A 25-year-old black man was shot dead in Georgia while jogging, prompting online protests labeling t

Discussion in 'United States' started by superbadbrutha, Apr 29, 2020.

  1. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,811
    Likes Received:
    3,806
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your attitude seems to be it is immoral to try to defend the accused, that is a real Salem Witch trial attitude. If the situation was reversed and Arbery called the man who had just punched him in the face and tried to wrest his shotgun off him a 'cracker' or 'honky' would your attitude be different (think Treyvon Martin?). It is very relevant what they suspected as it goes to their motivation. How are they cowards? Is it not heroic to try to arrest a suspected armed burglar?

    My apologies, it was Travis who had previously seen an intruder who matched Arbery's description on English's property on February 11th and called the police on him.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ed-911-days-about-alleged-trespasser-n1206946
     
  2. superbadbrutha

    superbadbrutha Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Messages:
    52,269
    Likes Received:
    6,446
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Prove it.
     
  3. Bill Murdock

    Bill Murdock Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2020
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Your kind doesn't accept proof.
     
  4. superbadbrutha

    superbadbrutha Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Messages:
    52,269
    Likes Received:
    6,446
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So 3 armed men chasing you around the neighborhood, block you in with no where to run how do you react? Do you get on your knees and beg them not to kill you or di you try and fight back? It is easy to say what you would do when you haven't been in that situation.

    What was their motivation, now that is a good question that I hope one day we will learn the answer to.

    Who was the suspected armed burglar?

    So Greg McMichael had seen no one yet he was the one who set this whole event into motion, which means they can't hide behind the law because Greg hadn't witnessed this young man do anything wrong.
     
  5. superbadbrutha

    superbadbrutha Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Messages:
    52,269
    Likes Received:
    6,446
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your kind doesn't have any proof, just your anti-black agenda.
     
  6. Bill Murdock

    Bill Murdock Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2020
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    28
    These are the well documented games the race baiters play everyday in this country.
     
  7. superbadbrutha

    superbadbrutha Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Messages:
    52,269
    Likes Received:
    6,446
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That's all you've got Bill, you are reduced to weak BS when you can't back up the young man was a robber.
     
  8. doombug

    doombug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2012
    Messages:
    56,871
    Likes Received:
    22,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Did you miss the video surveillance?
     
  9. Bill Murdock

    Bill Murdock Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2020
    Messages:
    143
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Like most racist leftists facts don't matter and they will be discarded in favor of his fake reality.
     
    NightOwl likes this.
  10. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,334
    Likes Received:
    7,534
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Colloquialism, again.

    They could not investigate a homicide of a person the cop and they had previously investigated when the now former cop is the suspect and the investigated person the deceased "potential" victim, no. This is not a run of the mill beat cop you had as a witness once, a cop who works for the PD not the DA's office. Greg was the DA's personal investigator that worked directly in their office underneath them. Not the same thing.

    Stand your ground: You don't have to retreat BEFORE USING FORCE IN DEFENSE. FFS man. Know the law or do not discuss it.

    We have ALREADY seen on the damage to the car, they presented forensic evidence and testimony out of the mouths of the suspects at the ****ing scene and too investigators. Said it, stuck with it. Let. It. Go.
    Gecko45: Google. It is your friend.
    No, no, no. Go read.. If you read it makes sense. I said that if you avoid the appearance of impropriety by complying with your ethical duty to recuse yourself in such a case, those calling for your head (a colloquial figure of speech for criticism and calling for your job, analogized to a death penalty sanction) have no legs to stand on. When you do not do that, those throwing stones (a colloquial figure of speech for criticism and calling for your job, analogized to a death penalty sanction) have as many legs as a centipede does. Centipedes having 100 legs being compared to the previous examples number of legs (0).

