New development in the shooting case of the black georgia jogger

[esalla]

Anybody ever wonder why the media uses a 25 year old high school yearbook picture when more recent mugshots are available?

View attachment 334322

Was that his shoplifting mugshot? They put you in jail for that in Georgia?

No Georgia executes you for shoplifting now, at least if you are a darkie

Wow, convicting without trial is so leftist

Do you have your hood on?

That’s a demofks gear. I believe in equality

I care that black men die weekly in Chicago and the demofks say nothing. I say it frequently that people should stop the killings. You all turn your heads and cough

Do you believe that black joggers are justly detained and questioned at the will of white trash

More racial slurs coming from the New Black Panther Party queen.

Tell us more Ike

 

[esalla]

Being armed is not necessarily the problem. Chasing a man down while armed presents a whole host of problems, especially if you have no idea whether or not the man you are chasing actually committed the crimes you think he did.

Also, I don’t know if the McMichaels usually went around armed as you do but it’s clear from their initial testimony that they specifically grabbed their weapons before setting out to accost Aubery.

Having said that, the way they went about this does not look good for them. They only had a suspicion that he was the burgler so they had no legal justification whatsoever for attempting to accost him at all.

It’s been pointed out many times that they called the cops. That’s all well and good except, they should have left it at that.

So what if they grabbed their guns before going out ? Their guns are for self-defense. This is something liberals can't seem to get focused to.

I’m a conservative and registered Republican.

The suspicion the McMicheals had of Arbery as a burglar is plenty of legal justification for them to follow and accost him. And if you look up the word "accost" in the dictionary, you'll find it's not such a bad thing.

They may or may not have had justification to be armed and perhaps follow the guy to observe him. However, they did more than this; they actively attempted to stop and restrain him and restrict his movement. I don’t believe they had legal justification for this based on a mere suspicion. Maybe the law says otherwise, I don’t know. And even if their intent was only to talk to him, the way they went about it, it would have appeared to Aubery that they were attempting to restrict his free movement.

I'd say the way the McMichaels went about this, was just fine, and commendable, as they were concerned about crime in their community, and were getting off their duffs to do something about it

After they get cleared by a jury, they should be given a public service medal.

Perhaps. But I have to ask an important question: If Aubery had stopped and talked to them and answered their questions and said “I’m not your guy. **** off.”, what were they prepared to do at that point? They would have had no legal justification to take it any further at that point anyway.

They had already called police. Their intent was to hold him till the police got there

They had no right to do so.

Why did they have the right to hold him for the police?

Be specific

 

[protectionist]

Anybody ever wonder why the media uses a 25 year old high school yearbook picture when more recent mugshots are available?

View attachment 334322

Media distortion hard at work.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Being armed is not necessarily the problem. Chasing a man down while armed presents a whole host of problems, especially if you have no idea whether or not the man you are chasing actually committed the crimes you think he did.

Also, I don’t know if the McMichaels usually went around armed as you do but it’s clear from their initial testimony that they specifically grabbed their weapons before setting out to accost Aubery.

Having said that, the way they went about this does not look good for them. They only had a suspicion that he was the burgler so they had no legal justification whatsoever for attempting to accost him at all.

It’s been pointed out many times that they called the cops. That’s all well and good except, they should have left it at that.

So what if they grabbed their guns before going out ? Their guns are for self-defense. This is something liberals can't seem to get focused to.

I’m a conservative and registered Republican.

The suspicion the McMicheals had of Arbery as a burglar is plenty of legal justification for them to follow and accost him. And if you look up the word "accost" in the dictionary, you'll find it's not such a bad thing.

They may or may not have had justification to be armed and perhaps follow the guy to observe him. However, they did more than this; they actively attempted to stop and restrain him and restrict his movement. I don’t believe they had legal justification for this based on a mere suspicion. Maybe the law says otherwise, I don’t know. And even if their intent was only to talk to him, the way they went about it, it would have appeared to Aubery that they were attempting to restrict his free movement.

