The Death of Ahmaud Arbery

Discussion in 'The Thunderdome' started by IP, May 5, 2020.

  1. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Our justice system has shown to be shit twice this week. People think that because of the end, the beginning and the middle should be ignored. Many of those who have hailed the outcome of the Wisconsin trial, have lamented the need for it.

    "This is great, but shouldn't have been done," is not an endorsement for anything "holding up well" that I have ever seen.
     
  2. Lexvol

    Lexvol Super Moderator

    I totally agree that the guys in Brunswick should have been arrested immediately and Rittenhouse charges should have been examined much more closely initially.

    In the end, both verdicts were correct, and the media caused most of the shit storm.
     
  3. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    Yes, for the prosecutors to fall all over themselves in the Rittenhouse trial is damning of something, no matter what one believes. It didn't look right. Either overcharged, poorly argued, or some combination.
     
  4. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    I do not believe both verdicts were correct. But I do not believe the verdict is the system, either.

    I do not find any system of justice that allows for 17 year old to be armed in a dangerous system, on a whim, and levy no punishment after the death of three individuals. Even if one or, even two of them, posed legitimate danger, because they did so, after the first. And since I do not find simply being yelled at, or "grabbed at" to be a legitimate threat, especially when armed, I do not find the first use self defense nor any that follows. And I find any system where these things are "correct" to be broken, much as I find any system that requires a long amount of deliberation, and then, whoops, public saw it, to initiate charges when three men, some of whom were armed, kill one unarmed man.
     
  5. Lexvol

    Lexvol Super Moderator

    So they need to change the law in Wisconsin, or make it less ambiguous. That entire clown show was all 100% on bad prosecution.
     
    justingroves likes this.
  6. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    "They need to change the law" is a pretty common statement, don't you find? Much too common for a system that works.
     
  7. Lexvol

    Lexvol Super Moderator

    I think the same presumption that you make could also be applied to rioters….they shouldn’t be allowed to take a protest beyond a peaceful level…and when the begin to burn property they should be arrested immediately…and also assume some risk of bodily harm.

    I’m sure we could find all sorts of outdated laws that need changing. I think it’s a failure to enforce or selective enforcement of the law that causes stuff like this to happen.
     
    justingroves likes this.
  8. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Those who damaged property and conducted arson were arrested and charged, once identified.

    Do you really believe that there are those that destroyed property, that were identified, and then got off during trial?
     
  9. IP

    IP Super Moderator

    Much like jan 6, the justice system is not swift but it is grinding. Those people are charged, convicted and in some cases locked up. But that doesn't generate clicks so...
     
  10. Lexvol

    Lexvol Super Moderator

    I think that is positive, but it doesn’t address the risk a person assumes when the are a part of a destructive mob. Their are inherent risks on the left and right.
     
  11. fl0at_

    fl0at_ Humorless, asinine, joyless pr*ck

    Yes, it does. If simply being "present" and in philosophical agreement with those that are a "destructive mob," but not actually "destroying" anything creates a "risk", then being present, and not in agreement creates the same risk. Because the only difference between one party not destroying anything, and another party not destroying anything is party.

    So if risk is equal, it doesn't apply. And for those that are destroying property, they'll get arrested and charged once identified. There aren't inherent risks on the left or the right. Risk isn't political. It is definitional. And BEING a risk, meaning, carrying a weapon, is different than being AT RISK.
     
  12. The Dooz

    The Dooz Super Moderator

    Make it stop.

     
  13. Ssmiff

    Ssmiff Went to the White House...Again

    Gotta be something more to that right?
     
  14. NorrisAlan

    NorrisAlan Founder of the Mike Honcho Fan Club

    Why?
     
  15. lumberjack4

    lumberjack4 Chieftain

    Fire his ass. Saw where the kid drove himself to the hospital and was admitted with critical injuries and was further charged with assaulting the police officer, for *check notes- driving away as a cop shoots at him for no reason.
     
  16. Ssmiff

    Ssmiff Went to the White House...Again

    well either he was completely innocent eating a burger and a cop attempted to kill him or he was wanted and on the run, imo. I’d like to know.
     
  17. utvol0427

    utvol0427 Chieftain

    Neither scenario warrants the cops response.
     
    NorrisAlan likes this.
  18. lumberjack4

    lumberjack4 Chieftain

    Strange that the cop didn't follow standard procedure like parking his cruiser with lights flashing behind the car in question so it couldn't drive off, then walked up and yanked open a door without warning or prompt, then immediately started shooting when he wasn't greeted with instant 100% compliance. Clearly the guy is just misunderstood.
     
    The Dooz likes this.
  19. Ssmiff

    Ssmiff Went to the White House...Again

    I’d like to know more before assuming. If he’s been on the run for raping a 12 yr old girl, our opinions will differ on what’s warranted
     
  20. The Dooz

    The Dooz Super Moderator

    Gunning down an unarmed citizen sitting in his car eating food is never warranted, regardless of the crimes they committed previously.
     

Share This Page