New video of Arbery swearing at cops, almost got tased

[Jitss617]

He’s wearing a woman’s jacket... kid had issues.. his mother is horrible

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

New video released of Ahmaud Arbery's confrontation with cops when approached in a park

A 2017 video has emerged showing slain Georgia man Ahmaud Arbery angrily confronting cops in a park, with an aggressive officer pulling his Taser.

www.bizpacreview.com

This video shows Arbery disrespect the cops, refused to take commands a couple of times, tazer malfunctioned, to bad.
This kid obviously has some issues, stemming from his parenting, I think that’s a females jacket he’s wearing, he’s exposing his underwear in a public park.

he almost attacked the cops just doing his job

the area is known for drugs and but AA couldn’t understand what he was saying.

So you're going to do battle with contact tracers who ring your doorbell if you've been exposed to the Virus, but a young man legally in a park doing nothing suspicious gets frisked for drugs and weapons for no reason and you wonder why he said "Fuck?"

Hypocrite.

He was hanging out in a known drug trafficking area.

 

[jc456]

Self defense of what? Arbery ran at the guy from 50 feet away (at least).

The runner actually used the truck as a shield so he could gain momentum and use that momentum to attack the kid with the gun. It was thought out while he approached. he had no intention of jogging, he was going to engage. So he failed.

Exactly....what seems insane (perhaps it was since he has a mental history) was actually a pretty good plan for a surprise attack....as you point out...he cleverly used the truck as cover increased his momentum and suddenly darted to the left attacking Travis McMichaels the white guy with the shotgun....if da black dude had been a little stronger or the white guy a little weaker....the black dude may very well have been able to take the shotgun away and use it against the son and the father.

Sure, it was obvious as everyone started talking about how he swung around the right front fender and seeing the kid with the gun fall backwards.

?

 

[MacTheKnife]

This case has more twists than a mad mouse roller coaster....I'm still not sure what to make of it.

All of which are ultimately irrelevant; these guys should have called the police, followed the guy until the police showed up, and let them handle it. That's literally ALL that needed to happen in order to spare us this entire ordeal, and them a great deal of legal assistance.

Thats what they were doing...but Ahmaud Arbary da black dude decided to attack...a surprise attack...as in un-expected.....Travis was fortunate he was able to retain control of his weapon and eliminate the threat.

 

[MacTheKnife]

New video released of Ahmaud Arbery's confrontation with cops when approached in a park

A 2017 video has emerged showing slain Georgia man Ahmaud Arbery angrily confronting cops in a park, with an aggressive officer pulling his Taser.

www.bizpacreview.com

This video shows Arbery disrespect the cops, refused to take commands a couple of times, tazer malfunctioned, to bad.
This kid obviously has some issues, stemming from his parenting, I think that’s a females jacket he’s wearing, he’s exposing his underwear in a public park.

he almost attacked the cops just doing his job

the area is known for drugs and but AA couldn’t understand what he was saying.

So you're going to do battle with contact tracers who ring your doorbell if you've been exposed to the Virus, but a young man legally in a park doing nothing suspicious gets frisked for drugs and weapons for no reason and you wonder why he said "Fuck?"

Hypocrite.

He was hanging out in a known drug trafficking area.

Everything bout dis black dude reeks of 'criminal thug'....a disaster waiting to happen.

 

[MacTheKnife]

So? Were there cops present when he was assaulted by the vigilante McMichaels?

You really need to educate yourself on the terms you use. Arbery assaulted McMichaels not the other way around.

If you really need yet another lesson in the law I'll be happy to provide it.

Actually. I live in Georgia. So chances are that I know the terms I am using. But I am not alone.

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

That is written by an experienced defense attorney in Georgia who has handled capital cases before. So what qualifications do you have? Are you a lawyer with experience in Georgia? Otherwise I do not think you are in a position to teach.

Its pretty clear you don't.

Let's review the law itself.

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 5 - CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
ARTICLE 2 - ASSAULT AND BATTERY
§ 16-5-20 - Simple assault
O.C.G.A. 16-5-20 (2010)
16-5-20. Simple assault


(a) A person commits the offense of simple assault when he or she either:

(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another; or

(2) Commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.

(b) Except as provided in subsections (c) through (h) of this Code section, a person who commits the offense of simple assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(c) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault in a public transit vehicle or station shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. For purposes of this Code section, "public transit vehicle" means a bus, van, or rail car used for the transportation of passengers within a system which receives a subsidy from tax revenues or is operated under a franchise contract with a county or municipality of this state.

(d) If the offense of simple assault is committed between past or present spouses, persons who are parents of the same child, parents and children, stepparents and stepchildren, foster parents and foster children, or other persons excluding siblings living or formerly living in the same household, the defendant shall be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. In no event shall this subsection be applicable to corporal punishment administered by a parent or guardian to a child or administered by a person acting in loco parentis.

(e) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against a person who is 65 years of age or older shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

(f) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against an employee of a public school system of this state while such employee is engaged in official duties or on school property shall, upon conviction of such offense, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. For purposes of this Code section, "school property" shall include public school buses and stops for public school buses as designated by local school boards of education.

(g) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against a female who is pregnant at the time of the offense shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

(h) Nothing in this Code section shall be construed to permit the prosecution of:

(1) Any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

(2) Any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(3) Any woman with respect to her unborn child.

For the purposes of this subsection, the term "unborn child" means a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb.



Now, go ahead and point to any part of that law based on the video where Arbury was assaulted.

I can easily point to where he was guilty of assault:

(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another;

Your thief is on video attacking McMichaels without anyone moving toward him or raising any weapon at him.


Go ahead, can't wait to see this dance

First, nothing was stolen. So my “thief” as you say, stole nothing. That kind of means he wasn’t stealing, and therefore was not a thief. But wait, there is more to consider.

