- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Run 2.23 for Arbery #werunwitharbery
Posted on 2/24/21 at 4:05 pm to Abraham H Parnassis
Posted on 2/24/21 at 4:05 pm to Abraham H Parnassis
quote:Why? I am genuinely curious.
I hear you. I disagree, but I hear you.
I mean, you are a former LEO, and you have LEO instincts.
How do you see a change in the underlying facts altering the actions of Posse McMichael, if Posse McMichael has ZERO knowledge of those changed facts?
1
Posted on 2/24/21 at 4:05 pm to 1BIGTigerFan
quote:
The left doesn't want you to be able to use any type of common sense stereo types to accurately see the world. As soon as this person turned out to be black, it was because of racism that he was killed. Maybe, maybe not? But to overlook all the other aspects you mentioned and not factor them into your decision on whether or not someone is stealing, just because they are black, is wrong.
sadly people like you give the right a bad name when you outright dismiss facts because the left thinks its a race killing.
the fact that the 2 aggressors committed aggravated assault (and likely mmurder) in their idiotic botched citizens' arrest, they had no immediate knowledge of any crime being committed which means there was no legal citizen's arrest. Their own description was that they saw him running and went to stop him bc there were robberies nearby recently. these are just facts without any consideration of race. these folks gonna spend a bit of time in the pen.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 4:06 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Are there any other scenarios that you know of where that would also apply? Where the on/off functionality of rights is essentially suspended once waived?
No. That barn door is open. If you don't want to be subject to cross-examination, stay the Hell off the witness stand.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 4:08 pm to Abraham H Parnassis
quote:Not that I can think of, but ConLaw was a long time ago, and I have tried a grand total of three criminal cases in my entire life.
Are there any other scenarios that you know of where that would also apply? Where the on/off functionality of rights is essentially suspended once waived?
The key is the disadvantage to which you put the prosecution by getting on the stand and then denying them a chance for cross-examination.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 4:09 pm to Abraham H Parnassis
quote:
So you think he was killed simply for jogging don the street? That's it? That's the sum total for the entire situation?
according to the mcmichaels they saw him running and due to recent nearby break ins decided to grab guns and go confront AA. that is their description. They didnt know of a current crime in progress. so as far as the mcmichaels knew, yea basically they killed him for defending himself from agravated assault.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 4:19 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
He had a conviction for illegal possession of a weapon.
How could this be without a prior conviction?
Apparently, it was on the grounds of his high school.
I was assuming he had to have a previous conviction and thus lost his right to carry a firearm legally. Looks like he just didn't have a permit or was too young when he was caught with one?
Posted on 2/24/21 at 4:20 pm to Jeauxs Geaux
quote:
quote:
Of all the black guys that got unnecessarily murdered by racist white rednecks last year, this guy was the one. No fricking excuse whatsoever
This is the correct, albeit unpopular
answer
Well,HotCarl and you have to get over the first big hurdle you have. You have to define "unnecessarily murdered" & then get the consensus to agree while applying that definition to each individual case. Good luck with that.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 4:21 pm to 1BIGTigerFan
quote:Not sure. I imagine you could find the answer, if you cared enough. But lots of States prohibit possession of a firearm on school grounds.quote:I was assuming he had to have a previous conviction and thus lost his right to carry a firearm legally. Looks like he just didn't have a permit or was too young when he was caught with one?
He had a conviction for illegal possession of a weapon.
How could this be without a prior conviction?
Apparently, it was on the grounds of his high school.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 4:23 pm to mouton
quote:
He did not take anything from the construction site.
Hank already established that it goes to intent when he entered, and unfortunately, no one will know this for sure.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 4:25 pm to 1BIGTigerFan
quote:
Hank already established that it goes to intent when he entered, and unfortunately, no one will know this for sure.
According to the owner of the property, arbery had entered a handful of times before and never took anything. I think it’s a reasonable assumption he wasn’t looking to steal anything.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 4:28 pm to 1BIGTigerFan
quote:Direct evidence of larcenous intent is hard to find, absent subsequent larceny. But there is always circumstantial evidence. He entered the premises on multiple occasions, and on each occasion he left without stealing anything.
Hank already established that it goes to intent when he entered, and unfortunately, no one will know this for sure.
This post was edited on 2/24/21 at 4:29 pm
Posted on 2/24/21 at 4:31 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The undeniable fact (based upon the facts known to date) is that McMichael and his merry band of gun-toting rednecks did NOT witness a crime.
This part is true.
quote:
They just did not like seeing him running down a street in their neighborhood.
This is not true. It's been clearly reported that the dudes in the truck had "heard" of break ins in the area over the previous few days. They saw someone fitting the description "running down a street" and they went after him. Did they have the right to detain him? Not legally it appears. But they didn't just pick out a black guy jogging and attack him. You are not being dishonest when you say that. The dudes in the truck clearly are trying to detain someone who they think has been stealing. Making a race play out of this one is just wrong. There's no way of knowing their intent for stopping Aubrey, any more than you know Aubrey's intent for going in that structure.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 4:38 pm to 1BIGTigerFan
quote:
There's no way of knowing their intent for stopping Aubrey,
quote:
But they didn't just pick out a black guy jogging and attack him. You are not being dishonest when you say that
hmm with your own reasoning from the first quote, you entirely demolished your claim in the second quote. altho i think you had some typos.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 4:45 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Sure. This is also for Kilroy since he basically asked the same question.
Why? I am genuinely curious.