    You could've stopped your paragraph at "true". The evidence at the scene was tampered with and the lead detective lost all credibility by lying. Marcia Clarke and the others knew all this **** going in, which is why the prosecution's opening statement lasted a full ****ing day, instead of pretty much being "There was a heinous murder committed in this county. Based upon evidence, I intend to prove that man *points* committed this irredeemable act against the peace and dignity of the State by showing *list elements here*. If I prove that to you BARD, you must convict Mr. Simpson of murder."
    Hate to tell you this dude but the judge is not the finder of fact, he is the arbiter of law. His job is to pronounce on legal points. The jury is the finder of fact, the jury has the duty of weighing the evidence and determining what the facts are.
    I'll also state: That judge didn't know what the **** he was talking about as even you will admit preservative compound does not make it into in situ blood unless its not really in situ blood and was instead planted evidence.

    My opinion of Stone is based on the fact he tried to tamper with a witness, etc., and this isn't in dispute. Hell even STONE doesn't dispute it, commutation of sentence requires one admit guilt. Now stop trying to change the subject.
    Voir dire isn't weak, its just simply not telepathy or a background check with a proctoscope. Its far better than not having it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2020
  11. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,334
    Likes Received:
    7,534
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't need to pay royalty money to a cop in charge of a pack of cops who beat a man half to death on tape. I've seen the tape. Its a video several minutes long at 60 frames per second. They say a picture is worth 1000 words. How long is that book? Over or under 100K words?
    I've watched the entire OJ trial, I don't need to pay royalty money to Marcia Clark for her (and the rest of the prosecution team's) massive **** up in handling that case. I've seen it. I've read the pleadings. I've seen the evidence, tainted. That's on the DA and the PD, start to finish. It does not allow for a BARD verdict. The only miscarriage of justice is the **** ups on the DA and PD's part that made that the certain result.

    No one is confused about anyone's identity here, specious stat is specious. I take my required MCLEs, and do the work every day. I can only tell you that the rules of evidence have been around quite a while and the exception to hearsay about a then existing mental state, and that for excited utterance, exist for good reason. As does the full on exemption (to be distinguished from exception. Exception = it is but we think its alright in this context. Exemption = it is NOT hearsay) to hearsay which applies to party opponents and has for far longer than the exceptions have been recognized. If you run your mouth and you're the suspect, that is coming in. O, you were "confused"? That's for the jury to weigh and they tend to take a pretty dim view of that mealy mouthed bullshit, in my experience and the experience of other members of my profession.

    I try to stay out of criminal for the most part (sort of more difficult during COVID): hard to have skeevy crim clients mixing in my lobby with hoity toity commercial real estate clients who want to sue the city and adjoining landowners for torts and contract violations and people buying residential homes who need title curative work and little old ladies that want their wills done, and people who want to contest little old ladies wills or fight a contest, or go after someone for fraud etc.

    Travis doesn't witness anything, he has no right to chase under a CA claim. Full Stop. Each and every action he took was part of a felonious assault. Same with Roddie. The only person who had even a hope (and not much of one at that) of a CA claim was Greg and his story of only chasing prior behavior for questioning by police has been consistent both at the scene and to investigators, more than one set, afterwards. He also freely admits he witnessed no current crime. Etc.

    No, ringing the bell at close is incredibly unethical and no lawyer would do it for the McMichaels because they would face monetary damages for doing so, a possible contempt of court sanction depending on what occurred already at trial, and the fairly certain (since the case is this high profile) consequence of suspension or disbarment after referral to the Discipline Committee (even success there makes your malpractice insurance go through the roof) risking their entire livelihood and that of their employees. You have to have Epstein money to tempt a lawyer into doing something so grossly unethical which will result in such certain consequences. The McMichaels do not have Epstein money. They don't even have OJ money.

    You might ring the bell with testimony, knowing there will be an objection, and that's pretty frowned upon but if you don't abuse it nothing is likely to happen to you but the judge thinking you're unethical and telling other judges so.
    You ring the bell at closing with the jury? That **** doesn't fly. The reason being that court's tend to hold closing argument as fairly sacrosanct, and its INCREDIBLY bad form to object at close for any other reason but improper jury argument or bringing up things you've already been told aren't cool IE you rang it at testimony and try to ring it again. You're liable to lose your bar card.

