The painful truth about Ahmaud Arberry

[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.

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?

You mean Ring Cameras. Those are cheap pal. I’ve got six of them. I don’t call the cops every time one goes off. And I don’t press charges every time a neighbor walks across my acreage. Idiot.

I guess if you were suffering repeated home intrusion burglaries you might call the cops heck Larry English was even calling the neighbors

the Satilla Shores Facebook page was lit up with people identifying mod as the primary suspect and a host of crimes in the neighborhood

even the cops told the neighborhood they can rely on the McMichaels

The Chief of Police was astonished to hear that. He pointed out that funding and allocation of assets were determined by crime reports. Not Facebook pages. Or the McMichaels. I didn’t hear. Was the cop who told Larry that fired?

 

[SavannahMann]

in order to legally attack someone you have to have no reasonable means of escape and actually be cornered

Travis McMichael had primary control of the shotgun when Arbery tried to grab it.

According to you, instead of McMicael allowing Arbery to get close enough to grad the barrel of the shotgun, he (McMichael) should've run, since he had plenty of space and opportunity. He had a reasonable means of escape and he was not cornered.

Travis McMichael acted unlawfully...

maude did something illegal giving the mcmichels probable cause to persue him then closed on and attacked a man standing his ground just like travon Martin

once someone STOPS CHASING YOU its unreasonable to run them down and attack

a man who is not threatening you and standing his ground is not legally attackable

nobody pointed a gun at or even tried to grab maude

he had no legal right to attack and did so because he was nutz

he was diagnosed as hearing voices just prior to the incident

you idiots are trying to defend a criminal with severe mental health issues

i can give him a pass for the suicide charge considering his history but that dosent "negate" the mcmichels right to defend themselves

No. You are the one defending people accused of multiple Felonies. And ignoring the law to do it.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The Final Takedown reply to 26306598

Nobody runs at two people who they're afraid of without an intention to attack them

So this is your reply to my final takedown post where you’ve been asked to stick with solid visual evidence.

So I do not see in the video, AA running with a little cartoon caption cloud showing us what AA was thinking......

“I am going to attack those two men in the truck ahead of me because I have no reason to be afraid of the man in the truck who has been chasing me for 6 1/2 minutes and cutting me off every time I try to get away.”

I just do not see a cartoon cloud maybe you can provide it and I’ll re-address this issue.

Now for the question that you were asked and refuse to reply - where do you see AA turning 90° to the south assuming that the truck is facing east in this photo or after it when AA goes out of view of the camera and is shot in the chest half a second later.

So in that photo assuming that the truck is facing due east I see AA making a 45° or less turn and then going out of sight. Where do you have evidence that AA turns a complete 90 and was heading due south to attack TM who was just standing somewhere several feet away minding his own business.

 

[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?

You mean Ring Cameras. Those are cheap pal. I’ve got six of them. I don’t call the cops every time one goes off. And I don’t press charges every time a neighbor walks across my acreage. Idiot.

I guess if you were suffering repeated home intrusion burglaries you might call the cops heck Larry English was even calling the neighbors

the Satilla Shores Facebook page was lit up with people identifying mod as the primary suspect and a host of crimes in the neighborhood

even the cops told the neighborhood they can rely on the McMichaels

The Chief of Police was astonished to hear that. He pointed out that funding and allocation of assets were determined by crime reports. Not Facebook pages. Or the McMichaels. I didn’t hear. Was the cop who told Larry that fired?

You don't feel like citizens have the right to protect their neighborhood by identifying people they suspect of criminal wrongdoing?

Who said anything about funding?

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

in order to legally attack someone you have to have no reasonable means of escape and actually be cornered

Travis McMichael had primary control of the shotgun when Arbery tried to grab it.

According to you, instead of McMicael allowing Arbery to get close enough to grad the barrel of the shotgun, he (McMichael) should've run, since he had plenty of space and opportunity. He had a reasonable means of escape and he was not cornered.

