Open Season: "Vigilantes" Shoot Black Jogger in Georgia

[Des-Bal]

Give it a rest, dude. Come back when you've found one thing that agrees with your mind bogglingly ridiculous interpretations of the laws involved before you start prancing around with this kind of nonsense.

It's a plain reading of the law, being pissy and finding other people who are pissy isn't support for your interpretation. They didnt commit stalking and you cant field a coherent argument that they did.

[Cannot think of a name]

Give it a rest, dude. Come back when you've found one thing that agrees with your mind bogglingly ridiculous interpretations of the laws involved before you start prancing around with this kind of nonsense.

It's a plain reading of the law,

Cool, then you can find something that supports it other than your dogged insistence. We'll wait.

[Des-Bal]

Cool, then you can find something that supports it other than your dogged insistence. We'll wait.

Sure if you pay my rate, if you don't you can be satisfied with words meaning what words mean in the absence of additional words.

[Cannot think of a name]

Cool, then you can find something that supports it other than your dogged insistence. We'll wait.

Sure if you pay my rate, if you don't you can be satisfied with words meaning what words mean in the absence of additional words.

So nothing. Cool, then we're done here.

[Cisairse]

The men responsible should be thrown in prison after a fair trial. The prosecutors who are currently sitting on their hands should be sitting out on the street instead.

[Des-Bal]

So nothing. Cool, then we're done here.

You've been done since we started. You're disregarding statutes and pretending that if two people are upset at the law it doesnt mean what it says. This has never been about the law, its been your feelings vs. reality.

[Cannot think of a name]

So nothing. Cool, then we're done here.

You've been done since we started. You're disregarding statutes and pretending that if two people are upset at the law it doesnt mean what it says. This has never been about the law, its been your feelings vs. reality.

No no no...there's not coming back from "You're not paying me to support my own argument." You tipped the silly scale all the way off the table. You can stop now.

[Des-Bal]

No no no...there's not coming back from "You're not paying me to support my own argument." You tipped the silly scale all the way off the table. You can stop now.

My argument is "there are not additional invisible words in the statute" and it falls to you to prove otherwise. If you want me to dredge up case law explaining why you're being silly then yeah that's gonna run you a couple hundred bucks an hour.

[Galloism]

Sure if you pay my rate, if you don't you can be satisfied with words meaning what words mean in the absence of additional words.

So nothing. Cool, then we're done here.

I’ll agree these guys committed murder, but plain reading of the Georgia stalking law would seem to preclude this for lack of a pattern.

a)(1) A person commits the offense of stalking when he or she follows, places under surveillance, or contacts another person at or about a place or places without the consent of the other person for the purpose of harassing and intimidating the other person. For the purpose of this article, the terms "computer" and "computer network" shall have the same meanings as set out in Code Section 16-9-92; the term "contact" shall mean any communication including without being limited to communication in person, by telephone, by mail, by broadcast, by computer, by computer network, or by any other electronic device; and the place or places that contact by telephone, mail, broadcast, computer, computer network, or any other electronic device is deemed to occur shall be the place or places where such communication is received. For the purpose of this article, the term "place or places" shall include any public or private property occupied by the victim other than the residence of the defendant. For the purposes of this article, the term "harassing and intimidating" means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes emotional distress by placing such person in reasonable fear for such person's safety or the safety of a member of his or her immediate family, by establishing a pattern of harassing and intimidating behavior, and which serves no legitimate purpose. This Code section shall not be construed to require that an overt threat of death or bodily injury has been made.

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/20 ... 7/16-5-90/

Lacking an established pattern, it’s hard to see it as stalking.

[Bombadil]

It's pretty shocking that you can follow an innocent and unarmed man in a car while bearing weapons, confront him, shoot him and yet have people defend you.

He did nothing wrong and now he's dead for no other reason than the colour of his skin.

If two black people did the same there'd be absolutely no question and it would be splashed front page of FOX News from day one.

[Cannot think of a name]

So nothing. Cool, then we're done here.

I’ll agree these guys committed murder, but plain reading of the Georgia stalking law would seem to preclude this for lack of a pattern.

a)(1) A person commits the offense of stalking when he or she follows, places under surveillance, or contacts another person at or about a place or places without the consent of the other person for the purpose of harassing and intimidating the other person. For the purpose of this article, the terms "computer" and "computer network" shall have the same meanings as set out in Code Section 16-9-92; the term "contact" shall mean any communication including without being limited to communication in person, by telephone, by mail, by broadcast, by computer, by computer network, or by any other electronic device; and the place or places that contact by telephone, mail, broadcast, computer, computer network, or any other electronic device is deemed to occur shall be the place or places where such communication is received. For the purpose of this article, the term "place or places" shall include any public or private property occupied by the victim other than the residence of the defendant. For the purposes of this article, the term "harassing and intimidating" means a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes emotional distress by placing such person in reasonable fear for such person's safety or the safety of a member of his or her immediate family, by establishing a pattern of harassing and intimidating behavior, and which serves no legitimate purpose. This Code section shall not be construed to require that an overt threat of death or bodily injury has been made.

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/20 ... 7/16-5-90/

Lacking an established pattern, it’s hard to see it as stalking.

Captain Semantic, to the rescue! Cool, we got to the bottom of my conversational use of the word stalking. The nation was on pins and needles.

