New Twist to Thug Killing!

[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.

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.

There is no law against following someone...anyone can do it and quite legally.

The MicMichaaels did not obstruct anyone...the suspect had complete freedom of movement at all times.


The McMichaels did not brandish weapons.
To brandish something is to wave it about aggressively which they never did.

The McMichaels never threatened anyone.

Nothing that happened gave the suspect the right to assault Travis McMichael.

Thus in all your points you are in error.

Nor do you have the legal right to shoot anyone for following you around.

You demonstrate ignorance of the law simply that and nothing more.

 

[jc456]

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.”

never happened. watch the video. there was no blocking of anything by anyone. feel free to post a video that actually shows what you're assessing here. The black runner could have gone in any of 360 degrees away from the truck that was 100 yards in front of him. so no, he was not stopped. just didn't happen sampson.

 

[jc456]

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?

no one obstructed anyone. show me that video. no one walked up to the black man and no one touched the black man. No one did anything accept talk to him.

 

[jc456]

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.

accept the man with the gun did not confront the black man. not at all. he was minding his own business with a gun in his possession, that's it. the black man created the confrontation. first punch matters son.


Now again, what was the kid with the gun supposed to do when the black man grabbed the shotgun? please tell us.

 

[Faun]

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.

LOL

If the father recognized Arbery, that makes him an even bigger moron. The state should tack on criminal charges just for being stupid.

That means they didn't even have to chase Arbery. All Gregory McMichael had to do is call 911 and tell them he saw Ahmaud Arbery possibly burglarizing a house and the police would have found him.

Instead, the McMichaels took the law into their own hands and ended up murdering Arbery, for which they face the restvof their lives in prison. Maybe even the death penalty for the son.

 

[Faun]

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.

He knew he worked on an investigation to prosecute Arbery. Even if he didn't recall his name, he had enough information about Arbery for the police to know who he was and where to find him.

 

[Faun]

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.

There is no law against following someone...anyone can do it and quite legally.

The MicMichaaels did not obstruct anyone...the suspect had complete freedom of movement at all times.


The McMichaels did not brandish weapons.
To brandish something is to wave it about aggressively which they never did.

The McMichaels never threatened anyone.

Nothing that happened gave the suspect the right to assault Travis McMichael.

Thus in all your points you are in error.

Nor do you have the legal right to shoot anyone for following you around.

You demonstrate ignorance of the law simply that and nothing more.

Imbecile, "brandish" does not require any waving. WTF is wrong with you? Brandish merely means to show someone you have a weapon.

 

[Faun]

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?

no one obstructed anyone. show me that video. no one walked up to the black man and no one touched the black man. No one did anything accept talk to him.

Dumbfuck, if they weren't trying to block Arbery, he wouldn't of had to alter his direction and go around the passenger side of the truck.

 

[Meathead]

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?

no one obstructed anyone. show me that video. no one walked up to the black man and no one touched the black man. No one did anything accept talk to him.

Dumbfuck, if they weren't trying to block Arbery, he wouldn't of had to alter his direction and go around the passenger side of the truck.

Why can't you race pimps find a victim that wasn't a thug?

 

[Faun]

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?

no one obstructed anyone. show me that video. no one walked up to the black man and no one touched the black man. No one did anything accept talk to him.

Dumbfuck, if they weren't trying to block Arbery, he wouldn't of had to alter his direction and go around the passenger side of the truck.

Why can't you race pimps find a victim that wasn't a thug?

Your non-sequitur is noted.

 

[Meathead]

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?

no one obstructed anyone. show me that video. no one walked up to the black man and no one touched the black man. No one did anything accept talk to him.

Dumbfuck, if they weren't trying to block Arbery, he wouldn't of had to alter his direction and go around the passenger side of the truck.

Why can't you race pimps find a victim that wasn't a thug?

Your non-sequitur is noted.

AA wasn't a thug?!

 

[Faun]

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?

no one obstructed anyone. show me that video. no one walked up to the black man and no one touched the black man. No one did anything accept talk to him.