Travis McMichael acted unlawfully...

maude did something illegal giving the mcmichels probable cause to persue him then closed on and attacked a man standing his ground just like travon Martin

once someone STOPS CHASING YOU its unreasonable to run them down and attack

a man who is not threatening you and standing his ground is not legally attackable

nobody pointed a gun at or even tried to grab maude

he had no legal right to attack and did so because he was nutz

he was diagnosed as hearing voices just prior to the incident

you idiots are trying to defend a criminal with severe mental health issues

i can give him a pass for the suicide charge considering his history but that dosent "negate" the mcmichels right to defend themselves

No. You are the one defending people accused of multiple Felonies. And ignoring the law to do it.

maudes crime started the chain of events and he commited the 1st act of violence

You're defending a mentally retarded criminal who attacked two men who were standing their ground

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

The Final Takedown reply to 26306598

Nobody runs at two people who they're afraid of without an intention to attack them

So this is your reply to my final takedown post where you’ve been asked to stick with solid visual evidence.

So I do not see in the video, AA running with a little cartoon caption cloud showing us what AA was thinking......

“I am going to attack those two men in the truck ahead of me because I have no reason to be afraid of the man in the truck who has been chasing me for 6 1/2 minutes and cutting me off every time I try to get away.”

I just do not see a cartoon cloud maybe you can provide it and I’ll re-address this issue.

Now for the question that you were asked and refuse to reply - where do you see AA turning 90° to the south assuming that the truck is facing east in this photo or after it when AA goes out of view of the camera and is shot in the chest half a second later.

View attachment 440653
So in that photo assuming that the truck is facing due east I see AA making a 45° or less turn and then going out of sight. Where do you have evidence that AA turns a complete 90 and was heading due south to attack TM who was just standing somewhere several feet away minding his own business.

the acuteness of the angle he turned before engaging in a suicide charge is completely irrelevant

I just find it comical that you can defend someone who changed the direction of his travel in order to attack another man

you presume that the McMichaels set out to murder arbery and then accuse me of assuming that arbery was planning to attack them... this contention is highly entertaining to me

The two men he attacked weren't even chasing him

don't you get it... they stopped chasing him and we're standing their ground

Your criminal hero observed the two men who were previously chasing him standing their ground some 100 meters away

no reasonable person who was afraid of men with guns would decide to jog around a vehicle where a man was standing in the bed and another was standing immediately adjacent

that shows a complete and total lack of fear and that proves that nobody threatens this individual

if he was an innocent jogger being threatened by men with guns he would have run up to someone's door and asked for help or at least ran behind a house and called 911

any rational human being who was afraid of two men who were supposedly "threatening him with guns" would not run directly at the truck

By running directly at the back of the vehicle Maude proved that the men were not threatening him because absolutely no one would do that type of thing unless they were a criminal who were hearing voices in their head like maud

You would have a case if they shot him in the back as he ran by or chased him down like the media claims but the fact is they were standing their ground as he ran directly at them completely destroying the fake narrative design to sucker Chumps out of big money via a crowdfunding websites

For God sake Travis didn't even grab him

there's a very good chance the mcMichael's had no intention to arrest him but simply wanted to identify the character who was suspected by the entire neighborhood of committing numerous burglaries and trespassers

This is the posture Travis McMichael was in when this photo was taken... as anyone can see a shouldered weapon is not an aimed weapons and in no way shape form or fashion is a criminal act especially when you're being charged by someone who has a reason to become violent with you

 

[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.

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?

You mean Ring Cameras. Those are cheap pal. I’ve got six of them. I don’t call the cops every time one goes off. And I don’t press charges every time a neighbor walks across my acreage. Idiot.

I guess if you were suffering repeated home intrusion burglaries you might call the cops heck Larry English was even calling the neighbors

the Satilla Shores Facebook page was lit up with people identifying mod as the primary suspect and a host of crimes in the neighborhood

even the cops told the neighborhood they can rely on the McMichaels

The Chief of Police was astonished to hear that. He pointed out that funding and allocation of assets were determined by crime reports. Not Facebook pages. Or the McMichaels. I didn’t hear. Was the cop who told Larry that fired?

