“Travis told police Arbery “squared up” like he was going to attack.” So he shot him in the chest.

[jc456]

Why do you leave out the break in? It the hammer in the road? Or the actual evidence of him attacking Travis?

the video doesn't tell his story. that's why.

 

[colfax_m]

Why does it matter? Your going to jail anyway ha

Not me.

See, I know when deadly force is appropriate, unlike your hero racist rednecks...

Is it appropriate if he’s running at you tries to grab your gun?

No, it's not...

So the chances of him taking your gun to shoot you just went up.. are you suicidal?

well that dude thinks terrorized people run at loaded weapons rather than run where possible help and a call to police is a choice. Very odd fks.

They are all insane. Why can’t we all
Agree all 3 were idiots and Arbery was the bigger idiot and move on?

Three men chased down a man with firearms.

There is no bigger idiot in this situation.

Why do you leave out the break in? It the hammer in the road? Or the actual evidence of him attacking Travis?

There was no break in. It’s an open house under construction. Nothing was broken. There was no hammer. Nothing was taken from the house.

Three racist men chasing down a man with guns are the biggest idiots.

 

[jc456]

The break-in, if it's real, is a separate issue. In no way does that give the McMichael bozos a justification to kill Arbery.

Face it, they're going to go to prison, and Travis McMichael will likely die there...

Arbery should have waited for the cops then, right?

 

[colfax_m]

Why do you leave out the break in? It the hammer in the road? Or the actual evidence of him attacking Travis?

the video doesn't tell his story. that's why.

The statements of the McMichals adds to the story but apparently you refuse to acknowledge it.

 

[jc456]

There was no break in. It’s an open house under construction. Nothing was broken. There was no hammer. Nothing was taken from the house.

Three racist men chasing down a man with guns are the biggest idiots.

trespassing was what it actually was, and a hammer was seen. just saying. you certainly don't follow the news.

 

[jc456]

Why do you leave out the break in? It the hammer in the road? Or the actual evidence of him attacking Travis?

the video doesn't tell his story. that's why.

The statements of the McMichals adds to the story but apparently you refuse to acknowledge it.

his statements will be inadmissible, and the video doesn't show a shotgun wound on the man wrestling the gun away from McMichal. does it? You still didn't answer my questions. Why not?

You really hate inconvenient facts.

 

[colfax_m]

There was no break in. It’s an open house under construction. Nothing was broken. There was no hammer. Nothing was taken from the house.

Three racist men chasing down a man with guns are the biggest idiots.

trespassing was what it actually was, and a hammer was seen. just saying. you certainly don't follow the news.

It probably wasn’t even criminal trespassing according to the letter of the law in Georgia.

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

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

codes.findlaw.com

There was no hammer. You’re imagining things.

 

[colfax_m]

Why do you leave out the break in? It the hammer in the road? Or the actual evidence of him attacking Travis?

the video doesn't tell his story. that's why.

The statements of the McMichals adds to the story but apparently you refuse to acknowledge it.

his statements will be inadmissible, and the video doesn't show a shotgun wound on the man wrestling the gun away from McMichal. does it? You still didn't answer my questions. Why not?

You really hate inconvenient facts.

What makes his statement inadmissible?

 

[jc456]

There was no break in. It’s an open house under construction. Nothing was broken. There was no hammer. Nothing was taken from the house.

Three racist men chasing down a man with guns are the biggest idiots.

trespassing was what it actually was, and a hammer was seen. just saying. you certainly don't follow the news.

It probably wasn’t even criminal trespassing according to the letter of the law in Georgia.

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

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

codes.findlaw.com

There was no hammer. You’re imagining things.

sure it was. just more inconvenient facts you can't change.

 

[jc456]

Why do you leave out the break in? It the hammer in the road? Or the actual evidence of him attacking Travis?

the video doesn't tell his story. that's why.

The statements of the McMichals adds to the story but apparently you refuse to acknowledge it.

his statements will be inadmissible, and the video doesn't show a shotgun wound on the man wrestling the gun away from McMichal. does it? You still didn't answer my questions. Why not?

