They definitely clean up the racist comments after letting them stew for a few days. I’m always surprised at what they delete, and what they let stand.
It seems to be a pretty intentional operation. They know their comments section is a cesspool, and they don’t want it to really change. That’s why they have taken pretty significant measures to avoid search engines indexing the comments, or otherwise making them visible outside the article pages.
vigilantism != vigilante justice
Ain’t no justice about this
And if you saw these two men shooting this unarmed jogger, wouldn’t it be acceptable to shoot the two of them out of fear for your own life because they just murdered someone in front of you?
At what point does this law not apply to the people abusing it?
If I saw this happen and I had a concealed carry permit I have to be honest I might have used it.
If they want a society based on fear justifying any action what happens when that comes full circle?
Is anyone going to jail someone for killing a killer?
This completely irrational fear of “the other” allowing people to murder in broad daylight and using a law designed to be abused by murderers needs to end.
Don’t confuse what these guys claim as legal justification with actual justification. They are up for murder. Guilty or innocent, everyone throws every possible defense argument out there. There are no brownie points for narrowing your defense. You try everything to see what stick.
The court system then has to knock 'em all down.
Not sure if anyone has pointed this out, but if they did not witness or have immediate knowledge of a crime, then this would have been illegal detainment. And if there is a death during a crime, such as illegal detainment, it falls under the felony murder rule. Stand your ground would not be a defense against that.
What about the canard “An armed society is a polite society.” When I see people with guns (other than police, usually…) my first response is not “Gee - look how polite they are.” It’s “GTFO - there are [dangerous] people here.”
For white people, “your ground” is the entire state of Georgia.
Note the father wasn’t just reporting within the police organization - he also worked directly for the prosecutor’s office. Justice delayed and whatnot. But though people have recused themselves from the case, those who should take it over now have a real challenge on their hands: 1) to act like they’ve been doing something - the excuse is that the State wasn’t asked to do it by the County - and 2) to figure out how they can show a trajectory towards justice with the challenge of putting a jury together because Covid-19; on the other hand 3) Gov Kemp now says bowling alleys are Covid-safe.
So maybe find 12 people in a bowling alley and do a pop up trial? Hopefully some prospective jurors would be members of The National Bowling Association (still active today, and was known when initially established from 1939-1944 as the National Negro Bowling Association).
An interesting detail in the Guardian article about this:
Gregory McMichael told police that he and his adult son thought Arbery matched the description of someone caught on a security camera committing a recent break-in in the neighborhood.
To me that reads as an unholy alliance of a Ring doorbell, the Nextdoor app and vigilantism. How else would they have access to neighbourhood “security camera” footage?
A shorter form of those rules:
People like them should be able to shoot people not like them anytime they deem fit
You obviously didn’t read the story. They weren’t charged with anything at all
vigilante justice != justice
And he’d be a very fine person.
As ever:
Because they are white. 
The video is so blatantly obvious that they are being forced to bring this to a grand jury.
This is not a “Georgia” problem. It’s an America problem.
That’s what I’m saying, yes
Yeah from what I saw researching this a couple days ago, it REEKS of two guys getting away with murder because they are “good ol’ boys” who are friendly with the right people.
You can not take the law into your own hands. You defiantly can’t “stand your ground” when there isn’t a viable threat.
So in this case, shouldn’t the feds or a “neutral” law enforcement agency step in to investigate? Someone who doesn’t have ties to the perpetrators?
That, or black people are supposed to treat all white people who approach them as duly-appointed officers of the law.
Yep, but being dead he can’t claim to have “been afraid,” and if he had lived, as a “scary black man” there’s a very good chance his claim to have been afraid of white people wouldn’t be accepted. “Stand your ground” laws heavily preference whoever comes out of the confrontation alive (even if they initiated it, even if they have a history of violence, even if they were armed and the dead person wasn’t) and are highly forgiving if the victim wasn’t white.
And not just cops - in states with “stand your ground” laws, that works for everyone (who is armed and white, anyways). It’s always “fuck your feelings,” or “facts don’t care about your feelings” - they absolutely expect their own feelings to be privileged.
They confuse “polite” with “terrorized.”
You’re probably over-thinking it. Most likely the description was “black man.”
Except in states with “stand your ground” laws, where, legally speaking at least, you absolutely can. They’re blatantly “justifying murdering a particular sort of people” laws.
Click at your own risk, but this article’s comments are filled with the normal amount of vile human beings (for Breitbart, meaning a lot).
Everything you just said above.
I took a read through the Florida SYG laws after the Trayvon Martin case, and indeed, the laws are written such that George Zimmerman had a strong argument that he did not break the law.
It boggles the mind.
When I attempted to read the letter from the District Attorney, I discovered was viewing a thumbnail showing only the first page. I’ve sleuthed out a link to the complete PDF of this letter, here: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6916-george-barnhill-letter-to-glyn/b52fa09cdc974b970b79/optimized/full.pdf
IANAL, but it feels to me this District Attorney is attempting to dirty the pool of any investigation before an unbiased DA can pick it up. If he’s recusing himself, he ought to go ahead and recuse himself, not interject a lengthy opinion to favor the correct parties.
