New Twist to Thug Killing!

[SavannahMann]

I am going with the experts. For some reason a Snake Oil Salesman in a he parking lot does not give me nearly the reassurance of actual professionals.

didn't the experts go with a conviction for Zimmerman? your experts aren't very good.

In Georgia he would have been guilty. Our laws are different from Florida. But Zimmerman got a fair trial and created the doubt the Jury said was Reasonable. I have no heartburn over the verdict. It is the way the system is supposed to work.

ohhhhkay Francis. The things you think you know.

In Georgia he would have set off in pursuit of a man who had committed no crime in his presence. As the McMichaels and their neighbor have learned to their sorrow. That is a crime. Under Georgia Law. As the McMichaels are learning. You can not claim self defense if you are the aggressor. The best that Zimmerman could have claimed was mutual combat. In other words they were fighting. Possibly involuntary Manslaughter under Georgia law.

Each State has different laws. And in each State the same action is viewed differently.

AA did commit a crime:

Georgia Trespassing 101

In one way or another we encounter sign posts with the above inscriptions posted on fences and trees. But what do those words mean? What does criminal trespassi

bixonlaw.com

Was the house so posted?

posted??? for what?

No Trespassing. Was the house posted? We’re there signs up?

..I don't see anything in the law saying there has to be signs
AND he KNEW he was trespassing --don't try that stupid shit

Really? Nothing in the law?

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

Here is a long post by an actual lawyer.

Here is the actual text of the law.

Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-7-21 | FindLaw

Georgia Title 16. Crimes and Offenses Section 16-7-21. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

Now why the lawyer? Because the lawyer tells you how the law is applied. Arbury would have had to been told by the owner, occupant, authorized representative, or posted no trespassing sign that he was not allowed on the property. Since the Owner said he never told him. There were no authorized representatives. That leaves a No Trespassing sign. So which of these conditions were met to show AA was violating the law?

The one where he was trespassing

Ok, let me get this straight. The law says he was not trespassing. But we’re not going to go with what the law says. We’re not going to go with precedence. We’re not going to use the rules that were written down, instead we’re going to make them up after the fact.

There are certain conditions that must be met before a person can be charged with Trespassing in Georgia. 1) Damaging the property in excess of $500. Well that didn’t happen. 2) Intent to commit a crime. That usually requires the presence of what are commonly called burglary tools or something else. Being found on a property with lock picks or weapons, usually means you intended something. Since AA didn’t have that one covered either, we’re moving along.

3) Ignoring A posted No Trespassing Sign. Now, that sign is visible in places in Georgia. That is the legal warning not to do it. If the signs are posted, and legible, then anyone who enters your property can be prosecuted for Trespassing. The police can arrest them. I wouldn’t suggest Citizens Arrest, but you’re the daring behind the computer sort, so maybe you would.

4) Either refusing to leave, or returning after you have been told by the Owner, the occupant, or the authorized representative. If your neighbor comes over and swears he is authorized and he isn’t in writing, then the police can not arrest the trespasser for that.

That’s pretty much it. We know Arbury did not damage anything. No Burglar tools, and not posted. Not told to leave by the Representative, Owner, or Occupant. So how exactly was he Trespassing?

 

[FA_Q2]

More charges were just filed on the neighbor who shot the video. You were saying?

I just saw that, too. I’m very curious what brought those charges on; what information do investigators have that the third man was involved? It certainly could make the case against the McMichaels stronger if it can be shown the third man was involved and they lied about it.

The McMichaels were idiots from the get go. Rule one. Never talk to the police without a lawyer. Their own statements are evidence against them. As a boy My Dad told me most people talk their way into prison.

Gregory McMichael was once a cop, you'd think he would have known that.

Why do you think he thought he could kill this man in cold blood.

He thought he was untouchable and he damn near was but he was also stupid enough to have video taken of the killing.

I don't think he thought that. He wasn't the one to leave the truck and threaten Arbery to stop by brandishing a firearm.

He did decide to chase him down with a shotgun and demand that he stop.

Maybe not thinking to kill him but certainly on a massive power trip and felt more than comfortable threatening this man with his weapon. I certainly do think that he thought he was untouchable or he would not have acted like a damn vigilante.

 

[FA_Q2]

Apparently, it wasn't the first time the thug was seen wondering around the neighborhood casing houses:

The Feb. 11 encounter had been prompted by a motion-sensor security camera video in the construction site that had pinged the property owner who was two hours away. The owner, Larry English, texted the video to Perez, who lived near the construction site.

Perez, who has spoken to the GBI, had offered to keep watch, and told English he’d be happy to check on the property any time. English told the AJC that he did not know the McMichaels or provide them with any camera footage. Nothing was taken from his property, he said.

Perez said he was armed when he left his home and walked up Satilla Drive that night. As he walked toward the house under construction, Perez said Travis McMichael drove up from the opposite direction, and stopped his truck.

“Travis saw him in the yard and Travis stopped,” Perez told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on Tuesday. “He confronted (the man) halfway into the yard. He said (the man) reached for his waistband, and Travis got spooked and went down the road. “

When McMichael returned, his father, Gregory McMichael, was with him and armed, said Perez, who added the elder McMichael had called the Glynn County Police Department.

Suspects in Arbery shooting had earlier neighborhood confrontation

Less than two weeks before the Feb. 23 incident that left Ahmaud Arbery fatally shot in a suburb outside Brunswick, the father and son charged in the case had a confrontation with a young black man who had entered a neighboring house under construction, according to a neighbor who helped in the...

www.ajc.com

So in other words, if something thinks the McMichael's are criminals, it will be OK for them to be shot in the streets too. And I'm pretty sure that the community will be a much better and safter place when racist thugs like the McMichaels are dead and gone.

When the senior McMichaels was on the force, he was given a desk job because of his use of excessive force on the job. He wasn't allowed to carry a gun or make arrests because he was a violent racist jackass. Instead of being fired, he was given the "Good ole boy" job of riding a desk until he could claim his pension.

There are a lot of white thugs like McMichaels, working for police forces across the country. More than 500 unarmed people are shot and killed by police every single year. And a lot of good cops get themselves into trouble covering for these assholes.

And you slavering racists run to thuggify their victims every single time. The police SAW that video and released them. I mean black guys get shot all of the time and cops are never sent to jail for it.

I have not seen anything that relates this to racism. Do you have a link. Just because the victim is black does not mean he was racist. I do not really doubt that if a white guy was leaving the construction site he would have done the same thing. It looks more like a power thing to me.

 

[harmonica]

I am going with the experts. For some reason a Snake Oil Salesman in a he parking lot does not give me nearly the reassurance of actual professionals.

didn't the experts go with a conviction for Zimmerman? your experts aren't very good.

In Georgia he would have been guilty. Our laws are different from Florida. But Zimmerman got a fair trial and created the doubt the Jury said was Reasonable. I have no heartburn over the verdict. It is the way the system is supposed to work.

ohhhhkay Francis. The things you think you know.

In Georgia he would have set off in pursuit of a man who had committed no crime in his presence. As the McMichaels and their neighbor have learned to their sorrow. That is a crime. Under Georgia Law. As the McMichaels are learning. You can not claim self defense if you are the aggressor. The best that Zimmerman could have claimed was mutual combat. In other words they were fighting. Possibly involuntary Manslaughter under Georgia law.

Each State has different laws. And in each State the same action is viewed differently.

AA did commit a crime:

Georgia Trespassing 101

In one way or another we encounter sign posts with the above inscriptions posted on fences and trees. But what do those words mean? What does criminal trespassi

bixonlaw.com

Was the house so posted?

posted??? for what?

No Trespassing. Was the house posted? We’re there signs up?

..I don't see anything in the law saying there has to be signs
AND he KNEW he was trespassing --don't try that stupid shit

Really? Nothing in the law?

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

Here is a long post by an actual lawyer.

Here is the actual text of the law.

Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-7-21 | FindLaw

Georgia Title 16. Crimes and Offenses Section 16-7-21. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

Now why the lawyer? Because the lawyer tells you how the law is applied. Arbury would have had to been told by the owner, occupant, authorized representative, or posted no trespassing sign that he was not allowed on the property. Since the Owner said he never told him. There were no authorized representatives. That leaves a No Trespassing sign. So which of these conditions were met to show AA was violating the law?

The one where he was trespassing

Ok, let me get this straight. The law says he was not trespassing. But we’re not going to go with what the law says. We’re not going to go with precedence. We’re not going to use the rules that were written down, instead we’re going to make them up after the fact.

There are certain conditions that must be met before a person can be charged with Trespassing in Georgia. 1) Damaging the property in excess of $500. Well that didn’t happen. 2) Intent to commit a crime. That usually requires the presence of what are commonly called burglary tools or something else. Being found on a property with lock picks or weapons, usually means you intended something. Since AA didn’t have that one covered either, we’re moving along.

3) Ignoring A posted No Trespassing Sign. Now, that sign is visible in places in Georgia. That is the legal warning not to do it. If the signs are posted, and legible, then anyone who enters your property can be prosecuted for Trespassing. The police can arrest them. I wouldn’t suggest Citizens Arrest, but you’re the daring behind the computer sort, so maybe you would.

4) Either refusing to leave, or returning after you have been told by the Owner, the occupant, or the authorized representative. If your neighbor comes over and swears he is authorized and he isn’t in writing, then the police can not arrest the trespasser for that.

