Originally posted by Bashar Teg
@ddm this takes it up a huge notch in the hate crime case. yelling a racial slur after shooting someone to death is a huge nail in their collective coffin; proof of racial motive for killing>>>>>proof of general racial bias*waiting for surt's "no proof of racial bias"*
The alleged truck hit too. As it's being painting, they chased Arbery down, hit him with a truck and shot him to death while calling him a "f**king n****r".
Surt's dying inside right now, his precious narrative is being sodomized sans lube.
Originally posted by Robtard
The alleged truck hit too. As it's being painting, they chased Arbery down, hit him with a truck and shot him to death while calling him a "f**king n****r".
The "lawful pursuit via first hand knowledge" angle has still not been proven. At least to the public. It's still in question as to how they gained "first hand knowledge" since English and the McMichael's both confirmed they didn't get to look at English's video before they took off after Arbery.
It's looking more and more like Voluntary Manslaughter and even the involuntary manslaughter angle is out.
Originally posted by Robtard
The alleged truck hit too. As it's being painting, they chased Arbery down, hit him with a truck and shot him to death while calling him a "f**king n****r".Surt's dying inside right now, his precious narrative is being sodomized sans lube.
the attempted vehicular homicide before attempted apprehension completely throws their previous defense out the window "self defense because we were attacked". if this witness is proven credible, it's over for the 3 stooges. ass-flavored grape jelly for life
The truck hit should be able to be proven with the autopsy, unless Arbery dodged and they only grazed him, that could make it difficult to prove. Still, their lawyer is going to have some serious work ahead of him trying to paint this as not two racist chasing down a Black man, as everyone with a brain already knew.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
the attempted vehicular homicide before attempted apprehension completely throws their previous defense out the window "self defense because we were attacked". if this witness is proven credible, it's over for the 3 stooges. ass-flavored grape jelly for life
Originally posted by Robtard
The truck hit should be able to be proven with the autopsy, unless Arbery dodged and they only grazed him, that could make it difficult to prove. Still, their lawyer is going to have some serious work ahead of him trying to paint this as not two racist chasing down a Black man, as everyone with a brain already knew.
There is a 3rd video, a better video, of the confrontation between Arbery and the McMichael's and it has not been released to the public.
There's also lots of information about the case that is being slow-trickled to us such as the racial-slur/flag things (which would have been known in the beginning) and the video of Arbery entering English's second home for 3 minutes.
Understandably, this is kept secret as to not taint the jury selection process. But I think Juries are an outdated system, anyway. It should be a group of experts on the jury that do this as required by their job to practice law (judges, lawyers, prosecutors, etc.).
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
*English's home construction site.no matter how many times you repeat the falsehood, it was not a home invasion. 👇
Edited my post because it offended you.
Edit - wohohoho, wait a minute. Don't try and strawman me you gaslighter! I caught you. I didn't call it a home invasion - those were your words. How dare you successfully gaslight me.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
*English's home construction site.no matter how many times you repeat the falsehood, it was not a home invasion. 👇
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you tried several times to rest your "criminal trespassing" assertion on the "home invasion" claim, so it wasn't exactly a series of typos.
So which is it that you want me to do so you can destroy the strawman and claim victory because you didn't get the reaction out of Surt and others when you posted the article about racism for the McMichael's?
1. Do you want me to make a post where I decide what Arbery did is a home invasion
or
2. Do you want me to make a post where I call it criminal trespass?
Pretty sure my stance has always been burglary if the 3 minutes shows Arbery rummage through any of English's stuff. But I can be the strawman you need because others aren't giving you the reaction you wanted.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you tried several times to rest your "criminal trespassing" assertion on the "home invasion" claim, so it wasn't exactly a series of typos.
But, this statement from you about what I posted is 100% false as I never did this. You may be confusing me for someone else.
Originally posted by dadudemon
But, this statement from you about what I posted is 100% false as I never did this. You may be confusing me for someone else.
oh really?
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.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
(a) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she intentionally damages any property of another without consent of that other person and the damage thereto is $500.00 or less or knowingly and maliciously interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without consent of that person.[b]negative- no property was damaged, interfered with, or utilized
(b) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she knowingly and without authority:
(1) Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person for an unlawful purpose;
negative- no evidence of unlawful purpose
(2) Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant that such entry is forbidden; or
negative- no proof of prior notice given
(3) Remains upon the land or premises of another person or within the vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant to depart.
negative- he was chased down [b]after he left. no evidence that he was given any notice, even a verbal "hey you, you don't belong there, GTFO!"[/b]
(c) For the purposes of subsection (b) of this Code section, permission to enter or invitation to enter given by a minor who is or is not present on or in the property of the minor's parent or guardian is not sufficient to allow lawful entry of another person upon the land, premises, vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft owned or rightfully occupied by such minor's parent or guardian if such parent or guardian has previously given notice that such entry is forbidden or notice to depart.
N/A- subsection of the law for dealing with minors inviting the trespasser onto the property without consent of their guardian.
(d) A person who commits the offense of criminal trespass shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
WOW! okay wait...so was WRONG about it being felony. it's actually only a misdemeanor. lulz
(e) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she intentionally defaces, mutilates, or defiles any grave marker, monument, or memorial to one or more deceased persons who served in the military service of this state, the United States of America or any of the states thereof, or the Confederate States of America or any of the states thereof, or a monument, plaque, marker, or memorial which is dedicated to, honors, or recounts the military service of any past or present military personnel of this state, the United States of America or any of the states thereof, or the Confederate States of America or any of the states thereof if such grave marker, monument, memorial, plaque, or marker is privately owned or located on land which is privately owned.
obviously not relevant to this case
https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-16-crimes-and-offenses/ga-code-sect-16-7-21.html
now tell me more about your feelings and how they prove me wrong about georgia state laws [/B]
Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't understand. You're making a very very strong case that it was a criminal trespass by citing the law.Are you intending to do that? Maybe leave the lawyering to the lawyers?
[followed by pages of "you obviously didn't watch the video"]
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
[followed by pages of "you obviously didn't watch the video"]
So it's confirmed: I never called it criminal trespass or a home invasion and it is, in fact, the things you've been calling it when you tried to strawman my position.*
So your gaslight attempt has failed and you lied, quite pathetically, about what I said.
*This is exactly what I knew you did and just waited for you to take the bait to prove me right in a failed "gotcha" attempt. 🙂
Originally posted by dadudemon
Pretty sure my stance has always been burglary if the 3 minutes shows Arbery rummage through any of English's stuff.
haermm
You fail again.
I do get tired of winning this petty little word games you play to assert your dominance over others, though. Fight me.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you tried several times to rest your "criminal trespassing" assertion on the "home invasion" claim, so it wasn't exactly a series of typos.if it was just "force of habit" and you've changed your position to truthful representation, i will allow it 👆
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.
yawn
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
yawn
Originally posted by dadudemon
No you most certainly did not provide a quote where I called Arbery's actions a home invasion.😐
Originally posted by dadudemon
Pretty sure my stance has always been burglary if the 3 minutes shows Arbery rummage through any of English's stuff. But I can be the strawman you need because others aren't giving you the reaction you wanted.
I'm better than you at your own game. Because you believe your own strawmans when you make them. They come back to bite you in the butt when you try to play word games in the future - you legitimately believe your phantom memories from the strawman arguments you made.
🙂
I win, again. And it is not even a game I tried to or wanted to play. It's all your own game you're playing with yourself.