Videos prove lots of people entered the under construction home.

Destroying the narrative that only Arbury entered the home. Or that anyone who entered could be a burglar.


As we have tried to tell you. It was not trespassing. The McMichaels had no justification for their Assault on Arbury.
they didnt assault arbrey,,,he attacked them,,,
They chased him with loaded weapons, stopped him and confronted him in the road. He was outnumbered and unarmed. What do you call it then?
they never stopped him,,he ran over 100 feet and attacked them,,,

at best they will get some sort of involuntary manslaughter,,,

Unlikely. Involuntary Manslaughter requires the unlawful act to be other than a felony. That would require a serious bit of plea bargaining. Or the Defense would have to convince the Jury that it was not Felony Aggravated Assault, but Misdemeanor Assault. In other words, ignore the presence of the shotgun. Or they would have to convince the Jury that the McMichaels were doing something lawful, in an unlawful manner. So it would totally have been legal to chase down AA, but they did so in an unlawful manner, arming up. There again, the presence of the Shotgun would be instrumental, but somehow not a felony.

The only way that Involuntary Manslaughter is going to be the result is a plea bargain. And the only way that is going to fly is if they agree to the maximum penalty, of ten years, which is still a death sentence for Daddy McMichaels. I don’t know if they can pull off that plea bargain, not with the State throwing resources at the prosecution as they are.
thanks for your opinion,,,

We know they committed Aggravated Assault. A felony. That is thankfully no longer being debated except by the most head in the sand loonies on the extreme right. What we are debating now is the charge resulting from the death of AA. Voluntary Manslaughter is more likely, and more serious. It would mean that the McMichaels were acting in a reckless manner and a death resulted. That is more probable, but it carries the sentence of a maximum of twenty years in Prison. More likely, but not certain. Involuntary is seriously unlikely mate.
NO we dont know that,,,

you think that,,,
 
Destroying the narrative that only Arbury entered the home. Or that anyone who entered could be a burglar.


As we have tried to tell you. It was not trespassing. The McMichaels had no justification for their Assault on Arbury.
they didnt assault arbrey,,,he attacked them,,,

They had no legal justification to stop him. Detain him. Arrest him. Or hinder his movements in any way, shape, or form. In doing so they committed Aggravated Assault. A felony.
If I was detained by two men in the street, I would call the police

Indeed. One of the arguments for guns regarding self defense is this. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

Take a moment. Consider it from AA’s point of view. The Jury certainly will. A Truck has tried to stop him and another car is following him. Are they together? Why would he think they were not? What possible cause could he have to assume that the car behind is following him for benign reasons?

He is trapped. Now, according to you, he has to put his faith in the police arriving before people before him who are armed, do what kind of harm to him? How much damage can be done in five minutes? People die in far less time than that from beatings don’t they?

At that moment, it would be completely reasonable to assume that AA felt like a trapped rat. A cornered rat will fight. When you have nothing to hope for except one more breath of air, fighting seems like a good choice.

Look at Parkland. The Teacher who charged the gunman knowing he had one chance in a thousand, perhaps, of reaching the madman. Unarmed he charged, hoping to save the lives of his students. Protecting them, knowing it was almost certain death. While the police were outside cowering he charged because he saw no other option. At least none he could live with.

That was a teacher with an escape route open. He could have fled to an exit and opened the door and ushered through as many kids as possible. Instead he attacked. So charging a loaded gun is something people will do, if they are desperate enough. Enough police officers have shot attacking criminals armed with knives, or just unarmed for this to be a bit of truth.

When I was in the Army and we were learning and practicing MOUT tactics. We were told to attack from the top down whenever it was possible. Yes, it exposed our feet and lower legs to gunfire on stairs. But it also did not trap the enemy as attacking from the bottom up did. They would fight much harder with nothing to lose, if they were trapped. If they had an escape route, they would feel like they had options, and would not fight as hard. Granted this is psychology for battlefields, and no guarantees it will work. But you go with your best odds when your life is on the line.

It is why people risk surgery when faced with a bad diagnosis. Even though they could die from the surgery, they take the risk, because it is better than the alternative. A chance at life, instead of certain death. Was it reasonable to assume that the men in the truck who were blocking his path meant him harm? Absolutely. Was it equally reasonable to assume that the car following him was hemming him in? You bet.

