Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Telling someone to stop is not an effort or attempt to detain but simply to get the suspect to stop and talk to them to clear up what is was doing or not doing in that house.They attempted to detain him.
That’s enough.
When you’re chasing someone down with a gun and telling them to stop is coercive and anyone with half a mind knows that.Telling someone to stop is not an effort or attempt to detain but simply to get the suspect to stop and talk to them to clear up what is was doing or not doing in that house.
An attempt to detain would be to grab hold of someone and try to hold them.
The jury will have no problem seeing through the b.s. of attempting to detain.
They did not use their weapons to try and coerce ahhhhhmaud.....they brought their weapons not to coerce the suspect but for self defense as in has been explained they had reason to believe the suspect may have been armed.When you’re chasing someone down with a gun and telling them to stop is coercive and anyone with half a mind knows that.
Alright. Maybe if they had their firearms and didn’t chase him. Maybe if they had their firearms and didn’t try to confront him. Maybe if they had their firearms and didn’t try to order him.They did not use their weapons to try and coerce ahhhhhmaud.....they brought their weapons not to coerce the suspect but for self defense as in has been explained they had reason to believe the suspect may have been armed.
As has been explained many times on here already the weapons were not visible to the suspect until the McMichaels had pulled about 100 yrs. ahead of ahhhmaud.They did not use their weapons to try and coerce ahhhhhmaud.....they brought their weapons not to coerce the suspect but for self defense as in has been explained they had reason to believe the suspect may have been armed.
If when they pulled up beside ahhhmaud and rolled down their window to talk to him and pointed their weapons at him or even displayed them then you could call that an act of coercion....but that did not happen....the weapons were not displayed at that time and ahhhmaud had no reason to believe they were armed at that time.Alright. Maybe if they had their firearms and didn’t chase him. Maybe if they had their firearms and didn’t try to confront him. Maybe if they had their firearms and didn’t try to order him.
Maybe then you’d have a point.
But they didn’t. They chased a man, ordered him to stop and did so while armed and no one in their right mind would take that as anything other then an act of force.
But they did display the firearm. Just before Arbery died, they got in front of him, stopped in the middle of the road, and got out of the truck with the shotgun in hand to confront him.If when they pulled up beside ahhhmaud and rolled down their window to talk to him and pointed their weapons at him or even displayed them then you could call that an act of coercion....but that did not happen....the weapons were not displayed at that time and ahhhmaud had no reason to believe they were armed at that time.
If it was an attempt at coercion it obviously did not work....ahhhmaud just kept on ruuning towards them and then attacked Travis even though he was holding a shotgun.But they did display the firearm. Just before Arbery died, they got in front of him, stopped in the middle of the road, and got out of the truck with the shotgun in hand to confront him.
So I guess you’d have to agree with me that we call it an act of coercion.
Having a gun in a rack is far different than what happened here.Georgia citizens have the right to be armed.....people carry weapons on a rack by the rear window in their trucks.....are they trying to coerce anyone?
Now you have left all logic and common sense behind.Having a gun in a rack is far different than what happened here.
If I approached you with a shotgun and said “give me your wallet”, would I be committing armed robbery? Yes. I’m ordering you to do something with a gun clearly in hand indicating the imminent threat of force is present. I look forward to your argument saying such an approach is not armed robbery given it is not illegal to say “give me your wallet” and the gun was perhaps only there for self defense.
And are you going to ignore that the McMichael’s had already been engaged in pursuit of Arbery by the time they had parked the truck and that doing so, in the middle of the street, was clearly a component of that chase?Now you have left all logic and common sense behind.
First of all...after the McMichaels had parked their truck and Greg was on the phone with the police they were about 100 yrs. in front of the suspect....thus he approached them and not vice versa.....he ran up to them and attacked Travis....the video clearly shows that.
Nothing that happened before justified ahhhhmaud's assault on Travis.
If you went back and actually read the posts you should have a better understanding of what went down that day.
No they broke off the chase when they left ahhmaud behind....and proceeded way down the road and parked their truck and Greg got on his phone to the police.And are you going to ignore that the McMichael’s had already been engaged in pursuit of Arbery by the time they had parked the truck and that doing so, in the middle of the street, was clearly a component of that chase?
The reason he got out of the truck with the gun as Arbery came up was to confront him. There is no doubt. Or was it merely a coincidence?
That contradicts the statement they gave to the police at the scene indicating they drove down the street and parked it in an attempt to intercept him.No they broke off the chase when they left ahhmaud behind....and proceeded way down the road and parked their truck and Greg got on his phone to the police.
