New Twist to Thug Killing!

[SavannahMann]

well actually, he had a great shot while the running man was approaching him. why didn't he just take him out then? no truck in between and no need for contact

No need to take the man out at all. The shooters forced the scenario then used it to kill the man.
The shooter was safe in his truck. If he thought the jogger was a threat, roll up the windows and lock the doors. That is all of the "self defensive" action that was necessary. Threat disolved. Wait for the cops.
They took the law into their own hands, and face murder and a death penalty now because of their actions, not the actions of the one being hunted down. As well they should...

What nonsense you post.....how can you post such crap with a straight face.....anyhow....I will once again correct you..............how did the white dudes force anything? They were merely parked and the father in the bed of the truck and the son standing passively to the left and front of the truck.

Thus we see when the black jogged up to the truck....the shooter was not in the truck as you claim....he was already outside the truck...and as he watched the black dude approach he had no idea that he was going to attack...that came at a complete surprise. BTW they were waiting for the cops....they made the call to the police and now they were waiting for the police.

How does one take the law into their own hands? Irregardless....nothing like that happened in this case....what happened in this case and it has been pointed out to you many times....you even claimed you watched the video....but still yet you try and claim something that never happened.

As we all know what happened was the black attacked Travis McMichaels---punching him and trying to wrest his shotgun from him.....Travis thus was entitled to use lethal force in defense of his life.

What would you do....if you were standing beside the road and a negro attacks you ---starts punching you and tries to take your weapon from you?

Ok, let’s conduct an experiment. Your daughter is walking down the road. A truck with two armed men stops and blocks her path. One gets out with a shotgun, and according to the statement says. “Stop, stop. We want to talk to you.”

Now, what would you tell your daughter to say in this instance? Make the people in the truck white, black, brown, or blue. Would you consider their actions passive? Are they standing in the road passively? If your answer is yes, I would tell her to stop, you are either the heir to the throne to the kingdom of fools, or you are a liar. So would you tell her to stop and trust in their good will?

 

[Denizen]

If you think you live in a country where Arbery's murderers will be brought to justice, then you are fooling yourself.

Homicide, not murder.

Murder. They would not have armed themselves if there was no intent to use the weapons.

 

[MacTheKnife]

First of all the McMichaels blocked no one....in the first contact they made with the suspect they merely pulled up beside the jogger and told him they needed to talk to him......they did not display their weapons at this time.....he took off in a different direction.


The second instance they drove way ahead of the jogger and parked their truck. The father got into the bed of the truck and the son got out and was standing to the left and slightly to the front of the truck with his shotgun visible.

Ahmaud saw the truck, he saw the two men and he at least he saw the son with the shotgun...he also may have seen the father in the bed of the pickup truck with his pistol out.....irregardless he kept on jogging towards the truck....if he were in fear of his life he could have gone in a different direction.

Anyhow to get to your hypothetical question.

First of all it depends on the location....is this on a busy street...on a rural road or in a area with lots of people around and a lot of nearby houses.

Another thing to consider would be the appearance of the
two guys....so a lot of factors to consider but perhaps the most important factor would be the impression made by the questioners.

Also another factor...what area of the country would this be in....down south people are used to seeing people with guns, going hunting or just in racks behind the drivers seats in trucks....so too many factors at play to give you an answer without knowing more details.

 

[Meathead]

If you think you live in a country where Arbery's murderers will be brought to justice, then you are fooling yourself.

Homicide, not murder.

Murder. They would not have armed themselves if there was no intent to use the weapons.

Anyone who has a weapon and does not arm himself while confronting a very violent thug would be an idiot. The tape says it all.

 

[MacTheKnife]

If you think you live in a country where Arbery's murderers will be brought to justice, then you are fooling yourself.

Homicide, not murder.

Murder. They would not have armed themselves if there was no intent to use the weapons.

Anyone who has a weapon and does not arm himself while confronting a very violent thug would be an idiot. The tape says it all.

Yep......the father recognized the suspect....had dealt with him before when he was a policeman/investigator....so he most likely knew the suspect's history.....taking a loaded weapon to school, mental problems etc. thus he knew there was a possibility at least the suspect might be armed...thus their caution.

I am still waiting for them to bring up the suspects mental history....of course the prosecutors will not do that and perhaps the defense is waiting for the trial or they might present it to the grand jury.

Anyhow....the former D.A. mentioned the suspects mental history and thought it might have contributed to the suspects aggressiveness aka attacking a man with a shotgun. Not something most sane people would do.

 

[SavannahMann]

If you think you live in a country where Arbery's murderers will be brought to justice, then you are fooling yourself.

Homicide, not murder.

Murder. They would not have armed themselves if there was no intent to use the weapons.

Anyone who has a weapon and does not arm himself while confronting a very violent thug would be an idiot. The tape says it all.

