Re: USA gun violence thread

[Art Morte]

There's one potentially important bit that the video doesn't seem to show: How the scuffle started. Did the black guy charge the redneck when he saw the shotgun? Or did the redneck confront the black guy? I'm guessing their defense will be that the black guy tried to take the gun and the killer shot in self defense.

[El Gunner]

pls Art ^^ i think it's clear they were already stopped and waiting to provoke him.

Provoking someone with a gun is an offense on it's own, so they can stick their self defense up their ass.

[McLewis]

I agree with Art honestly. That's probably going to be the defense they go with. It will be similar to Zimmerman's defense in the Trayvon shooting. They will justify their pursuing Arbery and then justify shooting him as labeling him the aggressor. They will claim they never intended to kill him and that they only wanted to make the citizen's arrest. If the jury finds that particular line of argument persuasive, they stand a decent change of acquittal. It worked for Zimmerman, it may very well work here too. The video is the x-factor though because it very clearly shows Arbery was not the initial aggressor. In fact, it shows that Arbery didn't even know how to properly defend himself when locked in a fight with an armed assailant.

I have absolutely no faith in Georgia's ability to prosecute this trial fairly though, to be honest.

[BarrileteCosmico]

Bit confused on what you mean, BC. Can you explain?

If you see someone being robbed at gunpoint yelling "I'm gonna fuckin shoot you", isn't that reason for a bystander to believe that that is "imminent" use of unlawful force?

I meant that you can only defend yourself if the attacker will use unlawful imminent force. If he's minding his own business as the jogger was then there is nothing imminent about it.

[CBarca]

Ahh ok you were referring to this specific situation. I agree with you

[Art Morte]

pls Art ^^ i think it's clear they were already stopped and waiting to provoke him.

Provoking someone with a gun is an offense on it's own, so they can stick their self defense up their ass.

I don't claim to know what exactly happened, just saying that based on the video, their defense will almost certainly be that "he tried to take the gun, so we shot in self defense."

[Thimmy]

pls Art ^^ i think it's clear they were already stopped and waiting to provoke him.

Provoking someone with a gun is an offense on it's own, so they can stick their self defense up their ass.

I don't claim to know what exactly happened, just saying that based on the video, their defense will almost certainly be that "he tried to take the gun, so we shot in self defense."

That’s what I thought as well, but it’s 2 vs 1 - they also had a car, and the guy who took the shot could’ve aimed for the kid’s leg instead of the chest, but he didn’t. He had plenty of time to aim, and he even fired several shots. This doesn’t look good for them regardless of how you interpret the video.

[Young Kaz]

pls Art ^^ i think it's clear they were already stopped and waiting to provoke him.

Provoking someone with a gun is an offense on it's own, so they can stick their self defense up their ass.

I don't claim to know what exactly happened, just saying that based on the video, their defense will almost certainly be that "he tried to take the gun, so we shot in self defense."

That’s what I thought as well, but it’s 2 vs 1 - they also had a car, and the guy who took the shot could’ve aimed for the kid’s leg instead of the chest, but he didn’t. He had plenty of time to aim, and he even fired several shots. This doesn’t look good for them regardless of how you interpret the video.

You never aim for legs because that is a smaller target and quicker to move. You miss and you shoot somebody else and you are done for. You always shoot for the bigger target

[Thimmy]

I don't claim to know what exactly happened, just saying that based on the video, their defense will almost certainly be that "he tried to take the gun, so we shot in self defense."

That’s what I thought as well, but it’s 2 vs 1 - they also had a car, and the guy who took the shot could’ve aimed for the kid’s leg instead of the chest, but he didn’t. He had plenty of time to aim, and he even fired several shots. This doesn’t look good for them regardless of how you interpret the video.

You never aim for legs because that is a smaller target and quicker to move. You miss and you shoot somebody else and you are done for. You always shoot for the bigger target

Sure, but the kid wasn’t exactly dancing. The guy with the handgun in the back of the car had so much time to aim for a non- vital area of his body, like the hip or thigh area, yet he shot him in the chest. Most people here in Norway have never seen a real life gun, but I’ve actually fired both handguns, revolvers and rifles from medium to longer ranges on plastic targets that were far more mobile than the kid in the video is. I assume those rednecks have used guns before and aren’t complete amateurs at using them, and based on this video, avoiding a lethal shot shouldn’t have been much of a problem.

