Originally posted by Bashar Teg
Meanwhile no evidence of criminal intent, no evidence of criminal trespassing.
That's where you're wrong:
Originally posted by dadudemon
YouTube video
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
Meanwhile no evidence of criminal intent, no evidence of criminal trespassing.
That's where you're wrong:
Originally posted by dadudemon
YouTube video
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
(a) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she intentionally damages any property of another without consent of that other person and the damage thereto is $500.00 or less or knowingly and maliciously interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without consent of that person.[b]negative- no property was damaged, interfered with, or utilized
(b) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she knowingly and without authority:
(1) Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person for an unlawful purpose;
negative- no evidence of unlawful purpose
(2) Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant that such entry is forbidden; or
negative- no proof of prior notice given
(3) Remains upon the land or premises of another person or within the vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant to depart.
negative- he was chased down [b]after he left. no evidence that he was given any notice, even a verbal "hey you, you don't belong there, GTFO!"[/b]
(c) For the purposes of subsection (b) of this Code section, permission to enter or invitation to enter given by a minor who is or is not present on or in the property of the minor's parent or guardian is not sufficient to allow lawful entry of another person upon the land, premises, vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft owned or rightfully occupied by such minor's parent or guardian if such parent or guardian has previously given notice that such entry is forbidden or notice to depart.
N/A- subsection of the law for dealing with minors inviting the trespasser onto the property without consent of their guardian.
(d) A person who commits the offense of criminal trespass shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
WOW! okay wait...so was WRONG about it being felony. it's actually only a misdemeanor. lulz
(e) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she intentionally defaces, mutilates, or defiles any grave marker, monument, or memorial to one or more deceased persons who served in the military service of this state, the United States of America or any of the states thereof, or the Confederate States of America or any of the states thereof, or a monument, plaque, marker, or memorial which is dedicated to, honors, or recounts the military service of any past or present military personnel of this state, the United States of America or any of the states thereof, or the Confederate States of America or any of the states thereof if such grave marker, monument, memorial, plaque, or marker is privately owned or located on land which is privately owned.
obviously not relevant to this case
https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-16-crimes-and-offenses/ga-code-sect-16-7-21.html
now tell me more about your feelings and how they prove me wrong about georgia state laws [/B]
...and no evidence of criminal trespassing in your precious surveillance video, as was already noted several times. That's why arbery was never arrested in the first place, despite the video.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
...and no evidence of criminal trespassing in your precious surveillance video, as was already noted several times. [b]That's why arbery was never arrested in the first place, despite the video. [/B]
You're not paying attention. Try again:
Originally posted by dadudemon
YouTube video
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
That's why arbery was never arrested in the first place, despite the video.
Funniest shit in the thread. The police were literally called multiple times and were on their way. They arrived mere minutes after he was shot and killed.
Had Arbery just waited to physically confront the McMichael's just a few minutes, he'd be in jail instead of dead.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It's very clear he didn't watch the video.haermm
According to English, the McMichaels had not seen it either, so I do not know why you think that helps your argument, particularly when there 1.) nothing criminal on it, and 2.) English himself does not believe Arbrey is on the video.
Even if we presume for the sake of argument that it is Arbery on the video, and that the McMichaels saw it, 1.) misdemeanor trespassing is not a capital crime, 2.) the McMichaels are not judge, jury, and executioner, and 3.) that the McMichaels did not pursue any of the white trespassers, but did pursue the only black trespasser, suggests they had a prima facie racial bias.
So this does not really help your argument, no matter how you look at it.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
According to English, the McMichaels had not seen it either, so I do not know why you think that helps your argument, particularly when there 1.) nothing criminal on it, and 2.) English himself does not believe Arbrey is on the video.Even if we presume for the sake of argument that it is Arbery on the video, and that the McMichaels saw it, 1.) misdemeanor trespassing is not a capital crime, 2.) the McMichaels are not judge, jury, and executioner, and 3.) that the McMichaels did not pursue any of the white trespassers, but did pursue the only black trespasser, suggests they had a prima facie racial bias.