Yep......the father recognized the suspect....had dealt with him before when he was a policeman/investigator....so he most likely knew the suspect's history.....taking a loaded weapon to school, mental problems etc. thus he knew there was a possibility at least the suspect might be armed...thus their caution.

I am still waiting for them to bring up the suspects mental history....of course the prosecutors will not do that and perhaps the defense is waiting for the trial or they might present it to the grand jury.

Anyhow....the former D.A. mentioned the suspects mental history and thought it might have contributed to the suspects aggressiveness aka attacking a man with a shotgun. Not something most sane people would do.

So why did Daddy withhold this information from police while on the phone with them? Why did Daddy commit a Felony by interfering with the investigation withholding the name?

 

[Meathead]

If you think you live in a country where Arbery's murderers will be brought to justice, then you are fooling yourself.

Homicide, not murder.

Murder. They would not have armed themselves if there was no intent to use the weapons.

Anyone who has a weapon and does not arm himself while confronting a very violent thug would be an idiot. The tape says it all.

Yep......the father recognized the suspect....had dealt with him before when he was a policeman/investigator....so he most likely knew the suspect's history.....taking a loaded weapon to school, mental problems etc. thus he knew there was a possibility at least the suspect might be armed...thus their caution.

I am still waiting for them to bring up the suspects mental history....of course the prosecutors will not do that and perhaps the defense is waiting for the trial or they might present it to the grand jury.

Anyhow....the former D.A. mentioned the suspects mental history and thought it might have contributed to the suspects aggressiveness aka attacking a man with a shotgun. Not something most sane people would do.

So why did Daddy withhold this information from police while on the phone with them? Why did Daddy commit a Felony by interfering with the investigation withholding the name?

I recognize a lot of people, that doesn't mean I know all their names.

 

[MacTheKnife]

If you think you live in a country where Arbery's murderers will be brought to justice, then you are fooling yourself.

Homicide, not murder.

Murder. They would not have armed themselves if there was no intent to use the weapons.

Anyone who has a weapon and does not arm himself while confronting a very violent thug would be an idiot. The tape says it all.

Yep......the father recognized the suspect....had dealt with him before when he was a policeman/investigator....so he most likely knew the suspect's history.....taking a loaded weapon to school, mental problems etc. thus he knew there was a possibility at least the suspect might be armed...thus their caution.

I am still waiting for them to bring up the suspects mental history....of course the prosecutors will not do that and perhaps the defense is waiting for the trial or they might present it to the grand jury.

Anyhow....the former D.A. mentioned the suspects mental history and thought it might have contributed to the suspects aggressiveness aka attacking a man with a shotgun. Not something most sane people would do.

So why did Daddy withhold this information from police while on the phone with them? Why did Daddy commit a Felony by interfering with the investigation withholding the name?

I recognize a lot of people, that doesn't mean I know all their names.

Yes exactly.....
Anyhow....they were in a rush....they wanted to perform a citizens arrest or at least keep the suspect in sight till the police arrived...or they may not have asked for his name or the former cop may not have remembered his name...or he may have told them the name..........anyhow it had been a long time since he had dealt with the suspect...irregardless no felony was commited dummie....the former cop did not interefere with any investigation.

The liberals have been reduced to grasping at straws.....they are beginning to realize this case is headed for the dustbin of history as well it should be....it was a case of the media once again trying to stir up racial trouble and further divide a nation that is already far too divided....they lied, they spun and now it will all come back to bite them....hopefully someone will sue them and get millions.

 

[MacTheKnife]

First of all the McMichaels blocked no one....in the first contact they made with the suspect they merely pulled up beside the jogger and told him they needed to talk to him......they did not display their weapons at this time.....he took off in a different direction.


The second instance they drove way ahead of the jogger and parked their truck. The father got into the bed of the truck and the son got out and was standing to the left and slightly to the front of the truck with his shotgun visible.

Ahmaud saw the truck, he saw the two men and he at least he saw the son with the shotgun...he also may have seen the father in the bed of the pickup truck with his pistol out.....irregardless he kept on jogging towards the truck....if he were in fear of his life he could have gone in a different direction.

Anyhow to get to your hypothetical question.

First of all it depends on the location....is this on a busy street...on a rural road or in a area with lots of people around and a lot of nearby houses.

Another thing to consider would be the appearance of the
two guys....so a lot of factors to consider but perhaps the most important factor would be the impression made by the questioners.

Also another factor...what area of the country would this be in....down south people are used to seeing people with guns, going hunting or just in racks behind the drivers seats in trucks....so too many factors at play to give you an answer without knowing more details.

Well in Georgia if they are merely hunting from the middle of the street they are still committing a crime. Curiously I believe it is still Aggravated Assault. But hey. What does the law matter. That is what is so funny about the possible excuses put forth by folks who are desperate to exonerate the McMichaels. Every scenario is another criminal charge. Often the same one.

