Posted on 11/24/2021 5:36:25 PM PST by HogsBreath
There were five key arguments the court ruled could not be presented to the 12-juror panel who will decide the fate of the three white men charged They included Arbery's mental health records and criminal history, and the fact that trace amounts of THC were found in his blood after his death The judge also refused evidence claiming Arbery was known as 'The Jogger' because he would jog to convenience stores, and run out with stolen goods
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Play stupid games win stupid prizes. The bubbas would be sleeping at home tonight if they hadn’t brought a shot gun to the party. Or even left it in the vehicle. So much stupidity in this story. I have no sympathy for anybody involved here.
The judge instructed the jury erroneously as to the law regarding self defense, and without the self defense argument, they have no defense at all. Lawyers watching the case have said this is a serious error on the part of the judge, and will be valid grounds for appeal.
+1
The law does not require them to witness a crime. It only requires that they have "immediate knowledge" of a crime, which they did.
They lost contact and control of the person they suspected of a crime and hence lost the right to make a citizens arrest
They never had control of him, and so therefore they never "arrested" him.
Nice try though. The prosecutor addressed all of this in closing arguments
Well apparently he/she is a liar and/or a stupid dumb@$$.
Rigged trial from beginning to end.
The way they treated Bryan, I wouldn't be surprised if he admitted to being the second gunman on the grassy knoll.
He was clearly trying to extricate himself from this thing, but the authorities wanted blood, and he got caught up in it too. The homeowner is clearly behaving like a man terrified that he would be indicted or burned out.
He did after all send the videos to McMichael.
Regardless, the prosecution felt confident enough in the evidence to want to introduce it during the trial but the judge denied it.
I said I wouldn't be surprised if they said things on social media. People are stupid that way nowadays. As for the younger McMichael saying something after shooting Arbery, I would not be surprised if he did, but I was surprised when his lawyer said he didn't because I had seen that claim too.
All three could have gotten him to submit without the need for a gun. Judging by some of the responses, there are a few Freepers who might have ended up serving a life sentence if they had been there.
This string of informative posts is an example of why I value Freerepublic.
They should win on appeal... this was a bad verdict
That isn’t how I see it.
I see that a bunch of yahoos unnecessarily chased down someone and created a reasonable fear of death in the victim. The race of each is irrelevant to me.
It just wasn’t the way to handle it, not for that type of thing. If he were unilaterally assaulting, trying to kill or just hurt someone, no problem.
I followed the trial and the news from incident forward. The three WERE GUILTY AS HELL!!!!
It absolutely does not matter there was prior criminal evidence of the victims activity. The ONLY thing considered is the event itself. That should be self evident as all courts use that standard.
In no universe did these yahoos have the authority to chase down and confront the victim. They got their guns and chased him down-prior criminal or not-they didn’t know that at the time. An example of why such prior actions are not admitted in the trial phase of a court case.
They did not have “probable cause” or even the far less stringent “reasonable suspicion” that the victim committed ANY crime at all.
If you were running down the street-for any reason and three yahoos jumped out of a truck armed, and confronted you, what would you do? In this case get murdered.
Thrilled for the Rittenhouse case. Thrilled about this decision. It was justice in both decisions.
Very good points.
If he had you no doubt would claim Kennedy was the aggressor since he was driving towards him in a car, possible to run Bryan over.
The only questions a Jury needs to ask themselves is:
1) What would another reasonable person do in the same situation?
2) What the accused did do and does that match what any reasonable other person would?
3) Did the accused actions violate the law?
The answers are what matter here.
1) No, I would not chase someone down because I suspected they were checking out the place for theft later. As most construction site thefts a truck or vehicle is used. Not shorts and a t-shirt.
2) The accused pursued a man running while wearing shorts and a t-shirt with nothing in his hands or even a backpack or waist pouch. In an UNMARKED POLICE vehicle (because the accused were not police) the accused demanded the runner stop and surrender themselves to the pursuers.
3) In the end, the accused shot the running man and killed him. The accused had the means to call off the pursuit, leave the scene, or follow at a safe distance. They did not.
Anyone chasing me that wasn’t a cop, I would not comply either. I would try to lose them, run, hide. That’s a fact and many people who are logical thinking people feel the same way.
Shooting an unarmed suspect would bring a certified police officer to trial.
There were 3 pursuers. They couldn’t hold the runner for police?
Pointing a weapon at anyone who is not a threat to your life or the life of others is not only stupid but illegal also.
What’s up with carrying a shotgun in your truck also??
I have a CPL and I carry a pistol, a long gun is just too bulky to handle.
The 3 amigos were out to play cop.
Whatever history the runner had, the perps were not aware of it at the time.
I completely removed race from the incident in this post.
Although I do think it was a factor, for both sides.
White guys see black man running in mostly white neighborhood and they wanna play cop.
Black guy sees 3 white guys in 2 trucks chasing him and they’re not cops.
There’s a long standing trend in American courts that priors are not presented as evidence. Surprised there was even a discussion. This has been standard for a long time. And it’s right. “Well he’s done it before” is not evidence of what happened this time.
“browse the neighborhoods”
CASE THE NEIGHBORHOODS more like it
Leaving aside for a moment that Arbery actually had committed no crime, the neighbors follow you for some distance, try to cut you off with their truck several times, accost you with guns, order you to stop or they'll blow your head off, trap you so you can't get away, and you try to get the gun away from one before he can shoot you? Yeah, I'd call that self defense.
When you say he committed no crime. Are you saying they did not see him leaving a house that had been burglarized repeatedly, or you just don’t think that is a crime?
LOL!! Exactly.
Wow. That assertion is literally not possible, because Greg McMichael had worked for Jackie Johnson, the 1st DA to recuse, and in that capacity McMichael had worked with Barnhill's son, the 2nd DA to recuse, with Barnhill [noting below], that his son had gotten Arbery to plea to a felony probation revocation in Johnson's Glynn County DA office! McMichaels worked in Johnson's office until retiring in 2019. The felony probation revocation occured during McMichael's time as an investigator in Johnson's office.
It is literally not possible McMichael did not know about Arbery's felony probation revocation, and in all likelihood he worked on that case and possibly Arbery's Wal-Mart felony shoplifting conviction as well (Glynn County No. CR18-00095).
Well if you want your reversible error, that's Number One...
"Dear Ms Crittendon and McGowan: |
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.