TexasCHLforum.com

[caveat]Dear Mr NSA, I am merely hypothesizing here, and nothing I say in this thread should be construed to mean that I would support such illegal activity.[/caveat]

MaduroBU wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 6:50 pm

I would also add that having "consequences" of a legal nature for what you say is NOT free speech.

I strongly disagree; the goal of speech meriting protection by the law is to produce consequences. No law is needed to protect conversation about the color of the sky or what the weather looks like. Controversial speech does require such protections, but that takes the form of prohibiting prior restraint. The government cannot legally prevent you from saying or disseminating your thoughts. Private individuals are more than welcome to refuse to help you amplify your thoughts, a distinction which has new import now that public discourse is online (and thus, due to atrocious planning at all levels of government, private). None of that changes how consequences of speech, legal, illegal, desirable, undesirable, intended and unintended play out.

The standard for prosecution for holding or sharing thoughts, even thoughts which are intensely and widely unpopular, is EXTREMELY high. It's legal to be a racist, a nazi, a communist, or whatever so long as one does not actively incite people to illegal action. Other people may respond very negatively to your public beliefs, but the government cannot prevent you from sharing them or prosecute you for doing so. The fact that one holds such beliefs could legally be used in the investigation or prosecution of criminal activity. If a black family has a cross burned in their yard, locals who are known to publicly espouse racist views are going to merit increased suspicion and, if other evidence suggests involvement, inadvertently aid in their own prosecution. If three white guys run down a black guy and then kill him based upon essentially no evidence of wrongdoing, their prior admissions of gross racial bias are absolutely germane to the prosecution. That's not suppression of free speech.

MaduroBU, it occurs to me that your standard here actually potentially threatens to crossover into unconstitutional suppression of free speech. Maybe not. Here is a speculative example of what I mean, and maybe you could address it to parse your previous statement......

On Twitter—a cesspool for which I confess an affinity—I have seen call after call by plainly crackpot individuals for Trump's removal from office BEFORE 01/20/2021, without any specifically stated limitation on means, for the "crime" of refusing to concede the election until all the cases of voting fraud currently under investigation have been investigated and adjudicated. Suppose, hypothetically, that an unsuccessful attempted assassination of Trump occurs between now and then, and the investigation into it reveals that, prior to the attempted assassination, some of the suspected conspirators had posted their belief on Twitter that Trump should be "removed from office" prior to the inauguration. Barring any other evidence, should those tweets be enough to deny them bail?

From a personal perspective, I have publicly stated that Biden will never be my president. He may become THE president, but everything that he stands for is so diametrically opposed to anything that I stand for, that on his very best day, he can never represent ANY of my interests, and will never defend them against those who would trample them. He is nothing more than a symbol of a dying republic. I have publicly stated that he deserves nothing less than the exact same levels of respect and cooperation that his supporters gave Trump for the past 4 years. I have publicly stated that I will resist him in every way that I can lawfully do so as an individual, and I have repeatedly (and deliberately ironically) used the #resist hashtag in online posts stating my opposition to a possible Biden administration. If, once he has been inaugurated, some feckless boneheads unknown to me attempt to kill him, do my words constitutionally justify rounding me up as well and denying me bail? What if it turns out that I “follow” one of them on Twitter? I don’t advocate for murder and would never be party to such a conspiracy, but the main reason I pray for Biden's good health is Kamala Harris.....who may in fact be a greater threat to Biden than anyone who voted Republican.....and I have stated those sentiments publicly.

Please tell me that I am hyperventilating here, and reading into your words something that you did not mean.

I haven’t been a member of the GOP since 2012, but I praise Jesus that Trump gave us three good SCOTUS justices, who will hopefully stand as a bulwark against a tyrannical presidency......from ANY party.

I don’t know if anyone else has posted this link earlier in this thread, but Dana Loesch provides a pretty good analysis here: https://danaloesch.com/the-killing-of-ahmaud-arbery/

It includes a description of Georgia law in matters of citizens arrests, etc.

Flightmare wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 2:18 pm Mike the Cop has an interesting take on this case

Excellent video.

philip964 wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 12:00 am Homeowner who may not move into the house because of threats has made some new statements.

