Jogger Chased and Shot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP. It's amazing how the LE experts come out of the woodwork whenever a minority is shot by a white person. Every situation is different. Are you a 30 year old black man? Do you think they really wanted to rape him? Yes, you can chose to fight if you want. But in this case, that was a bad move. A move that resulted in his death.

Classes I've been in have only addressed the lead up where the priority is to avoid the situation followed by escape the situation (get off the X). Once you're in a situation where escape is impossible, survival situations are extremely dynamic. In some cases the only survivor is the one who freezes and plays dead. In others it's the one who fights back. In others it's the one who runs. People have different responses in the situation and all are as reasonable as it gets. Internet heroes playing armchair quarterback aren't any more likely to have had a better reaction.

I guess that depends on what kind of internet hero you are. If you are one who would have complied, you would be alive. If you are one who tried to be a hero or put up a fight, you would be 6 foot under.

You are assuming they would have not shot him
Anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here: I should add I’m on team Arbery, I only posted the leaked letter because it explains the Georgia laws well.

That is the problem. This thread is full of people who view African Americans as being victims and will then play the game of twisting things to support their "team." Didn't we learn from previous cases that these encounters are rarely black and white?

It's kind of ironic because cops tend to do the same thing.

Have you noticed that any poster who brings up the fact that the jogger charged at the guy with the shotgun is called a racist. This is a key point because it is very difficult to fight someone that is trying to take a long gun. Your option at that point for an untrained person is to shoot the person or be killed by the person attempting to take your rifle. Ultimately, I hope these guys will be judged by their horrible judgement preceding the shooting.

You mean tried to take the gun away from And armed gunman who have been following him in a vehicle got out was aggressive towards him and in an attempt to try to save himself was engaged in a scuffle ?
are you crazy??
Somebody comes at you with a firearm and you’re actually going to try to somehow make the person defending themselves against a bullet at fault in anyway?

Looks like we have another Arbery "team" member incapable of critical thinking due to their emotional state and/or affiliation. Who said that he was at fault? It sounds like you don't know much about the law or tactics. If those yahoos would have shot him as he was running away, this would be a slam dunk murder charge. Right now, not so much.

What are you talking about? I’m the original PP and I am well-aware that Arbery had priors and grabbed a shotgun in a fight. But if you have any common sense, then you know that if the police had arrived at the scene and Arbery had patiently waited, they would have literally cited McMichael for brandishing a gun and let Arbery walk away because he didn’t steal anything. It’s ridiculous that two men can hold another at gun point for a “crime” they didn’t witness, regardless of their skin color.

You never wait patiently with somebody that is pointing a gun at you. We have had this training at work... YOUR RUN, then you fight!

You never ever ever let somebody hold you against your own will because they will most likely rape and kill you and cut you up in little pieces.

This. If you've had active shooter training, they tell you that if you can't run or hide, you fight. Someone points a gun at you at short range, you can't run (which is what Arbery did first) and you can't hide, so you fight. He was 100 percent justified in defending himself. You can't point a gun at someone and then claim self-defense when they don't just let you shoot them. These guys instigated the encounter and were the aggressors. He wasn't attacking them or anyone else. He tried to grab the gun away from someone who he probably thought was going to shoot him.

Please stop giving people bogus advice on tactics when you have no idea what you are talking about. This is not an active shooter situation, like not even close. Generally speaking, you comply when two guys are pointing long guns at you. The same thing goes for a robbery or if you just committed a crime and someone is attempting to detain you. When you try to disarm someone, you put them in a position where it's kill or he killed. This in no way places blame on the jogger, as he probably just reacted without thinking.

Not a runner, but a walker. White woman. There is NO EFFING WAY I am “complying” with three guys in two cars with guns if I have any other choice whatsoever.

You can choose to wait for the police, which they had already called, or you can fight them.

Pretty easy choice if you ask me, but you be you.

You want me to let 3 men abduct me and trust they called the police because they suspected I committed a crime when I know I had not.

