Facts About The Ahmaud Arbery Case: Racism? Seems Not.

[PoliticalChic]

You are providing bits and pieces of bullshit

No vulgarity.
Post like an adult, no matter how thoroughly I've destroyed your views.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Politic Chic here get yourself up to speed.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Politic Chic here get yourself up to speed.

Kinda silly comment, after I've wiped up the floor with you.

But....it that's the story you have to tell yourself,.....carry on.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

No vulgarity.
Post like an adult, no matter how thoroughly I've destroyed your views.

No you haven't destroyed anything, you are either an idiot or acting one.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Kinda silly comment, after I've wiped up the floor with you.

But....it that's the story you have to tell yourself,.....carry on.

Wiped up what? Your dumbass won't even post the entire law because it makes you look like a fool.

 

[PoliticalChic]

No you haven't destroyed anything, you are either an idiot or acting one.

I'm not an idiot.....mommy had me tested.


Have you noticed that you could not refute a single one of my posts, outside the usual "is not, isssssssss nooooottttttt!!!!!!"


Let's let readers decide, m'kay???

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wiped up what? Your dumbass won't even post the entire law because it makes you look like a fool.

Three, four times I wiped up the floor with your own posts: "immediate knowledge."

They had knowledge.


Wanna post it again???

I dare you.

 

[AZrailwhale]

You call names rather than post the truth.

Why?


"Sheffield hit on the important legal and evidentiary points. Felony burglary does not require that any property be actually stolen, for example, so all the State’s talk about Arbery not having stolen property in his possession was completely irrelevant. Similarly, there was never any evidence introduced at any time in the trial that Arbery ever recreationally jogged in that neighborhood—not a single family member, friend, or resident of the community testified to anything like that."

Arbery Case Trial: Based On Closing Arguments, Not Guilty Verdicts A Real Possibility

State’s closing argument was very weak. Defense closings very solid, but State has 2-hour rebuttal tomorrow!

legalinsurrection.com

"I can tell you haven't been watching this trial"

Yet I can quote the testimony. You simply lie.

Why?

In California you can be convicted of burglary if you enter the home or premsis of another WITH THE INTENT OF COMMITTING A CRIME. You don't actually have to do anything except enter to be convicted of your intent can be established.

 

[PoliticalChic]

In California you can be convicted of burglary if you enter the home or premsis of another WITH THE INTENT OF COMMITTING A CRIME. You don't actually have to do anything except enter to be convicted of your intent can be established.

I provided that testimony several times:

"Sheffield hit on the important legal and evidentiary points. Felony burglary does not require that any property be actually stolen, for example, so all the State’s talk about Arbery not having stolen property in his possession was completely irrelevant."


The article is quite informative:

Arbery Case Trial: Based On Closing Arguments, Not Guilty Verdicts A Real Possibility

State’s closing argument was very weak. Defense closings very solid, but State has 2-hour rebuttal tomorrow!

legalinsurrection.com

 

[SavannahMann]

In California you can be convicted of burglary if you enter the home or premsis of another WITH THE INTENT OF COMMITTING A CRIME. You don't actually have to do anything except enter to be convicted of your intent can be established.

Simple presence does not indicate intent.

In fact. Since he had been there many times and not stolen anything intent to commit burglary would have been impossible to prove.

What Rash said was he was going to warn Arbery. Warn him. Not even issue a citation.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

I'm not an idiot.....mommy had me tested.


Have you noticed that you could not refute a single one of my posts, outside the usual "is not, isssssssss nooooottttttt!!!!!!"


Let's let readers decide, m'kay???

You didn't post anything to refute, you just posted regurgitated bullshit.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

I provided that testimony several times:

"Sheffield hit on the important legal and evidentiary points. Felony burglary does not require that any property be actually stolen, for example, so all the State’s talk about Arbery not having stolen property in his possession was completely irrelevant."


The article is quite informative:

Arbery Case Trial: Based On Closing Arguments, Not Guilty Verdicts A Real Possibility

State’s closing argument was very weak. Defense closings very solid, but State has 2-hour rebuttal tomorrow!

legalinsurrection.com

No Sheffield didn't, if you would have watched the video the prosecutor destroyed everything those lawyers said in their closing.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

In California you can be convicted of burglary if you enter the home or premsis of another WITH THE INTENT OF COMMITTING A CRIME. You don't actually have to do anything except enter to be convicted of your intent can be established.

