Are the McMichaels victims of a biased media?

[SavannahMann]

Someone stole a pistol out of Travs's truck a few days before this incident and ahhmaud was a prime suspect because of his documented 'prowls' in the neighborhood.

A few days? More like six weeks. Can you make a point without a blatant lie?

 

[Persuader]

Where did you get that old maxim? I only ask because I’ve heard ignorance of the law is no excuse. In fact. The Supreme Court ruled the exact opposite. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. It did not require intent to violate the law. It was the act of violating the law that was the crime.

When is Ignorance of the Law an Excuse? – North Carolina Criminal Law

An ancient maxim of the law is ignorantia juris non excusat, or ignorance of the law does not excuse. Put another way, it is presumed that the public

nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu

That goes back to Thomas Jefferson. You may not have heard of him. He was a big deal a few decades ago.

You make up laws. You make up legal principles. You make up standards so impossibly high to show they will be found not guilty. If the world was as you say we wouldn’t need prisons. Every criminal would be found not guilty because of one of the idiotic beliefs you have put for

Where did you get that old maxim? I only ask because I’ve heard ignorance of the law is no excuse. In fact. The Supreme Court ruled the exact opposite. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. It did not require intent to violate the law. It was the act of violating the law that was the crime.

When is Ignorance of the Law an Excuse? – North Carolina Criminal Law

An ancient maxim of the law is ignorantia juris non excusat, or ignorance of the law does not excuse. Put another way, it is presumed that the public

nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu

That goes back to Thomas Jefferson. You may not have heard of him. He was a big deal a few decades ago.

You make up laws. You make up legal principles. You make up standards so impossibly high to show they will be found not guilty. If the world was as you say we wouldn’t need prisons. Every criminal would be found not guilty because of one of the idiotic beliefs you have put forth.

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.”

 

[SavannahMann]

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.”

You are really stretching. Comparing arson to an accidental fire and murder is just stupid.

You are arguing that any crime not committed knowingly and wittingly is not a crime. Unless the statute so decrees. It just isn’t so.

So let’s look at the statutes and precedents that are facing our heroic McMichaels. Attempted Illegal Imprisonment. Nowhere in the statute does it say they have to intend to hold the person. It merely says the act.

Aggravated Assault. Again it is the perception of the reasonable person standard that determines if the accused broke that law. Would the reasonable person facing that believe they were being threatened? If the answer is yes. Then they committed the crime.

Felony Murder. This is where a life is ended during the commission of a felony. Aggravated Assault is a qualifying Felony. If Arbery seized up from a heart attack when Travis faced off against him with the shotgun it would still be Felony Murder.

Ignorantia juris non excusat - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Ignorance and lack of intent are not excuses for criminal behavior. If the common man, the reasonable man, would know not to do something then the assumption is the offender would know it is illegal.

The average Georgia Resident knows you don’t chase people down without a damned good reason. Our laws said you had to witness a crime being committed.

The average Georgia Resident knows you don’t whip out the bang stick to threaten someone without a damned good reason.

Your arguments are idiotic. Mixing and matching parts to create a narrative that is flatly untrue. Misrepresenting the facts to your advantage and decrying the legal precedents that say the McMichaels committed crimes.

The McMichaels had no justification to arm up and set off after Arbery. The only one who might get off. And this is my honest opinion. Is Roddy. The Jury might believe he was acting in good faith believing the McMichaels had legal justification to attempt the arrest. Honestly his odds are just a shade below a coin toss. Perhaps. Forty percent that the Jury will believe he is not guilty.

Travis has almost no chance. Greg has about the same. Roddy has a slim chance. But not much of one.

 

[colfax_m]

The liberal media has latched onto this incident, and now they’re attempting to turn it into Trayvon Martin 2.0.
An initial review of the evidence and background of the three individuals involved strongly suggested that a former police detective and his son, who had suffered a recent burglary, set out to perform a citizen’s arrest on an individual, who had just trespassed on a house construction site. The trespasser and possible burglar, Ahmaud Arbery was from outside their neighborhood and had a criminal record as a juvenile and as an adult.
When the McMichaels confronted the suspect, Ahhmaud Arbery, he chose to charge toward the McMichaels and attempt to take a shotgun away from Travis McMichaels, which resulted in Arbery being fatally shot.
What have we learned so far
Timeline
1). The father involved in the attempted citizen’s arrest is a former law officer and more than qualified to do a citizen’s arrest.
2). A 911 call described a Black male with a white t-shirt having just trespassed (and possibly burglarized) a construction site.
3). A video of the encounter between Arbery and the McMichaels shows Arbery approaching the White men and attempting to take the shotgun away from the son.
4). A surveillance video showing Arbery trespassing at the construction site is mentioned and later released.
5). The liberal media begins portraying Arbery as a good person who was just innocently out jogging and gunned down by racist White supremacists. (If they wanted to gun him down, why didn’t they just drive up from behind and do a “drive by” on him. Why did they just say “We want to talk to you”?)

