New video of Arbery swearing at cops, almost got tased

[Mac-7]

In some ways Gates may represent the typical angry and paranoid black male in America today

His confrontation with authority ended with a beer in the Rose Garden with obama and the police officer

but many other black males manage to talk themselves into the local morgue instead

and all are the products of brainwashing by liberal race hustlers on America poisoning their minds

 

[Mac-7]

They had Established his identity and that this was his house.

Thats what wikkipedia says now in a clearly biased account of the incident

but reports at the time revealed that Gates did not have the correct ID for that house

afterwards the news media went after crowly looking for evidence of racism but came up empty

thats why obama had to eat crow and invite the cop to the white house

 

[JoeB131]

In some ways Gates may represent the typical angry and paranoid black male in America today

His confrontation with authority ended with a beer in the Rose Garden with obama and the police officer

but many other black males manage to talk themselves into the local morgue instead

and all are the products of brainwashing by liberal race hustlers on America poisoning their minds

There's an old saying, just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

The thing is, if he were white, he never would have been arrested, much less going to the morgue.

Thats what wikkipedia says now in a clearly biased account of the incident

but reports at the time revealed that Gates did not have the correct ID for that house

afterwards the news media went after crowly looking for evidence of racism but came up empty

thats why obama had to eat crow and invite the cop to the white house

Actually, no, he invited him to the White House to open a dialog on race. This was before half of you went absolutely batshit crazy that there was a black man in the White House.

Ahhh. 2009. When we had some naive belief that we had advanced racially.

 

[Mac-7]

The thing is, if he were white, he never would have been arrested, much less going to the morgue.

I agree

an average white person would have cooperated with the police instead of being confrontational

 

[basquebromance]

no he didnt, if he did, he would have said...DONT TAZ ME BRO!

 

[basquebromance]

anyway, this wouldn't happen in Joe Biden's America, my friends

 

[Jitss617]

Thats partislly true and partially untrue

The ID gates used had his harvard address instead of the address of the house

but clearly gates was belligerent and uncooperative

Surely a man of his high position had better things to do than verbally assault an honest cop who was just doing his job

and yes, that is called disturbing the peace

Um, no, it was completely true. They had Established his identity and that this was his house. Also, common sense should tell you a well-dressed, middle aged and well-spoken man isn't a perp.

He had every right to speak his mind if he felt his rights and dignity were being violated.

The Police acted stupidly. Obama was right.

What Obama did was racist, and he it was wrong. Period

 

[deanrd]

Did you see the video? The guy is standing out in the field with his car. He says it’s his day off couldn’t they just leave him alone? And they wouldn’t. If it had been a white guy they would’ve waved and kept on going. We know it.

 

[Jitss617]

Did you see the video? The guy is standing out in the field with his car. He says it’s his day off couldn’t they just leave him alone? And they wouldn’t. If it had been a white guy they would’ve waved and kept on going. We know it.

Lol im Going to come To a park near your house, shirtless, showing my under wear, park on the grass! Rap about violence in front of children, lol Will you call the cops on me?

 

[tyroneweaver]

So? Were there cops present when he was assaulted by the vigilante McMichaels?

ya, if he was trying to get away and they chased him down they'll probably get life in the pen

 

[SavannahMann]

So? Were there cops present when he was assaulted by the vigilante McMichaels?

ya, if he was trying to get away and they chased him down they'll probably get life in the pen

As I mentioned before. Police have greater authority than civilians. Police arrest people every day. Other than being caught lying, or taking bribes they rarely get investigated much less face any punishment. And in those cases, where they are lying as in planting evidence or claiming the victim had a weapon. They absolutely should face punishment.

 

[texmaster]

So? Were there cops present when he was assaulted by the vigilante McMichaels?

You really need to educate yourself on the terms you use. Arbery assaulted McMichaels not the other way around.

If you really need yet another lesson in the law I'll be happy to provide it.

Actually. I live in Georgia. So chances are that I know the terms I am using. But I am not alone.