He seems to think the video shows the man going to where there was a faucet for water.

He also says that there were a number of visitors on video to the house beside this one man.

It apparently included a number of children.

When my parents were building their house on the cliff overlooking the Pacific at Point Dume, they had LOTS of people trespassing. The property was in a dramatic location, and at the time, it stood alone with no other houses on either side. It was also an unusual design, and they were using interesting and novel building materials. My parents were living in an an obviously occupied single-wide on the property during construction....as they also did a ton of the work themselves.

Some people, those with an interest in innovative architecture, would actually come from out of state to watch the progress of the construction. People wandered onto the property all the time, even though it was surrounded by a high chain-link fence. If the gate was open, they’d just walk right in.

One guy in particular was a real pain. He'd always interrupt the contractors to ask questions about what they were doing. My dad had to finally tell him that he could only talk to workers on his OWN dime; otherwise they were on my dad's clock. He would always bring his off-leash pitbull on the property while wandering around it, and his dog would chase my parents' cat. He was repeatedly told that his dog was not anymore welcome on the property than he was, but the dude did it anyway. One day, the dog chased the cat into the sumac bushes lining the edge of the cliff. The cat turned right and the dog went straight .... plunging 120 ft to the beach below. The dog's owner was outraged, and yelled at my dad for not having a fence along the cliff's edge. My dad reminded him that (a) he’d been told repeatedly not to bring his dog onto the property; (b) that there was a barrier along the cliff....consisting of a thick fence of sumac bushes; and (c) reminded him that he was trespassing, and the "victim" was free to call the cops if he wanted to.

The dog going off the cliff was the last straw, and the guy finally got the message. Fortunately for the dog, he was not killed by the fall. His owner ran to the public beach access a couple of hundred yards off, and met the dog coming up the stairs about halfway down. It had a bloodied nose, but was otherwise ok.

People are often rude, and nearly always feel entitled to whatever it is they have on their minds, with no regard for the people whose lives are adversely effected in some way by the entitled person's words and actions. But as obnoxious and entitled as that dog's owner was, he stole nothing and damaged nothing. He was motivated by insatiable curiosity about something that was manifestly none of his business, taking place in a location where he manifestly had no right to be. I doubt he learned a single thing from this life lesson, either through through the confrontations with my dad, or through his dog's near-death experience. He was a typical self-absorbed Californian—a very common breed. But, he did not deserve to die for wearing his nether regions as a hat.

Dad was a WW2 combat vet. He probably knew 6 ways to kill this guy with a simple Wushu Finger Hold, but being the better man, he just never deemed it necessary. At some point, he would have probably called the local LA County Sheriff's office and had him formally trespassed off the property. But at no point did he deem it necessary to chase the guy down the street and confront him with his .45.....and it was HIS PROPERTY, not someone else's.

Please, Lord, let common sense and WISDOM prevail. As srothstein pointed out, echoing my previous thought, the law is neither moral nor immoral. It is simply the law, and it is too often unconcerned with actual justice, or what's right. It may even condone immoral behavior in some circumstances. Every time WE respond to the law, it is an opportunity to make a moral or immoral decision. Because a thing is legal, that does not make it moral. At the end of the day, I will have to face a higher power than any prosecutor or court.

In this thread, most seem to have devolved firmly into the following camps:

1. Those who think that what the McMichaels did was legal and morally defensible.

2. Those who think that what the McMichaels did was legal but morally questionable.

3. Those who think that what the McMichaels did was both illegal and morally questionable.

4. Those who think (as I do) that it doesn’t matter whether what the McMichaels did was legal or illegal. The cascade of decisions that ended in Arbery's death was initiated by the McMichaels the minute they jumped into their vehicle and set off in pursuit of Arbery, armed for a confrontation.

Their actions may or may not have been legal, as strictly defined by the law. I don’t care either way. Was it ethical? In my opinion, it was not ethical. Was it moral? In my opinion, it was not moral. It was both foolish and stupid, and it was ALSO a perfect example of why it is often better to be a good witness than a self-appointed Ranger. Until they confronted him, resulting in the altercation which is described as either Arbery's assaulting or being assaulted by the McMichaels—depending on your bias—nobody was hurt, and as far as they could tell (single guy running down the street clad only in shorts, a t-shirt, and sneakers), nothing had been taken.