    Great movie, very compelling drama. Complete bullshit on the legal proceedings for the most part, including the rousing cresendo at the end where the defense attorney paints the picture of the heinous assault, abduction, gang rape and attempted murder that causes the defendant (the victim's father) to lie in wait in the courthouse at night with a full auto m16 he stole from the Army back in Nam and shoot the two animals who raped his daughter as they walk up the steps to Court. He hits the sheriff too, who loses his leg and testifies he doesn't really blame the defendant for doing it. Sam Jackson screams "YES THEY DESERVED TO DIE AND I HOPE THEY BURN IN HELL!" on the stand to Kevin Spacey (the slick DA.) badgering him about what he thinks about the deaths of two animals who brutalized his daughter.
    As our hero paints the picture he asks the jury to put themselves in the victims shoes, fully describes the horrific crime, then ends with "Now imagine she's white" and sits down.
    Not guilty is the verdict, by jury nullification essentially.
     
  12. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is it asking too much that discussion of the two separate cases not be intermingled as if they were interchangeable and indistinguishable from one another?
     
  13. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,811
    Likes Received:
    3,806
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Except that he knew he had been spotted trespassing in the house, he would have every idea why they were chasing him. He also knew that with his prior record he might be going to jail this time. Their motivation was to catch a suspected burglar, they had no record of any prior racist behavior, there were black people who lived in their neighbourhood, every conversation they had with the 911 operator was about pursuing a burglar. Arbery was the suspected burglar and they thought he was armed because of the stolen pistol and on a previous occasion the suspect had reached into his shorts as if going for a weapon. Greg McMichael had the desrcription of the suspect which had been circulated in the neighbourhood, in addition to what Travis would already had told him.
     
    glitch likes this.
  14. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,811
    Likes Received:
    3,806
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I take your point although I wonder if this had been released to the GBI without the unjustified outcry over the footage would their opinion have been any different? Question is how far removed would any investigator or prosecutor have to be from the officer to ensure true independence? I suggest until we have Robocop it will never be truly possible. There’s self defence and there’s punching someone repeatedly in the face and trying to wrest their shotgun from them? Arbery knew he’d been spotted inside the house, he knew why they were pursuing him, he was a fleeing felon.

    Gecko 45? No I don’t like Glocks, they’re a little light for my taste. Plus I worked burglary squad, sex crimes, public order, transport, beat crimes, bomb car, training instructor etc etc

    Jesse Evans the prosecutor in the case contends that Bryan struck Arbey with his truck and cites the fact that there are dents in the side of his truck and Arbery’s palm print on it but we’ll see how they got there (a prosecutor is obviously going to phrase the evidence to portray his theory of events). We’ll see how the defence put it. Did Bryan deliberately hit him with his truck or try to head him off at the pass and Arbery lash out with frustration?

    No, there was no tampering, this was a theory advanced by the defence to try to exonerate their clearly guilty client, Furman’s racism killed the case, he gave the jury a way out because they didn’t want to believe this African American sporting legend was guilty. Clark’s opening was so long because of the sheer amount of forensic evidence and she wanted to pre-empt the inevitable defences which the opposition would come up with, you should read her book, it’s very revealing. Even the defence couldn’t come up with innocent explanations for all the forensics against OJ, hence their frame job theory.

    Yes, until we have an infallible lie detector or mindreading device voir dire will never be perfect but in Stone’s case the actions of the jury member were just outrageous. Trump considered it a politically motivated prosecution and I have to say I agree with him.

    No, you should read Koon’s book and that of the jury member who cleared him, the tape doesn’t show half the story, King effortlessly fighting off the officers who tried to overpower him, laughing off 2 taser hits etc.

