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.
It doesn't say 'in your presence.' Stop lying.
I can tell you haven't been watching this trial, you are just a lying racist hag."... it was incontestable that it was Ahmaud Arbery returning night after night, repeatedly caught on camera, at the same time thousands of dollars worth of property was disappearing. 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."
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
Pretty damning.
The prosecutor craved that weak ass analogy up in her closing this morning"Hogue hit hard on the notion of community, neighborhood, and safety—how we all wanted to live in a place like that, and how all of those qualities were being destroyed by criminal predation in that particular neighborhood.
She also spared no punches in noting that Arbery was very much part of that criminal predation.
Unlike what we saw in the defense closing gin Rittenhouse, however, Hogue expressed genuine sympathy for Arbery’s tragic fate, as well as for his family. In his teens, she acknowledged, he’d apparently been a lovely boy with great potential. But in his 20s he went off the rails, and by the time of his encounter with Travis McMichael, he’d simply become a criminal thieving and plundering his way through life."
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!
You are afraid of the Law.
A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.
Just keep denying.
I can tell you haven't been watching this trial, you are just a lying racist hag.
legalinsurrection.com
English also testified that the white couple was the ones stealing his property and that Ahmaud NEVER stile or damaged anything. I noticed you left that out."...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.
"Ahmaud Arbery trial: Cops planned to give him trespassing warning before death
Authorities were looking for Ahmaud Arbery to give him a trespass warning for repeatedly entering an under-construction home in Georgia before he was chased and shot dead by neighbors who saw him running from the property, a cop testified Friday.
Glynn County Police Officer Robert Rash told jurors he had been searching for the 25-year-old black man — who hadn’t yet been identified — to tell him to stay away from the home after repeated complaints from the homeowner.
The owner had sent the officer security camera videos of Arbery at the site five times between Oct. 25, 2019, and Feb. 23, 2020 — the day Arbery was killed after being pursued by the three white men currently on trial for his murder.
Rash, who was a patrol officer assigned to the neighborhood, testified that he had shared the video clips with neighbors, including Gregory McMichael."
Ahmaud Arbery trial: Cops planned to give him trespassing warning before death
Authorities were looking for Ahmaud Arbery to give him a trespass warning for repeatedly entering an under-construction home in Georgia before he was chased and shot dead by neighbors who saw him r…
nypost.com
So....they had knowledge of the police looking for Arbery.
Was there any basis for suspicion about the deceased????
"Defense attorneys have focused on Arbery allegedly being seen on the videos entering onto the property a number of times in the months leading up to his death and becoming in the minds of some neighbors - including the men accused of murder in the trial - a "suspect" in break-ins and thefts around the neighborhood.
English said in his deposition that about $2,500 of electronic equipment, as well as a Yeti cooler, was taken out of the boat sometime in 2019.
...English's suspicions - expressed through phone calls to police and in text messages with officers and neighbors - about the man, believed to be Arbery, seen in his videos.
"Oct. 25, this man who comes at 10 o'clock at night, he looks suspicious to you right," defense lawyer Robert Rubin asked English.
"Yes."
"There was no reason - no legitimate reason in your mind - for him to be on your property that late at night, 'plundering around' as you put it?"
"No."
Jury hears from owner of unfinished home at center of Ahmaud Arbery death trial
The courtroom spent Thursday, the trial's fifth day, hearing a deposition from Larry English.
www.11alive.com
Political chic is afraid to post the whole statute.
if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.
Because it is like arguing with a brick, you don't want facts you want to see these 3 racist murderers walk.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!
"I can tell you haven't been watching this trial"
Yet I can quote the testimony. You simply lie.
Why?
English also testified that the white couple was the ones stealing his property and that Ahmaud NEVER stile or damaged anything. I noticed you left that out.
Because it is like arguing with a brick, you don't want facts you want to see these 3 racist murderers walk.
Why do you keep posting half of the law.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.
When was he going to be charged with felony burglary? Did Greg or Travis see him commit a burglary?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!
"I can tell you haven't been watching this trial"
Yet I can quote the testimony. You simply lie.
Why?
That is all you are doing, you are an idiot.I never wish criminals to be set free.
But I don't ignore the facts, as you do.
Why do you keep posting half of the law.
if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.
Explain what immediate knowledge is.
When was he going to be charged with felony burglary? Did Greg or Travis see him commit a burglary?
That is all you are doing, you are an idiot.
You don't have shit, it has been proven that something that happened on Feb 11 is not immediate knowledge on Feb 23. Besides these 2 idiots statements said, " they weren't aware of ant crime he had committed"You posted this: "within his immediate knowledge."
The defendants had that knowledge. So saith the testimony.
"....everything the defendants knew about the felony burglaries in the neighborhood generally and at that home under construction in particular, as well as everything the defendants knew about Arbery—because Travis, in particular, knew that the person he had induced to flee from that property on the prior occasion when he’d had 911 on the phone, was the same person that was fleeing from the same person fleeing on February 23, he knew the same person was on video plundering the home, and so forth."
Op.Cit.
Gotcha' again, huh?
Don't be afraid of truth.
You are providing bits and pieces of bullshitI'm providing the facts...as per the title.
That appears to upset you.
You don't have shit, it has been proven that something that happened on Feb 11 is not immediate knowledge on Feb 23. Besides these 2 idiots statements said, " they weren't aware of ant crime he had committed"