So this does not really help your argument, no matter how you look at it.
You don't even know what is argument is.
Originally posted by Silent Master
You don't even know what is argument is.
Nor have we been given any evidence English specifically alerted the McMichaels to the presence of white trespassers just like he did with Arbery.
So we have no evidence they were informed of white trespassers, were in a position to pursue them before it was too late, and just sat around and went "meh".
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
According to English, the McMichaels had not seen it either, so I do not know why you think that helps your argument, particularly when there 1.) nothing criminal on it, and 2.) English himself does not believe Arbrey is on the video.Even if we presume for the sake of argument that it is Arbery on the video, and that the McMichaels saw it, 1.) misdemeanor trespassing is not a capital crime, 2.) the McMichaels are not judge, jury, and executioner, and 3.) that the McMichaels did not pursue any of the white trespassers, but did pursue the only black trespasser, suggests they had a prima facie racial bias.
So this does not really help your argument, no matter how you look at it.
I've covered this angle, already. According to the McMichael's and the original prosecutor, the McMichael's had firsthand knowledge of the burglary (the prosecutor's words) and were in lawful pursuit.
It's unknown what is on the full 3 minutes of that video but seeing the video is unnecessary to make it a lawful pursuit.
It's up to the prosecutor and defense to prove for or against the first hand knowledge requirement. We, the public, don't have 2 or more videos.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I've covered this angle, already. According to the McMichael's and the original prosecutor, the McMichael's had firsthand knowledge of the burglary (the prosecutor's words) and were in lawful pursuit.It's unknown what is on the full 3 minutes of that video but seeing the video is unnecessary to make it a lawful pursuit.
It's up to the prosecutor and defense to prove for or against the first hand knowledge requirement. We, the public, don't have 2 or more videos.
And we have no clue if the McMichaels were alerted by English over white trespassers in the same way he alerted them over Arbery.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
According to English, the McMichaels had not seen it either, so I do not know why you think that helps your argument, particularly when there 1.) nothing criminal on it, and 2.) English himself does not believe Arbrey is on the video.Even if we presume for the sake of argument that it is Arbery on the video, and that the McMichaels saw it, 1.) misdemeanor trespassing is not a capital crime, 2.) the McMichaels are not judge, jury, and executioner, and 3.) that the McMichaels did not pursue any of the white trespassers, but did pursue the only black trespasser, suggests they had a prima facie racial bias.
So this does not really help your argument, no matter how you look at it.
also, McMichaels had no right to chase down any of the trespassers since there was no probable cause of criminal intent.
but sit back and watch ddm gaslight the issue, trying to misrepresent it as a "home invasion" and "breaking in", claiming that there is proof that he was "casing the joint", and trying desperately to misrepresent Georgia's laws concerning criminal trespassing.
Originally posted by Surtur
And we have no clue if the McMichaels were alerted by English over white trespassers. Ever.
English denied this.
Of course, phone records could easily prove or disprove that. But that's what English said. The McMichael's never said, that I know, that English contacted them. But they did talk about having a clear view of his property as they lived near his house.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
also, McMichaels had no right to chase down any of the trespassers since there was no probable cause of criminal intent.but sit back and watch ddm gaslight the issue, trying to misrepresent it as a "home invasion" and "breaking in", claiming that there is proof that he was "casing the joint", and trying desperately to misrepresent Georgia's laws concerning criminal trespassing.
Originally posted by dadudemon
YouTube video
Originally posted by Surtur
And we have no clue if the McMichaels were alerted by English over white trespassers in the same way he alerted them over Arbery.
According to English, the McMichaels were never alerted about trespassers. But that is irrelevant to the point. I was presenting a hypotethical argument that presumed the McMichaels had been alerted about trespassers as they claimed. That is their strongest position, that they had seen video evidence of the trespassers on English's property. Unfortunately for them, that sword cuts both ways, and they would have seen all of the trespassers.