The murder of Ahmaud Arbery/All three perpetrators found guilty

Started by Silent Master123 pages

Them admitting that they killed the guy, isn't enough for the state to reach the burden of "beyond reasonable dount" in reagrds to murder. seeing as they're claiming it was justified.

The state hasn't reached their burden yet.

Originally posted by Surtur
In my own personal opinion I think they'd have a better shot getting them on manslaughter.
do u think the Mcmichaels will have to offer some sort of proof of their innocence in their defense if they want to avoid going to prison?

Originally posted by Raptor22
do u think the Mcmichaels will have to offer some sort of proof of their innocence in their defense if they want to avoid going to prison?

I think they're going to jail no matter what, how good their defense is will determine for how long.

Originally posted by Surtur
In my own personal opinion I think they'd have a better shot getting them on manslaughter.

He doesn't understand that the defense doesn't have to prove anything, they just have to keep the state from reaching their burden of "beyond reasonable doubt".

Edit: That is why courts find people "not guilty" rather than "innocent".

Originally posted by Silent Master
Them admitting that they killed the guy, isn't enough for the state to reach the burden of "beyond reasonable dount" in reagrds to murder. seeing as they're claiming it was justified.

The state hasn't reached their burden yet.

They have offered enough to shift the burden to the defense to have to offer proof that it was justified. Just like ive been saying.

Good thing i never said they met the burden for conviction tho huh.

Originally posted by Raptor22
They have offered enough to shift the burden to the defense to have to offer proof that it was justified. Just like ive been saying.

Good thing i never said they met the burden for conviction tho huh.

No, they haven't.

Originally posted by Surtur
I think they're going to jail no matter what, how good their defense is will determine for how long.
why do u think they're going 2 jail no matter what?

Originally posted by Silent Master
No, they haven't.
u saying it over and over without proof doesnt make it magically true.

Keep trying tho

Originally posted by Surtur
I think they're going to jail no matter what, how good their defense is will determine for how long.

Only if the state meets their burden of proof.

Originally posted by Raptor22
why do u think they're going 2 jail no matter what?

Well perhaps not no matter what, but I think maybe they'll be offered a deal if they plead to a lesser charge like manslaughter.

If they try to go through with charging them with murder....I think yeah they could get off.

Originally posted by Raptor22
u saying it over and over without proof doesnt make it magically true.

Keep trying tho

👆 Bingo!

On the other hand given the atmosphere surrounding this case thanks to race baiting people claiming this was racially motivated with no evidence a prosecutor might feel pressured to not offer such a deal when in normal circumstances they might.

And if they try to get them on murder I would advise them not to stand up and say anything. Let the prosecution make the case for their being guilty of murder.

Originally posted by Surtur
Well perhaps not no matter what, but I think maybe they'll be offered a deal if they plead to a lesser charge like manslaughter.

If they try to go through with charging them with murder....I think yeah they could get off.

if they go thru with murder charges and u think they could get off, then were back 2-

do u think the Mcmichaels will have to offer some sort of proof of their innocence in their defense if they want to avoid going to prison?

Edit: never mind i see ur post above this

Originally posted by Surtur
Well perhaps not no matter what, but I think maybe they'll be offered a deal if they plead to a lesser charge like manslaughter.

If they try to go through with charging them with murder....I think yeah they could get off.

Is that because you think the state might not be able to meet the burden of proof for the murder charge?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Is that because you think the state might not be able to meet the burden of proof for the murder charge?

Yes I think it'd be hard.

But the race baiting might make it so the prosecutor is hesitant to offer a deal.

So ironically those who insisted so vehemently this is racist might be the reason these guys serve no time at all as opposed to *some* time.

Originally posted by Surtur
On the other hand given the atmosphere surrounding this case thanks to race baiting people claiming this was racially motivated with no evidence a prosecutor might feel pressured to not offer such a deal when in normal circumstances they might.

And if they try to get them on murder I would advise them not to stand up and say anything. Let the prosecution make the case for their being guilty of murder.

lol i hope so. That would actually be hilarious. I can imagine their attorney threatening the DA if he doesnt offer a deal.

He'd be all like

Im warning u, if u dont offer my client a deal and insist on going to trial with murder charges we are fully prepared to offer no defense at all. Boom. What now DA.

Lol great stuff guys.

Originally posted by Raptor22
lol i hope so. That would actually be hilarious. I can imagine their attorney threatening the DA if he doesnt offer a deal.

He'd be all like

Im warning u, if u dont offer my client a deal and insist on going to trial with murder charges we are fully prepared to offer no defense at all. Boom. What now DA.

Lol great stuff guys.

I never said don't offer a defense, I just don't think they should take the stand.

Originally posted by Surtur
I never said don't offer a defense, I just don't think they should take the stand.

Rap doesn't understand the difference between offering a defense and being required to prove innocence.

Originally posted by Surtur
I never said don't offer a defense, I just don't think they should take the stand.
wait when i asked this

do u think the Mcmichaels will have to offer some sort of proof of their innocence in their defense if they want to avoid going to prison?

Did u think i was referring the just the father and son?

Maybe the problem was my wording when i said Mcmichaels. Since silent and i have been talking about the Mcmichaels lawyers and their defense i thought it was implied.

Lets try this

do u think the Mcmichaels (them or their lawyers/defense team) will have to offer some sort of proof of their innocence in their defense if they want to avoid going to prison?

I know its a tough spot im putting u in.

If u say yes then in essence u disagree with basically everything silent has said for the last 3-4 pgs.

But if u say no u will sound kind of retarded.

One thing about Silent Master. If he gets into a debate about laws and policy. He is never wrong.