Originally posted by Bashar Teg
one reported burglary, one after the homicide convenient excuse, as was already discussed. top notch gaslighting as always from dadudecrew 👆one burglary does not constitute a "rash", except for the rash making your butt hurt rn
Don't worry, I'm not using your goalpost moved trick to try and make the conversation about purely definitive burglaries, of which there are factually 2 where property was stolen.
I am making the conversation about the actual law and the court case.
Breaking in without taking anything but with the intent to burgle (such as casing), also counts as a burglary under Georgia Law:
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2014/title-16/chapter-7/article-1/section-16-7-1
https://statelaws.findlaw.com/georgia-law/georgia-burglary-laws.html
The elements for first degree burglary include:Entering or remaining in an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant dwelling house of another or any other dwelling structure; and
The intent to commit a felony or theft inside.
I know you want to gaslight and then call everyone a gaslighter but you're quite thoroughly hitting your head against a stone-wall while pathetically trying to move the goalposts.
In case you didn't read:
The elements for first degree burglary include:Entering or remaining in an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant dwelling house of another or any other dwelling structure; and
The intent to commit a felony or theft inside.
Originally posted by Surtur
Have you ever seen leftists so pissed off over a lack of racism?
Originally posted by Silent Master
Being honest is against his nature.
Also, you and others call them my cheerleaders but they are not patting me on the back or cheerleading me.
Surt is making a commentary, using my post, on how dishonest "leftists" are being about this case.
Silent Master used my post to make a commentary about how dishonest you are. Not once are they complimenting me. I'm not getting bingo'd. I'm not getting a thumbs-up. They are mocking you (PVS) and people like you for ignoring the facts.
it's not an either/or definition. There was no "intent to commit a felony or theft inside." as the 911 call two weeks prior substantiates. they said nothing was ever stolen from the site and no attempt was made to commit theft. this from the horses mouth. but you go ahead and ignore that, with much maturity
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
it's not an either/or definition. There was no "intent to commit a felony or theft inside."
It is up to thee prosecutor to prove your opinion on the video evidence. Intent to commit burglary only needs to demonstrate, with the videos, that he was casing the joint for theft. If he rummages (which includes just looking through things) through anything, the defense has a solid case that this was felony burglary.
We have 3 seconds of the 3 minute video where he can be seen already looking around the house. 3 minutes is a long time. I do not feel particularly comfortable stating that from 3 seconds of video, where Arbery is already seen looking around in the house, that Arbery is not guilty of burglary as Georgia State Law defines it. That's an incredibly flimsy position to be in. Keep in mind, I've stated many times that the case hinges on the following:
1. That Arbery legit was casing the joint (thus, constituting a first degree burgle which is a felony). This provides lawful pursuit of Arbery if the McMichael's can prove they had first hand knowledge of the felony.
2. Arbery approached the McMichael's on the road and immediately attacked McMichael senior.
If 1 is not true, it's the bare minimum of involuntary manslaughter.
If 1 and 2 cannot be proven, it is voluntary manslaughter.
If both can be proven, they will be acquitted.
Also, I find it rather funny that we are arguing about whether or not Arbery was caught trying to commit a crime when he is on multiple cameras casually walking up a road and entering a house that is not his.
It takes quite the suspension of disbelief to assume Arbery was doing anything but trying to steal or case a house for theft, later. It's quite ridiculous how far the goalposts have been moved in this conversation.
He entered a house that wasn't his and looked around for 3 minutes. And it is on camera from multiple angles.
It seems rather odd that the whole conversation has to be about him stealing or casing to steal. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor to demonstrate that Arbery did not intend to case the house or burgle. I think the assumptions in this debate are completely wrong.
I think there are a few questions we are all grappling with, which I suppose fall into two camps, one more about the incident itself and another about the socio-political climate in the United States.
For the case the question is the fundamental one. Was the shooter legally justified. And if not, to what extend should they face legal repercussions.