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

That is written by an experienced defense attorney in Georgia who has handled capital cases before. So what qualifications do you have? Are you a lawyer with experience in Georgia? Otherwise I do not think you are in a position to teach.

Its pretty clear you don't.

Let's review the law itself.

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 5 - CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
ARTICLE 2 - ASSAULT AND BATTERY
§ 16-5-20 - Simple assault
O.C.G.A. 16-5-20 (2010)
16-5-20. Simple assault


(a) A person commits the offense of simple assault when he or she either:

(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another; or

(2) Commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.

(b) Except as provided in subsections (c) through (h) of this Code section, a person who commits the offense of simple assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(c) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault in a public transit vehicle or station shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. For purposes of this Code section, "public transit vehicle" means a bus, van, or rail car used for the transportation of passengers within a system which receives a subsidy from tax revenues or is operated under a franchise contract with a county or municipality of this state.

(d) If the offense of simple assault is committed between past or present spouses, persons who are parents of the same child, parents and children, stepparents and stepchildren, foster parents and foster children, or other persons excluding siblings living or formerly living in the same household, the defendant shall be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. In no event shall this subsection be applicable to corporal punishment administered by a parent or guardian to a child or administered by a person acting in loco parentis.

(e) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against a person who is 65 years of age or older shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

(f) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against an employee of a public school system of this state while such employee is engaged in official duties or on school property shall, upon conviction of such offense, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. For purposes of this Code section, "school property" shall include public school buses and stops for public school buses as designated by local school boards of education.

(g) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against a female who is pregnant at the time of the offense shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

(h) Nothing in this Code section shall be construed to permit the prosecution of:

(1) Any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

(2) Any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(3) Any woman with respect to her unborn child.

For the purposes of this subsection, the term "unborn child" means a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb.



Now, go ahead and point to any part of that law based on the video where Arbury was assaulted.

I can easily point to where he was guilty of assault:

(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another;

Your thief is on video attacking McMichaels without anyone moving toward him or raising any weapon at him.


Go ahead, can't wait to see this dance

First, nothing was stolen. So my “thief” as you say, stole nothing. That kind of means he wasn’t stealing, and therefore was not a thief. But wait, there is more to consider.

He stole a 65 inch TV. He's a thief. Try having a clue about the history of the moron you are defending.

Yay, you can quote the text of the law.

Unlike you yes I can.

But the Courts decide what the law means, and how it is applied to cases. Those decisions are called Precedence. In Georgia, the precedence including decisions in the State Supreme Court means that the McMichaels are in a seriously deep pit of trouble.

So you are running once again from citing the part of the law with the video that backs you up. This is my shocked face you ran once again.

Here’s the thing about justification: you typically cannot raise it if you are the “aggressor” or if you “provoke the use of force” with the intent to use that force as an excuse. To use deadly force, the other person must pose a deadly risk.

So the big issue with the defendant’s case here is that they pointed guns at Arbery. We know this because, according to one District Attorney’s memo, the first shot went through Arbery’s hand as he was trying to grab the barrel. In Georgia, pointing a gun at someone is aggravated assault even if you had no intent to intimidate them.

LOL. The shot did not go through him until he attacked. There is ZERO video evidence of him firing before Arbery was on him. You are once again making up facts that don't exist.

The McMichaels will have to establish that they were in the middle of a lawful arrest when the assault began, and that will be difficult because they escalated force so quickly. Or they will have to establish that they made a “reasonable mistake of fact” that led them to believe their actions were justified. But that’s tricky, because their response was far from ordinary. Or they will have to show that it was reasonable to point weapons at an unarmed person in an effort to get him to stop — a ruling you would probably not want extended to muggers. So using precedence according to the aforementioned Experienced Defense Attorney who has argued capital cases on appeal before, the McMichaels don’t have much of a case. The chances are very very slim that they can prove the shooting was justified.

LOL They do not have to justify anything when your thief was the attacker. And you can't be in the middle of an arrest if you make no attempt to detain the person. Do you need a lesson in legal detainment as well in the law? I thought you pretended to understand law in Georgia. You keep proving you don't have a clue.

