The painful truth about Ahmaud Arberry

[KingGUERRILLA]

All Gregory McMichael saw was a guy jogging past his residence

That's complete bullshit.

According to multiple eye witnesses and the video evidence, Arbery was NOT jogging.

But apparently, due to your low IQ, the fake news media has easily convinced your feeble mind that he was jogging.

The same eyewitnesses who murdered him? He's seen on video jogging away from the house under construction.

And of course you are simply lying again.

Nope, there is surveillance video from the house across the street.

Bullshit. I posted that video earlier in the thread. That video does not show Arbery jogging.

It shows Arbery walking down the street. Then stop in front of 220 Satilla. Then walk into the garage, then come out of the garage and walk around the house towards the back. Then it shows him come sprinting out the front door and head south on Satilla, towards the McMichael residence.

It does not show him jogging.

No, you're the liar. That video is sped up as evidenced by the clock in the top left corner where seconds can be seen ticking away much faster than real time. He was jogging just like he's seen jogging in the video recorded by Bryan.

You can tell by his posture that he's sprinting out of the front door and the fact that the camera's frame rate clearly depicts him at a much faster Pace than jogging as he covered so much distance between seconds

The McMichaels also reported him at a full Sprint when he went past their house

It's a ridiculous notion to suggest this kid was jogging for Fitness when he was wearing long cotton cargo shorts and had shoes laced so LOOSE that his heels were literally a few inches from the back of his sneakerView attachment 440139View attachment 440140

Utter nonsense. Here's video of someone, possibly Arbery seen jogging away from that house on another occasion wearing long cargo shorts..

What was he looking for in there?

it seems like he was scouring the property for something

There's no way of knowing why he entered. Still, there's no evidence he stole anything or even attempted to steal anything.

But even more to the point, Neither McMichael had either witnessed him committing a felony or had immediate knowledge he had committed a felony.

Actually they did because Larry English was so desperate to catch the criminal who was robbing his property he was calling his neighbors whenever Maude set off his security system in addition to the police

Now that Larry English is receiving death threats he's trying to walk back his involvement in informing the McMichaels and the rest of the neighborhood that Maude was a wanted man

You don't have to be Inspector Clouseau to figure out that a young street criminal with a history of theft whom is repeatedly caught on video in a structure that had suffered a series of thefts was your primary suspect

What would the police have done if they drove up and saw him sprinting out of the front door of Larry Englishs home when they have a bunch of reports of trespasses and thefts associated with the property?

Actually they did because Larry English was so desperate to catch the criminal who was robbing his property he was calling his neighbors whenever Maude set off his security system in addition to the police

You're lying again. English never said anyone robbed him.

That you have to lie to make your arguments reveals how worthless your position is.

All Gregory McMichael saw was a guy jogging past his residence

That's complete bullshit.

According to multiple eye witnesses and the video evidence, Arbery was NOT jogging.

But apparently, due to your low IQ, the fake news media has easily convinced your feeble mind that he was jogging.

The same eyewitnesses who murdered him? He's seen on video jogging away from the house under construction.

And of course you are simply lying again.

Nope, there is surveillance video from the house across the street.

Bullshit. I posted that video earlier in the thread. That video does not show Arbery jogging.

It shows Arbery walking down the street. Then stop in front of 220 Satilla. Then walk into the garage, then come out of the garage and walk around the house towards the back. Then it shows him come sprinting out the front door and head south on Satilla, towards the McMichael residence.

It does not show him jogging.

No, you're the liar. That video is sped up as evidenced by the clock in the top left corner where seconds can be seen ticking away much faster than real time. He was jogging just like he's seen jogging in the video recorded by Bryan.

You can tell by his posture that he's sprinting out of the front door and the fact that the camera's frame rate clearly depicts him at a much faster Pace than jogging as he covered so much distance between seconds

The McMichaels also reported him at a full Sprint when he went past their house

It's a ridiculous notion to suggest this kid was jogging for Fitness when he was wearing long cotton cargo shorts and had shoes laced so LOOSE that his heels were literally a few inches from the back of his sneakerView attachment 440139View attachment 440140

Utter nonsense. Here's video of someone, possibly Arbery seen jogging away from that house on another occasion wearing long cargo shorts..

looks more like he took a glance to the left saw somebody coming and took off running to me

He certainly didn't walk into the yard and look around on the day of his shooting but bolted out of the home through the doorway into the yard and onto the street without looking for traffic at a full Sprint

In fact that's what caught Gregory McMichaels Professional Eye

Not only did he recognize the criminal personally he also noticed that he was running Full Tilt and that is a highly suspicious scenario and indicative that he's trying to elude someone who has spotted him

Criminals that flee their crimes are actually a small percentage of the criminal population most of them don't even run but Maude had a long celebrated history of running from law enforcement going back to his felonious gun at school days

View attachment 440208
View attachment 440212

Even if he ran out of that construction site, it matters not since neither McMichael saw him exit the property.

except they had immediate knowledge that Larry English had identified him as the primary suspect via the Satilla Shores Facebook group

the people who ran down and apprehended the famous serial killer Richard Ramirez did not witness him commit a felony that day but only recognized him from a photograph that was circulated in the newspaper just as the McMichaels only recognized maud as the primary suspect due to the information they had received and their personal first-hand interactions with him

The whole neighborhood was chasing this kid whenever they saw him because everybody knew he was the one that kept trespassing in their neighborhood creeping through the shadows and running when confronted

Larry English even called his neighbor Diego who promptly grabbed his 911 handgun and went over there to catch maud in the act after he set off larrys security system on the same night that Travis McMichaels saw maud running into the structure and fishing around in his waistband as if he was packing a firearm... the kid was wanted and too stupid to realize the neighborhood was looking for him

Nope, no one ever reported Arbery committing a felony in regards to that property. And the law requires a felony be committed in the McMichaels' presence or an immediate knowledge of a felony, neither of which applied to them as Travis was indoors and Gregory only saw Arbery running past his residence.

you sound like a privileged white person who doesn't know much about Street crime... let me take you to school on the short bus

Construction sites are hotbeds of theft because there's a lot of untraceable pawn shop tools laying around that the owner of the house has no clue about since he's not the one in there doing the work

Even his illegal Mexican labor isn't going to report the theft of hundreds of dollars of tools because they are illegal... that's one of the reasons why illegal Mexicans are so commonly targeted as victims of crime

There were lots of things stolen from that house and Larry English was very motivated to catch the young black male who kept illegally entering his property until he started getting the death threats that made him recant his story

maybe you guys can find a little old lady who had her purse snatched and threatened her with a serious beating if she reports it to polic, is that something that sounds up your alley?