The Truck was not in the middle of the street. If they had wanted to try and block ahhmauds approach they would have parked it length-wise across the street.
At this point they were content to wait for the police and keep the suspect under observation.
Since ahhhmaud had refused to talk to them their motive at this time had changed to keep the suspect under observation and wait on the police who had been dispatched and were very close
The reason he took the shotgun with him when he exited the truck was for self protection.
That contradicts the statement they gave to the police at the scene indicating they drove down the street and parked it in an attempt to intercept him.
And leaving the truck with a gun in hand is further evidence that was their purpose. There’s no need to get out of the truck if your only intention is to merely observe.
You’re making things up, and it’s bad cover.
thelawdictionary.org
Their intent was to detain them person and since they had no legal right to do so, it certainly was criminal intent.I think you are referring to the point when they first caught up with the suspect.....they had tried to intercept him so to speak at that time....it would have made no sense to leave him behind and drive way down the road....since they did not know where he might run to next....when they first caught up with him if they had wanted to arrest him that was when they would have got out of the truck and pointed their weapons at him and told him to get on the ground the way cops do and Greg had been one for 30 yrs. and surely had gone through that routine many times.
And another point Greg was on the phone with his back to the suspect ....hardly the position he would have been in if they were going to attempt a interception.
Also....as pointed out when Greg was making a statement to the police regarding what had transpired he was in a state of shock due to the trauma and somewhat confused....saying as he was trying to remember and tell the cops exactly how it all went down ....saying....it is all a blur it happened so quickly or woids to that effect.
Another thing to consider............in the legal world there is a old maxim............no criminal intent....no crime.
They certainly had no criminal intent and in fact were trying to do the right thing by helping protect the neighborhood.
As Greg said much later.....'no good deed goes unpunished'
CRIMINAL INTENT Definition & Meaning - Black's Law Dictionary
Definition of Criminal Intent: Criminal intent is a necessary component of a “conventional” crime and involves a conscious decision on the part of one party to injure or deprive another.
Their intent was to detain them person and since they had no legal right to do so, it certainly was criminal intent.
And no, the police statement indicated they were attempting to intercept Arbery by driving down the street in the direction he was heading. Arbery had changed directions to evade them and then changed back to evade Roddy.
And again, if the intent was to observe, they wouldn’t have gotten out of the truck with a gun shouting to stop. If you don’t believe their own words, their actions give plenty of evidence.
Liar, they never broke off the chase until Arbery was dead.No they broke off the chase when they left ahhmaud behind....and proceeded way down the road and parked their truck and Greg got on his phone to the police.
The Truck was not in the middle of the street. If they had wanted to try and block ahhmauds approach they would have parked it length-wise across the street.
At this point they were content to wait for the police and keep the suspect under observation.
Since ahhhmaud had refused to talk to them their motive at this time had changed to keep the suspect under observation and wait on the police who had been dispatched and were very close
The reason he took the shotgun with him when he exited the truck was for self protection.
Still unexplained in this silly attempt to revise history is why:When they began the pursuit their intent was to make a ciitizens arrest...but for whatever reason they obviously changed their minds as in no citizens arrest was made.
No -it was legal under the Citizens Arrest law......and regarding their alleged words that is your interpetation.
From what I have read they said at that stage their intent was to observe and report to the police the suspects location....that is why Greg was on the phone with the cops...they knew the cops had been dispatched and not that far away hence they no longer felt any need to intervene and simply were waiting on the police and were content to let the cops deal with the suspect.
Not even to mention Roddy was right behind ahhberry recording ahbery jogging down the road towards the McMichaels....thus ahbery had not eluded him as you say.....in a nutshell you make no sense.
In essence what you have done is to buy into the media hysteria and their agenda of turning this incident into a racial incident which they do at every opportunity....though race played no role in this case.
If Gregory had a racial agenda he would never have lasted for 30 yrs. as a policeman.
Police depts. and especially those down South weed out any overtly racist personnel.
I have read that Gregory McMichaels said that when they left to pursue the suspect they intended to make a citizens arrest...but they did not....why not? I do not know....apparantly he changed his mind.Still unexplained in this silly attempt to revise history is why:
1. They told police initially they were trying to intercept him when they confronted him
2. Why he left the pickup with a gun, turned towards Arbery and stood in his path if they were merely intent on observing
How is a chase going on when their truck is parked and Travis is out of the Truck and Greg is in the bed of the pickup?Liar, they never broke off the chase until Arbery was dead.