You are insane and my LEO family would advise against letting anybody without a badge hold you at gun point ... unless you are into being raped and killed.

NP. It's amazing how the LE experts come out of the woodwork whenever a minority is shot by a white person. Every situation is different. Are you a 30 year old black man? Do you think they really wanted to rape him? Yes, you can chose to fight if you want. But in this case, that was a bad move. A move that resulted in his death.

If he ran he would have been shot in the back, if he stayed he would be in jail on the "word" of a white supremacist and jailed by a corrupt DA.

We know now the white supremacist lied to the DA and the DA did not investigation ... ON A MURDER. Of course they would have said he stole something and he didn't.

How many innocent black men have been jailed by white men?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP here: I should add I’m on team Arbery, I only posted the leaked letter because it explains the Georgia laws well.

That is the problem. This thread is full of people who view African Americans as being victims and will then play the game of twisting things to support their "team." Didn't we learn from previous cases that these encounters are rarely black and white?

It's kind of ironic because cops tend to do the same thing.

Have you noticed that any poster who brings up the fact that the jogger charged at the guy with the shotgun is called a racist. This is a key point because it is very difficult to fight someone that is trying to take a long gun. Your option at that point for an untrained person is to shoot the person or be killed by the person attempting to take your rifle. Ultimately, I hope these guys will be judged by their horrible judgement preceding the shooting.

You mean tried to take the gun away from And armed gunman who have been following him in a vehicle got out was aggressive towards him and in an attempt to try to save himself was engaged in a scuffle ?
are you crazy??
Somebody comes at you with a firearm and you’re actually going to try to somehow make the person defending themselves against a bullet at fault in anyway?

Looks like we have another Arbery "team" member incapable of critical thinking due to their emotional state and/or affiliation. Who said that he was at fault? It sounds like you don't know much about the law or tactics. If those yahoos would have shot him as he was running away, this would be a slam dunk murder charge. Right now, not so much.

What are you talking about? I’m the original PP and I am well-aware that Arbery had priors and grabbed a shotgun in a fight. But if you have any common sense, then you know that if the police had arrived at the scene and Arbery had patiently waited, they would have literally cited McMichael for brandishing a gun and let Arbery walk away because he didn’t steal anything. It’s ridiculous that two men can hold another at gun point for a “crime” they didn’t witness, regardless of their skin color.

You never wait patiently with somebody that is pointing a gun at you. We have had this training at work... YOUR RUN, then you fight!

You never ever ever let somebody hold you against your own will because they will most likely rape and kill you and cut you up in little pieces.

This. If you've had active shooter training, they tell you that if you can't run or hide, you fight. Someone points a gun at you at short range, you can't run (which is what Arbery did first) and you can't hide, so you fight. He was 100 percent justified in defending himself. You can't point a gun at someone and then claim self-defense when they don't just let you shoot them. These guys instigated the encounter and were the aggressors. He wasn't attacking them or anyone else. He tried to grab the gun away from someone who he probably thought was going to shoot him.

Please stop giving people bogus advice on tactics when you have no idea what you are talking about. This is not an active shooter situation, like not even close. Generally speaking, you comply when two guys are pointing long guns at you. The same thing goes for a robbery or if you just committed a crime and someone is attempting to detain you. When you try to disarm someone, you put them in a position where it's kill or he killed. This in no way places blame on the jogger, as he probably just reacted without thinking.

Not a runner, but a walker. White woman. There is NO EFFING WAY I am “complying” with three guys in two cars with guns if I have any other choice whatsoever.

You can choose to wait for the police, which they had already called, or you can fight them.

Pretty easy choice if you ask me, but you be you.

You want me to let 3 men abduct me and trust they called the police because they suspected I committed a crime when I know I had not.

You are insane and my LEO family would advise against letting anybody without a badge hold you at gun point ... unless you are into being raped and killed.