There are dozens of websites and advice for how to avoid dangers. Oddly none of them advise just passively going along with armed lunatics in the street.

Intelligence | Crisis24

Get timely intelligence on events that may impact your operations and people with Crisis24 alerts, Watchlists, advice sheets, Country Reports and Risk Maps.

www.worldaware.com

Police advise people to keep keys or mace/pepper spray in their hands. But what do cops know. Obviously the armed individuals who are trying to intercept your Daughter are harmless and good citizens. I mean. They’re White right?

If you were honest you would say you would tell your Daughter to fight as if her life depends on it. But instead you try and tap dance. Well it depends. Kind of neighborhood. Time of day. How they look. We teach our children that Stranger Danger not only rhymes but is a rule they must follow. So tap dancing is such bullshit.

If you saw armed men trying to stop your daughter in the middle of the street you would do your best John Wick imitation. You would tell the cops you were acting to defend your daughter from those maniacs who were trying to abduct her. And it would not matter if you were in the richest whitest neighborhood in town. If you saw people you did not know you would assume threat.

But others are supposed to go passively into the unknown. Just trust them. They obviously mean no harm. Why how dare they attack good white men?

I hope your daughter does not follow your asinine views if God Forbid she ever finds herself in that situation. I hope that she is successful in fleeing or fighting off the attackers. And I hope society stands with the victim in her case instead of demonizing her.

You are guilty of running off at the mouth and bringing family members into a debate is a violation of the rules. You have been reported....I am tired of your nonsense.

 

[SavannahMann]

If you think you live in a country where Arbery's murderers will be brought to justice, then you are fooling yourself.

Homicide, not murder.

Murder. They would not have armed themselves if there was no intent to use the weapons.

Anyone who has a weapon and does not arm himself while confronting a very violent thug would be an idiot. The tape says it all.

Yep......the father recognized the suspect....had dealt with him before when he was a policeman/investigator....so he most likely knew the suspect's history.....taking a loaded weapon to school, mental problems etc. thus he knew there was a possibility at least the suspect might be armed...thus their caution.

I am still waiting for them to bring up the suspects mental history....of course the prosecutors will not do that and perhaps the defense is waiting for the trial or they might present it to the grand jury.

Anyhow....the former D.A. mentioned the suspects mental history and thought it might have contributed to the suspects aggressiveness aka attacking a man with a shotgun. Not something most sane people would do.

So why did Daddy withhold this information from police while on the phone with them? Why did Daddy commit a Felony by interfering with the investigation withholding the name?

I recognize a lot of people, that doesn't mean I know all their names.

So wouldn’t a trained police officer give a description? Height weight. What he is wearing? The crime he is suspected of? Why was none of that given?

 

[SavannahMann]

First of all the McMichaels blocked no one....in the first contact they made with the suspect they merely pulled up beside the jogger and told him they needed to talk to him......they did not display their weapons at this time.....he took off in a different direction.


The second instance they drove way ahead of the jogger and parked their truck. The father got into the bed of the truck and the son got out and was standing to the left and slightly to the front of the truck with his shotgun visible.

Ahmaud saw the truck, he saw the two men and he at least he saw the son with the shotgun...he also may have seen the father in the bed of the pickup truck with his pistol out.....irregardless he kept on jogging towards the truck....if he were in fear of his life he could have gone in a different direction.

Anyhow to get to your hypothetical question.

First of all it depends on the location....is this on a busy street...on a rural road or in a area with lots of people around and a lot of nearby houses.

Another thing to consider would be the appearance of the
two guys....so a lot of factors to consider but perhaps the most important factor would be the impression made by the questioners.

Also another factor...what area of the country would this be in....down south people are used to seeing people with guns, going hunting or just in racks behind the drivers seats in trucks....so too many factors at play to give you an answer without knowing more details.

Well in Georgia if they are merely hunting from the middle of the street they are still committing a crime. Curiously I believe it is still Aggravated Assault. But hey. What does the law matter. That is what is so funny about the possible excuses put forth by folks who are desperate to exonerate the McMichaels. Every scenario is another criminal charge. Often the same one.

There are dozens of websites and advice for how to avoid dangers. Oddly none of them advise just passively going along with armed lunatics in the street.

Intelligence | Crisis24

Get timely intelligence on events that may impact your operations and people with Crisis24 alerts, Watchlists, advice sheets, Country Reports and Risk Maps.

www.worldaware.com

Police advise people to keep keys or mace/pepper spray in their hands. But what do cops know. Obviously the armed individuals who are trying to intercept your Daughter are harmless and good citizens. I mean. They’re White right?

