Did anyone watch the McMichaels trial today?

[Canon Shooter]

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.

Yes, he said that.

But that doesn't mean he no longer maintains the absolute right to bar anyone from the courtroom he wants to...

 

[B. Kidd]

Black activists always welcome.
Next, Jesse Jackson!

Georgia cannot afford Atlanta to burn!

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Yes, he said that.

But that doesn't mean he no longer maintains the absolute right to bar anyone from the courtroom he wants to...

Why would he need to block black pastors from the Court room?

 

[Canon Shooter]

Why would he need to block black pastors from the Court room?

If the judge is of the opinion that the presence of someone in the courtroom, black or otherwise, could be a distraction or a disruption, he has the absolute right to bar that person from the court room...

 

[otto105]

Another lie. They had been chasing him for some time. As was stated under oath. Look at you. Just can't let go of your racist little fantasies.

5 minutes to be right

 

[otto105]

Why would he need to block black pastors from the Court room?

Because he needed room for white ones????

 

[Superbadbrutha]

If the judge is of the opinion that the presence of someone in the courtroom, black or otherwise, could be a distraction or a disruption, he has the absolute right to bar that person from the court room...

He already ruled that if that happens that is what he will do, but at this point he doesn't see a reason to.

 

[B. Kidd]

Black activists first, whether or not they are real pastors, second!

 

[Canon Shooter]

He already ruled that if that happens that is what he will do, but at this point he doesn't see a reason to.

Um, okay.

I'm not sure why you're making this an issue...

 

[airplanemechanic]

Not even interested.

they murdered the kid in cold blood.

They deserve the noose they would have put around his neck, if they had the chance.

There is zero evidence he was out jogging. Because before that, he was walking around in a house looking for something to steal. When caught, he took off running. NOW HES JOGGING ALRIGHT, running from his crime.


No they didn't. He cut in front of the pickup and began attacking the guy with the shotgun trying to grab it from him. At that point its kill or be killed. The guy legally had the shotgun, having the gun did not justify Arbury attacking him. PERIOD. They also have video evidence of him going into that house and looking around. One would assume that it was to steal something, he just didn't find anything worth stealing. The neighbor across the street yelled at him to get away from the house and he took off running. That's when he was chased. Burglary is a felony which means the McMichaels had a right to detain him. You do not have to steal something for it to be burglary, just entering the property with the intent to steal is enough. He had zero business in that house and there is clear video of him walking in and looking around. Was he trying to find his missing baseball? Hell no, he was looking for something to steal. Once he began attacking now he's a dangerous criminal and they think he's committed a felony and is trying to take someone's gun. Shoot him quickly to end the threat. They did what they had to do. When even a black dude agrees with me, you know you're on the losing end. Dude had a rap sheet and run ins with the cops before.

Don't make up shit to try to fit your narrative. Look at the facts of the case.

 

[otto105]

No they didn't. He cut in front of the pickup and began attacking the guy with the shotgun trying to grab it from him. At that point its kill or be killed. They also have video evidence of him going into that house and looking around. One would assume that it was to steal something, he just didn't find anything worth stealing. The neighbor across the street yelled at him to get away from the house and he took off running. That's when he was chased. Burglary is a felony which means the McMichaels had a right to detain him. Once he began attacking now he's a dangerous criminal and they think he's committed a felony and is trying to take someone's gun. Shoot him quickly to end the threat. They did what they had to do. When even a black dude agrees with me, you know you're on the losing end.

Don't make up shit to try to fit your narrative. Look at the facts of the case.

Damn boi, racist much.

Did they see him take anything from the house? Did they see him commit a felony?

Those racists ran him down and killed him.

 

[Coyote]

No they didn't. He cut in front of the pickup and began attacking the guy with the shotgun trying to grab it from him.

Was that before or after they hit him and tried to run him into a ditch, and “McMichael’s yelled “stop or I’ll shoot your ******* head off?”

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is zero evidence he was out jogging.

Except the fact that he jogged all the time. I.E., as good as evidence gets. Sorry.

 

[Canon Shooter]

There is zero evidence he was out jogging.

Aside from the fact that he was seen jogging, you're correct...

Because before that, he was walking around in a house looking for something to steal. When caught, he took off running. NOW HES JOGGING ALRIGHT, running from his crime.

Sadly, you can't possibly know his mindset. This is nothing but conjecture by you...

No they didn't. He cut in front of the pickup and began attacking the guy with the shotgun trying to grab it from him. At that point its kill or be killed. The guy legally had the shotgun, having the gun did not justify Arbury attacking him. PERIOD. They also have video evidence of him going into that house and looking around. One would assume that it was to steal something, he just didn't find anything worth stealing. The neighbor across the street yelled at him to get away from the house and he took off running. That's when he was chased. Burglary is a felony which means the McMichaels had a right to detain him. You do not have to steal something for it to be burglary, just entering the property with the intent to steal is enough. He had zero business in that house and there is clear video of him walking in and looking around. Was he trying to find his missing baseball? Hell no, he was looking for something to steal. Once he began attacking now he's a dangerous criminal and they think he's committed a felony and is trying to take someone's gun. Shoot him quickly to end the threat. They did what they had to do. When even a black dude agrees with me, you know you're on the losing end. Dude had a rap sheet and run ins with the cops before.

Don't make up shit to try to fit your narrative. Look at the facts of the case.

Man, everything I'm hearing, from the left and the right, is that Travis McMichael is fucked.

You say that burglary is a felony and that, for that reason, McMichael had a right to detain him. Unfortunately for McMichael to be able to do that, he needs to have first hand knowledge of the burglary. Someone telling him about it, or even seeing a blurry video with someone who looked like Arbery, is insufficient.

Arbery's previous record is meaningless.

You know what isn't meaningless? The fact that he told Arbery that he would "blow your ******* head off" only minutes before he shot and killed him.

You guys supporting the McMichael twins present your argument that these guys innocently stopped Arbery to chat with him. That couldn't be further from the truth. If that was true, there'd have been no need to arm themselves, as there was no responsibility on Arbery to stop for them if they're trying to make a citizen's arrest...

 

[miketx]

Not even interested.

they murdered the kid in cold blood.

They deserve the noose they would have put around his neck, if they had the chance.

I think I'll wait until all the evidence is in.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

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

He added it to trial, the Judge even said he didn't know Rev Sharpton or Rev Jackson were even in the courtroom until this idiot started it.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

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.

Quote that law.

 

[Aletheia4u]

I knew that they were going to be pronounced guilty. It is because the second amendment is only for if your life is being threatened right on the spot. But cannot be the one who started the altercation. And so, they are not supposed to be the provoker. But they couldn't claim citizen arrest unless it was a crime in progress. But they assumed that he had stolen from the property.
The only thing that they were supposed to do was to call the police and just follow him from a distance. But they are not supposed to try to subdue him, only unless he has the stolen property visibly in his possession. And it has to be positively identified that you can see the item from a distance like having a certain distinguishing mark that is letting them know that it is the stolen property. But no one cannot approach anyone on assumption. But they are supposed to let the police come and question the person and write down a report and ask the men if they want to pursue the case. that the officers will give them the police number. And if he was on a wanted poster. You only can report him to the police and follow him from a safe distance. It is because everyone has a doppelganger, and you can be arrested if it was the wrong person. And the courts will have to decide what was your intentions.