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

most men are cowards that's why the average person who views these types of situations is perfectly comfortable with the notion that a citizen should never interfere with a Criminal under any circumstances but American law makes exceptions for citizens to take criminals under arrest who they have Reasonable Suspicion have committed a felony... this has been a tenet of English common law from time immemorial

* noticed none of the people defending Maude can answer the simple scenario questions

If you see a man covered in blood jumping out of your neighbor's window at 4 in the morning who Locks eyes with you and then flees in a panic are you allowed to detain him?

if you were walking around the corner and you noticed a man running from a woman's unconscious body while holding a purse are you allowed to detain him?

If you notice a disheveled man rummaging through your daughter's underwear drawer while she's fast asleep in her bed are you allowed to detain him?

In all three of these cases it's perfectly reasonable for you to detain these individuals because you have reasonable suspicion that they have committed a serious crime

A coward's interpretation of the law is that you must witness someone commits a felony in order for you to be allowed to detain them and probable cause is insufficient

When viewing one particular example it's understandable how people could get their wires crossed about the law so you have to bounce your interpretation up against a few other real-world scenarios in order to understand its validity

If I see a creepy disheveled individual staring through my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 in the morning who notices me and then panics running and jumping over The Back Fence it should be perfectly legal for me to arm myself pursue him and detain him for law enforcement because Americans have the right to defend their life liberty and property and this right certainly extends to their neighborhood as it is part of their "village" and everybody knows if you allow crime to flourish across the street it will eventually invade your home also

I got as far as this ...

* noticed none of the people defending Maude can answer the simple scenario questions​

​

If you see a man covered in blood jumping out of your neighbor's window at 4 in the morning who Locks eyes with you and then flees in a panic are you allowed to detain him? ​

Seeing what you describe is nothing at all like the McMichaels' witnessed. They didn't see anyone exit a residence. They didn't see anyone with any evidence of a crime having been committed. They didn't see anyone suspiciously "lock eyes" then flee. And based on the events which actually occurred, according to Georgia law, they had no right to detail Aubrey.

§ 17-4-60​

​

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.​

If you see a man covered in blood jumping out of your neighbor's window at 4 in the morning who Locks eyes with you and then flees in a panic are you allowed to detain him?

According to that law, no. You'd have to have seen, or have immediate knowledge, that a felony was committed. I see nothing in that statute that allows for suspicion of a felony to detain someone.

That aside, again, your hypothetical still bears absolutely no resemblance to what actually occurred. The McMichaels didn't even see anything to make them suspicious that a felony had been committed. Travis McMichael saw nothing at all -- he was inside his residence. All Gregory McMichael saw was a guy jogging past his residence who he says he recognized being inside the house under construction in the past. Even that event they witnessed in the past doesn't satisfy § 17-4-60 because trespassing isn't a felony.

They had absolutely no legal recourse to detain Aubrey. And Aubrey had absolutely no obligation to stop for them. Once Travis exited his vehicle and pointed a shotgun at Aubrey, he already committed aggravated assault. At that point, if anything, Aubrey had the right to defend himself from an imminent threat to his life. The McMichaels' are fucked. And not in a good way.

So you think it's illegal to detain someone who a former professional law enforcement agent knows (has immediate knowledge) is suspected in a felony crime?

At what point in the video do you believe you see Travis McMichael pointing a shotgun at maud?

So if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony?

"So you think it's illegal to detain someone who a former professional law enforcement agent knows (has immediate knowledge) is suspected in a felony crime?"

Fail. Arbery did not commit a felony by entering that property.

"At what point in the video do you believe you see Travis McMichael pointing a shotgun at maud?"

It's why they were charged with aggravated assault.

"So if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony?"

I don't know why you persist with that hypothetical scenario? Not only were you shown the law does not allow to detain someone because you think they may have committed a felony; but even worse, it bears zero resemblance to anything which occurred in this case.

In fact, that you keep referring to your hypothetical scenario instead of referring to the known facts of this case, you unwittingly confess you can't show any legal reason for the McMichaels to detain Arbery.

The reason you don't want to address my hypothetical scenario is because when you apply your cowardly interpretation of Georgia law to it your cowardly interpretation becomes clearly ridiculous

Law has to be applied across all similar cases it can't just be applied to your favorites in ways you deem favorable

You're suggesting that it was illegal for the McMichaels to pursue Maude because they did not witness him commit a felony in the state of Georgia

apply that ridiculous logic to this scenario and see how it shakes out

if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony in the state of GA

while you're at it review these cases and tell me how many years you think these Good Samaritans should spend in prison for illegally detaining the crooks

SF Man Catches Prowler In The Act, Hangs Onto Him Until Police Arrive: SFist/


A Vermont grocery store worker was fired after stopping a purse snatcher who stole from an elderly woman


'Messed with the wrong family:' North Carolina dad fights back against secret peeper he found in child's bedroom

And you link to stories in other states. Thus proving you are ignorant about America.