[Young Kaz]

That’s what I thought as well, but it’s 2 vs 1 - they also had a car, and the guy who took the shot could’ve aimed for the kid’s leg instead of the chest, but he didn’t. He had plenty of time to aim, and he even fired several shots. This doesn’t look good for them regardless of how you interpret the video.

You never aim for legs because that is a smaller target and quicker to move. You miss and you shoot somebody else and you are done for. You always shoot for the bigger target

Sure, but the kid wasn’t exactly dancing. The guy with the handgun in the back of the car had so much time to aim for a non- vital area of his body, like the hip or thigh area, yet he shot him in the chest. Most people here in Norway have never seen a real life gun, but I’ve actually fired both handguns, revolvers and rifles from medium to longer ranges on plastic targets that were far more mobile than the kid in the video is. I assume those rednecks have used guns before and aren’t complete amateurs at using them, and based on this video, avoiding a lethal shot shouldn’t have been much of a problem.

I dont know how it is in Norway, but you are taught to shoot to kill in America.

You dont use a gun if you are trying to stop someone in a nonlethal way.

[CBarca]

I mean, if I'm not wrong, it's clear the murderer is fighting with Arbery in the video over the shotgun. So at that point the murderer is probably scared of losing that battle and having the gun turned on him. I would argue in his mind he didn't have a choice to go shoot any sort of non-vital area of the body. It's life or death. He took multiple shots just looking to hit Arbery with one of them, and he did.

I'm of course not making any excuse for the individual I only refer to as "murderer" in this thread. Just explaining why I think it ended up the way it did.

[Thimmy]

I assumed the guy standing on the car was the murderer, since he has a clear shot while the other two are having a bout of fisticuffs. It seemed like he fired a couple of shots, but it’s hard to tell when the camera sways so much.

You can’t get a gun without a gun license here, and even the police don’t carry guns in Norway, unless there are special circumstances. I was able to do target practice with guns when I was younger because one of my friend’s dad was a retired chief of police who owned a farm in the middle of nowhere. God knows how he had acquired all of his guns, and if he legally owned them. He had a room full of spy equipment and all sorts of police related gadgets and tools. «Shoot to kill» is absurd when there’s no reason to kill, and guns can be used to simply disarm or immobilize.

[El Gunner]

I dont know how it is in Norway, but you are taught to shoot to kill in America.

You dont use a gun if you are trying to stop someone in a nonlethal way.

wtf straight up

[El Gunner]

i still find that video very fishy btw.

Why was he mishandling the device like that?? there's an entire section which can be crucial in court that is missing in that video because the person was mishandling it. And the person videoing didn't even make any sounds?? surely when you just witness someone being murdered in front of you, you gasp or say "wtf" or "omg"

i dont know

[Myesyats]

Why was he mishandling the device like that?? there's an entire section which can be crucial in court that is missing in that video because the person was mishandling it. And the person videoing didn't even make any sounds?? surely when you just witness someone being murdered in front of you, you gasp or say "wtf" or "omg"

some people freeze in stressful situations and can't even make a sound, that's normal I think

I reckon it's first degree murder without question, they waited for him there with the intent to kill. Definitely premeditated. Truly disturbing

[elitedam]

The person who filmed the whole thing is under investigation as well.

[futbol_bill]

After watching Trump and comments about his support, the number of mass shootings, the irresponsible attitude about guns, the obvious racism and divided country and now this thread, I can’t help but think, what a f..ked up country!

[Freeza]

Then there's a case with the races switched in the same state.

Famous black man fires at people entering his home without hitting them and he's arrested for it.

https://sports.yahoo.com/former-laker-shannon-brown-arrested-after-allegedly-firing-gun-at-people-during-open-house-mix-up-203602433.html

[sportsczy]

It's the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution.  No matter how antiquated it is, there is absolutely nothing the President or anyone else can do until there's a constitutional amendment.  The legal courts will shut down everything until then.

From my perspective...  it's not that hard to get a gun.  It's like cannabis; in states where it's illegal, it's not that hard to get anyhow.

I think owning a gun is fine if that's what you're into.  I just don't get that you allow unnecessary levels of firepower legally... get rid of those.  You don't need an assault rifle to protect yourself or hunt.

[Myesyats]

You don't need a gun to protect yourself in a civilized country. The Swiss own guns but their culture and education is totally different to the US. They don't view guns in the same way. America's problems are deep rooted, the education is lacking and therefore I think that in light of these circumstances I wouldn't say "owning a gun is fine".

Most importantly, the Swiss see gun ownership as a common good and not as an individualistic thing. Thats the main difference I guess.

