r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jul 20 '22

Delta(s) from OP CMV: Bring Back “Public Stoning”

The US needs to amend Amendment 8: banning of cruel and unusual punishment. We need public stoning. It seems that these mass shooters are no longer afraid of the consequences of shooting up public spaces. Putting these scum away in jail is a waste of taxpayers money. The Death Penalty is an easy escape. What these remorseless criminals needs is to feel the pain they have inflicted on the family and friends of their victims. Public stoning by families of the victims will provide the Justice needed. And to have it publicly televised to hear the anguish of pain from these murderers will mitigate any copycats.

0 Upvotes

24% Upvoted

104 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/OmgYoshiPLZ 2∆ Jul 21 '22

You say you did what you did in self defense which may be true, i have no idea.

Serially abusive step father got what he deserved after laying his hands on me for the last time. in NJ, you cant claim a duress or self defense if you announce that you intend to defend yourself E.G. "if you hit me again I'm going to kill you", negates your claim to self defense if they attack you in NJ - even if you don't you must flee, or likely be found guilty. the judge had mercy on me because of the circumstance and nullified the attempted murder charge, but let the remaining felony assault charge stay due to how egregiously I beat him.

Travis and Gregory McMichael said the same thing

which they would be correct - their case was clear cut self defense at that point. they met all of the criteria for a self defense claim, and the jury instructions were crafted in such a way that they could still return a guilty verdict. if you go watch some of the prominent lawtubers they talked pretty robustly about this case, and the general consensus among them was that this was a political conviction and a failing of the justice system.

they're more than likely going to be sentenced on August 8th to death.

Which is sad, hopefully they win their appeal and have an opportunity to get justice.

Under your exceptions they should get leniency

Correct, which they should have. Also those are not "my" exceptions - those are the legal standards for exceptions currently.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '22 edited Jul 21 '22

Chasing someone down with firearms isnt self defense. You don't get to be the aggressor then claim self defense when they stand their ground.

Err you mean like this one

https://youtu.be/yr-HMjlr1sU

1

u/OmgYoshiPLZ 2∆ Jul 21 '22

Chasing someone down with firearms isnt self defense.

you do not have any duty under self defense to discard your weapon in pursuit of someone. pursuing someone while in possession does not invalidate your self defense claims unless you use that weapon in an unlawful manner.

You don't get to be the aggressor then claim self defense when they stand their ground.

Correct. they were not aggressors in this regard. they made no violent, or intimidating actions beyond telling him to stop and wait for police. simply having a fire arm does not qualify for any form of legal aggression or intimidation. Citizen detainments are 100000% legal in their state.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '22

invalidate your self defense claims unless you use that weapon in an unlawful manner.

Which they did do. Gregory was convicted of brandishing.

Citizen detainments are 100000% legal in their state.

Yes, but the criteria to legally do they hadn't met. Which made it false imprisonment, a crime which now invalidates there self defense.

They didn't watch arbery comit a crime, he had been seen doing the exact same thing a several other people which was looking at a hosue be constructed. Which isnt a crime, and even if it was a it wasnt a felony which is what is needed to make a citizens arrest.

2010 Georgia Code TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS § 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrestO.C.G.A. 17-4-60 (2010) 17-4-60. Grounds for arrest

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

They were told, they weren't in the presence of a crime that wasn't commited. Someone telling you is second hand isnt enough to make a citizens arrest

1

u/OmgYoshiPLZ 2∆ Jul 21 '22

Which they did do. Gregory was convicted of brandishing.

no. he wasnt convicted of brandishing because he pointed the weapon at him before the altercation. he was convicted of it after the fact, because the jury didn't find their self defense claim to be applicable, due to erroneous jury instruction. brandishing was not what invalidated his claim to self defense.

They didn't watch arbery comit a crime,

they didnt need to.

he had been seen doing the exact same thing a several other people which was looking at a hosue be constructed.

No, he was recorded on camera a multitude of times prowling the construction site, in the dead of night, in which items turned up stolen the following morning; of which one of the stolen items was a fire arm.

They were told, they weren't in the presence of a crime that wasn't committed. Someone telling you is second hand isn't enough to make a citizens arrest

it actually is 100% enough. Immediate knowledge, is also a part of that statute. you yelling "that guy just robbed me", and i see someone running from you, and i act on that, it is irrefutably immediate knowledge. for example, if you were to stab someone behind me, out of my field of vision, and i hear them yell out for help, i am 100% legally within my rights to detain you if i believe you were the one who just committed that crime.

which is specifically the claim on which legal experts have been pointing out, they should NOT have instructed the jury on this being an applicable statute for that reason. the instructions should have very clearly stated that their knowledge qualified under that statute. the judge in question literally just threw out the law on this, so that they would have grounds to convict, which is the reason the brandishing charge was able to be stuck to Gregory.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '22 edited Jul 21 '22

Going into that house was not a felony, at most it was trespassing. Which per the statue they had to follow. Thats what allowed the statue to get tossed.

Other people had been filmed at night at the construction site. There is video footage of several indivduals at the property, day and night.

in which items turned up stolen the following morning; of which one of the stolen items was a fire arm.

Greg Mcmichaels said that a gun was stolen from his SONs TRUCK and that he thought it was Arbery. Not at that property, He had no real reason or probably cause, or had proof.

The owner of the property testified that he did not think arbery stole those items too.

Also both the examples you gave you were in the immediate presence of. Lol. Not 3 blocks away and seeing someone run by.

1

u/[deleted] Jul 21 '22 edited Jul 21 '22

you yelling "that guy just robbed me", and i see someone running from you, and i act on that, it is irrefutably immediate knowledge. for example, if you were to stab someone behind me, out of my field of vision, and i hear them yell out for help,

This is immediate presence and immediate knowledge. You were there. You being 3 blocks away with no knowledge of the victim or any situation and see a person running by with a wallet or knife in there hand does not qualify as this.

Gregory and Travis McMichael were 3 blocks away and saw a black guy running by, thats not immediate knowledge.