You don't feel like citizens have the right to protect their neighborhood by identifying people they suspect of criminal wrongdoing?

Who said anything about funding?

Funding for the police. The Politicians allocate assets based upon information. Assets like authorization for more cops. Funding to hire and train new cops. That comes from crime reports. Not Facebook Pages. Dolt.

 

[SavannahMann]

in order to legally attack someone you have to have no reasonable means of escape and actually be cornered

Travis McMichael had primary control of the shotgun when Arbery tried to grab it.

According to you, instead of McMicael allowing Arbery to get close enough to grad the barrel of the shotgun, he (McMichael) should've run, since he had plenty of space and opportunity. He had a reasonable means of escape and he was not cornered.

Travis McMichael acted unlawfully...

maude did something illegal giving the mcmichels probable cause to persue him then closed on and attacked a man standing his ground just like travon Martin

once someone STOPS CHASING YOU its unreasonable to run them down and attack

a man who is not threatening you and standing his ground is not legally attackable

nobody pointed a gun at or even tried to grab maude

he had no legal right to attack and did so because he was nutz

he was diagnosed as hearing voices just prior to the incident

you idiots are trying to defend a criminal with severe mental health issues

i can give him a pass for the suicide charge considering his history but that dosent "negate" the mcmichels right to defend themselves

No. You are the one defending people accused of multiple Felonies. And ignoring the law to do it.

maudes crime started the chain of events and he commited the 1st act of violence

You're defending a mentally retarded criminal who attacked two men who were standing their ground

No. Arbury was the only one acting in self defense. Against Violent Felons. Which is why those Violent Felons are charged with Felony Murder. If they had not committed violent felonies, I’d say they had embezzled funds and their victim died from the stress of the lost money. They could not be charged with Felony Murder. Embezzlement is not a violent crime.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

The Final Takedown reply to 26307754 acuteness not relevant.

the acuteness of the angle he turned before engaging in a suicide charge is completely irrelevant

Then why are you afraid to tell me where TM was “standing his ground” just as and at the precise moment AA disappeared from view in this Image.

You are using an assumed or imaginary 90° turn to declare as if fact that AA turned abruptly in front of the truck heading straight south to the position where you are assuming that TM was standing still. Is that true or is it not true?

Why not drop the psychological commentary for a bit and spend some time delving into the cold hard facts and visuals that have been provided.

You are saying that AA turned a very sharp angle and continued running directly south assuming that the truck is facing east and AA took a few steps in that direction and grabbed the gun and punched TM above the shoulders and then the gun went off. Is that is that what you are seeing and saying or do you want to modify your statement at this point?

If yes say yes if no say no and then explain what should be written down here that is different. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It’s the final take down - reply to 26307754 Changing direction does not constitute an attack

I just find it comical that you can defend someone who changed the direction of his travel in order to attack another man

I am not defending AA right now. I am accusing you of lying when you say AA turned a sharp 90° angle as he came around the front of the truck and disappears from view. And when you say you can see AA was headed straight south assuming the truck is facing east and grabbed TMs gun while he was punching TM somewhere above the shoulders. Trouble is we can’t see any of that half second and you are unable to show us where you see AA attack or where TM was standing still and minding his own business on the drivers side in the west bound lane telling AA stop but didn’t care if he just ran past.

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

in order to legally attack someone you have to have no reasonable means of escape and actually be cornered

Travis McMichael had primary control of the shotgun when Arbery tried to grab it.

According to you, instead of McMicael allowing Arbery to get close enough to grad the barrel of the shotgun, he (McMichael) should've run, since he had plenty of space and opportunity. He had a reasonable means of escape and he was not cornered.

