Are the McMichaels victims of a biased media?

[Persuader]

Why do they need to be mutually exclusive?

Lack of respect for human life needs to be stricken from our society and I am talking about much more than just the horrors of abortion.

 

[Faun]

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.

Pulling a gun on Arbery was an aggravated assault over which Arbery was within his legal right to stand his ground.

 

[Faun]

What evidence is that that macmichaels are racists?

There's evidence that Travis McMichael is racist by him calling Arbery a "fucking n*****"

 

[Faun]

Something I disagree with

Just because a judge says it does not make it right

Because you know the law better in Georgia than a judge who serves on the bench in Georgia, right?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Pulling a gun on Arbery was an aggravated assault over which Arbery was within his legal right to stand his ground.

But, he didn't stand his ground. He ran at the fat kid.

 

[Faun]

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

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

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.

"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?"

After chasing them for over minutes, hitting them with a car and preventing them from leaving your neighborhood?

Hell yes.

 

[Faun]

But, he didn't stand his ground. He ran at the fat kid.

Imbecile, in Georgia, that's called stand your ground.

 

[colfax_m]

He was in essence deputized.....as the police informed the citizens of the neighborhood if they had any problems call Gregory MacMichaels as he was a former law enforcement officer (look up the definition of deputize if you doubt me)and criminal investigator....not even to mention the law on citizens arrest.

Thus they were entitled to make a citizens arrest and that is what Greg said they intended to do when they began the pursuit.

Though for whatever reason or reasons they did not make a citizens arrest.

Most likely Greg just decided to let the police handle it...thus he was on the phone with the cops describing the situation and where they were and where the suspect was.

“In essence” is meaningless. He had no extra legal authority and never claimed to.

He had no right to make any form of citizens arrest. Attempting to make an arrest without legal justification is a felony. Any death that results as a past of a commission of a felony is murder.

 

[Persuader]

“In essence” is meaningless. He had no extra legal authority and never claimed to.

He had no right to make any form of citizens arrest. Attempting to make an arrest without legal justification is a felony. Any death that results as a past of a commission of a felony is murder.

I think it will have a lot of meaning as the jury ponders the case and that combined with the citizens arrest law will give the Macs reasonable cause to pursue the suspect.

The police dept. besieged with complaints in Santila Shores regarding trespassing and burglaries told a homeowner he could rely on Greg for help with any trespassers on his under-construction property.
Greg is retired Law Enforcement and also a retired investigator from the DAs Office. The police said please call him day or night when you get action on your [surveillance] camera.

The homeowner had shared surveillance footage with the officer by text because his home had been repeatedly trespassed.

Gregory McMichael and Travis McMichael have hired separate lawyers; attorneys for Gregory's attorney emphasized that their client was charged as a party to his sons alleged crime. Both legal teams have suggested, however, that there are yet-to-be-reported facts that will exonerate their clients.

Its unclear why the police department would deputize a retired officer rather than recommending their own services.

'We believe this communication between the police and the homeowner deputized a group of men in the Satilla Shores community to hunt down suspected trespassers, causing the events of Feb. 23, 2020, S. Lee Merritt, one of two attorneys representing Arberys family, told the New York Times Friday.'

https://www.pertaland.com/[

As expected, the current law governing citizen’s arrests was significantly altered by the General Assembly after the ahhbery incident

HB 479 will repeal the portion of the law that allows a private person to arrest someone if that person witnessed, or was told about, a crime, or if someone suspected of
committing a felony is trying to escape.

Though the mcmichaels cannot be charged under the new law...the old law will be the one that will be used in the trial.​

 

[colfax_m]

I think it will have a lot of meaning as the jury ponders the case and that combined with the citizens arrest law will give the Macs reasonable cause to pursue the suspect.

If the jury is properly instructed on the law, it will be meaningless. “Basically” deputized is meaningless and gives them no police powers and the McMichael’s didn’t then and won’t now claim they did.

 

[SavannahMann]

Why do they need to be mutually exclusive?

Ok, this is obviously complicated for you. So let’s try and explain it.

The state of Texas is arguing that they are not depriving people of their rights to an Abortion under Roe V. Wade. The Lawsuits that are being filed are individual ones. Since the 1908 Ruling prohibits States from taking the action to deprive a right, or be subject to Judicial Review, they can’t be sued. If Texas can’t be sued, then nobody can sue to get the law ruled unconstitutional.

The Government is arguing that all rights are individual. And that Texas can be sued because the Government has a duty to defend those rights. Further, the courts can issue orders based upon the defense of those rights.

If you side with Texas on the SB8 you are arguing that rights are not individual, and a clever lawyer can craft a law that deprives people of the rights, without any recourse to the lost rights. If you believe that rights are individual, then you agree that Texas has violated the Constitution, and can be ordered by the Courts to cease and desist immediately.

 

[Persuader]

If the jury is properly instructed on the law, it will be meaningless. “Basically” deputized is meaningless and gives them no police powers and the McMichael’s didn’t then and won’t now claim they did.

