May 21, 20205 yr 13 minutes ago, Kz! said: Muh narratives! not muh narratives! man, you really like wiping crap off your face everyday. seems like a weird fetish, but hey, you do you. let me guess, now you're gonna call me beta tater ? sorry if I stole your thunder there KKKz.
May 21, 20205 yr 14 minutes ago, Kz! said: Muh narratives! not muh narratives! you should probably give yourself a fresh start & start a new account as the gamma or something.
May 21, 20205 yr 1 minute ago, downundermike said: So was that a yes? I'm happily blissfully ignorant about their on goings
May 21, 20205 yr 2 minutes ago, Mike030270 said: So was that a yes? I'm happily blissfully ignorant about their on goings Yes
May 21, 20205 yr 5 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said: man, you really like wiping crap off your face everyday. seems like a weird fetish, but hey, you do you. let me guess, now you're gonna call me beta tater ? sorry if I stole your thunder there KKKz. Classic Beta.
May 21, 20205 yr 2 minutes ago, Kz! said: Classic Beta. You should just admit all that you are wrong about and move on.
May 21, 20205 yr 1 hour ago, Kz! said: I'm pretty sure I said "if" they had access, then... but I'll acknowledge they didn't since you brought that to light. Even still, don't you think actual journalists should be correct with basic, observable facts of the story? So you thought it important enough to spend time trying to dig up past trangressions of the victim, which are completely irrelevant to the case. But when it comes to actually searching for facts that are relevant to the case, you didn't think that was necessary and it's fine to just speculate on those. Awesome. Obviously journalists should be correct with basic, observable facts of the story. When have I ever said they shouldn't? My post was pointing out the hilarious irony of YOU bringing this up, considering your multiple posts that contained falseholds regarding this case.
May 21, 20205 yr 2 hours ago, Kz! said: I'm pretty sure I said "if" they had access, then... but I'll acknowledge they didn't since you brought that to light. Even still, don't you think actual journalists should be correct with basic, observable facts of the story? Gotta say, it's pretty amazing the things you are able to "forget" you said in the very thread discussing them, that aren't even a week old. So here's another reminder, since you seem to need one: You said: "I’m saying as far as attempting to detain someone they thought had committed a burglary after a rash of burglaries nearby and seeing someone who matched Arbery’s description on cctv footage." " Not just the footage from the day in question. There's footage of a young man that looks like Arbery at night. Again this does not mean Arbery did it or should have been killed for it. It does potentially help explain the father/son combos actions misguided though they were." "I believe, given the CCTV footage and the alleged burglaries in the neighborhood, they had reason to believe Arbery had stolen something and was fleeing. " So yeah, you stated multiple times that they had seen the CCTV footage, and that this played into the reason why they stopped Arbery in his path.
May 21, 20205 yr 7 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: Gotta say, it's pretty amazing the things you are able to "forget" you said in the very thread discussing them, that aren't even a week old. So here's another reminder, since you seem to need one: You said: "I’m saying as far as attempting to detain someone they thought had committed a burglary after a rash of burglaries nearby and seeing someone who matched Arbery’s description on cctv footage." " Not just the footage from the day in question. There's footage of a young man that looks like Arbery at night. Again this does not mean Arbery did it or should have been killed for it. It does potentially help explain the father/son combos actions misguided though they were." "I believe, given the CCTV footage and the alleged burglaries in the neighborhood, they had reason to believe Arbery had stolen something and was fleeing. " So yeah, you stated multiple times that they had seen the CCTV footage, and that this played into the reason why they stopped Arbery in his path. Yes, I was under the impression they had at the time. It was never my intention to deliberately misrepresent the truth. 1 hour ago, downundermike said: You should just admit all that you are wrong about and move on. I'd like that, thank you. It is now clear to me that the McMichaels, with undeniable ties to the KKK and a well documented history of racism, followed Arbery with the intention of murdering him. Arbery's reaction was the only logical path he could have taken as disarming the man was his only chance of survival. If Arbery had attempted to flee, he would have been gunned down undoubtedly. Thanks for taking the time to read.
