Re: [爆卦] 美國白人至上者隨機亂殺黑人

看板Gossiping作者ghostforever (呃)時間4年前 (2020/05/13 12:30)推噓26(28推 2噓 59→)

留言89則, 17人參與討論串19/29 (看更多)

※ 引述《Scion (G8羊，專噓廢文)》之銘言： : 這幾天一直在追蹤這個案子的相關新聞 : 如果英文聽力OK的可以看看這個youtuber的短片 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjCzJyFKoqo

: 他的英文講得蠻標準的，聽起來應該不會很吃力 : 我覺得應該很難剖析的比他更清楚了 : 關鍵看點 : 1.First Degree Burglary : 2.Citizen's Arrest公民逮捕 : 3.Open Carry開放持槍 : 4.Self Defense自衛權部分原文恕刪個人是支持真理越辯越明這個youtuber提供的資訊頗值得參考，大部分講得也不錯我也很支持他裡面講的不要隨便選邊站你自己要收集資訊要自己做好功課不過下方的留言裡面其實有反方論點也值得提出來做參考: greasedog: Officer Tatum. “Let’s talk about facts”. You say there’s no video or other evidence Aubery was jogging? Fact: the video footage just prior to the killing clearly shows Aubery jogging up to and past the passenger side of the truck. Not running at a sprinters pace as if running from something. But, jogging at a joggers pace. You say the house was not under construction and was finished for the most part? Fact: the house had no windows or doors on it yet. It was wide open. The younger McMicheal says to the 911 operator “the house is all open. It’s under construction”. He said that. Nobody got it wrong. The video of Aubery inside shows a dwelling under construction. Georgia law says unlawful entry must be gained by way of “breaking a seal” to be an unlawful entry. Breaking a seal is forcibly opening or breaking a door or window and does not exclude going down the chimney like Santa. You Sir, conveniently left that distinction out of your mis-citing of Georgia Law. You also inferred intent. Aubery didn’t take or try to take anything. It is perfectly reasonable that Aubery only went in to look around since that ’s all he did. You did not dispel any arguments. You also didn’t take Arbery ’s Right to self defense into account. If he believed he did nothing wrong, why does he NOT have a Right to self defense against armed men who he’s too close to run away but close he’s close enough to take his chances to fight for his life? But, I understand your position. You’re trying to sell merch and you figure if you say the kind of stuff white people want to hear, they’ ll toss $ at you. I get it! Short line on that side of the fence for a black man. They’ll always have use for you. 渣翻譯: 帳號greasedog: Officer Tatum “讓我們談談事實"。你說沒有影片或其他證據顯示Aubery正在慢跑? 事實: 在被殺害前的影片片段裡顯示Aubery慢跑經過卡車旁的乘客。並非衝刺或是想逃離什麼東西的那種衝刺速度，僅僅就是慢跑的步伐速度。你說那個房子並不是在施工狀態下且大部分已完成?事實:這個房子尚未有門或窗戶，它是完全開放的。被告的兒子對911接線員說"房子是開放的，它是在施工狀態下"，他這樣說了。沒有人會理解錯誤的。Aubery影片中進入的房子是處在施工狀態下。喬治亞州法律說非法進入必須建立在"breaking a seal"，這意思是說要強制打開或破壞門或窗，也包括像聖誕老人一樣從煙囪爬進去。你，先生，方便的把這個資訊遺漏在你對喬治亞法律的錯誤引用外。同時你也推測犯意。但Aubery並未拿取或試圖拿取任何東西。可以合理地說Aubery僅有進入且看看四周，因為這確實就是他做的所有事。你並未解除任何爭議。你也並沒有把Arbery的自我防衛權力納入考量。如果他相信他沒有做錯任何事情，為何他沒有權力去從一個離自己很近無法逃離之的武裝人士手中近身一搏保護自己? 但，我了解你的立場。你是在試圖牟利，你發現如果你說這些白人喜歡聽的話他們就會給你錢。我完全了解!對黑人(原youtuber是黑人)來說肯定是條跨越到柵欄另一邊(應該是指白人那邊)的捷徑。他們總是用得著你的。基本上這個留言整段裡講慢跑的部分感覺比較沒有說服力(可能只是跑到沒力了)跟後面差不多人身攻擊的部分可以忽略，針對那個非法入侵的定義倒是很值得討論。如果留言所述為真，第一點闖空門不成立，那後面的公民逮捕等當然就變得站不住腳。老實說，這些就會是法庭上的攻防及法律最後的專業判斷。你我都只能看到片面事實跟資訊，後面到底如何，就靜靜看下去... -- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 36.224.231.111 (臺灣) ※ 文章網址: https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Gossiping/M.1589344244.A.C42.html ※ 編輯: ghostforever (36.224.231.111 臺灣), 05/13/2020 12:32:02

推

melic

05/13 12:37, 4年前 , 1^F

05/13 12:37, 1^F

噓

aeoleron

05/13 12:38, 4年前 , 2^F

05/13 12:38, 2^F

Scion跟我都沒有說且不認為有白人至上+隨機殺人吧這麼激動喔?

→

vn509942

05/13 12:39, 4年前 , 3^F

05/13 12:39, 3^F

→

Scion

05/13 12:40, 4年前 , 4^F

05/13 12:40, 4^F

剛剛往下又爬到一個留言 Joshua Ferreira 8 小時前 I have a question. Under GA law, I thought in order to attempt a citizens arrest, you have to be the property owner, or as the property owner give authority to another to do so. 總之....很多資訊需要一一釐清 ※ 編輯: ghostforever (36.224.231.111 臺灣), 05/13/2020 12:42:07

→

Scion

05/13 12:43, 4年前 , 5^F

05/13 12:43, 5^F

推

s8018572

05/13 12:43, 4年前 , 6^F

05/13 12:43, 6^F

※ 編輯: ghostforever (36.224.231.111 臺灣), 05/13/2020 12:45:35

推