ahmaund arbery trial getting closer

[Persuader]

They attempted to detain him.

That’s enough.

Telling someone to stop is not an effort or attempt to detain but simply to get the suspect to stop and talk to them to clear up what is was doing or not doing in that house.

In criminal law, to detain an individual is to hold them in custody, normally for a temporary period of time.


An attempt to detain would be to grab someone and try to hold them.

The jury will have no problem seeing through the b.s. of attempting to detain.

 

[colfax_m]

Telling someone to stop is not an effort or attempt to detain but simply to get the suspect to stop and talk to them to clear up what is was doing or not doing in that house.

An attempt to detain would be to grab hold of someone and try to hold them.

The jury will have no problem seeing through the b.s. of attempting to detain.

When you’re chasing someone down with a gun and telling them to stop is coercive and anyone with half a mind knows that.

 

[Persuader]

When you’re chasing someone down with a gun and telling them to stop is coercive and anyone with half a mind knows that.

They did not use their weapons to try and coerce ahhhhhmaud.....they brought their weapons not to coerce the suspect but for self defense as in has been explained they had reason to believe the suspect may have been armed.

 

[colfax_m]

They did not use their weapons to try and coerce ahhhhhmaud.....they brought their weapons not to coerce the suspect but for self defense as in has been explained they had reason to believe the suspect may have been armed.

Alright. Maybe if they had their firearms and didn’t chase him. Maybe if they had their firearms and didn’t try to confront him. Maybe if they had their firearms and didn’t try to order him.

Maybe then you’d have a point.

But they didn’t. They chased a man, ordered him to stop and did so while armed and no one in their right mind would take that as anything other then an act of force.

If you walked up to someone with a shotgun and said “give me your wallet”, you’d be committing armed robbery. Even if you claimed the shotgun was just for self defense. After all, it’s not illegal to tell someone to give them your wallet.

 

[Persuader]

They did not use their weapons to try and coerce ahhhhhmaud.....they brought their weapons not to coerce the suspect but for self defense as in has been explained they had reason to believe the suspect may have been armed.

As has been explained many times on here already the weapons were not visible to the suspect until the McMichaels had pulled about 100 yrs. ahead of ahhhmaud.

He saw the weapons but kept on running towards the McMichaels which demonstrates he was not intimidated or coerced by the weapons which were intended only for self defense.

 

[Persuader]

Alright. Maybe if they had their firearms and didn’t chase him. Maybe if they had their firearms and didn’t try to confront him. Maybe if they had their firearms and didn’t try to order him.

Maybe then you’d have a point.

But they didn’t. They chased a man, ordered him to stop and did so while armed and no one in their right mind would take that as anything other then an act of force.

If when they pulled up beside ahhhmaud and rolled down their window to talk to him and pointed their weapons at him or even displayed them then you could call that an act of coercion....but that did not happen....the weapons were not displayed at that time and ahhhmaud had no reason to believe they were armed at that time.

 

[colfax_m]

If when they pulled up beside ahhhmaud and rolled down their window to talk to him and pointed their weapons at him or even displayed them then you could call that an act of coercion....but that did not happen....the weapons were not displayed at that time and ahhhmaud had no reason to believe they were armed at that time.

But they did display the firearm. Just before Arbery died, they got in front of him, stopped in the middle of the road, and got out of the truck with the shotgun in hand to confront him.

So I guess you’d have to agree with me that we call it an act of coercion.

 

[Persuader]

But they did display the firearm. Just before Arbery died, they got in front of him, stopped in the middle of the road, and got out of the truck with the shotgun in hand to confront him.

So I guess you’d have to agree with me that we call it an act of coercion.

If it was an attempt at coercion it obviously did not work....ahhhmaud just kept on ruuning towards them and then attacked Travis even though he was holding a shotgun.

Even at that point the weapons were for self defense purposes only and it cannot be proved otherwise.

