Jump to content

Ahmaud Arbery Trial

CardinalBacker

By CardinalBacker
in Political Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

LumRaiderFan

LumRaiderFan

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Hagar said:

For those that contend that Rittenhouse shouldn’t have been where he was at the shooting, I’m curious why?  Does the mob rule decide where we can be or not be?  You could say the same about Aubrey - he shouldn’t have been there, but you’re wrong again.  Aubrey had every right to be where he was, just like Rittenhouse.  John was innocent just like these guys are guilty.  These three, like the three who attacked John, made bad decisions.  I agree with both verdicts.

Agree 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
InMAGAWeTrust

InMAGAWeTrust

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, baddog said:

Yeah, we have to give in to the rioters. For what it’s worth, I think they were guilty of murder and the photographer guilty of accessory. How’s that. It still doesn’t alter the fact that we now have trials and convictions by the media. The fact that blacks threaten to burn and loot, possibly kill if they don’t get their, way is atrocious. Why didn’t whites threaten to loot and burn before the O.J. verdict? Could it be we believe in the law and the courts? If blacks had their way, all black killed were innocent and if killed by white guys or the police, it’s time to riot and burn down cities. If they are killed by a black person, then that is totally acceptable. Please keep feeding me info to digest so I can understand that mentality. 
 

These guys killed a black guy who they believed was stealing from a construction site. I think there is more to the story than came out in the trial, but it doesn’t excuse them from killing this man. Should I riot, loot, burn, and THREATEN innocent citizens if I thought otherwise?

What on earth are you talking about dude, seek help 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CardinalBacker

CardinalBacker

Posted
  • Author
Posted
3 hours ago, Big girl said:

When they killed dude.

But he was already trying to wrestle the gun away when the son shot him. 
 

Don’t get me wrong… I feel like these guys were out of line, I just wish that I could square what happened away with actual laws that applied. 
 

I’m happy for mr arbery’s family and I’m happy that we didn’t see an outright miscarriage of Justice in which they got off Scott-free. I think it shows that it’s possible get Justice from a jury down south even if you’re black. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tvc184

tvc184

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

Did you even watch the video? He was still upright fighting over the gun until the third shot was fired. 

To answer your question, the indictment could very possibly also have been political in nature.  

I’m just saying that there is a whole lot of “shoving a gun in his face” talk without a shred of evidence that it actually occurred. Kinda like “hands up, don’t shoot.”

Would anybody believe that a black man was getting a fair trial when the courthouse was surrounded by hundreds of good ol’ boys? If you think so, you’re kidding yourself.  

That man’s violent nature led to his own death. The video doesn’t lie. 

I did not see this version until now, I saw a photo and a few seconds of video, as I said previously. He didn’t go down with the first shot (which is off camera).

Nothing in that video changes my opinion. The McMichaels used unlawful force to make an unlawful arrest.  EVEN if the arrest was lawful, I have yet to hear an argument that justifies using a shotgun to arrest an apparently unarmed person who is trying to escape.

If the McMichaels use of force was unlawful (I think so and so does the jury), Arbery’s attempt to use force by grabbing the gun was lawful. It is he who did not provoke the incident and has a right to stand his ground.  Both self-defense and a stand your ground laws say that you could not be breaking the law or provoking the incident to use those defenses.

The claims of self-defense by the McMichaels or their using force to stop Arbery’s attack, would be meaningless unless the McMichaels had the legal authority to use the shotgun to stop the unarmed man.

I simply cannot understand the legal justification for using force as they did and again, the state not only indicted them almost within hours of seeing the evidence, they indicted the prosecutor for a cover-up.

Thank goodness one of the convicted murderers that helped cause this, videoed his own evidence against himself.

I am curious to see the evidence against the district attorney. I don’t think legally it can be for just her opinion. I have the suspicion that somebody in her office turn state’s evidence that the district attorney compelled or ask them to overlook the evidence or the alter it. The district attorney was indicted for violating her oath of office and for obstructing a police office. That sounds like the police were trying to file a case or gather further evidence and she did something to interfere or shut it down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tvc184

tvc184

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

But he was already trying to wrestle the gun away when the son shot him. 
 

Don’t get me wrong… I feel like these guys were out of line, I just wish that I could square what happened away with actual laws that applied. 
 

I’m happy for mr arbery’s family and I’m happy that we didn’t see an outright miscarriage of Justice in which they got off Scott-free. I think it shows that it’s possible get Justice from a jury down south even if you’re black. 

It might be beating a dead horse but it appears that the self-defense and stand your ground situation is on the side of Arbery. I believe your statement is correct, you feel like these guys were “out of line”, is pretty much the case. When they were out of line, they unlawfully caused the confrontation by introducing the firearm when not justified. That negates their self defense but justifies Arbery’s self-defense.

It really seems as simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Member Statistics

    45,935
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    jacobmartin
    Newest Member
    jacobmartin
    Joined


  • Posts

    • Woodshed
      APRIL 23rd SCORES

      By Woodshed · Posted

      Diboll - 1  Central Heights- 0
    • Englebert
      It’s kinda weird…

      By Englebert · Posted

      Just to expound a little further, so you are not confused...I, along with so many others, are laughing at your desperation. You are working overtime, nay, double even triple time, trying to convince normal people Trump was bad for the country. His policies provided for peace all over the world, low gas prices, low food prices, energy independence, closed border, low inflation, record low unemployment, and on and on and on. You try to counter this narrative by saying unemployment skyrocketed on his watch. You said this knowing full well the unemployment rate went up due to Covid. Your narrative is just so laughable, to the point of side-splitting hilarity. Who would even attempt this asinine narrative? Now, even if you get past the utter stupidity of that MSNBC talking point, you provide another side-splitting hilarious tidbit of evidence to back your claim of Trump being bad for the country. You actually tried to tie the stock market going down to Trump...after Covid. You, I, and everybody else knows the stock market was flourishing under Trump...until Covid hit. This argument is just as bad as the other one. Again, who would even attempt this narrative? The only thing you could remotely muster that had any sliver of truthfulness, is that spending increased. Sure, Trump rebuilt the military and gave them a deserved raise. But he also had to shut down the government due to Democrats demanding an even more, and very detrimental, increase in spending. And in a true extremely exaggerated fashion, you proclaim that spending "skyrocketed". Again, who would even attempt this narrative? I think I can smell the desperation. Do you have any other whoppers to contribute?
    • pngfan316
      Nederland is open, Barrow Resigns

      By pngfan316 · Posted

      He was injured but has returned and he decided not to play baseball this year.
    • outanup
      Multi-Sport Athletes

      By outanup · Posted

      There's some truth to that.......some.
    • 89Falcon
      Multi-Sport Athletes

      By 89Falcon · Posted

      The AD's job is to win in football. Everything else is window dressing. If the football team is winning the rest can go up in smoke. 

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...