Posted on 05/10/2020 7:39:27 PM PDT by Widget Jr
It shows a man who appears to be Arbery entering and walking around a house being built. The men who killed Arbery told police they were concerned about break-ins.
Watch the video Einstein. The dead perp charges and attacks the son! Is he just supposed to let him beat him to death?
If I am at the gun range, and I try to grab a gun out of someone’s hands and that gun goes off and kills me, is the gun owner responsible for my actions? Keep in mind that I am “unarmed”.
Regarding post #96, Were you a civil or criminal lawyer?
Both, at one time or another.
Why were you entering homes under construction?
The truck was in front of him. The dead perp ran and attacked the son in front of the truck.
It was not an alley they were in, and the dead perp could have turned right or left. He didn’t. Instead, he chose to run forward and attack.
Stick to the facts.
If as you claim “guns were drawn”, then why wasn’t the charging perp shot from 40 feet away? Or 20 feet? Or 5 feet?
No, the dead perp charged and grappled for the shotgun, indicating that NONGUNSNWERR TRAINED ON HIM.
In fact, you can see the father in the truck reach for his HOLSTERED weapon AFTER the son is attacked.
There’s no way I would bet on that first here on Free Republic.
That said, I strongly agree with your second statement.
This is a case where stupid met stupid, the stupid compounded, and we have one dead and two whose lives are ruined no matter which way the trial result goes. Tragically stupid all around.
Many of the folks here are smart enough to know it is Massad Ayoob, not Mossad.
And I keep an extra copy of In the Gravest Extreme around to loan/give to people.
I think that this story is being used to take attention away from two other things that happened or are happening. A day after the Lansing protests where armed protesters never fired a shot, a security guard at a Dollar Store was shot and killed for asking someone they had to put a mask on before entering the store. At first, the spastic media assumed it was a white Nazi gun and personal rights activist. It wasn’t. Also, the ObamaGate scandal got extra wind last week, giving Obama and friends a bad case of bad news.
Ok, assuming that is him, he trespassed on that property and he was not dressed for running - those are not running shorts that he was wearing. But that said, he did not deserve what happened to him. He was within his rights to try to defend himself. Those men should be tried for murder.
Well, what do you call it when TWO vehicles are following you and they bracket you, one in front and one behind, and armed men get out?
I guarantee you that has NEVER happened to you.
Unless you are the guy who was videoing the jogger, you have no idea what was said to him by the armed aggressors. And you obviously have no idea what he was thinking as two armed men got out of one of the vehicles to confront him.
My eyes are just fine.
I see at least 3 people in 2 different vehicles tracking down, cutting off and confronting an unarmed black man. The two shooters visible were white, had no police uniform, and were defending NOTHING in the middle of a public street.
The phone was recording sound because you hear the gunshots. What you don’t hear is any indication of surprise, shock, attempt to stop or otherwise prevent this guy from getting shot. The guys who did the shooting did not seem panicked, the guy filming did not seem panicked nor surprised.
Based on the limited video evidence alone, I would vote to convict these guys of murder right now. They armed themselves, went onto a public street and confronted an unarmed man and killed him. They initiated the armed confrontation against an unarmed person.
If you can’t see that, you need glasses.
A guy outside the truck with a shotgun and a guy standing up in the back bed with a handgun. I thought it was illegal to hunt rabbits from a vehicle..........
I had my house broken into 3 times. That did not give me the right to arm myself, get on a public street, hunt down who I thought might be breaking into my house (I think I knew who it was) and confront them with weapons. DO you think it is OK to arm yourself and confront citizens on public streets and shoot them if they get scared and run or try to defend themselves.
You are nuts if you do.
Nice comeback, except that’s not what happened.
Regarding post #115, I agree with everything you said.
I have been duly chastised by superior intellect. I am humbled by your great wisdom. I will dedicate myself in the effort of not offending you in the future. I bow to you.
So, assuming the worst, you believe that it would be inadmissible as evidence if the defendants wanted to show at trial that Aubery, the supposed victim, had a felony conviction for burglary, was violating a probation condition in his trespass at the construction site, was notorious for being hotheaded, and that his toxicology report showed active user levels of meth and cocaine in his system?
I think that most or all of that (if true) would come in to explain Aubery’s motive or intent in the way he responded to an armed citizen’s arrest, which Aubery reacted to with a physical attack that turned lethal against him.
Arbery’s motives don’t matter since he isn’t the one on trial here. The McMichael’s motives matter, they murdered Arbery during an illegal “citizen’s arrest”. McMcichaels and Byran have to explain themselves of why they took illegal police action and murdered a man in cold blood.
You and I would have the same rights to self defense as Arbery would. You have to remember it is the three murdering criminals who are on trial here, not their victim.
Moreover, read carefully, most evidence codes permit character or trait evidence in criminal cases. For example, the much-copied Federal Evidence Code generally prohibits character and trait evidence in Rule 404, but with criminal cases being an exception in which “a defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s pertinent trait.” A similar provision in Georgia’s evidence code also makes admissible “evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the alleged victim of the crime offered by an accused.”
I think you have this backwards, the victim is dead, the victim can not defend himself, so all of this probably won’t be admissible in court. The people accused of crime here isn’t the victim, but McMichaels and Byran. I guess they can say how great their character is, or have witnesses testify to their character, but in the end of the day it doesn’t change the fact that they murdered a man during their illegal police action that went wrong.
Sharpton is that you? And what are you doing on Freerepublic?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.