Posted on 11/04/2021 7:44:46 AM PDT by ChicagoConservative27
every**
A Black “jogger” with a name that sounds like “armed robbery.” I’m sure he’s an upstanding citizen. Like Saint Skittles, Saint George Fentanyl and the Gentle Giant of Turd Ferguson. If he was a honkey with a criminal record killed by Blacks, we’d never hear the story at all. White folks don’t flip their $hit when a White criminal is killed, regardless of who killed them.
Black folks need to wake up and realize they’re getting played by an evil, Stalinazi media that wants to spark a race war by making them enraged over every dead criminal that shares their skin color. Fun fact: the media doesn’t give a $hit about the plight of Black folks, only keeping them on the Demonrat plantation by being perpetually aggrieved against the WRONG folks. Same goes for the BLM fraudsters.
In most states if you initiate the conflict then you can't claim self-defense. If that's the same in Georgia then these guys are going to have a problem with justifying their actions.
I saw this point come up on another discussion thread on a totally different case. I think it was Kyle Rittenhouse, but the lawyer people said that you still have a right to self defense even if you initiated the confrontation, and they cited a case in support of this claim.
But I dispute that the McMichaels initiated the conflict. The man was standing there holding a shotgun but he was not aiming it at anyone.
Aubrey ran at him and attempted to take the gun away from him. Aubrey initiated "the conflict."
If that's the same in Georgia then these guys are going to have a problem with justifying their actions.
They are going to have a problem anyway. This is a political show trial, and the jurors may be more interested in civil peace than justice.
Even now, the Rittenhouse trial has revealed that two jurors are holding out for a guilty verdict, solely because they are concerned an innocent verdict will trigger riots.
This is not how the "justice" system is supposed to work. Trial by mob opinion went out with the Romans.
Like everything else there are exceptions. If the defendant can be the initial aggressor and still raise a self-defense claim if the attacked individual responds with excessive force under the circumstances, or if the defendant withdraws from the attack and the attacked individual persists. The second is moot; none of the defendants tried to withdraw from the situation. The first is open to interpretation. If you confront an unarmed person with a firearm and the other person has reason to believe you are going to use it on them then their going for the gun could be seen as a reasonable response and not excessive force on their part.
But I dispute that the McMichaels initiated the conflict. The man was standing there holding a shotgun but he was not aiming it at anyone.
They confronted Arbery with drawn weapons. Video I've seen has the truck blocking the initial confrontation so it's impossible to know where the shotgun was pointed.
Aubrey ran at him and attempted to take the gun away from him. Aubrey initiated "the conflict."
They tracked him. They confronted him with firearms. They were the initiators.
Depends on what you mean by "confront." A holstered weapon is not a "confrontation." You can't holster a shotgun, so the closest thing to that is pointing it up in the air or at the ground, which is what the Younger McMichael was doing.
Aubrey ran at the man from hundreds of feet away. Had the man intended to shoot Aubrey he could have easily done so before Aubrey got close enough to do anything.
Aubrey could have simply kept running past the man and it is very likely nothing at all would have happened to him.
They confronted Arbery with drawn weapons. Video I've seen has the truck blocking the initial confrontation so it's impossible to know where the shotgun was pointed.
My recollection of the video is that the younger McMichael was pointing it in the air. He was clearly not pointing it at Aubrey or Aubrey would have been killed with the first shot.
They tracked him. They confronted him with firearms. They were the initiators.
I think "confronted" means something more than just standing there holding a gun. As for "initiator", I think Aubrey going back into that house after he had already been caught there several times before makes Aubrey the initiator.
A holstered weapon is not a "confrontation." You can't holster a shotgun, so the closest thing to that is pointing it up in the air or at the ground, which is what the Younger McMichael was doing.
Again, you know where the shotgun was pointing how?
Aubrey ran at the man from hundreds of feet away. Had the man intended to shoot Aubrey he could have easily done so before Aubrey got close enough to do anything.
Absolute nonsense. He was not running at them. He was running down the street, passed to the right of the pickup, and came upon the defendants with guns intent on stopping him.
Aubrey could have simply kept running past the man and it is very likely nothing at all would have happened to him.
Or they could have shot him in the back as he ran away. If someone confronts me with a shotgun it's safe to assume his intent isn't peaceful.
My recollection of the video is that the younger McMichael was pointing it in the air. He was clearly not pointing it at Aubrey or Aubrey would have been killed with the first shot.
I have never seen any video from the front of the pickup, only the back. If you know of any other video then point me to it.
I think "confronted" means something more than just standing there holding a gun.
What would you say it means?
As for "initiator", I think Aubrey going back into that house after he had already been caught there several times before makes Aubrey the initiator.
The builder of the house said in court that nothing had been stolen the day Arbery was killed, and he had never reported anything stolen from the site in the past. So what exactly made Arbery the initiator?
My recollection is that you can see it in the video.
Absolute nonsense. He was not running at them. He was running down the street, passed to the right of the pickup, and came upon the defendants with guns intent on stopping him.
He knew who they were because he had already ran away from them before after they attempted to call him down. Also, my recollection is that you can see the younger McMichael holding the shotgun in the video, so he knew the man had a shotgun before he even got near the truck.
Or they could have shot him in the back as he ran away. If someone confronts me with a shotgun it's safe to assume his intent isn't peaceful.