That’s pretty much it. We know Arbury did not damage anything. No Burglar tools, and not posted. Not told to leave by the Representative, Owner, or Occupant. So how exactly was he Trespassing?

the law and COMMON sense says he was trespassing ..it's right there in the link...he had a history of crap--even stealing---so his purpose was not to get a drink

 

[SavannahMann]

I am going with the experts. For some reason a Snake Oil Salesman in a he parking lot does not give me nearly the reassurance of actual professionals.

didn't the experts go with a conviction for Zimmerman? your experts aren't very good.

In Georgia he would have been guilty. Our laws are different from Florida. But Zimmerman got a fair trial and created the doubt the Jury said was Reasonable. I have no heartburn over the verdict. It is the way the system is supposed to work.

ohhhhkay Francis. The things you think you know.

In Georgia he would have set off in pursuit of a man who had committed no crime in his presence. As the McMichaels and their neighbor have learned to their sorrow. That is a crime. Under Georgia Law. As the McMichaels are learning. You can not claim self defense if you are the aggressor. The best that Zimmerman could have claimed was mutual combat. In other words they were fighting. Possibly involuntary Manslaughter under Georgia law.

Each State has different laws. And in each State the same action is viewed differently.

AA did commit a crime:

Georgia Trespassing 101

In one way or another we encounter sign posts with the above inscriptions posted on fences and trees. But what do those words mean? What does criminal trespassi

bixonlaw.com

Was the house so posted?

posted??? for what?

No Trespassing. Was the house posted? We’re there signs up?

..I don't see anything in the law saying there has to be signs
AND he KNEW he was trespassing --don't try that stupid shit

Really? Nothing in the law?

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

Here is a long post by an actual lawyer.

Here is the actual text of the law.

Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-7-21 | FindLaw

Georgia Title 16. Crimes and Offenses Section 16-7-21. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

Now why the lawyer? Because the lawyer tells you how the law is applied. Arbury would have had to been told by the owner, occupant, authorized representative, or posted no trespassing sign that he was not allowed on the property. Since the Owner said he never told him. There were no authorized representatives. That leaves a No Trespassing sign. So which of these conditions were met to show AA was violating the law?

The one where he was trespassing

Ok, let me get this straight. The law says he was not trespassing. But we’re not going to go with what the law says. We’re not going to go with precedence. We’re not going to use the rules that were written down, instead we’re going to make them up after the fact.

There are certain conditions that must be met before a person can be charged with Trespassing in Georgia. 1) Damaging the property in excess of $500. Well that didn’t happen. 2) Intent to commit a crime. That usually requires the presence of what are commonly called burglary tools or something else. Being found on a property with lock picks or weapons, usually means you intended something. Since AA didn’t have that one covered either, we’re moving along.

3) Ignoring A posted No Trespassing Sign. Now, that sign is visible in places in Georgia. That is the legal warning not to do it. If the signs are posted, and legible, then anyone who enters your property can be prosecuted for Trespassing. The police can arrest them. I wouldn’t suggest Citizens Arrest, but you’re the daring behind the computer sort, so maybe you would.

4) Either refusing to leave, or returning after you have been told by the Owner, the occupant, or the authorized representative. If your neighbor comes over and swears he is authorized and he isn’t in writing, then the police can not arrest the trespasser for that.

That’s pretty much it. We know Arbury did not damage anything. No Burglar tools, and not posted. Not told to leave by the Representative, Owner, or Occupant. So how exactly was he Trespassing?

the law and COMMON sense says he was trespassing ..it's right there in the link...he had a history of crap--even stealing---so his purpose was not to get a drink

Ok. The law says so. I posted the law. I explained the conditions that allowed for the charge. You say he just was so there. But as was explained by the lawyer I linked to. Even if he was. It would not help the McMichaels. They were not authorized representatives and had no authority to stop, detain, or arrest Arbury.

Now instead of trying to figure out why the law is written that way. You just declare that the law and common sense say so. He was a thief. And that is all he will ever be. The problem is that the courts have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was stealing then. That is if a cop arrests him. For a citizen, the standard is much higher. But you don’t care about what the law actually says. Or how it is actually applied. Your word is to be law.

I do not know where you live. I don’t care. What I can say is I hope you do not come to Georgia. Because your obstinate refusal to deal with truth would get you in trouble.

 

[harmonica]

I am going with the experts. For some reason a Snake Oil Salesman in a he parking lot does not give me nearly the reassurance of actual professionals.

didn't the experts go with a conviction for Zimmerman? your experts aren't very good.

In Georgia he would have been guilty. Our laws are different from Florida. But Zimmerman got a fair trial and created the doubt the Jury said was Reasonable. I have no heartburn over the verdict. It is the way the system is supposed to work.

ohhhhkay Francis. The things you think you know.

In Georgia he would have set off in pursuit of a man who had committed no crime in his presence. As the McMichaels and their neighbor have learned to their sorrow. That is a crime. Under Georgia Law. As the McMichaels are learning. You can not claim self defense if you are the aggressor. The best that Zimmerman could have claimed was mutual combat. In other words they were fighting. Possibly involuntary Manslaughter under Georgia law.

Each State has different laws. And in each State the same action is viewed differently.

AA did commit a crime:

Georgia Trespassing 101

In one way or another we encounter sign posts with the above inscriptions posted on fences and trees. But what do those words mean? What does criminal trespassi

bixonlaw.com

Was the house so posted?

posted??? for what?

No Trespassing. Was the house posted? We’re there signs up?

..I don't see anything in the law saying there has to be signs
AND he KNEW he was trespassing --don't try that stupid shit

Really? Nothing in the law?

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

Here is a long post by an actual lawyer.

Here is the actual text of the law.

Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-7-21 | FindLaw

Georgia Title 16. Crimes and Offenses Section 16-7-21. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

Now why the lawyer? Because the lawyer tells you how the law is applied. Arbury would have had to been told by the owner, occupant, authorized representative, or posted no trespassing sign that he was not allowed on the property. Since the Owner said he never told him. There were no authorized representatives. That leaves a No Trespassing sign. So which of these conditions were met to show AA was violating the law?

The one where he was trespassing

Ok, let me get this straight. The law says he was not trespassing. But we’re not going to go with what the law says. We’re not going to go with precedence. We’re not going to use the rules that were written down, instead we’re going to make them up after the fact.

There are certain conditions that must be met before a person can be charged with Trespassing in Georgia. 1) Damaging the property in excess of $500. Well that didn’t happen. 2) Intent to commit a crime. That usually requires the presence of what are commonly called burglary tools or something else. Being found on a property with lock picks or weapons, usually means you intended something. Since AA didn’t have that one covered either, we’re moving along.

3) Ignoring A posted No Trespassing Sign. Now, that sign is visible in places in Georgia. That is the legal warning not to do it. If the signs are posted, and legible, then anyone who enters your property can be prosecuted for Trespassing. The police can arrest them. I wouldn’t suggest Citizens Arrest, but you’re the daring behind the computer sort, so maybe you would.

4) Either refusing to leave, or returning after you have been told by the Owner, the occupant, or the authorized representative. If your neighbor comes over and swears he is authorized and he isn’t in writing, then the police can not arrest the trespasser for that.

That’s pretty much it. We know Arbury did not damage anything. No Burglar tools, and not posted. Not told to leave by the Representative, Owner, or Occupant. So how exactly was he Trespassing?

the law and COMMON sense says he was trespassing ..it's right there in the link...he had a history of crap--even stealing---so his purpose was not to get a drink

Ok. The law says so. I posted the law. I explained the conditions that allowed for the charge. You say he just was so there. But as was explained by the lawyer I linked to. Even if he was. It would not help the McMichaels. They were not authorized representatives and had no authority to stop, detain, or arrest Arbury.

Now instead of trying to figure out why the law is written that way. You just declare that the law and common sense say so. He was a thief. And that is all he will ever be. The problem is that the courts have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was stealing then. That is if a cop arrests him. For a citizen, the standard is much higher. But you don’t care about what the law actually says. Or how it is actually applied. Your word is to be law.

I do not know where you live. I don’t care. What I can say is I hope you do not come to Georgia. Because your obstinate refusal to deal with truth would get you in trouble.

hahahhahahaah--get me into trouble--THERE--RIGHT THERE--I don't go onto other people's property...I don't commit crimes..I don't do stupid childish things...I won't get into trouble
....if you don't do something stupid, you'll be ok..THEN, if there is a problem, don't be even more stupid and escalate it

 

[jc456]

That is if a cop arrests him. For a citizen, the standard is much higher. But you don’t care about what the law actually says. Or how it is actually applied. Your word is to be law

If he wasn’t guilty, why escalate the issue when all the mcmichaels wanted to do was talk? And scared people avoid confrontation at all costs.

 

[SavannahMann]

That is if a cop arrests him. For a citizen, the standard is much higher. But you don’t care about what the law actually says. Or how it is actually applied. Your word is to be law

If he wasn’t guilty, why escalate the issue when all the mcmichaels wanted to do was talk? And scared people avoid confrontation at all costs.

Armed Black men are approaching you in public. They are shouting at you to stop. Are they there to cause you harm? Or are they there for purely innocent reasons?

We know that the McMichaels reasons were not innocent. That has been established in the minds of all but the most obstinate idiots.

 

[SavannahMann]

I am going with the experts. For some reason a Snake Oil Salesman in a he parking lot does not give me nearly the reassurance of actual professionals.

didn't the experts go with a conviction for Zimmerman? your experts aren't very good.