They are not in California, this took place in Georgia. Again prosecutor explained the law on burglary, Also the police only wanted to tell Ahmaud to stay off the property nothing more.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Simple presence does not indicate intent.

In fact. Since he had been there many times and not stolen anything intent to commit burglary would have been impossible to prove.

What Rash said was he was going to warn Arbery. Warn him. Not even issue a citation.

"Did we have a picture of Arbery walking off with the property? No. But the only reasonable inference of someone skulking around another person’s home at night, with valuable property found missing the next day, is that the person skulking was plundering that property, and engaged in felony burglary under Georgia law."

I provided that testimony several times:

"Sheffield hit on the important legal and evidentiary points. Felony burglary does not require that any property be actually stolen, for example, so all the State’s talk about Arbery not having stolen property in his possession was completely irrelevant."


The article is quite informative:

Arbery Case Trial: Based On Closing Arguments, Not Guilty Verdicts A Real Possibility​

State’s closing argument was very weak. Defense closings very solid, but State has 2-hour rebuttal tomorrow!

legalinsurrection.com

 

[Superbadbrutha]

"Did we have a picture of Arbery walking off with the property? No. But the only reasonable inference of someone skulking around another person’s home at night, with valuable property found missing the next day, is that the person skulking was plundering that property, and engaged in felony burglary under Georgia law."

I provided that testimony several times:

"Sheffield hit on the important legal and evidentiary points. Felony burglary does not require that any property be actually stolen, for example, so all the State’s talk about Arbery not having stolen property in his possession was completely irrelevant."


The article is quite informative:

Arbery Case Trial: Based On Closing Arguments, Not Guilty Verdicts A Real Possibility​

State’s closing argument was very weak. Defense closings very solid, but State has 2-hour rebuttal tomorrow!

legalinsurrection.com

You're lying, Larry English stated that Ahmaud never stole or damaged anything.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Hogue also pointed out that given Arbery’s actual conduct, the conduct of which he was of course fully aware, there could be no real doubt that he knew exactly why he was being pursued on February 23, re-doubling his efforts at flight when informed that the police were coming—that he was reasonably suspected of being a felony burglar. An innocent recreational jogger has no need to fear a police response—a previously convicted felony burglar very much does."

Arbery Case Trial: Based On Closing Arguments, Not Guilty Verdicts A Real Possibility

State’s closing argument was very weak. Defense closings very solid, but State has 2-hour rebuttal tomorrow!

legalinsurrection.com

 

[Superbadbrutha]

"Hogue also pointed out that given Arbery’s actual conduct, the conduct of which he was of course fully aware, there could be no real doubt that he knew exactly why he was being pursued on February 23, re-doubling his efforts at flight when informed that the police were coming—that he was reasonably suspected of being a felony burglar. An innocent recreational jogger has no need to fear a police response—a previously convicted felony burglar very much does."

Arbery Case Trial: Based On Closing Arguments, Not Guilty Verdicts A Real Possibility

State’s closing argument was very weak. Defense closings very solid, but State has 2-hour rebuttal tomorrow!

legalinsurrection.com

That's his defense lawyers opinion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That's his defense lawyers opinion.

Wait....you forgot to write "no immediate knowledge!!!!"


Learned your lesson?

 

[Faun]

Is English your first language?
Do you have one????


"...within his immediate knowledge."

Meaning....as told to him by the police. That was the testimony of Officer Rash.
Now will you stop lying about his having to have seen the felony.

PoliticalHag, that doesn't matter. The very next sentence in that law, which you're ignoring, reads, "if the offense is a felony..." Trespassing isn't a felony, it's a misdemeanor. McMichael had no legal right to effect a citizen's arrest.

 

[Faun]

" Felony burglary does not require that any property be actually stolen, for example, so all the State’s talk about Arbery not having stolen property in his possession was completely irrelevant. Similarly, there was never any evidence introduced at any time in the trial that Arbery ever recreationally jogged in that neighborhood—not a single family member, friend, or resident of the community testified to anything like that."


NEXT!!

LOL

You possess a grand total of exactly ZERO evidence Arbery ever committed felony burglary at 220 Satilla Drive.