The murder of Ahmaud Arbery/All three perpetrators found guilty

Started by Surtur123 pages

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

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.

Yup, nobody said the defense has to do nothing at all here.

Originally posted by Silent Master
From page 3.
u telling rob that he's assuming racism and saying u look foward to the trial doesn't equal

"we should wait to see all the vids and evidence before we accuse Ahmaud of burglary?"

Which is something that he was accused of many times in this thread, yet i never saw u speak up once against it or ask for proof of.

Yet u have made several posts asking for proof of racism.

It shows that I didn't assume guilt or innocence and wanted to wait for the trial.

IOW, I took the correct position.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yup, nobody said the defense has to do nothing at all here.
except provide any evidence or proof towards their clients innocence.

"No I don't feel they will need to offer proof of innocence"- surt

Lol

Originally posted by Silent Master
It shows that I didn't assume guilt or innocence and wanted to wait for the trial.

IOW, I took the correct position.

no it shows u didnt assume racism and are looking foward 2 the trial. Just like ur post says. Ur adding and inferring things that u didnt actually post.

Originally posted by Raptor22
u telling rob that he's assuming racism and saying u look foward to the trial doesn't equal

"we should wait to see all the vids and evidence before we accuse Ahmaud of burglary?"

Which is something that he was accused of many times in this thread, yet i never saw u speak up once against it or ask for proof of.

Yet u have made several posts asking for proof of racism.

In my defense of this whole situation, I was spoon-fed for days the MSM narrative that made it seem like Arbery was out for a jog and was randomly murdered. After researching it, I found that the narrative had changed quite a few times and I was fed lies. Over and over, lies.

I summarized my current take after getting access to all info, here (but at least 2 things are wrong in my top 10 list and I highlight that):

Originally posted by dadudemon
The burden of proof on anyone pushing the racism narrative. I have proven quite soundly that race has nothing to do with this.

What we do have is a series of break ins and video proof that this is clearly not racially motivated and, instead, a reaction to a series of burglaries.

At no point has any evidence come forward with the McMichael's stating anything racist when they decided to pursue the burglar.

1. At first, it was just a jogger with an unprovoked and "racist" attack by white dues sitting around with guns.

2. Then it became vigilantes out patrolling their neighborhood and these racist white guys stopped a poor young teenager out for a jog.

3. Then it became a 25 year old with an arrest record and felony to his name including bringing a gun to a high school basketball game.

...These goalposts are getting really heavy at this, right?

4. Then it becomes a situation where the prosecutor is racist because he didn't pursue the case. Clearly, a racist prosecutor, right? Nope. The prosecutor knew the McMichael's and had worked with the father in the past. This recusal happened before this case became national news. Ethics were properly used before the microscopes were turned to this case.

5. Then it became a case where the replacement prosecutor's were racist, too. Nope, wrong again. Another work association ethics recusal.

...Now these goalposts are getting super heavy, right? Don't know if they can move any more than this...

6. Then we find out there were multiple 911 calls about Arbery breaking into a home. But there is no evidence backing it up, that we knew of. Now people are starting to question the case.

7. Then we find out there is a video of Arbery entering the home, clearly not out on a jog. Then we find out the media is not posting the video. I found it just researching this case.

8. Then we find out that there was video evidence from inside the home that Arbery decided to case. And he's not wearing the shoes he wore when shot less than an hour later. (since then, this talking point was proven wrong and I highlighted it)

9. This video of him inside the house under construction lasts for 3 minutes. Odd for a jog, right?

It doesn't stop there, though. Point 10 is where it should end:

10. The McMichaels got involved only after a commotion was raised in the neighborhood (by Larry English)(This talking point is also wrong - details are fuzzy on how the McMichael's found out about Arbery running from the scene) about the burglar so they drove to find the suspect. Arbery is seen running up on the vehicle. Out for a jog in baggy cargo shorts? Odd attire for a jog.

And now to breakdown the narrative we were fed:

Arbery's family held the narrative that Abery was "just out for a Sunday jog" when he clearly wasn't. new video evidence proves that. When his parents were confronted with the new evidence that their son clearly trespassed and was casing the home under construction, they amended their story about Arbery being out for a jog. They then said that Arbery was inquisitive and just wanted to see the "bones of a home." Arbery's parents are also clearly getting some exercise because they are definitely backpedaling.

And, in fact, we know exactly what the McMichael's think. They tacitly denied that race had anything to do with the pursuit. It turns out there was a handgun stolen from a car outside their home in January. They assumed that this was the same person caught red-handed, burglarizing the neighborhood again. And he likely has the handgun that was stolen based on how he had his hands in his shorts (lol, don't know what this means but I guess some people conceal a gun not-so-subtly). Part of why they did not pursue until they had guns with them.

Still looking for the racism from the McMichael's. It's nowhere in the corrected narrative. Also, good on the news outlets who are correcting their stories. I saw several make corrections as new evidence came forward. We are still missing the 3 minutes of video of Arbery casing the house: we only got a 3 second loop from the local news station. A video that the local news had in their possession days after the shooting - they got it from the home owners. A video that the local news station kept under wraps until very recently. No doubt, they have a very smart producer at that news station.

However, it's odd and embarrassing for all the people who went jogging for Arbery. Lots of people uploaded videos of themselves to social media to express solidarity to Arbery for just wanting to go out for a jog.