NP. It's amazing how the LE experts come out of the woodwork whenever a minority is shot by a white person. Every situation is different. Are you a 30 year old black man? Do you think they really wanted to rape him? Yes, you can chose to fight if you want. But in this case, that was a bad move. A move that resulted in his death.

This.

No LEO person would ever advise his son to behave the unfortunate way this young man did.

Some people have seen one too many action movies.

Absolutely a LEO parent would say never comply. Most kids are raped by a person in authority. You clearly are not a LEO ... LEO's know, you don't just let some random person take you into custody, NEVER.

[Anonymous]

How would the LEOs advise the folks in Michigan? There was an armed militia that opened a white shop owner's barbershop in defiance of the governor's order there? Of course, all those folks lived to see another day . . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How would the LEOs advise the folks in Michigan? There was an armed militia that opened a white shop owner's barbershop in defiance of the governor's order there? Of course, all those folks lived to see another day . . . .

many states have open carry and LEO have to arrest armed people all the time.

My LEO family would prefer fines for certain unlawful actions, like this. Also, it's really the health department that needs to deal with these since it is a health violation.

Nobody wants to 'arrest" for petty crimes, like pot... shoplifting... these should all be citations and fines. They should fine the shop for not following the law.

[Anonymous]

According to Mr. Arbery's autopsy:

Arbery was shot three times, including twice in the chest;

Arbery suffered a "deep, gaping, shotgun graze" to his right wrist;

Arbery suffered wounds to his upper left chest and lower middle chest; and

Thirteen shotgun pellets exited Arbery's back, and 11 more were recovered from his wounds

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is wrong with you all? Please stop trespassing on people's construction sites. It's just not appropriate, no matter what color your skin is.

It's against the law for one. Someone bought that lot and was having their home built. Why would someone think they can go onto that property and inside the home? Framed or not.

That jogger wasn't admiring the structure fyi. Many look for expensive equipment, copper, or tools left behind. From all the videos I saw all 3 showed poor judgement. The two men should have called police instead of trying to confront him. I would think they will get some sort of judgement against them. Problematic may be the jogger charging the one man, and perhaps other factors.

This.

But let's keep the bs going on, this was a jogger who was randomly targeted by some snipers...some folks are nuts.

Does trespassing automatically earn you a death sentence in this country?

NP. No, it shouldn’t. But let’s not all pretend that this was random and could happen to anyone. It couldn’t. He was snooping around someone’s private property (that was in a vulnerable state for theft) where he had no business being. When he was caught doing the wrong thing, he didn’t just apologize like a normal person, he acted even more guilty, running away even though he clearly wasn’t a regular jogger there (or probably anywhere due to his attire). When stopped, he defended himself very aggressively even though he knew he had just done something wrong and that people had a fair reason to be suspicious that he had taken something and/or was up to no good. Nobody was a hero here, but nobody was innocent either.

I’m a white woman, planning a house, and I’d love to snoop around sites to get an idea of how it works. But I don’t. You know why not? It’s illegal. And if I decided to do it anyway one day then I’d definitely be ready to explain myself afterwards.

There are some rare cases where a black guy gets shot when he’s innocent (like when the cop was in the wrong apartment) and they are completely unacceptable but most cases have a lot of poor judgement involved. This is one of the cases where it’s a lot more difficult for me to have sympathy for him.

Wow! You’re actually defending people being shot in cold blood.

This woman is a virulent racist and doesn't even realize it. Sad, really. She will live her entire life in smug, sanctimonious rectitude, never knowing how small-minded and prejudiced she is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How would the LEOs advise the folks in Michigan? There was an armed militia that opened a white shop owner's barbershop in defiance of the governor's order there? Of course, all those folks lived to see another day . . . .

many states have open carry and LEO have to arrest armed people all the time.

My LEO family would prefer fines for certain unlawful actions, like this. Also, it's really the health department that needs to deal with these since it is a health violation.

Nobody wants to 'arrest" for petty crimes, like pot... shoplifting... these should all be citations and fines. They should fine the shop for not following the law.

