Did anyone watch the McMichaels trial today?

You go ahead and show us how that populationcommits over half of violent crime. Since you jumped in to be a human shield for the lying racist.

Remember hispanics are often classified as white but in reality they are like america---there are those who are white-hispanic and then there are those that are black hispanics---with again black hispanics committing most of the crime. Removing hispanics in the stat---blacks commit most of the crime with the young black males committing far and away most of the crime as we can all easily see in prisons. (Middle Eastern males should also be removed from the stat).

*Hispanics btw, technically, would be hispanic due to spanish or portugual ancestory--mixed in with native tribes which for central and south american Indians (and North american Indians) would be asian going back so long ago....Followed by the slave trade which has deposited a heavy mix of african blood into many of these groups.

Young black males commit more crimes than females (but the females are catching up) and older members of the blacks community. Like with whites, following the 1940's---blacks morality has slipped and people just aren't as good as they once were IMHO.
 
Last edited:
Again....why are you here....as you said you have no interest, did not watch the trial today and do not know and of the facts on the case though they have been present on this forum ad nauseum????

All you are doing so far is trolling.
So are you.
 
The only question in the case now......is the jury competent?

Tremendous pressure has been put on them to convict.

What happened to Larry English will certainly happen to them....if they vote to acquit.

Death threats to them and their families.

Not even to mention the one most likely to be killed by black thugs would be the sole black juror......if they vote to convict....the thugs would thus know she voted to convict.

Is telling the truth worth putting yourself or your family in danger......that is what these jurists are up against.

Thus at best I think the jury will be hung.....no pun intended.
Yeah hanging is what I'm hoping for, no disrespect to the jury.
 

Remember hispanics are often classified as white but reality they are like america---those are white-hispanic and those that are black hispanics---with again black hispanics committing most of the crime. Removing hispanics in the stat---blacks commit most of the crime with the young black males committing far and away most of the crime as we can all easily see in prisons. (Middle Eastern males should also be removed from the stat).

Young black males commit more crimes than females (but the females are catching up) and older members of the blacks community. Like with whites, following the 1940's---blacks morality has slipped and people just aren't as good as they once were IMHO.
Thanks for the link that proved he was lying.
 
You claimed ahhmaud was shot at a distance....how far away from Travis do you think he was?

hehheh

I do not think we shall hear from this troll again???
at least 10'.

Your 'attorney' on the video stated he was within 20'.
 
Again you lack good reasoning skills...getting caught on camera just made him a suspect....I never said he was recorded stealing.
You just invalided the point you've been arguing all morning. If he wasn't caught stealing on tape then for what crime that occurred in their presence or they had immediate knowledge of, that was also a felony, were they pursuing him for/
 
You just invalided the point you've been arguing all morning. If he wasn't caught stealing on tape then for what crime that occurred in their presence or they had immediate knowledge of, that was also a felony, were they pursuing him for/
He was not pursued because he was known to steal anything at that propety...but because he was a suspect.

He had been previously caught stealing.....as well as taking a loaded gun to school...he was also on drugs and had mental problems....he suffered from hallucinations.
 
I loved when the 'attorney' stated when he left the construction site, he wasn't 'jogging', he was 'sprinting'.

:laughing0301: :laughing0301: :laughing0301: :laughing0301: :laughing0301: :laughing0301: :laughing0301:
 
Immediate knowledge of WHAT? What felony did they have immediate knowledge of?

And how did they gain immediate knowledge? I don't think you can claim telepathy as a source when giving testimony in court.
If you had watched the defense attorney's opening remarks ....you would not be asking that question.....he dealt with it extensively...watch the video and get back with us.
 
I loved when the 'attorney' stated when he left the construction site, he wasn't 'jogging', he was 'sprinting'.

:laughing0301: :laughing0301: :laughing0301: :laughing0301: :laughing0301: :laughing0301: :laughing0301:
He was hauling ass.....because he knew the police had been called.

There is a big difference between jogging and sprinting.

Just like he hauled ass when got caught with a gun at school.....the cop chased him down and ahhmaud atrtacked the cop but the cop was able to restrain him.

That was what made Gregory Mac notice him to begin with .....he was running like someone was chasing him.

The video of his previous encounter with the police shows how aggressive and angry he was....a disturbed young man out on probation.
 
Last edited:
No because he attacked Travis....how did you miss that?

Bud, if someone was in front of me with a gun, telling me to stop, I"d damn sure try to go over them.

Your boys ain't got a chance.
 
at least 10'.

Your 'attorney' on the video stated he was within 20'.
That is a very short distance.

In the video he is seen running around the right side of the truck and quickly darting left across the front of the truck to attack Travis who was to front and left side of the truck.

If he was in fear of his life.....why did he keep running towards them ---they were at least a hundred yards down the road from him in a parked truck...weapons clearly visible at that point....yet he continued running towards them.
 
Last edited:
He was physically attacked, and had a bleeding skull to prove it.

Quite different than the 'case' you're trying.


Father and son, both with guns, shooting an unarmed man at a distance?

not nearly the same
It wasn't at distance the dead man physically attacked the son and tried to take the shotgun,
 

Forum List

Back
Top