Yay, you can quote the text of the law. But the Courts decide what the law means, and how it is applied to cases. Those decisions are called Precedence. In Georgia, the precedence including decisions in the State Supreme Court means that the McMichaels are in a seriously deep pit of trouble.

Here’s the thing about justification: you typically cannot raise it if you are the “aggressor” or if you “provoke the use of force” with the intent to use that force as an excuse. To use deadly force, the other person must pose a deadly risk.

So the big issue with the defendant’s case here is that they pointed guns at Arbery. We know this because, according to one District Attorney’s memo, the first shot went through Arbery’s hand as he was trying to grab the barrel. In Georgia, pointing a gun at someone is aggravated assault even if you had no intent to intimidate them.

The McMichaels will have to establish that they were in the middle of a lawful arrest when the assault began, and that will be difficult because they escalated force so quickly. Or they will have to establish that they made a “reasonable mistake of fact” that led them to believe their actions were justified. But that’s tricky, because their response was far from ordinary. Or they will have to show that it was reasonable to point weapons at an unarmed person in an effort to get him to stop — a ruling you would probably not want extended to muggers.

So using precedence according to the aforementioned Experienced Defense Attorney who has argued capital cases on appeal before, the McMichaels don’t have much of a case. The chances are very very slim that they can prove the shooting was justified.

You like many others, start the dance of who committed what crime at the moment that Arbury is rounding the truck. Unfortunately the events start long before that. And those events mean that the McMichaels were the aggressors, and that is why they are charged in full compliance with the laws.

Now, I may not like Precedence, or the way our court system works. But until someone gives me a better system to support, I am stuck with it, just as you and the rest are. The McMichaels were in the wrong. Absolutely and clearly in the wrong. There is no justification for what they have done. There is no excuse for it. And they are finding out how bad it is. They are being held without bail. Two citizens who never were in any trouble before, and being held without bail. By now, serious lawyers instead of the local yahoos are on scene and representing them. And still no bail.

What bothers you is that you can’t gun down a man in the street for no reason. You don’t get to instigate the shooting and then claim self defense. And it was instigated by the McMichaels. They did everything wrong from start to finish, and that includes talking to the cops afterwards. But they had to to get the Good Old Boys network to try and protect them. It tried, and failed. Now, they are in deep shit. Their statements are evidence against them. Their statements are really bad. My prediction, as a Georgian, is that they are going to Prison. There is one chance in a thousand that they will get a hung jury in the trial. There is virtually none that they are found not guilty.

They have one hope, and that one hope is the same one that freed Bundy and many others. Prosecutorial Misconduct. If the DA holds anything back, or breaks the rules, then I will support a dismissal of charges. I always support an individual civil rights, no matter the color, or the charge against them. If the police, or the DA lies, and they are in the habit of doing so, then the charges should be dismissed. But until that happens, they are entitled to a fair trial, and a jury of their peers. But with the evidence I have seen, and my training with the laws concerning bang sticks as a CCW holder, I think they are going to prison for a long time. For Daddy McMichaels, it is liable to be a life sentence.

The above diatribe is entirely incorrect and the observation of a person who has a 'little knowledge.'

The proverb 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing' expresses the idea that a small amount of knowledge can mislead people into thinking that they are more expert than they really are, which can lead to mistakes being made.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

New video released of Ahmaud Arbery's confrontation with cops when approached in a park

A 2017 video has emerged showing slain Georgia man Ahmaud Arbery angrily confronting cops in a park, with an aggressive officer pulling his Taser.

www.bizpacreview.com

This video shows Arbery disrespect the cops, refused to take commands a couple of times, tazer malfunctioned, to bad.
This kid obviously has some issues, stemming from his parenting, I think that’s a females jacket he’s wearing, he’s exposing his underwear in a public park.

he almost attacked the cops just doing his job

the area is known for drugs and but AA couldn’t understand what he was saying.

So you're going to do battle with contact tracers who ring your doorbell if you've been exposed to the Virus, but a young man legally in a park doing nothing suspicious gets frisked for drugs and weapons for no reason and you wonder why he said "Fuck?"

Hypocrite.

He was hanging out in a known drug trafficking area.

Everything bout dis black dude reeks of 'criminal thug'....a disaster waiting to happen.

Wait Wut???
Youz dont hangs around where duh dope be?

 

[MacTheKnife]

He’s wearing a woman’s jacket... kid had issues.. his mother is horrible

He had a mental history but that yet is to come out in the news.....though the former D.A. talked about it an how it played a role in him not being sent to jail for violating his parole.

He was convicted of taking a loaded gun to school...a felony...but was only place on 5 yrs. probation...but quickly violated his probation by stealing....and yet still...nothing was done. He was thus out roaming the streets day and night......the form D.A. said the lieniency demonstrated in his case had to do with his mental history...as it somehow generated sympathy for the black dude.

The D.A. also said he thought the blacks mental problems caused him to be aggressive..as in how he attacked a g uy with a shotgun.

 

[TemplarKormac]

So? Were there cops present when he was assaulted by the vigilante McMichaels?

Arbery does not appear to be the innocent harmless kid that liberals made him out to be

Remember when he was the "peaceful jogger"? Boy, that narrative sure fell apart.

Trayvon Martin Part II.

 

[MacTheKnife]

This case has more twists than a mad mouse roller coaster....I'm still not sure what to make of it.

All of which are ultimately irrelevant; these guys should have called the police, followed the guy until the police showed up, and let them handle it. That's literally ALL that needed to happen in order to spare us this entire ordeal, and them a great deal of legal assistance.

oh wait.................. that's what they did. ain't you the scholar.

You seem never able to rise above your level of simplicity magnified by ignorance of the facts.

There is no Jawga law that required them to stay in their vehicle....though the father was in the bed of the truck...not sure what he was doing there....someone said he was on the phone with the police whilst all this went down.

 

[SavannahMann]

So? Were there cops present when he was assaulted by the vigilante McMichaels?