You like many others, start the dance of who committed what crime at the moment that Arbury is rounding the truck. Unfortunately the events start long before that. And those events mean that the McMichaels were the aggressors, and that is why they are charged in full compliance with the laws.

Because that is what we can see. You want to rely on nothing but fantasy and theory for justification with NO basis in the laws of self defense to support you and you prove it each time you run away from citing the actual law and action they took you can prove on video that supports you.

That's why you keep losing this debate.

Interesting. According to you I am losing the debate.

In spades. You run every time you are asked to quote the specific part of the law that justified Arbery's attack with video evidence of that law being broken and you can't do it.

According to lawyers in Georgia and the cops who just arrested the neighbor for being a part of this debacle. I am not losing. The trial will be the deciding factor. There all you internet experts are going to whip out your law degrees from Cracker Jack University and sweat it is all wrong.

LOL the fact you think an arrest means you are winning only amplifies how little you understand the law.

And when this gets to court you will see how wrong you are.

 

[texmaster]

New video released of Ahmaud Arbery's confrontation with cops when approached in a park

A 2017 video has emerged showing slain Georgia man Ahmaud Arbery angrily confronting cops in a park, with an aggressive officer pulling his Taser.

www.bizpacreview.com

This video shows Arbery disrespect the cops, refused to take commands a couple of times, tazer malfunctioned, to bad.
This kid obviously has some issues, stemming from his parenting, I think that’s a females jacket he’s wearing, he’s exposing his underwear in a public park.

he almost attacked the cops just doing his job

the area is known for drugs and but AA couldn’t understand what he was saying.

So?

What does a video taken years ago have to do with him being hunted then murdered by men who aren't police?

And if it's ok for them to do that because of something Arbery did years ago, is it ok to hunt down and murder the trump followers in the video below years from now for yelling at and swearing at the police?



Or is it just ok to do that to a black man?

The racial divide in America is just red meat for you communist russian trolls to use to divide America and manipulate the stupid trump followers.

It doesn't work with the rest of America. We're not stupid.

By the way, how's the weather today in moscow comrade?

No it's ok for white men to protest the police, but black men are suppose to bow down.

Just because some use their racism to assume anyone white stopping a thief is racist themselves doesn't make them any less of a racist.

 

[SavannahMann]

So? Were there cops present when he was assaulted by the vigilante McMichaels?

You really need to educate yourself on the terms you use. Arbery assaulted McMichaels not the other way around.

If you really need yet another lesson in the law I'll be happy to provide it.

Actually. I live in Georgia. So chances are that I know the terms I am using. But I am not alone.

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

That is written by an experienced defense attorney in Georgia who has handled capital cases before. So what qualifications do you have? Are you a lawyer with experience in Georgia? Otherwise I do not think you are in a position to teach.

Its pretty clear you don't.

Let's review the law itself.

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 5 - CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
ARTICLE 2 - ASSAULT AND BATTERY
§ 16-5-20 - Simple assault
O.C.G.A. 16-5-20 (2010)
16-5-20. Simple assault


(a) A person commits the offense of simple assault when he or she either:

(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another; or

(2) Commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.

(b) Except as provided in subsections (c) through (h) of this Code section, a person who commits the offense of simple assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(c) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault in a public transit vehicle or station shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. For purposes of this Code section, "public transit vehicle" means a bus, van, or rail car used for the transportation of passengers within a system which receives a subsidy from tax revenues or is operated under a franchise contract with a county or municipality of this state.

(d) If the offense of simple assault is committed between past or present spouses, persons who are parents of the same child, parents and children, stepparents and stepchildren, foster parents and foster children, or other persons excluding siblings living or formerly living in the same household, the defendant shall be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. In no event shall this subsection be applicable to corporal punishment administered by a parent or guardian to a child or administered by a person acting in loco parentis.

(e) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against a person who is 65 years of age or older shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

(f) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against an employee of a public school system of this state while such employee is engaged in official duties or on school property shall, upon conviction of such offense, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. For purposes of this Code section, "school property" shall include public school buses and stops for public school buses as designated by local school boards of education.

