The painful truth about Ahmaud Arberry

[The Rabbi]

I don't see 12 jurors convicting these guys. And at then end of the day that is all that matters.

They absolutely will. I live here and without a change of venue they're done.

You live in Brunswick?

Yes. About 10 minutes or so from where the incident took place.

I drove by there the other day. We went to a place called Marshside Grill for dinner. It wasn't too bad...

Next time you're by here try Reid's on Newcastle St. I'd invite you to my bar but we just closed.

 

[Flash]

I hear the filthy Democrats are planning on renaming Ft Benning to Ft Arberry.

 

[Muhammed]

. Under Georgia Law the McMichaels had no legal authority to pursue and detain/arrest.

Can you show the USMB forum, any sort of evidence that either Travis McMichael or his father Gregory McMichael attempted to illegally detain/arrest Mr. Arbery?

If so, please share it with us.

Why did they chase him?

Because they recognized him from surveillance and Travis McMichael and Gregory McMichael had both seen him and dealt with him in the past

like I said he was a well-known local Petty Thief

But if he they didn't see him do anything wrong on THAT DAY, then pursuing him with firearms was illegal...

It's not illegal to try to talk to somebody nor is it illegal to carry a gun. It is illegal to physically attack somebody who is annoying you. Ask Sean Penn. He infamously did 30 days in the hole and had to take anger management classes for attacking an annoying reporter who was hounding him.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Richard Dial: ( 52:49 ) Well that’s correct, during the struggle is mere seconds after the first shot, his front of his shirt is saturated with blood. 26261355 Reply to 26260946

Magnified shadow of what looks to shouldered shotgun and it has already been fired once - hitting AA in the lower chest. If it is - the top of the shot gun logs to be at least for feet across the centerline and this is during TMs retreat.

I’m sure GBI has this analyzed and enhanced and I’ll bet they can determine with certainty that TMs back foot was a full truck length out in front of the bumper.

It shows me TM was the aggressor right up to when he shot AA for not stopping as he ran around the passenger side of the truck. It’s murder - not even close to self defense for idiot TM.

You can't tell jack shit from that shadow.

Obviously they were not a full truck length in front of the truck. I'm not sure why you are lying about that. But you are lying nonetheless.

From the video you linked to.

At 19 seconds into the video Forest Gump is not even on the pavement. He's on the shoulder of the road in a full sprint going straight at Travis who had retreated to the front of the truck to put the truck between himself and the criminal.

View attachment 437578

And at 20 seconds into the video Forest Gump is all the way across the center line and has knocked Travis backwards several feet.

View attachment 437582

This proves that AA was the aggressor.

You are an idiot simpleton. Because you think nothing happened between your video at 19 seconds and at 20 seconds.

If you don’t like TM’s shadow seen under the front bumper of the truck then watch for his hat. Halfway between your frames, or thereabouts, the shotgun blast is heard and TM’s white cap is seen right here:

I swear on TrumpQ’s Bible that white cap and that shadow are there and can be seen moving right to left if you slow it down and watch closely.

it means that what GBI investigators testified is true and why the charges against the white morons with guns will stick.

Here’s a transcript - The Altercation between AA is after the first shot. When TM was in front of the truck and before TM started backing up.

Ahmaud Arbery Trial Transcript: June 4 Preliminary Hearings - Rev

AFTER the first shot, again, you see a struggle between Travis McMichael and Mr. Arbery. During that struggle, Mr. Arbery, while he was wearing a white shirt during this incident, during that struggle, you see the front of his shirt is saturated with blood.​

​

Jesse Evans: ( 52:44 ) He’s already saturated blood before the struggle that you can see on the video?​

Richard Dial: ( 52:49 ) Well that’s correct, during the struggle is his front of his shirt is saturated with blood.​

​

Do you agree with GBI that AA is “already saturated in blood before the struggle that you can see on the video?” Here at your image if second 20.

If not what evidence do you have to the contrary?

 

[Desperado]

. Under Georgia Law the McMichaels had no legal authority to pursue and detain/arrest.

Can you show the USMB forum, any sort of evidence that either Travis McMichael or his father Gregory McMichael attempted to illegally detain/arrest Mr. Arbery?

If so, please share it with us.