It’s discovered that Arbery took a .380 pistol to a high school basketball game and caught by police for that. He also ran when police spotted the gun and first tried to arrest him.
Gregory & Travis McMichael are arrested for the “murder” of the burglary suspect, Ahmaud Arbery. Much like the Zimmerman-Trayvon case, the local authorities saw the shooting as justified, but pressure from the liberal media and Black Lives Matter led to the politcally-motivated criminal charges against the two Whites.
The first district attorney who was given the case to review, noted that Arbery had a criminal record as a juvenile and an adult as did some other members of his family as noted https://wbtv.com/2020/05/07/gbi-men-charged-with-murder-ahmaud-arbery/”%5Dhere%5B/URL%5D. He also noted that a liberal activist latched onto the case and began building the narrative that Arbery was unjustly gunned down.
Once the first district attorney recused himself (probably more due to political pressure), a more compliant replacement made a decision to prosecute Travis and Greg McMichaels.
A https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/us/ahmaud-arbery-shooting-georgia.html”%5DNew York Times article[/URL] reports “Since last August, there had been at least four calls to police about a man trespassing on a property in the neighborhood… In the weeks before the shooting, Travis McMichael had also called to report that a firearm had been stolen from his truck.”
Surveillance videos have shown Arbery trespassing in the house under construction additional times.
It’s hard to imagine how anyone could fail to see how clear cut and within the law the actions of the McMichaels were. The father was an ex-police detective and would not have done anything that would get himself and his son in trouble.
The truth is that the neighborhood was being plagued by a trespasser and a burglar, who stole a firearm from a truck. Ahmaud Arbery could have been armed with that stolen firearm on the day he was confronted, which is why the McMichaels took guns with them for their citizen’s arrest.
There was never anything to suggest that the McMichaels might be White supremacists –as if the political orientation of an individual should prevent him from making a citizen’s arrest.
Arbery knew he was guilty, which is why he charged Travis McMichael and tried to take his shotgun away from him. He did not want to be detained until police arrived because he knew he was guilty and he knew he would be going back to prison, where he belonged.

You've left out a lot of facts because they don't suit you, included facts that are not relevant and alleged facts which are not facts.

There is no possible way that the McMichael's could reasonably suspect Arbery in the theft of his gun.

Further, I'm still waiting to hear what felony he was suspected of having committed.

 

[Mac-7]

Redneck was a term used to describe poor working whites. The uncouth and uneducated.

And “ni@@er” was used to describe black people

No difference whatsoever

 

[Faun]

Only on your mind

My original complaint was Superbadbrutha using the word “redneck” which is as much a racial slur as “ni@@er”

Nope, not only in my mind. Even in here where you post, there's a difference.

Earlier, you posted the word, "bitch." But you couldn't type the n-word. You typed, "ni@@er."

You're literally denying there's a difference even as your own posts exhibit a difference.

 

[Faun]

Fuck off

You're the idiot, not me

Nah, I think I'll stay and continue highlighting your idiocies.

 

[Persuader]

You are really stretching. Comparing arson to an accidental fire and murder is just stupid.

You are arguing that any crime not committed knowingly and wittingly is not a crime. Unless the statute so decrees. It just isn’t so.

I am amazed you are not familiar with 'criminal intent' and then you try and confuse it with 'criminal ignorance.'

CRIMINAL INTENT
​

Criminal intent is the conscious decision someone makes to deliberately engage in an unlawful or negligent act, or to harm someone else. There are four specific examples of criminal intent: purposeful, reckless, knowing, and negligent. An act becomes criminal when taking into account the intent of the person who carries it out.

Additionally, acts of criminal intent are measured by their severity, and the punishments for those who commit acts of criminal intent “fit the crime,” so to speak, in that the punishments become harsher as criminal acts become more severe. To explore this concept, consider the following criminal intent definition.

Definition of Criminal Intent​

Noun

1. Having the intention to commit a criminal act.
2. The state of mind directing a person’s actions toward an unlawful goal.

