Two of them simply tried to detain a moronic burglar who’d been robbing their neighbour hood and one was simply there and recorded the moron grabbing a shotgun and getting himself shot. Now they all get to spend the rest of their life in prison. The blacks are given free reign to commit every evil there is while whites are treated like subhumans by the nation they built. This nation is doomed and seems to deserve that doom.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (172)
sorted by:
If the dude who got shot was white, they would have been acquited.
If Kyle had shot a black dude in self-defense, they would have voted guilty.
We no longer have equality under the law in this country.
No chance. From what seems to have been presented in court, they were completely fucked. If they needed probable cause to arrest Arbery, then they were fucked.
Instead, they had about as much reason to stop Arbery as Huber had to stop Rittenhouse: not fucking much.
But they didn't stop him. The nog attacked them as he was walking by the truck, suddenly leaping off the pavement to try to grab the gun.
As I recall, they pursued him, then the mayos got out of their truck to arrest him without probable cause. That's where the problem lies. It's felonious act to try and detain them without enough cause to do so.
If you don't like my slur, then you can take yours down, and I'll do the same.
They were trying to detain him, not arrest. But I don't see why it matters. In fact, if everyone had survived, the guys could have gone on trial for unlawful detention, maybe assaulting with a weapon. In a case like this, you get one story: the one told by the survivor. We had a video, but it was shitty (by which I mean it didn't show the only important things that you would have wanted to see). That story was that Arbery attacked first, and nothing I read showed that story even challenged. IANAL. In my mind, if you are attacked and fight back, it's self defense. The law must be different, because all that seemed to matter was whether they had a right to be chasing the guy in the first place.
I think I'd allow them both self defense actually. There were so many points that this could have been averted that it amounts to mutual combat to me. I searched today and no one in the lame news seems to have explained the finer points of the law that the jury must have considered.