Are the McMichaels victims of a biased media?

[colfax_m]

Really? How so?

Holding a firearm is not illegal.

TAKING a firearm from another who is in lawful possession is ILLEGAL. It's assault. And that is a serious threat to the life of the person in possession.

I would not have allowed Aubrey to get within 10 feet of me before smoking his ass. NEVER run at someone who is armed unless you intend to get shot.

Yeah, I don't know.

Maybe he wasn't just "holding a firearm".

Maybe he was chasing down a dude and using his firearm in a threatening manner to get him to detain him.

Like, it's not illegal to ask someone for $100. It's also not illegal to hold a firearm.

But if walk up to you with a shotgun in my hands and ask for $100, that's called armed robbery.

 

[Mac-7]

You determined they're "some asshole" because they said something you didn't like.

Something I disagree with

Just because a judge says it does not make it right

 

[SavannahMann]

The dedicated activist lib judges are legal frauds

And many of the repub appointees are not much better

I have no confidence on the legal system

When laws conflict the decision that joins or explains the separation is the precedent.

An example. Right now the Texas Abortion Law is being decided at the Supreme Court. It will be a precedent setting decision.

If they decide for Texas the Supreme Court will open a lot of similar laws and not just about Abortion. They will decide the 1908 precedent has dominion as Texas claims when they wrote the law.

If on the other hand they rule against Texas the precedent of Individual Rights and Federal Authority are predominant.

Which do you want to win?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yeah, I don't know.

Maybe he wasn't just "holding a firearm".

Right. He was holding a firearm and black guy didn't like it.

Maybe he was chasing down a dude and using his firearm in a threatening manner to get him to detain him.

I have seen you post on the Kyle Rittenhouse threads. You might want to reconsider or pick a position.

Like, it's not illegal to ask someone for $100. It's also not illegal to hold a firearm.

But if walk up to you with a shotgun in my hands and ask for $100, that's called armed robbery.

Is it illegal to ask somebody to stop to TALK to them while holding a firearm?

Is it considered an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury for someone to say "hey, we want to talk to you. Stop" while holding a firearm?

So far, NONE of the conduct described presents an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury BUT Aubrey attempting to violently take another person's firearm.

What would have happened if Aubrey got that shotgun?

You know good and goddamn well what would have happened, so don't sit here with your inconsistent bullshit and pretend you don't.

 

[colfax_m]

Something I disagree with

Just because a judge says it does not make it right

Who would let crazy things like facts get in the way of what you want to believe.

 

[SavannahMann]

There was no citzens arrest made....not sure what article you are referring to but irregardless it was not I that said that....whoever allegedly wrote that is responsible for it...just because I post something does no mean I subscribe to everything said in the article.

Then you state another falsehood...that i believe truth and right is based on skin color.....that is a well know liberal belief that you subscribe to...not me.

You certainly have gone on record believing that from way back with all your diatribe on trayvon martin being innocent just based on his skin color and now you repeat that with ahhmaud.

Neither case was in truth based on any racial motive except that trayvon may have attacked Z out of a racial or homophobic attitude....and it might be possible that Ahhmaud attacked Travis because he was white.

Even blacks themselves have said blacks are more racist than any other race on earth.

I do not know if you are black...but you are obviously just as biased as so many of them are when it comes down to a white man killing a black murder rucker....no matter the circumstances ...as in if it is a policeman being forced to shoot a black criminal or a white guy having to use lethal force to defend his life...you can allways count on the race hustlers to stir up the blacks to get them to to riot, loot and burn.

Thus in our sociery today what we see happening again and again is that race hustlers use the threat of rioting blacks to influence the criminal justice system

Why do you think the Georgia Political Establishment is so invested in railroading these innocent white men?

Simply comes down to money....as happens so often in our times....they realize if blacks do not get their way...the race hustlers may stir up the blacks in Atlanta to burn the city....and the establishmenr would thus incur huge financial losses.

Would you please make up your God Damned Mind? It is so hard to follow your logic.

You quote the District Attorney Barnes who says that the shooting was Self Defense because they were effecting a valid citizens arrest. I point out that Barnes was defending his law license for misconduct because he made that determination after deciding to recuse himself. Also I point out what the GBI and Precedent says.

Then you scream it wasn’t a citizens arrest and dare me to post the law without legalese.