Georgia citizens have the right to be armed.....people carry weapons on a rack by the rear window in their trucks.....are they trying to coerce anyone? Obviously not....thus the presence of weapons by that alone is not coercive....now if you point your weapon at someone and issue a command then you would have a valid point.

No weapos were ever pointed at ahhhmaud until he attacked Travis and it is still not known exactly what caused the weapon to go off....if ahhhmaud had pulled on the barrel of the weapons that could have caused a discharge.

 

[colfax_m]

Georgia citizens have the right to be armed.....people carry weapons on a rack by the rear window in their trucks.....are they trying to coerce anyone?

Having a gun in a rack is far different than what happened here.

If I approached you with a shotgun and said “give me your wallet”, would I be committing armed robbery? Yes. I’m ordering you to do something with a gun clearly in hand indicating the imminent threat of force is present. I look forward to your argument saying such an approach is not armed robbery given it is not illegal to say “give me your wallet” and the gun was perhaps only there for self defense.

 

[Persuader]

Having a gun in a rack is far different than what happened here.

If I approached you with a shotgun and said “give me your wallet”, would I be committing armed robbery? Yes. I’m ordering you to do something with a gun clearly in hand indicating the imminent threat of force is present. I look forward to your argument saying such an approach is not armed robbery given it is not illegal to say “give me your wallet” and the gun was perhaps only there for self defense.

Now you have left all logic and common sense behind.

First of all...after the McMichaels had parked their truck and Greg was on the phone with the police they were about 100 yrs. in front of the suspect....thus he approached them and not vice versa.....he ran up to them and attacked Travis....the video clearly shows that.

Nothing that happened before justified ahhhhmaud's assault on Travis.

If you went back and actually read the posts you should have a better understanding of what went down that day.

 

[colfax_m]

Now you have left all logic and common sense behind.

First of all...after the McMichaels had parked their truck and Greg was on the phone with the police they were about 100 yrs. in front of the suspect....thus he approached them and not vice versa.....he ran up to them and attacked Travis....the video clearly shows that.

Nothing that happened before justified ahhhhmaud's assault on Travis.

If you went back and actually read the posts you should have a better understanding of what went down that day.

And are you going to ignore that the McMichael’s had already been engaged in pursuit of Arbery by the time they had parked the truck and that doing so, in the middle of the street, was clearly a component of that chase?

The reason he got out of the truck with the gun as Arbery came up was to confront him. There is no doubt. Or was it merely a coincidence?

 

[Persuader]

And are you going to ignore that the McMichael’s had already been engaged in pursuit of Arbery by the time they had parked the truck and that doing so, in the middle of the street, was clearly a component of that chase?

The reason he got out of the truck with the gun as Arbery came up was to confront him. There is no doubt. Or was it merely a coincidence?

No they broke off the chase when they left ahhmaud behind....and proceeded way down the road and parked their truck and Greg got on his phone to the police.

The Truck was not in the middle of the street. If they had wanted to try and block ahhmauds approach they would have parked it length-wise across the street.

At this point they were content to wait for the police and keep the suspect under observation.


Since ahhhmaud had refused to talk to them their motive at this time had changed to keep the suspect under observation and wait on the police who had been dispatched and were very close

The reason he took the shotgun with him when he exited the truck was for self protection.

 

[colfax_m]

No they broke off the chase when they left ahhmaud behind....and proceeded way down the road and parked their truck and Greg got on his phone to the police.

The Truck was not in the middle of the street. If they had wanted to try and block ahhmauds approach they would have parked it length-wise across the street.

At this point they were content to wait for the police and keep the suspect under observation.


Since ahhhmaud had refused to talk to them their motive at this time had changed to keep the suspect under observation and wait on the police who had been dispatched and were very close

The reason he took the shotgun with him when he exited the truck was for self protection.

That contradicts the statement they gave to the police at the scene indicating they drove down the street and parked it in an attempt to intercept him.