Originally posted by Raptor22
no it shows u didnt assume racism and are looking foward 2 the trial. Just like ur post says. Ur adding and inferring things that u didnt actually post.
👆 Bingo

Originally posted by dadudemon
In my defense of this whole situation, I was spoon-fed for days the MSM narrative that made it seem like Arbery was out for a jog and was randomly murdered. After researching it, I found that the narrative had changed quite a few times and I was fed lies. Over and over, lies.

I summarized my current take after getting access to all info, here (but at least 2 things are wrong in my top 10 list and I highlight that):

If I'm being honest: I'm ashamed to say I too fell for the "this is racist" narrative when I very first heard about this(I forget where I first read it). But at first I didn't decide to question if it was racist or not, I assumed people were being legit.

So I definitely learned an important lesson here: do not automatically believe every claim of racism. Even if you have that little voice in the back of your head going "okay this is so brazen they'd never just flat out make up a narrative".

Originally posted by dadudemon
In my defense of this whole situation, I was spoon-fed for days the MSM narrative that made it seem like Arbery was out for a jog and was randomly murdered. After researching it, I found that the narrative had changed quite a few times and I was fed lies. Over and over, lies.

I summarized my current take after getting access to all info, here (but at least 2 things are wrong in my top 10 list and I highlight that):

👍

Like i said u do a shit load of research and in my opinion ur arguments are almost always made in good faith and u attempt to find the actual truth.

And you'll get nothing but support from me on how difficult it is to find the truth. I probably spend more time fact checking sources than i do actually searching for the info. Thats actually kind of ****ed up when u think about it.

Thats a far cry from some others whose research basicaly consists of reading a post from another member that conveys a point they agree with on hopping on the D-train before doing any research or thinking of their own.

If I had assumed they were innocent, I wouldn't have said "if found guilty, I hope the book gets thrown at them."

Nice try though.

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 Raptor22
👍

Like i said u do a shit load of research and in my opinion ur arguments are almost always made in good faith and u attempt to find the actual truth.

And you'll get nothing but support from me on how difficult it is to find the truth. I probably spend more time fact checking sources than i do actually searching for the info. Thats actually kind of ****ed up when u think about it.

Thats a far cry from some others whose research basicaly consists of reading a post from another member that conveys a point they agree with on hopping on the D-train before doing any research or thinking of their own.

I will fully admit I don't research like DDM. The simple truth of the matter is: most of the time people do not deserve the level of research he does when he argues with them. They gas light, ignore, or just dismiss him...I've seen it over and over, even after it's clear he put a lot of thought into a post. Then they turn around and accuse him of the very same thing they are doing. It's bizarre and DDM is a lot more kind than I am because he still puts in the effort.

Originally posted by Silent Master
If I had assumed they were innocent, I wouldn't have said "if found guilty, I hope the book gets thrown at them."

Nice try though.

It shows u want to wait for trial before finding the Mcmichaels guilty.

It doesn't show this-

"we should wait to see all the vids and evidence before we accuse Ahmaud of burglary

at all like u claimed it did.

Still waiting

Originally posted by Surtur
I will fully admit I don't research like DDM. The simple truth of the matter is: most of the time people do not deserve the level of research he does when he argues with them. They gas light, ignore, or just dismiss him...I've seen it over and over, even after it's clear he put a lot of thought into a post. Then they turn around and accuse him of the very same thing they are doing. It's bizarre and DDM is a lot more kind than I am because he still puts in the effort.
You fail to understand Surt, if people didn't disagree you would merely have your Alt-right echo chamber. The video is completely clear, there was no need to kill.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
You fail to understand Surt, if people didn't disagree you would merely have your Alt-right echo chamber. The video is completely clear, there was no need to kill.

You don't have the best history of using the term "alt right" properly and it's weird to see you talk about an echo chamber too.

I also never said he needed to be killed.

Originally posted by Surtur
You don't have the best history of using the term "alt right" properly and it's weird to see you talk about an echo chamber too.

I also never said he needed to be killed.

I really don't and it isn't. Glad you agree it was murder. 👆

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I really don't and it isn't. Glad you agree it was murder. 👆

You absolutely do.

I feel they shouldn't have tried a citizens arrest. I think they tried to act like vigilantes, the guy fought back and he was killed. Can't say if it is murder, but it should have never happened.

Originally posted by Surtur
I will fully admit I don't research like DDM. The simple truth of the matter is: most of the time people do not deserve the level of research he does when he argues with them. They gas light, ignore, or just dismiss him...I've seen it over and over, even after it's clear he put a lot of thought into a post. Then they turn around and accuse him of the very same thing they are doing. It's bizarre and DDM is a lot more kind than I am because he still puts in the effort.

You should be more like me, I was smart enough to wait for a trial, so that we could see all the evidence. 😈

Originally posted by Surtur
You absolutely do.

I feel they shouldn't have tried a citizens arrest. I think they tried to act like vigilantes, the guy fought back and he was killed. Can't say if it is murder, but it should have never happened.

I absolutely don't...

O.K. So, you don't think they reacted so aggressively because he was black? This is what we will have examined in court, my personal opinion is we will find race was in play. We'll see.

Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I absolutely don't...

O.K. So, you don't think they reacted so aggressively because he was black? This is what we will have examined in court, my personal opinion is we will find race was in play. We'll see.

You do, but okay we can agree to disagree.

I think it's possible they did it because he was black, but I would want some sort of evidence. For now it seems like they tried to be vigilantes.

Originally posted by Surtur
You do, but okay we can agree to disagree.

I think it's possible they did it because he was black, but I would want some sort of evidence. For now it seems like they tried to be vigilantes.

OK, let's wait and see.