I taught karate for several years. Hard to answer since when I was teaching karate and self defense, I assume my students were law abiding citizens who wouldn't be in this situation.
Rednecks shoot black kid running in neighborhood
- Thread starter AustinHorn24
- Start date
Don't fight back.
Galvestonhorn
250+ Posts
Austin Bill.. you’re the one that said he was was out “jogging”.
you should prove a point and go jog in the 3rd ward in Houston. Why don’t you?
you might last a block.
you should prove a point and go jog in the 3rd ward in Houston. Why don’t you?
you might last a block.
Last edited:
How about this scenario: two legally armed ex law enforcement officers, trying to defend their neighborhood, try to stop a convicted felon with a history including illegally carrying a firearm, parole violation and theft, and possibly mental instability, by yelling “Stop, we want to talk to you”. Instead of continuing to run, or stopping to talk, the convicted felon attacks one of the neighborhood defenders and attempts to take his legally possessed weapon from him. The convicted felon is subsequently shot and dies in the struggle.
Given that the race of the deceased convicted felon is the same as a group that has historically committed violent crimes at an abnormally high rate, does history show that black convicted felons treat law abiding citizens fairly?
Given that the race of the deceased convicted felon is the same as a group that has historically committed violent crimes at an abnormally high rate, does history show that black convicted felons treat law abiding citizens fairly?
Last edited:
Austin_Bill
2,500+ Posts
I used to spend my summers in the Waltrip area around TC Jester Park. Not exactly the safest place then or now. And back then I used to jog in the park all the time.
Was this guy in the 3rd ward area, was he jogging in the white version of the 3rd ward area? I'm not seeing the correlation here? Might as well said jogging in Fallujah or Bagdad.
LongestHorn
2,500+ Posts
Yes
Austin_Bill
2,500+ Posts
All this is predicated on him being a criminal. Maybe he was and maybe he wasn't. You are basically saying he is guilty by association or being black. I'm not saying he is guilty or innocent, however I'm still not hearing a single person answer my question.
Where was the stolen stuff?
Where is this video showing he broke into somewhere?
Why did the shooters run away and never come forward?
Where did you get your info about the shooters running?
You’re asking the wrong questions. The question that should be asked is, did Arbery break the law when he attacked McMichael? The answer is “yes”, that is assault.
He could have told him to “go fug himself, it’s none of your business what I’m doing here”, and kept on “jogging to the Church to cut grass or feed the homeless” or whatever horseshi-t story the race baiters and lib media are feeding everyone. He didn’t do that. He took his fists to a what became a gunfight, which was exceedingly stupid.
Last edited:
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
No Shiitte!
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Mark the date and time. I agree with Bill. He's a 25 year old guy at 1:00 in the afternoon wearing jogging clothes. He's out jogging. If it were 1:00 AM I might agree with you. However, I used to love to jog at midnight in my hometown and in Norman when I was in school
Now, I know I’m right. Bill, you might want to call an exorcist.
Monahorns
10,000+ Posts
iatrogenic, just won't wait for real evidence to come out like huisache recommended.
I am starting to think some kind of ideology is guiding his comments and not clear thinking about the situation.
When real evidence comes out that Aubery was guilty of theft that day, then things are different.
Until then, iatrogenic thinks it is okay to point a gun at some one, but complete evil to attack someone pointing a gun at you. It may not have been the correct decision, but it isn't rationale to label someone, guilty, who is trying to defend themselves.
The shooters weren't trying to defend themselves. At best they were defending property. Still not a balanced equation there, a human life for a 2X4 or a hammer or even a gold ring.
I am starting to think some kind of ideology is guiding his comments and not clear thinking about the situation.
When real evidence comes out that Aubery was guilty of theft that day, then things are different.
Until then, iatrogenic thinks it is okay to point a gun at some one, but complete evil to attack someone pointing a gun at you. It may not have been the correct decision, but it isn't rationale to label someone, guilty, who is trying to defend themselves.
The shooters weren't trying to defend themselves. At best they were defending property. Still not a balanced equation there, a human life for a 2X4 or a hammer or even a gold ring.
It doesn’t matter if he committed theft. It does matter that he attack McMichael. The only way McMichael committed a crime is if he pointed a gun at Arbery before he was attacked. Otherwise, he had not broken any laws.
Sounds good to me. Please have the lib media, race baiters, and political candidates stand down.
AustinHorn24
250+ Posts
About the jogging thing... I'm not sure what to make of it. On the video he does seem to be casually jogging, not engaging in a full sprint. His body language prior to the encounter with the rednecks looks like a legit jogger, not somebody bolting away with stolen property.