You really need to educate yourself on the terms you use. Arbery assaulted McMichaels not the other way around.

If you really need yet another lesson in the law I'll be happy to provide it.

Actually. I live in Georgia. So chances are that I know the terms I am using. But I am not alone.

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

That is written by an experienced defense attorney in Georgia who has handled capital cases before. So what qualifications do you have? Are you a lawyer with experience in Georgia? Otherwise I do not think you are in a position to teach.

Its pretty clear you don't.

Let's review the law itself.

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 5 - CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
ARTICLE 2 - ASSAULT AND BATTERY
§ 16-5-20 - Simple assault
O.C.G.A. 16-5-20 (2010)
16-5-20. Simple assault


(a) A person commits the offense of simple assault when he or she either:

(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another; or

(2) Commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.

(b) Except as provided in subsections (c) through (h) of this Code section, a person who commits the offense of simple assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(c) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault in a public transit vehicle or station shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. For purposes of this Code section, "public transit vehicle" means a bus, van, or rail car used for the transportation of passengers within a system which receives a subsidy from tax revenues or is operated under a franchise contract with a county or municipality of this state.

(d) If the offense of simple assault is committed between past or present spouses, persons who are parents of the same child, parents and children, stepparents and stepchildren, foster parents and foster children, or other persons excluding siblings living or formerly living in the same household, the defendant shall be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. In no event shall this subsection be applicable to corporal punishment administered by a parent or guardian to a child or administered by a person acting in loco parentis.

(e) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against a person who is 65 years of age or older shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

(f) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against an employee of a public school system of this state while such employee is engaged in official duties or on school property shall, upon conviction of such offense, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. For purposes of this Code section, "school property" shall include public school buses and stops for public school buses as designated by local school boards of education.

(g) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against a female who is pregnant at the time of the offense shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

(h) Nothing in this Code section shall be construed to permit the prosecution of:

(1) Any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

(2) Any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(3) Any woman with respect to her unborn child.

For the purposes of this subsection, the term "unborn child" means a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb.



Now, go ahead and point to any part of that law based on the video where Arbury was assaulted.

I can easily point to where he was guilty of assault:

(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another;

Your thief is on video attacking McMichaels without anyone moving toward him or raising any weapon at him.


Go ahead, can't wait to see this dance

First, nothing was stolen. So my “thief” as you say, stole nothing. That kind of means he wasn’t stealing, and therefore was not a thief. But wait, there is more to consider.

Yay, you can quote the text of the law. But the Courts decide what the law means, and how it is applied to cases. Those decisions are called Precedence. In Georgia, the precedence including decisions in the State Supreme Court means that the McMichaels are in a seriously deep pit of trouble.

Here’s the thing about justification: you typically cannot raise it if you are the “aggressor” or if you “provoke the use of force” with the intent to use that force as an excuse. To use deadly force, the other person must pose a deadly risk.

So the big issue with the defendant’s case here is that they pointed guns at Arbery. We know this because, according to one District Attorney’s memo, the first shot went through Arbery’s hand as he was trying to grab the barrel. In Georgia, pointing a gun at someone is aggravated assault even if you had no intent to intimidate them.

The McMichaels will have to establish that they were in the middle of a lawful arrest when the assault began, and that will be difficult because they escalated force so quickly. Or they will have to establish that they made a “reasonable mistake of fact” that led them to believe their actions were justified. But that’s tricky, because their response was far from ordinary. Or they will have to show that it was reasonable to point weapons at an unarmed person in an effort to get him to stop — a ruling you would probably not want extended to muggers.

So using precedence according to the aforementioned Experienced Defense Attorney who has argued capital cases on appeal before, the McMichaels don’t have much of a case. The chances are very very slim that they can prove the shooting was justified.

You like many others, start the dance of who committed what crime at the moment that Arbury is rounding the truck. Unfortunately the events start long before that. And those events mean that the McMichaels were the aggressors, and that is why they are charged in full compliance with the laws.

Now, I may not like Precedence, or the way our court system works. But until someone gives me a better system to support, I am stuck with it, just as you and the rest are. The McMichaels were in the wrong. Absolutely and clearly in the wrong. There is no justification for what they have done. There is no excuse for it. And they are finding out how bad it is. They are being held without bail. Two citizens who never were in any trouble before, and being held without bail. By now, serious lawyers instead of the local yahoos are on scene and representing them. And still no bail.

What bothers you is that you can’t gun down a man in the street for no reason. You don’t get to instigate the shooting and then claim self defense. And it was instigated by the McMichaels. They did everything wrong from start to finish, and that includes talking to the cops afterwards. But they had to to get the Good Old Boys network to try and protect them. It tried, and failed. Now, they are in deep shit. Their statements are evidence against them. Their statements are really bad. My prediction, as a Georgian, is that they are going to Prison. There is one chance in a thousand that they will get a hung jury in the trial. There is virtually none that they are found not guilty.

They have one hope, and that one hope is the same one that freed Bundy and many others. Prosecutorial Misconduct. If the DA holds anything back, or breaks the rules, then I will support a dismissal of charges. I always support an individual civil rights, no matter the color, or the charge against them. If the police, or the DA lies, and they are in the habit of doing so, then the charges should be dismissed. But until that happens, they are entitled to a fair trial, and a jury of their peers. But with the evidence I have seen, and my training with the laws concerning bang sticks as a CCW holder, I think they are going to prison for a long time. For Daddy McMichaels, it is liable to be a life sentence.

The above diatribe is entirely incorrect and the observation of a person who has a 'little knowledge.'

The proverb 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing' expresses the idea that a small amount of knowledge can mislead people into thinking that they are more expert than they really are, which can lead to mistakes being made.

So you know more about law than a lawyer. Great. Do you also know more about medicine than a Doctor?



I don’t know. I think I will consult with a lawyer when discussing law. I also think I will defer to actual experts in the field.