How often have any of us said on these pages sayings like "nothing good ever happens after 10pm in bar parking lots"? That’s not the law talking. That’s the voice of wisdom. I realize that not everybody here is either a Christian or Jew, or even believes in a deity. That’s fine....we have a 1st Amendment, and you have a right of conscience. So, I’ll remove references to God and paraphrase this scriptural passage taken from Micah 6:8 "what is good; and what is required of you, but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly?"

Did the McMichaels meet that standard? No, they did not.....whatever Georgia law says....and THEREFORE, we should at all costs avoid their example.

srothstein wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 3:10 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 9:20 pmSometimes, the law is not moral.

I know this does not belong in this thread particularly, but I have to agree with this. Sometimes, the law is not only not moral, but actually immoral and must be resisted.

One of the hardest lessons I have learned in my life in law enforcement is that the law is not moral or immoral, not just or injust, not right or wrong, it is just the law. And that all courts are truly interested in, especially at the trial level, is the law. I do not want to side track this thread too far, but I will say that there is a lot of discussion in the police forums on whether police officers should enforce the law or do what is right.

I can appreciate that for many, that must be a very difficult decision. I hope it’s not so difficult that it prevents doing what’s right.

FastCarry wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 11:53 pm

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 10:45 pm https://www.redstate.com/jeffc/2020/05/ ... uDfX6oOeTw

From the above article, concerning Georgia citizens arrest law:

“A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.”

Do the actions of Arbery meet the standard in that quote? Do the actions of the McMichaels meet the standard in that quote? The article has distinct bias, the only reason I posted it was to substantiate the quote I pulled from it.

Well presented message in that article. I firmly believe that this is one of the many cases where people have made up their mind and no one will be able to change it. Its a frustrating argument to make and better left to the justice system to decide. I dont understand people getting so worked up about their opinion and trying to project onto others. One thing is certain, its terribly and tragically unfortunate that in a case where a a person dies, we dont get to hear their side of the story. Its terribly upsetting. My head hangs low for both Arbery and the McMichaels, im sure this one they wish they could both take back and its such a shame to read what some are saying.

This is what I was referring to previously.....nearly everyone's opinion, if they have one, is based on what they think they would do if placed in the same situation as the McMichaels, and they are seeking justification for those opinions in the law. That justification may or may not be there in the law. IANAL, have not passed the Georgia Bar, and all that. But even if an action is justifiable under the law, it does not automatically follow that one SHOULD take that action—because what is legal and what is moral are not always the same thing. For example.... abortion is legal, but IMHO it is highly immoral in nearly every case. And that is the view I take over use of deadly force in property crimes in which the property owner's health/life (my own included) is not being directly threatened by the perpetrator. Unless the perp is trying to go through the property owner to access/take/vandalize said property, in my book it’s not worth killing someone over it. And it’s even less worth it to kill someone over someone else's property.

These kinds of threads serve the purpose of helping us each, individually, game out what we think our own response would or should be, in similar circumstances. We are therefore invested in those opinions, and defending them vigorously. I am defending the proposition that the cascade of events initiated by the McMichaels' decision to chase after Aubrey proved that decision to be a really bad one. I’ll bet anyone here that, in hindsight, the McMichaels themselves have regrets about their decision....legal or not.

RottenApple wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 12:09 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 11:57 amWell, maybe you’re right and I’m wrong. I can only call 'em like I see 'em, and in this particular case, it seems like both the McMichaels and Aubrey would have been better served if the McMichaels had simply tried to be good witnesses. But they clearly went beyond that line when they decided to chase him down and try to detain him, when they could have merely stayed in the daggum car, avoided direct contact, and tailed him and directed police to his location. I’m telling all of you right now, stuff like THIS is why I have insurance..... for those times when I’m not home to order someone off of my property, and he or she breaks into my house and takes something. But an empty, unfinished house in mid-construction in my neighborhood? Nah. Just call the cops and let them deal with it. That’s what they get paid for. I don’t.