Now how reasonable would it be to stop and hope they mean you no harm? What would you tell your daughter to do? Stop and talk to the armed men and let them know you aren’t doing anything? I am certain these fellows mean you no harm. It violates every stranger danger lesson in history.
 
Destroying the narrative that only Arbury entered the home. Or that anyone who entered could be a burglar.


As we have tried to tell you. It was not trespassing. The McMichaels had no justification for their Assault on Arbury.
they didnt assault arbrey,,,he attacked them,,,

They had no legal justification to stop him. Detain him. Arrest him. Or hinder his movements in any way, shape, or form. In doing so they committed Aggravated Assault. A felony.

“Hindering movements” and “aggravated assault” are what ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter do to in public all the time and the Left’s response is “ they must be heard.”

And they are arrested all the time. They face criminal prosecution for their actions. Or are you saying that we should just give the a pass too? Let armed mobs roam the streets dispensing their own brand of justice?
when that happens you let us know,,,



It happens. All the time. What do you gain by pretending it does not?
I never said it didnt happen,,,
jjust for you to let us know when armed vigilantes roam the streets,,,

 
Destroying the narrative that only Arbury entered the home. Or that anyone who entered could be a burglar.


As we have tried to tell you. It was not trespassing. The McMichaels had no justification for their Assault on Arbury.
they didnt assault arbrey,,,he attacked them,,,

They had no legal justification to stop him. Detain him. Arrest him. Or hinder his movements in any way, shape, or form. In doing so they committed Aggravated Assault. A felony.
If I was detained by two men in the street, I would call the police

Indeed. One of the arguments for guns regarding self defense is this. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

Take a moment. Consider it from AA’s point of view. The Jury certainly will. A Truck has tried to stop him and another car is following him. Are they together? Why would he think they were not? What possible cause could he have to assume that the car behind is following him for benign reasons?

He is trapped. Now, according to you, he has to put his faith in the police arriving before people before him who are armed, do what kind of harm to him? How much damage can be done in five minutes? People die in far less time than that from beatings don’t they?

At that moment, it would be completely reasonable to assume that AA felt like a trapped rat. A cornered rat will fight. When you have nothing to hope for except one more breath of air, fighting seems like a good choice.

Look at Parkland. The Teacher who charged the gunman knowing he had one chance in a thousand, perhaps, of reaching the madman. Unarmed he charged, hoping to save the lives of his students. Protecting them, knowing it was almost certain death. While the police were outside cowering he charged because he saw no other option. At least none he could live with.

That was a teacher with an escape route open. He could have fled to an exit and opened the door and ushered through as many kids as possible. Instead he attacked. So charging a loaded gun is something people will do, if they are desperate enough. Enough police officers have shot attacking criminals armed with knives, or just unarmed for this to be a bit of truth.

When I was in the Army and we were learning and practicing MOUT tactics. We were told to attack from the top down whenever it was possible. Yes, it exposed our feet and lower legs to gunfire on stairs. But it also did not trap the enemy as attacking from the bottom up did. They would fight much harder with nothing to lose, if they were trapped. If they had an escape route, they would feel like they had options, and would not fight as hard. Granted this is psychology for battlefields, and no guarantees it will work. But you go with your best odds when your life is on the line.

It is why people risk surgery when faced with a bad diagnosis. Even though they could die from the surgery, they take the risk, because it is better than the alternative. A chance at life, instead of certain death. Was it reasonable to assume that the men in the truck who were blocking his path meant him harm? Absolutely. Was it equally reasonable to assume that the car following him was hemming him in? You bet.

Now how reasonable would it be to stop and hope they mean you no harm? What would you tell your daughter to do? Stop and talk to the armed men and let them know you aren’t doing anything? I am certain these fellows mean you no harm. It violates every stranger danger lesson in history.
he should have ran the other way or to a house and asked for the cops to be called

anything would have helped except for attacking a guy with a gun,,,
 
Destroying the narrative that only Arbury entered the home. Or that anyone who entered could be a burglar.


As we have tried to tell you. It was not trespassing. The McMichaels had no justification for their Assault on Arbury.
they didnt assault arbrey,,,he attacked them,,,

They had no legal justification to stop him. Detain him. Arrest him. Or hinder his movements in any way, shape, or form. In doing so they committed Aggravated Assault. A felony.

“Hindering movements” and “aggravated assault” are what ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter do to in public all the time and the Left’s response is “ they must be heard.”