Meanwhile, these men still murdered Ahmaud Arbery.

[Gormwood]

It's pretty shocking that you can follow an innocent and unarmed man in a car while bearing weapons, confront him, shoot him and yet have people defend you.

He did nothing wrong and now he's dead for no other reason than the colour of his skin.

If two black people did the same there'd be absolutely no question and it would be splashed front page of FOX News from day one.

There wouldn't have even been arrests, just reports of police gunning the two black men down like zombies.

[Galloism]

I’ll agree these guys committed murder, but plain reading of the Georgia stalking law would seem to preclude this for lack of a pattern.



https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/20 ... 7/16-5-90/

Lacking an established pattern, it’s hard to see it as stalking.

Captain Semantic, to the rescue! Cool, we got to the bottom of my conversational use of the word stalking. The nation was on pins and needles.

Meanwhile, these men still murdered Ahmaud Arbery.

I mean “did X commit Y crime by meaning of Z statute” isn’t really a semantic issue. It’s a question of fact and law.

Unless you think the “murder babies” rhetoric out of the pro life crowd is just a semantic thing instead of being hideously wrong and incorrect use of legal terms to create a false narrative. Then it’s probably fine.

[Des-Bal]

Captain Semantic, to the rescue! Cool, we got to the bottom of my conversational use of the word stalking. The nation was on pins and needles.

Meanwhile, these men still murdered Ahmaud Arbery.

It's not semantics it's the law. Stop complaining about the way the law is enforced if you dont care what the law actually says.

[Des-Bal]

There wouldn't have even been arrests, just reports of police gunning the two black men down like zombies.

yeah that's why those black bounty hunters were shot in the street and not acquitted.

[Des-Bal]

I’ll agree these guys committed murder, but plain reading of the Georgia stalking law would seem to preclude this for lack of a pattern. .

Could you explain why you'd call it murder?

[Cannot think of a name]

Captain Semantic, to the rescue! Cool, we got to the bottom of my conversational use of the word stalking. The nation was on pins and needles.

Meanwhile, these men still murdered Ahmaud Arbery.

I mean “did X commit Y crime by meaning of Z statute” isn’t really a semantic issue. It’s a question of fact and law.

Unless you think the “murder babies” rhetoric out of the pro life crowd is just a semantic thing instead of being hideously wrong and incorrect use of legal terms to create a false narrative. Then it’s probably fine.

I am not a reporter or a prosecutor. I am a poster on a forum. I don't have to be as precise as the others and can rely on people making a reasonable assessment of a casual exchange without having to lawyer all my words. You can "actually, it's Frankenstein's monster" all you want.

It doesn't change the fact that these two men murdered Ahmaud Arbery.

[Cannot think of a name]

Captain Semantic, to the rescue! Cool, we got to the bottom of my conversational use of the word stalking. The nation was on pins and needles.

Meanwhile, these men still murdered Ahmaud Arbery.

It's not semantics it's the law. Stop complaining about the way the law is enforced if you dont care what the law actually says.

This isn't desperate at all.

[Des-Bal]

This isn't desperate at all.

Nope. You can repeat the sky is blur all day without getting desperate. It's always nice when the law says in no uncertain terms that the people arguing against you are incorrect.

[Bombadil]

I’ll agree these guys committed murder, but plain reading of the Georgia stalking law would seem to preclude this for lack of a pattern. .

Could you explain why you'd call it murder?

The police have arrested and charged them with murder in light of the video that contradicts what they claimed.

Still, what would you call it exactly?

[Des-Bal]

The police have arrested and charged them with murder in light of the video that contradicts what they claimed.

Still, what would you call it exactly?

Like Zimmerman who was also not guilty and who was also found not guilty. Being charged is not evidence of guilt, if you dont understand that they generally kick you off a jury.

[Bombadil]

The police have arrested and charged them with murder in light of the video that contradicts what they claimed.

Still, what would you call it exactly?

Like Zimmerman who was also not guilty and who was also found not guilty. Being charged is not evidence of guilt, if you dont understand that they generally kick you off a jury.

Difference being there's a video this time, although it's astonishing a dead victim needs a video to prove their case against an armed person who followed and confronted them for no reason whatsoever.

[Des-Bal]

Difference being there's a video this time.

The video shows exactly what they said happened. The guy charges and grapples with a man until he is shot by another man.

[Bombadil]

Difference being there's a video this time.

The video shows exactly what they said happened. The guy charges and grapples with a man until he is shot by another man.

Not at all, he runs around the other side of the truck initially only to have the guy come round the front pointing a gun at him, he clearly aims to push the gun down, he is not attacking or grappling the man at all, he is trying to avoid being shot.

Perhaps it's counted as manslaughter not murder by law, but they unlawfully shot an innocent man.. just as George Zimmerman did to be honest, just there wasn't any video to contradict his version of events given the other person was dead.

[Galloism]

I’ll agree these guys committed murder, but plain reading of the Georgia stalking law would seem to preclude this for lack of a pattern. .

Could you explain why you'd call it murder?

Because the man they killed was standing his ground against someone who had engaged in an illegal pursuit of him and was threateningly brandishing a firearm. He was clearly in imminent fear of his life. You should not be able to threaten someone into using self defense and claim self defense (their claim of citizens arrest is even more absurd, as detailed in the OP).

You can’t provoke a violent scenario and then claim self defense.