I'd say the way the McMichaels went about this, was just fine, and commendable, as they were concerned about crime in their community, and were getting off their duffs to do something about it

After they get cleared by a jury, they should be given a public service medal.

Perhaps. But I have to ask an important question: If Aubery had stopped and talked to them and answered their questions and said “I’m not your guy. **** off.”, what were they prepared to do at that point? They would have had no legal justification to take it any further at that point anyway.

They had already called police. Their intent was to hold him till the police got there

But they had no legal justification to hold him as it had not yet been determined that Arbery was the burglar. Remember, all they had was a suspicion. That is not enough for one civilian to detain another civilian.

The smart thing for them to have done was follow and observe. That’s it.

 

[protectionist]

Anybody ever wonder why the media uses a 25 year old high school yearbook picture when more recent mugshots are available?

View attachment 334322

Was that his shoplifting mugshot? They put you in jail for that in Georgia?

No Georgia executes you for shoplifting now, at least if you are a darkie

Wow, convicting without trial is so leftist

Do you have your hood on?

That’s a demofks gear. I believe in equality

I care that black men die weekly in Chicago and the demofks say nothing. I say it frequently that people should stop the killings. You all turn your heads and cough

Do you believe that black joggers are justly detained and questioned at the will of white trash

More racial slurs coming from the New Black Panther Party queen.

Tell us more Ike

No problem Panther Puppy.

​

​

 

[protectionist]

The smart thing for them to have done was follow and observe. That’s it.

That's just what they DID DO. And then dumbass Arbery attacked them.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

When I say “stupid” I mean their actions were stupid. Even if the guy had been white, their actions were reckless. And now a man is dead because of their recklessness.

By choosing to chase the guy down and to do so while armed, they introduced an element of danger to the situation that was completely unnecessary, given that the alleged crime was simple burglery and the guy was not exhibiting threatening behavior to them or anyone else.

You act like chasing the guy down and being armed is something unusual. I carry a gun every minute of every day while I'm outside. So what ?

Arbery is dead because of HIS recklessness and criminal violence, nothing else.

Being armed is not necessarily the problem. Chasing a man down while armed presents a whole host of problems, especially if you have no idea whether or not the man you are chasing actually committed the crimes you think he did.

Also, I don’t know if the McMichaels usually went around armed as you do but it’s clear from their initial testimony that they specifically grabbed their weapons before setting out to accost Aubery.

Having said that, the way they went about this does not look good for them. They only had a suspicion that he was the burgler so they had no legal justification whatsoever for attempting to accost him at all.

It’s been pointed out many times that they called the cops. That’s all well and good except, they should have left it at that.

For the umpteenth time they did nothing illegal....it is not illegal to follow or chase someone. It is not illegal in Georgia to possess firearms......tell us exactly what you think they did that was illegal?

I never said that what they did was illegal, I said it was stupid.

Strictly speaking, according to Georgia state laws, everything they did up to the first shot may have been entirely legal. But given that a man is dead, I personally don’t think their choices were very wise.

This entire case revolves around Aubery’s possible culpability in the burgleries and whether or not the McMichaels knew it. They did not know if he was the burgler and Aubery was not exhibiting threatening behavior so they had no justification for attempting to accost him.

Aubery only attacked after the McMichaels tried twice to head him off and accost him. I might have done the same in that situation.

WHAT BURGLARIES? There have been no burglaries. That requires taking something. Even when the construction-site owner reported the trespasser to police in October and November, he did not report anything stolen. McMichaels had a gun taken from his truck a few weeks prior. I remember reading somewhere that someone in the neighborhood had fishing tackle taken. Neither of those occurred in the construction site and there is no reason to assume it had anything to do with Arbery.

“Burglaries” may be my word or McMichaels’ but things were stolen in any case.

 

[colfax_m]

The smart thing for them to have done was follow and observe. That’s it.

That's just what they DID DO. And then dumbass Arbery attacked them.