I mean, you are a former LEO, and you have LEO instincts.
How do you see a change in the underlying facts altering the actions of Posse McMichael, if Posse McMichael has ZERO knowledge of those changed facts?
I understand that there was no connection or communication (that we know of) between the 911 caller and the posse. I think I said he'd have avoided being shot by not going in the house that day. I was incorrect and misleading. I should have said:
He would have likely been alive had he not dabbled in going into homes that were not his (that house or others).
To Hank's point, the posse was not out to get (and I'll have to paraphrase) "any scruffy-looking person running down the street." By their own words, they recognized AA as the person suspected of burglary or trespass or whatever from an earlier event.
By AA making a habit of skulking about and being in places where he ought not be, he opened himself up for problems. If he was truly up to no good, I doubt he'd have fled when the posse member saw him those days or weeks prior to the shooting.
Did he deserve to be run down and shot? Probably not. I think his chances of survivability were better had he not tried to disarm someone, but that's just my opinion.
As far as LEO instincts or a LEO POV, I think all parties were shitbags. I think that one should not be in homes or on property that one does not own or can afford. Posse mentality is no different. I did not police in GA, but for two large metro departments (one very large), but I can't recall a single time when a citizen inserted himself to a degree more than being a witness where it didn't cause major problems on the scene or down the road.
Neither group showed good decision making skills, but I stand by my point - had AA not been going in and out of homes and acting suspiciously, I think he'd be alive today...or at least he wouldn't have died at the hands of the posse. And if the posse had done the right thing and called the police, they'd not be preparing to spend the rest of their lives behind bars.
And I respect the opinion of Hank and Killroy and mouton and others. We see things differently. I'm not mad about that.
I wish they'd have all acted with more sense.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 5:35 pm to mouton
quote:
When my wife and I have walked through homes under construction were we "window shopping" or "breaking into construction sites?" ? ? ?
I've seen you say numerous times throughout the Arbery discussion that you and your wife walk through houses under construction "all the time, hundreds of them."
And if that is TRULY the case (I highly suspect it's a huge exaggeration), one has to question your intelligence overall - not just related to this subject.
It's EXTREMELY dangerous to scope out unfinished houses right now, with the proliferation of crackheads and methheads stealing every bit of copper they can get their hands on; and contractors are on high, high alert over this.
Don't be surprised if you're suspected of stripping a construction site of all the copper, if you've walked through it recently or multiple times. They are watching closely...
Posted on 2/24/21 at 5:53 pm to 1BIGTigerFan
quote:WTF is the matter with you? He was chased by a vehicle until he was bone tired and had at least one weapon brandished against his person. He judged (probably incorrectly) that there was no way out, so he made a move to get the gun. Tactically, probably wrong with benefit of hindsight. Ethically and morally? Absolutely impeccable.
First of all, there's no evidence that he was trying to "defend" himself.
quote:Nope. Now that other posters have confirmed that as wrong to you, what are you going to change your opinion to be?
Second, the two dudes in the car have every right under Georgia law to make a citizens arrest and detain the individual until the police arrive. None of that is in question by smart people here.
quote:
But everyone with common sense knows you don't try and take a persons shotgun away from them, barrel first. If you assume the two dudes in the car were in the wrong (which is just your assumption at this point), that still doesn't give the guy the right to steal someone else's gun from them.
Yes, "common sense" often prevails when a bunch of hillbillies chases you with shotguns down a residential street. GTFO with this ridiculous apologia for once in your life.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 6:05 pm to RazorBroncs
quote:
They are watching closely...
being suspected of stripping copper while being closely watched is not the same situation as in the murder of AA trial where the shooters only saw someone running and had 0 knowledge of an ongoing crime.
I would argue its waaaay more wreckless/dangerous to go grab guns and confront a runner for an unknown crime entirely unrelated to you or your property. AA may have been wreckless, but holy shite if you don't think that vigilante duo acted on a much lower functional intelligence level than even a run of the mill copper thief.
Posted on 2/24/21 at 6:06 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
Let’s assume he never stops at the unfinished house and keeps on running down the street. Do the McMichaels still chase him? If not, why not? We know they were unaware of his trespass when they chased him.
I think in this scenario they still chase him. It's been pointed out that there is no evidence they say Aubrey in any house on this occasion. But there had been numerous reports and discussions amongst neighbors of break-ins over the past few days. The dudes in the truck said they saw someone that fit the description of said break-ins and went to detain him. Hank and Mouton are correct that they had no lawful reason to detain Aubrey because they didn't actually witness a crime. But it's been said numerous times that the dudes went after him solely because he was black and in the wrong neighborhood. That has not been established as fact, so why can't we take the two dudes word on it?
Posted on 2/24/21 at 6:08 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
IMHO, McMichael and his merry band are STILL looking for the pistol thief, they STILL drive up behind Arbery on his training run through the neighborhood, and they STILL chase him through the neighborhood, with firearms at the ready. Regardless of whether he took a water break ... because they never SAW the water break.
Could be, but you are purely speculating. Why can't others speculate Audrey's intentions as well?
Posted on 2/24/21 at 6:11 pm to mouton
quote:
If it was another black man jogging by that had never entered the construction site all other things equal do you honestly think things would have been different?
Did these other guys fit the description of the person breaking in? It's clearly been states by the two guys in the truck, as well as other witnesses, that the prior break-ins were discussed and a description of the perp was given. You may be correct, but to yell racism because you're hoping it fits the leftist narrative is just wrong.
Page 13 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News