Does not mention anything about a pursuit, only arrest.
Georgia shooting of a black man
- Thread starter Variable
- Start date
- Replies 1,192
- Views 39,672
Last edited:
So let's move from hypothetical to what actually was stated by the defendants.
Re your comment: "If the offense was committed in their presence or within their immediate knowledge", here are excerpts from the statements given to the police immediately after the shooting.
"The shooter, Travis McMichael, his dad, Greg McMichael and neighbor William “Roddie” Bryan all spoke extensively and candidly with Glynn County investigators just hours after Arbery was killed in their Brunswick, Georgia, neighborhood in February 2020. They told police they weren’t sure exactly what Arbery had done wrong"
“I don’t think the guy has actually stolen anything out of there, or if he did it was early in the process. But he keeps going back over and over again to this damn house," Greg McMichael said, according to a transcript of the interview that Glynn County police Sgt. Roderic Nohilly read in court.
Bryan was on his front porch when he saw Arbery run past with the McMichaels’ truck close behind. He told police he didn’t recognize any of them, or know what prompted the chase, but still joined in after calling out: “Y’all got him?”
In an interview with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Bryan said he wanted to take a photo of Arbery to show police, but couldn’t point to any crimes Arbery had committed.
“I figured he had done something wrong,” Bryan said. “I didn’t know for sure.”
So from their own statements to the police, the McMichael's and Bryan were unaware of any offense that Arbery had committed.
This pretty well destroys any legitimacy of a citizens arrest under what was then Georgia law.
And to bring this even Closer to home, what do you do for a Child in your home that is Disrespectful, Thieves, Lies, Is Truant, Will NOT mind his parents??? A serious question............Now apply this to a 21+ year old person......what "fix" is there for the younger before thy become the older????? FT
So the originally DA got charged with some crimes related to this and her alleged coverup and hindrance of the investigation.
If they can prove, and it’s highly probable to be the case, then she has no business being a DA.
www.yahoo.com
If they can prove, and it’s highly probable to be the case, then she has no business being a DA.
‘She Should Spend Time In Prison’: Former DA Accused of ‘Showing Favor’ to the McMichaels Awaits Her Day In Court on Charges Over Delayed Arrests In Ahmaud Arbery’s Slaying
The men convicted of killing Ahmaud Arbery are not the only ones facing prison time for the February 2020 murder. Former Georgia District Attorney Jackie […]
Last edited:
Every case she's prosecuted or didn't press charges on should be investigated. I'm pretty sure this ain't the first time she's served up some home cooking with regards to who's being prosecuted....or not.
Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk
The video in this story shows Crump and Sharpton behind the father of the deceased. He says all lives matter and you can see that Crump appears that he tries to get him to stop talking.
a lot of mind reading in that article. i didn’t read their body language or reaction the same way.The video in this story shows Crump and Sharpton behind the father of the deceased. He says all lives matter and you can see that Crump appears that he tries to get him to stop talking.
It could go either way. I am only sharing the story because I can see it becoming a part of this cases story. I do agree with his father that all lives matter.
Last edited:
The problem with this case is so many people "know" things that are not fact.
The stolen pistol was weeks earlier. Stolen from the son's truck. They have no proof connecting it with Arbery.
Nothing was stolen from the house that day.
According to the homeowner nothing was ever stolen from his house.
Also according to the homeowner he never spoke to the McMichaels about the break in's.
He never shared the video with the McMichaels. They got it from another neighbor.
These guys thought they were being heros and ended up killing someone for a bunch of bad assumptions. They attached themselves to the neighbor in an attempt to justify what they were doing.
A lot of guys are on the opposite end of the spectrum on this one than the Rittenhouse case. The media spun a tale against Rittenhouse, and people fell for it. The McMichaels spun a tell and got enough of it into the media that folks fell for that.
The stolen pistol was weeks earlier. Stolen from the son's truck. They have no proof connecting it with Arbery.
