Unlawfully chasing. 
Why does the left only send morons to shill here.
Why does the left only send morons to shill here.
The Next Trayvon Martin Case?
- Thread starter Arc Light
- Start date
Most of what is typed here is simply noise.
I agree that the events immediately proceeding the shooting are the most relevant. Idiot stands in road with shotgun.
Bigger idiot decides to run up and grab said shotgun, thus impaling himself on a charge of shot at contact range. Bigger idiot then doubles down and comes in for a second helping.
Oh well, don't be one of those idiots.
I agree that the events immediately proceeding the shooting are the most relevant. Idiot stands in road with shotgun.
Bigger idiot decides to run up and grab said shotgun, thus impaling himself on a charge of shot at contact range. Bigger idiot then doubles down and comes in for a second helping.
Oh well, don't be one of those idiots.
LOL, conservatives think ? That is a big claim. I used to identify as a conservative until they revealed that they are no different from libs in that they want to take our rights but just come at it from a different direction. The current crop have effectively enslaved your children and grandchildren to the government with bloated spending that gives China the choak collar around our necks. I am a Libertarian in that I dont meddle in others affairs and expect others to stay out of mine. I detest paying taxes to be spent on non citizens and foreign aid ( Bribes) .
So put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr Thinker.
He had a history of stealing because he was convicted of shoplifting.
One visit to the construction site isn’t suspicious but several are.
I never said that the actions of the McMichaels were that smart.
The legality of the citizen’s arrest is debatable.
I will say this again. Mr. Arbery looked like the attacker in the video. He was pretty stupid to attack someone with a gun in his hands.
The McMichaels could have been wearing white sheets and hoods and were planning on taking Mr. Arbery to a necktie party. And Mr. Arbery could be within his rights in a situation like that to fight for his life.
Notice that I said he would be within his rights to defend himself if the McMichaels were engaging in criminal behavior. However, it would be pretty stupid.
Mr. Arbery could have did a 180 and run in the other direction.
A lot of people have done a lot of speculation. So I’ll do some speculation of my own.
Mr. Arbery May have not committed a criminal act right before he died BUT he may have had criminal intentions on his mind.
He may have had criminal intentions on his numerous visits to the construction site. So he probably thought that he better fight it out if he thought he was going to jail. Which was still foolish as most criminals would run away.
Yes, the McMichaels made the wrong decision but doesn’t excuse Mr. Arbery’s actions.
Just like you cannot blame a scantily clad woman for walking by a group of scum bags then getting raped, you cannot place the blame for the attack on the McMichaels just because he had a shotgun in his hand.
Interesting all it's posts are either this thread or the PX,... with questionable wording at that.
You are the one hung up on putting people in groups according to skin color, not me. I answered your ignorant question but you dont like the answer, too bad. I live in one of the most diverse cities in the US and deal with people every day. I dont judge a person by the color of their skin, I judge them by their actions and how they treat others.
The main factor you are overlooking is that the McMichaels had no right to set up a road block and try to detain Arbery. And if you want to Label Arbery a thief for a past shoplifting charge, you must label McMichaels a Mental Patient for his past bouts with medical depression and treatment that led to his forced retirement. " McMichael explained that he suffered a heart attack in 2006, and dealt with clinical depression for which he needed medical treatment. "
As I have continually said, nothing discounts the actions by Martin or Arbery which were both stupid and in martins case criminal. Anyone who is being truthful with themselves also has to fault the other party for their actions which in both cases, led to the direct confrontation.
Insurance Fraud investigator. Dealing with property and casualty claims. Starting with the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, I spent 2 years in Baton Rouge / NOLA and throughout Texas, Mississippi and Ga.
I am only a lib if you consider being self sufficient and expecting the same of others lib traits. I guess you are CONservative and lap up the big spending that enslaves us all. Right Stubby
What about the claims they were not making citizens arrest? The citizens arrest thing has been drummed up by the media according to some. Does their claimed intention carry the weight of the claimed intention of the other party just jogging, in jeans and hiking boots, oh so far away from home? Maybe bubba was shootin cotton mouths down by the crik, and forgot he was even carrying the gun. Its like an extension of our body. Are you brandishing a weapon anytime you are carrying it? Maybe they saw him jogging, thought he was thirsty and went in the house to find a drink. He ran over to offer him some sweat tea to quench his thirst.