Make up your god damned mind. You whip out proof that they are innocent and then scream that the counter proof is irrelevant.

Then you launch into your race hustler nonsense. I spoke out in agreement of the dismissal of the charges against the Bundy’s. Who were White.

I posted video in this thread of a woman shooting criminals. Who were black. In her home. I said that shooting was absolutely justified and used it as an example of a good self defense shooting in Georgia.

Unlike you. I don’t give a fuck what color someone is. I deal in the facts of the cases. The individual cases.

Chauvin was guilty not because the victim was black. But because he continued using a prohibited technique after the guy was dead. Or at least non responsive and absent a pulse.

Amber Guyger was guilty because she walked into the wrong apartment and killed the legal occupant. A location she had no business being in. It wouldn’t matter what color either of them were.

The case of Drejka. The attacker was backing away. He moved backwards when Drejka pulled his gun. The threat requiring lethal force was over. The bad guy was retreating. If Drejka had stopped there I would have called it a good example of the efficacy of personal weapons for self defense.

He didn’t stop. He hesitated and then pulled the trigger. The jury agreed. So far there hasn’t been any action on appeals so the courts agree.

Rittenhouse shot white guys. I thought he was in trouble when I heard he was too young to have the gun. So he’s fucked.

I thought it was entrapment in the case of Randy Weaver. The courts agreed. The jury agreed.

The person being screwed is not dependent upon their color. Nor their political belief. Weaver and Bundy are both asshats I’d never allow into my home.

But they were the ones abused by the law. So. I back them. It’s called integrity. Something we already know you are bereft of.

 

[colfax_m]

Is it considered an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury for someone to say "hey, we want to talk to you. Stop" while holding a firearm?

It is when you chase them down and get out of your truck to confront them with the firearm.

Is it an imminent threat to someone when holding a firearm and telling them to give you $100? Yes. Same principle.

 

[Mac-7]

Who would let crazy things like facts get in the way of what you want to believe.

Judges render personal opinions not facts

 

[Mac-7]

Which do you want to win?

Thats a tough question

Kavanaugh raised a big white flag

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Because trash talking ghetto libs piss me off and I wont play your game

Clean up your act if you want a civil response

Otherwise fuck off

Thats weak

Did travis call every black person the n-word or just criminals who tried to steal from him?

What did Ahmaud try to steal from Travis? You just make up the lies as you go because he is one of your racist brethren.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

You use racial slurs such as “redneck”

Does that make you a racist?

When did Redneck become a racist word?

 

[Persuader]

Would you please make up your God Damned Mind? It is so hard to follow your logic.

Bwaaaaaaaa

You quote the District Attorney Barnes who says that the shooting was Self Defense because they were effecting a valid citizens arrest. I point out that Barnes was defending his law license for misconduct because he madet that determination after deciding to recuse himself. Also I point out what the GBI and Precedent says.

I posted that to show intelligent people think it was obviously self defense....but I do not think it was because they were effecting a valid citizens arrest.

What you are missing is all the political b.s. involved in this case.....as a general rule when politicians get involved truth and justice go out the window.

Then you scream it wasn’t a citizens arrest and dare me to post the law without legalese.

Correct....I have only said that about a hundred times...look up what constitutes an arrest.

There was no arrest....if an arrest had been made ahhmaud would not have been running down the street on the way to committing suicide.

I asked you to post the law...just not pages of legalese....I do not care what others think about the law....I just want to see the law and that is all.

Do not even get me started on the GBI aka political police.

Make up your god damned mind. You whip out proof that they are innocent and then scream that the counter proof is irrelevant.

They are absolutely innocent...no doubt about that whatsoever.....even if all the b.s. you post about what happened before Ahhmaud attacked Travis was true....there is still no excuse for Ahhmaud to assault Travis.

Then you launch into your race hustler nonsense. I spoke out in agreement of the dismissal of the charges against the Bundy’s. Who were White.

The charges were not dismissed...the governor stepped in and gave them a pardon.

no
I posted video in this thread of a woman shooting criminals. Who were black. In her home. I said that shooting was absolutely justified and used it as an example of a good self defense shooting in Georgia.

Unfortunately not every case is so clear cut...but generally speaking you and your ilk want to whittle down our legitimate right for self-defense most especially in cases involving race or cases where you can inject race irregardless if it was racial or not.