Nothing was stolen from the house that day.
According to the homeowner nothing was ever stolen from his house.
Also according to the homeowner he never spoke to the McMichaels about the break in's.
He never shared the video with the McMichaels. They got it from another neighbor.
These guys thought they were being heros and ended up killing someone for a bunch of bad assumptions. They attached themselves to the neighbor in an attempt to justify what they were doing.
A lot of guys are on the opposite end of the spectrum on this one than the Rittenhouse case. The media spun a tale against Rittenhouse, and people fell for it. The McMichaels spun a tell and got enough of it into the media that folks fell for that.
I wonder that IF the video the neighbor had taken and shared had never been leaked if we would even be seeing anything about this case? I don’t say that as a good thing but because that video was damning evidence to refute their own claims of self defense. This whole case is a sad loss of life that never should have occurred. Like you said the Rittenhouse shooting and trial was the polar opposite of this case in how it turned out and what happened to cause that outcome
Last edited:
Unfortunately, I doubt that it anything would have been pursued due to the defendants close relationship with the local DA and police departments.
georgel
Behind Every Blade of Grass
Charter Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
It's all sad. I can personally relate to both sides of this story. Life is rarely black and white. (No pun intended.) But, varying shades of grey.
Even the DA issue, the friends and family bias will always exist. It's human nature. It's how we function. Even here.
It reminds me of Unforgiven...
The bad guys aren't all bad, and the good guys aren't all good.
Even the DA issue, the friends and family bias will always exist. It's human nature. It's how we function. Even here.
It reminds me of Unforgiven...
The bad guys aren't all bad, and the good guys aren't all good.
Last edited:
Unfortunately, maybe not.
But he released the video because he thought it would help them. I’m assuming that was a result of local pressure. Crazy that he thought it would help their case when all it did was blow it up. Without the video being public I’m assuming the DA continues to run interference for them. Glad he screwed that one up.
I agree it was karma ….also anytime you are involved in a shooting you shut up and lawyer up. Kyle did that very thing if I am not mistaken
Hate crimes trial not going well for these guys...
www.huffpost.com
Jury Hears Evidence Of Racial Slurs During Hate Crimes Trial Of Ahmaud Arbery's Killers
Prosecutors say Travis McMichael made racist statements about Black people on social media and in private messages.
They are getting what coming to them, they deserve it all.
They are getting what is coming to them. I don't disagree with that.
HOWEVER, the whole concept of "hate crimes" ..., being that it is a separate crime because you have bad thoughts when you perform a crime..... That may make you feel all virtuous and stuff, and may make the leftist moral posturing twits feel all good about themselves and all, but it will ultimately be a tool used against anyone who doesn't agree with the state.
This stuff is going to wind up biting the people who thought it was good.....
And I listened to most of the trial and would have voted for conviction on at least the two main perpetrators.
Just wait. It is "the n word" today and it will be "faggot" tomorrow and then "pervert" or "pagan" down the road.
This is not good. Thought is not a crime, no matter how reprehensible is the thought, or the verbalizing of said thought.
HOWEVER, the whole concept of "hate crimes" ..., being that it is a separate crime because you have bad thoughts when you perform a crime..... That may make you feel all virtuous and stuff, and may make the leftist moral posturing twits feel all good about themselves and all, but it will ultimately be a tool used against anyone who doesn't agree with the state.
This stuff is going to wind up biting the people who thought it was good.....
And I listened to most of the trial and would have voted for conviction on at least the two main perpetrators.
Just wait. It is "the n word" today and it will be "faggot" tomorrow and then "pervert" or "pagan" down the road.
This is not good. Thought is not a crime, no matter how reprehensible is the thought, or the verbalizing of said thought.
Dale Gribble
Can't starve us out; Can't make us run
Charter Member
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Agree 100%, but folks are so short-sighted, they don’t even consider the possibility.