May 21, 20205 yr 17 minutes ago, Kz! said: Yes, I was under the impression they had at the time. It was never my intention to deliberately misrepresent the truth. Glad that I was able to refresh your memory. Amazing how in just 2 hours of time, you went from "I'm pretty sure I said if they had access to it" to "Yes I was under the impression they had at the time". This is like watching the Rick James story on the Chapelle's show where Rick goes on and on about how he wouldn't stomp on someone's couch with dirty shoes, and then pauses and goes.....yeah I remember stomping on Eddie Murphy's couch.... And ummm those posts are from Sunday, and yesterday. That's May 17th and May 20th. Larry English, the owner of the home under construction, stated on MAY 12TH, that he had never given the McMichaels the CCTV video. So you either purposefully lied, or were purposefully ignorant of the truth. You pick. Maybe if you spent more time researching the alleged facts relevant to the case, and less time trying to dig up irrelevant pass trangressions of the victim, you wouldn't have had such an uninformed opinion of what transpired....
May 21, 20205 yr 3 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: Ummm those posts are from Sunday, and yesterday. That's May 17th and May 20th. Larry English, the owner of the home under construction, stated on MAY 12TH, that he had never given the McMichaels the CCTV video. So you either purposefully lied, or were purposefully ignorant of the truth. You pick. Maybe if you spent more time researching the alleged facts relevant to the case, and less time trying to dig up irrelevant pass trangressions of the victim, you wouldn't have had such an uninformed opinion of what transpired.... OK your waddling into extreme **** territory here. Thanks for the timeline, but I had never read that the homeowner specifically said he had never given the footage to the McMichaels until last night prior to the posts being made. Already apologized for the mistake. My view points on the case align with your own now. Thanks for the information.
May 21, 20205 yr 4 minutes ago, Kz! said: Yes, I was under the impression they had at the time. It was never my intention to deliberately misrepresent the truth. I'd like that, thank you. It is now clear to me that the McMichaels, with undeniable ties to the KKK and a well documented history of racism, followed Arbery with the intention of murdering him. Arbery's reaction was the only logical path he could have taken as disarming the man was his only chance of survival. If Arbery had attempted to flee, he would have been gunned down undoubtedly. Thanks for taking the time to read. Bwahahaha, he tears down the victims character and then mocks people for doing the same to the actual murderers. Good times.
May 21, 20205 yr 1 minute ago, Kz! said: OK your waddling into extreme **** territory here. Thanks for the timeline, but I had never read that the homeowner specifically said he had never given the footage to the McMichaels until last night prior to the posts being made. Already apologized for the mistake. My view points on the case align with your own now. Thanks for the information. lol I don't need an apology. Maybe what you should be doing is taking a step back and asking yourself why is it that you made it a priority to research any past transgressions of the victim and making sure you had all of those facts right. But spent no time researching into a) what Georgia law requires in order to perform a citizens arrest, b) if the McMichaels had access to the CCTV footage, and c) if there actually had been a rash of home burglaries in the area with a suspect that matched Arbery's description. You thought it fine to speculate on those things, but wanted to make sure you had your facts straight when it came to the victim's past trangressions. I hope you can find the answer to that question.
May 21, 20205 yr 21 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: Glad that I was able to refresh your memory. Amazing how in just 2 hours of time, you went from "I'm pretty sure I said if they had access to it" to "Yes I was under the impression they had at the time". This is like watching the Rick James story on the Chapelle's show where Rick goes on and on about how he wouldn't stomp on someone's couch with dirty shoes, and then pauses and goes.....yeah I remember stomping on Eddie Murphy's couch.... And ummm those posts are from Sunday, and yesterday. That's May 17th and May 20th. Larry English, the owner of the home under construction, stated on MAY 12TH, that he had never given the McMichaels the CCTV video. So you either purposefully lied, or were purposefully ignorant of the truth. You pick. Maybe if you spent more time researching the alleged facts relevant to the case, and less time trying to dig up irrelevant pass trangressions of the victim, you wouldn't have had such an uninformed opinion of what transpired.... F YOUR COUCH !!!!