In Georgia he would have been guilty. Our laws are different from Florida. But Zimmerman got a fair trial and created the doubt the Jury said was Reasonable. I have no heartburn over the verdict. It is the way the system is supposed to work.

ohhhhkay Francis. The things you think you know.

In Georgia he would have set off in pursuit of a man who had committed no crime in his presence. As the McMichaels and their neighbor have learned to their sorrow. That is a crime. Under Georgia Law. As the McMichaels are learning. You can not claim self defense if you are the aggressor. The best that Zimmerman could have claimed was mutual combat. In other words they were fighting. Possibly involuntary Manslaughter under Georgia law.

Each State has different laws. And in each State the same action is viewed differently.

AA did commit a crime:

Georgia Trespassing 101

In one way or another we encounter sign posts with the above inscriptions posted on fences and trees. But what do those words mean? What does criminal trespassi

bixonlaw.com

Was the house so posted?

posted??? for what?

No Trespassing. Was the house posted? We’re there signs up?

..I don't see anything in the law saying there has to be signs
AND he KNEW he was trespassing --don't try that stupid shit

Really? Nothing in the law?

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

Here is a long post by an actual lawyer.

Here is the actual text of the law.

Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-7-21 | FindLaw

Georgia Title 16. Crimes and Offenses Section 16-7-21. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

Now why the lawyer? Because the lawyer tells you how the law is applied. Arbury would have had to been told by the owner, occupant, authorized representative, or posted no trespassing sign that he was not allowed on the property. Since the Owner said he never told him. There were no authorized representatives. That leaves a No Trespassing sign. So which of these conditions were met to show AA was violating the law?

The one where he was trespassing

Ok, let me get this straight. The law says he was not trespassing. But we’re not going to go with what the law says. We’re not going to go with precedence. We’re not going to use the rules that were written down, instead we’re going to make them up after the fact.

There are certain conditions that must be met before a person can be charged with Trespassing in Georgia. 1) Damaging the property in excess of $500. Well that didn’t happen. 2) Intent to commit a crime. That usually requires the presence of what are commonly called burglary tools or something else. Being found on a property with lock picks or weapons, usually means you intended something. Since AA didn’t have that one covered either, we’re moving along.

3) Ignoring A posted No Trespassing Sign. Now, that sign is visible in places in Georgia. That is the legal warning not to do it. If the signs are posted, and legible, then anyone who enters your property can be prosecuted for Trespassing. The police can arrest them. I wouldn’t suggest Citizens Arrest, but you’re the daring behind the computer sort, so maybe you would.

4) Either refusing to leave, or returning after you have been told by the Owner, the occupant, or the authorized representative. If your neighbor comes over and swears he is authorized and he isn’t in writing, then the police can not arrest the trespasser for that.

That’s pretty much it. We know Arbury did not damage anything. No Burglar tools, and not posted. Not told to leave by the Representative, Owner, or Occupant. So how exactly was he Trespassing?

the law and COMMON sense says he was trespassing ..it's right there in the link...he had a history of crap--even stealing---so his purpose was not to get a drink

Ok. The law says so. I posted the law. I explained the conditions that allowed for the charge. You say he just was so there. But as was explained by the lawyer I linked to. Even if he was. It would not help the McMichaels. They were not authorized representatives and had no authority to stop, detain, or arrest Arbury.

Now instead of trying to figure out why the law is written that way. You just declare that the law and common sense say so. He was a thief. And that is all he will ever be. The problem is that the courts have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was stealing then. That is if a cop arrests him. For a citizen, the standard is much higher. But you don’t care about what the law actually says. Or how it is actually applied. Your word is to be law.

I do not know where you live. I don’t care. What I can say is I hope you do not come to Georgia. Because your obstinate refusal to deal with truth would get you in trouble.

hahahhahahaah--get me into trouble--THERE--RIGHT THERE--I don't go onto other people's property...I don't commit crimes..I don't do stupid childish things...I won't get into trouble
....if you don't do something stupid, you'll be ok..THEN, if there is a problem, don't be even more stupid and escalate it

Oh you would. You would see someone on someone else’s property and jump on your white Horse, and get into trouble. It is called illegal imprisonment. It’s a Felony in Georgia. Your defense would be shouting at the Cops arresting you, and the Prosecutor trying you, the Judge, and the Jury, that you know Trespassing and don’t care what the law says.

Yeah, you would get into trouble. Just as the McMichaels did. Because you don’t care what the law says. You are going to use Common Sense, which is hardly common, as your argument. You would certainly find yourself in trouble.

 

[harmonica]

I am going with the experts. For some reason a Snake Oil Salesman in a he parking lot does not give me nearly the reassurance of actual professionals.

didn't the experts go with a conviction for Zimmerman? your experts aren't very good.

In Georgia he would have been guilty. Our laws are different from Florida. But Zimmerman got a fair trial and created the doubt the Jury said was Reasonable. I have no heartburn over the verdict. It is the way the system is supposed to work.

ohhhhkay Francis. The things you think you know.

In Georgia he would have set off in pursuit of a man who had committed no crime in his presence. As the McMichaels and their neighbor have learned to their sorrow. That is a crime. Under Georgia Law. As the McMichaels are learning. You can not claim self defense if you are the aggressor. The best that Zimmerman could have claimed was mutual combat. In other words they were fighting. Possibly involuntary Manslaughter under Georgia law.

Each State has different laws. And in each State the same action is viewed differently.

AA did commit a crime:

Georgia Trespassing 101

In one way or another we encounter sign posts with the above inscriptions posted on fences and trees. But what do those words mean? What does criminal trespassi

bixonlaw.com

Was the house so posted?

posted??? for what?

No Trespassing. Was the house posted? We’re there signs up?

..I don't see anything in the law saying there has to be signs
AND he KNEW he was trespassing --don't try that stupid shit

Really? Nothing in the law?

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

Here is a long post by an actual lawyer.

Here is the actual text of the law.

Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-7-21 | FindLaw

Georgia Title 16. Crimes and Offenses Section 16-7-21. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

Now why the lawyer? Because the lawyer tells you how the law is applied. Arbury would have had to been told by the owner, occupant, authorized representative, or posted no trespassing sign that he was not allowed on the property. Since the Owner said he never told him. There were no authorized representatives. That leaves a No Trespassing sign. So which of these conditions were met to show AA was violating the law?

The one where he was trespassing

Ok, let me get this straight. The law says he was not trespassing. But we’re not going to go with what the law says. We’re not going to go with precedence. We’re not going to use the rules that were written down, instead we’re going to make them up after the fact.

There are certain conditions that must be met before a person can be charged with Trespassing in Georgia. 1) Damaging the property in excess of $500. Well that didn’t happen. 2) Intent to commit a crime. That usually requires the presence of what are commonly called burglary tools or something else. Being found on a property with lock picks or weapons, usually means you intended something. Since AA didn’t have that one covered either, we’re moving along.

3) Ignoring A posted No Trespassing Sign. Now, that sign is visible in places in Georgia. That is the legal warning not to do it. If the signs are posted, and legible, then anyone who enters your property can be prosecuted for Trespassing. The police can arrest them. I wouldn’t suggest Citizens Arrest, but you’re the daring behind the computer sort, so maybe you would.

4) Either refusing to leave, or returning after you have been told by the Owner, the occupant, or the authorized representative. If your neighbor comes over and swears he is authorized and he isn’t in writing, then the police can not arrest the trespasser for that.

That’s pretty much it. We know Arbury did not damage anything. No Burglar tools, and not posted. Not told to leave by the Representative, Owner, or Occupant. So how exactly was he Trespassing?

the law and COMMON sense says he was trespassing ..it's right there in the link...he had a history of crap--even stealing---so his purpose was not to get a drink

Ok. The law says so. I posted the law. I explained the conditions that allowed for the charge. You say he just was so there. But as was explained by the lawyer I linked to. Even if he was. It would not help the McMichaels. They were not authorized representatives and had no authority to stop, detain, or arrest Arbury.

Now instead of trying to figure out why the law is written that way. You just declare that the law and common sense say so. He was a thief. And that is all he will ever be. The problem is that the courts have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was stealing then. That is if a cop arrests him. For a citizen, the standard is much higher. But you don’t care about what the law actually says. Or how it is actually applied. Your word is to be law.

I do not know where you live. I don’t care. What I can say is I hope you do not come to Georgia. Because your obstinate refusal to deal with truth would get you in trouble.

hahahhahahaah--get me into trouble--THERE--RIGHT THERE--I don't go onto other people's property...I don't commit crimes..I don't do stupid childish things...I won't get into trouble
....if you don't do something stupid, you'll be ok..THEN, if there is a problem, don't be even more stupid and escalate it

Oh you would. You would see someone on someone else’s property and jump on your white Horse, and get into trouble. It is called illegal imprisonment. It’s a Felony in Georgia. Your defense would be shouting at the Cops arresting you, and the Prosecutor trying you, the Judge, and the Jury, that you know Trespassing and don’t care what the law says.

Yeah, you would get into trouble. Just as the McMichaels did. Because you don’t care what the law says. You are going to use Common Sense, which is hardly common, as your argument. You would certainly find yourself in trouble.

much silliness from you--no I would not

 

[SavannahMann]

I am going with the experts. For some reason a Snake Oil Salesman in a he parking lot does not give me nearly the reassurance of actual professionals.

didn't the experts go with a conviction for Zimmerman? your experts aren't very good.

