[News] The USA Police State will never satisfy its lust for beating, gassing, and imprisoning minorities
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
I probably should have put an /s at the end of that post.
I mean, the only evidence is them stopping him and murdering him on video.
Yes but now it's up to a court to determine whether that was actually illegal.
--Patrick
From what little I know, they thought he was a burglar who had stolen things around the area and attempted to do a citizens arrest. The guy taking the video was actually an accomplice that was tailing Ahmaud while the father/son duo went to cut him off. Their account is that he attacked them, forcing them to shoot him in self defense. If you watch the video you can see Ahmaud try to pass on the right side of the truck when the son seemed to come around to the left side front to intercept him. We then suddenly see the two in the scuffle fighting over the gun, before Ahmaud was shot.
BTW I am not defending them. If you were a lone person jogging down the street, and two random dudes in a pickup truck noticeably block you off and call out to you while brandishing firearms, what the hell do they expect to do? At that point it's either fight or flight, and considering there isn't much in the way of cover on that street, Ahmaud likely took his one opening out of fear and dire desperation to get the gun from one of them so he could defend himself.
BTW I am not defending them. If you were a lone person jogging down the street, and two random dudes in a pickup truck noticeably block you off and call out to you while brandishing firearms, what the hell do they expect to do? At that point it's either fight or flight, and considering there isn't much in the way of cover on that street, Ahmaud likely took his one opening out of fear and dire desperation to get the gun from one of them so he could defend himself.
That is what they allege, yes.
GA's Stand-Your-Ground law states: "A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge." This would imply that in order to be eligible to perform a Citizen's Arrest, at least one of the men involved must have directly observed whatever crime Arbery allegedly committed. No hearsay, no "suspicion," no profiling... the person must be a material witness.
Of course, Ahmaud will be unable to refute any such allegation, what with him being... well, dead.
--Patrick
If their is no evidence that Ahmaud was involved with the burglaries, then it would go to show that no offense was committed in his killer's presence or with his killer's immediate knowledge. As such, Stand Your Ground wouldn't apply. At that point, they'd simply be running a man off the round and killing him.
Because there's no such thing as justice in the U.S. anymore, I fully expect them to walk out of the trial scot-free.
I think the fact that no one died might have something to do with it, too.
So a cop on video basically choked a guy to death with his knee. Just casually sat on him with his hands in his pocket while the guy suffocated. I would link to the tweet with the video but I honestly don't want to even look at it again.
You can probably guess what his skin color was.
You can probably guess what his skin color was.
Purple with green polka dots?
Honestly I don't know what was going through her head.
The guy openly kept telling her once she got close to stay away from him, so she can't argue he was aggressively posturing. She then proceeds, on camera, to say she was going to call the police, something he agreed with since she was technically breaking the leash law, and then told him "I am going to tell them an African American man is threatening my life". I mean, holy shit lady, way to admit to a crime there.
The guy openly kept telling her once she got close to stay away from him, so she can't argue he was aggressively posturing. She then proceeds, on camera, to say she was going to call the police, something he agreed with since she was technically breaking the leash law, and then told him "I am going to tell them an African American man is threatening my life". I mean, holy shit lady, way to admit to a crime there.
There's a reason why "Karen" has become a label. There are a lot of people who are entitled and willing to lie/cheat/be racist to justify it. And they're not terribly bright, because if they were... they wouldn't act like this in the first place.
Okay I just saw a Facebook post from the guy with the phone and honestly, he kind of messed up too. I ain't going to excuse what she did in the aftermath, but the guy when confronting her about it said (and this is in his own words).
"Look, if you are going to do what you want, i'm going to do what I want, but you're not going to like it."
He then proceeded to call the dog over to him with dog treats he says he keeps in his pocket. The woman intercepted the dog as it was running over and that is when he took out his phone and started to record it.
While his actual intention was likely harmless (he probably was just going to pet the dog to piss her off) I could see where someone could construe what he said as possible threat of violence toward the dog. For all she knew once the dog reached him he would have snapped it's neck, that's something that would terrify me too no matter the size, gender, or skin color.
Again, not justifying her actions in the aftermath, but I hope next time that guy attempts to be a little more careful with how he presents his snark.
"Look, if you are going to do what you want, i'm going to do what I want, but you're not going to like it."
He then proceeded to call the dog over to him with dog treats he says he keeps in his pocket. The woman intercepted the dog as it was running over and that is when he took out his phone and started to record it.