So you're saying that Georgia has less aggressive criminal penalties than San Francisco?

SF Man Catches Prowler In The Act, Hangs Onto Him Until Police Arrive: SFist/

by your cowardly interpretation of law what this man did is illegal

after all he did not witness this citizen commit a felony!!

how many years of prison do you want this San Francisco resident to receive for illegally detaining a citizen?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Do you think the McMichaels had reasonable suspicion that he was committing a burglary

But even more to the point, Neither McMichael had either witnessed him committing a felony or had immediate knowledge he had committed a felony.

KingGUERRILLA believes that “gut feelings” as long as it’s a white gut having white feelings about bad black people running from sonething is significant cause to commit malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, false imprisonment and criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment.

Gut instinct is all the authority GM needed to arm up, chase, trap and blockade an unarmed jogger and shoot to kill if their gut suspect refuses to give up the liberty of ignoring three lunatics with trucks n guns and a Confederate Flag on the toolbox.

That’s what GM told the cops:

Richard Dial: (01:07:10)
Greg McMichael, pretty much relates on the body cam footage and then later on, whenever there’s, he actually is interviewed on camera by the Glenn County Police Department, he makes admissions to seeing Mr. Arbery running down the roadway. His statement to the effect is he didn’t know Mr. Arbery had stolen anything or not, but he had a gut feeling that Mr. Arbery may have been responsible for thefts that were in the neighborhood previously. And he actually, I think he actually says gut, his instinct told him that.

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

Do you think the McMichaels had reasonable suspicion that he was committing a burglary

But even more to the point, Neither McMichael had either witnessed him committing a felony or had immediate knowledge he had committed a felony.

KingGUERRILLA believes that “gut feelings” as long as it’s a white gut having a white feelings about bad black people running from sonething is significant cause to malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, false imprisonment and criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment.

Gut instinct is all the authority GM needed to arm up, chase trap and blockade an unarmed jogger and shoot to kill if they gut suspect refuses to give up the liberty of ignoring three lunatics with trucks n guns and a Confederate Flag on the toolbox.

That’s what GM told the cops:

Richard Dial: (01:07:10)
Greg McMichael, pretty much relates on the body cam footage and then later on, whenever there’s, he actually is interviewed on camera by the Glenn County Police Department, he makes admissions to seeing Mr. Arbery running down the roadway. His statement to the effect is he didn’t know Mr. Arbery had stolen anything or not, but he had a gut feeling that Mr. Arbery may have been responsible for thefts that were in the neighborhood previously. And he actually, I think he actually says gut, his instinct told him that.

Maude wasn't shot over a "gut feeling" he was shot because he committed a felony assault against two men who were standing their ground

a gut feeling may have been what mr. McMichael said in a classic case of Southern parlance but what he really had was probable cause and immediate knowledge that arberry was involved in the burglary activity in the neighborhood

He was 100% certain that Arberry was guilty of repeated trespasses on mr. English's property as he was part and participle to the Facebook group that were discussing the repeated criminal activity in their neighborhood and had likely seen numerous photos of a man he personally knew from his experience as a professional law enforcement agent

Citizen's arrest is often times predicated on nothing more than probable cause

When someone uses violence to resist a citizen's arrest they are the criminal not the person who may be making a mistake by simply detaining someone because they suspect them of criminal activity

I've been coaching young black males for over 20 years in the school systems of our great nation and I universally implore them to never use violence in an effort to escape an arrest but to comply and sue their ass in court like a civilized human being

just look at the Starbucks Fiasco a couple of black jerks popped off to a manager and then resisted arrest when the police responded to her 100% legal request to have them removed from her place of business yet they got paid millions of dollars and she was fired for doing nothing more than being jerks while black

they became wealthy overnight simply because they didn't try to punch anybody in the throat while they were being arrested

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

* notice how none of these social justice Warriors cant apply their cowardly interpretation of the law to these other disparate cases of citizen's arrest even in a place like ultra-liberal San Francisco California where a man detained another individual without having witnessed a felony yet didn't spend a night in jail
SF Man Catches Prowler In The Act, Hangs Onto Him Until Police Arrive: SFist/


A Vermont grocery store worker was fired after stopping a purse snatcher who stole from an elderly woman


'Messed with the wrong family:' North Carolina dad fights back against secret peeper he found in child's bedroom



It's likely just a case of the Southern Hillbillies down in Georgia over reacting to their International reputation and trying desperately to appear woke

I always got a gross feeling from Georgia...yuck

 

[Muhammed]

There's no way of knowing why he entered. Still, there's no evidence he stole anything or even attempted to steal anything.

What legitimate reason does he have to repeatedly enter that house?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Maude wasn't shot over a "gut feeling" he was shot because he committed a felony assault against two men who were standing their ground

even after 6 1/2 minutes of being chased and trapped and and assaulted AA would have been justified to attack TM as you claim he did. But you are lying about that and you cannot even defend it because AA was shot first. I take the word of the GBI investigator who states that clear fact several times in all the hearings.

GM’s admission that he only had a gut feeling is what is the reason why he and his two cohorts are sitting in prison right now and will probably stay there for a very long time.

The three charged man apparently don’t dispute the GBI investigators account of what GM said about the gut feeling.

It’s the gut feeling admission that illuminates the three defendants opportunity to claim they were making a legal citizens arrest. It’s the gut feeling admission that makes all these crimes exactly what they’ve done to break the laws of the state of Georgia.

false imprisonment and criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment.

Your heroes the morons with guns are charged with false imprisonment and criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment for the seven minute chase and attempt and apprehension which are separate from the incident with the shotgun which added aggravated assault.

The murder charges then are automatically tacked on if someone dies when a person is in the act of committing a felony. The aggravated assault charges involving the shotgun are separate from the false imprisonment charges. But it doesn’t matter because AA died while three heroes of yours were committing multiple Felonies.