(g) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against a female who is pregnant at the time of the offense shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

(h) Nothing in this Code section shall be construed to permit the prosecution of:

(1) Any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

(2) Any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(3) Any woman with respect to her unborn child.

For the purposes of this subsection, the term "unborn child" means a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb.



Now, go ahead and point to any part of that law based on the video where Arbury was assaulted.

I can easily point to where he was guilty of assault:

(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another;

Your thief is on video attacking McMichaels without anyone moving toward him or raising any weapon at him.


Go ahead, can't wait to see this dance

First, nothing was stolen. So my “thief” as you say, stole nothing. That kind of means he wasn’t stealing, and therefore was not a thief. But wait, there is more to consider.

He stole a 65 inch TV. He's a thief. Try having a clue about the history of the moron you are defending.

Yay, you can quote the text of the law.

Unlike you yes I can.

But the Courts decide what the law means, and how it is applied to cases. Those decisions are called Precedence. In Georgia, the precedence including decisions in the State Supreme Court means that the McMichaels are in a seriously deep pit of trouble.

So you are running once again from citing the part of the law with the video that backs you up. This is my shocked face you ran once again.

Here’s the thing about justification: you typically cannot raise it if you are the “aggressor” or if you “provoke the use of force” with the intent to use that force as an excuse. To use deadly force, the other person must pose a deadly risk.

So the big issue with the defendant’s case here is that they pointed guns at Arbery. We know this because, according to one District Attorney’s memo, the first shot went through Arbery’s hand as he was trying to grab the barrel. In Georgia, pointing a gun at someone is aggravated assault even if you had no intent to intimidate them.

LOL. The shot did not go through him until he attacked. There is ZERO video evidence of him firing before Arbery was on him. You are once again making up facts that don't exist.

The McMichaels will have to establish that they were in the middle of a lawful arrest when the assault began, and that will be difficult because they escalated force so quickly. Or they will have to establish that they made a “reasonable mistake of fact” that led them to believe their actions were justified. But that’s tricky, because their response was far from ordinary. Or they will have to show that it was reasonable to point weapons at an unarmed person in an effort to get him to stop — a ruling you would probably not want extended to muggers. So using precedence according to the aforementioned Experienced Defense Attorney who has argued capital cases on appeal before, the McMichaels don’t have much of a case. The chances are very very slim that they can prove the shooting was justified.

LOL They do not have to justify anything when your thief was the attacker. And you can't be in the middle of an arrest if you make no attempt to detain the person. Do you need a lesson in legal detainment as well in the law? I thought you pretended to understand law in Georgia. You keep proving you don't have a clue.

You like many others, start the dance of who committed what crime at the moment that Arbury is rounding the truck. Unfortunately the events start long before that. And those events mean that the McMichaels were the aggressors, and that is why they are charged in full compliance with the laws.

Because that is what we can see. You want to rely on nothing but fantasy and theory for justification with NO basis in the laws of self defense to support you and you prove it each time you run away from citing the actual law and action they took you can prove on video that supports you.

That's why you keep losing this debate.

Interesting. According to you I am losing the debate.

In spades. You run every time you are asked to quote the specific part of the law that justified Arbery's attack with video evidence of that law being broken and you can't do it.

According to lawyers in Georgia and the cops who just arrested the neighbor for being a part of this debacle. I am not losing. The trial will be the deciding factor. There all you internet experts are going to whip out your law degrees from Cracker Jack University and sweat it is all wrong.

LOL the fact you think an arrest means you are winning only amplifies how little you understand the law.

And when this gets to court you will see how wrong you are.

Perhaps I am wrong. But as I said the Lawyers say I am right.

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

Unlike you this is an experienced Criminal Defense Attorney with several exonerations to his credit in Georgia Courts. Unlike you he is a licensed lawyer in the State of Georgia.

So my opinion is not based upon wishful thinking.