Back in 2011, when Amendment I was up for a vote here in NC, I had some knock-down, drag-outs on Farcebook with some former high school classmates…went to a Christian high school, so need I say more?
Anyhow, some of these folks were getting frothy-mad over the issue and could not understand how I could be against passage of Amendment I…they saw it as me “turning my back” on my beliefs. I tried explaining to them how dangerous it was for the state to decide what consenting adults could or could not do, based upon what the state found to be morally reprehensible.
I told them, “Look…it’s just a matter of time and this same tactic will be used against YOU…then, whatteryougonnado? What are you going to do when the state declares the Bible you read is full of hate speech, the services you attend propagate it and the state bans you from doing either?”
“Well…they’re not gonna that…they can’t do that!”
Au contraire…they can and they will, because folks like you said they should have the power to do so.
Unfortunately, they were so myopic that my arguments against the state intervening into an institution where it had no business did not work. I was told that I would burn in Hell with all of the other reprobates…and the icing on the cake was they were “unfriending” me, which caused me to loose an immense amount of sleep😂.
Anyhow, long story short, you’re dead on the x-ring and folks can’t quite grasp the tools they are in favor of now will eventually be used against them by those with a lust for power and control.
Last edited:
Interesting. I was vocal against amendment 1 as well, mostly because I argued that the state has no business "licensing" a marriage of any sort at all. I argued this with an elder in my church (a very very conservative church) and he was "yeah, but they will use it for bad, but we use it for good." I just decided to walk away from the convo.
Dale Gribble
Can't starve us out; Can't make us run
Charter Member
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Gotta be reaaaaal careful ceding power to government, because more times than not, it will turn out to be a poor “impulse buy”.
Once you give the gov an inch, they'll take a foot. Give them a foot, they'll take a yard.
And they arent in the habit of giving up any power.
Oh, and these guys - piss off boys, enjoy prison
And they arent in the habit of giving up any power.
Oh, and these guys - piss off boys, enjoy prison
Indeed, pretty much anything you can argue in favor of your religious view, one can likewise argue the opposite using the equivalent of the same argument citing an opposing religious view. Why do you think the The Satanic Temple (not to be confused with he Church of Satan), is the fastest growing religious entity
in the world?
Indeed. However, the way the secular courts have argued for a "religiously neutral" stance is one of the most idiotic, self refuting piles of crap I have ever seen sentient men and women propose. Just appallingly stupid. The entire ability to propose "rights" which theoretically undergird the entire Constitutional apparatus... that whole structure rests on an ability to declare "this is wrong... intrinsically... and this is right... intrinsically." Such a moral position is IMPOSSIBLE without reference to a law outside the system itself.... Since morality is by definition a function of a personality, this demands a personal law giver. It is not just Christians who have asserted this syllogism. A fairly bright schoolboy who is willing to actually think about it can see it. Men reject it NOT because it is intellectually cogent to do so, but rather because they don't LIKE it.
John Adams (no "Christian" in any biblical sense of the word, rather a Universalist/Unitarian) understood this, as did all the framers and Thomas Jefferson (who was not involved in the Constitution or the BOR, as he was in France at the time). It is only modernists who ignore most of Western Civilization and at least 4000 years of ordered, repetitive thinking on this issue to come up with the idiotic tripe we call "separation of church and state."
Anyway, the rule of law is based in the rule of morality. However, morality must have a "why" or it will itself collapse and the only one left standing will be a fully armed state who grins at you with no inherent restrictions on how or even why it should use its power.
I want men to come to Christ because the entire civil order, including our rtkba, our prosperity, our general happiness, AND THE FREEDOM FOR INDIVIDUAL MEN TO REJECT AND REMAIN SECURE IN THEIR RIGHTS..... all depend on this being a general current of thought. It is why I continually stray out of the ordered "streams" of thought from politics/religion/gun issues, blah blah blah like a guy who only knows one chord on a guitar. It is folly to attempt to model a society on our modern premises. It will collapse...... or worse.