Are there any actual facts out on this yet? I honestly haven't been following.
Maybe they did have a right or maybe they didn't. As I said before that point is still debatable.
So a guy only sucks one dick in his life and now he's labeled a homosexual. A woman accepts payment one time for sexual favors and the poor lass is labeled a prostitute.
He got caught stealing ONCE. That is one time that we know about. Mr. Arbery was a thief. Period.
As to Mr. McMichael's mental state. Can you provide a link? I'd like to read about it. Taking you at face value, I believe you but still would like to read it for myself.
The action of a person leading up to an event are considered either aggravating or mitigating circumstances. If they were correct for attempting a citizen's arrest then their actions could be considered mitigating. If they were incorrect with attempting a citizen's arrest then their actions could be considered aggravating. Along the lines of aggravating, some Triers of Fact could consider their actions premeditated.
If I understood your previous statements about the Zimmerman case earlier, you seemed to place a lot of blame on the defendant in that trial for putting himself in a situation to be attacked. Please forgive me if my assumption is incorrect. However, you now seem to say that Martin's actions were criminal.
The actions of Arbery, in this situation, were also criminal. He was clearly attacking Mr. McMichael, even though, the latter was stupid for putting himself there. If I were Mr. Arbery, I may have felt like shoving the shotgun up McMichael's ass and pulling the trigger, just like I felt when the 1911 was leveled at my head.
Both of us would have been morally correct with shoving a gun up their asses but not smart as they had the gun and we didn't.
I'm alive today because I wasn't stupid. Mr. Arbery was stupid and the prima facie evidence suggests that he was criminal in his actions.
I feel sorry for people who are so brainwashed and who can only see the world through the twisted prism of race, like they were an inmate at a supermax. In the reality that we all share it’s only the media, academia, and leftists who view the world in such a distorted manner. The rest of us just wish you could start acting like a normal human being and not project your own misanthropy and moral failings on the rest of us for whom race is so far down on the list as to not be a real consideration. It’s only logical that a collectivist totalitarian can only think in terms of stereotypes and broad generalizations, because the individual simply isn’t a consideration in Marxism. It really is more like a mental disorder rather than a coherent political philosophy.
Because Martin and Arbery were not white is exactly why they [Bubba Crew] were tried and convicted by the leftist media, other leftists and leftists politicians.
Because Justine Damond was white and Mohamed Noor was black was precisely why it took EIGHT fucking months to arrest him.
Because Jeremy Mardis was white and the [assholes] Derrick Stafford and Norris Greenhouse Jr., are black was precisely why the leftist media, other leftists and leftists politicians practically ignored the story. The judge in that case issued a gag order for all parties on that case. That was probably the right thing to do and was issued right away.
Where is the gag order in this case? An I'll bet you won't see one either.
Why weren't the shootings of Justine Damond and Jeremy Mardis labeled as hate crimes? In both of those cases the asshole cops could see that their victims were white.
So let's turn your asinine statement around. It is precisely because Arbery and Martin were black that everyone is taking the so-called second look. It isn't really a second look but trial by public opinion.
We only get to see the last few seconds of the video over the struggle for the shotgun BUT NOT the fact that Arbery makes a flanking movement to attack McMichael from a blind side.
To me it looks like a punk black kid that thinks he's superman and is going to shove a shotgun up that craker's ass. I saw this attitude plenty of times. Our leftist media and SJWs tell people of color to go on the offensive against white people and it's no wonder some have this superman attitude.
Case in point....
PS: It would not surprise me to see the McMichaels acquitted but tried and convicted in federal court of so-called hate crimes. Oh, I forgot, double jeapordy is not supposed to happen in this country
BTW, I'm one of the few white guys that thinks OJ Simpson was innocent of the charge of murder but that's a topic for another thread.
Last edited:
The way I see it, its still manslaughter.
Unlawfull attempt to detain somone for suspicion of a crime goes wrong and they end up killing him.
They caused the situation that led to his death.
It would be the same if they tried to detain him and in the struggle he fell and hit his head and died.
And yes the Leftist Media and politicians will weaponize this for more race war and political division that they so badly need. Because to them Black lives only matter prior to elections.