    Yeah I understand, most solicitors can only do crime for a certain period before it grinds on them so they go into most civilized areas of law, much as officers can only work the street for so long before specializing. Again there’s the letter of the law and the spirit, if your son or neighbour asks you to help you pursue a suspected armed burglar would the reasonable person expect them to say “Well I can’t, I didn’t witness any offence myself”? If you saw a man running out of an alleyway and a woman emerged and said “He just raped me” would the average person say to her “Well I can’t, I didn’t witnesses it myself?”. We’ll see at the trial what Greg McMichael says, I suspect he will say that when he saw Arbery running from the scene of the previous incidents he suspected he’d just committed a current burglary based on the prior behaviour of the suspect whom he resembled. When they ask him why he hadn’t mentioned it in his initial statements he can say he considered it implicit, didn’t realise its’ relevance or was simply still in shock. Plus of course Greg's gut instinct proved to be 100% right, irrelevant in law but not to a jury. But this is all conjecture. I agree they’re at a disadvantage as they can’t construct a ‘dream team’ as OJ and Jackson (in my personal opinion, OJ guilty Jackson innocent or at least certainly not PBARD) but I would hope they will do a public fundraising appeal. You wonder how many ordinary Joes would be found guilty if they had the resources to hire expert defence lawyers, private detectives and run their own forensic tests, I’m not saying justice is only for the rich but they have their advantages.

    Is that the one with Samuel L Jackson? Never seen it, I think I’ve seen the trailer? Interesting to think of Kevin Spacey as a prosecutor given his current legal problems although I understand he’s practically in the clear now. But then I’m sure he had some very good lawyers and private detectives.

     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2020
  15. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    44,763
    Likes Received:
    32,089
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A Time to Kill is not a bad movie by any stretch... It gave my family one of our favorite running jokes... Whenever we see something on TV (fact or fiction) where somebody is on trial or going to prison, one of us invariably says "Fry Carl Lee", whereupon somebody else HAS to answer "Free Carl Lee" and we go back and forth a few times.

    I guess you have to be here...

    Also, Chris Cooper is excellent and Ashley Judd as a sweaty blond is a personal highlight...

    But it sounds like this upcoming Arbery trial has the potential to be a lot like that movie... you should expect the 2020 version of the Klan to be showing up to protest at some point, along with people demanding justice..
     
    The Mello Guy likes this.
  16. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,811
    Likes Received:
    3,806
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You might be right but I think the KKK showing up to protest would be the worst possible thing to happen to these poor saps?
     
  17. superbadbrutha

    superbadbrutha Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Messages:
    52,269
    Likes Received:
    6,446
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Greg McMichaels didn't spot him trespassing, as a matter of fact none of the 3 sawing him doing anything criminal.

    How many of the other white burglars had gone to jail for entering the house?

    So why weren't they motivated to catch any of the white burglars?

    Travis McMichael did.

    So why would he be a suspected burglar, he could have been coming from one of the black neighbors house.

    What was the description of that burglar again?

    They NEVER had a suspect of who stole the pistol, so why would Arbery be suspected? How would you see that in the dark and how do you know he wasn't reaching for his cellphone.

    Who circulated that description, because the video showed multiple suspects entering that property. As usual you have nothing to back any of that garbage up, you just make it up as you go.
     
  18. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    he was jogging in boots, it was like with OJ simpson and the glove not fitting.

    it didn't add up
     
  19. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    44,763
    Likes Received:
    32,089
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  20. Andrew Jackson

    Andrew Jackson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2016
    Messages:
    48,190
    Likes Received:
    31,991
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wow. :smh:

    Some of the online posts, which include racist language, memes and graphics, claim that Arbery was carrying a hammer and wearing boots when he was killed, as the groups try to create false narratives about his death, analysts said.

    In the video, Arbery is wearing a white T-shirt, shorts and running shoes.
     
    Egoboy likes this.
  21. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113


    the video shows him attacking a guy with a shot gun, and that proves he was wearing boots while jogging.

     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2020
  22. Egoboy

    Egoboy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Messages:
    44,763
    Likes Received:
    32,089
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Next Up, Arbery is going to be the one who put the noose in Bubba's garage stall...

    That will sort of tie everything together in a neat alt-right package...
     