Doesn't matter now, It is the Democratic mantra that they all live by now is "Black man good, white man evil". There is no way to change their thinking

 

[AMart]

I don't see 12 jurors convicting these guys. And at then end of the day that is all that matters.

They absolutely will. I live here and without a change of venue they're done.

The prosecution is trying to stack the jury with all blacks?

 

[Canon Shooter]

I don't see 12 jurors convicting these guys. And at then end of the day that is all that matters.

They absolutely will. I live here and without a change of venue they're done.

You live in Brunswick?

Yes. About 10 minutes or so from where the incident took place.

I drove by there the other day. We went to a place called Marshside Grill for dinner. It wasn't too bad...

Next time you're by here try Reid's on Newcastle St. I'd invite you to my bar but we just closed.

I go up there every so often. Reid's looks a tad more upscale than Marshside! We'll check it out!

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

So by your cowardly interpretation of the law if you see someone who committed a crime yesterday im not allowed to pursue them while holding a firearm?

It's my CORRECT interpretation of the law, shitstain.


Using your retarded view, if I see a video of you jaywalking yesterday, I can draw my sidearm and detain you for the police. That's the exact same argument you're making...

So if I see a Prowler who was staring through my daughter's bedroom window window at last night I'm not allowed to pursue him while holding a handgun if I see him peeking through my neighbors daughter's bedroom the next day??

Travis McMichael didn't witness any crime. That's what you're not getting through your thick skull. He saw someone who he thought was the same guy in a video he saw, but that's it and, no, under those circumstances he acted illegally.


Your position is basically this:


You're running down the street for exercise. I'm walking towards you, but on the other side of the street. When you're about 100 feet from me, you cross the street, never breaking gait, and are now running directly towards me. I feel threatened by this. Why would you cross the street? Are you going to attack me? Well, shit, I don't know, it would be stupid of me to wait until you actually attack me, right? And given that there's no reason that I'm aware of for you to cross the street, and you're still running at me, I draw my Kimber Ultra Carry II and send two .45 caliber hollowpoints into your chest, killing you.


According to you, I just acted completely lawfully...

if I ran at you and tried to grab your firearm it would be perfectly legal for you to shoot me

But by that time it would be too late. You running at me is enough for me to feel threatened and, according to you, I have the right to protect myself.


You'd end up with a hole in your back the size of Texas and, according to you, I was perfectly justified...

You'd have a case if he wasn't trying to grab the gun... just like Kyle RIttenhouse's attackers Ahmaud arbery was trying to forcibly disarm a man who did not have him cornered or trapped

If you're standing your ground it's perfectly reasonable to shoulder a gun when someone you had been chasing is now running directly at you because it's very reasonable that they mean to do you harm

All these cases are very circumstantial

if a little old lady is trying to forcibly disarm a 300lb Russian Judo champion he doesn't have the right to shoot her because it's unreasonable use of force but if an able-bodied man is trying to forcibly disarm another able-bodied man when he had ample opportunity to escape and no reason to believe he was facing imminent bodily harm it's not legitimate

If he had pulled that stunt the split second he saw Travis McMichaels gun perhaps he'd have a case but because he clearly saw an armed standing his ground about THIRTY YARDS in front of him and chose to run around a car and try to pull a 90-degree change of Direction sneak attack Ambush it's clear he didn't have an escape agenda

The fact that Travis McMichael did not shoot him at distance proves he was not trying to kill him and only had the rifle for personal protection

I would be screaming for murder charges just as loud as you if they had shot a fleeing man in the back ran him over with their truck or cornered him in a house with guns aimed directly at him but we have a simple case of a couple neighborhood watch jackasses making an overzealous attempt to detain someone they had immediate knowledge was a wanted criminal and that wanted criminal taking the most ridiculous aggressive and violent opportunity he had in front of himself

There's no excuse for this Behavior

it wasn't because he was black

it's because he was a mentally retarded Street criminal with a long celebrated record of crime and aggressive behavior who made a decision to run directly at two men who were standing their ground with Guns Over 30 yards away and attack them when he had multiple opportunities to escape, surrender or just keep on running

Arbery escalated the situation and used unnecessary and unreasonable Force when he rushed Travis McMichael and tried to beat the shotgun out of him

What the hell did he think he was going to accomplish?

 

[SavannahMann]

Now it is a matter of record that the McMichaels were committing two Felonies prior to the shooting.

