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.
I do not believe there was only one. And when the defense digs around a bit they likely will find three or four.
It is not a certainty. Maybe the actual prosecutor will find a way to short circuit that defense. But I doubt she has more than a slight chance to pull that off. So the criminal trial odds favor the McMichaels.
I also think the state has a very weak case for not letting them out on bail. Would not be surprised to see an Appeals Court reverse that.
It doesn't matter if they find 3 or 4, or 10, none can be called to testify.
No way that it can be called anything but murder. They instigated it, cornered Ahmaud so he would have to go through one of them. They were looking for an excuse to shoot, and when Ahmaud tried to escape, they murdered him.
Nothing justifies this.
When Greg called 911, was he looking for excuses to shoot Arbery?
It doesn't matter if they find 3 or 4, or 10, none can be called to testify.
An interesting view. Cite you source of your belief.
The issue in the trial will be the "citizen arrest". Who would testify about such a subject? The prosecution is clearly going to claim it was not a "citizen arrest". Who else would be expert witnesses on the subject?
When Greg called 911, was he looking for excuses to shoot Arbery?
Funny you would mention it, so what if they called 911? All that means was they thought it was justified, just because they saw him running down the street, with NOTHING in either hands or pockets, literally nothing.
The police asked "did you see him break in" and they said they only saw him run down the street. Yet what conclusion do they come to?
They decided to shoot him twice when he tried to run for his life. It's murder, I don't know how you can defend these worthless excuses for human beings.
THE OWNER of the house said he had NO issue with Ahmaud being in the house, meaning that their entire premise was false in the first place.
They were racists looking for an excuse to take a life of a black man, and they ended up succeeding.
Funny you would mention it, so what if they called 911? All that means was they thought it was justified, just because they saw him running down the street, with NOTHING in either hands or pockets, literally nothing.
I don’t know how things work in your world, but in mine, murderous racists don’t call 911 prior to killing someone.
Quote:
The police asked "did you see him break in" and they said they only saw him run down the street. Yet what conclusion do they come to?
They decided to shoot him twice when he tried to run for his life. It's murder, I don't know how you can defend these worthless excuses for human beings.
THE OWNER of the house said he had NO issue with Ahmaud being in the house, meaning that their entire premise was false in the first place.
They were racists looking for an excuse to take a life of a black man, and they ended up succeeding.
He was shot shot while attacking Travis, not while running away.
I get that reasonable people can disagree on the analysis of a situation, but at least get the facts correct so that we can have some common ground for that discussion.
Funny you would mention it, so what if they called 911? All that means was they thought it was justified, just because they saw him running down the street, with NOTHING in either hands or pockets, literally nothing.
The police asked "did you see him break in" and they said they only saw him run down the street. Yet what conclusion do they come to?
They decided to shoot him twice when he tried to run for his life. It's murder, I don't know how you can defend these worthless excuses for human beings.
THE OWNER of the house said he had NO issue with Ahmaud being in the house, meaning that their entire premise was false in the first place.
They were racists looking for an excuse to take a life of a black man, and they ended up succeeding.
Drivel like this is why we have 576 pages on a straightforward self defense case, on video. No wonder the liberals accuse everyone else of “gaslighting”, they invented it. It’s no matter though. Like I’ve been saying, there will be an acquittal in under 2 hours once the jury sees that video of the “jogger” charging the defendant and beating him in the head.
I don’t know how things work in your world, but in mine, murderous racists don’t call 911 prior to killing someone.
He was shot shot while attacking Travis, not while running away.
I get that reasonable people can disagree on the analysis of a situation, but at least get the facts correct so that we can have some common ground for that discussion.
Actually, he was running away. This is where we disagree. You say he was attacking Travis, but they had Ahmaud literally cornerned. The only way to escape was to go through Travis, literally the ONLY way.
And EVEN if Ahmaud hypothetically attacked Travis instead of running away, that's completely understandable as he has a gun aimed at him, and ended up losing his life. I reckon a lot of people would do the exact same thing. They were chasing him down, and they were NOT going to stop. He was trying to defend his life if ANYTHING.