If during the chase your goons did the same thing for 6 1/2 minutes but Afell in the ditch and broke his neck and died they would have the same murder charges.

And the biggest problem with all these pages of lies and false hoods and 80 attic scenarios is that in Georgia no one gets to claim self-defense for any reason even if the victim tries to attack if the self-defense claim occurs during the act of committing a felony.

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

Maude wasn't shot over a "gut feeling" he was shot because he committed a felony assault against two men who were standing their ground

even after 6 1/2 minutes of being chased and trapped and and assaulted AA would have been justified to attack TM as you claim he did. But you are lying about that and you cannot even defend it because AA was shot first. I take the word of the GBI investigator who states that clear fact several times in all the hearings.

GM’s admission that he only had a gut feeling is what is the reason why he and his two cohorts are sitting in prison right now and will probably stay there for a very long time.

The three charged man apparently don’t dispute the GBI investigators account of what GM said about the gut feeling.

It’s the gut feeling admission that illuminates the three defendants opportunity to claim they were making a legal citizens arrest. It’s the gut feeling admission that makes all these crimes exactly what they’ve done to break the laws of the state of Georgia.

false imprisonment and criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment.

Your heroes the morons with guns are charged with false imprisonment and criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment for the seven minute chase and attempt and apprehension which are separate from the incident with the shotgun which added aggravated assault.

The murder charges then are automatically tacked on if someone dies when a person is in the act of committing a felony. The aggravated assault charges involving the shotgun are separate from the false imprisonment charges. But it doesn’t matter because AA died while three heroes of yours were committing multiple Felonies.

If during the chase your goons did the same thing for 6 1/2 minutes but Afell in the ditch and broke his neck and died they would have the same murder charges.

And the biggest problem with all these pages of lies and false hoods and 80 attic scenarios is that in Georgia no one gets to claim self-defense for any reason even if the victim tries to attack if the self-defense claim occurs during the act of committing a felony.

I take the word of the GBI investigator

dial is paid to lock the mcmichels away like oprah said...

you keep quoting a guy who said travis AIMED his gun at maude and we know thats FALSE

LOL...i called the mcmichels morons not "heros" a bunch of times

if ahmaud was shot as he was innocenty jogging by how come he was hit in the FRONT of his chest and not his side?

your criminal hero ate lead

too bad he didnt just keep
'"jogging while black"

 

[SavannahMann]

most men are cowards that's why the average person who views these types of situations is perfectly comfortable with the notion that a citizen should never interfere with a Criminal under any circumstances but American law makes exceptions for citizens to take criminals under arrest who they have Reasonable Suspicion have committed a felony... this has been a tenet of English common law from time immemorial

* noticed none of the people defending Maude can answer the simple scenario questions

If you see a man covered in blood jumping out of your neighbor's window at 4 in the morning who Locks eyes with you and then flees in a panic are you allowed to detain him?

if you were walking around the corner and you noticed a man running from a woman's unconscious body while holding a purse are you allowed to detain him?

If you notice a disheveled man rummaging through your daughter's underwear drawer while she's fast asleep in her bed are you allowed to detain him?

In all three of these cases it's perfectly reasonable for you to detain these individuals because you have reasonable suspicion that they have committed a serious crime

A coward's interpretation of the law is that you must witness someone commits a felony in order for you to be allowed to detain them and probable cause is insufficient

When viewing one particular example it's understandable how people could get their wires crossed about the law so you have to bounce your interpretation up against a few other real-world scenarios in order to understand its validity

If I see a creepy disheveled individual staring through my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 in the morning who notices me and then panics running and jumping over The Back Fence it should be perfectly legal for me to arm myself pursue him and detain him for law enforcement because Americans have the right to defend their life liberty and property and this right certainly extends to their neighborhood as it is part of their "village" and everybody knows if you allow crime to flourish across the street it will eventually invade your home also

I got as far as this ...

* noticed none of the people defending Maude can answer the simple scenario questions​

​

If you see a man covered in blood jumping out of your neighbor's window at 4 in the morning who Locks eyes with you and then flees in a panic are you allowed to detain him? ​

Seeing what you describe is nothing at all like the McMichaels' witnessed. They didn't see anyone exit a residence. They didn't see anyone with any evidence of a crime having been committed. They didn't see anyone suspiciously "lock eyes" then flee. And based on the events which actually occurred, according to Georgia law, they had no right to detail Aubrey.

§ 17-4-60​

​

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.​

If you see a man covered in blood jumping out of your neighbor's window at 4 in the morning who Locks eyes with you and then flees in a panic are you allowed to detain him?

According to that law, no. You'd have to have seen, or have immediate knowledge, that a felony was committed. I see nothing in that statute that allows for suspicion of a felony to detain someone.

That aside, again, your hypothetical still bears absolutely no resemblance to what actually occurred. The McMichaels didn't even see anything to make them suspicious that a felony had been committed. Travis McMichael saw nothing at all -- he was inside his residence. All Gregory McMichael saw was a guy jogging past his residence who he says he recognized being inside the house under construction in the past. Even that event they witnessed in the past doesn't satisfy § 17-4-60 because trespassing isn't a felony.

They had absolutely no legal recourse to detain Aubrey. And Aubrey had absolutely no obligation to stop for them. Once Travis exited his vehicle and pointed a shotgun at Aubrey, he already committed aggravated assault. At that point, if anything, Aubrey had the right to defend himself from an imminent threat to his life. The McMichaels' are fucked. And not in a good way.

So you think it's illegal to detain someone who a former professional law enforcement agent knows (has immediate knowledge) is suspected in a felony crime?

At what point in the video do you believe you see Travis McMichael pointing a shotgun at maud?

So if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony?