On the other hand, his residence wasn't anywhere close to this neighborhood, so I'm not sure why he would go that far away from his house to go on a jog. I guess that might be a common thing for runners who don't like to run in their own neighborhood for some reason? But I don't get it.
The homeowner of the place under construction did an interview and said nothing was stolen from the house. Also, there is surveillance video according to NBC showing the "runner" entering thru the front door of the house.
If the runner had simply kept running in the same direction or turned around or to the right instead of making a direct L turn towards the shooter, I think he'd be alive today. Shotguns are short distance weapons, and don't kill very often when shot from longer ranges.
Unfortunately I think these rednecks are going to walk on this case. When the jury sees the video of the runner charging at the guy holding the gun, they're going to give the rednecks the benefit of the doubt when they state they were "scared for their lives"
The laws need to be changed to state that all protections of "stand your ground" are nullified if you are the initial instigator of the conflict.
On the other hand, his residence wasn't anywhere close to this neighborhood, so I'm not sure why he would go that far away from his house to go on a jog. I guess that might be a common thing for runners who don't like to run in their own neighborhood for some reason? But I don't get it.
The homeowner of the place under construction did an interview and said nothing was stolen from the house. Also, there is surveillance video according to NBC showing the "runner" entering thru the front door of the house.
If the runner had simply kept running in the same direction or turned around or to the right instead of making a direct L turn towards the shooter, I think he'd be alive today. Shotguns are short distance weapons, and don't kill very often when shot from longer ranges.
Unfortunately I think these rednecks are going to walk on this case. When the jury sees the video of the runner charging at the guy holding the gun, they're going to give the rednecks the benefit of the doubt when they state they were "scared for their lives"
The laws need to be changed to state that all protections of "stand your ground" are nullified if you are the initial instigator of the conflict.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Maybe he had to take a squirt. I know I've stopped on walks/runs to take a leak in the past.
Georgia's law does nullify it unless you first try to disengage and communicate that to the other person. For example, if the redneck has pointed the gun down and said, "listen man, we aren't here to fight, just to figure out who broke into the house," and Arbery charged them anyway, then they could still use SYG.
Austin_Bill
2,500+ Posts
The incident happened 74 days before any arrest was made. These guys left the dead guy on the street. They did not stick around for the police to arrive, they did not come forward with a reason why there was a dead guy on the street or that they created a dead guy. That in my book is running.
When threatened you are allowed to stand your ground and two dudes with guns coming at you is threatening. They initiated the contact not him. I don't know if I would have done anything different.
Maybe, I'm not going to side with the libs or left on that, but the two rednecks were also trained in law enforcement and could have used non-deadly force to subdue him and didn't. The fact they used their guns and didn't come forward tells me much more that they knew they were wrong.
Unless he (the dead guy) assaulted someone there is no reason for deadly force. We do live in a civilized society. I am balls to the wall for the 2nd Amendment, in my eyes it's the basis of all our other freedoms, but this isn't about the 2A, this is about law and order and these two dumbass rednecks killed a man in the street in the middle of the day for what?
Agreed.
Victim was unarmed and the other two had guns, I likely would have stood my ground and did the same thing, who knows what was said. He was unarmed struggling with a guy with a gun and shot in the back. Then they fled the scene of the crime. The shooters are arrested 74 days later and only because a video came forward. Those are the facts.
I'm a lot less concerned with what the rednecks say, they lost all that when they left the scene of the crime and failed to come forward.
I can't see them walking on this, too much time had passed, they lived their lives for too many days after the incident where they didn't come forward. If they had admitted to the shooting, gave their case then I might say yes but they acted like criminals. The victim did nothing that says he was guilty of the death penalty and he got what he deserved. They need to pay for that.
Yes, this is going to get political, and a lot of BS will be said from both sides of this, but in my mind the video makes it pretty obvious. The father and son need to go down for this.
That is my stand on this.
Again, where did you get your information about the shooter fleeing the scene, or the police not knowing about the incident, or the shooter hiding or denying he shot the guy?
The deceased did assault someone. That someone was the shooter.
Anyone ever notice that in a situation like this, as guilty as they appear to be, that it is perfectly acceptable to use a term like "redneck" over and over to describe them? If the situation was reversed, would it be acceptable to label 2 black guys with a derogatory term in kind?
Oh, I'm sure I saw that but forgot.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
I think the truth is an absolute defense.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
