Originally posted by Silent Master
You melting down and crying rather than answering the question has been noted.
I think he was talking about me. Just going off this exchange:
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
then why are you trying to argue for justifiable homicide? why all the hostile agreement? 😂
Originally posted by Surtur
I never argued for it.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
arguing that mcmichaels had previous knowledge of the second unreported B&E on english's property is a plea for justifiable criminal suspicion which in turn argues for justifiable homicide.as it stands, mcmichaels seems to have had no cause to suspect criminal intent.
if we agree on these points, why in gods name have we been arguing over those points?
Originally posted by Surtur
Not what I'm saying, I've said even if they knew he was a thief they shouldn't have pursued. I was not saying it's possible he knew about the theft because I felt that should be some legal defense, but merely as a possible explanation for why they said what they did about the number of break-ins and burglaries.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
okay, but if they hypothetically knew he was a thief, that would strengthen the case for justifiable homicide. B&E is a felony, so they could argue that they were in the right for pursuing him (remember, we're talking about georgia) and subsequently killing him in 'self defense' .conversely trespassing of the non-criminal variety (entering/leaving property while causing no damage and stealing nothing) is not a criminal offense, thus there would be no cause to apprehend.
more time waster troll loop? cool
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
okay, but if they hypothetically knew he was a thief, that would strengthen the case for justifiable homicide. B&E is a felony, so they could argue that they were in the right for pursuing him (remember, we're talking about georgia) and subsequently killing him in 'self defense' .
oh s&m. is there any sheetrock left on your walls, or did you punch it all away?
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
re: first link:Barnhill argued in his recusal letter that the McMichaels had “solid first hand probable cause” that Arbery was a burglary suspect. Barnhill did not elaborate on what that probable cause was or how he’d reached that conclusion, although two thefts had occurred in the neighborhood in the first two months of the year. One was a theft of $2,500 worth of fishing equipment from English’s property, [b]which he said he didn’t report to police
but confirmed to The Daily Beast. The second report was of the theft of a 9mm handgun from Travis McMichael’s unlocked truck, which was first obtained by the Brunswick News.so exactly like whirly said: one actual reported crime and one after-rhe-fact excuse with nothing to substantiate. should I waste my time reading through the rest? maybe later. [/B]
I have a hard time believing someone would not report the theft of $2,500 worth of equipment. Especially, someone who has surveillance equipment on his property.
If he has insurance, he would need a police report in order to file a claim. And if he does not have insurance, filing a police report so detectives will investigate is his only hope of getting his property back.
Sounds like a post hoc rationalization to me.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
could be. also plausible that the cameras were a result of liability paranoia. trespasser gets hurt on his property and sues/wins
Construction sites often have unsecured tools and materials, so it is common for them to have security cameras.
What is suspicious is the notion that he had $2,500 worth of equipment stolen and did not file a police report when a police report is necessary to recoup the stolen equipment or its material value.
as I speculated, it could be one of those cases where he didn't want the police involved, like if he knew the person and didn't want them arrested, or perhaps he stashed his weed in his tacklebox
but I agree that it's worth questioning, however I don't think English is obligated to answer
either way it appears that McMichaels had no knowledge of said unreported theft of English's property
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
as I speculated, it could be one of those cases where he didn't want the police involved, like if he knew the person and didn't want them arrested, or perhaps he stashed his weed in his tackleboxbut I agree that it's worth questioning, however I don't think English is obligated to answer
either way it appears that McMichaels had no knowledge of said unreported theft of English's property
I would think that one would only wish to not involve the police if he is involved in illegal activity or is trying to shield someone who is, e.g. if he obtained the equipment illegally in the first place, or a friend or relative stole the equipment and pawned it.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I would think that one would only wish to not involve the police if he is involved in illegal activity or is trying to shield someone who is, e.g. if he obtained the equipment illegally in the first place, or a friend or relative stole the equipment and pawned it.
Yeah, but then if that is the case why tell the media you were robbed?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I would think that one would only wish to not involve the police if he is involved in illegal activity or is trying to shield someone who is, e.g. if he obtained the equipment illegally in the first place, or a friend or relative stole the equipment and pawned it.
also possible. agreed