And if I were the owner of that unfinished house, my answer would be, "I have property insurance. Thank you for your concern, but please don't put yourselves at risk on behalf of my property. If you see me getting a beat-down, then by all means help me if you can, and I’ll welcome any help you can give, and return the favor if the shoe's on the other foot. But for property crimes? let the police make the arrests, and my insurance company will make me whole if there’s any damage to or theft of my property."

There’s an obvious caveat here.... if someone is intent on going through me to get to my property, then self defense comes into play. But if I come home just in time to see someone go roaring out of my driveway with my lawnmower in the back of their truck, AT MOST I'd follow at a safe distance, dial 911, and direct officers to the location of that truck.

First, I apologize if I offended you. I have the utmost respect for you and 99% of the time I find myself agreeing with your position.

Second, I absolutely agree with you that what the McMichaels did wasn't prudent or smart. It was down right foolish in the extreme. But, as far as I can tell, wasn't criminal. If the McMichaels have a competent attorney, without any additional evidence or plea deal, I don't see how the prosecution can possibly win this.

No, I’m not offended in the least. Please don't worry about it for one minute. We’ve all got opinions about this story. Maybe time will prove me wrong, or maybe it won’t. I think we are all invested in our opinions with stories like this one because those opinions are informed by how we think we ourselves should or should not act in similar circumstances. In a sense, we’re gaming out in advance what we think our own actions should be if we ever find ourselves in such similar circumstances. Whether or not the law vindicates the McMichaels in the end, it will not change my opinion that they made an essentially immoral choice....immoral because their choice initiated a cascade of events that ended with Arbery's death. They could have chosen to avoid contact with Arbery and acted purely as witnesses. Sometimes, the law is not moral.

RottenApple wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 11:18 pm

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 9:56 pmYou’re welcome. I think that a lot of people are going to look back on how this plays out in the end, and realize that they hastily came down on the side of their passions, and not on the side of the law..... much like the men who killed Ahmaud Arbery did.

I don't normally make a practice of disagreeing with you, TAM. But I think you might be wrong in this case (subject to new evidence being brought forth). After watching Andrew Branca's piece on this (link above) several times, I have a different view.

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 9:56 pmThe whole think speaks to whether or not it is worth killing someone over theft or vandalism of property—PARTICULARLY someone else's property—unless that person is directly threatening you with use of force/deadly force. Armageddon isn’t here yet.

I completely agree that killing someone over property isn't worth it. However, being stupid or making bad choices is not itself a crime.

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 9:56 pm(1) Any previous criminal record of Arbery's is irrelevant to this case. It seems extremely unlikely to me that the accused father and son would have had any prior knowledge of any such record. But even if they’d had such prior knowledge, this event was in no way connected to any previous events. It was its own distinct event. A pattern of proven past behaviors is not the same thing as a newly committed crime, and possible trespassing aside (for all they knew, he might have had permission to be there), father and son had no such proof of any kind of serious crime having been committed. That’s how the law works.

Agreed; but that isn't how this went down. The McMichaels witnessed a man stop outside a home under construction, in a neighborhood that has had several break-ins\thefts, look both ways (possibly to see if he was being observed?), and then head into the house. He was there for a few minutes, left the structure, and then started running. That certainly does seem like suspicious behavior to me.

Additionally, in GA, the law doesn't require that the McMichaels had "proof of any kind of serious crime having been committed". GA law only requires Reasonable Suspicion of intent to flee from committing a felony burglary.

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 9:56 pm(2) Arbery threatened nobody, assaulted nobody. He was not armed. When somebody with a firearm threatened him, he fought for his life. Even people with criminal records are allowed to defend themselves from unprovoked attacks by armed men. That’s how the law works.

The problem is that there is no evidence (publicly available at this time) that the McMichaels threatened anyone. Open Carry is 100% legal in GA and cannot be used as an element of threat without some additional action ("stop or I'll shoot", pointing the firearm, etc.) and there is no evidence of any other such threatening action or behavior from the McMichaels.

