The murder of Ahmaud Arbery/All three perpetrators found guilty

Originally posted by Raptor22
in my opinion the first hurdle the defense will have to cross is the burglry part. One of the main parts is intent. As far as i know he didnt steal or vandalize anything and he left of his own accord. Proving (not assuming) his intent will be hard enough but proving the witnesses had proof (not assuming) to his intent at the time seems near impossible.

Why is this important?

From what ive read for a Georgia citizen arrest to be legal a felony had to have occured.

https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-17-criminal-procedure/ga-code-sect-17-4-60.html

Georgia Code Title 17. Criminal Procedure § 17-4-60

"A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion"

The next will be the "in the presence of or within his immediate knowledge" part.

Im unsure of the exact timeline of events. I dont know how long the time span is between events such as when the witness saw Ahmaud enter/exit and called the police, how long after that others were alerted, what they were told and anything in between.

But even without knowing the exact times and such, i think its a pretty safe bet that they will be large factors in the trial.

So first the defense will have to prove a felony occured, to do that they have to prove burglry, to do that they have to prove intent, then they will have to prove it happened in the presence of or within the immediate knowledge of the witness who had proof/knowledge of intent, then they have to prove the immediate knowledge extends to the father and son and the time between the burglry and the hunt.

In my opinion they're going to have quite a few bridges to cross before we get to the actual shooting.

This was covered in the 3 minutes of video taken in the interior of the home - video evidence that still has not been released to the public. The local news says nothing was taken but only showed 3 seconds of the video - odd since they had the vid for weeks and could have silenced the public outcry.

But proving intent will be easy if he rummages through literally anything. In the court docs, the commentary used the words "first hand knowledge" of the intended robbery which solidifies the lawful pursuit angle. Which is not in dispute.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's literally what happened and why he was running.

He wasn't out for a jog as we were told by everyone including his parents. And his parents' story changed after they were confront with video evidence showing him clearly not out for a jog but instead trying to burglarize and/or case potential targets.*

However, he was running to avoid the people trying to detain him until the police arrived: he already had a record and I'm sure he would rather GTFO than deal with the police and a possible arrest.

*His mistake was doing this in broad-daylight, not wearing the correct clothing to make it seem like he was a jogger**. He was such an amateur burglar. He's rumored to have stolen thousands of dollars of fishing gear and a handgun from that same neighborhood - if he sold it, he could afford to get a jogger's outfit (or just steal it). But to complete the outfit, you need a smart phone and/or smart watch. Take notes while casing in a coded way (that way, if you're stopped and your electronics taken, you have plausible deniability - code your casing notes).

Also, doing it during the day is stupid: much more likely to be seen by people. And wearing heavy/baggy cargo shorts like that makes it quite obvious you're not out for a jog to any person who sees a stranger walking through a neighborhood quite tucked away from the major roads. Running or jogging in this shorts for any length of time is going to chafe the utter-living-shit out of your skin and that doesn't feel good. Just walking around in them, you'll chafe. Honestly, he was probably not feeling too great based on how much supposed walking around he did while casing.

**Also, I've been told you can't refer to them as "joggers" anymore because it is hate speech. You have to avoid the hard-r and also get a J-card. You think I'm joking but that's what's been happening - now they are pretending like "jogger" is a racist epithet. But, since this incident, racist people probably have been calling black people "joggers", though (to indicate they are criminals pretending to jog). hmm

So I guess this who argument is correct.

Lol yet his family insisting he was jogging just screams "He was a good boy, dindu nuffin wrong". I'm sorry, it just does.

The only silver lining is there is a lockdown now so we aren't seeing mass looting and property damage in response.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This was covered in the 3 minutes of video taken in the interior of the home - video evidence that still has not been released to the public. The local news says nothing was taken but only showed 3 seconds of the video - odd since they had the vid for weeks and could have silenced the public outcry.

But proving intent will be easy if he rummages through literally anything. In the court docs, the commentary used the words "first hand knowledge" of the intended robbery which solidifies the lawful pursuit angle. Which is not in dispute.

It would be nice 2 have the whole 3 min vid. It would help remove the speculation 2 the burglary.

Im not sure how any determination either way could have been reached on the lawful pursuit angle at least until the intent is proven. If intent cant be proven, then technically no burglary occurred, therefore nobody had first hand knowledge of a felony, since it technically didn't happen.

As far as i see it, they still have 2 prove intent to prove burglary to prove felony to prove legal citizen arrest.

Like i said maybe its been proven and i just haven't seen the evidence yet but if not, Ahmauds intent is one of first things the defense will have 2 prove when building their house of cards. And if that 1 falls i see the whole house crumbling with it.

Of course folk also have to prove this was racially motivated.

Like maybe it's been proven and I just haven't seen evidence of it yet.

Originally posted by Surtur
Of course folk also have to prove this was racially motivated.

The father and son on the other hand have to prove these things in real life to avoid actual consequences.