In Georgia he would have been guilty. Our laws are different from Florida. But Zimmerman got a fair trial and created the doubt the Jury said was Reasonable. I have no heartburn over the verdict. It is the way the system is supposed to work.

ohhhhkay Francis. The things you think you know.

In Georgia he would have set off in pursuit of a man who had committed no crime in his presence. As the McMichaels and their neighbor have learned to their sorrow. That is a crime. Under Georgia Law. As the McMichaels are learning. You can not claim self defense if you are the aggressor. The best that Zimmerman could have claimed was mutual combat. In other words they were fighting. Possibly involuntary Manslaughter under Georgia law.

Each State has different laws. And in each State the same action is viewed differently.

AA did commit a crime:

Georgia Trespassing 101

In one way or another we encounter sign posts with the above inscriptions posted on fences and trees. But what do those words mean? What does criminal trespassi

bixonlaw.com

Was the house so posted?

posted??? for what?

No Trespassing. Was the house posted? We’re there signs up?

..I don't see anything in the law saying there has to be signs
AND he KNEW he was trespassing --don't try that stupid shit

Really? Nothing in the law?

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

Here is a long post by an actual lawyer.

Here is the actual text of the law.

Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-7-21 | FindLaw

Georgia Title 16. Crimes and Offenses Section 16-7-21. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

Now why the lawyer? Because the lawyer tells you how the law is applied. Arbury would have had to been told by the owner, occupant, authorized representative, or posted no trespassing sign that he was not allowed on the property. Since the Owner said he never told him. There were no authorized representatives. That leaves a No Trespassing sign. So which of these conditions were met to show AA was violating the law?

The one where he was trespassing

Ok, let me get this straight. The law says he was not trespassing. But we’re not going to go with what the law says. We’re not going to go with precedence. We’re not going to use the rules that were written down, instead we’re going to make them up after the fact.

There are certain conditions that must be met before a person can be charged with Trespassing in Georgia. 1) Damaging the property in excess of $500. Well that didn’t happen. 2) Intent to commit a crime. That usually requires the presence of what are commonly called burglary tools or something else. Being found on a property with lock picks or weapons, usually means you intended something. Since AA didn’t have that one covered either, we’re moving along.

3) Ignoring A posted No Trespassing Sign. Now, that sign is visible in places in Georgia. That is the legal warning not to do it. If the signs are posted, and legible, then anyone who enters your property can be prosecuted for Trespassing. The police can arrest them. I wouldn’t suggest Citizens Arrest, but you’re the daring behind the computer sort, so maybe you would.

4) Either refusing to leave, or returning after you have been told by the Owner, the occupant, or the authorized representative. If your neighbor comes over and swears he is authorized and he isn’t in writing, then the police can not arrest the trespasser for that.

That’s pretty much it. We know Arbury did not damage anything. No Burglar tools, and not posted. Not told to leave by the Representative, Owner, or Occupant. So how exactly was he Trespassing?

the law and COMMON sense says he was trespassing ..it's right there in the link...he had a history of crap--even stealing---so his purpose was not to get a drink

Ok. The law says so. I posted the law. I explained the conditions that allowed for the charge. You say he just was so there. But as was explained by the lawyer I linked to. Even if he was. It would not help the McMichaels. They were not authorized representatives and had no authority to stop, detain, or arrest Arbury.

Now instead of trying to figure out why the law is written that way. You just declare that the law and common sense say so. He was a thief. And that is all he will ever be. The problem is that the courts have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was stealing then. That is if a cop arrests him. For a citizen, the standard is much higher. But you don’t care about what the law actually says. Or how it is actually applied. Your word is to be law.

I do not know where you live. I don’t care. What I can say is I hope you do not come to Georgia. Because your obstinate refusal to deal with truth would get you in trouble.

hahahhahahaah--get me into trouble--THERE--RIGHT THERE--I don't go onto other people's property...I don't commit crimes..I don't do stupid childish things...I won't get into trouble
....if you don't do something stupid, you'll be ok..THEN, if there is a problem, don't be even more stupid and escalate it

Oh you would. You would see someone on someone else’s property and jump on your white Horse, and get into trouble. It is called illegal imprisonment. It’s a Felony in Georgia. Your defense would be shouting at the Cops arresting you, and the Prosecutor trying you, the Judge, and the Jury, that you know Trespassing and don’t care what the law says.

Yeah, you would get into trouble. Just as the McMichaels did. Because you don’t care what the law says. You are going to use Common Sense, which is hardly common, as your argument. You would certainly find yourself in trouble.

much silliness from you--no I would not

So you are too smart to make those mistake? So why are you so adamant that the McMichaels are innocent when they did all that stupid?

 

[harmonica]

I am going with the experts. For some reason a Snake Oil Salesman in a he parking lot does not give me nearly the reassurance of actual professionals.

didn't the experts go with a conviction for Zimmerman? your experts aren't very good.

In Georgia he would have been guilty. Our laws are different from Florida. But Zimmerman got a fair trial and created the doubt the Jury said was Reasonable. I have no heartburn over the verdict. It is the way the system is supposed to work.

ohhhhkay Francis. The things you think you know.

In Georgia he would have set off in pursuit of a man who had committed no crime in his presence. As the McMichaels and their neighbor have learned to their sorrow. That is a crime. Under Georgia Law. As the McMichaels are learning. You can not claim self defense if you are the aggressor. The best that Zimmerman could have claimed was mutual combat. In other words they were fighting. Possibly involuntary Manslaughter under Georgia law.

Each State has different laws. And in each State the same action is viewed differently.

AA did commit a crime:

Georgia Trespassing 101

In one way or another we encounter sign posts with the above inscriptions posted on fences and trees. But what do those words mean? What does criminal trespassi

bixonlaw.com

Was the house so posted?

posted??? for what?

No Trespassing. Was the house posted? We’re there signs up?

..I don't see anything in the law saying there has to be signs
AND he KNEW he was trespassing --don't try that stupid shit

Really? Nothing in the law?

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

Here is a long post by an actual lawyer.

Here is the actual text of the law.

Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-7-21 | FindLaw

Georgia Title 16. Crimes and Offenses Section 16-7-21. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

Now why the lawyer? Because the lawyer tells you how the law is applied. Arbury would have had to been told by the owner, occupant, authorized representative, or posted no trespassing sign that he was not allowed on the property. Since the Owner said he never told him. There were no authorized representatives. That leaves a No Trespassing sign. So which of these conditions were met to show AA was violating the law?

The one where he was trespassing

Ok, let me get this straight. The law says he was not trespassing. But we’re not going to go with what the law says. We’re not going to go with precedence. We’re not going to use the rules that were written down, instead we’re going to make them up after the fact.

There are certain conditions that must be met before a person can be charged with Trespassing in Georgia. 1) Damaging the property in excess of $500. Well that didn’t happen. 2) Intent to commit a crime. That usually requires the presence of what are commonly called burglary tools or something else. Being found on a property with lock picks or weapons, usually means you intended something. Since AA didn’t have that one covered either, we’re moving along.

3) Ignoring A posted No Trespassing Sign. Now, that sign is visible in places in Georgia. That is the legal warning not to do it. If the signs are posted, and legible, then anyone who enters your property can be prosecuted for Trespassing. The police can arrest them. I wouldn’t suggest Citizens Arrest, but you’re the daring behind the computer sort, so maybe you would.

4) Either refusing to leave, or returning after you have been told by the Owner, the occupant, or the authorized representative. If your neighbor comes over and swears he is authorized and he isn’t in writing, then the police can not arrest the trespasser for that.

That’s pretty much it. We know Arbury did not damage anything. No Burglar tools, and not posted. Not told to leave by the Representative, Owner, or Occupant. So how exactly was he Trespassing?

the law and COMMON sense says he was trespassing ..it's right there in the link...he had a history of crap--even stealing---so his purpose was not to get a drink

Ok. The law says so. I posted the law. I explained the conditions that allowed for the charge. You say he just was so there. But as was explained by the lawyer I linked to. Even if he was. It would not help the McMichaels. They were not authorized representatives and had no authority to stop, detain, or arrest Arbury.

Now instead of trying to figure out why the law is written that way. You just declare that the law and common sense say so. He was a thief. And that is all he will ever be. The problem is that the courts have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was stealing then. That is if a cop arrests him. For a citizen, the standard is much higher. But you don’t care about what the law actually says. Or how it is actually applied. Your word is to be law.

I do not know where you live. I don’t care. What I can say is I hope you do not come to Georgia. Because your obstinate refusal to deal with truth would get you in trouble.

hahahhahahaah--get me into trouble--THERE--RIGHT THERE--I don't go onto other people's property...I don't commit crimes..I don't do stupid childish things...I won't get into trouble
....if you don't do something stupid, you'll be ok..THEN, if there is a problem, don't be even more stupid and escalate it

Oh you would. You would see someone on someone else’s property and jump on your white Horse, and get into trouble. It is called illegal imprisonment. It’s a Felony in Georgia. Your defense would be shouting at the Cops arresting you, and the Prosecutor trying you, the Judge, and the Jury, that you know Trespassing and don’t care what the law says.