And they are arrested all the time. They face criminal prosecution for their actions. Or are you saying that we should just give the a pass too? Let armed mobs roam the streets dispensing their own brand of justice?
when that happens you let us know,,,



It happens. All the time. What do you gain by pretending it does not?
I never said it didnt happen,,,
jjust for you to let us know when armed vigilantes roam the streets,,,

correct me if I'm wrong, but wasnt a cop involved in that??
 
Destroying the narrative that only Arbury entered the home. Or that anyone who entered could be a burglar.


As we have tried to tell you. It was not trespassing. The McMichaels had no justification for their Assault on Arbury.
they didnt assault arbrey,,,he attacked them,,,

They had no legal justification to stop him. Detain him. Arrest him. Or hinder his movements in any way, shape, or form. In doing so they committed Aggravated Assault. A felony.
If I was detained by two men in the street, I would call the police

Indeed. One of the arguments for guns regarding self defense is this. When seconds count, the police are minutes away.

Take a moment. Consider it from AA’s point of view. The Jury certainly will. A Truck has tried to stop him and another car is following him. Are they together? Why would he think they were not? What possible cause could he have to assume that the car behind is following him for benign reasons?

He is trapped. Now, according to you, he has to put his faith in the police arriving before people before him who are armed, do what kind of harm to him? How much damage can be done in five minutes? People die in far less time than that from beatings don’t they?

At that moment, it would be completely reasonable to assume that AA felt like a trapped rat. A cornered rat will fight. When you have nothing to hope for except one more breath of air, fighting seems like a good choice.

Look at Parkland. The Teacher who charged the gunman knowing he had one chance in a thousand, perhaps, of reaching the madman. Unarmed he charged, hoping to save the lives of his students. Protecting them, knowing it was almost certain death. While the police were outside cowering he charged because he saw no other option. At least none he could live with.

That was a teacher with an escape route open. He could have fled to an exit and opened the door and ushered through as many kids as possible. Instead he attacked. So charging a loaded gun is something people will do, if they are desperate enough. Enough police officers have shot attacking criminals armed with knives, or just unarmed for this to be a bit of truth.

When I was in the Army and we were learning and practicing MOUT tactics. We were told to attack from the top down whenever it was possible. Yes, it exposed our feet and lower legs to gunfire on stairs. But it also did not trap the enemy as attacking from the bottom up did. They would fight much harder with nothing to lose, if they were trapped. If they had an escape route, they would feel like they had options, and would not fight as hard. Granted this is psychology for battlefields, and no guarantees it will work. But you go with your best odds when your life is on the line.

It is why people risk surgery when faced with a bad diagnosis. Even though they could die from the surgery, they take the risk, because it is better than the alternative. A chance at life, instead of certain death. Was it reasonable to assume that the men in the truck who were blocking his path meant him harm? Absolutely. Was it equally reasonable to assume that the car following him was hemming him in? You bet.

Now how reasonable would it be to stop and hope they mean you no harm? What would you tell your daughter to do? Stop and talk to the armed men and let them know you aren’t doing anything? I am certain these fellows mean you no harm. It violates every stranger danger lesson in history.
He should have called the police and then none of it would have happened.
BTW, he was not "just jogging".
Let the jury sort this out.
 
Last edited:
Destroying the narrative that only Arbury entered the home. Or that anyone who entered could be a burglar.


As we have tried to tell you. It was not trespassing. The McMichaels had no justification for their Assault on Arbury.
The evidence is mounting that arbery was a violent prone character on the edge of criminality



all three men involved made serious mistakes including the dead black guy

Being on the edge of criminality is not criminal.
Its grounds for reasonable suspicion

When are you going to get it through your thick head that there were no grounds for suspicion of a felony?
 
Destroying the narrative that only Arbury entered the home. Or that anyone who entered could be a burglar.


As we have tried to tell you. It was not trespassing. The McMichaels had no justification for their Assault on Arbury.
The evidence is mounting that arbery was a violent prone character on the edge of criminality



all three men involved made serious mistakes including the dead black guy

Being on the edge of criminality is not criminal.
Its grounds for reasonable suspicion

When are you going to get it through your thick head that there were no grounds for suspicion of a felony?

When are you going to get it through your thick head that there were no grounds for suspicion of a felony?

