Ahmaud Arbery OP/ED

[Brian37]

Of course the defense attorney is doing his job by asking the crime scene processor questions to create reasonable doubt. But I am so sick of society in general outside the court room finding it acceptable to kill unarmed black men over suspected petty crimes. According to media reports so far, there is no evidence that Ahmaud stole anything. But even if he had, he didn't deserve to die. 

I do think white people in general need to understand why blacks resist or run. Because they have seen time after time, they feel they are damned if they do comply, and end up feeling like they have nothing to lose. Ahmaud's fingerprints according to this lady crime scene processor did not show up on AFIS(Automated Fingerprint Identification System). That means there is no record of any type of felony on Ahmaud's part. 

I think the prosecutor did an excellent job with this processor. I think the defense is going to have a very hard time trying to use, "We thought he was up to something, then he resisted." defense.

And these rambo wannabes ended up putting projectiles not only into Ahmaud, but into a nearby house. It was totally reckless. Those three were not defending themselves, they were stroking their own self entitled egos then regretted it when it went south.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Of course the defense attorney is doing his job by asking the crime scene processor questions to create reasonable doubt. But I am so sick of society in general outside the court room finding it acceptable to kill unarmed black men over suspected petty crimes. According to media reports so far, there is no evidence that Ahmaud stole anything. But even if he had, he didn't deserve to die. 

I do think white people in general need to understand why blacks resist or run. Because they have seen time after time, they feel they are damned if they do comply, and end up feeling like they have nothing to lose. Ahmaud's fingerprints according to this lady crime scene processor did not show up on AFIS(Automated Fingerprint Identification System). That means there is no record of any type of felony on Ahmaud's part. 

I think the prosecutor did an excellent job with this processor. I think the defense is going to have a very hard time trying to use, "We thought he was up to something, then he resisted." defense.

And these rambo wannabes ended up putting projectiles not only into Ahmaud, but into a nearby house. It was totally reckless. Those three were not defending themselves, they were stroking their own self entitled egos then regretted it when it went south.

‘We thought he was up to something, then he resisted’ is not and never has been a defense. There is no law against resisting vigilantes.

Boru

[Brian37]

Of course the defense attorney is doing his job by asking the crime scene processor questions to create reasonable doubt. But I am so sick of society in general outside the court room finding it acceptable to kill unarmed black men over suspected petty crimes. According to media reports so far, there is no evidence that Ahmaud stole anything. But even if he had, he didn't deserve to die. 

I do think white people in general need to understand why blacks resist or run. Because they have seen time after time, they feel they are damned if they do comply, and end up feeling like they have nothing to lose. Ahmaud's fingerprints according to this lady crime scene processor did not show up on AFIS(Automated Fingerprint Identification System). That means there is no record of any type of felony on Ahmaud's part. 

I think the prosecutor did an excellent job with this processor. I think the defense is going to have a very hard time trying to use, "We thought he was up to something, then he resisted." defense.

And these rambo wannabes ended up putting projectiles not only into Ahmaud, but into a nearby house. It was totally reckless. Those three were not defending themselves, they were stroking their own self entitled egos then regretted it when it went south.

‘We thought he was up to something, then he resisted’ is not and never has been a defense. There is no law against resisting vigilantes.

Boru

Right.

How is it the "castle doctrine" lead to vigilantism? It is bad enough we have a "shoot first and assume the worst" training of our actual police force, but why should anyone be surprised that a black man grabbed for the firearm? Ahmaud didn't want to die. The "castle doctrine" was only supposed to apply to your physical home. How it lead to street posses is beyond me.

I cannot tell you how many times as a kid and teen and even in my neighborhood today, I have cut through yards to get somewhere. But especially as a kid and teen, I went on to construction sites just to look around. And my understanding with this case, is that neighbors witnessed even white people looking around the construction property prior to that day.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

‘We thought he was up to something, then he resisted’ is not and never has been a defense. There is no law against resisting vigilantes.

Boru

Right.

How is it the "castle doctrine" lead to vigilantism? It is bad enough we have a "shoot first and assume the worst" training of our actual police force, but why should anyone be surprised that a black man grabbed for the firearm? Ahmaud didn't want to die. The "castle doctrine" was only supposed to apply to your physical home. How it lead to street posses is beyond me.

I cannot tell you how many times as a kid and teen and even in my neighborhood today, I have cut through yards to get somewhere. But especially as a kid and teen, I went on to construction sites just to look around. And my understanding with this case, is that neighbors witnessed even white people looking around the construction property prior to that day.

The castle doctrine didn’t lead to vigilantism.

Boru

[Brian37]

Right.

How is it the "castle doctrine" lead to vigilantism? It is bad enough we have a "shoot first and assume the worst" training of our actual police force, but why should anyone be surprised that a black man grabbed for the firearm? Ahmaud didn't want to die. The "castle doctrine" was only supposed to apply to your physical home. How it lead to street posses is beyond me.

I cannot tell you how many times as a kid and teen and even in my neighborhood today, I have cut through yards to get somewhere. But especially as a kid and teen, I went on to construction sites just to look around. And my understanding with this case, is that neighbors witnessed even white people looking around the construction property prior to that day.