Yeah, you would get into trouble. Just as the McMichaels did. Because you don’t care what the law says. You are going to use Common Sense, which is hardly common, as your argument. You would certainly find yourself in trouble.

much silliness from you--no I would not

So you are too smart to make those mistake? So why are you so adamant that the McMichaels are innocent when they did all that stupid?

they didn't do anything wrong or stupid

 

[SavannahMann]

I am going with the experts. For some reason a Snake Oil Salesman in a he parking lot does not give me nearly the reassurance of actual professionals.

didn't the experts go with a conviction for Zimmerman? your experts aren't very good.

In Georgia he would have been guilty. Our laws are different from Florida. But Zimmerman got a fair trial and created the doubt the Jury said was Reasonable. I have no heartburn over the verdict. It is the way the system is supposed to work.

ohhhhkay Francis. The things you think you know.

In Georgia he would have set off in pursuit of a man who had committed no crime in his presence. As the McMichaels and their neighbor have learned to their sorrow. That is a crime. Under Georgia Law. As the McMichaels are learning. You can not claim self defense if you are the aggressor. The best that Zimmerman could have claimed was mutual combat. In other words they were fighting. Possibly involuntary Manslaughter under Georgia law.

Each State has different laws. And in each State the same action is viewed differently.

AA did commit a crime:

Georgia Trespassing 101

In one way or another we encounter sign posts with the above inscriptions posted on fences and trees. But what do those words mean? What does criminal trespassi

bixonlaw.com

Was the house so posted?

posted??? for what?

No Trespassing. Was the house posted? We’re there signs up?

..I don't see anything in the law saying there has to be signs
AND he KNEW he was trespassing --don't try that stupid shit

Really? Nothing in the law?

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

Here is a long post by an actual lawyer.

Here is the actual text of the law.

Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-7-21 | FindLaw

Georgia Title 16. Crimes and Offenses Section 16-7-21. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

Now why the lawyer? Because the lawyer tells you how the law is applied. Arbury would have had to been told by the owner, occupant, authorized representative, or posted no trespassing sign that he was not allowed on the property. Since the Owner said he never told him. There were no authorized representatives. That leaves a No Trespassing sign. So which of these conditions were met to show AA was violating the law?

The one where he was trespassing

Ok, let me get this straight. The law says he was not trespassing. But we’re not going to go with what the law says. We’re not going to go with precedence. We’re not going to use the rules that were written down, instead we’re going to make them up after the fact.

There are certain conditions that must be met before a person can be charged with Trespassing in Georgia. 1) Damaging the property in excess of $500. Well that didn’t happen. 2) Intent to commit a crime. That usually requires the presence of what are commonly called burglary tools or something else. Being found on a property with lock picks or weapons, usually means you intended something. Since AA didn’t have that one covered either, we’re moving along.

3) Ignoring A posted No Trespassing Sign. Now, that sign is visible in places in Georgia. That is the legal warning not to do it. If the signs are posted, and legible, then anyone who enters your property can be prosecuted for Trespassing. The police can arrest them. I wouldn’t suggest Citizens Arrest, but you’re the daring behind the computer sort, so maybe you would.

4) Either refusing to leave, or returning after you have been told by the Owner, the occupant, or the authorized representative. If your neighbor comes over and swears he is authorized and he isn’t in writing, then the police can not arrest the trespasser for that.

That’s pretty much it. We know Arbury did not damage anything. No Burglar tools, and not posted. Not told to leave by the Representative, Owner, or Occupant. So how exactly was he Trespassing?

the law and COMMON sense says he was trespassing ..it's right there in the link...he had a history of crap--even stealing---so his purpose was not to get a drink

Ok. The law says so. I posted the law. I explained the conditions that allowed for the charge. You say he just was so there. But as was explained by the lawyer I linked to. Even if he was. It would not help the McMichaels. They were not authorized representatives and had no authority to stop, detain, or arrest Arbury.

Now instead of trying to figure out why the law is written that way. You just declare that the law and common sense say so. He was a thief. And that is all he will ever be. The problem is that the courts have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was stealing then. That is if a cop arrests him. For a citizen, the standard is much higher. But you don’t care about what the law actually says. Or how it is actually applied. Your word is to be law.

I do not know where you live. I don’t care. What I can say is I hope you do not come to Georgia. Because your obstinate refusal to deal with truth would get you in trouble.

hahahhahahaah--get me into trouble--THERE--RIGHT THERE--I don't go onto other people's property...I don't commit crimes..I don't do stupid childish things...I won't get into trouble
....if you don't do something stupid, you'll be ok..THEN, if there is a problem, don't be even more stupid and escalate it

Oh you would. You would see someone on someone else’s property and jump on your white Horse, and get into trouble. It is called illegal imprisonment. It’s a Felony in Georgia. Your defense would be shouting at the Cops arresting you, and the Prosecutor trying you, the Judge, and the Jury, that you know Trespassing and don’t care what the law says.

Yeah, you would get into trouble. Just as the McMichaels did. Because you don’t care what the law says. You are going to use Common Sense, which is hardly common, as your argument. You would certainly find yourself in trouble.

much silliness from you--no I would not

So you are too smart to make those mistake? So why are you so adamant that the McMichaels are innocent when they did all that stupid?

they didn't do anything wrong or stupid

Nope, you said you would not do those things. I assumed that you were too smart. Perhaps the truth is that you were too cowardly. But yes, they committed several crimes.

 

[harmonica]

I am going with the experts. For some reason a Snake Oil Salesman in a he parking lot does not give me nearly the reassurance of actual professionals.

didn't the experts go with a conviction for Zimmerman? your experts aren't very good.

In Georgia he would have been guilty. Our laws are different from Florida. But Zimmerman got a fair trial and created the doubt the Jury said was Reasonable. I have no heartburn over the verdict. It is the way the system is supposed to work.

ohhhhkay Francis. The things you think you know.

In Georgia he would have set off in pursuit of a man who had committed no crime in his presence. As the McMichaels and their neighbor have learned to their sorrow. That is a crime. Under Georgia Law. As the McMichaels are learning. You can not claim self defense if you are the aggressor. The best that Zimmerman could have claimed was mutual combat. In other words they were fighting. Possibly involuntary Manslaughter under Georgia law.

Each State has different laws. And in each State the same action is viewed differently.

AA did commit a crime:

Georgia Trespassing 101

In one way or another we encounter sign posts with the above inscriptions posted on fences and trees. But what do those words mean? What does criminal trespassi

bixonlaw.com

Was the house so posted?

posted??? for what?

No Trespassing. Was the house posted? We’re there signs up?

..I don't see anything in the law saying there has to be signs
AND he KNEW he was trespassing --don't try that stupid shit

Really? Nothing in the law?

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

Here is a long post by an actual lawyer.

Here is the actual text of the law.

Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-7-21 | FindLaw

Georgia Title 16. Crimes and Offenses Section 16-7-21. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

Now why the lawyer? Because the lawyer tells you how the law is applied. Arbury would have had to been told by the owner, occupant, authorized representative, or posted no trespassing sign that he was not allowed on the property. Since the Owner said he never told him. There were no authorized representatives. That leaves a No Trespassing sign. So which of these conditions were met to show AA was violating the law?

The one where he was trespassing

Ok, let me get this straight. The law says he was not trespassing. But we’re not going to go with what the law says. We’re not going to go with precedence. We’re not going to use the rules that were written down, instead we’re going to make them up after the fact.

There are certain conditions that must be met before a person can be charged with Trespassing in Georgia. 1) Damaging the property in excess of $500. Well that didn’t happen. 2) Intent to commit a crime. That usually requires the presence of what are commonly called burglary tools or something else. Being found on a property with lock picks or weapons, usually means you intended something. Since AA didn’t have that one covered either, we’re moving along.

3) Ignoring A posted No Trespassing Sign. Now, that sign is visible in places in Georgia. That is the legal warning not to do it. If the signs are posted, and legible, then anyone who enters your property can be prosecuted for Trespassing. The police can arrest them. I wouldn’t suggest Citizens Arrest, but you’re the daring behind the computer sort, so maybe you would.

4) Either refusing to leave, or returning after you have been told by the Owner, the occupant, or the authorized representative. If your neighbor comes over and swears he is authorized and he isn’t in writing, then the police can not arrest the trespasser for that.

That’s pretty much it. We know Arbury did not damage anything. No Burglar tools, and not posted. Not told to leave by the Representative, Owner, or Occupant. So how exactly was he Trespassing?

the law and COMMON sense says he was trespassing ..it's right there in the link...he had a history of crap--even stealing---so his purpose was not to get a drink

Ok. The law says so. I posted the law. I explained the conditions that allowed for the charge. You say he just was so there. But as was explained by the lawyer I linked to. Even if he was. It would not help the McMichaels. They were not authorized representatives and had no authority to stop, detain, or arrest Arbury.

Now instead of trying to figure out why the law is written that way. You just declare that the law and common sense say so. He was a thief. And that is all he will ever be. The problem is that the courts have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was stealing then. That is if a cop arrests him. For a citizen, the standard is much higher. But you don’t care about what the law actually says. Or how it is actually applied. Your word is to be law.

I do not know where you live. I don’t care. What I can say is I hope you do not come to Georgia. Because your obstinate refusal to deal with truth would get you in trouble.

hahahhahahaah--get me into trouble--THERE--RIGHT THERE--I don't go onto other people's property...I don't commit crimes..I don't do stupid childish things...I won't get into trouble
....if you don't do something stupid, you'll be ok..THEN, if there is a problem, don't be even more stupid and escalate it

Oh you would. You would see someone on someone else’s property and jump on your white Horse, and get into trouble. It is called illegal imprisonment. It’s a Felony in Georgia. Your defense would be shouting at the Cops arresting you, and the Prosecutor trying you, the Judge, and the Jury, that you know Trespassing and don’t care what the law says.