It will allow the jurors to understand the state of mind of the Macs as they began the pursuit of the suspect....as pointed out before jurors are not lawyers and not that interested in the minutia of the law.

The jurors will be more interested in the logic and common sense regarding the motivation of the Macs to pursue the suspect.

To the common person and that is what most jurors are...just common people....it will be obvious that the Macs had reasonable cause to pursue the suspect and to arrest him via the citizens arrest law...though no arrest was made.

Which will give the Macs more credibility as in they were observing the suspect and waiting on the police.

 

[colfax_m]

It will allow the jurors to understand the state of mind of the Macs as they began the pursuit of the suspect....as pointed out before jurors are not lawyers and not that interested in the minutia of the law.

The jurors will be more interested in the logic and common sense regarding the motivation of the Macs to pursue the suspect.

To the common person and that is what most jurors are...just common people....it will be obvious that the Macs had reasonable cause to pursue the suspect and to arrest him via the citizens arrest law...though no arrest was made.

Which will give the Macs more credibility as in they were observing the suspect and waiting on the police.

The state of mind of the "Macs" is irrelevant. They can be well intentioned and still committed felonies.

The jurors HAVE to be interested in the minutia of the law, that is why jury instructions are so critical. They cannot find based on their feelings of people, they have to find on the facts and law.

The McMichael's have no grounds to claim they could have made a citizens arrest. They need more than probable cause, the crime must have been committed in their presence or with their immediate knowledge and no such thing happened.

 

[SavannahMann]

It will allow the jurors to understand the state of mind of the Macs as they began the pursuit of the suspect....as pointed out before jurors are not lawyers and not that interested in the minutia of the law.

The jurors will be more interested in the logic and common sense regarding the motivation of the Macs to pursue the suspect.

To the common person and that is what most jurors are...just common people....it will be obvious that the Macs had reasonable cause to pursue the suspect and to arrest him via the citizens arrest law...though no arrest was made.

Which will give the Macs more credibility as in they were observing the suspect and waiting on the police.

I sincerely doubt the Jury will disregard the law, and precedents, and common sense to the level required to agree with you.

 

[Persuader]

The state of mind of the "Macs" is irrelevant. They can be well intentioned and still committed felonies.ver

never forget that old maxim in the legal world.....no criminal intent....no crime

The jurors HAVE to be interested in the minutia of the law, that is why jury instructions are so critical. They cannot find based on their feelings of people, they have to find on the facts and law.

The McMichael's have no grounds to claim they could have made a citizens arrest. They need more than probable cause, the crime must have been committed in their presence or with their immediate knowledge and no such thing happened.

Any good lawyer understands that juries have minds of their own and a good jury will seek justice....they know that they will have to live the rest of their lives remembering what they have done and no one wants to send some innocent men to jail based on the accusations of some pissant lawyers bowing to political correctness and a corrupt establishment that is more interested in their financial prospects aka protecting their financial investments as in--- they care not if some innocent men get railroaded.

 

[colfax_m]

never forget that old maxim in the legal world.....no criminal intent....no crime

Any good lawyer understands that juries have minds of their own and a good jury will seek justice....they know that they will have to live the rest of their lives remembering what they have done and no one wants to send some innocent men to jail based on the accusations of some pissant lawyers bowing to political correctness and a corrupt establishment that is more interested in their financial prospects aka protecting their financial investments as in--- they care not if some innocent men get railroaded.

The jury must find on the law. You're suggesting they ignore it.

That's not justice.

 

[Persuader]

The state of mind of the "Macs" is irrelevant. They can be well intentioned and still committed felonies.

The jurors HAVE to be interested in the minutia of the law, that is why jury instructions are so critical. They cannot find based on their feelings of people, they have to find on the facts and law.

The McMichael's have no grounds to claim they could have made a citizens arrest. They need more than probable cause, the crime must have been committed in their presence or with their immediate knowledge and no such thing happened.

You lack a good understanding of the law on citizens arrest that existed at that time....
The citizens arrest law that allowed a private person to arrest someone if that person witnessed, or was told about, a crime, or someone was suspected of a felony.

 

[Persuader]

The jury must find on the law. You're suggesting they ignore it.

That's not justice.

Not at all...you have your interpetation of the law and the jury will also.......justice involves much more than a blind obediance to what a corrupt prosecution team will try to con the jury into believing.

Even Supreme Court justices disagree on what the law is....you think jurors do not have the right to disagree with lame ass state prosecutors who have no scruples about sending innocent men to jail based on politics and the desires of the wealthy elites.

You need to learn to think for yourself and cease parroting the msm propaganda.

 

[colfax_m]

You lack a good understanding of the law on citizens arrest that existed at that time....
The citizens arrest law that allowed a private person to arrest someone if that person witnessed, or was told about, a crime, or someone was suspected of a felony.

Fabulous!

For one, we know they didn't witness a crime.

Two, they weren't told he had committed a crime by anyone who did.

That rules out the first two.

What felony did they have probable cause for?

 

[Mac-7]

What did Ahmaud try to steal from Travis?

Nothing that I am aware of

He didnt get the chance that night