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.
1) Aubrey was on foot and his attackers in a truck, so running away was not an option.
2) His attackers were armed with a shotgun, not a skateboard.
3) He didn't charge into the neighborhood with a loaded gun, inciting a response
But for the record, I also have stated that I accept the jury decision in the Rittenhouse case. I try not to second guess juries.
And that has to do with what, exactly? His age doesn't preclude his right to defend his life from multiple, vicious criminal attacks. BTW, not positive, but I think 17 YOs can join the military-at worst he was only a few months from his 18th birthday.
Now, can we get on point? Should Arbery have been able to defend his life (had he had the means)? He didn't live in that neighborhood, didn't have relatives there (as Rittenhouse did in Kenosha).
Underage kids have no business carrying assault rifles in public is my point. His punk a** should have been at home with his mommy. He went looking for trouble and found it. He might not be so lucky next time.
Hate to burst your bubble OP, but many people on the left own guns and believe in self defense too...It's a shame Arbery was not armed that day.
My issue with Rittenhouse is a 17 year old can't vote, buy cigarettes or alcohol legally, get married or join the military. So if a minor is not mature enough to do any of those things -- WTF should they be allowed to carry an AR15 in public??? Where the hell were his parents at??? Sounds like his parents are both pretty neglectful to me...My 17 year old is not going down to a riot and especially not with any of our guns. That kid is going to keep getting in trouble - mark my words.
If I'd been Kyle, my parents would have said "F - you, you're on your own for even being there!" and I'd be disowned.
The trial of his killers is going on now. For a recap, Ahmaud was a black man that was out jogging. Neighbors in the area (supposedly) didn't recognize him, and confronted him. They were armed and the incident ended up with Ahmaud being shot and killed.
Now-my hypothetical question for those on the left, and especially for those that whined and cried over the Rittenhouse decision. Lets say Arbery had been carrying a concealed handgun on his jog. And when confronted by armed men, used it to defend himself from the perceived threat-would you support his choice? Why or why not? He'd have had as much (or little) reason to be in that neighborhood as Kyle did in Kenosha. If you deny the right to self defense to one-why not the other? Certainly Rittenhouse was in greater perceived danger, since he wasn't facing 3 men, but an enraged mob.
BTW, in my opinion, it is beyond question-Arbery had every right to defend his life. As did Rittenhouse.
The trial of his killers is going on now. For a recap, Ahmaud was a black man that was out jogging. Neighbors in the area (supposedly) didn't recognize him, and confronted him. They were armed and the incident ended up with Ahmaud being shot and killed.
Now-my hypothetical question for those on the left, and especially for those that whined and cried over the Rittenhouse decision. Lets say Arbery had been carrying a concealed handgun on his jog. And when confronted by armed men, used it to defend himself from the perceived threat-would you support his choice? Why or why not? He'd have had as much (or little) reason to be in that neighborhood as Kyle did in Kenosha. If you deny the right to self defense to one-why not the other? Certainly Rittenhouse was in greater perceived danger, since he wasn't facing 3 men, but an enraged mob.
BTW, in my opinion, it is beyond question-Arbery had every right to defend his life. As did Rittenhouse.
Apples and oranges. He was out for a jog...no weapon or phone and not looking for trouble.
1) Aubrey was on foot and his attackers in a truck, so running away was not an option.
2) His attackers were armed with a shotgun, not a skateboard.
3) He didn't charge into the neighborhood with a loaded gun, inciting a response
But for the record, I also have stated that I accept the jury decision in the Rittenhouse case. I try not to second guess juries.
Because Arbery was too stupid to run off the street which would make it impossible to follow in a truck?
Rittenhouse DID NOT cross State lines with a rifle and was legally allow to possess a rifle while existing in WI (that is why the judges dropped that particular charge).
Is the TV still telling you otherwise or are you still stuck on what the TV may have told you in the past??
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.
