Posted on 05/13/2020 6:43:40 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Someone pointed out to me earlier that the caller reporting someone entering the house was a different caller than McMichael.
Is the caller who called in connected to McMichael or is it just a coincidence that McMichael noticed something wrong at or near the same time?
We may have to wait for clarification. Initial reports are not always accurate.
Exactly, though in retrospect running would be a better decision. And I suspect this case will be decided on whether the McMichael's attempt at detention was legal, not the struggle over the shotgun.
Whenever I see a media offering with "Here are the facts we know" in the headline I can rest assured there will be a lot of opinion and few facts.
Agree completely. I suspect the coverage will be an indictment of the state of our media.
Thanks for the info. He was not stealing from a neighbor but a newly built home. Possibly not even locked. Just saying. Needed to get those facts out.
Or just stopped and turned around rather than approaching two men with guns who meant to stop you.
If they were intending to shoot him, they would have done so. They had multiple opportunities to do it.
They were meant to address the reason as to why these two men would want to be armed in a confrontation with Arbery, and I think they did that splendidly.
And although I know you're sympathetic to the McMichaels, every point you made simply establishes McMichaels probable bias.
I'm not sure "sympathetic" is the right word. Part of me feels they were foolish to do what they did, and to some extent deserved the blood lust baying after them now. Pretty much anyone knows you have to treat black criminals as a "special case". Treating them equally as you would a white criminal will get you in trouble.
So no, not "sympathetic", more like seeing them as a bone of contention in a larger societal problem.
And "bias"? I'm not sure of your point here. I don't see how any personal animosity directed at this individual would have been likely to have changed their response. I suspect they would have done the same no matter who the trespasser\probable thief turned out to be.
I think they'll need a very good lawyer to establish it was a legitimate citizens arrest.
Presumably the DA (Barnhill) was a "very good lawyer" and he said it was legitimate. Freeper "Bort" has said he is over 30 years a criminal lawyer in Georgia and he insists they had legitimate cause to detain Arbery. I'm sure if you talk to Benjamin Crump he will disagree, but from what i've seen of him, I don't think he is a very good lawyer. He's an exploiter.
I have some sympathy once Travis was attacked, but I won't be surprised that in the end it's determined he had no cause to attempt the detention.
Show me the jury and I will tell you the likely verdict. I don't think this is about law. It was about law back in February, now it is a political show trial.
The jury will have the last word.
Clearly not even locked. I'm not sure it even had a garage door. The opening for the garage door was wide open. Someone posted a picture.
Just saying. Needed to get those facts out.
They were out, but seemingly not particularly important or relevant. At least I don't see them as having any great relevance.
You’re right that it’s a show trial. And like other show trials like this they’ll be overcharged with no lesser alternatives. It all depends on whether their attempted arrest was legal as determined by the jury. If not they’ll be doing significant jail time.
I see you have never had this conversation with a cop. :)
It's an oddity of law, but they still call it "breaking and entering" even if you don't "break" anything.
My guess it was a trespass, not burglary.
Another oddity. They define "burglary" as entering a structure for the purpose of committing an illegal act. Even if you don't steal something, the law still calls it "burglary."
The law can be funny with all it's definitions not meaning what normal people think they mean.
"Assault and Battery" is another one of those. They define "assault" as uttering verbal threats, and "battery" as actually hitting someone.
I would think "Assault" would require hitting to comply with normal English, but the law uses quirky English. Doesn't an "Assailant" hit? Or Stab? Or do some sort of bodily harm?
Dumb and overzealous perhaps but outright murderers, no.
I couldn’t agree with you more. Most burglars generally don’t want to hurt or encounter anyone but a certain small percentage are also Peeping Toms who watch women undress, etc. It is but a small step for someone with violent fantasies to commit a rape/murder after breaking into a house. Jay Kelly Pinkerton was one such demon. Thankfully, they executed him in 1986. It always frosts me when people downplay the seriousness of burglary.
Actually I have, though more about trespass which I’ve dealt with on occasion. I mentioned “breaking” only because in the absence of theft or intent to commit a felony, forced entry, aka breaking in, would raise a simple trespass to criminal trespass, a felony in most states. My understanding he entered an unoccupied house under construction, presumably through an open door, which is likely just trespass. And you’re right about intent, which would raise this to burglary, but I suspect intent will be hard to prove. All the history won’t matter much, if all they have is a citizens arrest based on maybe simple trespass, which in many states law enforcement won’t bother with by itself, they have a problem with their defense.
As Lavrentiy Beria noted. "Show me the man and I'll show you the crime."
There is a quite good chance that the jury's verdict will be entirely the consequence of who sits on the jury, and not a consequence of what is actually true or what the law actually says.
When I was young and naive, I thought juries usually got it right. Then I saw countless examples of where juries got it absolutely wrong. I have no faith in juries, especially ones empaneled for a seriously hot potato trial.
This one has the potential to be another OJ Simpson trial, with the entire country taking up sides.
Dozens of murders take place every day in every state .
No need to Nationalize this case.
You don't think prior video evidence of the perp entering the house for unlawful acts will color the view of why he entered it again on that day?
I think it clearly establishes "probable cause" because the defendants have already claimed to have seen this video, or been made aware of it somehow.
No, but because he was 62 and retired.
Amen. There’s enough leftist MSM sensationalism and race baiting going on that people have to fight to get the truth out. If it turns out that the two elderly whites murdered in Delaware recently by a young black man were targeted because he allegedly made social media posts about being angry over the Arbery case are true, then the media is complicit in stoking racial hatred.
We'll see, I'm not convinced it's enough to warrant a citizen's arrest. Any more than his criminal record does. My understanding is there should be some proximity in time and place between the criminal act, an actual criminal act, and the arrest. Maybe not in every case. Other than cases when you may be assisting a LEO.
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.