While his actual intention was likely harmless (he probably was just going to pet the dog to piss her off) I could see where someone could construe what he said as possible threat of violence toward the dog. For all she knew once the dog reached him he would have snapped it's neck, that's something that would terrify me too no matter the size, gender, or skin color.
Again, not justifying her actions in the aftermath, but I hope next time that guy attempts to be a little more careful with how he presents his snark.
Why is someone acting friendly to a dog suspicious? Being friendly to a dog is the norm.
GasBandit
Staff member
If someone told me I was not going to like what they were about to do, and then tried to coax my dog to them in a friendly voice, I would assume them to have hostile intent toward my dog. And possibly poisoned treats.
If they tried to coax my dog in an aggressive voice I'd just assume they were an idiot that my dog might be about to bite.
Did he really fuck up when he did literally nothing wrong?
People leaving out poisoned treats for dogs ruined it for everyone.
Think of it like this, imagine you get in a disagreement with a stranger on something that obviously means something to him. He looks at you and says "Well if you get to do what you want, I am going to do what I want, but you ain't going to like it." and proceeds to pull out lollipops and offers them to your kids. What is your first thought? Is it "Wow this guy is trying to get back at me by making my kids like him", or "Holy shit he is trying to get back at me by poisoning my kids." As a father, I would usually jump on the latter as a defense mechanism.
He messed up by saying "You ain't going to like this." It can be seen as leading to hostile intention. I never said he did anything wrong, because actions are louder then words, only that he messed up a little. I am just clarifying that the overall context of the scene changes, even her nearly strangling her dog, when her mindset is "This man is trying to kill my dog so I must make sure she never gets near him." It does not excuse the profiling or the gut actions. If I was in her shoes I would have counter-pulled my phone out and recorded him in turn, put on the leash, and walked away, making sure to watch him as I did. I wouldn't have gotten up in his face (which you shouldn't do if you feel your life is in danger) and then threaten to call the police.
There some definition of "he messed up" other than he did something wrong?
Doesn't change the scene to me since she's the only person who fucked up here by refusing to be a reasonable human being and just leashing her dog as required.
Especially since we have no idea if he actually said anything like that. Unless we live in a world where everybody is suddenly 100% truthful on social media.
Last night I burned the spaghetti. I was taking care of my kids and didn't think about it. I messed up. We then all sat down and ate, it was still pretty good. Did I do something wrong? No. You can mess up on something and still have done nothing wrong. If he actually DID snap the dog's neck, then yes, he would have done something wrong. However, he did mess up with how he continued the confrontation, and I don't think it would have reached the level it did had he not attempted to bring the dog physically into the situation with him. People are protective, and we will do stupid mistakes for those we have in our care should we feel they are threatened. She still took it way too far and she will have to own that.
I am only going off his literal Facebook post about it. I confirmed it before posting about it.
Last edited:
So in your world burning something isn't doing it wrong. But I don't really see how your example is translating into this situation where you believe that he turned the confrontation from an awkward exchange to a confrontation that got the police involved and lost Karen her job. Which is less burned the spaghetti messed up and more outright threatened the Karen.
And he didn't continue to confrontation. She did.
So yes 100% factual like the rest of social media. Exactly how it went down with no possibility of him stretching the truth.
So you think her response was appropriate? You know... calling the police and trying to get this man killed for daring to stand up to her in public. These aren't children, these were leash-less dogs. You don't get to kill people for killing your dogs, which wasn't even what happened, and escalating it to children in your example in inflammatory. Not only was no one in danger until Karen acted as she did, the only reason there was trouble was because she acted as she did to begin with!
It still really sounds like you're reaching for a reason why Karen shouldn't be in a cell right now. You're looking for the "gotcha" for this black man, instead of accepting that whatever (relatively minor) thing he did, she intentionally tried to bring him harm for no other reason than he dared to speak back to her to begin with. If her plan had succeeded, would you still be saying this?
A black person should not be afraid to challenge threats to their mere existence in public. That is what this was... and if the roles had been reversed, this man and the dogs would likely be dead right now and it'd be on FOX News 24/7 as proof that black people are dangerous animals that deserve to be put down.
This is true. I (blissfully) forgot this was a thing people do to dogs. Oddly enough though, people carrying around poisoned candy for children isn't a thing that happens...