In that case the cops would have quickly let him go

but at the scene - where neither of us were - the facts may have been different than what has been presented here
 
Last edited:
Destroying the narrative that only Arbury entered the home. Or that anyone who entered could be a burglar.


As we have tried to tell you. It was not trespassing. The McMichaels had no justification for their Assault on Arbury.
they didnt assault arbrey,,,he attacked them,,,

They had no legal justification to stop him. Detain him. Arrest him. Or hinder his movements in any way, shape, or form. In doing so they committed Aggravated Assault. A felony.

“Hindering movements” and “aggravated assault” are what ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter do to in public all the time and the Left’s response is “ they must be heard.”

And they are arrested all the time. They face criminal prosecution for their actions. Or are you saying that we should just give the a pass too? Let armed mobs roam the streets dispensing their own brand of justice?

I don’t see them arrested. I see them tolerated. No, I don’t think there should be subjective interpretation and enforcement of justice. I’m saying I have not seen an outcry about infringement and harassment from the Left unless it is for a cause they believe in. Universally, Rights and personal space need to be honored. In the case of the Georgia shooting, the two guys should have stopped at calling the police. It was not their property. They are going to be punished for overstepping their bounds.
 
Destroying the narrative that only Arbury entered the home. Or that anyone who entered could be a burglar.


As we have tried to tell you. It was not trespassing. The McMichaels had no justification for their Assault on Arbury.
they didnt assault arbrey,,,he attacked them,,,

They had no legal justification to stop him. Detain him. Arrest him. Or hinder his movements in any way, shape, or form. In doing so they committed Aggravated Assault. A felony.

“Hindering movements” and “aggravated assault” are what ANTIFA and Black Lives Matter do to in public all the time and the Left’s response is “ they must be heard.”

And they are arrested all the time. They face criminal prosecution for their actions. Or are you saying that we should just give the a pass too? Let armed mobs roam the streets dispensing their own brand of justice?
when that happens you let us know,,,



It happens. All the time. What do you gain by pretending it does not?
I never said it didnt happen,,,
jjust for you to let us know when armed vigilantes roam the streets,,,


Perhaps if they were chanting “ no justice, no peace” it would have been justified?
 
Destroying the narrative that only Arbury entered the home. Or that anyone who entered could be a burglar.


As we have tried to tell you. It was not trespassing. The McMichaels had no justification for their Assault on Arbury.
they didnt assault arbrey,,,he attacked them,,,
They chased him with loaded weapons, stopped him and confronted him in the road. He was outnumbered and unarmed. What do you call it then?
A greeting ?
 
Destroying the narrative that only Arbury entered the home. Or that anyone who entered could be a burglar.


As we have tried to tell you. It was not trespassing. The McMichaels had no justification for their Assault on Arbury.

It was trespassing. I don't think that is in question given even Arbery's lawyer suggested that was the only crime. The real question is the McMichael's actions after this. We're they justified in their pursuit? I still say no even with all the new videos coming out. My initial charge is still manslaughter.
 
Destroying the narrative that only Arbury entered the home. Or that anyone who entered could be a burglar.


As we have tried to tell you. It was not trespassing. The McMichaels had no justification for their Assault on Arbury.
they didnt assault arbrey,,,he attacked them,,,
They chased him with loaded weapons, stopped him and confronted him in the road. He was outnumbered and unarmed. What do you call it then?
A greeting ?
american style,,,
 
Destroying the narrative that only Arbury entered the home. Or that anyone who entered could be a burglar.


As we have tried to tell you. It was not trespassing. The McMichaels had no justification for their Assault on Arbury.
they didnt assault arbrey,,,he attacked them,,,
They chased him with loaded weapons, stopped him and confronted him in the road. He was outnumbered and unarmed. What do you call it then?
A lynching.
 
Destroying the narrative that only Arbury entered the home. Or that anyone who entered could be a burglar.

As we have tried to tell you. It was not trespassing. The McMichaels had no justification for their Assault on Arbury.
WOW! You are one stupid DAN. Just because other people did it, that doesn't mean it is OK for Arbury to do it too. That's just common sense.

No wonder the prisons and morgues are always so fucking packed with you low IQ DANs. You lack any common sense whatsoever.

And the shooting was obviously done in self-defense. Arbury was committing a robbery against an armed victim and the idiot got shot.

Arbury earned his Darwin award.
 

Forum List

Back
Top