If you were honest you would say you would tell your Daughter to fight as if her life depends on it. But instead you try and tap dance. Well it depends. Kind of neighborhood. Time of day. How they look. We teach our children that Stranger Danger not only rhymes but is a rule they must follow. So tap dancing is such bullshit.

If you saw armed men trying to stop your daughter in the middle of the street you would do your best John Wick imitation. You would tell the cops you were acting to defend your daughter from those maniacs who were trying to abduct her. And it would not matter if you were in the richest whitest neighborhood in town. If you saw people you did not know you would assume threat.

But others are supposed to go passively into the unknown. Just trust them. They obviously mean no harm. Why how dare they attack good white men?

I hope your daughter does not follow your asinine views if God Forbid she ever finds herself in that situation. I hope that she is successful in fleeing or fighting off the attackers. And I hope society stands with the victim in her case instead of demonizing her.

You are guilty of running off at the mouth and bringing family members into a debate is a violation of the rules. You have been reported....I am tired of your nonsense.

Is this the part where I go Eeek? I would hate to miss it.

You are just mad that I showed you up as a liar. You are mad because you know I am right. Odd that you did not complain when I first posted. Odd that you did not object when you thought your tap dancing was going to work. No you complain when I point out you are a liar, or a fool.

Report me. Worst case scenario I am blocked from this thread. With you all reposting the same videos day and night swearing it is new there will be plenty more opportunities to prove you wrong.

 

[MacTheKnife]

If you think you live in a country where Arbery's murderers will be brought to justice, then you are fooling yourself.

Homicide, not murder.

Murder. They would not have armed themselves if there was no intent to use the weapons.

Anyone who has a weapon and does not arm himself while confronting a very violent thug would be an idiot. The tape says it all.

Yep......the father recognized the suspect....had dealt with him before when he was a policeman/investigator....so he most likely knew the suspect's history.....taking a loaded weapon to school, mental problems etc. thus he knew there was a possibility at least the suspect might be armed...thus their caution.

I am still waiting for them to bring up the suspects mental history....of course the prosecutors will not do that and perhaps the defense is waiting for the trial or they might present it to the grand jury.

Anyhow....the former D.A. mentioned the suspects mental history and thought it might have contributed to the suspects aggressiveness aka attacking a man with a shotgun. Not something most sane people would do.

So why did Daddy withhold this information from police while on the phone with them? Why did Daddy commit a Felony by interfering with the investigation withholding the name?

I recognize a lot of people, that doesn't mean I know all their names.

So wouldn’t a trained police officer give a description? Height weight. What he is wearing? The crime he is suspected of? Why was none of that given?

Well i see you are trying to get back on topic but first of all how do you know what information the former policeman gave to the police?

Irregardless.....they were in hot pursuit....I am sure if this case goes to trial which now I am beginning to doubt since all the new info on the suspect is sure to dampen a lot of the political pressure that was being brought to bear ....anyhow....if it does go trial I am sure all this will be cleared up.

 

[SavannahMann]

If you think you live in a country where Arbery's murderers will be brought to justice, then you are fooling yourself.

Homicide, not murder.

Murder. They would not have armed themselves if there was no intent to use the weapons.

Anyone who has a weapon and does not arm himself while confronting a very violent thug would be an idiot. The tape says it all.

Yep......the father recognized the suspect....had dealt with him before when he was a policeman/investigator....so he most likely knew the suspect's history.....taking a loaded weapon to school, mental problems etc. thus he knew there was a possibility at least the suspect might be armed...thus their caution.

I am still waiting for them to bring up the suspects mental history....of course the prosecutors will not do that and perhaps the defense is waiting for the trial or they might present it to the grand jury.

Anyhow....the former D.A. mentioned the suspects mental history and thought it might have contributed to the suspects aggressiveness aka attacking a man with a shotgun. Not something most sane people would do.

So why did Daddy withhold this information from police while on the phone with them? Why did Daddy commit a Felony by interfering with the investigation withholding the name?

I recognize a lot of people, that doesn't mean I know all their names.

Yes exactly.....
Anyhow....they were in a rush....they wanted to perform a citizens arrest or at least keep the suspect in sight till the police arrived...or they may not have asked for his name or the former cop may not have remembered his name...or he may have told them the name..........anyhow it had been a long time since he had dealt with the suspect...irregardless no felony was commited dummie....the former cop did not interefere with any investigation.

The liberals have been reduced to grasping at straws.....they are beginning to realize this case is headed for the dustbin of history as well it should be....it was a case of the media once again trying to stir up racial trouble and further divide a nation that is already far too divided....they lied, they spun and now it will all come back to bite them....hopefully someone will sue them and get millions.

