Originally posted by dadudemoni must have missed something because im confused again.
When the story is summarized like that, yes, it seems much worse.But when summarized honestly, this is how it should read:
Two white men, a father and son pair, are whipped up into a vigilante frenzy trying to detain a burglar that was just caught in the act, who likely stole thousands of dollars of equipment which included a hand gun in previous burglaries. The father and son end up killing the 25 year old when trying to confront him when the man attacks them. 3 or more videos existed in the prosecutor department's hands prior to one of the edited videos being made public including that showed the 25 year old man shot and collapse. The video was released on purpose by the man's family's lawyer because the case wasn't getting traction and was passing from prosecutor to prosecutor. However, this stunt may cause harm to prosecution because it taints the jury selection process. It is unknown if the father and son pair were justified with "first hand knowledge" to pursue the young man in their truck. Evidence points to a no.
But that's adding in lots of details that frames the situation and few people want to think about the facts and how difficult this case is.
"trying to detain a burglar that was just caught in the act,"
Is there proof of burglary and of them either catching him in the act or having first hand knowledge of it or not?
Originally posted by Surtur
Another possibility yes.
He also could have been running because someone saw him and he was either looking to steal or he assumed people would assume he was stealing, cos Black guy in Georgia. There's other possible scenarios besides these.
But even if we go with "Arbery was absolutely looking to thief" as fact, we're back to his death and did he deserve to die for planned thievery. The answer is "no", so the McMichael's defense team has an uphill fight proving their innocence to a jury, imo.
Originally posted by RobtardMe too, but hey Rodney King etc.
He also could have been running because someone saw him and he was either looking to steal or he assumed people would assume he was stealing, cos Black guy in Georgia. There's other possible scenarios besides these.But even if we go with "Arbery was absolutely looking to thief" as fact, we're back to his death and did he deserve to die for planned thievery. The answer is "no", so the McMichael's defense team has an uphill fight proving their innocence to a jury, imo.
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
I think you are mistaking a defence narrative/excuse for any kind of truth... We will see.
You made a statement about human life value. I think you put the human life value on the wrong target. You're making the wrong assessment for their motivations.
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
DDM has said many times he believes everyone is racist. A racial overtones would certainly fit his world view.
I'm stating no reason existed to kill him... do you think it did?
Everyone is racist, yes. It's in our genes and helped us survive when we were tribal and were ruled by tribe leaders, shamans, and our greatest vertebrate enemies were other humans.
But their motivations for pursuing this guy may be tied up in racism. Or it might be tied up in anger over the robberies plaguing their area since October 2019.
Originally posted by RobtardMe too, but hey Rodney King etc.
He also could have been running because someone saw him and he was either looking to steal or he assumed people would assume he was stealing, cos Black guy in Georgia. There's other possible scenarios besides these.But even if we go with "Arbery was absolutely looking to thief" as fact, we're back to his death and did he deserve to die for planned thievery. The answer is "no", so the McMichael's defense team has an uphill fight proving their innocence to a jury, imo.
Originally posted by Raptor22Let me answer that... No.
i must have missed something because im confused again."trying to detain a burglar that was just caught in the act,"
Is there proof of burglary and of them either catching him in the act or having first hand knowledge of it or not?
Originally posted by dadudemonFunny I have a brown daughter in my tribe...
You made a statement about human life value. I think you put the human life value on the wrong target. You're making the wrong assessment for their motivations.Everyone is racist, yes. It's in our genes and helped us survive when we were tribal and were ruled by tribe leaders, shamans, and our greatest vertebrate enemies were other humans.
But their motivations for pursuing this guy may be tied up in racism. Or it might be tied up in anger over the robberies plaguing their area since October 2019.
Originally posted by Raptor22
i must have missed something because im confused again."trying to detain a burglar that was just caught in the act,"
Yup. The McMichael's narrative is that this person matched the appearance of the person who had been burglarizing the place.
Originally posted by Raptor22
Is there proof of burglary and of them either catching him in the act or having first hand knowledge of it or not?
The defense will have to prove that in court, for sure. If they can't, they have zero lawful pursuit justification and they will get a involuntary manslaughter conviction, at the worst.
Originally posted by dadudemon
When the story is summarized like that, yes, it seems much worse.But when summarized honestly, this is how it should read:
Two white men, a father and son pair, are whipped up into a vigilante frenzy trying to detain a burglar that was just caught in the act, who likely stole thousands of dollars of equipment which included a hand gun in previous burglaries. The father and son end up killing the 25 year old when trying to confront him when the man attacks them. 3 or more videos existed in the prosecutor department's hands prior to one of the edited videos being made public including that showed the 25 year old man shot and collapse. The video was released on purpose by the man's family's lawyer because the case wasn't getting traction and was passing from prosecutor to prosecutor. However, this stunt may cause harm to prosecution because it taints the jury selection process. It is unknown if the father and son pair were justified with "first hand knowledge" to pursue the young man in their truck. Evidence points to a no.
But that's adding in lots of details that frames the situation and few people want to think about the facts and how difficult this case is.
I was speaking solely of the optics.
You're not being honest here. You're claiming Arbery committed said criminal acts as fact in your framing. We literally don't know that.
Originally posted by RobtardBingo, I di believe most white people are racist. You want to see how people look at me when I say my grandfather was an Irish Traveller.
Good point, King was a ******* speeding dangerously while high on drugs. He absolutely should have been pulled over and arrested. The beat down, that was criminal abuse from the police.
Originally posted by Silent Masterwait i thought innocent until proven guilty right? Its been the backbone of ur argument this whole time no?
Calling him a victim assumes he was innocent, which you have no proof of. Better to be like me and wait for all the evidence, instead of rushing to judgement.
Maybe you'll try to turn it around and argue shifting the burden to defense like i did. Please do
Ill expect detailed reasons as to why it would apply to this case based on legal grounds along with sources to back it up like i provided.
And
Explain how u will prove it. My stance can be proven if/when it goes to trial.
Since u cant prosecute a dead man. How will u find Ahmaud guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in court if he cant be tried?
Originally posted by Robtard
I was speaking solely of the optics.You're not being honest here. You're assuming Arbery committed said criminal acts as fact in your framing. We literally don't know that.
We know Arbery is a felony criminal due to the fact that he is a felony criminal.
A criminal is a person who has committed a crime.
I think you meant something else. You meant that the McMichael's had no prove that Arbery just committed or tried to commit a crime, right? If so, I still don't agree. We don't know that, yet. That's what the trial is for. The prosecutor will try and pick apart their position.