Might be worth ignoring the "church culture" that is often so horrible here in SE USA, picking up a bible, and asking yourself if there might be truth there.
I always liked the simplicity of the idea that, “as long as ye harm none, do as you will”. As was explained to me, one, the none includes yourself and two, it is a very difficult ideal to try to follow. As to the why, it is because whatever you do, good or ill, will be returned to you threefold. Your reward or punishment will be in the here and now, not judgment by some cosmic deity.
This is also coupled with the concept of karma. Again, not in the sense that if a cosmic deity declares you “bad” that you’ll be reborn as a toad, but in that your current situation and future prospects, for good or ill, are all a function of your (and often times your parents and others) choices.
What is "harm" and why should it be avoided? Why should any exploitation be eschewed in the pursuit of my own advancement. The whole idea seems to depend on a moral yardstick which classifies something as "helpful or harmful" which plops me back in the same pool. Why should I abhor the selective repression of persons based on race, religion/ideology, voluntary association or anything else? This is a question I have examined in detail for decades, and read volumes (including John Stuart Mill/Hume, who did the most cogent work here imo). I see no basis for condemnation of murder at all much less racism.
LMGTFY - Let Me Google That For You
For all those people who find it more convenient to bother you with their question rather than to Google it for themselves.
It is clear that non whites are WAY WAY WAY lower in the % charged. The crime itself is a tool for socialization, not justice.
Last edited:
We are quickly reaching the point of trying to define words and concepts. It’s like trying to define the concepts of one and two, which are almost empirical definitions in and of themselves. Harm, that which brings pain, discomfort, undesirable outcomes, etc., etc. As for being a moral yard stick, how is it any different than this illusive yard stick your deity allegedly uses? The only difference I see is that in the latter the responsibility for defining “good” and “bad” is placed outside of ones own responsibility.
As to why one should avoid it, as I said, whatever you do is returned to you amplified. Presumably one doesn’t enjoy or want negative consequences, so why inflict negativity on others?
Now, I’m also not saying that there isn’t something beyond our corporeal existence and perception, I am quite convinced that there is from my own experiences. I just don’t believe that there is a master entity that sits in control and judgment of us humans.
I suspect the answer is yes, they could be, but I don’t know of any that ever have.
Last edited:
ChickenHawk
I'm a chicken hawk
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Member
Benefactor
Life Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
If I remember right Immanuel Kant was big in philosophy due to trying to argue the morals of the Bible without just saying because God said so." Interesting reads in a thought experiment and why the laws of Christianity work well.
4seasonhunter
Well-Known Member
It’s simple… love your neighbor as yourself. Not as much as yourself… Not “love your neighbor or you’ll get punished.” AS yourself. We’re all the same thing looking back at itself, call it whatever name you like, that’s what that word UNIverse means anyway amirite… No need for morality, just empathy. Alright I’ve said my piece for the day (steps off soapbox, puts hat back on)
So, if you have followed the regular sort of back and forth between me and @noway2 you know that I really like him for a number of reasons. The reason for today
is that this dialogue is an example of why libertarian/anarchist type folks can get along on the societal scale of how laws are enforced or implemented while having monstrous divides on how we got there.I won't go down that road any further in this thread, but will instead comment again how odd it is to be so intolerantly orthodox (I am!) and so implacably resolved that biblical truth is the ONLY reliable source for truth, yet to be committed to the implementation of that truth in opposition of many of my fellow believers, and with the more atheistic/agnostic/, or in the case here, the neopagan crowd.
We are united that we have freedom to disobey truth to the extent that it harms us, and the boundary set is that we may not harm others. That is what many fundamentalists miss when they talk about the USA being founded on Christian principles. We are not talking about forcing people to behave. We are, however, talking about enforcing people's rights against those who would impinge.
The rest of it we can talk about in another forum, I suppose.