You really hate inconvenient facts.

What makes his statement inadmissible?

his lawyer will make sure of it, he wasn't there. Especially if it was recorded.

 

[colfax_m]

There was no break in. It’s an open house under construction. Nothing was broken. There was no hammer. Nothing was taken from the house.

Three racist men chasing down a man with guns are the biggest idiots.

trespassing was what it actually was, and a hammer was seen. just saying. you certainly don't follow the news.

It probably wasn’t even criminal trespassing according to the letter of the law in Georgia.

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

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

codes.findlaw.com

There was no hammer. You’re imagining things.

sure it was. just more inconvenient facts you can't change.

Show me where the cops recovered a hammer from the scene

 

[jc456]

There was no break in. It’s an open house under construction. Nothing was broken. There was no hammer. Nothing was taken from the house.

Three racist men chasing down a man with guns are the biggest idiots.

trespassing was what it actually was, and a hammer was seen. just saying. you certainly don't follow the news.

It probably wasn’t even criminal trespassing according to the letter of the law in Georgia.

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

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

codes.findlaw.com

There was no hammer. You’re imagining things.

sure it was. just more inconvenient facts you can't change.

Show me where the cops recovered a hammer from the scene

dude, I'm not answering another question until you answer mine.

 

[colfax_m]

Why do you leave out the break in? It the hammer in the road? Or the actual evidence of him attacking Travis?

the video doesn't tell his story. that's why.

The statements of the McMichals adds to the story but apparently you refuse to acknowledge it.

his statements will be inadmissible, and the video doesn't show a shotgun wound on the man wrestling the gun away from McMichal. does it? You still didn't answer my questions. Why not?

You really hate inconvenient facts.

What makes his statement inadmissible?

his lawyer will make sure of it, he wasn't there. Especially if it was recorded.

Who wasn’t there? His lawyer? You don’t need a lawyer to give a statement to the police. That does not make it inadmissible.

 

[MarcATL]

OP, these far rightwing bastards straight up lie.

It's just what they do. They're on countless threads lying about details about this, and many other, similar cases.

You've just exposed them, yet again, lying through their rotten teeth.

 

[colfax_m]

There was no break in. It’s an open house under construction. Nothing was broken. There was no hammer. Nothing was taken from the house.

Three racist men chasing down a man with guns are the biggest idiots.

trespassing was what it actually was, and a hammer was seen. just saying. you certainly don't follow the news.

It probably wasn’t even criminal trespassing according to the letter of the law in Georgia.

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

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

codes.findlaw.com

There was no hammer. You’re imagining things.

sure it was. just more inconvenient facts you can't change.

Show me where the cops recovered a hammer from the scene

dude, I'm not answering another question until you answer mine.

You mean like I did an hour ago in post 179?

 

[jc456]

You mean like I did an hour ago in post 179?

you didn't answer my questions. you made up a story.

 

[colfax_m]

You mean like I did an hour ago in post 179?

you didn't answer my questions. you made up a story.

Made up a story? I told you what McMichal told the police. That’s not a story. That’s evidence.

Sorry you don’t like to admit that evidence exists.

 

[jc456]

Does Arbery have the right to defend himself from someone who just shot him?

you said the lack of a gun shot was irrelevant, right?

So no gun shot, doesn't line up with video. so mcmicheal's statement will be inadmissible.

 

[jc456]

You mean like I did an hour ago in post 179?

you didn't answer my questions. you made up a story.

Made up a story? I told you what McMichal told the police. That’s not a story. That’s evidence.

Sorry you don’t like to admit that evidence exists.

no gun shot in the chest means the story is but a story. or like you used irrelevant

 

[colfax_m]

Does Arbery have the right to defend himself from someone who just shot him?

you said the lack of a gun shot was irrelevant, right?

So no gun shot, doesn't line up with video. so mcmicheal's statement will be inadmissible.

Nope. It will definitely be admitted. I said the lack of a visible gunshot wound on the video is irrelevant. The video quality is insufficient to determine if or where he was shot.