Unlawfull attempt to detain somone for suspicion of a crime goes wrong and they end up killing him.
They caused the situation that led to his death.
It would be the same if they tried to detain him and in the struggle he fell and hit his head and died.
And yes the Leftist Media and politicians will weaponize this for more race war and political division that they so badly need. Because to them Black lives only matter prior to elections.
Extremes on both sides are guilty of viewing the world through race colored lenses. Actually, they are eerily similar in their views.
One thing we lose from this is the ability to differ with a "person of color" without being called a racist. Why is it not possible to simply dislike a person from a different group for their actions which you find offensive? Why is race always a topic?
One thing we lose from this is the ability to differ with a "person of color" without being called a racist. Why is it not possible to simply dislike a person from a different group for their actions which you find offensive? Why is race always a topic?
Watching this thread I can see, if this case goes to trial and is not a bench case, what the jury room will likely look like during deliberation. Been in the room twice myself and it's definitely an eye-opener for those who have not been on a criminal trial - one was a DUI, the other was a violent crime. The funny thing is both results were opposite what one would think.
The DUI was bizarre as it involve off duty LE chasing a guy down 183 in Fort Worth through a Bennigans parking lot, getting to an intersection with an on-duty patrol next to him and instead of getting on-duty officer to deal with it he yanked guy's car door open without identifying himself. The on-duty didn't even arrest the guy despite being at the scene. As the testimony went on and more evidence was brought to light, it was practically impossible to tell if the guy was actually drunk - despite not consenting to a breathalyzer. The video of him showed a calm man with neither mental nor physical signs of being drunk. Their only real "case" that he was drunk is that he counted to 30 (as in 30 seconds) in 27 or 28 seconds at the arrest location (not on video).
At the start of the other case we were instructed to not search the internet for the person or the case and if we were found to we'd be in the clink, that they had toyed with sequestration. Once the testimonies were over, the jury was instructed as to what the law was and we went in and deliberated. EVERY jurist but ONE said the following (deliberations started the morning after testimony): "When I woke up this morning, I didn't think there was any way we could put this guy away (everybody agreed he was bad), but the law makes him guilty beyond question." The holdout wasn't convinced. So, we had the law read back to us by the judge, and went back in the deliberation room. As soon as the door shut, holdout also said...GUILTY.
Why my diatribe? It's not about feeling's, what one thinks may have happened, what one saw happen on video on a one-direction facing video at time of incident. It's the way the law reads (Colion Noir did a good job of describing this) and the evidence put forth by defense and prosecution. It's not about what one thinks the law should be, the law is what it is. Same as the case I was on, sure it seemed that the guy in question may not have been the guy who physically beat the guy, but the law specifically accounted for his participation and as such he was just as guilty in the eyes of the law.
Turns out, the guy had been booked for his 3rd violent offense and got 30 years in sentencing (I didn't stay because I thought it'd take forever). I figured I'd get out of dodge ASAP when they told us they had a deputy to walk us to our cars!!! He also had an upcoming trial on attempted murder of a policeman whilst he was behind bars (getting taken to his arraignment) that we knew nothing of (because that would cloud the judgement on the charge at hand). So, we followed the law, unclouded by his previous crimes and crimes he still had to go to trial and I feel 100% confident we made the correct decision. Why? Because we followed the law the way it was written and judged based upon the evidence provided and knew beyond shadow of a doubt that he had violated this law.
Following the letter of the law in a trial and listening to all the evidence without preconceived judgement is critical to how our Republic functions. It's just too bad it seems to be for the common folk and not for the "upper crust."
(donning nomex)
The DUI was bizarre as it involve off duty LE chasing a guy down 183 in Fort Worth through a Bennigans parking lot, getting to an intersection with an on-duty patrol next to him and instead of getting on-duty officer to deal with it he yanked guy's car door open without identifying himself. The on-duty didn't even arrest the guy despite being at the scene. As the testimony went on and more evidence was brought to light, it was practically impossible to tell if the guy was actually drunk - despite not consenting to a breathalyzer. The video of him showed a calm man with neither mental nor physical signs of being drunk. Their only real "case" that he was drunk is that he counted to 30 (as in 30 seconds) in 27 or 28 seconds at the arrest location (not on video).