Originally posted by Raptor22
i dont think accusing a killer of having racial motives is against the law. But if it is and u are able 2 get someone brought up on charges then i guess yeah in some nutty hypothetical scenerio like that then they probably would have to prove it to avoid hypothetical consequences.

The father and son on the other hand have to prove these things in real life to avoid actual consequences.

Lol perhaps you aren't aware: folk wanna use this to create hate crime laws.

So yes, racial motivation needs to be proven. Agreed?

Originally posted by Surtur
Lol perhaps you aren't aware: folk wanna use this to create hate crime laws.

So yes, racial motivation needs to be proven. Agreed?

Much like the father and son are going thru now

Soooooo not sure what the problem is

And of course even beyond that, and again I know you'll agree, anyone in the media spouting off this was racially motivated should probably have some proof too.

Originally posted by Raptor22
and to do that they will have to go thru the necessary channels to create the law which i would assume is provide evidence of claims.

Much like the father and son are going thru now

Soooooo not sure what the problem is

Just dipshits claiming this is racist with no proof, no other problems besides that.

Originally posted by Surtur
And of course even beyond that, and again I know you'll agree, anyone in the media spouting off this was racially motivated should probably have some proof too.

However conflating the levels of proof one would need to accuse a killer of having racial motivations thru the media with the proof one would need 2 show, to legally detain another person, at gun point and strip them of their constitutionally given freedoms leading to their death is silly beyond belief.

I mean we even have the mayor of Atlanta blaming Trumps rhetoric.

So yeah, this needs to be proven. Of course it won't ever be.

Originally posted by Raptor22
should they? probably. Its always good 2 have some proof if ur going to levy an opinion. Do they need? I dont think they do. Im pretty sure people can spout opinions no matter how informed/uninformed they are. as long as it affects nothing more than their own credibility what do i care.

However conflating the levels of proof one would need to accuse a killer of having racial motivations thru the media with the proof one would need 2 show, to legally detain another person, at gun point and strip them of their constitutionally given freedoms leading to their death is silly beyond belief.

Nah, if folk gonna spout it's racist they either prove it or shut the f*ck up about it. No third option here.

Originally posted by Surtur
Nah, if folk gonna spout it's racist they either prove it or shut the f*ck up about it. No third option here.

Just like u can tell them to shut the **** up about it and them not having another option. I disagree and ur wrong but u have every right to say it and look as silly and foolish as u feel they look.

Originally posted by Raptor22
Im pretty sure people can spout opinions no matter how informed/uninformed they are. as long as it affects nothing more than their own credibility what do i care.

And to just nip this in the bud before this becomes a multi-page argument(It won't be happening): this DOES impact more than the credibility of the dipshit spouting it. Folk wanna add new laws, the mayor is blaming the white house, racial animus is being stirred up. Black Panthers are out in force.

So yes it needs to be proven. 100%. And by your own words: you agree. Good talk 👆

Originally posted by Surtur
And to just nip this in the bud before this becomes a multi-page argument(It won't be happening): this DOES impact more than the credibility of the dipshit spouting it. Folk wanna add new laws, the mayor is blaming the white house, racial animus is being stirred up. Black Panthers are out in force.

So yes it needs to be proven. 100%. And by your own words: you agree. Good talk 👆

So whats left? Oh yeah dipshits online and ur feelings about what they say. Ill cue u in on a secret, ur feelings matter jus as little as u think their opinions do.

Originally posted by Raptor22
and like i said before if they want to pass the law it will have 2 go thru proper channels and claims will have 2 be legally proven. People have been blaming the white house for stuff as long as there has been a white house, animus being stirred up isnt illegal and neither are black panthers being out in force.

So whats left? Oh yeah dipshits online and ur feelings about what they say. Ill cue u in on a secret, ur feelings matter jus as little as u think their opinions do.

Right, opinion noted.

Originally posted by Raptor22
i dont think accusing a killer of having racial motives is against the law. But if it is and u are able 2 get someone brought up on charges then i guess yeah in some nutty hypothetical scenerio like that then they probably would have to prove it to avoid hypothetical consequences.

The father and son on the other hand have to prove these things in real life to avoid actual consequences.

That isn't how the courts work, the burden is on the state.

Originally posted by Silent Master
That isn't how the courts work, the burden is on the state.

The state is under no burden or obligation to prove the accused defense.

But see I don't think it's true that to pass hate crime laws they would need to LEGALLY prove racism lol. Where would you get that idea?

If Georgia lawmakers want to add hate crime laws you truly are saying it can't be done unless a specific instance of racism is proven?

But then, "proving" it is questionable. Proof to one wouldn't be proof to the other.

Some unintelligent folk think skin color is all the proof needed.

I'm fascinated by you thinking they need a legit rationale to pass a law. They just need enough people in power to agree to it. Can you explain what has caused you to believe otherwise?

Originally posted by Raptor22
if them killing ahmaud was in question then yes. Its not. They admitted it. Niw they're providing their defense. Their defense is they were legally detaining him for a felony he committed. Now they have to prove ahmaud committed the felony they are accusing him of in their defense.

The state is under no burden or obligation to prove the accused defense.