Militarization of the police is necessary. Those guys risk their lives every day to protect you and I.
When I hear folks criticize police officers, it makes me cringe.
Militarization of the police is necessary. Those guys risk their lives every day to protect you and I.
When I hear folks criticize police officers, it makes me cringe.
Will you say the same if someone in your family was accused of something, chased down and killed? "Oh well, its better than actual law and order". That is a pretty crappy stand point.
Yes, I will. I taught my kids manners, not to steal, not to trespass, etc....
When they violate basic principles of life, bad stuff happens. Doesn't make it nice, but guess what - it ain't a nice world.
But - those that do the chasing best watch their back from now on. That cuts both ways.
OK, I lied...I have one last thing to say...promise.
The police "protect" me? Right, so if someone is trying to break in my home (and armed), I should feel better that the police will be RIGHT OUT to save me and my family? GTFO of here. They are an agent of the government, nothing less, nothing more. And no, militirization is NOT necessary, and there is NOTHING that you (or anyone) can tell me that will change my mind. Special tactics teams? Yes, they are needed. But every beat cop wearing desert fatigues and running around with ACTUAL assault weapons? Nope. Nope. Nope.
Well I guess it's easy to see where you stand. The thin blue line is to protect and serve - even anarchists like you.
As for me, I'll stand behind the men in blue.
Because I want to keep my eye on those shifty *******s.
Last edited:
Yeah, and you completely missed the point.
You guys still hashing this out? Case is solved. He was jogging to choir practice and the guys who stopped him had just left a klan meeting. Come on guys, it’s over. They should be hung with new rope.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/ilr/pdf/vol32p1437.pdf
In 1991, the Chandler court overturned the long-standing rule in Georgia
prohibiting the admission of evidence by the accused of specific acts of violence
by the victim to prove that the victim’s bad character conformed to this violent
trait. The court was convinced that the former rule should be abolished and
adopted the reasoning of Justice Weltner in his concurrence in Lolley v. State.
The court stated: “In his special concurrence to Lolley,Justice Weltner cogently
explained why this Court ought to change the rule. We now find his reasoning
persuasive and hold that . . . evidence of specific acts of violence by a victim
against third persons shall be admissible where the defendant claims
justification.”
From page 1549:
In 1991, the Chandler court overturned the long-standing rule in Georgia
prohibiting the admission of evidence by the accused of specific acts of violence
by the victim to prove that the victim’s bad character conformed to this violent
trait. The court was convinced that the former rule should be abolished and
adopted the reasoning of Justice Weltner in his concurrence in Lolley v. State.
The court stated: “In his special concurrence to Lolley,Justice Weltner cogently
explained why this Court ought to change the rule. We now find his reasoning
persuasive and hold that . . . evidence of specific acts of violence by a victim
against third persons shall be admissible where the defendant claims
justification.”
From page 1549:
OK, I admit it; I was in error on this point.
And does this change the fact that the McMichaels had no right to stop and detain Arbery? Again, you are bringing up Arbery's past where it has no bearing in this case. Its this simple: Did the McMichaels have a legal footing to stop and detain with implied force? If the answer is yes, then they will be cleared. If the answer is no, then they are directly responsible for Arbery's death. To quote Metallica, nothing else matters. Bringing up anything from Arbery's past does nothing to change the answer to that question. Trying to use it to justify the actions of the McMichaels is erroneous.
When a perp fights a cop who was trying to detain him for questioning, you bet I'm going to be on the cops side, regardless of the color of both. When a citizen thinks they are the cops and can detain people without the proper authority to, then they are directly responsible for anything that happens. Its that simple. In this case we have not only the original police report, footage from the house cam that shows Arbery didn't even commit trespass, a misdemeanor, much less a felony, but it shows Arbery trying to avoid the McMichaels and only engaged when Travis McMichael tried to approach him with a firearm presented. As I, and several others, have said, unless new evidence is presented that shows either McMichael had witnessed or had direct knowledge that Arbery committed a felony, the McMichaels are at fault. And that is what will be tried in court.
Similar threads