May 21, 20205 yr 2 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: lol I don't need an apology. Maybe what you should be doing is taking a step back and asking yourself why is it that you made it a priority to research any past transgressions of the victim and making sure you had all of those facts right. But spent no time researching into a) what Georgia law requires in order to perform a citizens arrest, b) if the McMichaels had access to the CCTV footage, and c) if there actually had been a rash of home burglaries in the area with a suspect that matched Arbery's description. You thought it fine to speculate on those things, but wanted to make sure you had your facts straight when it came to the victim's past trangressions. I hope you can find the answer to that question. Those things didn't pop up on my Twitter timeline?
May 21, 20205 yr 12 minutes ago, Kz! said: Those things didn't pop up on my Twitter timeline? Ah, so then it was option 2: Purposefully ignorant of the truth. Glad we got that answered.
May 21, 20205 yr 2 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said: Ah, so then it was option 2: Purposefully ignorant of the truth. Glad we got that answered. 7 minutes ago, downundermike said: What is your point ?? I can do that as well. Oh, I put the Clint Eastwood gif to show my reaction to my notifications as kind of a joke. Get it?
May 21, 20205 yr I havent read this thread but from what I have seen on the news it looks pretty straight forward. Wanna be cops killed a guy that was at worst committing property theft. Those wanna be cops got arrested and used their connections to put out the 2017 taser video in a attempt to show the guy was a danger. The video backfired and makes the cops look even worse for harassing the guy. His car was legally parked in the park. The cop had no legal reason to run his ID. Even after he did, there was nothing further to investigate, but the cop kept prying and prying. The guy told the cop how many times he was not allowing him to search his car? But the cop continued to press him asking no less then 6 times AFTER he was told no. 2nd cop shows up, within seconds tries to taze him, and then later explains the the 3rd cop that he didnt know what the situation was.... Doesnt know the situation, but tazes the guy within seconds of being there. 3rd cop seems like the only reasonable one there. Basically looked at the other 2 like they were idiots. Even after leaving, Cop 1 was still trying to get him for something, talking about towing the car and inspecting it. Cop 3 kills that idea as it was baseless. I dont blame Ahmaud for being agitated with Cop 1. Cop 1 was clearly pushing the issue to get Ahmaud to give him a reason to arrest him or at the least give him a reason to search his car. Ahmaud kept it together at the beginning, complying when he didnt have to give that cop ish. At that point he wasnt breaking any laws. Cop had no legal ground to ask for his ID or anything else. When the cop kept pushing, Ahmaud got pissed. I would have gotten pissed also. Anyways, back to the point.... The 2 murderers need to go away for life. Cop 1 needs training. Cop 2 needs training. Cop 3 did great.
May 21, 20205 yr 14 hours ago, Bill said: Yeah so one of the idiots involved left a handgun in an unlocked vehicle. And then this happens and he doesn't get charged. @PoconoDon slightly off topic but relevant to local law enforcement. I'm not sure how you feel, but tbh I think that most municipal departments shouldn't exist. Most states should just have a state police force that enforces state law statewide without any small town jurisdictions getting in the way. The only thing extra that municipal police do is do some local ordinance enforcement. Also while we are at it do away with University police. To me it just makes the most sense. I have met a lot more locals that shouldn't have been a LEO than I have met Troopers that shouldn't be a LEO. Let it be devoid of small town politics and people who exhibit mass levels of Dunning-Krueger. Bill, I'm fine with municipal, university, school, and private police existing. I've met quite a few who were terrific people and police officers. Where the problem seems to exist is covering the costs associated with having your own PD. In order to reduce the costs they lower salary and benefits, employee qualifications, and general hiring standards. As with anything else, you get what you pay for in the US. Wanna pay them 30K a year with minimal benefits and little equipment furnished, then as you know, almost nobody is competing for that job. You're stuck getting the guy who couldn't cut it at 3 other Departments, is always a problem, probably won't last in your town either, and placing people's lives in his hands while he runs around half cocked until you finally let him go. Then generally, he's replaced with another of his ilk, and the cycle continues. Raise the standards, the pay, the benefits, and open their employment history completely to the hiring agency, and you'll get a more professional Police Officer with which to begin building a better Department. That's always been the correct answer. It's just been ignored in most places.
Create an account or sign in to comment