Posted on 05/22/2020 1:33:46 PM PDT by conservative98
“...I’d be completely fine if a jury found the McMichaels and Bryan not guilty. I’m not looking for blood; I can’t say whether the McMichaels or Bryan violated Georgia law with their actions. I can say they violated common sense by going out looking for trouble, but there’s nothing necessarily criminal about that....”
**********************************************************
Well, you might not be looking for blood but you certainly seem to be looking for these folks to be financially devastated—sort of like Michael Flynn has been financially devastated.
One thing I’d suggest is that you develop a very good understanding of the details of self-defense law.
“You need to be plagued with burglars so you can get the right frame of mind regarding them.”
I’m not sure I would want to use that as my defense. The prosecutors might try to use it though.
Self-defense law varies widely from state to state, with some common principles. Had Arbery taken one step into the McMichaels’ home after breaking in, I would see no need for any arrest or trial if the McMichaels unloaded every firearm in the house to stop him from taking a second step inside.
But this wasn’t in their home. They chased after Arbery through public roads, attempted to block him in and detain him multiple times (this is from Gregory McMichael’s own statement to police, which he made by the way without any lawyer present). And on the third attempt at stopping Arbery, something happened outside the view of the video between Travis McMichael and Arbery at the front of the McMichaels’ truck and then a struggle began. If we had clear video and audio of Travis McMichael behaving in a non-threatening manner when Arbery suddenly attacked without reason, I could still get behind it being an easy case of self defense.
What we actually have is a poor quality video, shaky, at a distance, no clear audio, and no view whatsoever of either Arbery or Travis McMichael at the front of the truck. With that lack of clarity as to what exactly started the fight, we must default to a trial to legally establish what took place as best we can. When Travis McMichael and Arbery met at the front of the truck, either man could have become the aggressor. If Travis McMichael threatened Arbery’s life, Arbery had a right to self defense, including grabbing the weapon. If no threat (through word or action) was made, Arbery was the aggressor.
Here is the video, slowed down to frame-by-frame: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywenRJU0qdE
At 1:13, we lose sight of both Arbery and Travis McMichael. Arbery has run past the passenger side of the truck. Travis McMichael has moved from the driver side of the truck to the front of the truck toward Arbery’s path. We lose sight of both men and the next time we see either of them, they’re engaged in a fight for the shotgun. A fair trial by an impartial jury is fully warranted given the circumstances.
Yes, FReepers know that self-defense laws vary from state to state. And we know that this wasn’t at the shooter’s home and know further that self-defense laws prevail outside the home in Georgia. We’re also familiar with the open carry laws in Georgia.
We understand the Presumption of Innocence and the concept of Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.
My belief is that your appearance at Free Republic and your attempts at spreading of subtle FUD related to this self-defense shooting is not coincidence but will be the beginning of a long term jihad. Your user name (nice touch, by the way) doesn’t camouflage what is to me your evident intent.
I notice you don’t bother looking at the actual video and stating how you’re able to see through the truck at 1:13. Your powers of x-ray vision must be a hit at parties, because I can’t see either man at that point, but you seem to so positive that you know what happened behind the truck.
You can try to make it all about me all you want, but it’s about evidence and due process. The video is our best evidence and I’m not sure you’ve looked at it, let alone really studied it. Here it is again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywenRJU0qdE
Frame by frame, simple easy video. If you can point to the part of that video where you can see every part of the interaction between Arbery and Travis McMichael, that would clear all this right up. Otherwise, it’s pure speculation to say what took place while both men were out of view. You may think pure speculation is enough to not need a trial when a man is dead. I do not. If you think that a reliance on evidence rather than speculation in cases where someone is dead makes someone unworthy of being part of the discussion, that’s on you.
Jihad on...prove my point!
Refuse to look at the video of the incident and rely entirely on speculation and imagination instead... prove my point!
Supposedly was the original person to try to stop/restrain the guy...put himself in the initial ignition deal....I guess they consider it like being part of a robbery by distracting or doing some pre-robbery work...
OK.
So the shooters jumped in their truck because they were at the ready and caught up with the victim ONE BOCK from where it started.
So how many minutes would you expect that to take?
The fellow who made the video who was supposedly not part of the plan so therefore would not have been at the ready,, figured out that something was going on and
jumped in his truck and caught up with the shooters before they caught up with the black guy.
Have you ever been caught by surprise and jumped in your vehicle and tried to catch up with any one?
In the few seconds it takes to get in your vehicle, get it started and headed in the right direction, in this case it would have been all over.
The guy who made the video was in on it from the very beginning; in fact before the beginning.
But the bottom line is that he attempted to help the shooters stop the guy and that makes him an active participant regardless of whether he was an active participant before that point.
The fact that he was an active participant makes him liable for the victims death unless it was a clear case of self defense...which it was not.
The laws regarding self defense make it clear that if one provokes or initiates the confrontation, that person loses the self defense shield.
Those who have a license to carry should get it through their heads that a license to carry does not give you any rights at all beyond the simple fact that you can carry....period.
The right to self defense is only a safe defense when it provable without doubt that the person you shot was the aggressor and attacked in such a manner that your death or serious bodily harm was a likely result of that attack.
Since pursuit by unknown persons is clearly an aggressive act.....
Beyond that, the laws are so contradictory, varying as to whether you are in your house, what room you were in, whether the shooting took place on one side of the exterior door or the other side, with rules changing the further you get from the house....
And that is why only fools play cop.
I would love to see the original video. What is on the net looks like it was done in 144.
Yes, I suppose we’ll see when the show trial starts.
Accuse Abraham Zapruder of the Kennedy assassination?
Exactly.
I wouldn't think videoing an incident would constitute a crime, yet here we are.
When they are making up crimes, who knows how far they will go?
:)
You’re welcome, and thank you. I try to see things clearly, and I try to relate what I see clearly. It’s good to hear I occasionally succeed.
Thanks. That’s just what I was talking about.
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.