At the start of the other case we were instructed to not search the internet for the person or the case and if we were found to we'd be in the clink, that they had toyed with sequestration. Once the testimonies were over, the jury was instructed as to what the law was and we went in and deliberated. EVERY jurist but ONE said the following (deliberations started the morning after testimony): "When I woke up this morning, I didn't think there was any way we could put this guy away (everybody agreed he was bad), but the law makes him guilty beyond question." The holdout wasn't convinced. So, we had the law read back to us by the judge, and went back in the deliberation room. As soon as the door shut, holdout also said...GUILTY.
Why my diatribe? It's not about feeling's, what one thinks may have happened, what one saw happen on video on a one-direction facing video at time of incident. It's the way the law reads (Colion Noir did a good job of describing this) and the evidence put forth by defense and prosecution. It's not about what one thinks the law should be, the law is what it is. Same as the case I was on, sure it seemed that the guy in question may not have been the guy who physically beat the guy, but the law specifically accounted for his participation and as such he was just as guilty in the eyes of the law.
Turns out, the guy had been booked for his 3rd violent offense and got 30 years in sentencing (I didn't stay because I thought it'd take forever). I figured I'd get out of dodge ASAP when they told us they had a deputy to walk us to our cars!!! He also had an upcoming trial on attempted murder of a policeman whilst he was behind bars (getting taken to his arraignment) that we knew nothing of (because that would cloud the judgement on the charge at hand). So, we followed the law, unclouded by his previous crimes and crimes he still had to go to trial and I feel 100% confident we made the correct decision. Why? Because we followed the law the way it was written and judged based upon the evidence provided and knew beyond shadow of a doubt that he had violated this law.
Following the letter of the law in a trial and listening to all the evidence without preconceived judgement is critical to how our Republic functions. It's just too bad it seems to be for the common folk and not for the "upper crust."
(donning nomex)
I am oddly surprised that some of you put so much faith in a bench trial. I have seen several instances of judges who carried their personal bias, friendships or indebtedness to the bench and ruled contrary to law and reason. I have even seen trial transcripts altered and "facts" altered to gain favor upon appeal. Judges are just as crooked or more so as the public at large.
True statements! Ask any man who’s ever been through a divorce and custody battle.
duh. Your hatred of anyone white and rural, and belief they’re all racists makes it no surprise you’re a townie.
Exactly, two sides of the same coin. Hitler on one end judging by whiteness and these people on the other judging by browness. Both have the exact same Ideology but each think they have the morel high ground. This bs group Identity before Individually tribalism crap is why hundreds of millions are dead and why poverty in places like Africa are so high.
In current news- shits about to get real
Georgia police department at center of Arbery murder investigation has disturbing past filled with scandals, corruption
www.foxnews.com
Georgia police department at center of Arbery murder investigation has disturbing past filled with scandals, corruption
Georgia police department at center of Arbery murder investigation has disturbing past filled with scandals, corruption
The Georgia police department at the center of the Ahmaud Arbery murder investigation has been marred by scandals and claims of corruption for years, including allegations that detectives tampered with evidence, lied to prosecutors and retaliated against whistleblowers.
www.foxnews.com
Still using a high school photo when this man is like 25. In order to paint him as the innocent victim in the court of public opinion. Wouldnt want a more current picture, like his mug shot.
And I promise you those are in a very small minority of situations.
You can find the shitty people in any profession if you look and focus on it. That’s exactly what the media does. You’ll never find a perfect way about anything on this planet. You can only go by the odds.
A case such as this, (unless some other information is revealed) will likely hinge in some fairly narrow legal interpretations. The odds are much better with a bench trial for a situation such as this.
Now, if a defense attorney sees all the info and thinks the strict legal interpretation likely won’t be on their side, then you want a jury trial where you focus on the “intent* of the defendants and you play on the emotional level. “Are you will to send two men to prison for doing what they felt was a service to their community?” Emotional plays like that.
I really do not care in the slightest about your promise of "a very small minority of situations" I was screwed over in a civil trial over livestock damage and boundary issues that cost me over 100 K due to the other party being a cousin to the governor. I was told prior to the trial "the law does not matter Judge XX will do exactly what Gov. xxx tells him to. And that is exactly what happened. Judge actually added content to the transcript and wrote the ruling to influence the appellate court in order to influence their decision. FUCK JUDGES.
