The murder of Ahmaud Arbery/All three perpetrators found guilty

Originally posted by Surtur
I read the article. So you can only try a citizens arrest if the crime you are going after them for is a felony. Doing some research it seems theft is only a felony in Georgia if what you're stealing is worth more than $500. So it really does seem like they had no legal reason to go after him.

IMO these were a pair of stupid wannabe vigilantes. Even if he began struggling with them it's still a situation they created. They need to get rid of citizens arrest laws all together because I'm sure most people are not familiar with the specifics of the law.

The McMichael's defense was that this was the same person that stole the $2000-$3000 fishing gear and their gun. That meets felony standards.

The defense argument burden is to then prove that the McMichael's had first hand knowledge before they pursued Arbery and then to also prove that there is evidence that it was Arbery or someone who looked like Arbery that stole those things.

That's a steep case to make, imo. Then there's the issue of the confrontation.

Originally posted by Robtard
Is that the one of Arbery or the other man?

He's not wearing work boots.

Covered this one already.

The original narrative floating around was that Arbery stole work boots and that was the explanation for why the same person shows up minutes later in another video wearing different shoes.

Originally posted by Raptor22
DDM i can understand. Dude does a shit ton of research and in my opinion goes out of his way 2 make sure the things he posts are accurate, and sometime u get bad info and stuff falls thru the cracks.

U on the other just wait for someone like DDM 2 make a point or argument that u agree with then jump all over his nuts agreeing with it, without any research or proof of your own.

haermm

Damn, son.

In my defense, I've changed my position on the topic 3 times, now, as new information comes forward. It's asinine to be married to a position in the face of new evidence.

Originally posted by Robtard
Nothing against the people who watched it, but I won't watch it, don't want to see what amounts to a snuff film.

It's a snuff film. Don't watch. I resisted until yesterday when I wanted to see who else was recording for this "golden" third film that won't be released.

It's not graphic. But you watch a dude lose his life and collapse.

We’ve been throwing the word racist, sexist, misogyny and every other ism out way too much, that they’ve lost all meaning.

The world ain’t perfect, it doesn’t mean just because a white person kill a black person, racism has anything to do it. It just mean that white person is just a piece of filth.

Originally posted by Silent Master
So that everyone is clear, do you agree that both the side defending the shooting without 100% proof and those claiming racism without 100% proof are wrong?

Yes. But I still hold the position that Arbery lost his life for casing a house for robbery and he's not the innocent angel that the media was portraying and race baiting.

Originally posted by Robtard
@surt

What was the proof that lead you to believe Arbery committed a burglary with "100%" certainty?

We have near 100% certainty that he did not take anything but to qualify as burglary, all he has to do is rummage through the stuff on that 3 minute vid to make it a burglary. All he has to do is demonstrate intent even if he doesn't take anything.

Originally posted by Robtard
Doesn't seem to be incorrect regarding the hammer, see:

"video demonstrates that this particular object was already on the ground before Arbery reached the scene, so he could not have placed the item at that location. [b]Finally, English told The Washington Post that nothing had been recently stolen from his construction site." -Snip

I've literally posted the story which you claimed was wrong about there being a question as to which camera instance captured Arbery. [/B]

You didn't read my reply.

Here it is again:

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's incorrect and I covered why your assumption is incorrect, already.

What we did know was the claim of a hammer being involved during the assault and death. What we didn't know is where it came into the "story." There's no way English could have taken a full inventory from his home and known if anything was missing.

What was debunked was where the hammer came from: not Arbery. And it is still in question where the hammer came from, at all, or if it is a hammer to begin with.

This one is not completely thrown out (no pun intended), yet - it could still be in a bucket or locker somewhere as evidence. What we do know is it was not carried by Arbery and was already present at the scene before Arbery entered. What if it is the McMichael's and they threw it at him?

The hammer is not ruled out. The hammer was not brought into the confrontation by Arbery. That's what was busted.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The McMichael's defense was that this was the same person that stole the $2000-$3000 fishing gear and their gun. That meets felony standards.

The defense argument burden is to then prove that the McMichael's had first hand knowledge before they pursued Arbery and then to also prove that there is evidence that it was Arbery or someone who looked like Arbery that stole those things.

That's a steep case to make, imo. Then there's the issue of the confrontation.

These are the exact things that i said the defense will have 2 prove at trial 2 avoid jail time, that Silent and Surt kept telling they wouldnt have 2 because thats not how our Justice system works.

Offices of the United States Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys » Justice 101
Trial

"After many weeks or months of preparation, the prosecutor is ready for the most important part of his job: the trial. The trial is a structured process where the facts of a case are presented to a jury, and they decide if the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the charge offered. During trial, the prosecutor uses witnesses and evidence to prove to the jury that the defendant committed the crime(s). The defendant, represented by an attorney, also tells his side of the story using witnesses and evidence"

"The defendant, represented by an attorney, also tells his side of the story using witnesses and evidence"

I wonder if silent and surt will admit they were wrong like they insist everyone else does.