"So you think it's illegal to detain someone who a former professional law enforcement agent knows (has immediate knowledge) is suspected in a felony crime?"

Fail. Arbery did not commit a felony by entering that property.

"At what point in the video do you believe you see Travis McMichael pointing a shotgun at maud?"

It's why they were charged with aggravated assault.

"So if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony?"

I don't know why you persist with that hypothetical scenario? Not only were you shown the law does not allow to detain someone because you think they may have committed a felony; but even worse, it bears zero resemblance to anything which occurred in this case.

In fact, that you keep referring to your hypothetical scenario instead of referring to the known facts of this case, you unwittingly confess you can't show any legal reason for the McMichaels to detain Arbery.

The reason you don't want to address my hypothetical scenario is because when you apply your cowardly interpretation of Georgia law to it your cowardly interpretation becomes clearly ridiculous

Law has to be applied across all similar cases it can't just be applied to your favorites in ways you deem favorable

You're suggesting that it was illegal for the McMichaels to pursue Maude because they did not witness him commit a felony in the state of Georgia

apply that ridiculous logic to this scenario and see how it shakes out

if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony in the state of GA

while you're at it review these cases and tell me how many years you think these Good Samaritans should spend in prison for illegally detaining the crooks

SF Man Catches Prowler In The Act, Hangs Onto Him Until Police Arrive: SFist/


A Vermont grocery store worker was fired after stopping a purse snatcher who stole from an elderly woman


'Messed with the wrong family:' North Carolina dad fights back against secret peeper he found in child's bedroom

And you link to stories in other states. Thus proving you are ignorant about America.

So you're saying that Georgia has less aggressive criminal penalties than San Francisco?

SF Man Catches Prowler In The Act, Hangs Onto Him Until Police Arrive: SFist/

by your cowardly interpretation of law what this man did is illegal

after all he did not witness this citizen commit a felony!!

how many years of prison do you want this San Francisco resident to receive for illegally detaining a citizen?

Since you hate America. Let me say this. Trespassing in Georgia isn’t a major deal. If Arbury rushed out of the house and the cops were there and Arbury had nothing on him that was stolen. Then the cops would have let him go. Because there is a sequence that has to be followed. And part of that Sequence would be English there to press charges.

So keep quoting your other state stories. Idiot. And I’ll keep mocking you.

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

most men are cowards that's why the average person who views these types of situations is perfectly comfortable with the notion that a citizen should never interfere with a Criminal under any circumstances but American law makes exceptions for citizens to take criminals under arrest who they have Reasonable Suspicion have committed a felony... this has been a tenet of English common law from time immemorial

* noticed none of the people defending Maude can answer the simple scenario questions

If you see a man covered in blood jumping out of your neighbor's window at 4 in the morning who Locks eyes with you and then flees in a panic are you allowed to detain him?

if you were walking around the corner and you noticed a man running from a woman's unconscious body while holding a purse are you allowed to detain him?

If you notice a disheveled man rummaging through your daughter's underwear drawer while she's fast asleep in her bed are you allowed to detain him?

In all three of these cases it's perfectly reasonable for you to detain these individuals because you have reasonable suspicion that they have committed a serious crime

A coward's interpretation of the law is that you must witness someone commits a felony in order for you to be allowed to detain them and probable cause is insufficient

When viewing one particular example it's understandable how people could get their wires crossed about the law so you have to bounce your interpretation up against a few other real-world scenarios in order to understand its validity

If I see a creepy disheveled individual staring through my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 in the morning who notices me and then panics running and jumping over The Back Fence it should be perfectly legal for me to arm myself pursue him and detain him for law enforcement because Americans have the right to defend their life liberty and property and this right certainly extends to their neighborhood as it is part of their "village" and everybody knows if you allow crime to flourish across the street it will eventually invade your home also

I got as far as this ...

* noticed none of the people defending Maude can answer the simple scenario questions​

​

If you see a man covered in blood jumping out of your neighbor's window at 4 in the morning who Locks eyes with you and then flees in a panic are you allowed to detain him? ​

Seeing what you describe is nothing at all like the McMichaels' witnessed. They didn't see anyone exit a residence. They didn't see anyone with any evidence of a crime having been committed. They didn't see anyone suspiciously "lock eyes" then flee. And based on the events which actually occurred, according to Georgia law, they had no right to detail Aubrey.

§ 17-4-60​

​

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.​

If you see a man covered in blood jumping out of your neighbor's window at 4 in the morning who Locks eyes with you and then flees in a panic are you allowed to detain him?

According to that law, no. You'd have to have seen, or have immediate knowledge, that a felony was committed. I see nothing in that statute that allows for suspicion of a felony to detain someone.

That aside, again, your hypothetical still bears absolutely no resemblance to what actually occurred. The McMichaels didn't even see anything to make them suspicious that a felony had been committed. Travis McMichael saw nothing at all -- he was inside his residence. All Gregory McMichael saw was a guy jogging past his residence who he says he recognized being inside the house under construction in the past. Even that event they witnessed in the past doesn't satisfy § 17-4-60 because trespassing isn't a felony.

They had absolutely no legal recourse to detain Aubrey. And Aubrey had absolutely no obligation to stop for them. Once Travis exited his vehicle and pointed a shotgun at Aubrey, he already committed aggravated assault. At that point, if anything, Aubrey had the right to defend himself from an imminent threat to his life. The McMichaels' are fucked. And not in a good way.

So you think it's illegal to detain someone who a former professional law enforcement agent knows (has immediate knowledge) is suspected in a felony crime?

At what point in the video do you believe you see Travis McMichael pointing a shotgun at maud?

So if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony?

"So you think it's illegal to detain someone who a former professional law enforcement agent knows (has immediate knowledge) is suspected in a felony crime?"

Fail. Arbery did not commit a felony by entering that property.

