Did anyone watch the McMichaels trial today?

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I think the Macs should be found not guilty because they are not guilty.

All the evidence and particuarly the video demonstrates that.

In fact they should never have been charged with any crime...and the only reason they were is because of the media and its inherent desire to incite more and more racial violence....making this case a racial thing when in fact the Macs would have done the same thing if the suspect had been white....no doubt in my mind about that.

You said that when black people level charges of racism that it's rarely true, we're like the boy who cried wolf.

You wanna take a guess on who wrote the laws which determine when racism has occurred? What about which cases establish precedence?

Just like you all can look at this case and claim "self-defense" all day long when in actuality "but for" the actions of the McMichaels, the shooting probably would have never occurred because they had no "valid legal basis" for taking off after Arbery and confronting him, shotgun in hand like they did.

The same type of people as you and the McMichaels who support, uphold and enforce racist laws, decisions, verdicts and behaviors will look at a situation, or a stack of evidence and still stubbornly claim that racism had nothing to do with why they decided to take an adverse action against someone.

I don't believe you carry or are licensed to carry because if you were you were know just why your interpretation of this situation is erroneous. Irrespective of what the courts decide, it can never be said that they did nothing wrong and I hope they swing one way or another not just for taking Arbery's life but for the pain and fear that their behavior has caused to countless individuals.

 

[Persuader]

You said that when black people level charges of racism that it's rarely true, we're like the boy who cried wolf.

You wanna take a guess on who wrote the laws which determine when racism has occurred? What about which cases establish precedence?

Just like you all can look at this case and claim "self-defense" all day long when in actuality "but for" the actions of the McMichaels, the shooting probably would have never occurred because they had no "valid legal basis" for taking off after Arbery and confronting him, shotgun in hand like they did.

The same type of people as you and the McMichaels who support, uphold and enforce racist laws, decisions, verdicts and behaviors will look at a situation, or a stack of evidence and still stubbornly claim that racism had nothing to do with why they decided to take an adverse action against someone.

I don't believe you carry or are licensed to carry because if you were you were know just why your interpretation of this situation is erroneous. Irrespective of what the courts decide, it can never be said that they did nothing wrong and I hope they swing one way or another not just for taking Arbery's life but for the pain and fear that their behavior has caused to countless individuals.

To begin with racism is not illegal and the MacMichael case has been gone over and over.....reasonable people can disagree but I have said I am not going back over plowed ground....unless something comes out in the trial that deserves to be talked about....we will know in a few days how it all turns out.

As of now I try to watch as much of the trial as I can though it is incredibly boring and very taxing because of all the technical problems....the Judge I think is responsible or at least he should be responsible for what goes on in the courtroom regarding all the technology, cramped conditions etc.

He has done a very poor job regarding all that. He seems fair in ways but still biased in my opinion....on the contrary the Judge in the Rittenhouse case is outstanding.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

To begin with racism is not illegal and the MacMichael case has been gone over and over.....reasonable people can disagree but I have said I am not going back over plowed ground....unless something comes out in the trial that deserves to be talked about....we will know in a few days how it all turns out.

As of now I try to watch as much of the trial as I can though it is incredibly boring and very taxing because of all the technical problems....the Judge I think is responsible or at least he should be responsible for what goes on in the courtroom regarding all the technology, cramped conditions etc.

He has done a very poor job regarding all that. He seems fair in ways but still biased in my opinion....on the contrary the Judge in the Rittenhouse case is outstanding.

Racism is not lawful even if racism per se if not a violation of the criminal code, but hey, keep thinking you can sail through the rest of your life being a racist prick with no repercussions.

 

[Persuader]

Racism is not lawful even if racism per se if not a violation of the criminal code, but hey, keep thinking you can sail through the rest of your life being a racist prick with no repercussions.

bwaaaaaaaaaaaa Great understanding of the law you have my friend-not.

If something is not illegal it is lawful......Racism however is not socially acceptable in most places in America today of course.

Essentially racism is a 'thought crime.'....penalizing some people based on what they allegedly think or believe....enforced not by our system of jurisprudence but by the media.