So now the McMichaels are back to performing a citizens arrest. I love how the narrative in support changes with every reply. When it was pointed out they did not have legal justification for a Citizens arrest the supporters all swore the McMichaels were going to detain AA. Then when that was exposed as illegal it was merely talking to him until the police arrived. Then it was passively standing in the street threatening nobody.

Please tell me you are not part of the defense team. I really want the Defendants to have a competent legal defense.

 

[MacTheKnife]

First of all the McMichaels blocked no one....in the first contact they made with the suspect they merely pulled up beside the jogger and told him they needed to talk to him......they did not display their weapons at this time.....he took off in a different direction.


The second instance they drove way ahead of the jogger and parked their truck. The father got into the bed of the truck and the son got out and was standing to the left and slightly to the front of the truck with his shotgun visible.

Ahmaud saw the truck, he saw the two men and he at least he saw the son with the shotgun...he also may have seen the father in the bed of the pickup truck with his pistol out.....irregardless he kept on jogging towards the truck....if he were in fear of his life he could have gone in a different direction.

Anyhow to get to your hypothetical question.

First of all it depends on the location....is this on a busy street...on a rural road or in a area with lots of people around and a lot of nearby houses.

Another thing to consider would be the appearance of the
two guys....so a lot of factors to consider but perhaps the most important factor would be the impression made by the questioners.

Also another factor...what area of the country would this be in....down south people are used to seeing people with guns, going hunting or just in racks behind the drivers seats in trucks....so too many factors at play to give you an answer without knowing more details.

Well in Georgia if they are merely hunting from the middle of the street they are still committing a crime. Curiously I believe it is still Aggravated Assault. But hey. What does the law matter. That is what is so funny about the possible excuses put forth by folks who are desperate to exonerate the McMichaels. Every scenario is another criminal charge. Often the same one.

There are dozens of websites and advice for how to avoid dangers. Oddly none of them advise just passively going along with armed lunatics in the street.

Intelligence | Crisis24

Get timely intelligence on events that may impact your operations and people with Crisis24 alerts, Watchlists, advice sheets, Country Reports and Risk Maps.

www.worldaware.com

Police advise people to keep keys or mace/pepper spray in their hands. But what do cops know. Obviously the armed individuals who are trying to intercept your Daughter are harmless and good citizens. I mean. They’re White right?

If you were honest you would say you would tell your Daughter to fight as if her life depends on it. But instead you try and tap dance. Well it depends. Kind of neighborhood. Time of day. How they look. We teach our children that Stranger Danger not only rhymes but is a rule they must follow. So tap dancing is such bullshit.

If you saw armed men trying to stop your daughter in the middle of the street you would do your best John Wick imitation. You would tell the cops you were acting to defend your daughter from those maniacs who were trying to abduct her. And it would not matter if you were in the richest whitest neighborhood in town. If you saw people you did not know you would assume threat.

But others are supposed to go passively into the unknown. Just trust them. They obviously mean no harm. Why how dare they attack good white men?

I hope your daughter does not follow your asinine views if God Forbid she ever finds herself in that situation. I hope that she is successful in fleeing or fighting off the attackers. And I hope society stands with the victim in her case instead of demonizing her.

You are guilty of running off at the mouth and bringing family members into a debate is a violation of the rules. You have been reported....I am tired of your nonsense.

Is this the part where I go Eeek? I would hate to miss it.

You are just mad that I showed you up as a liar. You are mad because you know I am right. Odd that you did not complain when I first posted. Odd that you did not object when you thought your tap dancing was going to work. No you complain when I point out you are a liar, or a fool.

Report me. Worst case scenario I am blocked from this thread. With you all reposting the same videos day and night swearing it is new there will be plenty more opportunities to prove you wrong.

You have some kind of comprehension problem....not only with this case but how you characterize my comments regarding your hypothetical question.

I did not refuse to answer I said I needed more details than you were giving...also no one mentioned the hypothetical characters you created out of your fertile but boring imagination were hunting in the street as you tried to claim....just another example of how ridiculous you get when you start spouting a lot of verbiage that has nothing to do with anything.

Also ....there were a lot of new videos just presented....that had not been seen before....concerning the encounters the suspect had with the police previously....though I am sure all of that really galled your butt......bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

 

[SavannahMann]

If you think you live in a country where Arbery's murderers will be brought to justice, then you are fooling yourself.

Homicide, not murder.

Murder. They would not have armed themselves if there was no intent to use the weapons.

Anyone who has a weapon and does not arm himself while confronting a very violent thug would be an idiot. The tape says it all.

Yep......the father recognized the suspect....had dealt with him before when he was a policeman/investigator....so he most likely knew the suspect's history.....taking a loaded weapon to school, mental problems etc. thus he knew there was a possibility at least the suspect might be armed...thus their caution.

I am still waiting for them to bring up the suspects mental history....of course the prosecutors will not do that and perhaps the defense is waiting for the trial or they might present it to the grand jury.

