to be established such that there’s no arguing or guessing about that motive. Everything happened as a result. Was it a valid reason or not? That’s the important FIRST point to establish. 
 

You’re saying the reason for the chase was invalid and thus the test follows. You’d be a horrible investigator. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
22 minutes ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

Similar here. Might have been '69 or '70-ish, last place we lived in Ohio for about 6 mos or so before moving to southern Indiana was on the outskirts of Dayton. New subdivision going up a street or two over. We kids used to play there all the time. But that was when it was little more than concrete slabs with re-bar and pipes sticking up where future house would be. Somehow even as kids we somehow "Knew" that once the house started going up and "stuff" started to get stacked outside, it was off limits.

Come to think of it, it must've been '70. My dad worked at Wright-Patterson AFB as a contractor, and I distinctly remember Wright-Pat going in to lockdown because of Kent State, and that would have been May of '70. Probably my last major memory of living in Ohio as a kid. 

"Somehow even as kids we somehow "Knew" that once the house started going up and "stuff" started to get stacked outside, it was off limits."

Why do you think that is Adam? Were you taught that if something does not belong to you it needs to be left alone or do you think it was a kind of instinct thing? and that begs the question of why do some people see this issue or I should say NOT see this as an issue is it Training or is it lack of the awareness you possess? What do you see as the media narrative?

Kestrel...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
22 hours ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

In GA, Generally speaking , NO. 

It's not right to put a "laundry list" of possible charges to a jury and expect them to sort it out. That's the prosecutor's job. The jury's job is to give a  simple "thumbs up" or "thumbs down"  as to the crime "as charged".

There are times when it SEEMS like there's a laundry list, but that's usually when there are multiple 'counts' and each count is charged differently.

OK.  Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dutch13
15 hours ago, zurg said:

It is an unknown. You’re saying what you’ve read in the media as “that’s known”. But that’s a bad assumption. We have found over and over and over again that the media doesn’t report fully not honestly. 
 

Why did they go after the black dude? The reason needs to be established such that there’s no arguing or guessing about that motive. Everything happened as a result. Was it a valid reason or not? That’s the important FIRST point to establish. 
 

You’re saying the reason for the chase was invalid and thus the test follows. You’d be a horrible investigator. 

The police report used him as a witness to the events.  They took what he said as fact and everybody just went with that narrative.  What did HE say in the police report?  There isn't a big reveal coming.  Before you read this, how many reported break ins had occurred in the past 60 days in their neighborhood?  What was taken and who was the victim of the theft?  Now, here is his statement about what occurred which made him form his posse.

 

Upon my arrival I observed Officer Minshew ( 184) setting up a perimeter .

I began speaking with Gregory McMichael who was a witness to the incident .

McMichael stated there have been several Break - ins in the neighborhood and

further the suspect was caught on surveillance video. McMichael stated he was in

his front yard and saw the suspect from the break - ins " hauling ass" down Satilla

Drive toward Burford Drive. McMichael stated he then ran inside his house and

called to Travis ( ) and said " Travis the guy is running down the

street lets go " . McMichael stated he went to his bedroom and grabbed his .

Magnum and Travis grabbed his shotgun because they " didn ' t know if the male was

armed or not" . Michael stated " the other night" they saw the same male and he

stuck his hand down his pants which lead them to believe the male was armed

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know about you, but I don't put my gun down my pants.

What has the homeowner said about everything?

 

"Mr. English wants to correct the mistaken impression that he had shared this video or any other information with the McMichaels prior to the McMichaels’ decision to chase Mr. Arbery. The homeowners had not even seen the February 23 video before Travis McMichael shot Mr. Arbery. When homeowner Larry English saw the photos of Mr. Arbery that were later broadcast, his first impression was that Mr. Arbery was not the man captured on video inside the house on February 23, and he said that to a neighbor.

In the months prior to February 23, a motion-activated camera had captured videos of someone inside the house (which was and remains a construction site) at night. Mr. English has never said that Mr. Arbery was the person or persons in those videos, and he does not see a resemblance now. After the first time that video captured someone in the house, Mr. English contacted local law enforcement on a non-emergency number and made them aware of the unauthorized entry onto his property. He never used the word "burglary." He never shared any of this information with the McMichaels, whom he did not even know. Nothing was ever stolen from the house -- which, again, was a construction site. Even if there had been a robbery, however, the English family would not have wanted a vigilante response. They would have entrusted the matter to law enforcement authorities. On February 23, the English family was two hours away from the Satilla Shores neighborhood andwas unaware of the tragedy that was unfolding. Mr. English was not the one who called 911 on February 23. The only crime that the homeowner has seen captured on video is the senseless killing of Mr. Arbery.