In todays society the fallacious concept of 'racism' can obviously be used against people i.e. to get them fired if they occupy certain positions in society such as working for a company that makes racism against company policy or if they hold an elected office-- pressure can be brought to force them to resign etc.

Thus as you imply; alleged 'racism' can have and often does have in our society today drastic repercussions for some people.

I think though that the pendulum is beginning to swing the other way.....as in more and more people are starting to see the negative and destructive effects of political correctness and how racism is used to promote a particular agenda aka.....the dismantling of America so dear to the heart of democrats.

The confusion & complexity of racism as thought-crime.

As thought crimes go, racism is right up there as the worst.There is no way back if you are called a racist. But trying to stop other people being racist may be creating more harm than good. L…

ashenden.org

What is Racism? - American Renaissance

Everyone talks about ‘racism’ but no one ever defines it.

www.amren.com

 

[IM2]

I think they have made the same mistake a lot of innocent defendants have made.....talked too much and without the presence of their lawyer.

This has been talked about many times on this board and I have mentioned it several times myself in an effort t edumcate gun owners in particular....know the laws in your state on gun ownership, know the laws in your state on self defense(though they are very similar in most states)

If ever involved in a matter wherein the police get involved.....no matter how innocent you are or how innocent you may believe yourself to be......say nothing to the police but I want to talk to my attorney.

Never forget the police are not your friend....anything you say to them can and may be used in court.

They aren't innocent.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

They aren't innocent.

No where near it.

 

[IM2]

To begin with racism is not illegal and the MacMichael case has been gone over and over.....reasonable people can disagree but I have said I am not going back over plowed ground....unless something comes out in the trial that deserves to be talked about....we will know in a few days how it all turns out.

As of now I try to watch as much of the trial as I can though it is incredibly boring and very taxing because of all the technical problems....the Judge I think is responsible or at least he should be responsible for what goes on in the courtroom regarding all the technology, cramped conditions etc.

He has done a very poor job regarding all that. He seems fair in ways but still biased in my opinion....on the contrary the Judge in the Rittenhouse case is outstanding.

Actually the practice of racism is illegal.

 

[IM2]

bwaaaaaaaaaaaa Great understanding of the law you have my friend-not.

If something is not illegal it is lawful......Racism however is not socially acceptable in most places in America today of course.

Essentially racism is a 'thought crime.'....penalizing some people based on what they allegedly think or believe....enforced not by our system of jurisprudence but by the media.

In todays society the fallacious concept of 'racism' can obviously be used against people i.e. to get them fired if they occupy certain positions in society such as working for a company that makes racism against company policy or if they hold an elected office-- pressure can be brought to force them to resign etc.

Thus as you imply; alleged 'racism' can have and often does have in our society today drastic repercussions for some people.

I think though that the pendulum is beginning to swing the other way.....as in more and more people are starting to see the negative and destructive effects of political correctness and how racism is used to promote a particular agenda aka.....the dismantling of America so dear to the heart of democrats.

The confusion & complexity of racism as thought-crime.

As thought crimes go, racism is right up there as the worst.There is no way back if you are called a racist. But trying to stop other people being racist may be creating more harm than good. L…

ashenden.org

What is Racism? - American Renaissance

Everyone talks about ‘racism’ but no one ever defines it.

www.amren.com

Try quoting actual law instead of white supremacist opinions.

 

[IM2]

Not even to mention Greg Mac was on the phone with the police at the precise moment ahhbury ran up to their truck and commenced his attack on Travis Mac

What kind of killer gets on the phone with police at the alleged time and place they have 'planned to kill ahhmaud'?.....answer....a mythical killer that only exists in the minds of the moonbats.

Arbery did not run up and do anything.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

bwaaaaaaaaaaaa Great understanding of the law you have my friend-not.

If something is not illegal it is lawful......Racism however is not socially acceptable in most places in America today of course.

Essentially racism is a 'thought crime.'....penalizing some people based on what they allegedly think or believe....enforced not by our system of jurisprudence but by the media.

