Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Their intent was not legal. They were not legally allowed to make a citizens arrest. Claiming that you had good intentions while violating the law is not an excuse.
It depends on the law. Some laws are immoral and illogical.
How is that a non answer?
You asked "Who here has gone inside a private home, being remodeled/under construction/or to simply to "check it out", without permission from the owner or an agent of the owner (worker)?"
How is that a non answer?
You asked "Who here has gone inside a private home, being remodeled/under construction/or to simply to "check it out", without permission from the owner or an agent of the owner (worker)?"
I answered that I have.
And you did so without the permission of the owners, agents of the owners (workers on site) and without having any vested interest in the property?
Me and plenty of others in this thread who stated so, yes.
Just to confirm, you've entered construction sites without the permission of the owner, permission of an agent of the owner (worker), and without a vested interest in the site?
But what about the reverse? When a young man is shot, why do family members gild the lily and make up stories about them that are provably false? Where does that come from, as if their loved one isn't deserving of fair treatment under the law just by being a human being? Why is the first thing out of grieving family's mouths an untrue characterization of the deceased?
And conversely, why does the media make up a completely untrue narrative, that these two men were driving around the neighborhood with loaded guns when they spotted a jogger and went after him? Why that lie?
Can't we just LOOK at this case for what it is, without both sides needing to shift reality?
That is not the story told by the media and I don't believe it ever was.
But prove me wrong. Cite a legitimate media source suggesting that the two guys were driving around and chanced upon Arbery.
And I would also like to see a cite where the family made up something about Arbery. I do not believe that is true either.
Not all Conservatives. I'm very Conservative. I'm also white, since someone alluded earlier that I wasn't.
The 2 idiots did not see this guy doing anything felonious, nothing else matters. It doesn't matter what he was studying, it doesn't matter what his jobs were, it doesn't matter if he had charges in his past, not one damn bit of any of that matters.
What matters is did the 2 idiots see him commit a felony crime?
They did not.
They were wrong to chase him down 2 streets, block him off, and then approach him with a shot gun in their hands.
They were the aggressors. "Self defense" is not what they get to submit as their proof of their innocence, because they were the aggressors despite that they did not see the victim commit a felony crime.
All of these questions about are the parents telling the truth, what jobs did he have, what he was studying or wanted to study, if he was in some grainy video from some other time, if he did or did not steal that 9mm on January 1st, was he just checking out the site, or was he casing it for later, none. of. it. matters.
The 2 morons did not see him commit a felony crime. That is what matters.
The 2 morons were the aggressors who chased him down, blocked him in, and then got out of their truck with a shotgun. That is what matters.
The victim was using self defense when he tried to grab the shot gun.
The 2 morons were not in "self defense" mode because they were the aggressors.
The video shows that.
The police report shows that.
Not one time, did they ever say that they witnessed this kid committing a felony crime before they grabbed their guns, hopped in their truck(s), and chased him down.
That is all that matters.
Same here. I'm also Conservative and believe the shooters are 150% at fault for murder and should be held accountable, tried and sentenced accordingly.
You know that driving even 1 mph above the speed limit is breaking the law, right?
Walking thru someone's yard is tressspassing. Accidentally driving down a private street is tresspassing. So is checking out a construction site that is not locked up.
We as a society have decided long ago that there is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. No judge would uphold a speeding ticket for going 1mph over the speed limit. No prosecutor would ever charge a kid for tresspassing because he walked thru someone's yard to get home. And no construction company I have ever heard of that would press charges on curious people for checking out their construction site if nothing was stolen.
Why? Because of the spirit of the law. We as a society have decided that these laws were written for a certain reason. There is no need to throw the book at someone for doing innocently doing something even if it technically violates the law, like driving 5mph above the speed limit.
You are making a ridiculous argument, and you know it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
