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 ...
All true; I don’t know why people have such a hard time understanding.
They did. When they told Arbery the police were coming, he became agitated. They could hear the sirens coming at the time he rushed the younger McMichael and attempted to grab his weapon.
The first was the pursuer.
The second was being pursued.
These guys were stupid. Three against one. Once it was determined that the Amish “jogger” wasn’t carrying a deadly weapon then they should have physically subdued him, thumped his Amish ass a bit and waited for the cops to show up. “Honest officer, he got that busted nose and big ole fat lip when he fell try’n to flee the scene” I’d be all good.
When you present a case that 3 guys jumped a jogger for no reason, you naturally get a guilty verdict. Georgia desperately wanted a guilty verdict and IMHO they stacked the deck to get it.
Defense was like, ‘They guy acted crazy....so can we use the fact that he was a schizophrenic?’ Noooooo...
Defense was like, ‘He acted like he was drugged, can we use the tox report?’ Nooooo....
Defense was like, ‘He was such a notorious thief, stores had a name for him, can we use that?’ Nooooo....
Defense was like, ‘The father had first hand knowledge of him being arrested for carrying a gun, can we use that?’ No.....
If the shoe was on the other foot and they guy had a shotgun and was pointing at you and you thought he might pull the trigger, what would you do, hope for the best?
I get it that Avery was a petty criminal, but you cannot hold him accountable for his other acts in this act. You can only hold him accountable for what he did in that situation. If you interrupted a crime, there is no crime. That’s the law.
I can tell you, from having talked to officers, that all that would have happened to him is that he would have been held for a couple of hours and then let go.
You aren't interested in hearing anything but what you wish to hear.
The defendants themselves never claimed that and actually said they were chasing him down trying to arrest him, and called him racially offensive names.
On this particular point, the defense attorney made the statement that they didn't say any racially offensive names. He is an attorney, and he can get disbarred for provable lying. The fact that he said it tells me the prosecution has absolutely no proof that they said any such thing, because if they could prove that they did, the lawyer would be caught in a lie and therefore subject to discipline.
Yes, the state alleged in the charges that they used racially offensive names, but the statement by the defense attorney indicates this was a false claim with no proof.
Didn't stop the media liars from spreading that lie all over the world and getting people like you to believe it and repeat it.
Did you know Bret Kavanaugh was a rapist? I know this is true because the media told me it was.
Wouldn’t make a difference. Georgia law is very specific about how to make a citizen’s arrest. They did none of it.
When I worked in Corrections in NY State, prison staff was not privy to an inmate’s detailed record (rap sheet) unless it was related to an assignment pertaining to that specific inmate. You could get into trouble if you tried to look up someone’s criminal record on a whim. I’m talking at least 30 years ago. I’ve been retired for 20 years. Back then, if you took an inmate outside the prison for transfer, for a doctor, or hospital visit, for a funeral, etc., you had to have his commitment papers sealed in an envelope, with you at all times. Those papers gave details for every crime he’d ever committed, the prisons he’d been in, his behavior record in those prisons, his accomplices, his enemies, etc., and nobody was supposed to read them. That’s why they were sealed. If the transport trip you took with that inmate, was an overnighter, you had to turn the inmate over to a county jail or another State prison if one was in the area, and give the commitment papers to the receiving facility. When you picked the inmate up the next day, you had better make sure you got those commitment papers back, because they showed that he was legal property of the State. Without those papers, there was no way for you to prove that you had any legal authority to hold him.
Chasing someone is not shooting someone. Big difference. The decedent was only shot after he ran towards the man holding a gun and started to attack and attempt to disarm that person.
According to Brandon Tatum, a black conservative who was a cop, the law is ridiculously vague and has been dropped.
They have been stampeded by the media liars, by fear of riots, by fear of being seen as insufficiently denouncing the racist history of Georgia's past, and many just believe the authorities are right whatever they do.
There are many reasons why people believe crap and then communicate that crap to others. I'm sure there are more reasons I haven't listed.
One guy pointed out that he thinks they deserve to go to jail because they should have known better than to try to interfere with a protected minority.
I can see his point though I think the nation shouldn't operate that way. Everyone should be held to the same standard.
The State was going to introduce the sneakers Arbery was wearing at the time of his death, to the jury during the medical examiner's testimony, to show he was simply a jogger. "However, the State ultimately changed course after the defense argued the presentation of Arbery's shoes could lead to arguments about his activities the day of the shooting." Had he stolen the sneakers the day before?
Yes if the jury found the defendants were INNOCENT when they deployed the firearm, then they retained the privilege to use deadly force when in danger of imminent bodily harm.
But (in the law), you don’t always retain the privilege of self defense if your actions are not INNOCENT.
This is a legitimate question for a jury.
Testimony I read earlier said that the younger McMichael said he thought Arbery may have had a gun hidden in his shirt because he saw him reaching into it. They also knew that a 9mm pistol had been stolen from their truck, and it is not an unreasonable assumption to think that if this guy is the thief, he may have it on him.
Also, in a physical confrontation, Arbery would have beaten both their @$$es at the same time with little difficulty.
That’s not a rap sheet.
“”One guy pointed out that he thinks they deserve to go to jail because they should have known better than to try to interfere with a protected minority””.
______________________________________
The cops are doing the same thing. In fact it’s not just with protected minorities, but with rioters, arsonist, looters of all stripes.
I don’t understand your response.
“You aren’t interested in hearing anything but what you wish to hear.”
First, remove the beam out of your own eye.
“On this particular point, the defense attorney made the statement that they didn’t say any racially offensive names. He is an attorney, and he can get disbarred for provable lying. The fact that he said it tells me the prosecution has absolutely no proof that they said any such thing, because if they could prove that they did, the lawyer would be caught in a lie and therefore subject to discipline.”
Johnny Cochran would like to have a word. There were text messages. They were read in court and on the record. Your trust in the words of defense attorneys is hilarious.
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.