So unless you have a Law Degree. And a BAR card. I think we have covered what needs to be said.

 

[OldLady]

New video released of Ahmaud Arbery's confrontation with cops when approached in a park

A 2017 video has emerged showing slain Georgia man Ahmaud Arbery angrily confronting cops in a park, with an aggressive officer pulling his Taser.

www.bizpacreview.com

This video shows Arbery disrespect the cops, refused to take commands a couple of times, tazer malfunctioned, to bad.
This kid obviously has some issues, stemming from his parenting, I think that’s a females jacket he’s wearing, he’s exposing his underwear in a public park.

he almost attacked the cops just doing his job

the area is known for drugs and but AA couldn’t understand what he was saying.

So you're going to do battle with contact tracers who ring your doorbell if you've been exposed to the Virus, but a young man legally in a park doing nothing suspicious gets frisked for drugs and weapons for no reason and you wonder why he said "Fuck?"

Hypocrite.

He was hanging out in a known drug trafficking area.

It was a legally open neighborhood park in broad daylight. Being parked off by himself probably looked suspicious to the cop. Arbery was probably smoking some weed.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

New video released of Ahmaud Arbery's confrontation with cops when approached in a park

A 2017 video has emerged showing slain Georgia man Ahmaud Arbery angrily confronting cops in a park, with an aggressive officer pulling his Taser.

www.bizpacreview.com

This video shows Arbery disrespect the cops, refused to take commands a couple of times, tazer malfunctioned, to bad.
This kid obviously has some issues, stemming from his parenting, I think that’s a females jacket he’s wearing, he’s exposing his underwear in a public park.

he almost attacked the cops just doing his job

the area is known for drugs and but AA couldn’t understand what he was saying.

So you're going to do battle with contact tracers who ring your doorbell if you've been exposed to the Virus, but a young man legally in a park doing nothing suspicious gets frisked for drugs and weapons for no reason and you wonder why he said "Fuck?"

Hypocrite.

He was hanging out in a known drug trafficking area.

It was a legally open neighborhood park in broad daylight. Being parked off by himself probably looked suspicious to the cop. Arbery was probably smoking some weed.

That just proves how stupid the guy was.

 

[Jitss617]

New video released of Ahmaud Arbery's confrontation with cops when approached in a park

A 2017 video has emerged showing slain Georgia man Ahmaud Arbery angrily confronting cops in a park, with an aggressive officer pulling his Taser.

www.bizpacreview.com

This video shows Arbery disrespect the cops, refused to take commands a couple of times, tazer malfunctioned, to bad.
This kid obviously has some issues, stemming from his parenting, I think that’s a females jacket he’s wearing, he’s exposing his underwear in a public park.

he almost attacked the cops just doing his job

the area is known for drugs and but AA couldn’t understand what he was saying.

So you're going to do battle with contact tracers who ring your doorbell if you've been exposed to the Virus, but a young man legally in a park doing nothing suspicious gets frisked for drugs and weapons for no reason and you wonder why he said "Fuck?"

Hypocrite.

He was hanging out in a known drug trafficking area.

It was a legally open neighborhood park in broad daylight. Being parked off by himself probably looked suspicious to the cop. Arbery was probably smoking some weed.

Had his under wear exposed, woman’s jacket, great mother

 

[MacTheKnife]

So? Were there cops present when he was assaulted by the vigilante McMichaels?

You really need to educate yourself on the terms you use. Arbery assaulted McMichaels not the other way around.

If you really need yet another lesson in the law I'll be happy to provide it.

Actually. I live in Georgia. So chances are that I know the terms I am using. But I am not alone.

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

That is written by an experienced defense attorney in Georgia who has handled capital cases before. So what qualifications do you have? Are you a lawyer with experience in Georgia? Otherwise I do not think you are in a position to teach.

Its pretty clear you don't.

Let's review the law itself.

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 5 - CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
ARTICLE 2 - ASSAULT AND BATTERY
§ 16-5-20 - Simple assault
O.C.G.A. 16-5-20 (2010)
16-5-20. Simple assault


(a) A person commits the offense of simple assault when he or she either:

(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another; or

(2) Commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.

(b) Except as provided in subsections (c) through (h) of this Code section, a person who commits the offense of simple assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(c) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault in a public transit vehicle or station shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. For purposes of this Code section, "public transit vehicle" means a bus, van, or rail car used for the transportation of passengers within a system which receives a subsidy from tax revenues or is operated under a franchise contract with a county or municipality of this state.

(d) If the offense of simple assault is committed between past or present spouses, persons who are parents of the same child, parents and children, stepparents and stepchildren, foster parents and foster children, or other persons excluding siblings living or formerly living in the same household, the defendant shall be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. In no event shall this subsection be applicable to corporal punishment administered by a parent or guardian to a child or administered by a person acting in loco parentis.

(e) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against a person who is 65 years of age or older shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

(f) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against an employee of a public school system of this state while such employee is engaged in official duties or on school property shall, upon conviction of such offense, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. For purposes of this Code section, "school property" shall include public school buses and stops for public school buses as designated by local school boards of education.

(g) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against a female who is pregnant at the time of the offense shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

(h) Nothing in this Code section shall be construed to permit the prosecution of:

(1) Any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

(2) Any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(3) Any woman with respect to her unborn child.

For the purposes of this subsection, the term "unborn child" means a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb.



Now, go ahead and point to any part of that law based on the video where Arbury was assaulted.

I can easily point to where he was guilty of assault:

(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another;

Your thief is on video attacking McMichaels without anyone moving toward him or raising any weapon at him.


Go ahead, can't wait to see this dance

First, nothing was stolen. So my “thief” as you say, stole nothing. That kind of means he wasn’t stealing, and therefore was not a thief. But wait, there is more to consider.

