Would you please make up your God Damned Mind? It is so hard to follow your logic.
Bwaaaaaaaa
You quote the District Attorney Barnes who says that the shooting was Self Defense because they were effecting a valid citizens arrest. I point out that Barnes was defending his law license for misconduct because he madet that determination after deciding to recuse himself. Also I point out what the GBI and Precedent says.
I posted that to show intelligent people think it was obviously self defense....but I do not think it was because they were effecting a valid citizens arrest.
What you are missing is all the political b.s. involved in this case.....as a general rule when politicians get involved truth and justice go out the window.
Then you scream it wasn’t a citizens arrest and dare me to post the law without legalese.
Correct....I have only said that about a hundred times...look up what constitutes an arrest.
There was no arrest....if an arrest had been made ahhmaud would not have been running down the street on the way to committing suicide.
I asked you to post the law...just not pages of legalese....I do not care what others think about the law....I just want to see the law and that is all.
Do not even get me started on the GBI aka political police.
Make up your god damned mind. You whip out proof that they are innocent and then scream that the counter proof is irrelevant.
They are absolutely innocent...no doubt about that whatsoever.....even if all the b.s. you post about what happened before Ahhmaud attacked Travis was true....there is still no excuse for Ahhmaud to assault Travis.
Then you launch into your race hustler nonsense. I spoke out in agreement of the dismissal of the charges against the Bundy’s. Who were White.
The charges were not dismissed...the governor stepped in and gave them a pardon.
no
I posted video in this thread of a woman shooting criminals. Who were black. In her home. I said that shooting was absolutely justified and used it as an example of a good self defense shooting in Georgia.
Unfortunately not every case is so clear cut...but generally speaking you and your ilk want to whittle down our legitimate right for self-defense most especially in cases involving race or cases where you can inject race irregardless if it was racial or not.
Unlike you. I don’t give a fuck what color someone is. I deal in the facts of the cases. The individual cases.
I am sure you think you do but your bias sticks out like a sore thumb and that is very common of blacks...all too common that is why I usually put them on ignore.
Chauvin was guilty not because the victim was black. But because he continued using a prohibited technique after the guy was dead. Or at least non responsive and absent a pulse.
Chauvin died of natural causes....that was another miscarriage of justice.
Amber Guyger was guilty because she walked into the wrong apartment and killed the legal occupant. A location she had no business being in. It wouldn’t matter what color either of them were.
I go back to the old maxim in the legal world.....no criminal intent -- No crime.
She was found guilty simple because the victim was black.
She thought she was in her own apt. and the complex was at fault for allowing all the apartments to look the same....she made a mistake but an easy one to make and it happened before though no one was killed....I am sure this sort of thing happens all across the land...for whatever reason people get confused...most especially when apartments look alike...I have made the same mistake myself whilst staying in a hotel and getting off on the wrong floor.
The Universal Defense to a Crime: No Intent
September 21, 2016 Bryan Hoeller
With rare exceptions, a criminal act is defined by two elements. Committing a prohibited act is one element. The second element is having the intent to do the prohibited act. Lack of criminal intent can be a strong defense to a crime.
There are exceptions to the rule. The most notable is engaging in sexual activity with a minor. For example, regardless of how old that girl at the bar looked, if an adult has sex with her and she is underage, he has committed a crime.
That being said, the presence of intent is what subjects a person to criminal liability as opposed to civil liability. If a person accidently starts a fire in his house and the house burns, no crime is committed. However, if a person intentionally burns the house to collect insurance money, then a crime has been committed. The presence of intent is an element the state has to prove before a person can be convicted of most crimes. The Texas General Statutes in
Title 2, Sec 6 of the Penal Code states that, “… a person does not commit an offense unless he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence engages in conduct as the definition of the offense requires.”
The case of Drejka. The attacker was backing away. He moved backwards when Drejka pulled his gun. The threat requiring lethal force was over. The bad guy was retreating. If Drejka had stopped there I would have called it a good example of the efficacy of personal weapons for self defense.
He didn’t stop. He hesitated and then pulled the trigger. The jury agreed. So far there hasn’t been any action on appeals so the courts agree.
Another political case...the courts steer away from anything that might cause racial unrest.
First of all drejka did not have good counsel....he was a poor guy and not too bright but he did nothing illegal...unable to get good counsel for some reason...lots of lawyers now steer away from defending a white guy when the victim is black because many lawyers have political aspirations and it is very easy to get labeled a racist if you get a white guy off if he has killed a black.
The key factor in this case was the video...by playing it in slow motion the prosecutor had a easy time convincing the jury that drejka had more time to make a decision on whether to shoot or not than he actually did....that worked against him big time....also he got a lousy jury --a timid weak jury that the prosecutor intimidated with little problem banging on the table etc.
Another point was that the black guy was not actually retreating...what you see in the video is him recoiling at the sight of the pistol being whipped out...drejka was slow in a lot of ways but he was a fast draw.
Of course we will never know what the black guy would have done if had not got shot.
What is known is that he was still very,very close to drejka and I think there was a strong possibility he would have continued the attack if he had not got shot...he was very,very angry and you could see that as he stormed out of the store....asked no questions....just went on the attack.
A strong possibility he would have beaten drejka to death or at the very least seriously injured him.
This is another case also of if the victim had been white no one would have ever heard of this case except maybe on the local news.
Not even to mention if the shooter had been black....they would have given him the keys to the city and a medal for dispatching a thug with a history of violence.
Rittenhouse shot white guys. I thought he was in trouble when I heard he was too young to have the gun. So he’s fucked.
I thought it was entrapment in the case of Randy Weaver. The courts agreed. The jury agreed.
The person being screwed is not dependent upon their color. Nor their political belief. Weaver and Bundy are both asshats I’d never allow into my home.
But they were the ones abused by the law. So. I back them. It’s called integrity. Something we already know you are bereft of.