Could you explain to the USMB forum, the convoluted reasoning that you used to come to that stupid conclusion?

In Atlanta I saw there were 10,000 Aggravated Assaults. That is where you wave a weapon or threaten someone with a weapon.

At what point in this video do you see anyone waving a weapon?



Is it before or after Arbery assaulted/battered and attempted to steal the shotgun (attempted robbery) from McMichael?

It is who committed the first crime. That would be the McMichaels. As I explained but you seem to refuse truth. Or facts. Or information.

the first criminal act was trespass
and the same person that committed the first criminal act of trespass is the first person that committed a violent act as well

the mcMichels were simply reacting to a trespasser in their neighborhood doing suspicious things

Only they had no legal authority to react to the trespasser other than call the cops. They had no authority to press charges. Someone has to. They had no legal authority to pursue. Detain. Any of it.

They were not good neighbors. They were vigilantes. They are felons. After the trial they will be convicted felons. And then they will be Inmates.

under your ridiculous and cowardly interpretation of law if you found a disheveled Prowler in your daughter's bedroom going through her underwear drawer it would be legal for you to even pursue him when he ran out the back door someone left open

Hopefully the people on the jury are not a bunch of sissy condo living freaks like you and understand how this type of law is applied throughout our history

You people would have let Richard Ramirez run off into the sunset because no one witnessed him but commit a felony before they ran him down and ended one of America's most horrible serial killers Reign of Terror

Let me see if perhaps we are starting to get through your nearly impenetrable skull. It is not my interpretation of the law. It is the State of Georgia’s. It is the result of the Courts examining hundreds of questions in thousands of cases. I am not a politician. I didn’t write the law. I’m not a lawyer. I didn’t argue the law. I am not a judge. I didn’t decide what the law meant and how it could be applied. Tens of thousands of people did all that long before the McMichaels set out on their now famous crime spree.

Here is the thing. You keep accusing me of letting criminals go. The reality is you are the one trying to let criminals go. You are standing on the side of the road holding up a sign that says we love Bonnie and Clyde.

In order for your ideals to be right in this case the Judge has to create a lot of law from the bench. Law that flies in the face of decades of precedence. He would have to change the laws on trespassing. Citizens arrest. Aggravated assault. And Felony Murder. All to let your three criminals go.

But you love you some Bonnie and Clyde.

Now the Jury is going to hear the testimony. Then before they go back and decide. They will have the law explained to them by the judge. The Jury will go back. They will talk it out and decide that yes. These three defendants did violate the law. And they will convict all three. Not because of some new law or never before considered question. But because the questions were already considered and decided.

And you will bemoan that Bonnie and Clyde are being held to account.

And when they are convicted of Felony Murder they will get at least Twenty Years. Because that is the mandatory minimum. The Judge will have no choice.

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

But by that time it would be too late. You running at me is enough for me to feel threatened and, according to you, I have the right to protect myself

you CANT shoot somebody who is simply running directly at you, you have to try to grab their weapon or hit them...arberry did BOTH

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

Now it is a matter of record that the McMichaels were committing two Felonies prior to the shooting.

Could you explain to the USMB forum, the convoluted reasoning that you used to come to that stupid conclusion?

In Atlanta I saw there were 10,000 Aggravated Assaults. That is where you wave a weapon or threaten someone with a weapon.

At what point in this video do you see anyone waving a weapon?



Is it before or after Arbery assaulted/battered and attempted to steal the shotgun (attempted robbery) from McMichael?

It is who committed the first crime. That would be the McMichaels. As I explained but you seem to refuse truth. Or facts. Or information.

the first criminal act was trespass
and the same person that committed the first criminal act of trespass is the first person that committed a violent act as well

the mcMichels were simply reacting to a trespasser in their neighborhood doing suspicious things

Only they had no legal authority to react to the trespasser other than call the cops. They had no authority to press charges. Someone has to. They had no legal authority to pursue. Detain. Any of it.

