My only insurance is Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson
8 Likes
Pretty sure I took this opposite of what you meant, and I think both readings are fair.
There might not be enough of them to support a full-blown civil war, but there are enough of them to support an armed insurgency. A definitive electoral defeat will kick off a new wave of militancy on their part. They are not going as hard as they can because they still believe they can win elections.
Arbery stuff, prosecution closing arguments tomorrow
Bryan’s “trust” in police “was not rewarded,” his defense attorney says
From CNN’s Mike Hayes
Defense attorney Kevin Gough concluded his closing argument by asking the jury to send his client, William “Roddie” Bryan, “home.”
He asked that the jury consider three questions when they deliberate the case: “When did Roddie Bryan know that the McMichaels brought guns? When did Roddie Bryan know that Travis McMichael would shoot Mr. Arbery? And at that point but, what could Roddie Bryan possibly have done to stop it?”
Gough said that his client, who provided cell phone video of the shooting to the police, “put his faith” in law enforcement, but his “trust was not rewarded.”
“Mr. Bryan put his faith in a Glynn County police department. And then he put his faith in the GBI [Georgia Bureau of Investigation]. He put his trust in law enforcement. He put his trust in our government to do the right thing by him. But his trust was not rewarded.”
He asked the jury to return a verdict of not guilty on all counts for Bryan.
Defense attorney Kevin Gough played portions of the cell phone video that his client, William “Roddie” Bryan, captured of the shooting of Ahmaud Arbery during his closing statement Monday afternoon.
Bryan told the police that he followed Arbery in his truck and recorded the incident because he was trying to document what was going on.
“He said that that is what he was trying to do,” Gough noted during his closing.
But Gough continued by making the strange suggestion that Bryan continued pursuing Arbery because something was “guiding” him to do so.
“Maybe. And that is just me going out on a limb. I’m going to just suggest to you that perhaps, and I know that I’ll get grief for this, I would submit to you that you can call it karma, you can call it faith, I would call it divine providence. Somebody is guiding Mr. Bryan, whether it is a conscious thought process or not. Something is guiding Mr. Bryan down the street to document what is going on,” Gough said.
1 Like
“God made me it” and “It was self defense” are going to be accepted legal arguments for all manner of crimes in New Gilead.
Cactus going all “well actually” to defend a racist murdered and whining about “the facts” when he doesn’t even know the facts is really something. Will he learn from this? Stay tuned for next time where we find out that the answer is probably no.
5 Likes
Say boog one more time
2 Likes
2 Likes
Not to worry. I wouldn’t defend you or your property unsolicited
I suppose it’s a good thing there are so many pacifists and people who require proportionality of harm. Maybe I’ll mellow as I get older too. But for now, I just can’t muster up much sympathy for a person who initiates violence on someone’s home, place of business, or person. I’m not saying they deserve to die, but in my mind, they caused their own death should it come
1 Like
Are you saying it’s better to not defeat them decisively? Winning elections won’t stop them. It will only embolden them to continue the lying and making liberals out to be evil
In this thread, man who is concerned about people blindly convicting someone of murder for killing someone, supports blindly murdering someone for messing with someone else’s property.
Bruh.
2 Likes
Well, if juries are using the same method that SCOTUS uses, how bad can it be?
5 Likes
they will not mount a sustained insurgency. are you crazy? that would take help or at least obliviousness from state and federal investigators and national guard.
even if you believe fbi/state patrol are all in on authoritarian fascism if it started tomorrow, they are not going to yield power to boogs or proud boys. investigators are tracking them via watchlists and public sources already, at least as much as any one of us voicing veiled anarchist and antigovernment sentiments. they are doing it for all potential assets or leaders who put themselves in places of potential political violence. it’s ridiculously easy to collect the public data in real time and keep it forever just in case they need to jettison someone to prison.
2 Likes
No, I’m saying that winning elections would just lead to a phase of the conflict where they prioritize achieving their goals by non-electoral means.
Not wanting to kill people who damage property doesn’t make me a pacifist. It makes me a sane human being. Let’s not let the Overton window shift so far on this one that you can believe that wanting people to die for property damage is normal or sane by any objective standard.
12 Likes
Maybe this opinion is in the minority here,
but I think the guy who recorded the cell phone video footage of the Arbery case doesn’t deserve to go down for murder. This case wouldn’t be in the national spotlight without that.
The POS “citizen’s arrest” dudes definitely do, though
What if he had hopped in the bed of the pickup to record the video? Just reacting to that it seems like jumping in the pickup to film seems worse but I think that legally it’s not very different from following and filming. I agree that his culpability seems less but I’m not sure to what extent. I certainly wouldn’t be outraged by a not guilty verdict for him.
C’mon, we’ve had enough interactions you should know I’m not gonna fall for the ole UP forum classic bait & switch. I never said anything about wanting to kill people and even went out of my way to state, “I’m not saying they deserve to die”. My stance can best be summed up as abject apathy
If you decided to cross a busy road full of speeding cars and got yourself killed, I wouldn’t think you deserved to die either, but am not going to feel sorry for you unless you were rescuing a dog or something. It was a risk you took. So too is the risk when you decide to lay waste to another person’s property or even just punching them in the nose unprovoked
This naive demand for proportionality and the transference of the term victim onto the person who initiated the violence, boggles my mind tbh
It seems like while you don’t “want” them to die, if they do die you have no sympathy for them and think the person that killed them was justified in killing them (even if that person had other alternatives to deadly force).
It’s not much of a distinction you’re making.
Most other countries don’t allow citizens to kill to protect property and seem to function just fine, so thinking that it’s “naïve” to expect a proportional response is a bit odd (especially when there is no risk of harm other than to property).