In todays society the fallacious concept of 'racism' can obviously be used against people i.e. to get them fired if they occupy certain positions in society such as working for a company that makes racism against company policy or if they hold an elected office-- pressure can be brought to force them to resign etc.

Thus as you imply; alleged 'racism' can have and often does have in our society today drastic repercussions for some people.

I think though that the pendulum is beginning to swing the other way.....as in more and more people are starting to see the negative and destructive effects of political correctness and how racism is used to promote a particular agenda aka.....the dismantling of America so dear to the heart of democrats.

The confusion & complexity of racism as thought-crime.

As thought crimes go, racism is right up there as the worst.There is no way back if you are called a racist. But trying to stop other people being racist may be creating more harm than good. L…

ashenden.org

What is Racism? - American Renaissance

Everyone talks about ‘racism’ but no one ever defines it.

www.amren.com

This is part of that ignorance I was referring to earlier in another post.

Just because something is not a violation of a criminal code does not mean it is not a violation of a civil code.

Let's say you don't like me because you think I'm an "uppity black nigra". That's your right to dislike me. But let's say I have the misfortune of working for you. IF you harass me or take an adverse action against me in my job capacity because of your racial bias against me AND I can prove it (one of my team members sent me a copy of an email in which you are denigrating me based on my race and gender), then your behavior against me is "actionable" meaning it is a violation of a civil or administrative code. The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits certain actions taken against individuals based on their protected class status. Most states have their own version of the federal anti-discrimination laws. Protected classes are based on gender, race, national origin, religion, color, etc.

What this means in a nutshell is that you and your company can be sued for racial discrimination as well as sexual harassment.

So now let's say that you're outraged ("how DARE that n****r SUE ME! WHO DOES SHE THINK SHE IS? SHE HAS NO IDEA WHO SHE'S MESSING WITH") and you begin retaliating against me on the job for having notified the EEOC about your racial discrimination and harassment.

Retaliation is a separate cause of action and you can be held liable for retaliating against me for having exercised my right to engage in the "protected activity" of initiating a inquiry or investigation into an allegation of racial and sexual discrimination.

Now you're totally pissed because this situation at work is starting to escalate and HR is circling the wagons in preparation for jettisoning the problem worker (that would be YOU, not me) that might get them saddled with an EEOC black mark against the company and it's reputation as allowing racial discrimination and sexual harassment of it's workers. So you access my home address from my personnel record and start stalking me ("I know where you live, you're never going to get away with this")

Without going into the details regarding the logistics, you're caught stalking me and are arrested. You're charged not just with stalking but also a charge we have here that says you were motivated to commit the crimes against me that you did because of my race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, etc.

Because of the ongoing civil case and some of the evidence obtained by the police, the prosecution is able to make their case regarding your motivation for stalking me and you are convicted.

Needless to the say, your former employer has washed their hands of you and aren't real happy with the fact that they had to pay out money to keep all of this out of the public domain through a settlement.

Are you still willing to roll the dice on the bet that racism is not "illegal"?

 

[Turtlesoup]

Translation,
Travis is a ******* HillBilly idiot, and EVEN with a loaded shotgun, and threatening his victim, Travis couldn't stay out of harms way. (Your Words, In a very vulnerable position).

Because Aubrey had every RIGHT to defend himself and try to disarm Travis, but LOW IQ Travis was put "in a vulnerable position" (Your words) because of his LOW IQ.

How did Travis get in this "vulnerable position"

Arbery attacked him------if the mcmichales or the cop that he attacked earlier were intent on shooting him, they would have all done it before Arbery laid his hands on them. Arbery had anger problems, and a crime problem....he attacked as was his habit when he knew he was going BACK to jail. Now he's dead and the world is a better place for it.

 

[IM2]

This is part of that ignorance I was referring to earlier in another post.

Just because something is not a violation of a criminal code does not mean it is not a violation of a civil code.