A big money Lawyer in Atlanta owns a big hunk of land down the road that he and his friends use as a hunting club. Since they occasionally come up the creek to my land, they let me use their target range to shoot. These folks are a big family with cousins everywhere in the County and State. The Cousin told me the Big Money Lawyer saw the same video the defenders say show the McMichaels being attacked and said those two boys are going to spend twenty years in prison if they don’t get a plea deal.

Ah. But what do they know. They are just Lawyers. It isn’t like they know anything about the law in Georgia. Not like you all who have probably never driven by a Law School.

That is part of the reason I have the opinion I have. The experts in the field say it was a crime.

 

[Jitss617]

Is it ever OK for a white man to defend himself against a black man in the eyes of racist?

 

[texmaster]

So? Were there cops present when he was assaulted by the vigilante McMichaels?

You really need to educate yourself on the terms you use. Arbery assaulted McMichaels not the other way around.

If you really need yet another lesson in the law I'll be happy to provide it.

Actually. I live in Georgia. So chances are that I know the terms I am using. But I am not alone.

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

That is written by an experienced defense attorney in Georgia who has handled capital cases before. So what qualifications do you have? Are you a lawyer with experience in Georgia? Otherwise I do not think you are in a position to teach.

Its pretty clear you don't.

Let's review the law itself.

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 5 - CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
ARTICLE 2 - ASSAULT AND BATTERY
§ 16-5-20 - Simple assault
O.C.G.A. 16-5-20 (2010)
16-5-20. Simple assault


(a) A person commits the offense of simple assault when he or she either:

(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another; or

(2) Commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.

(b) Except as provided in subsections (c) through (h) of this Code section, a person who commits the offense of simple assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(c) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault in a public transit vehicle or station shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. For purposes of this Code section, "public transit vehicle" means a bus, van, or rail car used for the transportation of passengers within a system which receives a subsidy from tax revenues or is operated under a franchise contract with a county or municipality of this state.

(d) If the offense of simple assault is committed between past or present spouses, persons who are parents of the same child, parents and children, stepparents and stepchildren, foster parents and foster children, or other persons excluding siblings living or formerly living in the same household, the defendant shall be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. In no event shall this subsection be applicable to corporal punishment administered by a parent or guardian to a child or administered by a person acting in loco parentis.

(e) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against a person who is 65 years of age or older shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

(f) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against an employee of a public school system of this state while such employee is engaged in official duties or on school property shall, upon conviction of such offense, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. For purposes of this Code section, "school property" shall include public school buses and stops for public school buses as designated by local school boards of education.

(g) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against a female who is pregnant at the time of the offense shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

(h) Nothing in this Code section shall be construed to permit the prosecution of:

(1) Any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

(2) Any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(3) Any woman with respect to her unborn child.

For the purposes of this subsection, the term "unborn child" means a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb.



Now, go ahead and point to any part of that law based on the video where Arbury was assaulted.

I can easily point to where he was guilty of assault:

(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another;

Your thief is on video attacking McMichaels without anyone moving toward him or raising any weapon at him.


Go ahead, can't wait to see this dance

First, nothing was stolen. So my “thief” as you say, stole nothing. That kind of means he wasn’t stealing, and therefore was not a thief. But wait, there is more to consider.

He stole a 65 inch TV. He's a thief. Try having a clue about the history of the moron you are defending.

Yay, you can quote the text of the law.

Unlike you yes I can.

But the Courts decide what the law means, and how it is applied to cases. Those decisions are called Precedence. In Georgia, the precedence including decisions in the State Supreme Court means that the McMichaels are in a seriously deep pit of trouble.

So you are running once again from citing the part of the law with the video that backs you up. This is my shocked face you ran once again.

Here’s the thing about justification: you typically cannot raise it if you are the “aggressor” or if you “provoke the use of force” with the intent to use that force as an excuse. To use deadly force, the other person must pose a deadly risk.

So the big issue with the defendant’s case here is that they pointed guns at Arbery. We know this because, according to one District Attorney’s memo, the first shot went through Arbery’s hand as he was trying to grab the barrel. In Georgia, pointing a gun at someone is aggravated assault even if you had no intent to intimidate them.