Yay, you can quote the text of the law. But the Courts decide what the law means, and how it is applied to cases. Those decisions are called Precedence. In Georgia, the precedence including decisions in the State Supreme Court means that the McMichaels are in a seriously deep pit of trouble.

Here’s the thing about justification: you typically cannot raise it if you are the “aggressor” or if you “provoke the use of force” with the intent to use that force as an excuse. To use deadly force, the other person must pose a deadly risk.

So the big issue with the defendant’s case here is that they pointed guns at Arbery. We know this because, according to one District Attorney’s memo, the first shot went through Arbery’s hand as he was trying to grab the barrel. In Georgia, pointing a gun at someone is aggravated assault even if you had no intent to intimidate them.

The McMichaels will have to establish that they were in the middle of a lawful arrest when the assault began, and that will be difficult because they escalated force so quickly. Or they will have to establish that they made a “reasonable mistake of fact” that led them to believe their actions were justified. But that’s tricky, because their response was far from ordinary. Or they will have to show that it was reasonable to point weapons at an unarmed person in an effort to get him to stop — a ruling you would probably not want extended to muggers.

So using precedence according to the aforementioned Experienced Defense Attorney who has argued capital cases on appeal before, the McMichaels don’t have much of a case. The chances are very very slim that they can prove the shooting was justified.

You like many others, start the dance of who committed what crime at the moment that Arbury is rounding the truck. Unfortunately the events start long before that. And those events mean that the McMichaels were the aggressors, and that is why they are charged in full compliance with the laws.

Now, I may not like Precedence, or the way our court system works. But until someone gives me a better system to support, I am stuck with it, just as you and the rest are. The McMichaels were in the wrong. Absolutely and clearly in the wrong. There is no justification for what they have done. There is no excuse for it. And they are finding out how bad it is. They are being held without bail. Two citizens who never were in any trouble before, and being held without bail. By now, serious lawyers instead of the local yahoos are on scene and representing them. And still no bail.

What bothers you is that you can’t gun down a man in the street for no reason. You don’t get to instigate the shooting and then claim self defense. And it was instigated by the McMichaels. They did everything wrong from start to finish, and that includes talking to the cops afterwards. But they had to to get the Good Old Boys network to try and protect them. It tried, and failed. Now, they are in deep shit. Their statements are evidence against them. Their statements are really bad. My prediction, as a Georgian, is that they are going to Prison. There is one chance in a thousand that they will get a hung jury in the trial. There is virtually none that they are found not guilty.

They have one hope, and that one hope is the same one that freed Bundy and many others. Prosecutorial Misconduct. If the DA holds anything back, or breaks the rules, then I will support a dismissal of charges. I always support an individual civil rights, no matter the color, or the charge against them. If the police, or the DA lies, and they are in the habit of doing so, then the charges should be dismissed. But until that happens, they are entitled to a fair trial, and a jury of their peers. But with the evidence I have seen, and my training with the laws concerning bang sticks as a CCW holder, I think they are going to prison for a long time. For Daddy McMichaels, it is liable to be a life sentence.

The above diatribe is entirely incorrect and the observation of a person who has a 'little knowledge.'

The proverb 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing' expresses the idea that a small amount of knowledge can mislead people into thinking that they are more expert than they really are, which can lead to mistakes being made.

So you know more about law than a lawyer. Great. Do you also know more about medicine than a Doctor?



I don’t know. I think I will consult with a lawyer when discussing law. I also think I will defer to actual experts in the field.

So unless you have a Law Degree. And a BAR card. I think we have covered what needs to be said.

Oh just about everything in this case has been covered though things still keep popping up...aka...the just released video of Ahmaud Arbary's previous confrontation wid da poleece.

Also...the McMichaels attorney has intimated there is more about this case than has so far been revealed....but that it will come out in the trial.

It is possible that the grand jury will not even remand this case over to trial....as the new evidence of Arbary's past history has emereged...particuarly the video of his aggressiveness towards the police....will not help his case at all.

And anyone watching the video .....the complete video.....can easily see Arbary running across the front of the truck to attack Travis.

Any competent grand jury seeing something like that would end this charade immediately.......however...........tremendous political pressure is being brought to bear....I doubt if the grand jury wants to get mixed up in that...thus I expect them to hand the case off to a jury and thus remove themselves from criticism or repercussions of any sort....that is the world we now live in....where politics is heavily intruding into the criminal justicesystem like never before.

Not even to mention we now have a media that is little more than a propaganda machine....constantly spinning this case and even telling out right lies...no wonder so many are confused.

 

[SavannahMann]

Self defense of what? Arbery ran at the guy from 50 feet away (at least).

The runner actually used the truck as a shield so he could gain momentum and use that momentum to attack the kid with the gun. It was thought out while he approached. he had no intention of jogging, he was going to engage. So he failed.

Exactly....what seems insane (perhaps it was since he has a mental history) was actually a pretty good plan for a surprise attack....as you point out...he cleverly used the truck as cover increased his momentum and suddenly darted to the left attacking Travis McMichaels the white guy with the shotgun....if da black dude had been a little stronger or the white guy a little weaker....the black dude may very well have been able to take the shotgun away and use it against the son and the father.

Why wouldn’t he hold them at gunpoint until the police arrived? The defenders of the criminal McMichaels claim all they wanted to do was talk, or detain, or just engage with the fellow until police arrived, which is why they grabbed guns and set off in pursuit. But why is it you are convinced that AA would have killed them both, instead of just holding them until police arrived? After all the McMichaels were the criminals.

 

[SavannahMann]

So? Were there cops present when he was assaulted by the vigilante McMichaels?

You really need to educate yourself on the terms you use. Arbery assaulted McMichaels not the other way around.

If you really need yet another lesson in the law I'll be happy to provide it.

Actually. I live in Georgia. So chances are that I know the terms I am using. But I am not alone.

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

That is written by an experienced defense attorney in Georgia who has handled capital cases before. So what qualifications do you have? Are you a lawyer with experience in Georgia? Otherwise I do not think you are in a position to teach.