Unlike you. I don’t give a fuck what color someone is. I deal in the facts of the cases. The individual cases.

I am sure you think you do but your bias sticks out like a sore thumb and that is very common of blacks...all too common that is why I usually put them on ignore.

Chauvin was guilty not because the victim was black. But because he continued using a prohibited technique after the guy was dead. Or at least non responsive and absent a pulse.

Chauvin died of natural causes....that was another miscarriage of justice.

Amber Guyger was guilty because she walked into the wrong apartment and killed the legal occupant. A location she had no business being in. It wouldn’t matter what color either of them were.
I go back to the old maxim in the legal world.....no criminal intent -- No crime.

She was found guilty simple because the victim was black.
She thought she was in her own apt. and the complex was at fault for allowing all the apartments to look the same....she made a mistake but an easy one to make and it happened before though no one was killed....I am sure this sort of thing happens all across the land...for whatever reason people get confused...most especially when apartments look alike...I have made the same mistake myself whilst staying in a hotel and getting off on the wrong floor.

The Universal Defense to a Crime: No Intent​

September 21, 2016 Bryan Hoeller

With rare exceptions, a criminal act is defined by two elements. Committing a prohibited act is one element. The second element is having the intent to do the prohibited act. Lack of criminal intent can be a strong defense to a crime.
There are exceptions to the rule. The most notable is engaging in sexual activity with a minor. For example, regardless of how old that girl at the bar looked, if an adult has sex with her and she is underage, he has committed a crime.
That being said, the presence of intent is what subjects a person to criminal liability as opposed to civil liability. If a person accidently starts a fire in his house and the house burns, no crime is committed. However, if a person intentionally burns the house to collect insurance money, then a crime has been committed. The presence of intent is an element the state has to prove before a person can be convicted of most crimes. The Texas General Statutes in Title 2, Sec 6 of the Penal Code states that, “… a person does not commit an offense unless he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence engages in conduct as the definition of the offense requires.”

The case of Drejka. The attacker was backing away. He moved backwards when Drejka pulled his gun. The threat requiring lethal force was over. The bad guy was retreating. If Drejka had stopped there I would have called it a good example of the efficacy of personal weapons for self defense.

He didn’t stop. He hesitated and then pulled the trigger. The jury agreed. So far there hasn’t been any action on appeals so the courts agree.

Another political case...the courts steer away from anything that might cause racial unrest.

First of all drejka did not have good counsel....he was a poor guy and not too bright but he did nothing illegal...unable to get good counsel for some reason...lots of lawyers now steer away from defending a white guy when the victim is black because many lawyers have political aspirations and it is very easy to get labeled a racist if you get a white guy off if he has killed a black.

The key factor in this case was the video...by playing it in slow motion the prosecutor had a easy time convincing the jury that drejka had more time to make a decision on whether to shoot or not than he actually did....that worked against him big time....also he got a lousy jury --a timid weak jury that the prosecutor intimidated with little problem banging on the table etc.

Another point was that the black guy was not actually retreating...what you see in the video is him recoiling at the sight of the pistol being whipped out...drejka was slow in a lot of ways but he was a fast draw.

Of course we will never know what the black guy would have done if had not got shot.

What is known is that he was still very,very close to drejka and I think there was a strong possibility he would have continued the attack if he had not got shot...he was very,very angry and you could see that as he stormed out of the store....asked no questions....just went on the attack.

A strong possibility he would have beaten drejka to death or at the very least seriously injured him.

This is another case also of if the victim had been white no one would have ever heard of this case except maybe on the local news.

Not even to mention if the shooter had been black....they would have given him the keys to the city and a medal for dispatching a thug with a history of violence.

Rittenhouse shot white guys. I thought he was in trouble when I heard he was too young to have the gun. So he’s fucked.

I thought it was entrapment in the case of Randy Weaver. The courts agreed. The jury agreed.

The person being screwed is not dependent upon their color. Nor their political belief. Weaver and Bundy are both asshats I’d never allow into my home.

But they were the ones abused by the law. So. I back them. It’s called integrity. Something we already know you are bereft of.

 

[colfax_m]

Judges render personal opinions not facts

Facts you don’t like magically become opinions so you can ignore them.

 

[Leviticus]

If he had suceeded and killed Travis with his own weapon he would have been guilty of murder as in the only way you can legally use lethal force in self defense is if you are in fear of your life.

and Travis was threatening him with a gun. If someone pulls out a gun but you wrestle it away from them its legal to shoot them as long as they not clearly retreating. If they still clearly indent harm, lethal force is justifed.