Shooting a man in the back would clearly be seen as murder, and I don't think even inbred hillbilly hicks are so stupid as to attempt to get away with that. If Aubrey was so stupid as to think they would have shot him in the back, then he certainly would have believed they would definitely shoot him in the front if he attacked them.
Aubrey acted like a man who believed they wouldn't have the guts to shoot him.
I have never seen any video from the front of the pickup, only the back. If you know of any other video then point me to it.
Same video. You just need to look at it more closely.
What would you say it means?
Pointing. Verbal threats to use it.
The builder of the house said in court that nothing had been stolen the day Arbery was killed, and he had never reported anything stolen from the site in the past.
This guy is in the "Oh lord, please make this go away without burning down my house!" mode. We know it was Aubrey in the house from past videos where he is readily identifiable by his tattoo. I recall that even his family admitted that was him in the house at night months earlier.
You just make this crap up as you go along, don’t you?
No, I do not just make this crap up. I read it in various places, and I often remember details I consider important to understanding the incident.
Arbery was captured on camera visiting the partly-constructed detached waterfront house on five occasions in the months leading to his death.Prosecutor Paul Camarillo, who had conducted the deposition, played a recording of the 911 call English placed after he became aware of a possible trespasser.
'I have a house under construction… I got a camera system there. I got a trespasser there. He's a colored guy, tattooed down both arms. And he's just kind of wandering around,' he says.
'Send someone out for me please. He's got curly messed up hair. He's maybe drunk or on drugs.' Arbery was identified in the deposition by Camarillo.
The victim’s mother affirms that it was Arbery who went into the site on Feb. 23, the day of the shooting, but stated that the person who did the same in October was not her son.
Elsewhere I have seen still images captured from the video of the night time visits by Aubrey and they show his particular tattoos on his arms, making him readily identifiable. I'm not going to spend any more time looking for it. The prosecutor has identified Aubrey as the man in the house at night.
"English agreed that there was no evidence Arbery was drunk and that he could have been feeling his way through the dark.
But Arbery was not the only nocturnal visitor to the house, the court was shown.
On November 17, a white couple was caught on English's cameras approaching the front of the home, although there was no footage of them inside. The property owner called 911.
In none of the videos is Arbery seen taking anything or interfering with anything.
English told the court he did not believe anything was stolen during the young black man's visits.
A little later the owner of the property continues:
He kept a camper there for when he stayed and the site was full of tools and building materials plus a boat. None of this was disturbed by Arbery.
Your buddies decided to play vigilante. In the process they killed someone and are on trial for murder. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Not my buddies and I have nothing in common with them. I'm a science techy guy and I don't do hunting, fishing, sports, or anything else that redneck types like. I don't even drink beer.
As for playing "vigilante", the former cop was just doing former cop stuff. "Vigilante" is a term you want to throw around to deride their effort to hold him till police arrived.
In the process they killed someone and are on trial for murder. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Aubrey killed himself, and nobody can predict when an incident will turn into a political show trial. Had that stupid lawyer not released the footage, the whole thing would have probably never been pursued.
Derek Chauvin didn't kill George Floyd, but in these show trials, truth doesn't really matter. Even now the mob is screaming for Rittenhouse.
This old white guy might vote to convict. Or not. Haven’t followed the trial but no one should assume I’d vote acquit! Nothing the dead man did carries a death penalty.
Oh I think you have a lot in common with them.
As for playing "vigilante", the former cop was just doing former cop stuff. "Vigilante" is a term you want to throw around to deride their effort to hold him till police arrived.
So they were the initiators?
The took the law into their own hands, or at tried to. They screwed that up badly and they may well spend a significant number of years in jail if they are convicted.
Aubrey killed himself...
You're a sick individual, you know that?
I think grabbing a shotgun has an inherent death penalty. If a man has his hand on the trigger and you pull the gun forward, the thing is going to go off.
You have to be an idiot to try to grab a shotgun by pulling on the barrel.
I'll bite. What is it that you think I have in common with them?
The took the law into their own hands, or at tried to.
What is that even supposed to mean other than a slogan? Georgia law allows for citizen's arrests. Attempting to perform a citizen's arrest is not "taking the law into your own hands", it is complying with existing law.
They screwed that up badly
Hardly. Nobody was going to do a d@mn thing about what they did until that idiot lawyer leaked the video and riled everyone up. The Cops and the DA didn't think anything was wrong until there suddenly became a huge media outcry about what had happened.
Nobody can predict when the media liars will start "Emmanuel Goldsteining" someone. They tried to do it with George Zimmerman, but that didn't work. They tried to do it to that cop that shot Michael Brown, but that didn't work. They tried to do it to Kyle Rittenhouse, but that didn't work. They tried to do it to Derek Chauvin, and that finally worked. Maybe it will work with the McMichaels, and maybe it won't, but these men could hardly have predicted they would become the victims of a media onslaught for doing the very reasonable things they did.
....and they may well spend a significant number of years in jail if they are convicted.
Not in a fair system, but what we have nowadays is a mob driven circus that decides criminality on the basis of screaming from the mob.
Trials are a crapshoot and they may get it right, or they may get it badly wrong as they did with Derek Chauvin.
You're a sick individual, you know that?
A guy grabs a shotgun, he's gonna shuffle off the mortal coil. His recklessness did not pay off for him. He got what you would expect of anyone who attempts to fight a man with a shotgun.
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.