Anyhow....the former D.A. mentioned the suspects mental history and thought it might have contributed to the suspects aggressiveness aka attacking a man with a shotgun. Not something most sane people would do.

So why did Daddy withhold this information from police while on the phone with them? Why did Daddy commit a Felony by interfering with the investigation withholding the name?

I recognize a lot of people, that doesn't mean I know all their names.

So wouldn’t a trained police officer give a description? Height weight. What he is wearing? The crime he is suspected of? Why was none of that given?

Well i see you are trying to get back on topic but first of all how do you know what information the former policeman gave to the police?

Irregardless.....they were in hot pursuit....I am sure if this case goes to trial which now I am beginning to doubt since all the new info on the suspect is sure to dampen a lot of the political pressure that was being brought to bear ....anyhow....if it does go trial I am sure all this will be cleared up.

I was never off topic. I showed how you were either a fool or a liar. I maintain it.

Here is the problem. None of your new information matters. The McMichaels broke the law. The only way it doesn’t go to trial is if they take a plea bargain.

What AA did three years ago doesn’t matter. What he did five years ago matters even less. What the McMichaels did matters in this case. And that is where it all falls down. They committed Aggravated Assault. That is a given. They were not passively in the street. There was and remains no legal justification for their actions.

Then the death. It can’t be manslaughter by jury decision. Manslaughter requires one of a few options. Either the McMichaels were doing something legal in an illegal manner. Which they were not. Or the death resulted from a misdemeanor. Which Aggravated Assault is not. The only way they are getting manslaughter is in a plea bargain.

 

[MacTheKnife]

First of all the McMichaels blocked no one....in the first contact they made with the suspect they merely pulled up beside the jogger and told him they needed to talk to him......they did not display their weapons at this time.....he took off in a different direction.


The second instance they drove way ahead of the jogger and parked their truck. The father got into the bed of the truck and the son got out and was standing to the left and slightly to the front of the truck with his shotgun visible.

Ahmaud saw the truck, he saw the two men and he at least he saw the son with the shotgun...he also may have seen the father in the bed of the pickup truck with his pistol out.....irregardless he kept on jogging towards the truck....if he were in fear of his life he could have gone in a different direction.

Anyhow to get to your hypothetical question.

First of all it depends on the location....is this on a busy street...on a rural road or in a area with lots of people around and a lot of nearby houses.

Another thing to consider would be the appearance of the
two guys....so a lot of factors to consider but perhaps the most important factor would be the impression made by the questioners.

Also another factor...what area of the country would this be in....down south people are used to seeing people with guns, going hunting or just in racks behind the drivers seats in trucks....so too many factors at play to give you an answer without knowing more details.

Well in Georgia if they are merely hunting from the middle of the street they are still committing a crime. Curiously I believe it is still Aggravated Assault. But hey. What does the law matter. That is what is so funny about the possible excuses put forth by folks who are desperate to exonerate the McMichaels. Every scenario is another criminal charge. Often the same one.

There are dozens of websites and advice for how to avoid dangers. Oddly none of them advise just passively going along with armed lunatics in the street.

Intelligence | Crisis24

Get timely intelligence on events that may impact your operations and people with Crisis24 alerts, Watchlists, advice sheets, Country Reports and Risk Maps.

www.worldaware.com

Police advise people to keep keys or mace/pepper spray in their hands. But what do cops know. Obviously the armed individuals who are trying to intercept your Daughter are harmless and good citizens. I mean. They’re White right?

If you were honest you would say you would tell your Daughter to fight as if her life depends on it. But instead you try and tap dance. Well it depends. Kind of neighborhood. Time of day. How they look. We teach our children that Stranger Danger not only rhymes but is a rule they must follow. So tap dancing is such bullshit.

If you saw armed men trying to stop your daughter in the middle of the street you would do your best John Wick imitation. You would tell the cops you were acting to defend your daughter from those maniacs who were trying to abduct her. And it would not matter if you were in the richest whitest neighborhood in town. If you saw people you did not know you would assume threat.

But others are supposed to go passively into the unknown. Just trust them. They obviously mean no harm. Why how dare they attack good white men?

I hope your daughter does not follow your asinine views if God Forbid she ever finds herself in that situation. I hope that she is successful in fleeing or fighting off the attackers. And I hope society stands with the victim in her case instead of demonizing her.

You are guilty of running off at the mouth and bringing family members into a debate is a violation of the rules. You have been reported....I am tired of your nonsense.

Is this the part where I go Eeek? I would hate to miss it.

You are just mad that I showed you up as a liar. You are mad because you know I am right. Odd that you did not complain when I first posted. Odd that you did not object when you thought your tap dancing was going to work. No you complain when I point out you are a liar, or a fool.

