I already agreed for the umpteenth time: reasonable doubt available for hate crime charge. the reason that circumstantial evidence is not admissible is because coincidences do in fact occur. the possibility exists that he actually was having a bowel movement during every occurence of white people trespassing, no matter how ridiculous the idea may be
and now you can do the intellectually honest thing and admit that that reasonable doubt (stretched to it's limits) does not exonerate mcmichaels of racial bias, but rather frees him from a hate crime charge; as we discussed here and in the OJ thread. good? good!
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
wrong again. it was actually the second prosecutor,the second prosecutor assigned to the case, said in a letter the McMichaels were in their rights to pursue “a burglary suspect,” and justified in using “deadly force to protect himself” under Georgia law.
Yes, the second prosecutor, George E. Barnhill, who will likely be investigated for his obviously shady conduct in not shutting up and immediately recusing himself. "why?" you might ask?
The original prosecutor recused herself from the case because [b]Gregory McMichael, who is a former police officer and investigator, worked in her office
. The case was then given to Barnhill.However, Barnhill recused himself once Arbery’s mother argued Barnhill was also employed in the same office where Georgry McMichael once worked when he was a police officer, the New York Times reports.
Lee Merrit said on The Clay Cane Show today (May 6) on SiriusXM Urban View, “I want to be clear about George Barnhill because I think he should be investigated for prosecutorial misconduct for this specific reason: his son and the shooter grew up together.”
just the good 'ol boys, never meanin no harm
beats all you ever saw, been in trouble with the law
since the day they was bornhttps://www.bet.com/news/national/2020/05/06/gbi-to-investigate-ahmaud-arbery-shooting.html
https://www.nytimes.com/article/ahmaud-arbery-shooting-georgia.htmltotally non-biased prosecutor can be trusted. why would he have lie? to protect and cover up for a family friend and former colleague? naaah [/B]
Since you acknowledge the facts of the case, you've changed your mind, correct?
Surely no one is as stubbornly dumb as you were trying to be, right?
Originally posted by Surtur
So basically we have now clearly established:-English told the McMichaels nothing, not about any trespasser of any skin color
-Nothing points to the McMichaels spotting any of the other trespassers caught on video by EnglishDoes this mean the McMichaels would have pursued white people if they saw them? Who knows. We have no way to say at this point.
No the former prosecutor said they had first hand knowledge and, therefore, had lawful pursuit. The McMichael's also claimed firsthand knowledge.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
I can see you didn't finish reading my post. there are facts in there concerning obviously prosecutorial misconduct and bias which renders your point moot. but have fun gaslighting and playing silly games, ddm
I can see that you admitted to the facts of the case regardless of the type of gaslighting you tried to do afterwards.
You should watch this video before trying to comment, further, because you clearly haven't watched it:
Originally posted by dadudemon
YouTube video
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
^time waster troll loop. that video contains no proof of criminal intent. but keep posting it and wanking yourself silly 👆
You clearly did not watch the video. Anytime you bring this part of the argument up, this video suffices as the perfect rebuttal:
Originally posted by dadudemon
YouTube video
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
I already watched it. no proof of criminal intent. your feelings do not matter. your entire argument has no legs and you are just gaslighting and time waster trolling while ignoring all the indesputable evidence which I posted. wank harder.
You clearly did not watch the video.
Originally posted by dadudemon
YouTube video
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
your further time waster trolling has been noted, ddm
You clearly did not watch the video.
Originally posted by dadudemon
YouTube video
One of my favorite parts of this "convo" with you is when you triumphantly posted the Georgia law on burglary, which ruins your position because of how unforgiving the law is to would-be burglars, and with cringey gusto because you thought it somehow made you correct.
Well, my dear friend, I already posted that law in a conversation about the very topic with Raptor22.
In this very thread.
haermm
Let me know when you watch the video.
maybe he just happened to also have to take a sudden bowel movement and ran off to find a toilet, just as McMichaels' own IBS just happened to act up before every occurence of a white trespasser showing up. KeKlord420's forced narrative video proves nothing
the irrelevance of circumstancial evidence is not a white privilege, but a right of all u.s. citizens; and "looking suspicious" is not probable cause for citizens arrest.
no. evidence. of. criminal. intent.
but you keep posting that video over and over and over and pretend that it proves something. the three stooges are going to get lots of rough buttsex and free ass-flavored grape jelly
Originally posted by Surtur
Okay you're gonna keep peddling that shit: now prove the McMichaels were monitoring the property around the clock.
I already conceded: circumstantial evidence is inadmissible and does not warrant the claim of "proof of criminal intent" in the case of racial bias (goose) just as it doesn't apply to arbery seeming to behave suspiciously (gander). proof of a crime or criminal intent is required for a citizen as well as a police officer to make an arrest.
no. proof. of. criminal. intent.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
I already conceded: circumstantial evidence is inadmissible and does not warrant the claim of "proof of criminal intent" in the case of racial bias (goose) just as it doesn't apply to arbery seeming to behave suspiciously (gander). proof of a crime or criminal intent is required for a citizen as well as a police officer to make an arrest.no. proof. of. criminal. intent.
So even though you know they weren't monitoring it all the time you still act like it's far fetched they wouldn't see every single trespasser. Okay.
Originally posted by Surtur
So even though you know they weren't monitoring it all the time you still act like it's far fetched they wouldn't see every single trespasser. Okay.
that is my opinion, though I already conceded that it is circumstancial and not proof of racial bias. I can see you are desperate to keep the topic on racial bias since you know that my argument concerning the video is water-tight and indisputable.