Let's say you don't like me because you think I'm an "uppity black nigra". That's your right to dislike me. But let's say I have the misfortune of working for you. IF you harass me or take an adverse action against me in my job capacity because of your racial bias against me AND I can prove it (one of my team members sent me a copy of an email in which you are denigrating me based on my race and gender), then your behavior against me is "actionable" meaning it is a violation of a civil or administrative code. The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits certain actions taken against individuals based on their protected class status. Most states have their own version of the federal anti-discrimination laws. Protected classes are based on gender, race, national origin, religion, color, etc.

What this means in a nutshell is that you and your company can be sued for racial discrimination as well as sexual harassment.

So now let's say that you're outraged ("how DARE that n****r SUE ME! WHO DOES SHE THINK SHE IS? SHE HAS NO IDEA WHO SHE'S MESSING WITH") and you begin retaliating against me on the job for having notified the EEOC about your racial discrimination and harassment.

Retaliation is a separate cause of action and you can be held liable for retaliating against me for having exercised my right to engage in the "protected activity" of initiating a inquiry or investigation into an allegation of racial and sexual discrimination.

Now you're totally pissed because this situation at work is starting to escalate and HR is circling the wagons in preparation for jettisoning the problem worker (that would be YOU, not me) that might get them saddled with an EEOC black mark against the company and it's reputation as allowing racial discrimination and sexual harassment of it's workers. So you access my home address from my personnel record and start stalking me ("I know where you live, you're never going to get away with this")

Without going into the details regarding the logistics, you're caught stalking me and are arrested. You're charged not just with stalking but also a charge we have here that says you were motivated to commit the crimes against me that you did because of my race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, etc.

Because of the ongoing civil case and some of the evidence obtained by the police, the prosecution is able to make their case regarding your motivation for stalking me and you are convicted.

Needless to the say, your former employer has washed their hands of you and aren't real happy with the fact that they had to pay out money to keep all of this out of the public domain through a settlement.

Are you still willing to roll the dice on the bet that racism is not "illegal"?

TEACH!

 

[Superbadbrutha]

See folks like Turtleshit, Harmonica, Mac 10, etc. agree with this fool.

 

[IM2]

See folks like Turtleshit, Harmonica, Mac 10, etc. agree with this fool.

Those racists want those murderers acquitted.

 

[Canon Shooter]

See folks like Turtleshit, Harmonica, Mac 10, etc. agree with this fool.

Yes, how horrible a thought to keep politics out of the trial...

 

[Canon Shooter]

Arbery attacked him

So, is it your position that the McMichael's didn't arm themselves and then chase Arberry?

if the mcmichales or the cop that he attacked earlier were intent on shooting him, they would have all done it before Arbery laid his hands on them.

If that was something which made sense, I'm pretty sure it would be the hallmark of the defense's case.

Yet it's not.

The statement, of course, is about as silly a statement as you could make. You stupidly seem to believe that the fact that they didn't shoot him at the earliest opportunity proves they had no intent to shoot him at all. Well, kitten, the fact that they armed themselves and then chased strongly suggests that's exactly what they intended. They could've gone after him without arming themselves. I mean, think about it: Arberry's some skinny black kid and they were two rather "girthy" white guys. Surely they could've held him down with the need for the use of firearms. Perhaps neither was comfortable firing a weapon from a moving vehicle (it's a residential neighborhood, after all) that Travis waited until the first viable opportunity to stop the truck and confront him.

I can tell you this: If the defense were to present their case that they're innocent, based on the fact that they didn't kill him sooner than they did, they'd both be getting the needle...

 

[JohnDB]

If a person begins struggling with a person with a firearm and grabs the firearm then both parties are considered armed with a firearm as far as the law goes.

Doesn't matter who has superior control...BOTH people are considered armed even though it's one firearm.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Yes, how horrible a thought to keep politics out of the trial...

So who gets to come in and who stays out? It's a public courtroom.

 

[Canon Shooter]

So who gets to come in and who stays out? It's a public courtroom.

The judge can deny entrance to whoever he wants...

 

[Superbadbrutha]

The judge can deny entrance to whoever he wants...

Judge Timothy Walmsley on Thursday said he would not "blanketly exclude members of the public from this courtroom," as long as no one disrespected the court's process or became a distraction.