Origin
1175-1225 Middle English

What is Criminal Intent​

Criminal intent, referred to in the legal world as “mens rea,” refers to an individual’s state of mind at the time he committed a crime. Those with criminal intent are fully aware of what they are about to do and the consequences that their actions can have. For instance, if Paul thinks up a plan for how he is going to murder his wife, and then he fatally shoots her, Paul is operating with criminal intent because he knows that murder is wrong, yet he plans the act, and ultimately commits it anyway.
Criminal intent can be classified as one of four different kinds of acts: purposeful, knowing, reckless, and negligent. Criminal acts that are done purposefully are those that are carried out by someone who is fully aware of the consequences his actions can cause, such as the murder example provided above. Criminal intent is a necessary component in prosecuting a crime. If criminal intent does not exist, then it stands to reason that the crime that was committed cannot possibly be considered criminal in nature.

Types of Criminal Intent​

States and federal governments have different definitions of criminal intent. Therefore, intent cannot be considered as one general, all-encompassing idea. Conversely, different types of criminal intent can exist, depending on the type of crime that was committed, and the mental state (mens rea) of the person who committed it.

The following are specific examples of the types of mens rea that can exist during the time that a crime is committed. The level of punishment that a criminal might receive depends greatly on the type of mens rea that can be proven at the time the crime was committed.
A skilled attorney can determine which form of criminal intent his client acted under. Someone who is convicted of a purposeful act of criminal intent will receive a much harsher sentence than someone who is convicted of a negligent one.

Intent​

With intent, there is no denying that someone deliberately set out to harm someone, or to engage in some kind of illegal activity. Examples of criminal intent can be found in a deliberate action of targeting another person, with the intention of causing harm to that person, or to deliberately take someone’s property, with the intent to deprive them of it, or to convert it to one’s own use.

Criminal Intent Example​

Scenario 1: Rob and Andrew are out in a field near the airport in their small town, drinking beer and watching planes land. They decide that the blue lights out there would be cool to own, so they take turns sneaking out into the field, unscrewing a light bulb, then stashing them in their car.
Scenario 2: Rob and Andrew know there is an old airport outside their small town, which they believe to be abandoned. While exploring, they discover blue lights they would like to have. Being sure the airport is no longer in use, the boys take the lightbulbs, stashing them in their car.


Taking the lights from this private property is against the law. Just what type of charges might be levied against the young men depends on the situation – the difference here is intent. In Scenario 1, they knew the lights were owned by the airport, and were in use. They knew they were trespassing, and had to know that taking the lights could put others in danger. Yet, they stole the lights with intent to deprive the rightful owner of them, and to convert them to their own use.
In Scenario 2, they truly believed the airport was no longer being used. While they must have known they were trespassing on private property, they thought they were taking abandoned property – lights that were no longer in use. They did not intend to deprive the rightful owner.

Knowledge​

Knowledge is different from intent, in that the criminal is aware of the consequences that can result from his actions, but simply does not care. For instance, Anna is upset that Charlie is cheating on her, so she plants a bomb in his car. She knows that Charlie will probably be taking Elsa, his mistress, out to dinner that night, and that the bomb could kill both Charlie and Elsa when it goes off. Anna does not care that Elsa could die too, and she is fully aware that this is the most likely scenario.
The bomb does, in fact, explode, killing Charlie and Elsa. While Anna will be charged with the intent of killing Charlie, she will more than likely also be charged with the knowledge that her actions would also kill Elsa

Recklessness​

Recklessness is someone’s decision to do something dangerous, despite knowing the risks involved. For instance, if someone waves a loaded gun around in a crowded room – with no intention of shooting anyone – and the gun goes off anyway and hurts someone, his actions could be an example of criminal intent through recklessness. The shooter did not intend to hurt anyone, but he knew what could happen if he waved a loaded gun around in a crowd, and he did it anyway.

Negligence​

Negligence is perhaps the mildest form of criminality that anyone can be charged with. Negligence applies when someone failed to live up to his responsibilities, and someone else was injured as a result. For instance, if a child gets hurt on the babysitter’s watch, then the babysitter can be charged with negligence. Similarly, if a pet owner allows his pet to become malnourished and dehydrated, then he can be charged with negligence for not living up to his responsibilities as a pet owner.

Malice Aforethought​

Malice aforethought is a specialized form of criminal intent that applies to only one crime: murder. This is because the very definition of malice aforethought is that it is someone’s premeditated “intent to kill.” This is considered the most severe crime that anyone can commit. Therefore, someone convicted of being in this state is typically punished more severely than any other criminal. Being convicted of murder with malice aforethought may subject the offender to life in prison without parole, or even the death penalty.

