Originally posted by Surtur
Got people arriving soon so I'm heading out for the night. Last thing I'll say for the night is you know Arbery's behavior looks bad. You can't give a plausible explanation.You tried to mock it and bring up IBS cuz u said that with the McMichaels. But them not spending every waking moment monitoring a property is actually plausible lol. It wouldn't require any medical condition.
So maybe tomorrow I'll come back and I will find Bash gave a legit plausible scenario for what Arbery was doing.
or I'll just ignore your time-waster dodging and we can both agree that I'm factually correct concerning the case. not interested in having another irrelevant battle-of-the-feelz over who seemed suspicious. the facts are already established, and we ironically agree 100% on everything legally relevant.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
so let's review:
-appearing suspicious is not a crime
-there was no probable cause for citizens arrest
-there was no proof of criminal intent
-the three stooges will be eating lots and lots of ass-flavored grape jelly
Originally posted by Surtur
Be honest: what do you think he was doing in the video?Keeping in mind I have said even if he was a thief they shouldn't have gone after him.
"In an instance of someone trespassing on December 17, a lawyer for the homeowner, Larry English, told 11Alive's Joe Henke it looked to English like a man was going through the house to get a drink of water."
"In one instance, from November, a man and woman can be seen walking into the build site. Another, from December, shows a young man walking around. And a third - which the lawyer for English doesn't have an exact date for but believed was from earlier this year - show two kids pulling up on bikes and then walking in."
In the instance of the young man on December 17, who, like Arbery, is black, the lawyer said, "It now appears that this young man may have been coming onto the property for water."
"There is a water source at the dock behind the house as well as a source near the front of the structure. Although these water sources do not appear within any of the cameras' frames, the young man moves to and from their locations," a statement said. "In one angle from December 17, he appears to wipe his mouth and/or neck. In the last footage of him captured on December 17, what sounds like water can be heard. He walks out of the house, eases into a jog, and disappears from view."
Originally posted by Raptor22
"In an instance of someone trespassing on December 17, a lawyer for the homeowner, Larry English, told 11Alive's Joe Henke it looked to English like a man was going through the house to get a drink of water.""In one instance, from November, a man and woman can be seen walking into the build site. Another, from December, shows a young man walking around. And a third - which the lawyer for English doesn't have an exact date for but believed was from earlier this year - show two kids pulling up on bikes and then walking in."
In the instance of the young man on December 17, who, like Arbery, is black, the lawyer said, "It now appears that this young man may have been coming onto the property for water."
"There is a water source at the dock behind the house as well as a source near the front of the structure. Although these water sources do not appear within any of the cameras' frames, the young man moves to and from their locations," a statement said. "In one angle from December 17, he appears to wipe his mouth and/or neck. In the last footage of him captured on December 17, what sounds like water can be heard. He walks out of the house, eases into a jog, and disappears from view."
very interesting find, raptor. not that it's needed in the case of no probable cause for citizens arrest, but it should prove entertaining to watch the imminent dodging from ddm/surt
If I were DDM and Surt I would just double down, hang on... I wouldn't I'd say yup, you got me, don't read racism into my responses i was just playing Devils advocate. Doubling down would be a really stupid thing to do where people might assume I had racist motivations for my non evidential position.
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
If I were DDM and Surt I would just double down, hang on... I wouldn't I'd say yup, you got me, don't read racism into my responses i was just playing Devils advocate. Doubling down would be a really stupid thing to do where people might assume I had racist motivations for my non evidential position.
I think that ship already sailed when he deliberately lied about it being a case of "entering a home", "burglary" and even a "home invasion" ❌
Originally posted by dadudemon
According to Georgia law, even if you do not steal anything, it is considered burglary to enter a home, without permission, with intent to steal.It gets much worse for home invasion burglaries in Georgia law.
why would anyone need to do that without ulterior motive and intent to decieve. devil's advocates argue for the absurd-yet-possible, they don't flatout lie.
Originally posted by Bashar TegActually, quite true and a little disturbing.
I think that ship already sailed when he deliberately lied about it being a case of "entering a home", "burglary" and even a "home invasion" ❌why would anyone need to do that without ulterior motive and intent to decieve. devil's advocates argue for the absurd-yet-possible, they don't flatout lie.
full context, before anyone swoops in and plays that card:
Originally posted by meep-meep
Was the guy committing a crime?
Originally posted by dadudemon
According to Georgia law, even if you do not steal anything, it is considered burglary to enter a home, without permission, with intent to steal.It gets much worse for home invasion burglaries in Georgia law.
Georgia also has criminal trespass laws.
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/burglary-and-home-invasions-georgia.htm
Also, some people are stating he took a hammer and the work boots from somehwere because, in the video where we see him casing that home, he is wearing shoes. When he confronts the McMichael's in the video where he is shot, he is wearing boots. Others have done a frame by frame analysis and state that Arbery had a hammer. I haven't seen that analysis.
But it would indicate that Arbery acquired at least the work boots at some point. He died in them. It kind of ruins the plausible deniability angle from his family, at this point. When they review this case and it goes to trial, all of these things will come out.
The McMichael's were legitmately trying to stop a burglar who was running away after getting caught. The case will focus on whether or not the use of deadly force was justifiable under Georgia law. If the hammer argument is legit, this is an easy case. If it is not, you have to prove WTF happened out of view in front of that truck: 1 second of time. Crazy. This case might be studied by future lawyers.
disturbing indeed
Originally posted by Bashar TegI know you and he have issues, but I like the guy, I don't think he is racist, but I honestly don't get why he is doing this stuff! It just doesn't make sense to me, surely he sees how it looks. And I don't get why he keeps doing it unrelated topic to unrelated topic.
full context, before anyone swoops in and plays that card:disturbing indeed
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
I already said that I did, several times. why are we on this loop? are you deliberately time-waster trolling to avoid my indesputable point, pal o' mine?"why would he look suspicious if he wasn't committing a crime" is pure circumstantial evidence and not admissable, nor is it grounds for a citizens arrest, nor would it be grounds for arrest by a police officer
you seem desperate to avoid this case-closing point while continuing to argue against it and accusing me of not watching ddm's video. why is that, my child?
You clearly didn't watch the video as you refuted nothing in it (and it is not refutable). Try again:
Originally posted by dadudemon
YouTube video
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
already said that I did, because I did. KeKlord420 presented a marvelously scripted and narrated case of why arbery seemed to have behaved suspiciously, which is irrelevant to probable cause for citizens arrest.
That's definitely incorrect and I already posted Georgia case law for first degree burglary that says you're wrong.
🙂
Originally posted by Surtur
I mean it seems pretty clear he had intent to do some crime. I have no problem with someone saying that while also saying "McMichaels shouldn't have done anything".The people who act like he's an innocent jogger...ehhhhh.
That's what the jury will look at to determine lawful pursuit. As I've been saying for days, now, if he rummaged through anything, anything at all, first degree burglary. Then the only onus is on the McMichael's defense to prove they had first hand knowledge.
The other side of the case is the confrontation. Supposedly, another video exists that made the case easily dismissible.
We will certainly see. 🙂