As a native of South Georgia and an attorney, I personally was following this story in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution prior to the release of the video of the shooting. Based solely on Gregory McMichael's reported statement, my professional opinion was that this was a murder, possibly a capital murder. After seeing the video of the shooting, I wrote to Tom Durdin, the prosecutor to whom the case had been assigned, and expressed that opinion and asked why the McMichaels had not been arrested. I reviewed the published letters written by the two prosecutors who previously handled the case, and my professional opinion is that they are legally unsound. And there are questions in my mind regarding whether the first two prosecutors' handling of this case might have violated the Georgia Bar's Rules of Professional Responsibility.

I am emphasizing these facts to address the impression that some people have that the homeowners took part in the McMichaels’ actions. The homeowners were shocked and deeply saddened by these events, which they learned of after-the-fact. The homeowners are parents, and they are heartsick for Mr. Arbery’s mother and father. Larry English and his family are praying for the Arberys."

https://www.wtoc.com/2020/05/11/homeowners-attorney-arbery-familys-attorney-respond-new-video/

  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
2 hours ago, Dutch13 said:

.. . McMichael stated he went to his bedroom and grabbed his .

Magnum and Travis grabbed his shotgun because they " didn't know if the male was

armed or not" . Michael stated " the other night" they saw the same male and he

stuck his hand down his pants which lead them to believe the male was armed

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't know about you, but I don't put my gun down my pants.

Dutch, you haven't been keeping up. There's a "thang" these days called "Urban Carry" and there's a reason it's called that; it's popular with a certain "urban" demographic. "Deep Concealment" rather than just a shoulder-holster or belt-holster covered with a jacket. Someone reaching for that would be practically indistinguishable from someone reaching into a pocket or even inside their pants for other reasons. (Maybe at that precise instant Trayvon II suddenly came down with a bad case of "jock itch"?). Maybe I'm the odd one out, but I can't recall ever being questioned by police - OR "anyone else" and feeling a sudden urge to reach inside my pants and scratch my balls.

Heck, there's even a company that has glommed onto that phrase for a line of products JUST FOR that:

UrbanCarryHolsters.com: Concealed Carry Holsters that Truly Conceal

"In many states, unknowingly flashing the handle of your firearm can land you a fine by the police.  We wanted to avoid that and make a truly concealed carry holster that doesn’t show any part of the weapon, so we developed an inside the pants holster that sits below the waistband.  What we've come up with is an appendix inside the waistband "pouch" for concealed carry. This patented pocket behind the pocket design allows deep concealment of a firearm, enhancing comfort while reducing common concealed carry issues, such as printing or gun dig. With other concealed carry holsters it wouldn’t be possible to access the handgun easily, but with the Urban Carry’s “pop-up” design you can quickly draw the weapon on a seconds notice."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dutch13
17 minutes ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

Dutch, you haven't been keeping up. There's a "thang" these days called "Urban Carry" and there's a reason it's called that; it's popular with a certain "urban" demographic. "Deep Concealment" rather than just a shoulder-holster or belt-holster covered with a jacket. Someone reaching for that would be practically indistinguishable from someone reaching into a pocket or even inside their pants for other reasons. (Maybe at that precise instant Trayvon II suddenly came down with a bad case of "jock itch"?). Maybe I'm the odd one out, but I can't recall ever being questioned by police - OR "anyone else" and feeling a sudden urge to reach inside my pants and scratch my balls.

Heck, there's even a company that has glommed onto that phrase for a line of products JUST FOR that:

UrbanCarryHolsters.com: Concealed Carry Holsters that Truly Conceal

"In many states, unknowingly flashing the handle of your firearm can land you a fine by the police.  We wanted to avoid that and make a truly concealed carry holster that doesn’t show any part of the weapon, so we developed an inside the pants holster that sits below the waistband.  What we've come up with is an appendix inside the waistband "pouch" for concealed carry. This patented pocket behind the pocket design allows deep concealment of a firearm, enhancing comfort while reducing common concealed carry issues, such as printing or gun dig. With other concealed carry holsters it wouldn’t be possible to access the handgun easily, but with the Urban Carry’s “pop-up” design you can quickly draw the weapon on a seconds notice."

 

 

Your usage of Trayvon II is pathetic.  The man had a name. 

Beyond that, we already know that Greg McMichael lied to the police in the police report.  He can't be trusted to tell the truth.

 

  • Disagree (-1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird
28 minutes ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

Dutch, you haven't been keeping up. There's a "thang" these days called "Urban Carry" and there's a reason it's called that; it's popular with a certain "urban" demographic. "Deep Concealment" rather than just a shoulder-holster or belt-holster covered with a jacket. Someone reaching for that would be practically indistinguishable from someone reaching into a pocket or even inside their pants for other reasons. (Maybe at that precise instant Trayvon II suddenly came down with a bad case of "jock itch"?). Maybe I'm the odd one out, but I can't recall ever being questioned by police - OR "anyone else" and feeling a sudden urge to reach inside my pants and scratch my balls.