That’s not what McMichael told police.

 

[protectionist]

They had no right to do so.

No ? Why not ?

 

[colfax_m]

They had no right to do so.

No ? Why not ?

Because they’re not police and individuals cannot go around detaining people whom they merely suspect did something wrong.

 

[protectionist]

That’s not what McMichael told police.

No ? What did he tell them ? With please (in quotation marks)

 

[miketx]

Interesting who is siding with the racists murderers...all of them are blob supporters. Who'd guess that? LOL

Too bad your murdering hide can't prove anything.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

The smart thing for them to have done was follow and observe. That’s it.

That's just what they DID DO. And then dumbass Arbery attacked them.

Incorrect. By their own initial testimony they had already tried once or twice (I forget which) to head him off. That was their first mistake. Their second mistake was pursuing this course of action even after it became clear Arbery did not wish to stop and talk.

They were not merely observing, they were actively trying to stop him.

 

[miketx]

They had no right to do so.

No ? Why not ?

Because they’re not police and individuals cannot go around detaining people whom they merely suspect did something wrong.

Wrong again, it's called a citizens arrest.

 

[esalla]

Anybody ever wonder why the media uses a 25 year old high school yearbook picture when more recent mugshots are available?

View attachment 334322

Was that his shoplifting mugshot? They put you in jail for that in Georgia?

No Georgia executes you for shoplifting now, at least if you are a darkie

Wow, convicting without trial is so leftist

Do you have your hood on?

That’s a demofks gear. I believe in equality

I care that black men die weekly in Chicago and the demofks say nothing. I say it frequently that people should stop the killings. You all turn your heads and cough

Do you believe that black joggers are justly detained and questioned at the will of white trash

More racial slurs coming from the New Black Panther Party queen.

Tell us more Ike

No problem Panther Puppy.

​

My father was on Okinawa, but unlike you he was never in the Klan

 

[colfax_m]

They had no right to do so.

No ? Why not ?

Because they’re not police and individuals cannot go around detaining people whom they merely suspect did something wrong.

Wrong again, it's called a citizens arrest.

View attachment 334332

The McMichael’s did not witness a crime. The 911 operator asked them and they never respond and their police report indicates they stated chasing him after they saw him running down the street, not committing a crime.

 

[colfax_m]

That’s not what McMichael told police.

No ? What did he tell them ? With please (in quotation marks)

McMichael said they attempted twice to cut him off or block him. They were shouting at him to stop, finally pulling in front of him before getting out of the car to confront him.

It’s in the police report.

 

[protectionist]

Because they’re not police and individuals cannot go around detaining people whom they merely suspect did something wrong.

The McMichaels claim that they saw Arbery committing burglaries. The state of Georgia allows people to make citizen’s arrests. To make a citizen’s arrest, a person must witness a crime being committed and detain the suspect until police reach the scene. This is commonly the way citizens arrests and detaining suspects is handles all across America.

According to this, the McMicheals were within their rights to detain Arbery, and hold him for police, but the situation never got that far. Before they could even question him, he attacked them.

Citizen’s arrests legal, discouraged by experts

 

[protectionist]

McMichael said they attempted twice to cut him off or block him. They were shouting at him to stop, finally pulling in front of him before getting out of the car to confront him.

It’s in the police report.

Post it. In quotes.

 

[colfax_m]

Because they’re not police and individuals cannot go around detaining people whom they merely suspect did something wrong.

The McMichaels claim that they saw Arbery committing burglaries. The state of Georgia allows people to make citizen’s arrests. To make a citizen’s arrest, a person must witness a crime being committed and detain the suspect until police reach the scene. This is commonly the way citizens arrests and detaining suspects is handles all across America.

According to this, the McMicheals were within their rights to detain Arbery, and hold him for police, but the situation never got that far. Before they could even question him, he attacked them.

Citizen’s arrests legal, discouraged by experts

where did McMichael’s say they witnessed him commit a crime?