Its pretty clear you don't.

Let's review the law itself.

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 5 - CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
ARTICLE 2 - ASSAULT AND BATTERY
§ 16-5-20 - Simple assault
O.C.G.A. 16-5-20 (2010)
16-5-20. Simple assault


(a) A person commits the offense of simple assault when he or she either:

(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another; or

(2) Commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.

(b) Except as provided in subsections (c) through (h) of this Code section, a person who commits the offense of simple assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(c) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault in a public transit vehicle or station shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. For purposes of this Code section, "public transit vehicle" means a bus, van, or rail car used for the transportation of passengers within a system which receives a subsidy from tax revenues or is operated under a franchise contract with a county or municipality of this state.

(d) If the offense of simple assault is committed between past or present spouses, persons who are parents of the same child, parents and children, stepparents and stepchildren, foster parents and foster children, or other persons excluding siblings living or formerly living in the same household, the defendant shall be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. In no event shall this subsection be applicable to corporal punishment administered by a parent or guardian to a child or administered by a person acting in loco parentis.

(e) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against a person who is 65 years of age or older shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

(f) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against an employee of a public school system of this state while such employee is engaged in official duties or on school property shall, upon conviction of such offense, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. For purposes of this Code section, "school property" shall include public school buses and stops for public school buses as designated by local school boards of education.

(g) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against a female who is pregnant at the time of the offense shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

(h) Nothing in this Code section shall be construed to permit the prosecution of:

(1) Any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

(2) Any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(3) Any woman with respect to her unborn child.

For the purposes of this subsection, the term "unborn child" means a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb.



Now, go ahead and point to any part of that law based on the video where Arbury was assaulted.

I can easily point to where he was guilty of assault:

(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another;

Your thief is on video attacking McMichaels without anyone moving toward him or raising any weapon at him.


Go ahead, can't wait to see this dance

First, nothing was stolen. So my “thief” as you say, stole nothing. That kind of means he wasn’t stealing, and therefore was not a thief. But wait, there is more to consider.

Yay, you can quote the text of the law. But the Courts decide what the law means, and how it is applied to cases. Those decisions are called Precedence. In Georgia, the precedence including decisions in the State Supreme Court means that the McMichaels are in a seriously deep pit of trouble.

Here’s the thing about justification: you typically cannot raise it if you are the “aggressor” or if you “provoke the use of force” with the intent to use that force as an excuse. To use deadly force, the other person must pose a deadly risk.

So the big issue with the defendant’s case here is that they pointed guns at Arbery. We know this because, according to one District Attorney’s memo, the first shot went through Arbery’s hand as he was trying to grab the barrel. In Georgia, pointing a gun at someone is aggravated assault even if you had no intent to intimidate them.

The McMichaels will have to establish that they were in the middle of a lawful arrest when the assault began, and that will be difficult because they escalated force so quickly. Or they will have to establish that they made a “reasonable mistake of fact” that led them to believe their actions were justified. But that’s tricky, because their response was far from ordinary. Or they will have to show that it was reasonable to point weapons at an unarmed person in an effort to get him to stop — a ruling you would probably not want extended to muggers.

So using precedence according to the aforementioned Experienced Defense Attorney who has argued capital cases on appeal before, the McMichaels don’t have much of a case. The chances are very very slim that they can prove the shooting was justified.

You like many others, start the dance of who committed what crime at the moment that Arbury is rounding the truck. Unfortunately the events start long before that. And those events mean that the McMichaels were the aggressors, and that is why they are charged in full compliance with the laws.

Now, I may not like Precedence, or the way our court system works. But until someone gives me a better system to support, I am stuck with it, just as you and the rest are. The McMichaels were in the wrong. Absolutely and clearly in the wrong. There is no justification for what they have done. There is no excuse for it. And they are finding out how bad it is. They are being held without bail. Two citizens who never were in any trouble before, and being held without bail. By now, serious lawyers instead of the local yahoos are on scene and representing them. And still no bail.

What bothers you is that you can’t gun down a man in the street for no reason. You don’t get to instigate the shooting and then claim self defense. And it was instigated by the McMichaels. They did everything wrong from start to finish, and that includes talking to the cops afterwards. But they had to to get the Good Old Boys network to try and protect them. It tried, and failed. Now, they are in deep shit. Their statements are evidence against them. Their statements are really bad. My prediction, as a Georgian, is that they are going to Prison. There is one chance in a thousand that they will get a hung jury in the trial. There is virtually none that they are found not guilty.

They have one hope, and that one hope is the same one that freed Bundy and many others. Prosecutorial Misconduct. If the DA holds anything back, or breaks the rules, then I will support a dismissal of charges. I always support an individual civil rights, no matter the color, or the charge against them. If the police, or the DA lies, and they are in the habit of doing so, then the charges should be dismissed. But until that happens, they are entitled to a fair trial, and a jury of their peers. But with the evidence I have seen, and my training with the laws concerning bang sticks as a CCW holder, I think they are going to prison for a long time. For Daddy McMichaels, it is liable to be a life sentence.

The above diatribe is entirely incorrect and the observation of a person who has a 'little knowledge.'

The proverb 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing' expresses the idea that a small amount of knowledge can mislead people into thinking that they are more expert than they really are, which can lead to mistakes being made.

So you know more about law than a lawyer. Great. Do you also know more about medicine than a Doctor?



I don’t know. I think I will consult with a lawyer when discussing law. I also think I will defer to actual experts in the field.

So unless you have a Law Degree. And a BAR card. I think we have covered what needs to be said.

Oh just about everything in this case has been covered though things still keep popping up...aka...the just released video of Ahmaud Arbary's previous confrontation wid da poleece.

Also...the McMichaels attorney has intimated there is more about this case than has so far been revealed....but that it will come out in the trial.