Travis McMichael acted unlawfully...

maude did something illegal giving the mcmichels probable cause to persue him then closed on and attacked a man standing his ground just like travon Martin

once someone STOPS CHASING YOU its unreasonable to run them down and attack

a man who is not threatening you and standing his ground is not legally attackable

nobody pointed a gun at or even tried to grab maude

he had no legal right to attack and did so because he was nutz

he was diagnosed as hearing voices just prior to the incident

you idiots are trying to defend a criminal with severe mental health issues

i can give him a pass for the suicide charge considering his history but that dosent "negate" the mcmichels right to defend themselves

No. You are the one defending people accused of multiple Felonies. And ignoring the law to do it.

maudes crime started the chain of events and he commited the 1st act of violence

You're defending a mentally retarded criminal who attacked two men who were standing their ground

No. Arbury was the only one acting in self defense. Against Violent Felons. Which is why those Violent Felons are charged with Felony Murder. If they had not committed violent felonies, I’d say they had embezzled funds and their victim died from the stress of the lost money. They could not be charged with Felony Murder. Embezzlement is not a violent crime.

One must begin to wonder that your fervent defense of a mentally retarded Street criminal is precipitated by something more than hatred for guns, Authority or civilized life in general

Might you have some sort of sexual attraction towards this individual?

Maybe you fall for bad boys in an effort to get back at your parents?

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

The Final Takedown reply to 26307754 acuteness not relevant.

the acuteness of the angle he turned before engaging in a suicide charge is completely irrelevant

Then why are you afraid to tell me where TM was “standing his ground” just as and at the precise moment AA disappeared from view in this Image.

View attachment 440691

You are using an assumed or imaginary 90° turn to declare as if fact that AA turned abruptly in front of the truck heading straight south to the position where you are assuming that TM was standing still. Is that true or is it not true?

Why not drop the psychological commentary for a bit and spend some time delving into the cold hard facts and visuals that have been provided.

You are saying that AA turned a very sharp angle and continued running directly south assuming that the truck is facing east and AA took a few steps in that direction and grabbed the gun and punched TM above the shoulders and then the gun went off. Is that is that what you are seeing and saying or do you want to modify your statement at this point?

If yes say yes if no say no and then explain what should be written down here that is different. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

Trucks are rectangular so in order to run up the side of one and then attack a man standing in front of one you have to turn 90° as is clearly depicted on the video

I'm getting very curious about your turning radius defense strategy?

Fine line between genius and moron

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

It’s the final take down - reply to 26307754 Changing direction does not constitute an attack

I just find it comical that you can defend someone who changed the direction of his travel in order to attack another man

I am not defending AA right now. I am accusing you of lying when you say AA turned a sharp 90° angle as he came around the front of the truck and disappears from view. And when you say you can see AA was headed straight south assuming the truck is facing east and grabbed TMs gun while he was punching TM somewhere above the shoulders. Trouble is we can’t see any of that half second and you are unable to show us where you see AA attack or where TM was standing still and minding his own business on the drivers side in the west bound lane telling AA stop but didn’t care if he just ran past.

What do you think Travis McMichael would have done if Maud would have just kept running in a straight line while black?

If Travis McMichael shot maud as he innocently jogged past the front of the truck thus eliciting the attack wouldn't he have been shot in the side and not square in the chest?

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

Changing direction does not constitute an attack

I agree... it's the grabbing of the gun and the punching in the face that constitutes felony assault not a change of Direction

The change of direction is highly indicative however that maud Was Not Afraid of the people who had supposedly been terrorizing him with guns and that is highly important when it comes to a self defense vs murder case as I've said ad nauseam if a young innocent black jogger was being terrorized by murderous rednecks with guns he wouldn't run directly at them

he would run between the houses begging for help and calling for 911, he's a football player for God's sake...the kid could have outrun three fat rednecks in a New York Minute but likely decided he was going to kill them instead because he was probably aware he had been identified and with his criminal record probation and the aggressive Georgia trespassing burglary laws he would have going to jail for sure

 

[Muhammed]

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.
View attachment 440346
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?

If TM was 15 feet in front of the truck you wouldn't even be able to see his foot in that frame, you fucking idiot.

You're a fucking moron.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It’s the final take down reply to 26309693 - We can see TMs foot 15 foot from the front bumper

If TM was 15 feet in front of the truck you even wouldn't be able to see his foot in that frame, you fucking idiot.

