Grand jury indicts all three defendants in Ahmaud Arbery killing (illegal, weapons)
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.
Don't you wonder why 3 teams of about 5 defense attorneys, a couple of attorneys from the DA's office, and a judge never once asked anything like this during the preliminary hearing?
Do you think you are smarter than all of those people or that the possibility of escaping through peoples yards didnt occurr to them?
Maybe you think only the defense attorneys are smart enough to think of this and they didnt mention it so they can SPRING it on the DA lol.
They didn't ask a single question about this because it is IRRELEVANT to their clients' defense. They had no right to force Arberry off the road. The trial is not about what Arberry could or should have done.
I never said they forced him off the road. Arbery shouldn't have attacked someone holding a shotgun.
You asked how long before he should have left the road when they were trying to run him over.
I was making a point to another post that it is implausible they were trying to intentionally run him over repeatedly. These guys had trucks and guns and were supposedly dead set on running over or shooting Arbery, yet he only got shot in self defense after attacking one of them and trying to take away the person's gun.
I was making a point to another post that it is implausible they were trying to intentionally run him over repeatedly. These guys had trucks and guns and were supposedly dead set on running over or shooting Arbery, yet he only got shot in self defense after attacking one of them and trying to take away the person's gun.
The law doesnt required they be dead set on running him over to charge them.
It only requires that a reasonable person foresee that their actions could result in serious injury.
The way they were chasing him with the trucks was dangerous and they did end up hitting him with the truck and forcing him off the road into a ditch. Hence, why aggravated assault. At that point, Arberry is the one who had the right of self defense. He chose to exercise that right by going for the gun rather than risking being shot in the back or having them get back in their trucks and chase/hit him again.
The law doesnt required they be dead set on running him over to charge them.
It only requires that a reasonable person foresee that their actions could result in serious injury.
The way they were chasing him with the trucks was dangerous and they did end up hitting him with the truck and forcing him off the road into a ditch. Hence, why aggravated assault. At that point, Arberry is the one who had the right of self defense. He chose to exercise that right by going for the gun rather than risking being shot in the back or having them get back in their trucks and chase/hit him again.
I already explained it in early posts today. This is getting redundant.
Just trying to understand your thought process.
Do you think that if 3 people try to block your forward progress and then try to block you whichever way you turn, with trucks and a pointed weapon and in the process hit you with the truck that you dont have a right to fight back to try to defend yourself?
People are still defending these clowns? My goodness.
Not really. Just a few fringers....no different than the Trayvon Martin folks that kept posting that George Zimmerman basically chased him down because they imagined that scenario when reports first came out and basically were incapable of rational thought on the matter.
Last post on the topic until they're sentenced. There is no fixing the fact that a few disturbed individuals just can't process reality or the law.
Do you think that if 3 people try to block your forward progress and then try to block you whichever way you turn, with trucks and a pointed weapon and in the process hit you with the truck that you dont have a right to fight back to try to defend yourself?
I don't believe that's how it really happened. You can't attack some one and take their gun away presumably to shoot them with it just because they want to stop and question you till the police arrive.
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.