It is possible that the grand jury will not even remand this case over to trial....as the new evidence of Arbary's past history has emereged...particuarly the video of his aggressiveness towards the police....will not help his case at all.

And anyone watching the video .....the complete video.....can easily see Arbary running across the front of the truck to attack Travis.

Any competent grand jury seeing something like that would end this charade immediately.......however...........tremendous political pressure is being brought to bear....I doubt if the grand jury wants to get mixed up in that...thus I expect them to hand the case off to a jury and thus remove themselves from criticism or repercussions of any sort....that is the world we now live in....where politics is heavily intruding into the criminal justicesystem like never before.

Not even to mention we now have a media that is little more than a propaganda machine....constantly spinning this case and even telling out right lies...no wonder so many are confused.

If they are dumb enough to use a local lawyer, they are definitely going to prison. For this, you want only the best. You want the best lawyers in the State, because anything less is going to get you a long prison sentence. I can assure you the best Prosecutors are going to be trying this case, and if you want some local who is used to defending people with DUI’s in charge, you deserve the prison sentence you are going to get.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Self defense of what? Arbery ran at the guy from 50 feet away (at least).

The runner actually used the truck as a shield so he could gain momentum and use that momentum to attack the kid with the gun. It was thought out while he approached. he had no intention of jogging, he was going to engage. So he failed.

Exactly....what seems insane (perhaps it was since he has a mental history) was actually a pretty good plan for a surprise attack....as you point out...he cleverly used the truck as cover increased his momentum and suddenly darted to the left attacking Travis McMichaels the white guy with the shotgun....if da black dude had been a little stronger or the white guy a little weaker....the black dude may very well have been able to take the shotgun away and use it against the son and the father.

Why wouldn’t he hold them at gunpoint until the police arrived? The defenders of the criminal McMichaels claim all they wanted to do was talk, or detain, or just engage with the fellow until police arrived, which is why they grabbed guns and set off in pursuit. But why is it you are convinced that AA would have killed them both, instead of just holding them until police arrived? After all the McMichaels were the criminals.

Your nonsense is getting more ridiculous with every post.

Neither of the McMichaels had ever been arrested for anything unlike Ahmaud....neither of the McMichaels had ever been convicted o anything.....unlike Ahmaud who in fact was in violation of his parole when this incident happened.

In fact the McMichals were part of the police community.

When Ahmaud Arbary decided of his own free will and with malice to attack Travis McMichael --Travis had to assume his life was in danger....if you had a weapon and someone attacked you...punching you and trying to take your weapon from you....what would you do?

 

[MacTheKnife]

So? Were there cops present when he was assaulted by the vigilante McMichaels?

You really need to educate yourself on the terms you use. Arbery assaulted McMichaels not the other way around.

If you really need yet another lesson in the law I'll be happy to provide it.

Actually. I live in Georgia. So chances are that I know the terms I am using. But I am not alone.

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

That is written by an experienced defense attorney in Georgia who has handled capital cases before. So what qualifications do you have? Are you a lawyer with experience in Georgia? Otherwise I do not think you are in a position to teach.

Its pretty clear you don't.

Let's review the law itself.

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 5 - CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
ARTICLE 2 - ASSAULT AND BATTERY
§ 16-5-20 - Simple assault
O.C.G.A. 16-5-20 (2010)
16-5-20. Simple assault


(a) A person commits the offense of simple assault when he or she either:

(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another; or

(2) Commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.

(b) Except as provided in subsections (c) through (h) of this Code section, a person who commits the offense of simple assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(c) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault in a public transit vehicle or station shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. For purposes of this Code section, "public transit vehicle" means a bus, van, or rail car used for the transportation of passengers within a system which receives a subsidy from tax revenues or is operated under a franchise contract with a county or municipality of this state.

(d) If the offense of simple assault is committed between past or present spouses, persons who are parents of the same child, parents and children, stepparents and stepchildren, foster parents and foster children, or other persons excluding siblings living or formerly living in the same household, the defendant shall be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. In no event shall this subsection be applicable to corporal punishment administered by a parent or guardian to a child or administered by a person acting in loco parentis.

(e) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against a person who is 65 years of age or older shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

(f) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against an employee of a public school system of this state while such employee is engaged in official duties or on school property shall, upon conviction of such offense, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. For purposes of this Code section, "school property" shall include public school buses and stops for public school buses as designated by local school boards of education.

(g) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against a female who is pregnant at the time of the offense shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

(h) Nothing in this Code section shall be construed to permit the prosecution of:

(1) Any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

(2) Any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(3) Any woman with respect to her unborn child.

For the purposes of this subsection, the term "unborn child" means a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb.



Now, go ahead and point to any part of that law based on the video where Arbury was assaulted.

I can easily point to where he was guilty of assault:

(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another;

Your thief is on video attacking McMichaels without anyone moving toward him or raising any weapon at him.


Go ahead, can't wait to see this dance

First, nothing was stolen. So my “thief” as you say, stole nothing. That kind of means he wasn’t stealing, and therefore was not a thief. But wait, there is more to consider.

Yay, you can quote the text of the law. But the Courts decide what the law means, and how it is applied to cases. Those decisions are called Precedence. In Georgia, the precedence including decisions in the State Supreme Court means that the McMichaels are in a seriously deep pit of trouble.

Here’s the thing about justification: you typically cannot raise it if you are the “aggressor” or if you “provoke the use of force” with the intent to use that force as an excuse. To use deadly force, the other person must pose a deadly risk.

So the big issue with the defendant’s case here is that they pointed guns at Arbery. We know this because, according to one District Attorney’s memo, the first shot went through Arbery’s hand as he was trying to grab the barrel. In Georgia, pointing a gun at someone is aggravated assault even if you had no intent to intimidate them.