Originally posted by SquallX
We’ve been throwing the word racist, sexist, misogyny and every other ism out way too much, that they’ve lost all meaning.

The world ain’t perfect, it doesn’t mean just because a white person kill a black person, racism has anything to do it. It just mean that white person is just a piece of filth.

This is exactly the kind of thing a Nazi would say.

uhuh

Originally posted by Raptor22
this cant possibly be true.

These are the exact things that i said the defense will have 2 prove at trial 2 avoid jail time, that Silent and Surt kept telling they wouldnt have 2 because thats not how our Justice system works.

Offices of the United States Attorneys
U.S. Attorneys » Justice 101
Trial

"After many weeks or months of preparation, the prosecutor is ready for the most important part of his job: the trial. The trial is a structured process where the facts of a case are presented to a jury, and they decide if the defendant is guilty or not guilty of the charge offered. During trial, the prosecutor uses witnesses and evidence to prove to the jury that the defendant committed the crime(s). The defendant, represented by an attorney, also tells his side of the story using witnesses and evidence"

"The defendant, represented by an attorney, also tells his side of the story using witnesses and evidence"

I wonder if silent and surt will admit they were wrong like they insist everyone else does.

If the defense didn't have to make an argument based on the evidence, then why does the defense get time to make arguments during the whole trial including a closing argument that summarizes their defensive arguments?

Originally posted by Raptor22
thank u for admitting that I've been right this entire time.

Sorry, but I said that long before you. so, you should be thanking me for being right.

Originally posted by dadudemon
We have near 100% certainty that he did not take anything but to qualify as burglary, all he has to do is rummage through the stuff on that 3 minute vid to make it a burglary. All he has to do is demonstrate intent even if he doesn't take anything.

This is why I don't wanna indulge in this bizarre gas lighting being done. I don't think anyone said they are 100% without a doubt sure he committed a crime. Nobody was saying "if he was alive I'd say throw him in jail with no trial!"

And while those who thought this was racially motivated were basing that on feelings...those who thought he might not be so innocent were basing it on actual video.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If the defense didn't have to make an argument based on the evidence, then why does the defense get time to make arguments during the whole trial including a closing argument that summarizes their defensive arguments?

Rap is still upset that I was correct when I said the defense doesn't have to prove anything, they just have to keep the state from reaching their burden.

That is why courts rule people "not guilty" rather than "innocent".

Originally posted by Silent Master
Sorry, but I said that long before you. so, you should be thanking me for being right.

Ill post mine after and we can compare time/date stamps and see which is right.

Originally posted by dadudemon
If the defense didn't have to make an argument based on the evidence, then why does the defense get time to make arguments during the whole trial including a closing argument that summarizes their defensive arguments?

I said the prosecutors should have to prove it was murder. I don't think it's wrong or crazy to say that. I also said I didn't think it would be wise for the two to take the stand.

Honestly, it's coming off like some people are butthurt because the racist narrative didn't play out. It's the only reason I can think of for trying to play bullshit games like "ha u think the prosecutors should have to prove murder!".

Originally posted by dadudemon
If the defense didn't have to make an argument based on the evidence, then why does the defense get time to make arguments during the whole trial including a closing argument that summarizes their defensive arguments?

Originally posted by Raptor22
could u direct me to post of yours where u said we should wait to see all the vids and evidence before we accuse Ahmaud of burglary?

Ill post mine after and we can compare time/date stamps and see which is right.

From page 3.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I see, you're just assuming. thank you for being honest.

I look forward to their trial, if found guilty, I hope the book gets thrown at them.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Rap is still upset that I was correct when I said the defense doesn't have to prove anything, they just have to keep the state from reaching their burden.

That is why courts rule people "not guilty" rather than "innocent".

Originally posted by Surtur
I said the prosecutors should have to prove it was murder.

I explained this already. They do that to get the indictment. And a grand jury indicts the accused.

Then you must go through a trial where you make a defense. The indictment is not a conviction, only a simple "does it look bad enough that we should send this to trial?"

Edit - And then after it goes to trial, the prosecutor's have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Arbery was murdered under the voluntary manslaughter charges.

Originally posted by Surtur
Honestly, it's coming off like some people are butthurt because the racist narrative didn't play out. It's the only reason I can think of for trying to play bullshit games like "ha u think the prosecutors should have to prove murder!".

They do. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was murder. The defense has to argue the evidence does not demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the evidence and witnesses prove the McMichaels murdered Arbery.

And it is looking steeper steeper to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Unless the defense can prove that the McMichael's had evidence from the previous break-ins on Arbery's appearance, they have not pursuit case.