Originally posted by Robtard
No lying to be had, it's right there in the story.You argued that the McMichaels had seen the video of Arbery in the construction site. It's on this page. Now it's a different video...
So I'm a liar, but you can just be wrong. Legit lol'd at that.
Who wants to tell Robtard what my post actually said? He clearly didn't read it. 🙂
Once again i might have missed something, but is there any proof of Ahmaud actually committing burglary, and/or the Mcmichaels having first hand knowledge of it outside of the statements from the DA that had 2 recuse himself due 2 a conflict of interest, who was basically stating his vague opinion on how things appeared 2 him, in a video that the rest of us haven't seen, before he had 2 recuse himself?
Originally posted by Raptor22
Once again i might have missed something, but is there any proof of Ahmaud actually committing burglary
Yes and no. We don't know. We only got shown a 3 second clip of a 3 minute clip where he entered a home (he was inside the home for 3 minutes)). Under Georgia law, you do not have to anything to commit burglary just intent to burgle.
As I've said before, if he rummaged through anything, it's burglary.
Originally posted by Raptor22
...and/or the Mcmichaels having first hand knowledge of it outside of the statements from the DA that had 2 recuse himself due 2 a conflict of interest, who was basically stating his vague opinion on how things appeared 2 him, in a video that the rest of us haven't seen, before he had 2 recuse himself?
Not just that, the McMichael's claimed he matched the appearance of the previous burglar.
That will either save the McMichael's or get their ass sent to prison for voluntary homicide. Because if they lied, it's a heaping scoop of ammunition the prosecutor has to convince the jury of dishonest intentions. This is what people were arguing about, before: the defense needs to make the argument that they had first-hand knowledge in order to justify the "lawful pursuit."
Here's a photo of the lawfirm handling Arbery's case:
Regardless of what anyone thinks about the case, this is awesome. We've come a long way since pre-Civil Rights Era. Still more progress needs to be made.
Their defense better come up with a very good reason why they had to shoot a reportedly unarmed man three times.
Originally posted by Raptor22
Once again i might have missed something, but is there any proof of Ahmaud actually committing burglary, and/or the Mcmichaels having first hand knowledge of it outside of the statements from the DA that had 2 recuse himself due 2 a conflict of interest, who was basically stating his vague opinion on how things appeared 2 him, in a video that the rest of us haven't seen, before he had 2 recuse himself?
clearly you were not paying attention to ddm's memez
Originally posted by Raptor22
Once again i might have missed something, but is there any proof of Ahmaud actually committing burglary, and/or the Mcmichaels having first hand knowledge of it outside of the statements from the DA that had 2 recuse himself due 2 a conflict of interest, who was basically stating his vague opinion on how things appeared 2 him, in a video that the rest of us haven't seen, before he had 2 recuse himself?
Arbery's lawyer is saying nothing was stolen and the owner of the property is saying nothing was stolen. He entered, looked around and left after a very short time:
owner showed surveillance footage to Arbery’s aunt, who identified her nephew, but said that he was simply interested in the bones of the house. On May 9, CNN affiliate WJXT published the surveillance footage in question. It shows a young man, believed to be Arbery, briefly wandering around a construction site before continuing to jog down the road. “This video is consistent with the evidence already known to us,” lawyers for the Arbery family told CNN. “Ahmaud Arbery was out for a jog. He stopped by a property under construction where he engaged in no illegal activity and remained for only a brief period.” -snip
Originally posted by dadudemonthis is whats so confusing. What did the Mcmichaels actually see or know? They say they recognized him from videos from previous burglaries. What videos?
Yes and no. We don't know. We only got shown a 3 second clip of a 3 minute clip where he entered a home (he was inside the home for 3 minutes)). Under Georgia law, you do not have to anything to commit burglary just intent to burgle.As I've said before, if he rummaged through anything, it's burglary.
Not just that, the McMichael's claimed he matched the appearance of the previous burglar.
That will either save the McMichael's or get their ass sent to prison for voluntary homicide. Because if they lied, it's a heaping scoop of ammunition the prosecutor has to convince the jury of dishonest intentions. This is what people were arguing about, before: the defense needs to make the argument that they had first-hand knowledge in order to justify the "lawful pursuit."
