Next they will be saying he stopped by to drop off some food for the needy.From another news story....
On Friday, an attorney for the owner of the house under construction released three security camera videos taken Dec. 17, more than two months before the shooting. They show a black man in a T-shirt and shorts at the site. In the final clip, he walks a few steps toward the road, then starts running at a jogger's pace.
“It now appears that this young man may have been coming onto the property for water,” J. Elizabeth Graddy, the attorney for homeowner Larry English, said in a statement. “There is a water source at the dock behind the house as well as a source near the front of the structure. Although these water sources do not appear within any of the cameras’ frames, the young man moves to and from their locations.”
Hope they don't OJ it.No, I figure it won't be fair or rational...but I'd hope that people would agree that it should be.
Next they will be saying he stopped by to drop off some food for the needy.
What will they say next about the father and son blocking the road with a shotgun? They were just setting up to shoot doves?
What will they say next about the father and son blocking the road with a shotgun? They were just setting up to shoot doves?
Nah, they had ropes in the truck. I was a lynching party. Didn't you see the invitations?
The prior bad acts of the deceased would only be relevant in the father/son defense if they could prove they had knowledge of them prior to the actions they took. Still may not be admitted, by the judge at trial, but there is an exception in the rules of evidence.I thought it wasn't supposed to matter for either? How is there equal protection under the law if we ignore the criminal's history but then use the actions of this guys employer 5-15 years ago against him in a situation completely irrelevant to his employment?
If my memory serves, the prosecution can use any of it to discredit the defendant. He will use employment records, former employers, supervisors and coworkers. The defendant is free to take the stand and attempt to rehabilitate his reputation, but then would be subject to cross examination. He probably won't.Thanks! When would the past employment history of the father be relevant?
It's not supposed to be an issue for either. Only thing that should matter is what happened at that moment. Problem is whenever we have these incidents there are those who's first response is to dig up everything on the dead guy to make him look like he deserved it.I thought it wasn't supposed to matter for either? How is there equal protection under the law if we ignore the criminal's history but then use the actions of this guys employer 5-15 years ago against him in a situation completely irrelevant to his employment?
No, some still believe his walking into the vacant house was worthy of armed confrontation.Is it safe to assume that the dead guy didn't commit any crime that day or any other day that rose to the level of earning the death penalty?
I'm not buying that story. Early reports his mom said he was studying to be an electrician and liked to check out construction sites to see the work.Next they will be saying he stopped by to drop off some food for the needy.
OJ would most likely been convicted if the police hadnt taken it upon themselves to try and help things along by planting evidence.Hope they don't OJ it.
Nah, folks here say they were just minding their business as they stopped in the traffic lane to confront the man while armed.What will they say next about the father and son blocking the road with a shotgun? They were just setting up to shoot doves?
Prosecution can show video from property owner of other folks on property and looking around, young kids included.No, some still believe his walking into the vacant house was worthy of armed confrontation.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
I knew it but I thought sheet rocker looking for dead wood.I'm not buying that story. Early reports his mom said he was studying to be an electrician and liked to check out construction sites to see the work.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Means he was operating outside the rules which says some things about his character considering the positionAgreed but it looks like we also have the problem of people digging up everything on the supposed bad guy beyond what happened in that moment. I can't see how his lack of keeping up with required job training has anything to do with a citizen's arrest 10 years later.
Nobody needs to dig to find something that prompted the shooting, it's on the video.It's not supposed to be an issue for either. Only thing that should matter is what happened at that moment. Problem is whenever we have these incidents there are those who's first response is to dig up everything on the dead guy to make him look like he deserved it.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Yeah like that black guy in the middle of the night. He too was an electrician.Prosecution can show video from property owner of other folks on property and looking around, young kids included.
I didn't see any cops in this video, did you?Have you ever seen the cops put their guns down before detaining anyone?
Given the career of Gregory McMichael, he should have known better. One man dead, two others now have to account for their actions.Yeah like that black guy in the middle of the night. He too was an electrician.
No, I saw citizens making a detention...why would citizens who have the right to keep and bear arms have to disarm to detain a suspect?
You seemed to conveniently leave out the illegal trespassing part.So, if I see you walking down the street in front of my house and think you look shady, it would be ok with you if I came out and detained you at gunpoint? And why would a citizen who has the right to freely travel on a public roadway have to do what some Bubba tells him to do? Also, what was he a suspect of? They didn't see him do anything.
Who's a career criminal???Is that more or less outside the rules than a career criminal?
Would a uniformed officer have stopped him at gunpoint?No, I saw citizens making a detention...why would citizens who have the right to keep and bear arms have to disarm to detain a suspect? Do we force the police, who we hire to generally handle these duties for us to disarm themselves before detaining a suspect?
And you conveniently left out the part about what they actually witnessed....or didnt witness.You seemed to conveniently leave out the illegal trespassing part.
So yes, if you see me inside your house under construction, you have that right.
And I probably won't even aggressively charge, punch you in the head and try and take the gun from you forcing you to shoot.
But they did not see him in the house.You seemed to conveniently leave out the illegal trespassing part.
So yes, if you see me inside your house under construction, you have that right.
And I probably won't even aggressively charge, punch you in the head and try and take the gun from you forcing you to shoot.
But hey, I'm an electrician and I was just making sure you were up to code.
Just talking about your made up scenario.But they did not see him in the house.
We're they performing a legal citizens arrest since they didn't witness him in the house?What I am ok with is separate from the law. Is there any law that says a citizen has to disarm before performing a citizens arrest?
Does the public roadway run through that house?
Have you ever seen the cops put their guns down before detaining anyone?
No, I saw citizens making a detention...why would citizens who have the right to keep and bear arms have to disarm to detain a suspect? Do we force the police, who we hire to generally handle these duties for us to disarm themselves before detaining a suspect?
So the cops disarm, as in bring no guns with them to detain and investigate?
Have you ever seen the cops put their guns down before detaining anyone?
Do you think they would have done it in that instance? FYI - Dodging the question makes your point even weaker.I have seen uniformed officers detain people with guns in their hands thousands of times.
Dont confuse being armed with an armed confrontation. Nobody said they cant or shouldn't be armedWhat I am ok with is separate from the law. Is there any law that says a citizen has to disarm before performing a citizens arrest?
Does the public roadway run through that house?
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ahmaud-arbery-probable-cause-murder-case-georgia-bureau-investigations/“I was leaving the neighborhood and I just caught a guy running into a house being built,” McMichael said during the 911 call, according to the newspaper. “When I turned around, he took off running into the house.”
That is why they are going to court. None of that means they cannot be armed while performing a citizens arrest.