The Death of Ahmaud Arbery

I would imagine with a lot of choking sounds and haughty attitude . . .

You're also not an ex-cop sitting in jail, charged with murdering a black man on video. And it was your lawyer who released the video that put you there. As of last Friday, they'd been denied bail. And I'm not sure which would be more dangerous for them: Locked up in jail with a bunch of guys who'd like nothing better than to kill a cop and a presumed racist, or out in the world where there's a bunch of guys who'd like nothing better than to kill a cop and a presumed racist.

zimmerman is still alive after all these years so I would say the threats to life outside are a lot less. Since they are in the areas where people awaiting trial are kept I doubt their danger would really be around until they were convicted and sent to prison. Not that they are safe, but they are sitting with a lot of people who still have an opportunity to get off or out.

I figure the pardon comes in when the governor gets ousted by the dem next election.

well if Epstein's death taught us anything, it's that you're safe & sound behind bars under highly diligent & professional watchful eyes!

I will just drop this here

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/202...te-man-carries-tv-while-running-24293939.html

Something else seems to have surfaced.

Straight up murder.

Ex-detective charged in death of Ahmaud Arbery lost power to make arrests after skipping use-of-force training

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/05/13/ex-detective-accused-death-ahmaud-arbery-lost-power-make-arrests-after-skipping-use-of-force-training/

Then why the fuck was he on the call?

Maybe I'm missing something, but why does this matter?

There was no "call," per se. Just the McMichaels assuming Arbery was up to no good, following and confronting him and then shooting him.

Sorry, I was thinking of the other thread.

Um, gee, I dunno, cuz he's a dumbass vigilante?

See post #312.

Are you being serious here? OK, I will get out the crayons to draw you the picture.

Part of the trust that was given to him to justify how he handled himself was because he was one of the police and had gone through training like the police, so he is claiming he was only acting in accordance with his "job" when he did what he did. Since he was an ex-detective, and had lost power because he did not train in the use of force in apprehending a subject, it totally undermines any claim he has that he acted as his training and professionalism dictated since he never had any training or professionalism. Furthermore, it calls into doubt that he had things like self control and the ability to properly detain a person safely since he had favor in the department and they had to do something about him for the very reason he is in trouble.

Is that enough explanation for you, or do we need to get the Dayton dog toys out to explain things for you? You might want to consider learning how to put two and two together in the future because you are beginning to make an impression of being a dumbass. Just sayin.

I am being serious. I think you are misunderstanding the nature of law enforcement training.

Many states, if not all, have accreditation boards for cops. To remain in good standing, you have to periodically renew your certificate by taking certain classes and meeting other requirements. Every law enforcement officer to start off with is going to have gone through some basic training at the start of their career and they will have to renew it so often.

McMichaels had decades of experience as a law enforcement officer. So he had trained when he first joined, and he (presumably) recertified by saying that he had kept up his training every X number of years. Most recently, he was working as an investigator for a prosecutor's office, where (pesumably) he wasn't actively patrolling or arresting people. He let his certification lapse.

So it is untrue "he never had any training or professionalism." He just hadn't gone through the bureaucratic hoops to document that he still retained it.

I don't think there is a reasonable question that he would retain the basic concepts about use of force. They are not that difficult to master: To simplify, you're only justified in shooting someone when 1. that person is actively threatening you or someone else of with great bodily harm, or 2. that person is a fleeing felon trying to escape and is reasonably perceived as such a threat.

The fact that he did not bother to recertify says nothing about whether he retained that sort of knowledge. According to the story, he claimed some health difficulties prevented him from recertifying. I don't really buy that. It was more likely that in the position he was in, he didn't actively need to do things like shoot guns or arrest people so he didn't want to waste his time with bureaucratic paperwork.

Had he retained his certificaiton, it would not make the shooting any more justified than him letting it lapse. If he were justified in the shooting (whcih from all appearnaces he wasn't), his lack of certification would not matter.

guy sounds like a loser all the way around. Regardless who knows how the lawyers will spin everything?

I do like how this shows that being armed does not terrify the government at all, nor does it protect your property from the government as some gun owners claim. Seems the police pretty much make short work of a gun owner when they have to. It is almost like the guys gun does not really matter at all when the police come for you with determination.

Could gunforge explain to us again how the armed populace is a check against government fascism? Did the armed neighbors run out and join up to defend their law abiding community members from the police? Did the home owner even call the potentially armed friends they had to come help protect their home? Where were the oath keepers, three percenters, and Bundy people when all this shit was happening? Is the NRA even going to send a high priced lawyer to defend the legal gun owner protecting his home?

How was letting every idiot who wants a gun helping to protect us from the government or stop crime again?

okay now I want a knife crossbow!

That was pretty interesting. I want someone to make a crossbow out of a shark. That would be my 3 year old silent kill masterpiece.

Both sides of the NRA represented nicely.

Now those are lawyers! They must be good to have hair like that.

A mullet? I thought that was de rigueur for legal counsel.

OMG they are cartoon weasels. I am not saying he is a racist hillbilly, but from the look of his lawyers you can draw such conclusions and I would not blame you. They may be smart as a whip, but from the looks of them they are as smart as a whip.

Whilst a mallet is de rigueur for the judge.

They are so successful that they don’t need to comport to 21st century hair styling norms.
That, or the dude has been on a stay at home lockdown since February...2010.

related insight in this (very long) tread
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/...UwH6C1xHN07YvhPRiDfWah2ipbbxkivSdZnxXuQnuDKkA

On a tangent to this, while all the wypipo are fleeing California, all the new ppl to San Diego who aren't military or in school that I've come across are PoC from the South.