Yeah, you would get into trouble. Just as the McMichaels did. Because you don’t care what the law says. You are going to use Common Sense, which is hardly common, as your argument. You would certainly find yourself in trouble.

much silliness from you--no I would not

So you are too smart to make those mistake? So why are you so adamant that the McMichaels are innocent when they did all that stupid?

they didn't do anything wrong or stupid

Nope, you said you would not do those things. I assumed that you were too smart. Perhaps the truth is that you were too cowardly. But yes, they committed several crimes.

..no, they saw a trespasser on someone's property that appeared to have stolen something and went after him--logical-common sense
..cowardly--hahahahahah--that makes your post babble crap--like most of the others
....common sense/reasonable/perceive/etc----terms used in law--hahahahah==you FKd up!!

Sometimes self-defense is justified even if the perceived aggressor didn’t actually mean the perceived victim any harm. What matters in these situations is whether a “reasonable person” in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm. The concept of the “reasonable person” is a legal conceit that is subject to differing interpretations in practice, but it is the legal system’s best tool to determine whether a person’s perception of imminent danger justified the use of protective force.

Self-Defense Law: Overview - FindLaw

Self-defense refers to your right to protect yourself from suffering force or violence through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting force or violence. This is simple enough on its face, but it raises many questions when applied to actual situations. Learn about self-defense law and...

criminal.findlaw.com

 

[SavannahMann]

I am going with the experts. For some reason a Snake Oil Salesman in a he parking lot does not give me nearly the reassurance of actual professionals.

didn't the experts go with a conviction for Zimmerman? your experts aren't very good.

In Georgia he would have been guilty. Our laws are different from Florida. But Zimmerman got a fair trial and created the doubt the Jury said was Reasonable. I have no heartburn over the verdict. It is the way the system is supposed to work.

ohhhhkay Francis. The things you think you know.

In Georgia he would have set off in pursuit of a man who had committed no crime in his presence. As the McMichaels and their neighbor have learned to their sorrow. That is a crime. Under Georgia Law. As the McMichaels are learning. You can not claim self defense if you are the aggressor. The best that Zimmerman could have claimed was mutual combat. In other words they were fighting. Possibly involuntary Manslaughter under Georgia law.

Each State has different laws. And in each State the same action is viewed differently.

AA did commit a crime:

Georgia Trespassing 101

In one way or another we encounter sign posts with the above inscriptions posted on fences and trees. But what do those words mean? What does criminal trespassi

bixonlaw.com

Was the house so posted?

posted??? for what?

No Trespassing. Was the house posted? We’re there signs up?

..I don't see anything in the law saying there has to be signs
AND he KNEW he was trespassing --don't try that stupid shit

Really? Nothing in the law?

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

Here is a long post by an actual lawyer.

Here is the actual text of the law.

Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-7-21 | FindLaw

Georgia Title 16. Crimes and Offenses Section 16-7-21. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

Now why the lawyer? Because the lawyer tells you how the law is applied. Arbury would have had to been told by the owner, occupant, authorized representative, or posted no trespassing sign that he was not allowed on the property. Since the Owner said he never told him. There were no authorized representatives. That leaves a No Trespassing sign. So which of these conditions were met to show AA was violating the law?

The one where he was trespassing

Ok, let me get this straight. The law says he was not trespassing. But we’re not going to go with what the law says. We’re not going to go with precedence. We’re not going to use the rules that were written down, instead we’re going to make them up after the fact.

There are certain conditions that must be met before a person can be charged with Trespassing in Georgia. 1) Damaging the property in excess of $500. Well that didn’t happen. 2) Intent to commit a crime. That usually requires the presence of what are commonly called burglary tools or something else. Being found on a property with lock picks or weapons, usually means you intended something. Since AA didn’t have that one covered either, we’re moving along.

3) Ignoring A posted No Trespassing Sign. Now, that sign is visible in places in Georgia. That is the legal warning not to do it. If the signs are posted, and legible, then anyone who enters your property can be prosecuted for Trespassing. The police can arrest them. I wouldn’t suggest Citizens Arrest, but you’re the daring behind the computer sort, so maybe you would.

4) Either refusing to leave, or returning after you have been told by the Owner, the occupant, or the authorized representative. If your neighbor comes over and swears he is authorized and he isn’t in writing, then the police can not arrest the trespasser for that.

That’s pretty much it. We know Arbury did not damage anything. No Burglar tools, and not posted. Not told to leave by the Representative, Owner, or Occupant. So how exactly was he Trespassing?

the law and COMMON sense says he was trespassing ..it's right there in the link...he had a history of crap--even stealing---so his purpose was not to get a drink

Ok. The law says so. I posted the law. I explained the conditions that allowed for the charge. You say he just was so there. But as was explained by the lawyer I linked to. Even if he was. It would not help the McMichaels. They were not authorized representatives and had no authority to stop, detain, or arrest Arbury.

Now instead of trying to figure out why the law is written that way. You just declare that the law and common sense say so. He was a thief. And that is all he will ever be. The problem is that the courts have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was stealing then. That is if a cop arrests him. For a citizen, the standard is much higher. But you don’t care about what the law actually says. Or how it is actually applied. Your word is to be law.

I do not know where you live. I don’t care. What I can say is I hope you do not come to Georgia. Because your obstinate refusal to deal with truth would get you in trouble.

hahahhahahaah--get me into trouble--THERE--RIGHT THERE--I don't go onto other people's property...I don't commit crimes..I don't do stupid childish things...I won't get into trouble
....if you don't do something stupid, you'll be ok..THEN, if there is a problem, don't be even more stupid and escalate it

Oh you would. You would see someone on someone else’s property and jump on your white Horse, and get into trouble. It is called illegal imprisonment. It’s a Felony in Georgia. Your defense would be shouting at the Cops arresting you, and the Prosecutor trying you, the Judge, and the Jury, that you know Trespassing and don’t care what the law says.

Yeah, you would get into trouble. Just as the McMichaels did. Because you don’t care what the law says. You are going to use Common Sense, which is hardly common, as your argument. You would certainly find yourself in trouble.

much silliness from you--no I would not

So you are too smart to make those mistake? So why are you so adamant that the McMichaels are innocent when they did all that stupid?

they didn't do anything wrong or stupid

Nope, you said you would not do those things. I assumed that you were too smart. Perhaps the truth is that you were too cowardly. But yes, they committed several crimes.

..no, they saw a trespasser on someone's property that appeared to have stolen something and went after him--logical-common sense
..cowardly--hahahahahah--that makes your post babble crap--like most of the others
....common sense/reasonable/perceive/etc----terms used in law--hahahahah==you FKd up!!

Sometimes self-defense is justified even if the perceived aggressor didn’t actually mean the perceived victim any harm. What matters in these situations is whether a “reasonable person” in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm. The concept of the “reasonable person” is a legal conceit that is subject to differing interpretations in practice, but it is the legal system’s best tool to determine whether a person’s perception of imminent danger justified the use of protective force.

Self-Defense Law: Overview - FindLaw

Self-defense refers to your right to protect yourself from suffering force or violence through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting force or violence. This is simple enough on its face, but it raises many questions when applied to actual situations. Learn about self-defense law and...

criminal.findlaw.com

Yeah. So they didn’t do anything wrong. But lawyers who practice law not interpret it on some cherry picked web pages say they did. So where are we? Back to the waiting game. If I am right, they will either plea bargain, or be tried and convicted. If you are right, they’ll either have the charges dropped, or be found not guilty. I don’t see the charges being dropped since the Prosecutor wen’t to the Judge, and got a warrant for the Neighbor. All the evidence, and she is still pushing ahead full steam.

It will be a year or more before the trial, so I am satisfied to wait, if you want. You can spend the next year swearing up and down that they were doing the right thing. Unfortunately Georgia doesn’t seem to see it that way. Time will tell if the Jury will.

 

[harmonica]

I am going with the experts. For some reason a Snake Oil Salesman in a he parking lot does not give me nearly the reassurance of actual professionals.

didn't the experts go with a conviction for Zimmerman? your experts aren't very good.

In Georgia he would have been guilty. Our laws are different from Florida. But Zimmerman got a fair trial and created the doubt the Jury said was Reasonable. I have no heartburn over the verdict. It is the way the system is supposed to work.

ohhhhkay Francis. The things you think you know.

In Georgia he would have set off in pursuit of a man who had committed no crime in his presence. As the McMichaels and their neighbor have learned to their sorrow. That is a crime. Under Georgia Law. As the McMichaels are learning. You can not claim self defense if you are the aggressor. The best that Zimmerman could have claimed was mutual combat. In other words they were fighting. Possibly involuntary Manslaughter under Georgia law.

Each State has different laws. And in each State the same action is viewed differently.

AA did commit a crime:

Georgia Trespassing 101

In one way or another we encounter sign posts with the above inscriptions posted on fences and trees. But what do those words mean? What does criminal trespassi

bixonlaw.com

Was the house so posted?

posted??? for what?

No Trespassing. Was the house posted? We’re there signs up?

..I don't see anything in the law saying there has to be signs
AND he KNEW he was trespassing --don't try that stupid shit

Really? Nothing in the law?

