ADVERTISEMENT

Georgia father and son arrested and charged with murder

It calls out "good regulation", more specifically, armed citizens who are "well regulated".

That most certainly doesn't mean taking anyone's guns away; it absolutely implies those with guns should be competent with owning and using them.

I agree 100%. Although I'd probably be fine with taking some people's guns away as well.
 
But it hasn't been defined that way by many for many years.
It was for almost 200 years.

Most recently that has changed. One former SC Justice called that change one of the 'biggest frauds' perpetuated on the American people.
 
So you think he should be held to the standards of an organization he is no longer associated with?

That's insanely stupid, but at least you are consistent in that manner.
I think once he repeatedly demonstrated that he wasn't going to be trained he should have to give up his firearms.

Defending a murderer like this on technicalities is abhorrent.
 
Your flailing about when you've realized how confused and wrong you are never gets old and is always fun to see.
As usual, you're deflecting when someone shows you your ass. If nothing else, you'r predictable.
 
There’s no question here. He was executed. IDGAF if he was jogging with copper pipes. You don’t kill people over that. Reporting a crime or calling 911 wasn’t an option? Armed confrontations are unnecessary unless someone is threatening life. That’s taught in conceal carry courses nationwide.
 
There’s no question here. He was executed. IDGAF if he was jogging with copper pipes. You don’t kill people over that. Reporting a crime or calling 911 wasn’t an option? Armed confrontations are unnecessary unless someone is threatening life. That’s taught in conceal carry courses nationwide.

Remember: this guy didn't wanna do any training. AND, seems like there were other issues during his tenure on the force. Perhaps those were really "nothingburgers", but I suspect not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NCHawk5
Remember: this guy didn't wanna do any training. AND, seems like there were other issues during his tenure on the force. Perhaps those were really "nothingburgers", but I suspect not.
These jackasses can rot in hell. Any law enforcement training would tell them that approaching anyone who is clearly unarmed with a shotgun in hand is unnecessary. The video tells everything we need to know about these clowns.
 
After poring over the videos, Mr. English’s lawyer on Friday proposed the theory that the young man who returned over and over to the house had done so to drink water.

“There is a water source at the dock behind the house as well as a source near the front of the structure,” Ms. Graddy wrote. “Although these water sources do not appear within any of the cameras’ frames, the young man moves to and from their locations.”

In one angle, from Dec. 17, the man “appears to wipe his mouth and/or neck,” the statement continued, and “what sounds like water can be heard. He walks out of the house, eases into a jog, and disappears from view.”

Ms. Graddy said that nothing was ever taken from the property.
 
After poring over the videos, Mr. English’s lawyer on Friday proposed the theory that the young man who returned over and over to the house had done so to drink water.

“There is a water source at the dock behind the house as well as a source near the front of the structure,” Ms. Graddy wrote. “Although these water sources do not appear within any of the cameras’ frames, the young man moves to and from their locations.”

In one angle, from Dec. 17, the man “appears to wipe his mouth and/or neck,” the statement continued, and “what sounds like water can be heard. He walks out of the house, eases into a jog, and disappears from view.”

Ms. Graddy said that nothing was ever taken from the property.

Yes....but that water source prolly said "Whites Only", bro.:eek:
 
How is that relevant to the current case?

I don't think it relates directly to the current case so much as it shows how racism affects AA's. What are the odds the same guy 2 years earlier would run into some cops convinced he was a criminal just cause he was sitting alone in his car?

This sort of stuff is common for black people even when they don't go all the way to gunshots. I don't know about you but I've never been sitting in a park and had cops approach me and tell me that they think I'm committing crimes.
 
I think it shows more damning evidence that things are still different in Georgia for the darker-skinned folks when it comes to law enforcement, or for those who pretend they are law enforcement.
 
That video link makes me sad. On the one hand, being interrogated for hanging out in the park would piss me off too. On the other hand, i would never rush up to a cop and get in his face once, much less two times.

I have had interactions with the police when i was younger and i guess i was taught to respect authority whether they were in the wrong or not. They have freaking guns after all.

From that video Ahmaud seemed like a young man that was stressed out to the max and doesn't seem to be able to regulate his emotions very well. Which may have contributed to his actions on the day of his death.

I get why he didn't want to stop and talk to those rednecks and i understand if he thought they were calling the cops on him for going through that house he didn't want to talk to the cops either.

Those two guys deserve what's coming to them. They had no need to use violent means or the intimidation of violent means to enforce whatever authority they thought they had. They're idiots that caused the conditions for the violent confrontation and i hope they rot in jail for a long time.
 
Yes. I don't want uneducated or trained people brandishing weapons. Why should it be OK for him to forego this requirement?

That was a requirement for him to be a police officer arresting people.

Occam's Razor - the old dude was just trying to coast to retirement:

Georgia Peace Officer Standards and Training Council (POST) issued a suspension order for ‘failure to maintain training for the year 2018,'” the report continues.

In 2019, McMichael “agreed to give up his badge and weapon and was reclassified as a non-sworn employee, assigned to work in the Camden County District Attorney’s office until his retirement in June 2019.”
 
I think the bad place must be requiring winter coats - I actually agree with @joesplace.

When it comes to 2A, the term well regulated meant "well trained" at the time. There are many quotes of founders discussing that term, as well as what they meant by militia.