"At what point in the video do you believe you see Travis McMichael pointing a shotgun at maud?"

It's why they were charged with aggravated assault.

"So if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony?"

I don't know why you persist with that hypothetical scenario? Not only were you shown the law does not allow to detain someone because you think they may have committed a felony; but even worse, it bears zero resemblance to anything which occurred in this case.

In fact, that you keep referring to your hypothetical scenario instead of referring to the known facts of this case, you unwittingly confess you can't show any legal reason for the McMichaels to detain Arbery.

The reason you don't want to address my hypothetical scenario is because when you apply your cowardly interpretation of Georgia law to it your cowardly interpretation becomes clearly ridiculous

Law has to be applied across all similar cases it can't just be applied to your favorites in ways you deem favorable

You're suggesting that it was illegal for the McMichaels to pursue Maude because they did not witness him commit a felony in the state of Georgia

apply that ridiculous logic to this scenario and see how it shakes out

if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony in the state of GA

while you're at it review these cases and tell me how many years you think these Good Samaritans should spend in prison for illegally detaining the crooks

SF Man Catches Prowler In The Act, Hangs Onto Him Until Police Arrive: SFist/


A Vermont grocery store worker was fired after stopping a purse snatcher who stole from an elderly woman


'Messed with the wrong family:' North Carolina dad fights back against secret peeper he found in child's bedroom

And you link to stories in other states. Thus proving you are ignorant about America.

So you're saying that Georgia has less aggressive criminal penalties than San Francisco?

SF Man Catches Prowler In The Act, Hangs Onto Him Until Police Arrive: SFist/

by your cowardly interpretation of law what this man did is illegal

after all he did not witness this citizen commit a felony!!

how many years of prison do you want this San Francisco resident to receive for illegally detaining a citizen?

Since you hate America. Let me say this. Trespassing in Georgia isn’t a major deal. If Arbury rushed out of the house and the cops were there and Arbury had nothing on him that was stolen. Then the cops would have let him go. Because there is a sequence that has to be followed. And part of that Sequence would be English there to press charges.

So keep quoting your other state stories. Idiot. And I’ll keep mocking you.

so english was ok with him robbing his home?

dont think so sport!

 

[SavannahMann]

most men are cowards that's why the average person who views these types of situations is perfectly comfortable with the notion that a citizen should never interfere with a Criminal under any circumstances but American law makes exceptions for citizens to take criminals under arrest who they have Reasonable Suspicion have committed a felony... this has been a tenet of English common law from time immemorial

* noticed none of the people defending Maude can answer the simple scenario questions

If you see a man covered in blood jumping out of your neighbor's window at 4 in the morning who Locks eyes with you and then flees in a panic are you allowed to detain him?

if you were walking around the corner and you noticed a man running from a woman's unconscious body while holding a purse are you allowed to detain him?

If you notice a disheveled man rummaging through your daughter's underwear drawer while she's fast asleep in her bed are you allowed to detain him?

In all three of these cases it's perfectly reasonable for you to detain these individuals because you have reasonable suspicion that they have committed a serious crime

A coward's interpretation of the law is that you must witness someone commits a felony in order for you to be allowed to detain them and probable cause is insufficient

When viewing one particular example it's understandable how people could get their wires crossed about the law so you have to bounce your interpretation up against a few other real-world scenarios in order to understand its validity

If I see a creepy disheveled individual staring through my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 in the morning who notices me and then panics running and jumping over The Back Fence it should be perfectly legal for me to arm myself pursue him and detain him for law enforcement because Americans have the right to defend their life liberty and property and this right certainly extends to their neighborhood as it is part of their "village" and everybody knows if you allow crime to flourish across the street it will eventually invade your home also

I got as far as this ...

* noticed none of the people defending Maude can answer the simple scenario questions​

​

If you see a man covered in blood jumping out of your neighbor's window at 4 in the morning who Locks eyes with you and then flees in a panic are you allowed to detain him? ​

Seeing what you describe is nothing at all like the McMichaels' witnessed. They didn't see anyone exit a residence. They didn't see anyone with any evidence of a crime having been committed. They didn't see anyone suspiciously "lock eyes" then flee. And based on the events which actually occurred, according to Georgia law, they had no right to detail Aubrey.

§ 17-4-60​

​

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.​

If you see a man covered in blood jumping out of your neighbor's window at 4 in the morning who Locks eyes with you and then flees in a panic are you allowed to detain him?

According to that law, no. You'd have to have seen, or have immediate knowledge, that a felony was committed. I see nothing in that statute that allows for suspicion of a felony to detain someone.

That aside, again, your hypothetical still bears absolutely no resemblance to what actually occurred. The McMichaels didn't even see anything to make them suspicious that a felony had been committed. Travis McMichael saw nothing at all -- he was inside his residence. All Gregory McMichael saw was a guy jogging past his residence who he says he recognized being inside the house under construction in the past. Even that event they witnessed in the past doesn't satisfy § 17-4-60 because trespassing isn't a felony.

They had absolutely no legal recourse to detain Aubrey. And Aubrey had absolutely no obligation to stop for them. Once Travis exited his vehicle and pointed a shotgun at Aubrey, he already committed aggravated assault. At that point, if anything, Aubrey had the right to defend himself from an imminent threat to his life. The McMichaels' are fucked. And not in a good way.

So you think it's illegal to detain someone who a former professional law enforcement agent knows (has immediate knowledge) is suspected in a felony crime?

At what point in the video do you believe you see Travis McMichael pointing a shotgun at maud?

So if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony?

"So you think it's illegal to detain someone who a former professional law enforcement agent knows (has immediate knowledge) is suspected in a felony crime?"

Fail. Arbery did not commit a felony by entering that property.

"At what point in the video do you believe you see Travis McMichael pointing a shotgun at maud?"

It's why they were charged with aggravated assault.

