I am a lawyer, so I understand that knowledge of the law is nearly irrelevant; knowledge of the D.A.'s political leanings is the most important consideration.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
The Next Trayvon Martin Case?
- Thread starter Arc Light
- Start date
I am a lawyer, so I understand that knowledge of the law is nearly irrelevant; knowledge of the D.A.'s political leanings is the most important consideration.
Regardless of it being a good or bad shoot, some a yall said Arbery made several tactical mistakes..? What should he have done? Never been shot at, but in another life Ive been held at gunpoint a couple times by cop and "bad guy" alike. Usually tried to deescalate when I didn't like my chances and that usually went well, but took the flight option a few times when my optimism got the best of me as well and on those occasions usually received a suplex straight onto my head and some swift kicks in the ribs along with a court date for my efforts once all was said and done. Good times. Fortunately no foreign lead has ever took up residence in my body.
ETA: actually I suppose I could say I been shot at. They werent aiming for me tho, I was in the driveway in a car of a buddy when some dudes did a half ass drive by on his house while he and his brother were inside. Doubt they actually had the stomach or intent to truly snuff anyone tho, but one of em could have caught a random stray regardless. Mama's uncle got killed not too long ago. We dont talk about em too much. Supposedly a meth deal gone bad. That side of my family are all cut throats and though I resent ATL, Im glad I got away from em else Id be likely doing serious hard time right alongside my knucklehead cousins.
ETA: actually I suppose I could say I been shot at. They werent aiming for me tho, I was in the driveway in a car of a buddy when some dudes did a half ass drive by on his house while he and his brother were inside. Doubt they actually had the stomach or intent to truly snuff anyone tho, but one of em could have caught a random stray regardless. Mama's uncle got killed not too long ago. We dont talk about em too much. Supposedly a meth deal gone bad. That side of my family are all cut throats and though I resent ATL, Im glad I got away from em else Id be likely doing serious hard time right alongside my knucklehead cousins.
Last edited:
*racks shotgun*
to lowlife criminal: That door was locked for your protection, not mine.
I hate to resurrect an old thread but want to keep things in context. So just how many black jurors were on the O.J. Simpson trial and they didn't complain about that.
www.yahoo.com
Judge in trial of Arbery slaying says nothing he can do about 11 white people on jury of 12
Family members of Ahmaud Arbery expressed outrage Thursday over the racial makeup of the jury in the trial three white men accused of killing him.
I hate to resurrect an old thread but want to keep things in context. So just how many black jurors were on the O.J. Simpson trial and they didn't complain about that.
Judge in trial of Arbery slaying says nothing he can do about 11 white people on jury of 12
Family members of Ahmaud Arbery expressed outrage Thursday over the racial makeup of the jury in the trial three white men accused of killing him.
Sounds like the Arberys are racist as fuck too
Exactly. When I looked at the video it was obvious that Arbery was going to take that shotgun out of that cracker's hands and shove it up his ass.
I don't think it was very smart for the defendants to follow Arbery. However, Arbery was definitely acting suspiciously by going into homes under construction. He was also a hot-head and had a criminal record.
I can say this with some authority as someone had pointed a gun at me one time without justification.
The person wielding the 1911 was so fat it would take him two trips to haul ass. I could have kicked his ass all day and not get tired.
On the other hand, he had the 1911 pointed at my head. Regardless, of what others may say, the .45 caliber is a darn big bore; especially when you're looking down the barrel.
I really wanted to take that 1911 and shove it up fat boy's ass and squeeze the trigger. I also wanted to live. The bullet coming out of the barrel would have got to me before I could get to his gun.
I did the thing that Arbery should have done. I put my hands up in the air and complied. Furthermore, I'm here to tell about it.
In a former life I did security work and no matter how polite this white boy was, the blacks had start with running their stupid mouths, waiving their hands, acting tough and argumentative.
Look at the videos of Arbery linked in previous postings of this thread and you'll see he was the same.
I had to pull a revolver on a victim-of-society once. He was also black, out weighed me by 100 pounds and about a foot taller than me.
He had his fist drawn back, even after I pulled the gun. It took him a really long time to contemplate the consequences of punching me in the face. I might have got a black eye (maybe an indictment) out of it but he would have had a hole in his side pouring out blood.
I say this because it seems that too many of these incidents end tragically when they could simply put their hands up and shut up.
Arbery would have lived and maybe he could have won a lawsuit against the defendants but he's worm food now.
If I were on the Jury, I would vote to acquit.
You assume said assholes were actually going to "arrest" the guy and not simply try to beat him to death / kill him and then cover it up with the help of their police buddies?
I'm not a huge fan of taking my chances with thugs pointing a gun at me being any kind of decent.