This has nothing to do with open carry. Lots of people open carry, whether I like it or not, and don't chase down people in the streets for ALLEGED nonviolent crimes that they didn't observe or have any knowledge about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How would the LEOs advise the folks in Michigan? There was an armed militia that opened a white shop owner's barbershop in defiance of the governor's order there? Of course, all those folks lived to see another day . . . .

many states have open carry and LEO have to arrest armed people all the time.

My LEO family would prefer fines for certain unlawful actions, like this. Also, it's really the health department that needs to deal with these since it is a health violation.

Nobody wants to 'arrest" for petty crimes, like pot... shoplifting... these should all be citations and fines. They should fine the shop for not following the law.

This has nothing to do with open carry. Lots of people open carry, whether I like it or not, and don't chase down people in the streets for ALLEGED nonviolent crimes that they didn't observe or have any knowledge about.

Oh Lordy.

AGAIN: the trespasser set up an alarm and that's why he was confronted.

AGAIN: the police were called and were in the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP. It's amazing how the LE experts come out of the woodwork whenever a minority is shot by a white person. Every situation is different. Are you a 30 year old black man? Do you think they really wanted to rape him? Yes, you can chose to fight if you want. But in this case, that was a bad move. A move that resulted in his death.

Classes I've been in have only addressed the lead up where the priority is to avoid the situation followed by escape the situation (get off the X). Once you're in a situation where escape is impossible, survival situations are extremely dynamic. In some cases the only survivor is the one who freezes and plays dead. In others it's the one who fights back. In others it's the one who runs. People have different responses in the situation and all are as reasonable as it gets. Internet heroes playing armchair quarterback aren't any more likely to have had a better reaction.

I guess that depends on what kind of internet hero you are. If you are one who would have complied, you would be alive. If you are one who tried to be a hero or put up a fight, you would be 6 foot under.

You are assuming they would have not shot him
Anyway.

Dumb point.

If they wanted to shoot him, they had plenty of time to do so before getting so close to him that he grabbed a weapon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP. It's amazing how the LE experts come out of the woodwork whenever a minority is shot by a white person. Every situation is different. Are you a 30 year old black man? Do you think they really wanted to rape him? Yes, you can chose to fight if you want. But in this case, that was a bad move. A move that resulted in his death.

Classes I've been in have only addressed the lead up where the priority is to avoid the situation followed by escape the situation (get off the X). Once you're in a situation where escape is impossible, survival situations are extremely dynamic. In some cases the only survivor is the one who freezes and plays dead. In others it's the one who fights back. In others it's the one who runs. People have different responses in the situation and all are as reasonable as it gets. Internet heroes playing armchair quarterback aren't any more likely to have had a better reaction.

I guess that depends on what kind of internet hero you are. If you are one who would have complied, you would be alive. If you are one who tried to be a hero or put up a fight, you would be 6 foot under.

You are assuming they would have not shot him
Anyway.

Dumb point.

If they wanted to shoot him, they had plenty of time to do so before getting so close to him that he grabbed a weapon.

Why have a gun if there is no intention or threat to shoot. It was 3 against 1, just detain him without use of force (which is illegal).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP. It's amazing how the LE experts come out of the woodwork whenever a minority is shot by a white person. Every situation is different. Are you a 30 year old black man? Do you think they really wanted to rape him? Yes, you can chose to fight if you want. But in this case, that was a bad move. A move that resulted in his death.

Classes I've been in have only addressed the lead up where the priority is to avoid the situation followed by escape the situation (get off the X). Once you're in a situation where escape is impossible, survival situations are extremely dynamic. In some cases the only survivor is the one who freezes and plays dead. In others it's the one who fights back. In others it's the one who runs. People have different responses in the situation and all are as reasonable as it gets. Internet heroes playing armchair quarterback aren't any more likely to have had a better reaction.