There is also a somewhat moral question about the case, which is, even if it was legally justified, should the law be framed in such a way that it this scenario can be justified.
We are only privy to aspects of the case and it seems like it is now proceeding in a somewhat orderly manner, so perhaps we will get a judgement.
But the broader questions, are questions that have been in debate in public conscious for a while, and often reignite as the political sides find cases that somewhat fit their narratives. These questions are things like:
Can there be a fair case had, that both does justice to the victim of the shooting, the man that did the shooting and the man that stood by?
Should the shooter have immediately been taken into custody and an investigation commenced?
Has race played in a roll in why the two men chased and shot the victim?
Has race played a role in why the case initially was not pursued?
If the races of the people in the scenario were reversed what would have happened?
Where this thread is -
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
HOMEPAGE
The full story of how the Ahmaud Arbery 'lynching' became a national flashpoint for justice
Rhea Mahbubani May 15, 2020, 10:55 AMahmaud arbery protest
People at a rally on Friday to protest the February shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, an unarmed black man, in Brunswick, Georgia. Two men have been charged with murder in the death of Arbery, whom they had pursued in a truck after spotting him running in the neighborhood. AP Photo/John Bazemore
Ahmaud Arbery, a black man, was jogging in his neighborhood in Georgia on February 23 when he was killed in a shooting after being chased by Gregory and Travis McMichael, a father and son.
A police report said the McMichaels mistook Arbery, who was unarmed, for a suspect in a string of neighborhood break-ins.
A video of the chase and shooting was shared on social media and caused outrage.
In the two months since Arbery died, two district attorneys have recused themselves from the case over potential conflicts of interest.
Gregory and Travis McMichael were ultimately arrested in May in connection with Arbery's death. They were charged with felony murder and aggravated assault.
The hashtag #IRunWithMaud trended on social media, and thousands of people signed up to run 2.23 miles — marking the day of Arbery's death — on May 8.
Visit Insider's homepage for more stories.
May 8 would have been Ahmaud Arbery's 26th birthday.Arbery, a black man, was out running in his neighborhood outside Brunswick, Georgia, at about 1 p.m. on February 23.
He was followed and gunned down by a 64-year-old former police officer, Gregory McMichael, and his 34-year-old son, Travis McMichael, both of whom are white.
The shooting was captured on video by a witness in a nearby car, Reuters reported. The shocking footage has been shared widely on social media and has prompted a wave of protests and demands for justice.
On Thursday, May 7, agents from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation arrested Gregory and Travis McMichael and announced that the two were charged with felony murder and aggravated assault.
At a news conference a day later, the bureau's director, Vic Reynolds, said there was "sufficient probable cause to charge the McMichaels with felony murder and aggravated assault."
"I can tell you that if we didn't believe it, we wouldn't have arrested them," he said. "If we believe it, then we're going to put the bracelets on them, and that's exactly what we did yesterday evening."
Here's everything we know about the case.
A local police report describes how the McMichaels chased Arbery and shots were fired after a struggle
A Glynn County police report describes how Arbery was shot after struggling with Travis McMichael over his shotgun.Travis McMichael's father told the responding officer, J. Brandeberry, that Arbery caught their attention because he resembled a man accused of a rash of residential break-ins. He said they decided to grab their guns and chase him.
However, The Brunswick News reported that only one burglary was reported in the area from the start of 2020 to the day Arbery died. The sole item stolen was a gun from Travis McMichael's unlocked pickup truck.
"McMichael stated he was in his front yard and saw the suspect from the break-ins 'hauling ass' down Satilla Drive toward Burford Drive," Brandeberry's report said.
"McMichael stated he then ran inside his house and called to Travis (McMichael) and said, 'Travis, the guy is running down the street let's go,'"
So...