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

Here is a long post by an actual lawyer.

Here is the actual text of the law.

Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-7-21 | FindLaw

Georgia Title 16. Crimes and Offenses Section 16-7-21. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

Now why the lawyer? Because the lawyer tells you how the law is applied. Arbury would have had to been told by the owner, occupant, authorized representative, or posted no trespassing sign that he was not allowed on the property. Since the Owner said he never told him. There were no authorized representatives. That leaves a No Trespassing sign. So which of these conditions were met to show AA was violating the law?

The one where he was trespassing

Ok, let me get this straight. The law says he was not trespassing. But we’re not going to go with what the law says. We’re not going to go with precedence. We’re not going to use the rules that were written down, instead we’re going to make them up after the fact.

There are certain conditions that must be met before a person can be charged with Trespassing in Georgia. 1) Damaging the property in excess of $500. Well that didn’t happen. 2) Intent to commit a crime. That usually requires the presence of what are commonly called burglary tools or something else. Being found on a property with lock picks or weapons, usually means you intended something. Since AA didn’t have that one covered either, we’re moving along.

3) Ignoring A posted No Trespassing Sign. Now, that sign is visible in places in Georgia. That is the legal warning not to do it. If the signs are posted, and legible, then anyone who enters your property can be prosecuted for Trespassing. The police can arrest them. I wouldn’t suggest Citizens Arrest, but you’re the daring behind the computer sort, so maybe you would.

4) Either refusing to leave, or returning after you have been told by the Owner, the occupant, or the authorized representative. If your neighbor comes over and swears he is authorized and he isn’t in writing, then the police can not arrest the trespasser for that.

That’s pretty much it. We know Arbury did not damage anything. No Burglar tools, and not posted. Not told to leave by the Representative, Owner, or Occupant. So how exactly was he Trespassing?

the law and COMMON sense says he was trespassing ..it's right there in the link...he had a history of crap--even stealing---so his purpose was not to get a drink

Ok. The law says so. I posted the law. I explained the conditions that allowed for the charge. You say he just was so there. But as was explained by the lawyer I linked to. Even if he was. It would not help the McMichaels. They were not authorized representatives and had no authority to stop, detain, or arrest Arbury.

Now instead of trying to figure out why the law is written that way. You just declare that the law and common sense say so. He was a thief. And that is all he will ever be. The problem is that the courts have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was stealing then. That is if a cop arrests him. For a citizen, the standard is much higher. But you don’t care about what the law actually says. Or how it is actually applied. Your word is to be law.

I do not know where you live. I don’t care. What I can say is I hope you do not come to Georgia. Because your obstinate refusal to deal with truth would get you in trouble.

hahahhahahaah--get me into trouble--THERE--RIGHT THERE--I don't go onto other people's property...I don't commit crimes..I don't do stupid childish things...I won't get into trouble
....if you don't do something stupid, you'll be ok..THEN, if there is a problem, don't be even more stupid and escalate it

Oh you would. You would see someone on someone else’s property and jump on your white Horse, and get into trouble. It is called illegal imprisonment. It’s a Felony in Georgia. Your defense would be shouting at the Cops arresting you, and the Prosecutor trying you, the Judge, and the Jury, that you know Trespassing and don’t care what the law says.

Yeah, you would get into trouble. Just as the McMichaels did. Because you don’t care what the law says. You are going to use Common Sense, which is hardly common, as your argument. You would certainly find yourself in trouble.

much silliness from you--no I would not

So you are too smart to make those mistake? So why are you so adamant that the McMichaels are innocent when they did all that stupid?

they didn't do anything wrong or stupid

Nope, you said you would not do those things. I assumed that you were too smart. Perhaps the truth is that you were too cowardly. But yes, they committed several crimes.

..no, they saw a trespasser on someone's property that appeared to have stolen something and went after him--logical-common sense
..cowardly--hahahahahah--that makes your post babble crap--like most of the others
....common sense/reasonable/perceive/etc----terms used in law--hahahahah==you FKd up!!

Sometimes self-defense is justified even if the perceived aggressor didn’t actually mean the perceived victim any harm. What matters in these situations is whether a “reasonable person” in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm. The concept of the “reasonable person” is a legal conceit that is subject to differing interpretations in practice, but it is the legal system’s best tool to determine whether a person’s perception of imminent danger justified the use of protective force.

Self-Defense Law: Overview - FindLaw

Self-defense refers to your right to protect yourself from suffering force or violence through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting force or violence. This is simple enough on its face, but it raises many questions when applied to actual situations. Learn about self-defense law and...

criminal.findlaw.com

Yeah. So they didn’t do anything wrong. But lawyers who practice law not interpret it on some cherry picked web pages say they did. So where are we? Back to the waiting game. If I am right, they will either plea bargain, or be tried and convicted. If you are right, they’ll either have the charges dropped, or be found not guilty. I don’t see the charges being dropped since the Prosecutor wen’t to the Judge, and got a warrant for the Neighbor. All the evidence, and she is still pushing ahead full steam.

It will be a year or more before the trial, so I am satisfied to wait, if you want. You can spend the next year swearing up and down that they were doing the right thing. Unfortunately Georgia doesn’t seem to see it that way. Time will tell if the Jury will.

...innocent people sometimes go to jail and guilty people get off......
You can spend the next year swearing up and down that they were doing the right thing. Unfortunately Georgia doesn’t seem to see it that way. Time will tell if the Jury will.

 

[harmonica]

I am going with the experts. For some reason a Snake Oil Salesman in a he parking lot does not give me nearly the reassurance of actual professionals.

didn't the experts go with a conviction for Zimmerman? your experts aren't very good.

In Georgia he would have been guilty. Our laws are different from Florida. But Zimmerman got a fair trial and created the doubt the Jury said was Reasonable. I have no heartburn over the verdict. It is the way the system is supposed to work.

ohhhhkay Francis. The things you think you know.

In Georgia he would have set off in pursuit of a man who had committed no crime in his presence. As the McMichaels and their neighbor have learned to their sorrow. That is a crime. Under Georgia Law. As the McMichaels are learning. You can not claim self defense if you are the aggressor. The best that Zimmerman could have claimed was mutual combat. In other words they were fighting. Possibly involuntary Manslaughter under Georgia law.

Each State has different laws. And in each State the same action is viewed differently.

AA did commit a crime:

Georgia Trespassing 101

In one way or another we encounter sign posts with the above inscriptions posted on fences and trees. But what do those words mean? What does criminal trespassi

bixonlaw.com

Was the house so posted?

posted??? for what?

No Trespassing. Was the house posted? We’re there signs up?

..I don't see anything in the law saying there has to be signs
AND he KNEW he was trespassing --don't try that stupid shit

Really? Nothing in the law?

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

Here is a long post by an actual lawyer.

Here is the actual text of the law.

Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-7-21 | FindLaw

Georgia Title 16. Crimes and Offenses Section 16-7-21. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

Now why the lawyer? Because the lawyer tells you how the law is applied. Arbury would have had to been told by the owner, occupant, authorized representative, or posted no trespassing sign that he was not allowed on the property. Since the Owner said he never told him. There were no authorized representatives. That leaves a No Trespassing sign. So which of these conditions were met to show AA was violating the law?

The one where he was trespassing

Ok, let me get this straight. The law says he was not trespassing. But we’re not going to go with what the law says. We’re not going to go with precedence. We’re not going to use the rules that were written down, instead we’re going to make them up after the fact.

There are certain conditions that must be met before a person can be charged with Trespassing in Georgia. 1) Damaging the property in excess of $500. Well that didn’t happen. 2) Intent to commit a crime. That usually requires the presence of what are commonly called burglary tools or something else. Being found on a property with lock picks or weapons, usually means you intended something. Since AA didn’t have that one covered either, we’re moving along.

3) Ignoring A posted No Trespassing Sign. Now, that sign is visible in places in Georgia. That is the legal warning not to do it. If the signs are posted, and legible, then anyone who enters your property can be prosecuted for Trespassing. The police can arrest them. I wouldn’t suggest Citizens Arrest, but you’re the daring behind the computer sort, so maybe you would.

4) Either refusing to leave, or returning after you have been told by the Owner, the occupant, or the authorized representative. If your neighbor comes over and swears he is authorized and he isn’t in writing, then the police can not arrest the trespasser for that.

That’s pretty much it. We know Arbury did not damage anything. No Burglar tools, and not posted. Not told to leave by the Representative, Owner, or Occupant. So how exactly was he Trespassing?

the law and COMMON sense says he was trespassing ..it's right there in the link...he had a history of crap--even stealing---so his purpose was not to get a drink

Ok. The law says so. I posted the law. I explained the conditions that allowed for the charge. You say he just was so there. But as was explained by the lawyer I linked to. Even if he was. It would not help the McMichaels. They were not authorized representatives and had no authority to stop, detain, or arrest Arbury.

Now instead of trying to figure out why the law is written that way. You just declare that the law and common sense say so. He was a thief. And that is all he will ever be. The problem is that the courts have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was stealing then. That is if a cop arrests him. For a citizen, the standard is much higher. But you don’t care about what the law actually says. Or how it is actually applied. Your word is to be law.