Specific Intent​

Specific intent is the most severe criminal intent that can apply to any crime that is not murder. Unfortunately, it is difficult to define “specific” or “general” in a court of law, due to a lack of specificity in criminal statutes. However, it is typically accepted that specific intent means that the defendant acted with a significant level of awareness of the consequences that could result from his actions. Crimes committed with specific intent can usually be grouped into one of the following three categories:

• The defendant intends to create a negative result.
• The defendant intends to do something even more serious than committing the criminal act itself.
• The defendant knowingly acts in a way that is illegal. (This behavior is called “scienter.”)

Scienter​

Scienter and mens rea are often used interchangeably. However, many jurisdictions consider scienter to be the person’s unquestionable knowledge that an act is illegal. Scienter can actually form the foundation of specific intent, depending on the statute involved.
For example, a statute that makes it a crime to write a bad check may require knowledge that the check is, in fact, written for an amount that the person cannot possibly cover with funds from his bank account. Therefore, it would be unlawful for that person to pay for something with that check.

If the prosecution fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew for sure that what he did was illegal, then the prosecution may miss their chance to ever prove that the accused acted with specific intent.

Criminal Intent Example in Conversion Case​

The case of Morissette is a perfect one to illustrate whether or not someone acted with purposeful criminal intent. Here, Morissette was a scrap metal dealer who collected bomb casings from an air force practice bombing range, long after they had been spent. The casings had been lying around for years before Morissette happened upon them.
Morissette believed the casings were abandoned, and sold them as scrap metal for less than $100. He was then charged and convicted of knowingly taking possession of the government’s property, and of transferring governmental property to the junk dealer. Morissette appealed, saying that he truly did believe the casings were abandoned, and that there was no harm in selling them as scrap.
The Supreme Court ultimately reversed Morissette’s conviction, holding that damages can only be considered criminal if the person intended to commit a crime. The Court found that Morissette did not, in fact, intend to commit a crime by turning in the casings to his junk dealer, and he was therefore innocent of “knowingly” transferring governmental property to himself, and then to someone else. Specifically, Justice Robert H. Jackson, in the Court’s opinion, stated:
“Crime, as a compound concept, generally constituted only from concurrence of an evil-meaning mind with an evil-doing hand …”

​

 

[Mac-7]

Earlier, you posted the word, "bitch." But you couldn't type the n-word. You typed, "ni@@er."

I worked within the limits of the woke software

 

[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 needB more than probable cause, the crime must have been committed in their presence or with their immediate knowledge and no such thing happened.

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.

Being ignorant of the law you err.

Mens Rea refers to criminal intent. The literal translation from Latin is "guilty mind." The plural of mens rea is mentes reae. A mens rea refers to the state of mind statutorily required in order to convict a particular defendant of a particular crime. See, e.g. Staples v. United States, 511 US 600 (1994). Establishing the mens rea of an offender is usually necessary to prove guilt in a criminal trial.

 

[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.

Being ignorant of the law you err.

Mens Rea refers to criminal intent. The literal translation from Latin is "guilty mind." The plural of mens rea is mentes reae. A mens rea refers to the state of mind statutorily required in order to convict a particular defendant of a particular crime. See, e.g. Staples v. United States, 511 US 600 (1994). Establishing the mens rea of an offender is usually necessary to prove guilt in a criminal trial.

Mens Rea​

As an element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent. Guilty knowledge and wilfulness.
A fundamental principle of Criminal Law is that a crime consists of both a mental and a physical element. Mens rea, a person's awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal, is the mental element, and actus reus, the act itself, is the physical element.
The concept of mens rea developed in England during the latter part of the common-law era (about the year 1600) when judges began to hold that an act alone could not create criminal liability unless it was accompanied by a guilty state of mind. The degree of mens rea required for a particular common-law crime varied. Murder, for example, required a malicious state of mind, whereas Larceny required a felonious state of mind.
Today most crimes, including common-law crimes, are defined by statutes that usually contain a word or phrase indicating the mens rea requirement. A typical statute, for example, may require that a person act knowingly, purposely, or recklessly.
Sometimes a statute creates criminal liability for the commission or omission of a particular act without designating a mens rea. These are called Strict Liability statutes. If such a statute is construed to purposely omit criminal intent, a person who commits the crime may be guilty even though he or she had no knowledge that his or her act was criminal and had no thought of committing a crime. All that is required under such statutes is that the act itself is voluntary, since involuntary acts are not criminal.
Occasionally mens rea is used synonymously with the words general intent, although general intent is more commonly used to describe criminal liability when a defendant does not intend to bring about a particular result. Specific Intent, another term related to mens rea, describes a particular state of mind above and beyond what is generally required.