Report me. Worst case scenario I am blocked from this thread. With you all reposting the same videos day and night swearing it is new there will be plenty more opportunities to prove you wrong.

You have some kind of comprehension problem....not only with this case but how you characterize my comments regarding your hypothetical question.

I did not refuse to answer I said I needed more details than you were giving...also no one mentioned the hypothetical characters you created out of your fertile but boring imagination were hunting in the street as you tried to claim....just another example of how ridiculous you get when you start spouting a lot of verbiage that has nothing to do with anything.

Also ....there were a lot of new videos just presented....that had not been seen before....concerning the encounters the suspect had with the police previously....though I am sure all of that really galled your butt......bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

In a nutshell you as most are beginning to see the media narrative as well as yours...since you just parrot the msm....is being gradually ripped apart.

You of course will not admit it....you try to distract from the recent revelations by mouthing b.s. which is completely irrelevant.

I told you time and again all this nonsense your were spouting had no bearing on this case.

As I pointed out previously several times.......this case hinges on whether or not the defense team can convince the jury that Travis McMicahels was engaged in self defense and thus legally entitled to use lethal force to defend his life.

Just like Zimmerman in the trayvon case...and even without a video to back them up Z's defense team was able to convince the jury he was engaged in self-defense and thus entitled to use deadly force.

Now in this case.....they do have a video and anyone that is not biased can easily see the black suspect run across the front of the truck and assault Travis McMichaels.

Also why did the media edit the video? Omitting the part that showed the supect rushing over to attack Travis? Simply because they wanted to agitate and stir up the black community. In plain language they were trying to incite a riot.

I

 

[MacTheKnife]

If you think you live in a country where Arbery's murderers will be brought to justice, then you are fooling yourself.

Homicide, not murder.

Murder. They would not have armed themselves if there was no intent to use the weapons.

Anyone who has a weapon and does not arm himself while confronting a very violent thug would be an idiot. The tape says it all.

Yep......the father recognized the suspect....had dealt with him before when he was a policeman/investigator....so he most likely knew the suspect's history.....taking a loaded weapon to school, mental problems etc. thus he knew there was a possibility at least the suspect might be armed...thus their caution.

I am still waiting for them to bring up the suspects mental history....of course the prosecutors will not do that and perhaps the defense is waiting for the trial or they might present it to the grand jury.

Anyhow....the former D.A. mentioned the suspects mental history and thought it might have contributed to the suspects aggressiveness aka attacking a man with a shotgun. Not something most sane people would do.

So why did Daddy withhold this information from police while on the phone with them? Why did Daddy commit a Felony by interfering with the investigation withholding the name?

I recognize a lot of people, that doesn't mean I know all their names.

So wouldn’t a trained police officer give a description? Height weight. What he is wearing? The crime he is suspected of? Why was none of that given?

Well i see you are trying to get back on topic but first of all how do you know what information the former policeman gave to the police?

Irregardless.....they were in hot pursuit....I am sure if this case goes to trial which now I am beginning to doubt since all the new info on the suspect is sure to dampen a lot of the political pressure that was being brought to bear ....anyhow....if it does go trial I am sure all this will be cleared up.

I was never off topic. I showed how you were either a fool or a liar. I maintain it.

Here is the problem. None of your new information matters. The McMichaels broke the law. The only way it doesn’t go to trial is if they take a plea bargain.

What AA did three years ago doesn’t matter. What he did five years ago matters even less. What the McMichaels did matters in this case. And that is where it all falls down. They committed Aggravated Assault. That is a given. They were not passively in the street. There was and remains no legal justification for their actions.

Then the death. It can’t be manslaughter by jury decision. Manslaughter requires one of a few options. Either the McMichaels were doing something legal in an illegal manner. Which they were not. Or the death resulted from a misdemeanor. Which Aggravated Assault is not. The only way they are getting manslaughter is in a plea bargain.

The McMichaels broke no law that is just your imagination once again working overtime....you can spin it all day and all night but you accomplish nothing....the facts of the case speak for themselves.

A simple case of self defense....just the one video proves that alone. The following videos that have come to light regarding the suspects prior contacts with the police have no real bearing on the case but it will change the way the public views this case and the court of public opinion has a way of seeping into potential jurors minds.

 

[Denizen]

If you think you live in a country where Arbery's murderers will be brought to justice, then you are fooling yourself.

Homicide, not murder.

Murder. They would not have armed themselves if there was no intent to use the weapons.

Anyone who has a weapon and does not arm himself while confronting a very violent thug would be an idiot. The tape says it all.

Yep......the father recognized the suspect....had dealt with him before when he was a policeman/investigator....so he most likely knew the suspect's history.....taking a loaded weapon to school, mental problems etc. thus he knew there was a possibility at least the suspect might be armed...thus their caution.