"So if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony?"

I don't know why you persist with that hypothetical scenario? Not only were you shown the law does not allow to detain someone because you think they may have committed a felony; but even worse, it bears zero resemblance to anything which occurred in this case.

In fact, that you keep referring to your hypothetical scenario instead of referring to the known facts of this case, you unwittingly confess you can't show any legal reason for the McMichaels to detain Arbery.

The reason you don't want to address my hypothetical scenario is because when you apply your cowardly interpretation of Georgia law to it your cowardly interpretation becomes clearly ridiculous

Law has to be applied across all similar cases it can't just be applied to your favorites in ways you deem favorable

You're suggesting that it was illegal for the McMichaels to pursue Maude because they did not witness him commit a felony in the state of Georgia

apply that ridiculous logic to this scenario and see how it shakes out

if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony in the state of GA

while you're at it review these cases and tell me how many years you think these Good Samaritans should spend in prison for illegally detaining the crooks

SF Man Catches Prowler In The Act, Hangs Onto Him Until Police Arrive: SFist/


A Vermont grocery store worker was fired after stopping a purse snatcher who stole from an elderly woman


'Messed with the wrong family:' North Carolina dad fights back against secret peeper he found in child's bedroom

And you link to stories in other states. Thus proving you are ignorant about America.

So you're saying that Georgia has less aggressive criminal penalties than San Francisco?

SF Man Catches Prowler In The Act, Hangs Onto Him Until Police Arrive: SFist/

by your cowardly interpretation of law what this man did is illegal

after all he did not witness this citizen commit a felony!!

how many years of prison do you want this San Francisco resident to receive for illegally detaining a citizen?

Since you hate America. Let me say this. Trespassing in Georgia isn’t a major deal. If Arbury rushed out of the house and the cops were there and Arbury had nothing on him that was stolen. Then the cops would have let him go. Because there is a sequence that has to be followed. And part of that Sequence would be English there to press charges.

So keep quoting your other state stories. Idiot. And I’ll keep mocking you.

so english was ok with him robbing his home?

dont think so sport!

English wasn’t there. So he couldn’t press charges for simple trespassing. Which is all Arbury did that day. So the police could not arrest him.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

you keep quoting a guy who said travis AIMED his gun at maude and we know thats FALSE

You posted that guy who says that you dumb ass.

You are a liar when you say that because we don’t have video of the entire chase and no one can see on video the position of the shotgun when the first shot was fired.

You’ve been asked to show an image where we can see AA grab the gun and punch TM
before the first shot. You can’t do it
Because you are a liar..

 

[Muhammed]

It’s the gut feeling admission that illuminates the three defendants opportunity to claim they were making a legal citizens arrest.

I already posted the body cam video of the police interviewing them in this thread. Neither of McMichaels say anything about a "gut feeling". They also did not claim that they attempted to make a citizens arrest.

You've been watching too much fake news.

 

[Muhammed]

I just cant get over the fact that his name is pronounced Armed Robbery LMFAO

And he died while committing an armed robbery.

 

[Muhammed]

THE 45 degree path in front of the truck reply to 26297414

if Travis McMichael shot him while he was innocently jogging by he would be shot in his side not in his chest

You are a liar because you can only see AA’s 45 degree turn:

View attachment 440042

And you do not have TM’s location on camera nor can you deny that TM is in AA’s path if that path continued for about half a second after AA disappears from sight.

An abrupt 90 degree turn is not consistent with the video evidence after the first shot was fired. That is because it is most consistent with the fact that TMs retreating foot was on the centerline about 15 feet beyond the front bumper of the truck. That is only possible if both men were on a 45 degree path. Moving Southeast while out of sight the camera.(assuming the truck is facing due east)

These images establish that distance the men were when coming back into view. View attachment 440048View attachment 440049View attachment 440050

This happened around 1PM. Nobody casts a 20 foot long shadow at 1PM, jackass.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It’s the gut feeling admission that illuminates the three defendants opportunity to claim they were making a legal citizens arrest.

I already posted the body cam video of the police interviewing them in this thread. Neither of McMichaels says anything about a "gut feeling". They also did not claim that they attempted to make a citizens arrest.

You've been watching too much fake news.

Find the objections by the defense attorney’s if the GBI investigator is just making this all up.

Richard Dial: (01:07:10)

Greg McMichael, pretty much relates on the body cam footage and then later on, whenever there’s, he actually is interviewed on camera by the Glenn County Police Department, he makes admissions to seeing Mr. Arbery running down the roadway. His statement to the effect is he didn’t know Mr. Arbery had stolen anything or not, but he had a gut feeling that Mr. Arbery may have been responsible for thefts that were in the neighborhood previously. And he actually, I think he actually says gut, his instinct told him that.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

This happened around 1PM. Nobody casts a 20 foot long shadow at 1PM, jackass.

Never said they did. You are a liar. it took you that long to come up that.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

This happened around 1PM. Nobody casts a 20 foot long shadow at 1PM, jackass.

The truck has an 18 ft shadow. Front shadow line to rear bumper line.

That sets a rough scale to determine that TM is backing across the centerline at around 15 FT from the front of the truck.

why is TM that far away from the front of the truck If he was standing his ground left of center and was attacked when AA turned 90 degrees to attack him?

 

[Muhammed]

This happened around 1PM. Nobody casts a 20 foot long shadow at 1PM, jackass.

Never said they did. You are a liar. it took you that long to come up that.

In a frame that you posted you can see their shadows under the truck. And you claimed that they were a full truck length in front of the truck. Exactly how long do you think their shadows are?

If they were that far in front of the truck you wouldn't be able to see their shadows, jackass.