 

[Faun]

I worked within the limits of the woke software

Of course you do. And in your own posts, you exhibit the difference.

 

[Mac-7]

Of course you do. And in your own posts, you exhibit the difference

Nah, I think I'll stay and continue highlighting your idiocies.

The woke bleeding heart software does not give whites or women the same protection that it does black people where language is concerned

So Superbadbrutha can slur whites (or women) but his delicate eyes do not have to see the n-word

 

[Faun]

The woke bleeding heart software does not give whites or women the same protection that it does black people where language is concerned

So Superbadbrutha can slur whites (or women) but his delicate eyes do not have to see the n-word

Dumbfuck, this site is managed by conservatives. So now even conservatives are "woke bleeding hearts?"

 

[Mac-7]

Dumbfuck, this site is managed by conservatives.

You will find the same software on other message boards

 

[colfax_m]

Being ignorant of the law you err.

Mens Rea refers to criminal intent. The literal translation from Latin is "guilty mind." The plural of mens rea is mentes reae. A mens rea refers to the state of mind statutorily required in order to convict a particular defendant of a particular crime. See, e.g. Staples v. United States, 511 US 600 (1994). Establishing the mens rea of an offender is usually necessary to prove guilt in a criminal trial.

Mens Rea​

As an element of criminal responsibility, a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent. Guilty knowledge and wilfulness.
A fundamental principle of Criminal Law is that a crime consists of both a mental and a physical element. Mens rea, a person's awareness of the fact that his or her conduct is criminal, is the mental element, and actus reus, the act itself, is the physical element.
The concept of mens rea developed in England during the latter part of the common-law era (about the year 1600) when judges began to hold that an act alone could not create criminal liability unless it was accompanied by a guilty state of mind. The degree of mens rea required for a particular common-law crime varied. Murder, for example, required a malicious state of mind, whereas Larceny required a felonious state of mind.
Today most crimes, including common-law crimes, are defined by statutes that usually contain a word or phrase indicating the mens rea requirement. A typical statute, for example, may require that a person act knowingly, purposely, or recklessly.
Sometimes a statute creates criminal liability for the commission or omission of a particular act without designating a mens rea. These are called Strict Liability statutes. If such a statute is construed to purposely omit criminal intent, a person who commits the crime may be guilty even though he or she had no knowledge that his or her act was criminal and had no thought of committing a crime. All that is required under such statutes is that the act itself is voluntary, since involuntary acts are not criminal.
Occasionally mens rea is used synonymously with the words general intent, although general intent is more commonly used to describe criminal liability when a defendant does not intend to bring about a particular result. Specific Intent, another term related to mens rea, describes a particular state of mind above and beyond what is generally required.

When they decided to act as their own little law enforcement, they assumed responsibility for their actions.

They absolutely intended to detain Arbery. It was no accident.

 

[Persuader]

You've left out a lot of facts because they don't suit you, included facts that are not relevant and alleged facts which are not facts.

There is no possible way that the McMichael's could reasonably suspect Arbery in the theft of his gun.

Further, I'm still waiting to hear what felony he was suspected of having committed.

Of course ahhmaud as a known neighborhood prowler was a suspect ....not hard to understand that.

You need to get over the media propaganda depicting ahhmaud as a saint and candidate for the heisman trophy.hehheh

 

[Persuader]

When they decided to act as their own little law enforcement, they assumed responsibility for their actions.

They absolutely intended to detain Arbery. It was no accident.

you keep chasing your tail.

 

[colfax_m]

Of course ahhmaud as a known neighborhood prowler was a suspect ....not hard to understand that.

You need to get over the media propaganda depicting ahhmaud as a saint and candidate for the heisman trophy.hehheh

The neighborhood can suspect him all they want.

The standards to take on the mantle of law enforcement and arrest him are a lot higher than the chatter on Facebook and at trial the McMichael's are going to have to prove that they were able to reach that standard.

That's going to be an uphill climb. As already stated, there's zero articulable facts that connect Arbery to the theft of any gun from the truck. Second, if there was trespassing on the property, it was a misdemeanor, not a felony which was required to satisfy the law. Third, it's not even clear he could be guilty of trespassing since the house is under construction and open.

 

[Faun]

You will find the same software on other message boards

I've posted on other boards using this software and the banned words differ.