Is the 3 min video we haven't seen yet one of the older motion captured ones from mr English, or from someone/somewhere else?
"Mr. English wants to correct the mistaken impression that he had shared this video or any other information with the McMichaels prior to the McMichaels’ decision to chase Mr. Arbery. The homeowners had not even seen the February 23 video before Travis McMichael shot Mr. Arbery. When homeowner Larry English saw the photos of Mr. Arbery that were later broadcast, his first impression was that Mr. Arbery was not the man captured on video inside the house on February 23, and he said that to a neighbor.
In the months prior to February 23, a motion-activated camera had captured videos of someone inside the house (which was and remains a construction site) at night. Mr. English has never said that Mr. Arbery was the person or persons in those videos, and he does not see a resemblance now. After the first time that video captured someone in the house, Mr. English contacted local law enforcement on a non-emergency number and made them aware of the unauthorized entry onto his property. He never used the word "burglary." He never shared any of this information with the McMichaels, whom he did not even know. Nothing was ever stolen from the house -- which, again, was a construction site"
I get the if he rummaged part. Im just wondering if we have any actual proof of rummaging outside of the recused DA's vague opinion on what appeared to him to have happened in the vid we havent seen.
A few myths have been busted by the autopsy:
1. He was wearing sneakers: same ones we saw him in when he cased that home under construction. He did NOT change into work boots like was being stated.
2. The hammer was on the ground before Arbery got to the scene: Arbery didn't throw it like was claimed.
3. Also, the report of the slender black man that trespassed multiple times into English's house in October 2019 is not Arbery (I didn't know about this myth swirling around). That person, though matching height and build, also had tattoos, had a lighter complexion, and dreads. Arbery is confirmed to be the one in the home on Feb 23rd 2020, but not the man from October 2019.
That's a lot of rumors cleared up!
So now it comes down to whether or not Arbery rummaged through stuff at that house. If he did not, the McMichael's pursuit is unjustified and they are guilty of a manslaughter charge (perhaps it would downgrade from voluntary to involuntary, depending on the secretive third video).
And the debunkers and collectors of these rumors? A right-wing media source (so you can be sure that this is pretty solid information by this point if even the right-wingers are stating this stuff):
Haven't heard about the boot claim. But in the video still you can see Arbery is wearing some kind of low-cut shoe, not a boot.
We knew the hammer belonging to Arbery and being stolen was BS yesterday, as English went on record saying nothing was stolen.
English had also noted that he personally didn't believe that was Arbery when he went on record.
It's all in the post/story I posted yesterday:
Originally posted by Robtard
Homeowner’s attorney, Arbery family’s attorney respond to new videoBRUNSWICK, Ga. (WTOC) - An attorney representing the homeowner of a construction site involved in the Ahmaud Arbery case issued a statement condemning the actions taken by Gregory and Travis McMichael.
A brief surveillance clip appears to show a man that looks like Arbery inside the home minutes before he was killed on Feb. 23. A neighbor called 911 and reported someone in the home that afternoon; the home was under construction and not locked.
Minutes later, responding officers found Arbery in the middle of the road, shot to death by Travis McMichael. Another video captured the shooting. The public release of that video last week sparked nationwide attention and calls for immediate arrests.
[b]The McMichaels told responding officers that they chased Arbery because they thought he was responsible for recent break-ins in the neighborhood. However, the only theft reported to police involved a gun stolen from Travis McMichael’s unlocked truck, according to reports provided to WTOC by the Glynn County Police Department.
The revelation of this new video showing a man that looks like Arbery inside the home prompted the GBI to respond. The agency confirmed they had the video as evidence but pointed out they had it before arresting the McMichaels.
Below is the entire statement from the homeowner’s attorney, J. Elizabeth Graddy:
"Mr. English wants to correct the mistaken impression that he had shared this video or any other information with the McMichaels prior to the McMichaels’ decision to chase Mr. Arbery. The homeowners had not even seen the February 23 video before Travis McMichael shot Mr. Arbery. When homeowner Larry English saw the photos of Mr. Arbery that were later broadcast, his first impression was that Mr. Arbery was not the man captured on video inside the house on February 23, and he said that to a neighbor.
