Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What will your posts be if it turns out the defendants had reason to try to hold Arbery for the police who wished to question him about a series of burglaries????
Humph, speak for yourself.2) They have an all female jury. The anti-white racists are trying to win this case via juror intimidation. And women are more easily intimidated than men.
What crime did they see him commit?
When did the police state that they wanted to question Arbery about a series of burglaries?
Arbery was known to the police. If they wanted to talk to him, they easily could've found him. They didn't need two fat rednecks to get him for them...
A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge..The statute does not say he has to 'see' any such crime, merely be knowledgeable about it.
Are you ready to apologize for lying????
A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge..
So what crime did he commit in their presence or how did they have immediate knowledge he had committed a crime?
Damn are you dumb, what the hell do you think in their presence means?You claimed that those applying to use citizen's arrest defense had to have "seen" the incident, a felony.
Are you ready to retract and apologize for the false claim?
Immediate knowledge is covered by the police making them known.....which they did.
English is not my first language.....
....what's yours?
1. We've all pretty much been appraised of the facts of the Rittenhouse case....but this HLN attorney discusses facts of which very few knew of the Arbery Trial.....begins at 6:30 of the vid.
Before the Verdict: NYC Trial Attorney Misty Marris
2. Based on the (biased) news reporting, this was an open and shut case of armed white racist vigilances chasing down an innocent black jogger....and shooting him.
Now it comes down to a question of whether a citizens arrest was legal in this case.
Evidence now appears to strengthen the view that Arbery was engaged in some sort of criminal acts.
The statute in Georgia requires a reasonable suspicion that a felony had been committed.
3. Testimony of Robert Rash, a Glynn County police officer, ...Arbery had been caught five times, on camera, at a house under construction, where material had been stolen.
There is body cam footage from the officer, talking with the defendants about what was known....that Arbery had been at the site of thefts five times, and told by the officer that the individual in the five vids had been trespassing "or maybe something more"....a possible felony.
4. There is body cam vid of Officer Rash in that house, at night, gun drawn......making clear that this is a serious crime.....police looking for the individual seen on the vids.....who ended up being identified as Arbery. This is a serious crime....burglary....and something the defendants knew when they intercepted Arbery.
The defendants were told 'if you see this guy, call the police'.....which seems to fit the Georgia statute for citizen's arrest.
5. In the vid one of the defendants states that he had seen Arbery before and believes he was armed....."a new narrative which supports the McMichael's side of the case...."
A game changer: now there are facts, information, testimony and body cam video.
6. To use the 'citizen's arrest law' the defense needs to show justification based on the preponderance of the evidence, the slightest bit over 50%......not 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'
If there was a reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed, and they could use police body cam footage to show it was information that they knew at the time, then the 'Citizen's Arrest Law' is applicable....
7. "There have not been any racial sluts toward Arbery....they called him a joker and a rat...on body cam footage....."
Rather than race, the ubiquitous claim by the party of racism, why are so many of the Democrat's heroes felons, criminals, assaulters....?????
Damn are you dumb, what the hell do you think in their presence means?
Immediate knowledge means right away.
So again I ask what crime did he commit in their presence or that they had immediate knowledge of.
How did I lie? The Law states that the crime must happen in your presence (which means you have to witness it) or you must have immediate knowledge. The only liar is you trying to defend 3 racist murderers.You lied, I caught you.....
What more is there to say?
How did I lie? The Law states that the crime must happen in your presence (which means you have to witness it) or you must have immediate knowledge. The only liar is you trying to defend 3 racist murderers.
Well tell us who had to see him commit a felony if not the defendants?You said the defendants had to 'see' the felony.
That was a lie.
Are you ready to apologize?
Well tell us who had to see him commit a felony if not the defendants?
The defendants are making the Citizen's arrest, so what crime did he commit in their presence or what crime did the have immediate knowledge of?"Us???"
Singular.....the liar is you.
The defendants are making the Citizen's arrest, so what crime did he commit in their presence or what crime did the have immediate knowledge of?
Now you are just looking like a fool.
That is what the Law says idiot, why are you having such a hard time understanding that.Were you lying when you claimed the defendants had to see the felony?
What if it has nothing to do with skin color, as the preponderance of the evidence leading to Biden voter's insurrections, haven't?
What will your posts be if it turns out the defendants had reason to try to hold Arbery for the police who wished to question him about a series of burglaries????
Can I expect an honest appraisal from you?
What if it has nothing to do with skin color, as the preponderance of the evidence leading to Biden voter's insurrections, haven't?
What will your posts be if it turns out the defendants had reason to try to hold Arbery for the police who wished to question him about a series of burglaries????
Can I expect an honest appraisal from you?
That is what the Law says idiot, why are you having such a hard time understanding that.
Ok. Honest appraisal.
The McMichaels had no first hand knowledge of Arbery committing a crime. A vital element in Citizens arrest.
Even if they did, a vital element is to inform the “suspect” that they are under arrest. The McMichaels did not by their own statements and testimony.
Arming up and setting off in pursuit is thus an illegal action. Blocking his path. Threatening him with death. Ramming him with their trucks is a crime.
These are all criminal activities. The only justification for which is that two supposedly trained individuals with experience were too stressed by the pursuit to actually follow their training.
Then we come to the shooting. Travis testified that he believed that the shotgun would force Arbery to comply. Using a firearm in that way is another crime.
Now. Honest assessment. Under the laws of Georgia. These folks committed numerous crimes.
The shooting can not be self defense. The chain of crimes committed before the shooting preclude it.