They were not good neighbors. They were vigilantes. They are felons. After the trial they will be convicted felons. And then they will be Inmates.

under your ridiculous and cowardly interpretation of law if you found a disheveled Prowler in your daughter's bedroom going through her underwear drawer it would be legal for you to even pursue him when he ran out the back door someone left open

Hopefully the people on the jury are not a bunch of sissy condo living freaks like you and understand how this type of law is applied throughout our history

You people would have let Richard Ramirez run off into the sunset because no one witnessed him but commit a felony before they ran him down and ended one of America's most horrible serial killers Reign of Terror

Let me see if perhaps we are starting to get through your nearly impenetrable skull. It is not my interpretation of the law. It is the State of Georgia’s. It is the result of the Courts examining hundreds of questions in thousands of cases. I am not a politician. I didn’t write the law. I’m not a lawyer. I didn’t argue the law. I am not a judge. I didn’t decide what the law meant and how it could be applied. Tens of thousands of people did all that long before the McMichaels set out on their now famous crime spree.

Here is the thing. You keep accusing me of letting criminals go. The reality is you are the one trying to let criminals go. You are standing on the side of the road holding up a sign that says we love Bonnie and Clyde.

In order for your ideals to be right in this case the Judge has to create a lot of law from the bench. Law that flies in the face of decades of precedence. He would have to change the laws on trespassing. Citizens arrest. Aggravated assault. And Felony Murder. All to let your three criminals go.

But you love you some Bonnie and Clyde.

Now the Jury is going to hear the testimony. Then before they go back and decide. They will have the law explained to them by the judge. The Jury will go back. They will talk it out and decide that yes. These three defendants did violate the law. And they will convict all three. Not because of some new law or never before considered question. But because the questions were already considered and decided.

And you will bemoan that Bonnie and Clyde are being held to account.

And when they are convicted of Felony Murder they will get at least Twenty Years. Because that is the mandatory minimum. The Judge will have no choice.

How come George Zimmerman isn't in jail?

 

[Desperado]

I don't see 12 jurors convicting these guys. And at then end of the day that is all that matters.

They absolutely will. I live here and without a change of venue they're done.

The prosecution is trying to stack the jury with all blacks?

Remember this is Georgia...

 

[AMart]

I don't see 12 jurors convicting these guys. And at then end of the day that is all that matters.

They absolutely will. I live here and without a change of venue they're done.

The prosecution is trying to stack the jury with all blacks?

Remember this is Georgia...

I doubt the Defense lawyers are going to let that happen. BTW in LA Garcetti did that in the OJ trial. He moved the case into the hood to stack the jury with blacks to get an acquittal to avoid a riot with a guilty verdict. Openly admitted it this on the ESPN series about OJ.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

It is illegal to physically attack somebody who is annoying you.

So when TM ran from behind the drivers side door so he could be closer to the passenger side in front of the truck in order to shoot AA if AA would not stop that was an attack and officially illegal according to you.

Well then since that is what happened before the scuffle for the shotgun / case closed / murder / life in prison.

 

[The Rabbi]

I don't see 12 jurors convicting these guys. And at then end of the day that is all that matters.

They absolutely will. I live here and without a change of venue they're done.

The prosecution is trying to stack the jury with all blacks?

They don't need to. The white people here are overwhelmingly appalled by the McMichaels.

 

[SavannahMann]

Now it is a matter of record that the McMichaels were committing two Felonies prior to the shooting.

Could you explain to the USMB forum, the convoluted reasoning that you used to come to that stupid conclusion?

In Atlanta I saw there were 10,000 Aggravated Assaults. That is where you wave a weapon or threaten someone with a weapon.

At what point in this video do you see anyone waving a weapon?



Is it before or after Arbery assaulted/battered and attempted to steal the shotgun (attempted robbery) from McMichael?

It is who committed the first crime. That would be the McMichaels. As I explained but you seem to refuse truth. Or facts. Or information.

the first criminal act was trespass
and the same person that committed the first criminal act of trespass is the first person that committed a violent act as well

the mcMichels were simply reacting to a trespasser in their neighborhood doing suspicious things

Only they had no legal authority to react to the trespasser other than call the cops. They had no authority to press charges. Someone has to. They had no legal authority to pursue. Detain. Any of it.