I'm as pro 2A as anyone. I would not be opposed to people being required to pass a basic safety course to own a firearm. I don't think that would be inconsistent with 2A based on original intent and the language of the time. We do that with concealed carry permits now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ironside1
Resurrecting this zombie thread to give kudos to the judge for denying bail to these two racist mouth breathers.

Enjoy your holiday season in your cells. Better get used to it because I think this is what your long-term future holds.

https://www.wtoc.com/2020/11/13/bond-hearing-continues-friday-suspects-arbery-case/

Wow it took them this long to have a bond hearing??

Looking at some of the links on that article, it sounds like the guy who took the video has a sex crimes investigation against him but they won't say for what.


And the killer had texted some racial slurs to a buddy of his.

 
Special kind of stupid with these guys. This testimony In the middle of a bond hearing:

“Shooting a crackhead coon with gold teeth and a High Point 45. Do you remember that text exchange?”

“No, sir. I don’t”

“You actually responded to it. Something about Newport’s and a 40.”

The witness is then shown a printed copy of the text messages.

“He was referring to a raccoon.”

“A raccoon? With gold teeth and a High Point 45?”

“Being facetious.”

JFC
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Menace Sockeyes
I don't understand why past history and relevant facts are so often deemed "irrelevant" or "inadmissible" in a trial. My buddy served 9 months in Leavenworth for illegally filming two people having sex. The two people he filmed were his wife and her lover in HIS bed. During the trial she was only referred to by her new married name and the fact she was married to my buddy when he set up the nanny cam to catch her cheating was inadmissible and not even allowed to be mentioned. WTF!?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DFSNOLE
I don't understand why past history and relevant facts are so often deemed "irrelevant" or "inadmissible" in a trial. My buddy served 9 months in Leavenworth for illegally filming two people having sex. The two people he filmed were his wife and her lover in HIS bed. During the trial she was only referred to by her new married name and the fact she was married to my buddy when he set up the nanny cam to catch her cheating was inadmissible and not even allowed to be mentioned. WTF!?
On Arbery case - does anyone believe the three on trial would have this knowledge or reacted the way they did due to this knowledge?

Don't know enough about your buddy's story to comment.
 
On Arbery case - does anyone believe the three on trial would have this knowledge or reacted the way they did due to this knowledge?
I misread the article title (was thinking it was one of the three men, not the victim--I need coffee). Arbery's past is irrelevant unless his past criminal history involves specific run-ins/ties to the three men. If a person is out seemingly jogging, the fact he's been arrested before is irrelevant to the reactions of the men IF they've never come in contact with the person in question.

Arbery was unarmed when he was killed. Prosecutors have said nothing was stolen from the construction site and Arbery was merely jogging. --if this is all true, then those damn assholes had no reason to kill a man.

Don't know enough about your buddy's story to comment.
I'd have to start another thread.
 
Last edited:
I misread the article title (was thinking it was one of the three men, not the victim--I need coffee). Arbery's past is irrelevant unless his past criminal history involves specific run-ins/ties to the three men. If a person is out seemingly jogging, the fact he's been arrested before is irrelevant to the reactions of the men IF they've never come in contact with the person in question.

Arbery was unarmed when he was killed. Prosecutors have said nothing was stolen from the construction site and Arbery was merely jogging. --if this is all true, then those damn assholes had no reason to kill a man.


I'd have to start another thread.

Lynch 'em. Let his family click the trap door trigger.

(make sure it has some mis-fires first, or has a function to just drop an inch or so the first few times so they can piss themselves first.)
 
Lynch 'em. Let his family click the trap door trigger.

(make sure it has some mis-fires first, or has a function to just drop an inch or so the first few times so they can piss themselves first.)

huh-funny.gif


Lynch who? The three assholes? Sure...I'm for it...saves tax payers money.
 
I know we're not supposed to judge a book by its cover, but I find it interesting how often people literally look like who you think they are.

The two on the left look like low-level henchmen for the KKK and the guy on the right could pass for #2 in charge of their local chapter.

AANYUdc.img


I mean, how many times have you been out to eat and look across at someone and think, "...definitely inbreeding in that family..."?
 
I don't understand why past history and relevant facts are so often deemed "irrelevant" or "inadmissible" in a trial. My buddy served 9 months in Leavenworth for illegally filming two people having sex. The two people he filmed were his wife and her lover in HIS bed. During the trial she was only referred to by her new married name and the fact she was married to my buddy when he set up the nanny cam to catch her cheating was inadmissible and not even allowed to be mentioned. WTF!?
Could they stop him testifying those facts on the stand?

“Yeah, I setup a camera in my bedroom to film me and my wife. Imagine my surprise when I found her screwing someone else instead.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jan Itor
Could they stop him testifying those facts on the stand?

“Yeah, I setup a camera in my bedroom to film me and my wife. Imagine my surprise when I found her screwing someone else instead.”
Attorney didn't want him taking the stand. It's a very interesting case and this is just part of it. I sat through the week of trial. I could certainly start another thread describing all the details. It will be a tl;dr type thread, though.
 
I know we're not supposed to judge a book by its cover, but I find it interesting how often people literally look like who you think they are.

The two on the left look like low-level henchmen for the KKK and the guy on the right could pass for #2 in charge of their local chapter.

AANYUdc.img


I mean, how many times have you been out to eat and look across at someone and think, "...definitely inbreeding in that family..."?
I'll take "what breathes out of their mouf for $1,000 Alex".
 
  • Haha
Reactions: alaskanseminole
ADVERTISEMENT