Heck, there's even a company that has glommed onto that phrase for a line of products JUST FOR that:

UrbanCarryHolsters.com: Concealed Carry Holsters that Truly Conceal

"In many states, unknowingly flashing the handle of your firearm can land you a fine by the police.  We wanted to avoid that and make a truly concealed carry holster that doesn’t show any part of the weapon, so we developed an inside the pants holster that sits below the waistband.  What we've come up with is an appendix inside the waistband "pouch" for concealed carry. This patented pocket behind the pocket design allows deep concealment of a firearm, enhancing comfort while reducing common concealed carry issues, such as printing or gun dig. With other concealed carry holsters it wouldn’t be possible to access the handgun easily, but with the Urban Carry’s “pop-up” design you can quickly draw the weapon on a seconds notice."

 

 

Neither Ahmaud Arbery nor Travon Martin were armed when they were killed. Perhaps if they were, they would still be around. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
9 minutes ago, Dutch13 said:

Your usage of Trayvon II is pathetic.  The man had a name. 

Beyond that, we already know that Greg McMichael lied to the police in the police report.  He can't be trusted to tell the truth.

 

Trayvon II is apt, it's what the media is turning it  into.

By all accounts, like Trayvon I, dude was headed towards a "thug life". If it wasn't this time, then might've been next, but at any rate headed toward a Georgia Bureau of Prisons number...that , unlike "County Jail" time, follows you  FOR LIFE.

Should I start calling him "Prisoner No. GA24601?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Magic Rat
1 minute ago, Ladybird said:

Neither Ahmaud Arbery nor Travon Martin were armed when they were killed. Perhaps if they were, they would still be around. 

Exactly what I said.  It was too bad that Aubery wasn't legally armed.  I believe he had a record but not a felony one.  Martin was too young to be legally armed.  Of course, he also is the one to initiated the violence that night too, so it is probably a good thing he wasn't.

Seems odd that a lefty Obama supporter would support the carrying of a firearm.  Maybe you should rethink who you vote for...

Just kidding!  I know you won't.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
8 minutes ago, Ladybird said:

Neither Ahmaud Arbery nor Travon Martin were armed when they were killed. Perhaps if they were, they would still be around. 

Arbery was previously busted for "carrying" onto school grounds, and one of the McMichaels was the LEO. They'd also chased him on a prior occasion. There was legit reason to believe he MIGHT have been armed.

LB - This was not "racism". BELIEVE ME, living down here, I "know it when I see it". (And YES, there's still SOME). This was not THAT. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

Arbery was previously busted for "carrying" onto school grounds, and one of the McMichaels was the LEO. They'd also chased him on a prior occasion. There was legit reason to believe he MIGHT have been armed.

LB - This was not "racism". BELIEVE ME, living down here, I "know it when I see it". (And YES, there's still SOME). This was not THAT. 

Right. When he was 19, he took a gun to school. If they truly thought he was armed, why chase after him? It makes absolutely no sense. How do you think a chase like that would have ended if he was armed? 

It surely wouldn’t have gone on for the four minutes, that has been alleged that the hunt took place.

Edited by Ladybird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
3 minutes ago, Ladybird said:

If they truly thought he was armed, why chase after him? It makes absolutely no sense. How do you think a chase like that would have ended if he was armed? 

It surely wouldn’t have gone on for the four minutes, that has been alleged that the hunt took place.

Happens every day. At least one of the McMichaels was ex-LEO. They know how to 'deal' with (potentially) armed suspects.

First rule is, "show of force". OVERWHELMING show of force if need be. Let the (suspected) perp know right up front that if they "start something" then you can end it right then and there... and not in their favor either.

TRUE STORY: I've told this before:  In my "Bad boy" days, I've been at the wrong end of a racked shotgun. In my case, circa early '80s with the Montg'y Co Maryland PD.   Two words: "Game Over", and I'm not ashamed to admit that I needed to buy new underwear after that.

It takes a real thug type like Trayvon II to think that you can (try to) grab a shotgun barrel from someone and that it will end well.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird
31 minutes ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

Happens every day. At least one of the McMichaels was ex-LEO. They know how to 'deal' with (potentially) armed suspects.

First rule is, "show of force". OVERWHELMING show of force if need be. Let the (suspected) perp know right up front that if they "start something" then you can end it right then and there... and not in their favor either.

TRUE STORY: I've told this before:  In my "Bad boy" days, I've been at the wrong end of a racked shotgun. In my case, circa early '80s with the Montg'y Co Maryland PD.   Two words: "Game Over", and I'm not ashamed to admit that I needed to buy new underwear after that.

It takes a real thug type like Trayvon II to think that you can (try to) grab a shotgun barrel from someone and that it will end well.

 

But he’s not a LEO, and had his certification taken away.  If Arbery is a “thug”, so are these clowns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...