LOL. The shot did not go through him until he attacked. There is ZERO video evidence of him firing before Arbery was on him. You are once again making up facts that don't exist.

The McMichaels will have to establish that they were in the middle of a lawful arrest when the assault began, and that will be difficult because they escalated force so quickly. Or they will have to establish that they made a “reasonable mistake of fact” that led them to believe their actions were justified. But that’s tricky, because their response was far from ordinary. Or they will have to show that it was reasonable to point weapons at an unarmed person in an effort to get him to stop — a ruling you would probably not want extended to muggers. So using precedence according to the aforementioned Experienced Defense Attorney who has argued capital cases on appeal before, the McMichaels don’t have much of a case. The chances are very very slim that they can prove the shooting was justified.

LOL They do not have to justify anything when your thief was the attacker. And you can't be in the middle of an arrest if you make no attempt to detain the person. Do you need a lesson in legal detainment as well in the law? I thought you pretended to understand law in Georgia. You keep proving you don't have a clue.

You like many others, start the dance of who committed what crime at the moment that Arbury is rounding the truck. Unfortunately the events start long before that. And those events mean that the McMichaels were the aggressors, and that is why they are charged in full compliance with the laws.

Because that is what we can see. You want to rely on nothing but fantasy and theory for justification with NO basis in the laws of self defense to support you and you prove it each time you run away from citing the actual law and action they took you can prove on video that supports you.

That's why you keep losing this debate.

Interesting. According to you I am losing the debate.

In spades. You run every time you are asked to quote the specific part of the law that justified Arbery's attack with video evidence of that law being broken and you can't do it.

According to lawyers in Georgia and the cops who just arrested the neighbor for being a part of this debacle. I am not losing. The trial will be the deciding factor. There all you internet experts are going to whip out your law degrees from Cracker Jack University and sweat it is all wrong.

LOL the fact you think an arrest means you are winning only amplifies how little you understand the law.

And when this gets to court you will see how wrong you are.

Perhaps I am wrong. But as I said the Lawyers say I am right.

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

Unlike you this is an experienced Criminal Defense Attorney with several exonerations to his credit in Georgia Courts. Unlike you he is a licensed lawyer in the State of Georgia.

So my opinion is not based upon wishful thinking.

A big money Lawyer in Atlanta owns a big hunk of land down the road that he and his friends use as a hunting club. Since they occasionally come up the creek to my land, they let me use their target range to shoot. These folks are a big family with cousins everywhere in the County and State. The Cousin told me the Big Money Lawyer saw the same video the defenders say show the McMichaels being attacked and said those two boys are going to spend twenty years in prison if they don’t get a plea deal.

Ah. But what do they know. They are just Lawyers. It isn’t like they know anything about the law in Georgia. Not like you all who have probably never driven by a Law School.

That is part of the reason I have the opinion I have. The experts in the field say it was a crime.

You are quoting a lawyer who is dumb enough not to address the obvious that no arrest was ever attempted. He never bothered to explain how in that video any arrest was attempted.

He also ignores the reality that the gun was fired only after Arbery began his attack which makes lethal force justified. And there is no evidence that weapons were raised at this thief before he began his attack. Another fact your ambulance chaser conveniently leaves out.

But I'm not shocked in the slightest you would put your faith in a lawyer who is that sloppy with the facts.

 

[SavannahMann]

So? Were there cops present when he was assaulted by the vigilante McMichaels?

You really need to educate yourself on the terms you use. Arbery assaulted McMichaels not the other way around.

If you really need yet another lesson in the law I'll be happy to provide it.

Actually. I live in Georgia. So chances are that I know the terms I am using. But I am not alone.

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

That is written by an experienced defense attorney in Georgia who has handled capital cases before. So what qualifications do you have? Are you a lawyer with experience in Georgia? Otherwise I do not think you are in a position to teach.

Its pretty clear you don't.

Let's review the law itself.

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 5 - CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
ARTICLE 2 - ASSAULT AND BATTERY
§ 16-5-20 - Simple assault
O.C.G.A. 16-5-20 (2010)
16-5-20. Simple assault


(a) A person commits the offense of simple assault when he or she either:

(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another; or

(2) Commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.