Also, Ihavent seen anything from before Travis pulled the gun. Does anyone have a link that clearly shows that he was being threatened

 

[Coyote]

The neighborhood had one of the biggest problems with property crime in the nation.

The police were getting so many complaints from that neighborhood they designated Gregory MacMichaels as the go to guy if anyone in the neighborhood was having a problem with trespassers, burglars etc.

BTW ahhmaud was not walking ...he was hauling ass...

Macs house is in sight of the house under question and he saw the neighbor making a phone call, he saw ahhmaud take off running, he recognized ahhmaud from the video of trespassers in said house....thus he pursued him to try and find out what the suspect was up to.

Ahhmaud was never cornered, never detained nor was he questioned.....thus you fail in attempting to create a false scenario.

One you obviously gobbled up from MSM propaganda.

Try and think for yourself...if you have any capability in that regards...do not let the biased media lead you around like a sheeple.

Actually that neighborhood have a big bunch of crimes. There was one burglary, of a house near McMichaels.

 

[Persuader]

and Travis was threatening him with a gun. If someone pulls out a gun but you wrestle it away from them its legal to shoot them as long as they not clearly retreating. If they still clearly indent harm, lethal force is justifed.

Also, Ihavent seen anything from before Travis pulled the gun. Does anyone have a link that clearly shows that he was being threatened

Travis had his shotgun out of the truck long before ahhmaud ran to them...You are inferring Travis suddenly pulled out his shotgun and was threatening ahhmaud with it.

That is not what happened....watch the video
.
When the video begins we see the Truck and the Macs with weapons at least a hundred yards down the road from ahhmaud...yet ahhmaud kept jogging towards them....not the behavior of someone in fear of their life.

In Georgia it is not illegal to own a shotgun nor is it illegal to stand on a road and hold a shotgun.

The shotgun was never pointed at ahhmaud till ahmaud tried to snatch it.

Ahhmuad--- thus was never threatened with the weapon.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Even hear all that bullshit is true (it's not), The fat white kid was in lawful possession of a firearm, and Aubrey attempted to take it from him.

An assault where the assailant attempts to take a firearm from the person in lawful possession is deadly as hell.

Hmmm, so explain why Travis exited his vehicle with a loaded shotgun.

 

[colfax_m]

Hmmm, so explain why Travis exited his vehicle with a loaded shotgun.

hE jUSt WAntEd tO TalK

 

[Persuader]

Actually that neighborhood have a big bunch of crime

That is just heresay...I posted the offical stats for Gwynn county and you have to go to the county to get a complete crime report.

Actually that neighborhood have a big bunch of crimes. There was one burglary, of a house near McMichaels.

That is just heresay....I posted the official crime stats for Gwynn County....you have to go to the county to get the complete crime stats.

Satila Shores is in Gwynn County....and when you read the stats you can easily see why the residents were so concerned about crime and why Larry English installed security cameras and why he called the police 4 times about trespassing activity at his home undergoing construction and why the police dept. deputized Gregory MacMichaels as the go to guy for anyone who had problems in the neighborhood.

Thus when you add it all together the Macs had enough reasons to pursue the suspect under the Citizens Arrest law at that time.

Do you think the Macs would have bothered to take out after ahhmaud if they had no reason to believe he was a legitmate suspect? Of course not.

Ahhmaud made 3 big mistakes....1. running in front of the house of the guy who was in charge of investigating what he had been doing in that neighborhood ....aka going on a construction site when he had no legitimate reason to be there etc.

2. Refusing to talk to the Macs when they drove up beside.. him.

The matter could have easily been cleared up with a little communication.

3. Attacking Travis

 

[Leviticus]

The question is whether or not Travis exited his vehicle with the wwapon because he saw ahhmaud jogging toward him. Ahhmaud clearly thought Travis was threatening him. We cant be sure about Travis' actual intent, since he never actually pointed the gun at Ahhmaud, but intent is key, and if it did ever come out that Travi intended to threaten or intimidate Ahhmaud, then manslaughter charges would be warranted,but until then, Travis was breaking no laws. The only factor that changes anything is Travis' intentions, which will be hard to prove in court, unless he slips up during questioing.