Another person who has had experience with the true "Justice system".
The 9th circuit isn't the only place ideologs reside.
R
And this is why you cannot form an unbiased opinion.
You were on the wrong side of the odds, and that sucks. Though from your posts, you seem to be on the wrong side a lot. Starting to get into that “if everyone you meet is an asshole” situation.
You can tell soy boi is a leftist loser simply enough. Zimmerman, who is Peruvian and German, is neither Hispanic, Latino or European because to make his racist world view work, Zimmerman must in fact be white. All evidence to the contrary, like court testimony of a dozen Latin relatives, Zimmerman is still a white racist.
Now Trayvon, expelled from school for drugs and burglary tools in campus, covered with gangster tatts like Daddy. Yeah, Tray's dad had his Crip neck tatts inked over when the chances for a big payday became apparent. Must be ignored. The fact he was creeping thru the neighborhood, not walking down the sidewalk.................ignored. The whole neighborhood watch, alertness from an extensive crime wave thru the neighborhood in the previous months...............must be ignored. Trayvon's drug use and the fact that his innocent shopping trip was to procure the ingredients for a cough syrup concoction to get high......................ignored.
Claiming you are some type of "Libertarian" in an attempt to disguise your racism, ignorance and inability to accept a different point of view is just silly.
Well, I have had a judge who recused themselves make a ruling against me whilst being recused................yes, yes you read that correctly.
I’ve only listened to the first hour, I’ll finish it later. The guest makes excellent points, this is the only defense law that his firm practices- use of force. Some points folks here have made.
Here are some of his points:
-Look at the case backwards, if all we had was the last five seconds of video, this is clearly a self defense case. McMichaels did nothing unlawful.
-Therefore if McMichaels was to be responsible for murder, his actions prior to that had to be unlawful.
-Georgia has some simple and/or broad statutes concerning burglary and citizens arrest.
-Of particular relevance, you don’t have to steal anything to be guilty of felony burglary in Georgia. Going there with intent to steal is enough. This doesn’t necessarily have to be true of Arbery, simply that the McMichaels had reasonable suspicion that he intended to steal.
-They were within the law to pursue him. You need to hear his breakdown, but case law is going to endorse their actions, not condemn them.
-None of the above three points are really relevant, because they did not perform an arrest. That came from the former DA. Their own statements were that they said, “We want to ask you some questions.”
-He doesn’t think that citizens arrest is of consequence to this case. However they would likely have been within the law if they had attempted one.
-They did not brandish their weapons or threaten Mr. Arbery. They didn’t detain or impede him.
-Without threats, without brandishing, this is a simple self defense case. They had legal grounds to tell Arbery they wanted to ask him some questions, they had reason and the right to carry guns to defend themselves (he did attack them), and the shooting was self defense.
Here are some of his points:
-Look at the case backwards, if all we had was the last five seconds of video, this is clearly a self defense case. McMichaels did nothing unlawful.
-Therefore if McMichaels was to be responsible for murder, his actions prior to that had to be unlawful.
-Georgia has some simple and/or broad statutes concerning burglary and citizens arrest.
-Of particular relevance, you don’t have to steal anything to be guilty of felony burglary in Georgia. Going there with intent to steal is enough. This doesn’t necessarily have to be true of Arbery, simply that the McMichaels had reasonable suspicion that he intended to steal.
-They were within the law to pursue him. You need to hear his breakdown, but case law is going to endorse their actions, not condemn them.
-None of the above three points are really relevant, because they did not perform an arrest. That came from the former DA. Their own statements were that they said, “We want to ask you some questions.”
-He doesn’t think that citizens arrest is of consequence to this case. However they would likely have been within the law if they had attempted one.
-They did not brandish their weapons or threaten Mr. Arbery. They didn’t detain or impede him.
-Without threats, without brandishing, this is a simple self defense case. They had legal grounds to tell Arbery they wanted to ask him some questions, they had reason and the right to carry guns to defend themselves (he did attack them), and the shooting was self defense.
They both share your skepticism of the courts. The expert advises all clients that they can be the most innocent person in the world, and there’s still at least a 10% chance they’re going to prison. In a racially charged case like this, he thinks it’s probably four times higher, so 40% chance they go to prison, despite not committing any unlawful acts.
Similar threads