(b) Except as provided in subsections (c) through (h) of this Code section, a person who commits the offense of simple assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

(c) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault in a public transit vehicle or station shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. For purposes of this Code section, "public transit vehicle" means a bus, van, or rail car used for the transportation of passengers within a system which receives a subsidy from tax revenues or is operated under a franchise contract with a county or municipality of this state.

(d) If the offense of simple assault is committed between past or present spouses, persons who are parents of the same child, parents and children, stepparents and stepchildren, foster parents and foster children, or other persons excluding siblings living or formerly living in the same household, the defendant shall be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. In no event shall this subsection be applicable to corporal punishment administered by a parent or guardian to a child or administered by a person acting in loco parentis.

(e) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against a person who is 65 years of age or older shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

(f) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against an employee of a public school system of this state while such employee is engaged in official duties or on school property shall, upon conviction of such offense, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. For purposes of this Code section, "school property" shall include public school buses and stops for public school buses as designated by local school boards of education.

(g) Any person who commits the offense of simple assault against a female who is pregnant at the time of the offense shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature.

(h) Nothing in this Code section shall be construed to permit the prosecution of:

(1) Any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or person authorized by law to act on her behalf, has been obtained or for which such consent is implied by law;

(2) Any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child; or

(3) Any woman with respect to her unborn child.

For the purposes of this subsection, the term "unborn child" means a member of the species homo sapiens at any stage of development who is carried in the womb.



Now, go ahead and point to any part of that law based on the video where Arbury was assaulted.

I can easily point to where he was guilty of assault:

(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another;

Your thief is on video attacking McMichaels without anyone moving toward him or raising any weapon at him.


Go ahead, can't wait to see this dance

First, nothing was stolen. So my “thief” as you say, stole nothing. That kind of means he wasn’t stealing, and therefore was not a thief. But wait, there is more to consider.

He stole a 65 inch TV. He's a thief. Try having a clue about the history of the moron you are defending.

Yay, you can quote the text of the law.

Unlike you yes I can.

But the Courts decide what the law means, and how it is applied to cases. Those decisions are called Precedence. In Georgia, the precedence including decisions in the State Supreme Court means that the McMichaels are in a seriously deep pit of trouble.

So you are running once again from citing the part of the law with the video that backs you up. This is my shocked face you ran once again.

Here’s the thing about justification: you typically cannot raise it if you are the “aggressor” or if you “provoke the use of force” with the intent to use that force as an excuse. To use deadly force, the other person must pose a deadly risk.

So the big issue with the defendant’s case here is that they pointed guns at Arbery. We know this because, according to one District Attorney’s memo, the first shot went through Arbery’s hand as he was trying to grab the barrel. In Georgia, pointing a gun at someone is aggravated assault even if you had no intent to intimidate them.

LOL. The shot did not go through him until he attacked. There is ZERO video evidence of him firing before Arbery was on him. You are once again making up facts that don't exist.

The McMichaels will have to establish that they were in the middle of a lawful arrest when the assault began, and that will be difficult because they escalated force so quickly. Or they will have to establish that they made a “reasonable mistake of fact” that led them to believe their actions were justified. But that’s tricky, because their response was far from ordinary. Or they will have to show that it was reasonable to point weapons at an unarmed person in an effort to get him to stop — a ruling you would probably not want extended to muggers. So using precedence according to the aforementioned Experienced Defense Attorney who has argued capital cases on appeal before, the McMichaels don’t have much of a case. The chances are very very slim that they can prove the shooting was justified.

LOL They do not have to justify anything when your thief was the attacker. And you can't be in the middle of an arrest if you make no attempt to detain the person. Do you need a lesson in legal detainment as well in the law? I thought you pretended to understand law in Georgia. You keep proving you don't have a clue.

You like many others, start the dance of who committed what crime at the moment that Arbury is rounding the truck. Unfortunately the events start long before that. And those events mean that the McMichaels were the aggressors, and that is why they are charged in full compliance with the laws.