And I don't know what world you live in, but it's not like there's a universal understanding of what Racists do before murdering someone, and if there is, please enlighten me.
There could be several arguments as to why they called 911, you could use yours, or another, being that they wanted the death to be "justified" so they wouldn't go to prison for murder, or that they thought it was justified, just because they were suspicious of a black person.
People who aren't racist won't chase someone running down the street just because of their skin color, people who aren't racist wouldn't have instigated the situation to the point where they shot him lethally, several times.
The fact that you think Ahmaud's death isn't murder, because he FOUGHT BACK, is laughable. He has several guns pointed at him, what else was he supposed to do? Sit there and potentially die?
**** that, he tried to escape, as any sane person would do. If you call that attacking, then you have a clear bias.
Actually, he was running away. This is where we disagree. You say he was attacking Travis, but they had Ahmaud literally cornerned. The only way to escape was to go through Travis, literally the ONLY way.
When you use the word "literally", which definition are you intending to be understood by:
Definition of literally
1: in a literal sense or manner: such as
a: in a way that uses the ordinary or primary meaning of a term or expression
He took the remark literally.
a word that can be used both literally and figuratively
b—used to emphasize the truth and accuracy of a statement or description
The party was attended by literally hundreds of people.
c: with exact equivalence : with the meaning of each individual word given exactly
The term "Mardi Gras" literally means "Fat Tuesday" in French.
d: in a completely accurate way
a story that is basically true even if not literally true
2: in effect : VIRTUALLY —used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible
will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally
Actually, he was running away. This is where we disagree. You say he was attacking Travis, but they had Ahmaud literally cornerned. The only way to escape was to go through Travis, literally the ONLY way.
Now, let’s use the word correctly. . . Arbery could have gone in literally any other direction, and he wouldn’t have ended up attacking Travis. Instead he ran a fair distance at them, and attacked Travis.
Quote:
And EVEN if Ahmaud hypothetically attacked Travis instead of running away, that's completely understandable as he has a gun aimed at him, and ended up losing his life. I reckon a lot of people would do the exact same thing. They were chasing him down, and they were NOT going to stop. He was trying to defend his life if ANYTHING.
The word you’re looking for is “actually.” “Hypothetically” would be appropriate for something that DIDN’T happen.
Quote:
And I don't know what world you live in, but it's not like there's a universal understanding of what Racists do before murdering someone, and if there is, please enlighten me.
I don’t know what they do. But I don’t of any situations where they dial 911.
Quote:
There could be several arguments as to why they called 911, you could use yours, or another, being that they wanted the death to be "justified" so they wouldn't go to prison for murder, or that they thought it was justified, just because they were suspicious of a black person.
Of course there could be different arguments. Would you like to posit one? Or are you just going to throw a bunch of crap against the wall and hope that something sticks?
Quote:
People who aren't racist won't chase someone running down the street just because of their skin color, people who aren't racist wouldn't have instigated the situation to the point where they shot him lethally, several times.
It would sure be nice if you could share with all of us why you believe they are racists, and why you believe this was racially motivated.
Quote:
The fact that you think Ahmaud's death isn't murder, because he FOUGHT BACK, is laughable. He has several guns pointed at him, what else was he supposed to do? Sit there and potentially die?
**** that, he tried to escape, as any sane person would do. If you call that attacking, then you have a clear bias.
I’m curious how you have come to the highlighted conclusion above. Care to share?
I believe that murder can be established based on the legal requirements in state law, and the sum total of the evidence that will be presented at trial. Based on everything that we currently know, I don’t believe that the state will be able to meet the threshold required for a murder conviction.
In GA, murder requires malice aforethought. I don’t believe that any of the evidence known so far shows that required intent.
It doesn't matter if they find 3 or 4, or 10, none can be called to testify.
Can you explain why you say that? Thanks.
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.