  23. Andrew Jackson

    Andrew Jackson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2016
    Messages:
    48,190
    Likes Received:
    31,991
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gov. Kemp will probably pardon these guys and they will be giving the Keynote Address at the GOP Convention...

    This guy could use some company...

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2020
  24. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,334
    Likes Received:
    7,534
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It should've been handled by the county itself, it should not have been so improper as to require state police. Its a run of the mill murder ffs. The only reason it became national news was because of the corruption involved and how obvious that corruption is.
    They would have to not have personally worked with the defendant or have a direct connection to the defendant. EX: So you're a cop and your former partner is on trial. Your new partner can't work the case either. You employed the guy as his boss and gave him an award? Can't work the case either except as a defense attorney. You investigated the guy who he's on the horns for maybe murdering along with him? You can't work the case except as a defense attorney.

    I suggest that if they followed the basic rules laid out for our profession which are taught to us and we have to certify on before we're even allowed to sit for the BAR exam, they wouldn't have a problem and your demand for Robocop is incredibly hyperbolic and specious.

    When they're assaulting you with a deadly weapon, as Travis has admitted to, you can defend yourself under stand your ground? I don't know why you keep phrasing your statements in the form of a question?
    The person who would have to know would be Travis. And Travis admits he didn't see ****. Travis also admits to pointing the gun at Arbery and ordering him down on the ground. Arbery was within his rights to defend himself.

    Sure sure Gecko45. We're all sure you worked those things at the Mall of America. Saved the mayors anal virginity from russian mobsters and everything. We're sure.

    I'm pretty sure you don't throw yourself at a moving vehicle out of "frustration". I am also pretty sure that pedestrians always have the right of way and if you hit them with your car you are at fault. Particularly if you're using that vehicle in a felonious assault, as Roddie was here.

    Yes there absolutely was tampering. Blood preservative does not exist in the human body. Therefore when you find blood at the scene with blood preservative in it, it has not come straight out of a human body but instead from a test tube and a lab. The only lab that had OJs blood was the police lab. Occam's razor says someone at the lab dumped the blood at the scene to make the case look stronger. I mean, I suppose OJ's body could naturally produce an artificial chemical that has to be produced in an industrial process and would cause his blood to never clot, but that seems sort of far fetched.

    Stone lied. He perjured himself. This isn't in question.

    It does show them pounding on him and pounding on him, turning him into meat though. It doesn't matter if he was superman before, once he's down and non responsive you don't get to apply a single strike more. You don't get to get one more kick in. He goes down and stops moving and they keep on him for a bit. THAT would be the excessive force claim right there. Think I'll keep my money thanks. That **** isn't getting any.

    Lawyers. I'm a lawyer and so is everyone else that practices law in the US. We don't have solicitors and barristers.
    Both the letter and spirit of the law agree you must witness the offense directly, not hear of it second hand, in this case. You'd have to tell dad to sit down and call the cops, like a good son would, in that case. For the woman: No you would not be able to simply go to beating the **** out of the man. You could prevent him from further crimes if you witnessed them and you could call the police and swear out a statement.
    Except Greg has already admitted he didn't see him coming out of the house and only suspected prior crimes.
    He was a cop and a DA's investigator. No one is going to believe him that he didn't know he needed a current crime as a citizen, nor would IGNORANCE OF THE LAW be an excuse because he's not a cop and only cops get to use that erroneous principle of law as a defense. Unconstitutionally.

    Yeah and he's slimy as **** in that movie too.
     
  25. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,811
    Likes Received:
    3,806
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No,Travis did and they'd seen the footage. I don't know what your obsession is with the white burglars, I'm sure you're just trying to make this about race when it so clearly isn't. They saw Arbery who matched the description of the suspect fleeing the scene of the previous incidents and correctly suspected he was doing it again. If Arbery was burgling in the neighbourhood it stands to reason he could have stolen the gun too. You don't know but would you risk your life on it?
    No, they'd watched the footage of Arbery burgling the house and it was Travis who'd seen him before.
     

Share This Page