I guess that depends on what kind of internet hero you are. If you are one who would have complied, you would be alive. If you are one who tried to be a hero or put up a fight, you would be 6 foot under.

You are assuming they would have not shot him
Anyway.

Dumb point.

If they wanted to shoot him, they had plenty of time to do so before getting so close to him that he grabbed a weapon.

Of course they wanted to shoot him. People don't go around waving their guns and making "citizens arrests" unless they are hoping to get a chance to use lethal force. People who don't want to shoot people call the cops and say, hey this is weird but I will let the authorities handle it while I get out of the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP. It's amazing how the LE experts come out of the woodwork whenever a minority is shot by a white person. Every situation is different. Are you a 30 year old black man? Do you think they really wanted to rape him? Yes, you can chose to fight if you want. But in this case, that was a bad move. A move that resulted in his death.

Classes I've been in have only addressed the lead up where the priority is to avoid the situation followed by escape the situation (get off the X). Once you're in a situation where escape is impossible, survival situations are extremely dynamic. In some cases the only survivor is the one who freezes and plays dead. In others it's the one who fights back. In others it's the one who runs. People have different responses in the situation and all are as reasonable as it gets. Internet heroes playing armchair quarterback aren't any more likely to have had a better reaction.

I guess that depends on what kind of internet hero you are. If you are one who would have complied, you would be alive. If you are one who tried to be a hero or put up a fight, you would be 6 foot under.

You are assuming they would have not shot him
Anyway.

Dumb point.

If they wanted to shoot him, they had plenty of time to do so before getting so close to him that he grabbed a weapon.

Why have a gun if there is no intention or threat to shoot. It was 3 against 1, just detain him without use of force (which is illegal).

OK, this is getting to such a level of absurdity that I say bye, Felicia, bye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How would the LEOs advise the folks in Michigan? There was an armed militia that opened a white shop owner's barbershop in defiance of the governor's order there? Of course, all those folks lived to see another day . . . .

many states have open carry and LEO have to arrest armed people all the time.

My LEO family would prefer fines for certain unlawful actions, like this. Also, it's really the health department that needs to deal with these since it is a health violation.

Nobody wants to 'arrest" for petty crimes, like pot... shoplifting... these should all be citations and fines. They should fine the shop for not following the law.

This has nothing to do with open carry. Lots of people open carry, whether I like it or not, and don't chase down people in the streets for ALLEGED nonviolent crimes that they didn't observe or have any knowledge about.

Oh Lordy.

AGAIN: the trespasser set up an alarm and that's why he was confronted.

AGAIN: the police were called and were in the way.

Oh lorday.

Again: the murderers did not see it happen. They did not know WHO (if anyone) "tresspassed."
Again: Police were called so there was doubly no reason for them to confront him.
Again: Police do not use deadly force for trespassing. Thus, the murderers shouldn't either.
Again: we do not murder people for trespassing in the United States.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How would the LEOs advise the folks in Michigan? There was an armed militia that opened a white shop owner's barbershop in defiance of the governor's order there? Of course, all those folks lived to see another day . . . .

many states have open carry and LEO have to arrest armed people all the time.

My LEO family would prefer fines for certain unlawful actions, like this. Also, it's really the health department that needs to deal with these since it is a health violation.

Nobody wants to 'arrest" for petty crimes, like pot... shoplifting... these should all be citations and fines. They should fine the shop for not following the law.

This has nothing to do with open carry. Lots of people open carry, whether I like it or not, and don't chase down people in the streets for ALLEGED nonviolent crimes that they didn't observe or have any knowledge about.

Oh Lordy.

AGAIN: the trespasser set up an alarm and that's why he was confronted.

AGAIN: the police were called and were in the way.

The quesiton on this specific post was about Michigan.

In GA, he did not trespass. Teh owner said it was not trespassing. The owner said he had no desire for vigilante to attack people that visited his construction site.

AGAIN: The owner said there was not crime and police should not have been called and the white supremacists vigilante's were acting illegally.