I am still waiting for them to bring up the suspects mental history....of course the prosecutors will not do that and perhaps the defense is waiting for the trial or they might present it to the grand jury.

Anyhow....the former D.A. mentioned the suspects mental history and thought it might have contributed to the suspects aggressiveness aka attacking a man with a shotgun. Not something most sane people would do.

So why did Daddy withhold this information from police while on the phone with them? Why did Daddy commit a Felony by interfering with the investigation withholding the name?

I recognize a lot of people, that doesn't mean I know all their names.

So wouldn’t a trained police officer give a description? Height weight. What he is wearing? The crime he is suspected of? Why was none of that given?

They said "he is black and is in our neighborhood" and that is considered a crime by white racist bigots.

 

[Denizen]

If you think you live in a country where Arbery's murderers will be brought to justice, then you are fooling yourself.

Homicide, not murder.

Murder. They would not have armed themselves if there was no intent to use the weapons.

Anyone who has a weapon and does not arm himself while confronting a very violent thug would be an idiot. The tape says it all.

Yep......the father recognized the suspect....had dealt with him before when he was a policeman/investigator....so he most likely knew the suspect's history.....taking a loaded weapon to school, mental problems etc. thus he knew there was a possibility at least the suspect might be armed...thus their caution.

I am still waiting for them to bring up the suspects mental history....of course the prosecutors will not do that and perhaps the defense is waiting for the trial or they might present it to the grand jury.

Anyhow....the former D.A. mentioned the suspects mental history and thought it might have contributed to the suspects aggressiveness aka attacking a man with a shotgun. Not something most sane people would do.

So why did Daddy withhold this information from police while on the phone with them? Why did Daddy commit a Felony by interfering with the investigation withholding the name?

I recognize a lot of people, that doesn't mean I know all their names.

So wouldn’t a trained police officer give a description? Height weight. What he is wearing? The crime he is suspected of? Why was none of that given?

Well i see you are trying to get back on topic but first of all how do you know what information the former policeman gave to the police?

Irregardless.....they were in hot pursuit....I am sure if this case goes to trial which now I am beginning to doubt since all the new info on the suspect is sure to dampen a lot of the political pressure that was being brought to bear ....anyhow....if it does go trial I am sure all this will be cleared up.

I was never off topic. I showed how you were either a fool or a liar. I maintain it.

Here is the problem. None of your new information matters. The McMichaels broke the law. The only way it doesn’t go to trial is if they take a plea bargain.

What AA did three years ago doesn’t matter. What he did five years ago matters even less. What the McMichaels did matters in this case. And that is where it all falls down. They committed Aggravated Assault. That is a given. They were not passively in the street. There was and remains no legal justification for their actions.

Then the death. It can’t be manslaughter by jury decision. Manslaughter requires one of a few options. Either the McMichaels were doing something legal in an illegal manner. Which they were not. Or the death resulted from a misdemeanor. Which Aggravated Assault is not. The only way they are getting manslaughter is in a plea bargain.

The McMichaels broke no law that is just your imagination once again working overtime....you can spin it all day and all night but you accomplish nothing....the facts of the case speak for themselves.

A simple case of self defense....just the one video proves that alone. The following videos that have come to light regarding the suspects prior contacts with the police have no real bearing on the case but it will change the way the public views this case and the court of public opinion has a way of seeping into potential jurors minds.

A person with a gun cannot claim self-defense if they initiated the confrontation with an unarmed man by attempting to unlawfully detain him in a public place.

 

[FA_Q2]

First of all the McMichaels blocked no one....in the first contact they made with the suspect they merely pulled up beside the jogger and told him they needed to talk to him......they did not display their weapons at this time.....he took off in a different direction.


The second instance they drove way ahead of the jogger and parked their truck. The father got into the bed of the truck and the son got out and was standing to the left and slightly to the front of the truck with his shotgun visible.

Ahmaud saw the truck, he saw the two men and he at least he saw the son with the shotgun...he also may have seen the father in the bed of the pickup truck with his pistol out.....irregardless he kept on jogging towards the truck....if he were in fear of his life he could have gone in a different direction.

Anyhow to get to your hypothetical question.

First of all it depends on the location....is this on a busy street...on a rural road or in a area with lots of people around and a lot of nearby houses.

Another thing to consider would be the appearance of the
two guys....so a lot of factors to consider but perhaps the most important factor would be the impression made by the questioners.

Also another factor...what area of the country would this be in....down south people are used to seeing people with guns, going hunting or just in racks behind the drivers seats in trucks....so too many factors at play to give you an answer without knowing more details.

So they have the right to follow, obstruct and act in a threatening manner. He does not have a right to see that as a threat and defend himself?

You follow me around in your truck brandishing weapons I am not going to brandish one - ill just shoot you and would be well within my rights to do so.