CardinalBacker

Ahmaud Arbery Trial

Recommended Posts

1
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Setx fan said:

Just to think if the video wasn’t leaked all 3 of these guys might have gotten away with this.

Yup, 1 mistake away from being just another local cover up that you’d never hear about otherwise

 

Interesting 🤔

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites

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...

  • Member Statistics

    42,839
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    JohnMellencamp
    Newest Member
    JohnMellencamp
    Joined
  • Posts

    • They were pretty good in '15 when they won state AND The Mighty Jack Dallas rightfully won the Willie Ray Smith Award over that qb from Silsbee that nobody remembers. 
    • Game wardens basically have no more authority than any other police officer. They have maybe what some people would consider a detention without reasonable suspicion in that the law says if they see you fishing, they can check your fishing license and your catch.  If they see you hunting, they can check your hunting license and what you killed. To that extent they can check your stringer, your ice chest, etc. Maybe some people think that is extraordinary powers. Generally speaking the courts allow this as a highly regulated outdoor activity and not merely going about your business. We often hear that the Game wardens can go into your home and search without a warrant and other such nonsense. In fact the Parks and Wildlife Code specifically states that they do not have such an authority. Here are a couple of pretty important definitions in the authority to search. They are residence and temporary residence.  Sec. 12.102. INSPECTION OF WILDLIFE RESOURCES. (a) In this section: (1) "Residence" means a person's principal or ordinary home or dwelling place.(2) "Temporary residence" means a place where a person temporarily dwells or seeks shelter. The term does not include a hunting blind. The term does include a:   (A) hunting club or lodge;   (B) clubhouse;   (C) cabin;   (D) tent.  (E) manufactured home used as a hunting club or lodge; and   (F) hotel room, motel room, or room in a boardinghouse used during a hunting trip. These definitions are important in a following subsection that shows the prohibition in reference to these locations and particularly note temporary residence. (d) Nothing in this section authorizes a game warden or other peace officer commissioned by the department to conduct a search otherwise authorized by this section: (1) in a person's residence or temporary residence; or   (2) on a publicly maintained road or way that is.  (A) improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic;   (B) open to the public; and   (C) distinguishable from a shoulder, berm, or other area not intended for vehicular traffic. Note that they cannot go into a temporary residence to search and that it would includes as specifically listed, a tent. You’ll hear people say that they can go into your Home without a warrant yet here is there a code saying they cannot even go into your tent, hotel room,  cabin or anywhere else you used to stay while you were on a hunting trip. I have seen on hunting forums going back many years people saying, the police should  just bring a game warden with them because they can do anything. The premise is that if we think there are drugs in a house, simply bring a game warden and we could go in without a warrant. That is pretty laughable. As far as the 14 days, he was doing more than just mouthing off. He was getting in my way by reaching across from n front of my chest with his arm and kind of pushing me back out of the way so I could not make an inspection. He always did it under the guise of trying to hand somebody a mixed drink or a beer. I even told him that if you need a hand this person that is 3 feet to my left a beer, go around me and hand it to him. He made a point of being on the wrong side and having to push me out of the way to make a sale. I gave him warnings that he could not do that and he continued. I even brought him over and showed him his alcohol license which he claimed forbid me from searching but I pointed out the text that said any peace officer can make an inspection. Although we all know that ignorance of the law is not an excuse, I used what is called confirmation. Although I could have simply made a criminal charge the first time he interfered with me, I wanted to give him a chance to correct his actions and also to explain the law to him and in the case of the alcohol license, actually showed him the wording. Doing so two or three times was not good enough for him and he kept telling me that I was wrong and I had no authority. THAT it would cost his bar 14 days of profits and him time in the county jail.
    • I been said it. Ppl ignored it. When I think WOS I think defense. When has WOS had a prolific offense?? Never. 
    • Halftime Orangefield. 7 Anahuac. 17
    • 1. North Shore 2. Summer Creek 3. College Station 4. Crosby 5. LCM 6. WOS 7. Lorena 8. Timpson 9. Lake Travis 10. Colleyville Heritage 11. Liberty Hill 12. Austin LBJ 13. Cuero 14. Vanderbilt Industrial 15. Refugio 16. Waskom 17. Mart 18. Austin Westlake 19. Southlake Carroll 20. Duncanville 21. Katy Paetow 22. Stephenville 23. Gilmer 24. Mount Vernon 25. Gunter
  • Topics

×
  • Create New...