I do not know where you live. I don’t care. What I can say is I hope you do not come to Georgia. Because your obstinate refusal to deal with truth would get you in trouble.

hahahhahahaah--get me into trouble--THERE--RIGHT THERE--I don't go onto other people's property...I don't commit crimes..I don't do stupid childish things...I won't get into trouble
....if you don't do something stupid, you'll be ok..THEN, if there is a problem, don't be even more stupid and escalate it

Oh you would. You would see someone on someone else’s property and jump on your white Horse, and get into trouble. It is called illegal imprisonment. It’s a Felony in Georgia. Your defense would be shouting at the Cops arresting you, and the Prosecutor trying you, the Judge, and the Jury, that you know Trespassing and don’t care what the law says.

Yeah, you would get into trouble. Just as the McMichaels did. Because you don’t care what the law says. You are going to use Common Sense, which is hardly common, as your argument. You would certainly find yourself in trouble.

much silliness from you--no I would not

So you are too smart to make those mistake? So why are you so adamant that the McMichaels are innocent when they did all that stupid?

they didn't do anything wrong or stupid

Nope, you said you would not do those things. I assumed that you were too smart. Perhaps the truth is that you were too cowardly. But yes, they committed several crimes.

..no, they saw a trespasser on someone's property that appeared to have stolen something and went after him--logical-common sense
..cowardly--hahahahahah--that makes your post babble crap--like most of the others
....common sense/reasonable/perceive/etc----terms used in law--hahahahah==you FKd up!!

Sometimes self-defense is justified even if the perceived aggressor didn’t actually mean the perceived victim any harm. What matters in these situations is whether a “reasonable person” in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm. The concept of the “reasonable person” is a legal conceit that is subject to differing interpretations in practice, but it is the legal system’s best tool to determine whether a person’s perception of imminent danger justified the use of protective force.

Self-Defense Law: Overview - FindLaw

Self-defense refers to your right to protect yourself from suffering force or violence through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting force or violence. This is simple enough on its face, but it raises many questions when applied to actual situations. Learn about self-defense law and...

criminal.findlaw.com

Yeah. So they didn’t do anything wrong. But lawyers who practice law not interpret it on some cherry picked web pages say they did. So where are we? Back to the waiting game. If I am right, they will either plea bargain, or be tried and convicted. If you are right, they’ll either have the charges dropped, or be found not guilty. I don’t see the charges being dropped since the Prosecutor wen’t to the Judge, and got a warrant for the Neighbor. All the evidence, and she is still pushing ahead full steam.

It will be a year or more before the trial, so I am satisfied to wait, if you want. You can spend the next year swearing up and down that they were doing the right thing. Unfortunately Georgia doesn’t seem to see it that way. Time will tell if the Jury will.

again, you people sure do LOVE criminals like AA....why?

 

[FA_Q2]

I am going with the experts. For some reason a Snake Oil Salesman in a he parking lot does not give me nearly the reassurance of actual professionals.

didn't the experts go with a conviction for Zimmerman? your experts aren't very good.

In Georgia he would have been guilty. Our laws are different from Florida. But Zimmerman got a fair trial and created the doubt the Jury said was Reasonable. I have no heartburn over the verdict. It is the way the system is supposed to work.

ohhhhkay Francis. The things you think you know.

In Georgia he would have set off in pursuit of a man who had committed no crime in his presence. As the McMichaels and their neighbor have learned to their sorrow. That is a crime. Under Georgia Law. As the McMichaels are learning. You can not claim self defense if you are the aggressor. The best that Zimmerman could have claimed was mutual combat. In other words they were fighting. Possibly involuntary Manslaughter under Georgia law.

Each State has different laws. And in each State the same action is viewed differently.

AA did commit a crime:

Georgia Trespassing 101

In one way or another we encounter sign posts with the above inscriptions posted on fences and trees. But what do those words mean? What does criminal trespassi

bixonlaw.com

Was the house so posted?

posted??? for what?

No Trespassing. Was the house posted? We’re there signs up?

..I don't see anything in the law saying there has to be signs
AND he KNEW he was trespassing --don't try that stupid shit

Really? Nothing in the law?

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

Here is a long post by an actual lawyer.

Here is the actual text of the law.

Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-7-21 | FindLaw

Georgia Title 16. Crimes and Offenses Section 16-7-21. Read the code on FindLaw

codes.findlaw.com

Now why the lawyer? Because the lawyer tells you how the law is applied. Arbury would have had to been told by the owner, occupant, authorized representative, or posted no trespassing sign that he was not allowed on the property. Since the Owner said he never told him. There were no authorized representatives. That leaves a No Trespassing sign. So which of these conditions were met to show AA was violating the law?

The one where he was trespassing

Ok, let me get this straight. The law says he was not trespassing. But we’re not going to go with what the law says. We’re not going to go with precedence. We’re not going to use the rules that were written down, instead we’re going to make them up after the fact.

There are certain conditions that must be met before a person can be charged with Trespassing in Georgia. 1) Damaging the property in excess of $500. Well that didn’t happen. 2) Intent to commit a crime. That usually requires the presence of what are commonly called burglary tools or something else. Being found on a property with lock picks or weapons, usually means you intended something. Since AA didn’t have that one covered either, we’re moving along.

3) Ignoring A posted No Trespassing Sign. Now, that sign is visible in places in Georgia. That is the legal warning not to do it. If the signs are posted, and legible, then anyone who enters your property can be prosecuted for Trespassing. The police can arrest them. I wouldn’t suggest Citizens Arrest, but you’re the daring behind the computer sort, so maybe you would.

4) Either refusing to leave, or returning after you have been told by the Owner, the occupant, or the authorized representative. If your neighbor comes over and swears he is authorized and he isn’t in writing, then the police can not arrest the trespasser for that.

That’s pretty much it. We know Arbury did not damage anything. No Burglar tools, and not posted. Not told to leave by the Representative, Owner, or Occupant. So how exactly was he Trespassing?

the law and COMMON sense says he was trespassing ..it's right there in the link...he had a history of crap--even stealing---so his purpose was not to get a drink

Ok. The law says so. I posted the law. I explained the conditions that allowed for the charge. You say he just was so there. But as was explained by the lawyer I linked to. Even if he was. It would not help the McMichaels. They were not authorized representatives and had no authority to stop, detain, or arrest Arbury.

Now instead of trying to figure out why the law is written that way. You just declare that the law and common sense say so. He was a thief. And that is all he will ever be. The problem is that the courts have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was stealing then. That is if a cop arrests him. For a citizen, the standard is much higher. But you don’t care about what the law actually says. Or how it is actually applied. Your word is to be law.

I do not know where you live. I don’t care. What I can say is I hope you do not come to Georgia. Because your obstinate refusal to deal with truth would get you in trouble.

hahahhahahaah--get me into trouble--THERE--RIGHT THERE--I don't go onto other people's property...I don't commit crimes..I don't do stupid childish things...I won't get into trouble
....if you don't do something stupid, you'll be ok..THEN, if there is a problem, don't be even more stupid and escalate it

Oh you would. You would see someone on someone else’s property and jump on your white Horse, and get into trouble. It is called illegal imprisonment. It’s a Felony in Georgia. Your defense would be shouting at the Cops arresting you, and the Prosecutor trying you, the Judge, and the Jury, that you know Trespassing and don’t care what the law says.

Yeah, you would get into trouble. Just as the McMichaels did. Because you don’t care what the law says. You are going to use Common Sense, which is hardly common, as your argument. You would certainly find yourself in trouble.

much silliness from you--no I would not

So you are too smart to make those mistake? So why are you so adamant that the McMichaels are innocent when they did all that stupid?

they didn't do anything wrong or stupid

Nope, you said you would not do those things. I assumed that you were too smart. Perhaps the truth is that you were too cowardly. But yes, they committed several crimes.

..no, they saw a trespasser on someone's property that appeared to have stolen something and went after him--logical-common sense
..cowardly--hahahahahah--that makes your post babble crap--like most of the others
....common sense/reasonable/perceive/etc----terms used in law--hahahahah==you FKd up!!

Sometimes self-defense is justified even if the perceived aggressor didn’t actually mean the perceived victim any harm. What matters in these situations is whether a “reasonable person” in the same situation would have perceived an immediate threat of physical harm. The concept of the “reasonable person” is a legal conceit that is subject to differing interpretations in practice, but it is the legal system’s best tool to determine whether a person’s perception of imminent danger justified the use of protective force.

Self-Defense Law: Overview - FindLaw

Self-defense refers to your right to protect yourself from suffering force or violence through the use of a sufficient level of counteracting force or violence. This is simple enough on its face, but it raises many questions when applied to actual situations. Learn about self-defense law and...

criminal.findlaw.com

Yeah. So they didn’t do anything wrong. But lawyers who practice law not interpret it on some cherry picked web pages say they did. So where are we? Back to the waiting game. If I am right, they will either plea bargain, or be tried and convicted. If you are right, they’ll either have the charges dropped, or be found not guilty. I don’t see the charges being dropped since the Prosecutor wen’t to the Judge, and got a warrant for the Neighbor. All the evidence, and she is still pushing ahead full steam.

It will be a year or more before the trial, so I am satisfied to wait, if you want. You can spend the next year swearing up and down that they were doing the right thing. Unfortunately Georgia doesn’t seem to see it that way. Time will tell if the Jury will.

Its another hands up don't shoot but on the other side. After they are tried and convicted as is damn near inevitable the same people here will be whining that it was all just political and that they were really innocent.

The thing is, I cannot find the motivation for defending these jackasses that is not racist - it is blatantly obvious that they are in the wrong here.