Because that is what we can see. You want to rely on nothing but fantasy and theory for justification with NO basis in the laws of self defense to support you and you prove it each time you run away from citing the actual law and action they took you can prove on video that supports you.

That's why you keep losing this debate.

Interesting. According to you I am losing the debate.

In spades. You run every time you are asked to quote the specific part of the law that justified Arbery's attack with video evidence of that law being broken and you can't do it.

According to lawyers in Georgia and the cops who just arrested the neighbor for being a part of this debacle. I am not losing. The trial will be the deciding factor. There all you internet experts are going to whip out your law degrees from Cracker Jack University and sweat it is all wrong.

LOL the fact you think an arrest means you are winning only amplifies how little you understand the law.

And when this gets to court you will see how wrong you are.

Perhaps I am wrong. But as I said the Lawyers say I am right.

The Ahmaud Arbery Killing and Georgia Law

Explaining the legal issues surrounding the incident of two white men shooting a black jogger they suspected of a crime

arcdigital.media

Unlike you this is an experienced Criminal Defense Attorney with several exonerations to his credit in Georgia Courts. Unlike you he is a licensed lawyer in the State of Georgia.

So my opinion is not based upon wishful thinking.

A big money Lawyer in Atlanta owns a big hunk of land down the road that he and his friends use as a hunting club. Since they occasionally come up the creek to my land, they let me use their target range to shoot. These folks are a big family with cousins everywhere in the County and State. The Cousin told me the Big Money Lawyer saw the same video the defenders say show the McMichaels being attacked and said those two boys are going to spend twenty years in prison if they don’t get a plea deal.

Ah. But what do they know. They are just Lawyers. It isn’t like they know anything about the law in Georgia. Not like you all who have probably never driven by a Law School.

That is part of the reason I have the opinion I have. The experts in the field say it was a crime.

You are quoting a lawyer who is dumb enough not to address the obvious that no arrest was ever attempted. He never bothered to explain how in that video any arrest was attempted.

He also ignores the reality that the gun was fired only after Arbery began his attack which makes lethal force justified. And there is no evidence that weapons were raised at this thief before he began his attack. Another fact your ambulance chaser conveniently leaves out.

But I'm not shocked in the slightest you would put your faith in a lawyer who is that sloppy with the facts.

The arrest was the intent of the pursuit. The McMichaels said to the police that they armed up and set off after Arbury. They said so on the phone. Greg said they called on Arbury to Stop. His exact words to the officer was “Stop, Stop, we want to talk to you”.

So yeah. It was an attempted arrest. Which is why the lawyer covered it pointing out it was an unlawful imprisonment.

Second. It can not be self defense. Under Georgia Law with the chasing if AA the McMichaels committed Aggravated Assault. When you are committing a Felony you can not claim self defense. So again it was covered.

Third. The Murder Charge. It can not be Manslaughter. For Manslaughter the action can not be a Felony. Aggravated Assault is a Felony. Even if you ignored the attempted illegal imprisonment which is also a Felony, then Manslaughter is not an option.

The problem is you want to view the incident from the point where Arbury starts around the truck. You have to start at the beginning. Not at the end. The last few seconds are not the whole story. The last few seconds are the result of a lot of bad decisions on the part of the McMichaels and illegal actions resulting from those decisions.

Even if AA had stopped and sat on the ground. The McMichaels would have committed not less than two felonies. Aggravated Assault. False Imprisonment. There is no legal justification for their effort to stop AA. The event starts minutes before AA decided to defend himself against an imminent attack. A right he had even if he had years earlier stolen a TV.

 

[JoeB131]

What Obama did was racist, and he it was wrong. Period

Are you like a special retard.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Is it ever OK for a white man to defend himself against a black man in the eyes of racist?

Are you talking to yourself now.

 

[Jitss617]

Is it ever OK for a white man to defend himself against a black man in the eyes of racist?

Are you talking to yourself now.

Do you have an answer? Do I as a white man have a right to defend myself against the black person? Using deadly force?