- 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: The Truth About Ahmaud Arbery
Posted on 5/10/20 at 10:45 pm to xGeauxLSUx
Posted on 5/10/20 at 10:45 pm to xGeauxLSUx
McMichaels is referencing an earlier surveillance video. Not the one from the same day.
1
Posted on 5/10/20 at 10:45 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
No way these guys go away for murder. Maybe they plea to something lesser, I guess I could see it, but there’s no way IMO they go to prison for murder.
Maybe you know something police, mcmichaels, and everyone else with anything to do with the case does, but theres a reason they are charged with murder with no bail.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 10:45 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
Obviously the mayor hasn’t watched the actual video of the incident.
When has a liberal ever cared about reality?
Posted on 5/10/20 at 10:47 pm to the808bass
Well I guess the legal process and courts will have to sort it all out.
It’s obviously a very interesting set of circumstances, and clearly people have differences of opinions on it.
At this point, I personally think all parties were in the wrong to some degree. Parties being the deceased and the 2 accused.
It’s obviously a very interesting set of circumstances, and clearly people have differences of opinions on it.
At this point, I personally think all parties were in the wrong to some degree. Parties being the deceased and the 2 accused.
This post was edited on 5/10/20 at 10:48 pm
Posted on 5/10/20 at 10:48 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
At this point, I personally think all parties were in the wrong to some degree. Parties being the deceased and the 2 accused.
I think that is a very rational position to take.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 10:50 pm to AMS
The second DA said no charges should be brought, and listed out the reasons, of course he’s not on it anymore. Some conflict of interest of some sort.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 10:51 pm to Music_City_Tiger
quote:
How is the citizen's arrest unlawful?
Because they had no direct knowledge of a felony being committed.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 10:56 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
The second DA said no charges should be brought, and listed out the reasons, of course he’s not on it anymore. Some conflict of interest of some sort.
And your move is to just go with what the guy with a conflict of interest thinks.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 10:57 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
The second DA said no charges should be brought, and listed out the reasons
But his reasons were incorrect and didn't apply the facts of the situation to the law.
He claims they were in "hot pursuit" of burglary suspect. The problem with that is that the McMichaels were neither in the presence of, nor had immediate knowledge of a burglary that was committed that day. That is based on the McMichaels' own statements to he police.
The McMichaels' own words eliminate their ability to legally attempt a citizen's arrest.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 10:59 pm to JPLSU1981
Must keep in mind that to be found outright not guilty 12/12 jurors must vote in that way. Same of course for guilty verdict. Anything else results in hung jury, and it's back to square one.
If this gets all the way to trial, I think it would be a slick move for the defendants to waive jury trial and opt for judge trial. Reason being that a legally trained judge is a better audience for arguments on very technical points of law, which is the case here. And the judge would much better grasp those fine points and be much, much less susceptible to being swayed by emotion.
If this gets all the way to trial, I think it would be a slick move for the defendants to waive jury trial and opt for judge trial. Reason being that a legally trained judge is a better audience for arguments on very technical points of law, which is the case here. And the judge would much better grasp those fine points and be much, much less susceptible to being swayed by emotion.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 10:59 pm to AMS
No, my only reason for mentioning that is in the context of any assertion that all the police and investigators/DAs involved believe they committed a crime and should be charged. Conflict of interest or not, there’s at least one person that does this for a living in that region that doesn’t believe charges are warranted based on their laws.
This post was edited on 5/10/20 at 11:01 pm
Posted on 5/10/20 at 11:01 pm to davyjones
quote:
If this gets all the way to trial, I think it would be a slick move for the defendants to waive jury trial and opt for judge trial. Reason being that a legally trained judge is a better audience for arguments on very technical points of law, which is the case here. And the judge would much better grasp those fine points and be much, much less susceptible to being swayed by emotion.
Liberal judges say hold my beer.
I'd take my chances with 12 versus one.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 11:01 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
But his reasons were incorrect and didn't apply the facts of the situation to the law.
He claims they were in "hot pursuit" of burglary suspect. The problem with that is that the McMichaels were neither in the presence of, nor had immediate knowledge of a burglary that was committed that day. That is based on the McMichaels' own statements to he police.
The McMichaels' own words eliminate their ability to legally attempt a citizen's arrest.
Bruh he hung his hat on the thoughts of the guy who is no longer involved in the case due to a conflict of interest. Forget other facts, thats some high grade foolishness lmao.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 11:01 pm to davyjones
quote:
If this gets all the way to trial, I think it would be a slick move for the defendants to waive jury trial and opt for judge trial. Reason being that a legally trained judge is a better audience for arguments on very technical points of law, which is the case here. And the judge would much better grasp those fine points and be much, much less susceptible to being swayed by emotion.
What technical points of the law of two dudes in a pick up truck who didn't know anything about a crime being committed tried to arrest an innocent man?
Posted on 5/10/20 at 11:03 pm to the808bass
quote:
McMichaels is referencing an earlier surveillance video. Not the one from the same day.
Actually, that's false.
Surveillance video in Ahmaud Arbery case appears to show what happened moments before his death...New video appears to show what prosecutors called “video of Arbery burglarizing a home immediately preceding the chase and confrontation." (youtube)
This post was edited on 5/10/20 at 11:05 pm
Posted on 5/10/20 at 11:03 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
Conflict of interest or not, there’s at least one person that does this for a living in that region that doesn’t believe charges are warranted based on their laws.
Do you even think about what you post before you post lmao? The conflict of interest negates his opinion...because its A conflicted Opinion.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 11:03 pm to BuckyCheese
Of course it does depend on who the judge is. But believe it or not judges run the political spectrum in personal perspectives, but there are more middle of the road and reasonable ones than you might suspect. If a judge were to make a blatantly biased ruling on something, make the objection and take it up on appeal.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 11:05 pm to xGeauxLSUx
quote:
Actually, that's false.
Surveillance video in Ahmaud Arbery case appears to show what happened moments before his death (youtube)
You think in the minutes between the alleged misdemeanor trespassing And the homicide, Mcmichaels sat down and watched the video?
Aside from the fact that is not consistent with mcmichaels statement, its patently retarded.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 11:05 pm to JPLSU1981
quote:
all the police and investigators/DAs involved believe they committed a crime and should be charged.
Certainly not all the police. The police officers who investigated the scene believed that they had probably cause for a murder arrest and were told to stand down by the original DA (who is NOT the DA that wrote that letter). So multiple trained LEO's who took witness statements at the scene, including those of the shooter of the crime believed that they had probably cause for an arrest. The DA, who worked with one of the suspects for years.
quote:
“The police at the scene went to her, saying they were ready to arrest both of them. These were the police at the scene who had done the investigation,” Commissioner Allen Booker, who has spoken with Glynn County police, told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
“She shut them down to protect her friend McMichael.”Greg McMichael, now retired, once worked as an investigator in Johnson’s office. Commissioner Peter
Murphy, who also said he spoke directly to Glynn County police about the incident, said officers at the scene concluded they had probable cause to make arrests and contacted Johnson’s office to inform the prosecutor of their decision. “They were told not to make the arrest,” Murphy said.
Johnson recused herself from the case within days of the shooting. Her office has not responded to a request to comment on the commissioners’ account of what happened, or on the case in general.
Posted on 5/10/20 at 11:05 pm to idlewatcher
quote:I doubt very many people would just sit on their hands while they are being assaulted.
Abrey could’ve just as easily sat on his hands and waited for the cops to be the judge of the situation.
Page 26 of 33
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News