Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, you can fantasize scenarios all you want, but you can't use those fantasies to support a false narrative.
They were attacked by Arbery, they they killed the perpetrator of that attack. Those are the facts.
Quite literally untrue. At no point were they "aggressors", the only attack was made by Arbery. Following someone is not an attack. Asking someone to stop is not an attack. Being armed is not an attack. Telling someone you want to talk to them is not an attack. Attacking someone is an attack, and that's what Arbery did.
Yeah if you say so. It is perfectly normal to chase someone in a vehicle.
It is perfectly normal to jump out with guns in hand.
None of that is at all threatening . None.
2 men jump out of the vehicle that had been chasing you carrying guns and you don't feel at all threatened? Not at all?
Well where I come from that is a damned good way to intimidate someone. All because of a simple trespass that many others had done as well.
Those idiots will walk because there are still enough people willing to support the McMichaels types.
We both know this. That's the whole point. When someone couldn't come up with a good reason to justify Arbery's death, another tactic was used: Character assassination. By bringing up his past, said person hopes to show Arbery in a bad light, to say "he was a criminal, he deserved to die".
I have done some perusing around Facebook. In the wake of Arbery's death, I notice something. Hardly a peep from most of the conservatives that I know. Actually, a few persons who do have conservative views did make posts in tribute to Arbery. All them were females. All of them moms of young boys.
I thought about some of the individuals who were in a hurry to post about Michael Brown and pointing out how the officers were justified. Some of those persons are dead silent about Arbery.
Yep its an old tactic.
It aint the mans fault he raped that girl. Did you see how she was dressed? Not only that but she got herself pregnant and she wasn't even married. Then she was a deeeeeevorced woman and she wore a tight dress.
Those rednecks could have chased a number of people. They chose Arbery.
Now some claim they chose to chase Arbery because the father recognized him. Hmmmmmmmmm
Some claim they confronted Arbery with guns drawn because they knew his past. Hmmmmmmmmmm
Most would say thats why you call the police and let them handle it.
Some will also say that being confronted by men with guns drawn, after being chased by those same men. After being cut off buy those same men, isn't intimidating. Hmmmmmmmmmm
or as my dad used to say "They sound like people trying to pizz on our backs and tell us its raining."
Last edited by boneyard1962; 05-19-2020 at 08:54 PM..
But this time was different. They stopped chasing him, zoomed past him, jumped out the truck and pointed their gun at him. They were in the middle of the road so the road was blocked. The only way another car could go around them would be to drive partially on the grass. Road blocked.
The truck was stopped fully in the right lane between the double yellow lines and the shoulder. Another vehicle wanting to go by from behind simply drives around the truck to the left, and through the left hand lane, with no need to drive on the grass.
No, there were a couple of thefts in the area. They just need reasonable suspicion that one may have occurred for the arrest
One theft was of McMichaels handgun that he had reported
Larry English had a $2,500 from his boat on the property. He didn't know if it happened on the property for sure McMichael could say the property was associated with a possible theft from it
reasonable suspicion that stealing was going on in the neighborhood and therefore someone running from a private property is suspicious a possible felony and you can arrests for suspicion under similar circumstances
The law requires "immediate knowledge" of the crime. McMichaels had only hearsay knowledge, and that was questionable--English didn't even know where the crime occurred.
You have to first PROVE assault before you can argue aggravated assault. Given the context of what was going on, there was never " reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury" so there was never an assault, thus there cannot be an aggravated assault.
The mere fact that someone has a firearm does not create "reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury"
I'm not making any claim about the facts, but your legal reasoning is correct.
I disagree, there had apparently been a few fairly recent burglaries in the neighborhood, including the shooter AND the property that Arbery was trespassing on. With that knowledge, it's "reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion" that a burglary took place. Under Georgia law, that gives them the right to arrest Arbery and hold him for police. Now they never got a chance to even attempt that, but had they done so, it would have been legal.
They had immediate knowledge that he was in that house, and that immediate knowledge was enough to be "reasonable and probably grounds for suspicion" of burglary.
On top of that, Arbery had no reason to believe he was in imminent threat of physical harm, so his assault was completely unjustified.
No, McMichael didn't even have "immediate knowledge" that Arbery was in the house. He only saw Arbery running down the street.
It doesn't matter. If you know thefts have been occurring in an area and someone is running from a private property and you are allowed to arrest them
I'm not saying I support citizens being able to do this but an arrest does not require you see the crime being committed. It only requires you have reasonable suspension it might have occurred .
This doesn't happen often because people know if they make a mistake and the person gets hurt they can get sued, if not they get hurt themselves.
No, the law requires "immediate knowledge" that a felony occurred and then reasonable suspicion that the person you're attempting to arrest committed the crime.
That's not talking about hearsay that a crime might have occurred weeks earlier. McMicael did not have "immediate knowledge" of a felony--in fact, there was none that occurred that day (unless you count his shooing of Arbery). He could not have had "immediate knowledge" of something that didn't happen.
Civilians don't get to arrest someone they suspect of a crime they heard about from another civilian.
If the races were reversed this would never have made national headlines.
If the case were reversed, white people would not have been bothered that police unjustly killed another white man. For some reason, that doesn't bother white people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