No before fact evidence of a rash of Robberies anywhere. Lots of after fact claims but none reported to the Police... claims being taken as facts by the usual gaslighters, despite no police reports or prior to event reporting.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
it's not an either/or definition. There was no "intent to commit a felony or theft inside." as the 911 call two weeks prior substantiates. they said nothing was ever stolen from the site and no attempt was made to commit theft. this from the horses mouth. but you go ahead and ignore that, with much maturity
👆
Is where we are at
Originally posted by Artol
I think there are a few questions we are all grappling with, which I suppose fall into two camps, one more about the incident itself and another about the socio-political climate in the United States.[b]For the case
the question is the fundamental one. Was the shooter legally justified. And if not, to what extend should they face legal repercussions.There is also a somewhat moral question about the case, which is, even if it was legally justified, should the law be framed in such a way that it this scenario can be justified.
We are only privy to aspects of the case and it seems like it is now proceeding in a somewhat orderly manner, so perhaps we will get a judgement.
But the broader questions, are questions that have been in debate in public conscious for a while, and often reignite as the political sides find cases that somewhat fit their narratives. These questions are things like:
Can there be a fair case had, that both does justice to the victim of the shooting, the man that did the shooting and the man that stood by?
Should the shooter have immediately been taken into custody and an investigation commenced?
Has race played in a roll in why the two men chased and shot the victim?
Has race played a role in why the case initially was not pursued?
If the races of the people in the scenario were reversed what would have happened? [/B]
Well we have no evidence to suggest race played a role in why the men pursued him. We have no evidence to suggest race played a role in why the case wasn't originally pursued.
And we have no way at *all* to say how these men would have reacted to white people. Would the situation have ended the same? Would it have ended differently? Anyone who thinks they know the men would have behaved different towards whites is full of shit.
We will never know what was truly in the hearts and minds of these men, but none of the available evidence points to a racial motive. None.
Originally posted by ArtolGood post 👆
I think there are a few questions we are all grappling with, which I suppose fall into two camps, one more about the incident itself and another about the socio-political climate in the United States.[b]For the case
the question is the fundamental one. Was the shooter legally justified. And if not, to what extend should they face legal repercussions.There is also a somewhat moral question about the case, which is, even if it was legally justified, should the law be framed in such a way that it this scenario can be justified.
We are only privy to aspects of the case and it seems like it is now proceeding in a somewhat orderly manner, so perhaps we will get a judgement.
But the broader questions, are questions that have been in debate in public conscious for a while, and often reignite as the political sides find cases that somewhat fit their narratives. These questions are things like:
Can there be a fair case had, that both does justice to the victim of the shooting, the man that did the shooting and the man that stood by?
Should the shooter have immediately been taken into custody and an investigation commenced?
Has race played in a roll in why the two men chased and shot the victim?
Has race played a role in why the case initially was not pursued?
If the races of the people in the scenario were reversed what would have happened? [/B]
Originally posted by Surtur
I just hope nobody on the jury will have fallen for this "it's racist" propaganda. Otherwise these guys have no chance at a fair judgement.
so basically if the jury does find cause to label it a hate crime, that means that they fell for propaganda. very convenient how these special rules always work to push your narrative
meanwhile they were not charged with a hate crime, "only" murder
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
so basically if the jury does find cause to label it a hate crime, that means that they fell for propaganda. very convenient how these special rules always work to push your narrativemeanwhile they were not charged with a hate crime, "only" murder
Not what I said, but just sit tight one of the usual suspects will be along shortly to agree with you.
And why would they be charged with a hate crime? Based on what evidence 🙂
It is possible there is evidence that hasn't been shown to the public that, when shown to the jurors, could convince them this was a hate crime.
But my point is that I hope none of these jurors comes into this already believing the McMichaels are racist due to propaganda that has been pushed out. I think we can all agree that would be an injustice.
Originally posted by Artol
[b]For the case the question is the fundamental one. Was the shooter legally justified. And if not, to what extend should they face legal repercussions.There is also a somewhat moral question about the case, which is, even if it was legally justified, should the law be framed in such a way that it this scenario can be justified.[/B]
At least, on the left, some have pointed out that "Stand-Your-Ground" laws are just excuses to kill black people and morally object to such laws.