What there is evidence (video) of is of Arbery running towards the McMichaels (he was not pursued by them), dodging to the right side of the pickup, and then charging at one of them across the front of the truck.

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 9:56 pm(3) If those two men hadn’t pursued Arbery, he’d be alive today, and they wouldn’t be in trouble. That’s how the law works.

This is, without a doubt, completely true and correct. What they did was foolish and stupid, but that is not a crime.

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 9:56 pmWhen I was a kid, friends and I walked into LOTS of homes under construction to check them out. We never did any harm...we were just curious about what the house was going to be like. Thankfully, nobody had a wild enough hair up the wazoo to chase us down and confront us at gunpoint. I’d have run like heck too.....and maybe fought back too, depending on the demeanor and actions of my pursuers.

But would you have charged someone holding, but not pointing it at you, a firearm? They don't say anything threatening to you (from the video we can't even tell if words were even exchanged much less what was said). Would you have charged across 6-10 feet (Tueller Drill anyone?) and tried to grapple the gun away from them? Because that's what apparently happened in this case. Which, again, absent any additional evidence that may come to light, makes Arbery the aggressor and makes this a self-defense case.

I guess we'll have to see if something new comes out.

Well, maybe you’re right and I’m wrong. I can only call 'em like I see 'em, and in this particular case, it seems like both the McMichaels and Aubrey would have been better served if the McMichaels had simply tried to be good witnesses. But they clearly went beyond that line when they decided to chase him down and try to detain him, when they could have merely stayed in the daggum car, avoided direct contact, and tailed him and directed police to his location. I’m telling all of you right now, stuff like THIS is why I have insurance..... for those times when I’m not home to order someone off of my property, and he or she breaks into my house and takes something. But an empty, unfinished house in mid-construction in my neighborhood? Nah. Just call the cops and let them deal with it. That’s what they get paid for. I don’t.

And if I were the owner of that unfinished house, my answer would be, "I have property insurance. Thank you for your concern, but please don't put yourselves at risk on behalf of my property. If you see me getting a beat-down, then by all means help me if you can, and I’ll welcome any help you can give, and return the favor if the shoe's on the other foot. But for property crimes? let the police make the arrests, and my insurance company will make me whole if there’s any damage to or theft of my property."

There’s an obvious caveat here.... if someone is intent on going through me to get to my property, then self defense comes into play. But if I come home just in time to see someone go roaring out of my driveway with my lawnmower in the back of their truck, AT MOST I'd follow at a safe distance, dial 911, and direct officers to the location of that truck.

Flightmare wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 1:52 pm Thankyou for posting that TAM. Basically sums up what I had been thinking.

You’re welcome. I think that a lot of people are going to look back on how this plays out in the end, and realize that they hastily came down on the side of their passions, and not on the side of the law..... much like the men who killed Ahmaud Arbery did.

The whole think speaks to whether or not it is worth killing someone over theft or vandalism of property—PARTICULARLY someone else's property—unless that person is directly threatening you with use of force/deadly force. Armageddon isn’t here yet.

I have three reactions:

(1) Any previous criminal record of Arbery's is irrelevant to this case. It seems extremely unlikely to me that the accused father and son would have had any prior knowledge of any such record. But even if they’d had such prior knowledge, this event was in no way connected to any previous events. It was its own distinct event. A pattern of proven past behaviors is not the same thing as a newly committed crime, and possible trespassing aside (for all they knew, he might have had permission to be there), father and son had no such proof of any kind of serious crime having been committed. That’s how the law works.

(2) Arbery threatened nobody, assaulted nobody. He was not armed. When somebody with a firearm threatened him, he fought for his life. Even people with criminal records are allowed to defend themselves from unprovoked attacks by armed men. That’s how the law works.

(3) If those two men hadn’t pursued Arbery, he’d be alive today, and they wouldn’t be in trouble. That’s how the law works.

When I was a kid, friends and I walked into LOTS of homes under construction to check them out. We never did any harm...we were just curious about what the house was going to be like. Thankfully, nobody had a wild enough hair up the wazoo to chase us down and confront us at gunpoint. I’d have run like heck too.....and maybe fought back too, depending on the demeanor and actions of my pursuers.