I guess that's why you carry your own gun and have your hand on it the moment someone looks to be acting suspiciously towards you.
So you've come up with a verdict based exclusively on what you've read in the media and what you saw in a video that looks to have been recorded by a potato.
Man, more reasons to waive my right to trial by jury if it ever comes to that.
From some of the news reports, it seems that all three defendants were in communication with each other. The one videoing the event was also charged.
One would not be intentionally videoing an event if he thought that he was participating in a crime. So, yes, I am assuming that their intent was merely to apprehend Arbery.
There is a certain amount of assumption on my part but you are also assuming the defendants are assholes. They were not in the wrong for following him in their vehicles but it can be debated all day about the correctness of the son getting out of the truck with the shotgun.
Georgia law, like most states, does allow for a citizen's arrest. As a retired cop, the senior McMichael knew that.
When Arbery ran around the passenger side then in front of the truck he wasn't retreating. He was going after the son. Anyone with an ounce of sense would have either run the other direction or put his hands up in the air.
Most of the time, the guy with the gun wins, whether he is right or wrong.
Like I said, I can speak from experience. I didn't know if fat boy was going to pull the trigger and send a bullet in my head or not. I was smart enough to know that I wasn't faster than his fat finger on that trigger. My hands went up and I'm alive.
If Arbery wasn't such a hot-head, and put his hands up, he might be alive today.
To a certain extent, yes. I do have a right to my opinion. The Prosecutor, even though he recused himself, came to the same conclusion; that there was no justification for prosecution.
It wasn't until this case got media attention that the defendants were charged.
If it were three black defendants and a dead white man, I can almost guarantee you that we would have never heard of this case.
Furthermore, the media would have been clamoring for black jurors to try black defendants. Aren't the accused supposed to be tried by a jury of their peers? There is nothing in the constitution that says anything about the racial make-up of a jury.
O.J. Simpson was tried by a jury of his peers. So why can't these defendants have the same constitutional protection afforded them?
Not my experience.
We had a case of a cat that came down from houston to kill a guy, recorded himself breaking in to his house and all.
Conflating this case with the Zimmerman case really is a stretch on many levels.
As has been wisely pointed out we have no video of the Zimmerman incident just some audio. All we really have is Zimmerman’s testimony, forensic evidence and the testimony of the girl who was on the phone with Treyvon Martin.
We do have video of this incident and it is pretty damning. This however, seems to depend on perspective and State law.
For me it “seems” the the shooter initiated use of force. Again State law will determine this. It is hard to see these guys riding up and jumping out of their vehicle while brandishing a shotgun, as not being some measure of use of force.
IF they were within the law in deploying said use of force, then the next step would be the self defense argument for use of deadly force.
IF it is decided their initial escalation of force was unjustified or illegal, then the jogger can be argued to have been acting in self defense and certainly there was disparity of force against him.
As has been wisely pointed out we have no video of the Zimmerman incident just some audio. All we really have is Zimmerman’s testimony, forensic evidence and the testimony of the girl who was on the phone with Treyvon Martin.
We do have video of this incident and it is pretty damning. This however, seems to depend on perspective and State law.
For me it “seems” the the shooter initiated use of force. Again State law will determine this. It is hard to see these guys riding up and jumping out of their vehicle while brandishing a shotgun, as not being some measure of use of force.
IF they were within the law in deploying said use of force, then the next step would be the self defense argument for use of deadly force.
IF it is decided their initial escalation of force was unjustified or illegal, then the jogger can be argued to have been acting in self defense and certainly there was disparity of force against him.
Last edited:
Some facts that are relevant:
The shooter never attempted to arrest the man. They said, “Hey, we want to ask you some questions.”
The shooter didn’t brandish their firearms. They were open carrying which is lawful. They could have been squirrel hunting and it would have been no different.
As soon as the deceased went for the gun it becomes a pretty clear self defense case.
The shooter never attempted to arrest the man. They said, “Hey, we want to ask you some questions.”
The shooter didn’t brandish their firearms. They were open carrying which is lawful. They could have been squirrel hunting and it would have been no different.
As soon as the deceased went for the gun it becomes a pretty clear self defense case.
Think of it this way: in order to find them guilty of wrongdoing they had to have committed a crime prior to the actual shooting, because the actual shooting was clearly self defense (the guy grabbed the gun). What unlawful act did they commit prior to that?
Riding in a truck with a gun? Is that lawful? Yes.
Attempting to question someone in their neighborhood? Is that lawful? Yes. While armed?!? Is that lawful? Yes.
The first unlawful act in the sequence leading up to the shooting was when the deceased grabbed for the gun.
Riding in a truck with a gun? Is that lawful? Yes.
Attempting to question someone in their neighborhood? Is that lawful? Yes. While armed?!? Is that lawful? Yes.