The castle doctrine didn’t lead to vigilantism.

Boru

Yes, actually it has. The more the right pushes it's no rules agenda, the more people think they can carry and shoot and kill in public as much as they do in defending their home.

"Stand your ground" bullshit, is simply saying shoot first, is ok even in public. 

It is simply extending the mentality of defending your personal home to defending the community as if it were your personal home.

These assholes were not defending shit, they were gang members.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The castle doctrine didn’t lead to vigilantism.

Boru

Yes, actually it has. The more the right pushes it's no rules agenda, the more people think they can carry and shoot and kill in public as much as they do in defending their home.

"Stand your ground" bullshit, is simply saying shoot first, is ok even in public. 

It is simply extending the mentality of defending your personal home to defending the community as if it were your personal home.

These assholes were not defending shit, they were gang members.

No, it hasn't. Vigilantism lead to the castle doctrine. The latter is a particular (and much narrower) expression of the former.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

 The "castle doctrine" was only supposed to apply to your physical home. How it lead to street posses is beyond me.

Because a black man in your home is a very rare occurrence - what good is a law that doesn't let you deal with all of the black men on your streets or in your walmart?

The reich wing doesn't believe in the castle doctrine - as shown everytime the cops no knock someone's house and then everyone cries to high heaven that the occupants fired back. The point of the entire charade is to remind the scared white voter of the big black boogeyman, and john q african american on the street that their white neighbors can shoot them anywhere at any time for any reason.

Enjoy

In 2013, President Obama asked the nation:
“If Trayvon Martin was of age and armed, could he have stood his ground on that sidewalk? And do we actually think that he would have been justified in shooting Mr. Zimmerman who had followed him in a car because he felt threatened?”

Statistically speaking, the answer is no. Expert testimony submitted to the US Commission on Civil Rights examined FBI data in over 2,600 homicide cases to determine the likelihood that a fatal shooting would be deemed justified when, as with George Zimmeran’s case, a civilian male shot and killed one other male he did not know. In Stand Your Ground states, these homicides were ruled justified in 45% of cases involving a white shooter and black victim, but just 11% of cases involving a black shooter and white victim.

https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/...ence_1.pdf

[Rev. Rye]

If we’re asking what the conservatives actually believe, there’s this quote I discovered from a recent Shaun video that I think sums it up better than anyone else I can remember:

“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” - Frank Wilhoit

Of course, Wilhoit didn’t actually say it, but the fact remains that this is the most succinct and comprehensive explanation of what conservatives actually believe that I have ever heard. In this case, the in-group protected but unbound by the law is white guys with guns claiming a veil of law and order even if it’s so thin it has to be applied with the static from a squirrel-hair brush, and the out-group bound but unprotected by the law is, well, most black people (with the possible exception of middle-to-upper class types who don’t rock the boat, and maybe whichever black people they can con some votes out of.)

[The Grand Nudger]

What's amusing, if you click on that link and read the full report (though this next part is in the very next paragraph to what I quoted)...is that white males are massively overrepresented in the cohort of people with either concealed carry permit - or open carrying... and the victims and perpetrators of any kind of shooting are overwhelmingly more likely to be of the same race. So, the effect of castle doctrine by brute force of numbers is an increase in white guys shooting each other.

Roll that around for a bit - and then remember...the scourge of violent crime referred to by this ideology is not just nonexistent for this demographic, but on the decline period.......everywhere, at all times, for any demographic, for as long as we've been keeping records. A solution to a problem that doesn't exist and is being made more marginal than it already is every single year on record.... which yields more klansmen shooting each other than anything else by sheer force of demographics, is a conservative shibboleth, that does nothing notable for them other than incarcerate minorities at 4x the rate of the majority (who find themselves in more of these situations every year by order of magnitude), giving you no better than a 50/50 chance of evading a murder charge yourself. Which is to say that this particular bit of fun, again by sheer force of demographics, still manages to incarcerate more white males even with the handicap.

Ladies and gentleman, the banality of evil. Explicitly seeking to oppress the other, these laws in practice manage to do nothing but kill conservative white males who would vote for those laws if they were still alive.

[Brian37]

Just today in the last hour the prosecutor and defense lawyers were arguing over the admissibility of crime history in that particular location. The defense has argued that they had seen the victim several times, but could not claim they saw Ahmaud steal anything. The prosecutor brought up the crime ratio for that particular zip code to disprove the accused had any real case to even assume Ahmaud was a deadly threat. 

I think she, the prosecutor did a great job today undermining the defense in saying basically, "Well if this is such a high crime zip code, then why do the history of police reports don't play out to a violent neighborhood?". 

I once had a white guy walk between my yard with a riffle up his sleeve. It was the middle of the day, and it scared the shit out of me, because he had it up his sleeve, first of. But it was also in the middle of the day. If I took the attitude these Rambo assholes took with Ahmaud, and I chased this guy with a gun and killed him. I doubt it would take 3 months to arrest me.