Dumbfuck, if they weren't trying to block Arbery, he wouldn't of had to alter his direction and go around the passenger side of the truck.

Why can't you race pimps find a victim that wasn't a thug?

Your non-sequitur is noted.

AA wasn't a thug?!

Your post had nothing to do with what I posted. Ergo, a non-sequitur.

As far as Arbery being a thug... no, not by the definition of the word, he wasn't.

thug

a brutal ruffian or assassin​

 

[Meathead]

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?

no one obstructed anyone. show me that video. no one walked up to the black man and no one touched the black man. No one did anything accept talk to him.

Dumbfuck, if they weren't trying to block Arbery, he wouldn't of had to alter his direction and go around the passenger side of the truck.

Why can't you race pimps find a victim that wasn't a thug?

Your non-sequitur is noted.

AA wasn't a thug?!

Your post had nothing to do with what I posted. Ergo, a non-sequitur.

As far as Arbery being a thug... no, not by the definition of the word, he wasn't.

thug​

​

a brutal ruffian or assassin​

Are you saying AA wasn't a "a brutal ruffian" then? Did you see the video in which he starred?

Btw, where the hell did you get that definition, from Samuel Johnson's 1755 dictionary?

 

[Faun]

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?

no one obstructed anyone. show me that video. no one walked up to the black man and no one touched the black man. No one did anything accept talk to him.

Dumbfuck, if they weren't trying to block Arbery, he wouldn't of had to alter his direction and go around the passenger side of the truck.

Why can't you race pimps find a victim that wasn't a thug?

Your non-sequitur is noted.

AA wasn't a thug?!

Your post had nothing to do with what I posted. Ergo, a non-sequitur.

As far as Arbery being a thug... no, not by the definition of the word, he wasn't.

thug​

​

a brutal ruffian or assassin​

Are you saying AA wasn't a "a brutal ruffian" then? Did you see the video in which he starred?

Btw, where the hell did you get that definition, from Samuel Johnson's 1755 dictionary?

That was self-defense.

And I posted a link to the dictionary I referenced. Merriam Webster, one of the most respected dictionaries in the country.

 

[jc456]

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.

well it looks like they were right. the black dude lost his fking mind and attacked the kid. the black dude had issues.

 

[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.

There is no law against following someone...anyone can do it and quite legally.

The MicMichaaels did not obstruct anyone...the suspect had complete freedom of movement at all times.


The McMichaels did not brandish weapons.
To brandish something is to wave it about aggressively which they never did.

The McMichaels never threatened anyone.

Nothing that happened gave the suspect the right to assault Travis McMichael.

Thus in all your points you are in error.

Nor do you have the legal right to shoot anyone for following you around.

You demonstrate ignorance of the law simply that and nothing more.

Accept they are in jail, will be prosecuted and it is pretty damn certain that they will be convicted.

 

[The Irish Ram]

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.

accept the man with the gun did not confront the black man. not at all. he was minding his own business with a gun in his possession, that's it. the black man created the confrontation. first punch matters son.


Now again, what was the kid with the gun supposed to do when the black man grabbed the shotgun? please tell us.

In their own words, "We chased him down".

 

[jc456]

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.

accept the man with the gun did not confront the black man. not at all. he was minding his own business with a gun in his possession, that's it. the black man created the confrontation. first punch matters son.


Now again, what was the kid with the gun supposed to do when the black man grabbed the shotgun? please tell us.

In their own words, "We chased him down".

They also said they just wanted to talk to him. The black man didn’t seem interested in a conversation. The son and father pulled far ahead of the black man to see if they could talk. Instead, the black man attacked the kid. At no time did they actually detain the black man from his run. Instead, the black man attacked the kid in the middle of the street, grabbed the kids gun and punched him in the face as he attempted to take the gun. Right?
Now I Asked you, what was the kids supposed to do once the black man grabbed his gun?

 

[The Irish Ram]

Stay in the truck...

 

[jc456]

Stay in the truck...

they did.