And leaving the truck with a gun in hand is further evidence that was their purpose. There’s no need to get out of the truck if your only intention is to merely observe.

You’re making things up, and it’s bad cover.

 

[Persuader]

That contradicts the statement they gave to the police at the scene indicating they drove down the street and parked it in an attempt to intercept him.

And leaving the truck with a gun in hand is further evidence that was their purpose. There’s no need to get out of the truck if your only intention is to merely observe.

You’re making things up, and it’s bad cover.

I think you are referring to the point when they first caught up with the suspect.....they had tried to intercept him so to speak at that time....it would have made no sense to leave him behind and drive way down the road....since they did not know where he might run to next....when they first caught up with him if they had wanted to arrest him that was when they would have got out of the truck and pointed their weapons at him and told him to get on the ground the way cops do and Greg had been one for 30 yrs. and surely had gone through that routine many times.

And another point Greg was on the phone with his back to the suspect ....hardly the position he would have been in if they were going to attempt a interception.

Also....as pointed out when Greg was making a statement to the police regarding what had transpired he was in a state of shock due to the trauma and somewhat confused....saying as he was trying to remember and tell the cops exactly how it all went down ....saying....it is all a blur it happened so quickly or woids to that effect.

Another thing to consider............in the legal world there is a old maxim............no criminal intent....no crime.

They certainly had no criminal intent and in fact were trying to do the right thing by helping protect the neighborhood.

As Greg said much later.....'no good deed goes unpunished'

CRIMINAL INTENT

Definition of Criminal Intent: Criminal intent is a necessary component of a “conventional” crime and involves a conscious decision on the part of one party to injure or deprive another.

thelawdictionary.org

 

[colfax_m]

I think you are referring to the point when they first caught up with the suspect.....they had tried to intercept him so to speak at that time....it would have made no sense to leave him behind and drive way down the road....since they did not know where he might run to next....when they first caught up with him if they had wanted to arrest him that was when they would have got out of the truck and pointed their weapons at him and told him to get on the ground the way cops do and Greg had been one for 30 yrs. and surely had gone through that routine many times.

And another point Greg was on the phone with his back to the suspect ....hardly the position he would have been in if they were going to attempt a interception.

Also....as pointed out when Greg was making a statement to the police regarding what had transpired he was in a state of shock due to the trauma and somewhat confused....saying as he was trying to remember and tell the cops exactly how it all went down ....saying....it is all a blur it happened so quickly or woids to that effect.

Another thing to consider............in the legal world there is a old maxim............no criminal intent....no crime.

They certainly had no criminal intent and in fact were trying to do the right thing by helping protect the neighborhood.

As Greg said much later.....'no good deed goes unpunished'

CRIMINAL INTENT

Definition of Criminal Intent: Criminal intent is a necessary component of a “conventional” crime and involves a conscious decision on the part of one party to injure or deprive another.

thelawdictionary.org

Their intent was to detain them person and since they had no legal right to do so, it certainly was criminal intent.

And no, the police statement indicated they were attempting to intercept Arbery by driving down the street in the direction he was heading. Arbery had changed directions to evade them and then changed back to evade Roddy.

And again, if the intent was to observe, they wouldn’t have gotten out of the truck with a gun shouting to stop. If you don’t believe their own words, their actions give plenty of evidence.

 

[Persuader]

Their intent was to detain them person and since they had no legal right to do so, it certainly was criminal intent.

And no, the police statement indicated they were attempting to intercept Arbery by driving down the street in the direction he was heading. Arbery had changed directions to evade them and then changed back to evade Roddy.

And again, if the intent was to observe, they wouldn’t have gotten out of the truck with a gun shouting to stop. If you don’t believe their own words, their actions give plenty of evidence.

When they began the pursuit their intent was to make a ciitizens arrest...but for whatever reason they obviously changed their minds as in no citizens arrest was made.

No -it was legal under the Citizens Arrest law......and regarding their alleged words that is your interpetation.