[The Demon of Carthage]

It doesn't matter how you spin it, whether it's carved on the first page of the US constitution or on the roof of the White House, owning a gun is dangerous and should be forbidden in any civilized society, especially in a society as violent as the US. And I'm not just talking about assault rifles here, I'm including guns as well and anything with a bullet and a trigger.

If those two rednecks didn't have guns, that kid would be alive today. Also, even if you thought he was a burglar or something (which is their defense), you don't jump in a truck with shotguns and a pistol and follow him around. That's not your job. You call the police.

[sportsczy]

That's your opinion.  I disagree with it.  Owning guns is a right in the United States, not a privilege.  Just need to do a MUCH better job of screening people who can own guns, have an ongoing monitoring system for gun owners, and limit the type of firearm that is legal.

The fact is, the 2nd amendment of the US constitution isn't going to get amended anytime soon.  Better to discuss things that can be implemented... like MUCH better controls.  For example in NYC, it's impossible to buy a gun... literally.  For good reason; you don't need a gun here and there's no hunting.
If the rednecks want to shoot each other, let them.

[McLewis]

It's the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution.  No matter how antiquated it is, there is absolutely nothing the President or anyone else can do until there's a constitutional amendment.  The legal courts will shut down everything until then.

From my perspective...  it's not that hard to get a gun.  It's like cannabis; in states where it's illegal, it's not that hard to get anyhow.

I think owning a gun is fine if that's what you're into.  I just don't get that you allow unnecessary levels of firepower legally... get rid of those.  You don't need an assault rifle to protect yourself or hunt.

From the conservative perspective, that's the beauty of the vagueness of the 2nd amendment. It was written so broadly that they are sticking to its literal words as essentially gospel: The right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

In this case, "arms" means everything from assault rifles to pistols to shotguns, hunting rifles, machine guns, uzis, grenade launchers, IEDs and other weapons of war. One could even classify tanks and nukes as "arms". This is how wide open the interpretation for it has been. Now many of those latter weapons have not been outright banned. They've just been rendered so expensive and require so many government hoops to jump through that private citizens often don't go through the trouble to buy them. Some do though and think that no weapon should be off limits to them.

[Myesyats]

Times change and so should laws. I don't get why some people act like the consitution should be untouchable.


New Zealand banned assault rifles within a month of Christchurch. Wasn't difficult at all

[The Demon of Carthage]

Implementing strict gun laws would definitely and dramatically decrease shooting deaths, but it wouldn't erase it completely. And we're dealing with human lives here, so even if you had just one death a year, that's already one too many.

Let's say you somehow found out a way to put citizens through a rigorous set of tests before they can own a gun. Let's say all of them are now required to attend classes and pass written tests, including mental-health evaluation as well as a background check. That still wouldn't suffice because humans, even the sane ones, are predisposed to insanity and capable of the worst things imaginable if certain conditions are met.

Stephen Paddock had no criminal record. James Holmes had no criminal record. There have been many cases where the perpetrator had appeared completely sane and normal in the eyes of those around them prior to carrying out their attack. And I'm pretty sure if you dig a little deeper into this case as well, you'll probably find out that those two rednecks have clean records as well.

This is why I'm completely against firearms of any kind. Nothing good can come out of them, even when you implement strict gun laws.

[McLewis]

For better or worse, guns are part of the fabric of American culture. It's just not possible to completely unravel us from it. People here will always be able to own them. And I say that as someone who strongly supports gun laws that represent this century and not the 18th. Literally every amendment has undergone changes to reflect the realities of right now. The 2nd has undergone the fewest and that's no mistake or oversight.

The gun lobby is powerful and their supporters are legion. Even a whiff of talk of anything that they perceive as a curtailment of their 2nd amendment rights and the fear-mongering commences. It's a very well-oiled machines and it's super effective. Just look at how the playbook the NRA trots out after atrocities like Columbine, Sandy Hook, Parkland, Charleston, etc. They tell us not to take their guns away because 1 guy decided to lose his mind and kill a bunch of people. That they would never do that. The reality is that everyone's a law abiding citizen.....until they're not. It's a razor thin line and it's very easy to cross. They tell us the government has no right to decide who is mentally fit to own a gun and that even the definition of "mentally ill" isn't definitive enough to apply to owning guns.  They use semantics like that to confuse, gaslight, stall and deceive util we're all too mentally exhausted to talk about the subject again.

They are so frightened by this that the NRA actively shuts down even research on how to decrease gun violence for fear of what that research would possibly reveal: Stronger gun laws may actually work.

[Sponsored content]