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

most men are cowards that's why the average person who views these types of situations is perfectly comfortable with the notion that a citizen should never interfere with a Criminal under any circumstances but American law makes exceptions for citizens to take criminals under arrest who they have Reasonable Suspicion have committed a felony... this has been a tenet of English common law from time immemorial

* noticed none of the people defending Maude can answer the simple scenario questions

If you see a man covered in blood jumping out of your neighbor's window at 4 in the morning who Locks eyes with you and then flees in a panic are you allowed to detain him?

if you were walking around the corner and you noticed a man running from a woman's unconscious body while holding a purse are you allowed to detain him?

If you notice a disheveled man rummaging through your daughter's underwear drawer while she's fast asleep in her bed are you allowed to detain him?

In all three of these cases it's perfectly reasonable for you to detain these individuals because you have reasonable suspicion that they have committed a serious crime

A coward's interpretation of the law is that you must witness someone commits a felony in order for you to be allowed to detain them and probable cause is insufficient

When viewing one particular example it's understandable how people could get their wires crossed about the law so you have to bounce your interpretation up against a few other real-world scenarios in order to understand its validity

If I see a creepy disheveled individual staring through my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 in the morning who notices me and then panics running and jumping over The Back Fence it should be perfectly legal for me to arm myself pursue him and detain him for law enforcement because Americans have the right to defend their life liberty and property and this right certainly extends to their neighborhood as it is part of their "village" and everybody knows if you allow crime to flourish across the street it will eventually invade your home also

I got as far as this ...

* noticed none of the people defending Maude can answer the simple scenario questions​

​

If you see a man covered in blood jumping out of your neighbor's window at 4 in the morning who Locks eyes with you and then flees in a panic are you allowed to detain him? ​

Seeing what you describe is nothing at all like the McMichaels' witnessed. They didn't see anyone exit a residence. They didn't see anyone with any evidence of a crime having been committed. They didn't see anyone suspiciously "lock eyes" then flee. And based on the events which actually occurred, according to Georgia law, they had no right to detail Aubrey.

§ 17-4-60​

​

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.​

If you see a man covered in blood jumping out of your neighbor's window at 4 in the morning who Locks eyes with you and then flees in a panic are you allowed to detain him?

According to that law, no. You'd have to have seen, or have immediate knowledge, that a felony was committed. I see nothing in that statute that allows for suspicion of a felony to detain someone.

That aside, again, your hypothetical still bears absolutely no resemblance to what actually occurred. The McMichaels didn't even see anything to make them suspicious that a felony had been committed. Travis McMichael saw nothing at all -- he was inside his residence. All Gregory McMichael saw was a guy jogging past his residence who he says he recognized being inside the house under construction in the past. Even that event they witnessed in the past doesn't satisfy § 17-4-60 because trespassing isn't a felony.

They had absolutely no legal recourse to detain Aubrey. And Aubrey had absolutely no obligation to stop for them. Once Travis exited his vehicle and pointed a shotgun at Aubrey, he already committed aggravated assault. At that point, if anything, Aubrey had the right to defend himself from an imminent threat to his life. The McMichaels' are fucked. And not in a good way.

So you think it's illegal to detain someone who a former professional law enforcement agent knows (has immediate knowledge) is suspected in a felony crime?

At what point in the video do you believe you see Travis McMichael pointing a shotgun at maud?

So if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony?

"So you think it's illegal to detain someone who a former professional law enforcement agent knows (has immediate knowledge) is suspected in a felony crime?"

Fail. Arbery did not commit a felony by entering that property.

"At what point in the video do you believe you see Travis McMichael pointing a shotgun at maud?"

It's why they were charged with aggravated assault.

"So if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony?"

I don't know why you persist with that hypothetical scenario? Not only were you shown the law does not allow to detain someone because you think they may have committed a felony; but even worse, it bears zero resemblance to anything which occurred in this case.

In fact, that you keep referring to your hypothetical scenario instead of referring to the known facts of this case, you unwittingly confess you can't show any legal reason for the McMichaels to detain Arbery.

The reason you don't want to address my hypothetical scenario is because when you apply your cowardly interpretation of Georgia law to it your cowardly interpretation becomes clearly ridiculous

Law has to be applied across all similar cases it can't just be applied to your favorites in ways you deem favorable

You're suggesting that it was illegal for the McMichaels to pursue Maude because they did not witness him commit a felony in the state of Georgia

apply that ridiculous logic to this scenario and see how it shakes out

if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony in the state of GA

while you're at it review these cases and tell me how many years you think these Good Samaritans should spend in prison for illegally detaining the crooks

SF Man Catches Prowler In The Act, Hangs Onto Him Until Police Arrive: SFist/


A Vermont grocery store worker was fired after stopping a purse snatcher who stole from an elderly woman


'Messed with the wrong family:' North Carolina dad fights back against secret peeper he found in child's bedroom

And you link to stories in other states. Thus proving you are ignorant about America.

So you're saying that Georgia has less aggressive criminal penalties than San Francisco?

SF Man Catches Prowler In The Act, Hangs Onto Him Until Police Arrive: SFist/

by your cowardly interpretation of law what this man did is illegal

after all he did not witness this citizen commit a felony!!

how many years of prison do you want this San Francisco resident to receive for illegally detaining a citizen?

Since you hate America. Let me say this. Trespassing in Georgia isn’t a major deal. If Arbury rushed out of the house and the cops were there and Arbury had nothing on him that was stolen. Then the cops would have let him go. Because there is a sequence that has to be followed. And part of that Sequence would be English there to press charges.

So keep quoting your other state stories. Idiot. And I’ll keep mocking you.

so english was ok with him robbing his home?

dont think so sport!

English wasn’t there. So he couldn’t press charges for simple trespassing. Which is all Arbury did that day. So the police could not arrest him.

think they might get in touch with English about the incident?

he spent so much money on a security system it rang his phone whenever the cameras tripped

he had a representative like Diego respond

do you know who Diego is?