The McMichaels will have to establish that they were in the middle of a lawful arrest when the assault began, and that will be difficult because they escalated force so quickly. Or they will have to establish that they made a “reasonable mistake of fact” that led them to believe their actions were justified. But that’s tricky, because their response was far from ordinary. Or they will have to show that it was reasonable to point weapons at an unarmed person in an effort to get him to stop — a ruling you would probably not want extended to muggers.

So using precedence according to the aforementioned Experienced Defense Attorney who has argued capital cases on appeal before, the McMichaels don’t have much of a case. The chances are very very slim that they can prove the shooting was justified.

You like many others, start the dance of who committed what crime at the moment that Arbury is rounding the truck. Unfortunately the events start long before that. And those events mean that the McMichaels were the aggressors, and that is why they are charged in full compliance with the laws.

Now, I may not like Precedence, or the way our court system works. But until someone gives me a better system to support, I am stuck with it, just as you and the rest are. The McMichaels were in the wrong. Absolutely and clearly in the wrong. There is no justification for what they have done. There is no excuse for it. And they are finding out how bad it is. They are being held without bail. Two citizens who never were in any trouble before, and being held without bail. By now, serious lawyers instead of the local yahoos are on scene and representing them. And still no bail.

What bothers you is that you can’t gun down a man in the street for no reason. You don’t get to instigate the shooting and then claim self defense. And it was instigated by the McMichaels. They did everything wrong from start to finish, and that includes talking to the cops afterwards. But they had to to get the Good Old Boys network to try and protect them. It tried, and failed. Now, they are in deep shit. Their statements are evidence against them. Their statements are really bad. My prediction, as a Georgian, is that they are going to Prison. There is one chance in a thousand that they will get a hung jury in the trial. There is virtually none that they are found not guilty.

They have one hope, and that one hope is the same one that freed Bundy and many others. Prosecutorial Misconduct. If the DA holds anything back, or breaks the rules, then I will support a dismissal of charges. I always support an individual civil rights, no matter the color, or the charge against them. If the police, or the DA lies, and they are in the habit of doing so, then the charges should be dismissed. But until that happens, they are entitled to a fair trial, and a jury of their peers. But with the evidence I have seen, and my training with the laws concerning bang sticks as a CCW holder, I think they are going to prison for a long time. For Daddy McMichaels, it is liable to be a life sentence.

The above diatribe is entirely incorrect and the observation of a person who has a 'little knowledge.'

The proverb 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing' expresses the idea that a small amount of knowledge can mislead people into thinking that they are more expert than they really are, which can lead to mistakes being made.

So you know more about law than a lawyer. Great. Do you also know more about medicine than a Doctor?



I don’t know. I think I will consult with a lawyer when discussing law. I also think I will defer to actual experts in the field.

So unless you have a Law Degree. And a BAR card. I think we have covered what needs to be said.

Oh just about everything in this case has been covered though things still keep popping up...aka...the just released video of Ahmaud Arbary's previous confrontation wid da poleece.

Also...the McMichaels attorney has intimated there is more about this case than has so far been revealed....but that it will come out in the trial.

It is possible that the grand jury will not even remand this case over to trial....as the new evidence of Arbary's past history has emereged...particuarly the video of his aggressiveness towards the police....will not help his case at all.

And anyone watching the video .....the complete video.....can easily see Arbary running across the front of the truck to attack Travis.

Any competent grand jury seeing something like that would end this charade immediately.......however...........tremendous political pressure is being brought to bear....I doubt if the grand jury wants to get mixed up in that...thus I expect them to hand the case off to a jury and thus remove themselves from criticism or repercussions of any sort....that is the world we now live in....where politics is heavily intruding into the criminal justicesystem like never before.

Not even to mention we now have a media that is little more than a propaganda machine....constantly spinning this case and even telling out right lies...no wonder so many are confused.

If they are dumb enough to use a local lawyer, they are definitely going to prison. For this, you want only the best. You want the best lawyers in the State, because anything less is going to get you a long prison sentence. I can assure you the best Prosecutors are going to be trying this case, and if you want some local who is used to defending people with DUI’s in charge, you deserve the prison sentence you are going to get.

The state has a very,very weak case and it gets weaker by the day...one of your para-legals could win this this case for the McMichaels.

The only reason this case exists is because of politics....the only way the McMichaels could be convicted would be if they get stuck with an all black jury and even then the odds are that at least on of the blacks would no be so biased as you and your ilk are.

 

[Faun]

Self defense of what? Arbery ran at the guy from 50 feet away (at least).

The runner actually used the truck as a shield so he could gain momentum and use that momentum to attack the kid with the gun. It was thought out while he approached. he had no intention of jogging, he was going to engage. So he failed.

Exactly....what seems insane (perhaps it was since he has a mental history) was actually a pretty good plan for a surprise attack....as you point out...he cleverly used the truck as cover increased his momentum and suddenly darted to the left attacking Travis McMichaels the white guy with the shotgun....if da black dude had been a little stronger or the white guy a little weaker....the black dude may very well have been able to take the shotgun away and use it against the son and the father.

Why wouldn’t he hold them at gunpoint until the police arrived? The defenders of the criminal McMichaels claim all they wanted to do was talk, or detain, or just engage with the fellow until police arrived, which is why they grabbed guns and set off in pursuit. But why is it you are convinced that AA would have killed them both, instead of just holding them until police arrived? After all the McMichaels were the criminals.

Your nonsense is getting more ridiculous with every post.

Neither of the McMichaels had ever been arrested for anything unlike Ahmaud....neither of the McMichaels had ever been convicted o anything.....unlike Ahmaud who in fact was in violation of his parole when this incident happened.

In fact the McMichals were part of the police community.

When Ahmaud Arbary decided of his own free will and with malice to attack Travis McMichael --Travis had to assume his life was in danger....if you had a weapon and someone attacked you...punching you and trying to take your weapon from you....what would you do?

Arbery attacked Travis in self-defense, backed by Georgia law.