The first unlawful act in the sequence leading up to the shooting was when the deceased grabbed for the gun.
Wait.....Joe Biden was recording this? You did say "recorded by a potato."
“Brandishing” would be defined by Georgia law, not your fever dreams.
I used to be a runner. If two armed men rolled up and stopped in the road in front of me and one jumps out with a shotgun leaving his drivers door open, I would consider that deadly force and respond in kind. AND I would expect a jury to acquit me.
Your rational “they were just open carrying” is exactly what people use to ban open carry. In most states there is a pretty clear delineation between the two. This was covered in detail during my Colorodo Bail Enforcement Certification.
Let’t be clear, I am a staunch defender of open carry. I was firmly in the Zimmerman camp, having studdied the facts more closely than most. I am also firmly in the Kyle Ridderhouse camp. I have serious reservations about this case.
Again, if Georgia law sees it differently, that will be that. If Georgia law allows for this type of “citizens arrest” they could walk. My gut tells me that these guys are going to jail for a long time .... and good riddance.
IF I learn more exculpatory facts, I could easily modify my position.
I used to be a runner. If two armed men rolled up and stopped in the road in front of me and one jumps out with a shotgun leaving his drivers door open, I would consider that deadly force and respond in kind. AND I would expect a jury to acquit me.
Your rational “they were just open carrying” is exactly what people use to ban open carry. In most states there is a pretty clear delineation between the two. This was covered in detail during my Colorodo Bail Enforcement Certification.
Let’t be clear, I am a staunch defender of open carry. I was firmly in the Zimmerman camp, having studdied the facts more closely than most. I am also firmly in the Kyle Ridderhouse camp. I have serious reservations about this case.
Again, if Georgia law sees it differently, that will be that. If Georgia law allows for this type of “citizens arrest” they could walk. My gut tells me that these guys are going to jail for a long time .... and good riddance.
IF I learn more exculpatory facts, I could easily modify my position.
When Brandishing a Firearm Leads to an Aggravated Assault Charge
A Very Thin Line: When Brandishing a Firearm Leads to an Aggravated Assault Charge It’s Saturday night and you and your friends are hanging out at the hottes
bixonlaw.com
See GA law doesn’t address brandishing.
Here’s a link for anyone who hasn’t erroneously made up their minds about this case and the character of these defendants.
Did the men draw their firearms in conflict? No.
Did they point their guns at the deceased? No.
Did they yell, “Stop, you’re under arrest!” Or “Stop or we’ll shoot!”? No.
That’s great logic… biblically bad huh? Well, forget the law we better appease the mob.
You guys think like children.
You guys think like children.
It's not about appeasing the mob, If you read ALL the case information it's very clear they are guilty and they used there position and connections to almost get out of it.
Biblically Yep, they walk I see it devolving quickly as in people shooting first and letting the chips fall where they may.
The text messages prove they are racists - That doesn't equal guilty.
The actions on film say guilty to me. If they were on there own property and the runner was trespassing different story. You drive after me and jump out of a truck with a gun I think anyone would be justified in shooting the father and son. So Him running then fighting are just self defense in which he lost.
Is anyone keeping track of how long it's been since ahmaud committed a felony? This has got to be a record for him. Good job ahmaud!
So this cryptic blip about ALL the case information, their very clear guilt, and their connections protecting them was all you trying your hand at suggestion?
See, you’re your own source of authority.
The presence of the shakedown artists, Jackson and Sharpton in the courtroom have reminded me of the movie "Bonfire of the Vanities," that was released in 1990.
The critics hated it because they are a bunch of leftist pussies. I watched the movie and thought it was fantastic.
The movie, and the novel it was based off of, was an indictment of the socio-political and judicial make up of this country.
When I follow the Ahmed Arbery trial, I cannot help but think of how prophetic the movie was. However, it was not all that prophetic because, in 1990, it was a reflection of reality back then as well as now.
If you don't have anything to do, invite your liberal friends (if you have any) over to watch the movie. Then watch their heads explode as they watch it.
What surprises me is the fact that the leftist, Tom Hanks, agreed to star in the movie.
The critics hated it because they are a bunch of leftist pussies. I watched the movie and thought it was fantastic.
The movie, and the novel it was based off of, was an indictment of the socio-political and judicial make up of this country.
When I follow the Ahmed Arbery trial, I cannot help but think of how prophetic the movie was. However, it was not all that prophetic because, in 1990, it was a reflection of reality back then as well as now.
If you don't have anything to do, invite your liberal friends (if you have any) over to watch the movie. Then watch their heads explode as they watch it.
What surprises me is the fact that the leftist, Tom Hanks, agreed to star in the movie.
Similar threads