From what I have read they said at that stage their intent was to observe and report to the police the suspects location....that is why Greg was on the phone with the cops...they knew the cops had been dispatched and not that far away hence they no longer felt any need to intervene and simply were waiting on the police and were content to let the cops deal with the suspect.

Not even to mention Roddy was right behind ahhberry recording ahbery jogging down the road towards the McMichaels....thus ahbery had not eluded him as you say.....in a nutshell you make no sense.

In essence what you have done is to buy into the media hysteria and their agenda of turning this incident into a racial incident which they do at every opportunity....though race played no role in this case.

If Gregory had a racial agenda he would never have lasted for 30 yrs. as a policeman.

Police depts. and especially those down South weed out any overtly racist personnel.

 

[Faun]

No they broke off the chase when they left ahhmaud behind....and proceeded way down the road and parked their truck and Greg got on his phone to the police.

The Truck was not in the middle of the street. If they had wanted to try and block ahhmauds approach they would have parked it length-wise across the street.

At this point they were content to wait for the police and keep the suspect under observation.


Since ahhhmaud had refused to talk to them their motive at this time had changed to keep the suspect under observation and wait on the police who had been dispatched and were very close

The reason he took the shotgun with him when he exited the truck was for self protection.

Liar, they never broke off the chase until Arbery was dead.

 

[colfax_m]

When they began the pursuit their intent was to make a ciitizens arrest...but for whatever reason they obviously changed their minds as in no citizens arrest was made.

No -it was legal under the Citizens Arrest law......and regarding their alleged words that is your interpetation.

From what I have read they said at that stage their intent was to observe and report to the police the suspects location....that is why Greg was on the phone with the cops...they knew the cops had been dispatched and not that far away hence they no longer felt any need to intervene and simply were waiting on the police and were content to let the cops deal with the suspect.

Not even to mention Roddy was right behind ahhberry recording ahbery jogging down the road towards the McMichaels....thus ahbery had not eluded him as you say.....in a nutshell you make no sense.

In essence what you have done is to buy into the media hysteria and their agenda of turning this incident into a racial incident which they do at every opportunity....though race played no role in this case.

If Gregory had a racial agenda he would never have lasted for 30 yrs. as a policeman.

Police depts. and especially those down South weed out any overtly racist personnel.

Still unexplained in this silly attempt to revise history is why:

1. They told police initially they were trying to intercept him when they confronted him
2. Why he left the pickup with a gun, turned towards Arbery and stood in his path if they were merely intent on observing

 

[Persuader]

Still unexplained in this silly attempt to revise history is why:

1. They told police initially they were trying to intercept him when they confronted him
2. Why he left the pickup with a gun, turned towards Arbery and stood in his path if they were merely intent on observing

I have read that Gregory McMichaels said that when they left to pursue the suspect they intended to make a citizens arrest...but they did not....why not? I do not know....apparantly he changed his mind.

Regarding his alleged statement to the police that they were trying to intercept ahhhmaud...I have not seen that quote and do not know if it is true or not.....what one must recognize is that the media has constantly lied and propagandized about this incident.....engaged in a huge propaganda effort to demonize theMcMichaels and to attempt to make a saint out of ahmaud ...a convicted criminal with mental problems

Your 2nd statement is patently false. All one has to do is watch the video to see that....have you seen the video? It has been posted on here several times and I am tired of talking about it.....especially to someone who is too lazy to look it up....not that hard to do....just keep scrolling up.....if you do get around to looking it up then we can discuss it.

Now if you have seen the video and stand by what you claim in your second statement I will put you on ignore for being toooo stupid for me to bother with.

 

[Persuader]

Liar, they never broke off the chase until Arbery was dead.

How is a chase going on when their truck is parked and Travis is out of the Truck and Greg is in the bed of the pickup?

I am tempted to put you on ignore for increasing stupidity....I will wait a lil while to see if you improve....but not that long.