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.
So what you're saying is the penalty for shoplifting should be death, it should be carried out by plainclothes civilians in the street, and retroactive to three years?
He literally did. He ran past the truck far to the right, and ended up to the left of the truck....you can't do that without doubling back.
Also, he wasn't being attacked when he decided to attack, so there was no "armed attacker". The only "attacker" was Arbery, fortunately the person he attacked was armed and he got put down for it.
Driving towards me aggressively with a car is an attack... you premise is completely false as they have been arrested and when a grand jury agrees with the charges, then your defense falls apart... it’s one thing to kill a perpetrator and another to kill an innocent person... they didn’t exercise any reasonable judgment... guilty as charge...
I believe that your apparent belief that juries will just do whatever they want, in spite of the actual requirements of the law, the plain language meaning of important terms, and possible judges instructions, is very entertaining.
I guess you never saw me say more than once that in my experience jurors try very hard to follow/apply the law. Obviously, there are sometimes exceptions where a jury goes rogue.
I guess you never saw the multiple times I have said the jury will likely get some form of jury instructions. I have never stated or implied they wont follow them. But, we all know there are times they ask for instruction and they will simply have the law pointed out to them and be left to their own devices to apply it.
I guess you never saw the times I've said they will be told to follow reason and common sense. Clearly the reasoning ability and common sense will vary in any group of people. You for example would make a very bad juror since you hold common sense in such disdain.
I have also said words matter. But, unlike you I understand that words can have many different meanings and usages.
He literally did. He ran past the truck far to the right, and ended up to the left of the truck....you can't do that without doubling back.
Also, he wasn't being attacked when he decided to attack, so there was no "armed attacker". The only "attacker" was Arbery, fortunately the person he attacked was armed and he got put down for it.
You must be laughing while you type. I mean seriously. The agressers start to finish were the McMichaels.
I am glad that I never had such neighbors to contend with. Had one Jersey idiot who loved waving his wheel guns around but he died after accidentally shooting himself in the foot and then trying to self treat a the gun shot wound while being a diabetic. The idiot even wore a cowboy hat. They found his dumb ass a few weeks after he died. He liked to chase people in his truck too. Kids on ATVs were his pet peeve. LOL. He lived about a mile from me. In the sticks that is still a neighbor.
I don't care how you try to spin this. The McMichaels created the situation. Over a simple trespass. Something else you omit. The homeowner himself said that he never asked the McMichaels to do what they did.
Maybe Arbery felt he had no choice? Two fat white guys waving guns around after chasing him. Maybe he felt like they would shoot him in the back. Not an unreasonable assumption given the history of the region.
No....Arbery created this situation first by trespassing, then by deciding to attack. His actions alone are the reason he's dead, not anyone else.
Maybe Arbery was just bloodthirsty and he wanted to try to murder people. See how baseless speculation doesn't further the conversation? There was no reason to suspect he was in any danger physically as he knew EXACTLY why they were following him and they had been doing so for quite a while only telling him to stop and saying that they wanted to talk to him. There's no reason to think they'd randomly decide to shoot him, rationally he should have known those weapons were for self defense from him, the thief....it would be like saying that an old white man saw a black man walking up to him so he got scared and assaulted him thus it's self defense.
Irrational thoughts are not justification for assault.
I just remembered something else for my numbered list above - Aggravated Assault requires an intent to murder, to rape, or to rob. This will be another very difficult obstacle for the prosecution to overcome.
Nope.
Quote:
(a) A person commits the offense of aggravated assault when he or she assaults:
(2) With a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury; or
Why does it matter why Arbery was in the neighborhood or if he was trespassing? If I saw some kids trespassing on my lawn, I can't just point guns at them. Or if I can, I wouldn't. Arbery was no saint, no man is. But he wasn't the aggressor either.
Did you mean to quote me? I wasn’t the one claiming to know why Arbery was in the neighborhood, nor am I saying he was trespassing. . .
So what you're saying is the penalty for shoplifting should be death, it should be carried out by plainclothes civilians in the street, and retroactive to three years?
You may want to wait and see what he did to warrant a deadly response. Maybe not enough or maybe more than enough. You have no idea, yet you want to rush to judgment.
Driving towards me aggressively with a car is an attack... you premise is completely false as they have been arrested and when a grand jury agrees with the charges, then your defense falls apart... it’s one thing to kill a perpetrator and another to kill an innocent person... they didn’t exercise any reasonable judgment... guilty as charge...
That's not something that ever happened though.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by boneyard1962
You must be laughing while you type. I mean seriously. The agressers start to finish were the McMichaels.
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.
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.