In the months prior to February 23, a motion-activated camera had captured videos of someone inside the house (which was and remains a construction site) at night. Mr. English has never said that Mr. Arbery was the person or persons in those videos, and he does not see a resemblance now. After the first time that video captured someone in the house, Mr. English contacted local law enforcement on a non-emergency number and made them aware of the unauthorized entry onto his property. He never used the word "burglary." He never shared any of this information with the McMichaels, whom he did not even know. Nothing was ever stolen from the house -- which, again, was a construction site. Even if there had been a robbery, however, the English family would not have wanted a vigilante response. They would have entrusted the matter to law enforcement authorities. On February 23, the English family was two hours away from the Satilla Shores neighborhood andwas unaware of the tragedy that was unfolding. Mr. English was not the one who called 911 on February 23. The only crime that the homeowner has seen captured on video is the senseless killing of Mr. Arbery." -snip
Very interesting.
The McMichael's lawyers are going to have some explaining to do, as there apparently wasn't a 'series of break-ins' in the neighborhood which is the reason the McMichaels said they chased down Arbery in the first place, aside from a gun stolen from Michael's unlocked truck. Which is just irresponsible, if you keep a gun in your car, lock it up, a kid could get in there. They were also seemingly not aware of the video in which it could or could not be Arbery in the construction site. [/B]
Originally posted by Surtur
So after all this it appears that those who concluded this was a case of two racist white men hunting down a black guy were quite wrong.
How do you figure? The McMichaels' defense is crumbling. There were no burglaries. They were not shown the video. The owner does not even think it is the victim on the video. Not to mention that no crime is committed on the video. So what is their defense to murdering an unarmed black man?
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
How do you figure? The McMichaels' defense is crumbling. There were no burglaries. They were not shown the video. The owner does not even think it is the victim on the video. Not to mention that no crime is committed on the video. So what is their defense to murdering an unarmed black man?
Burden of proof is on those claiming it's racist. So far we have no evidence that was the motivation.
Originally posted by dadudemon
A few myths have been busted by the autopsy:1. He was wearing sneakers: same ones we saw him in when he cased that home under construction. He did NOT change into work boots like was being stated.
2. The hammer was on the ground before Arbery got to the scene: Arbery didn't throw it like was claimed.
3. Also, the report of the slender black man that trespassed multiple times into English's house in October 2019 is not Arbery (I didn't know about this myth swirling around). That person, though matching height and build, also had tattoos, had a lighter complexion, and dreads. Arbery is confirmed to be the one in the home on Feb 23rd 2020, but not the man from October 2019.
That's a lot of rumors cleared up!
So now it comes down to whether or not Arbery rummaged through stuff at that house. If he did not, the McMichael's pursuit is unjustified and they are guilty of a manslaughter charge (perhaps it would downgrade from voluntary to involuntary, depending on the secretive third video).
And the debunkers and collectors of these rumors? A right-wing media source (so you can be sure that this is pretty solid information by this point if even the right-wingers are stating this stuff):
I read the article. So you can only try a citizens arrest if the crime you are going after them for is a felony. Doing some research it seems theft is only a felony in Georgia if what you're stealing is worth more than $500. So it really does seem like they had no legal reason to go after him.
IMO these were a pair of stupid wannabe vigilantes. Even if he began struggling with them it's still a situation they created. They need to get rid of citizens arrest laws all together because I'm sure most people are not familiar with the specifics of the law.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
How do you figure? The McMichaels' defense is crumbling. There were no burglaries. They were not shown the video. The owner does not even think it is the victim on the video. Not to mention that no crime is committed on the video. So what is their defense to murdering an unarmed black man?
Capital punishment is a legal in GA. Though I highly doubt they'd get that.
Originally posted by Surturits weird that u need 100% proof to lable someone a racist, but u had no problem with people labeling Ahmaud a burgler and justifying his killing because of it without even close to 100% evidence.
Burden of proof is on those claiming it's racist. So far we have no evidence that was the motivation.
"Just dipshits claiming this is racist with no proof, no other problems besides that."- surt
"So yes it needs to be proven. 100%"- surt