When TM comes back into view from being out of view it is crystal clear to see TMs foot right here:

What is your problem? Why can’t you see TM’s foot 15 feet west of the truck’s front bumper or 20 feet from the door’s very chest shadow on the DYL.

Where do you think TMs foot is if it’s not about 15 feet west of the front bumper’s shadow on the double yellow line?

 

[Canon Shooter]

in order to legally attack someone you have to have no reasonable means of escape and actually be cornered

Travis McMichael had primary control of the shotgun when Arbery tried to grab it.

According to you, instead of McMicael allowing Arbery to get close enough to grad the barrel of the shotgun, he (McMichael) should've run, since he had plenty of space and opportunity. He had a reasonable means of escape and he was not cornered.

Travis McMichael acted unlawfully...

maude did something illegal giving the mcmichels probable cause to persue him then closed on and attacked a man standing his ground just like travon Martin

once someone STOPS CHASING YOU its unreasonable to run them down and attack

a man who is not threatening you and standing his ground is not legally attackable

nobody pointed a gun at or even tried to grab maude

he had no legal right to attack and did so because he was nutz

he was diagnosed as hearing voices just prior to the incident

you idiots are trying to defend a criminal with severe mental health issues

i can give him a pass for the suicide charge considering his history but that dosent "negate" the mcmichels right to defend themselves

You're talking out both sides of your mouth now.

I'm not defending anyone or anything but the law, and the law is pretty clear on this issue. It's so clear, in fact, that the GBI and a grand jury see it for what it is.

But, back to my point. You're repeatedly stated that Arbery "charged" at McMichael. My question to you is this: If what you say is true, why didn't McMichael retreat? He had the means to run away, as well as the opportunity. He had someone charging him. Why didn't he do what you insist Arbery should've done?

You can't answer that...

 

[Canon Shooter]

You don't feel like citizens have the right to protect their neighborhood by identifying people they suspect of criminal wrongdoing?

To the point of arming themselves and chasing someone they suspect of being a perpetrator?

No, they don't. And the law in Georgia agrees with me.

They can "identify" someone they suspect six ways to Sunday. That's what neighborhood watch programs are for...

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It’s the final takedown - reply to 26309647 Still no visual of AA grabbing the gun as the first shot was fired

I agree... it's the grabbing of the gun and the punching in the face that constitutes felony assault not a change of Direction

Great. Now tell me where you see grabbing of the gun and the punching in the face between this image of AA last seen before disappearing from view heading southwest (Assuming that the truck is facing East)

and this:

where you see TM’s foot as he backs out retreating across the DYL after the first shot was fired. Note that when you scale iT TMs foot is about fifteen feet from the front bumper’s shadow.

A split second after we see TMs foot on the double yellow line 15 feet west of the front bumper of the truck then we see AA’s foot in pursuit also 15 feet from the front bumper

So again where do you see AA grabbing the gun and punching TM somewhere above the shoulders between the first time image at the top and the image of TMs foot on the double yellow line? Where do you see the 90° turn? That does not look like a 90° turn from where AA went in and from where AA came out of being hidden from view of the camera?

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

You don't feel like citizens have the right to protect their neighborhood by identifying people they suspect of criminal wrongdoing?

To the point of arming themselves and chasing someone they suspect of being a perpetrator?

No, they don't. And the law in Georgia agrees with me.

They can "identify" someone they suspect six ways to Sunday. That's what neighborhood watch programs are for...

Lady Gaga's tampon dipped in Starbucks coffee has enough sense not to pursue someone who could be armed without a firearm yourself!!!

you sound like a privileged white person who lives in a condo that has a security service LOL

lol@ "armed themselves"

they recognized him as the primary suspect in a string of burglaries and trespasses in the neighborhood

they actually recognized his face because they both had interactions with him and had seen his photos and discussed his activities in the neighborhood on the Satilla Shores Facebook page

The kid was literally a wanted man but had not been identified yet

the cops would have arrested his ass immediately if they saw him running out of the construction site and after contacting Larry English and seeing all the other evidence he would have been carted right off to jail for trespass with the intent to commit burglary

The only reason this became a thing is because Oprah and LeBron got excited about him cuz he black