They were not good neighbors. They were vigilantes. They are felons. After the trial they will be convicted felons. And then they will be Inmates.

under your ridiculous and cowardly interpretation of law if you found a disheveled Prowler in your daughter's bedroom going through her underwear drawer it would be legal for you to even pursue him when he ran out the back door someone left open

Hopefully the people on the jury are not a bunch of sissy condo living freaks like you and understand how this type of law is applied throughout our history

You people would have let Richard Ramirez run off into the sunset because no one witnessed him but commit a felony before they ran him down and ended one of America's most horrible serial killers Reign of Terror

Let me see if perhaps we are starting to get through your nearly impenetrable skull. It is not my interpretation of the law. It is the State of Georgia’s. It is the result of the Courts examining hundreds of questions in thousands of cases. I am not a politician. I didn’t write the law. I’m not a lawyer. I didn’t argue the law. I am not a judge. I didn’t decide what the law meant and how it could be applied. Tens of thousands of people did all that long before the McMichaels set out on their now famous crime spree.

Here is the thing. You keep accusing me of letting criminals go. The reality is you are the one trying to let criminals go. You are standing on the side of the road holding up a sign that says we love Bonnie and Clyde.

In order for your ideals to be right in this case the Judge has to create a lot of law from the bench. Law that flies in the face of decades of precedence. He would have to change the laws on trespassing. Citizens arrest. Aggravated assault. And Felony Murder. All to let your three criminals go.

But you love you some Bonnie and Clyde.

Now the Jury is going to hear the testimony. Then before they go back and decide. They will have the law explained to them by the judge. The Jury will go back. They will talk it out and decide that yes. These three defendants did violate the law. And they will convict all three. Not because of some new law or never before considered question. But because the questions were already considered and decided.

And you will bemoan that Bonnie and Clyde are being held to account.

And when they are convicted of Felony Murder they will get at least Twenty Years. Because that is the mandatory minimum. The Judge will have no choice.

How come George Zimmerman isn't in jail?

George Zimmerman was in Florida. Not Georgia. You do know there are 50 states don’t you? You studied at least that in School didn’t you?

 

[AMart]

I don't see 12 jurors convicting these guys. And at then end of the day that is all that matters.

They absolutely will. I live here and without a change of venue they're done.

The prosecution is trying to stack the jury with all blacks?

They don't need to. The white people here are overwhelmingly appalled by the McMichaels.

Well that is the first question the Defense asks in jury selection and if they say yes or dance around the topic they get dismissed.

 

[Turtlesoup]

What sinks the argument that it was self defense is the sequence of events that led up to the shooting.

We covered this about thirty pages before. So let’s cover it one more time since it has slipped your memory.

Self Defense is allowed as a defense against criminal action. However, for it to be valid in the courts, in other words allowed by the Judge, the first thing you must do is not commit any crimes before the use of force. The McMichaels do not qualify. They committed two Felonies before the shooting. Not one, but two.

And of course you are lying. You have shown zero evidence that they committed any felonies before Travis was attacked by the criminal.

I don’t need to prove it. I am not a cop or prosecutor. However. They did prove it sufficiently for the Judge to agree the charges were valid, and sufficiently enough to deny them Bond.

So they are political prisoners. Does that get your rocks off?

Wut if day wuz trey n!ggers, nigga?

THINK!

They are accused of crimes. And I believe actually committed those crimes. Farther back in this thread I said something I will now repeat. I hope they get much better lawyers than they now have. Because as of now, their conviction is virtually certain. There is a slim chance they will be found Not Guilty. Very slim. But only if they approach the defense right.

of course they may take their defense cues from their moron supporters online which would result in their being sentenced to Life in the Electric Chair.

they are not Political Prisoners. They committed crimes. The video was the hearing. A criminal by definition is someone who commits crimes. The McMichaels committed crimes.

They deserve prison but a long prison sentence, would be an injustice.

Unfortunately that is not an option. Crime of Passion. Say when a husband is found in bed with his wife’s sister and the wife kills them both. Reduced sentence. But it has to be an immediate thing. Not ten minutes later after a long pursuit. So Manslaughter is out.

The penalty for Murder starts at 20 years. That is the minimum the Judge can sentence them to. Thank the tough on crime Conservatives for the mandatory minimums.

So life sentences are pretty much a given for Travis, the shooter and Daddy. Daddy because he is so old any sentence is life. Travis because he did the deed. Roddy might not get convicted of Murder. But he will still get half a dozen years for the other crimes.

They are charged with "Felony Murder" under GA law. Here is the statute.

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES :: CHAPTER 5 - CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON :: ARTICLE 1 - HOMICIDE :: § 16-5-1 - Murder; felony murder

law.justia.com

it's called malicious prosecution------

 

[The Rabbi]

I don't see 12 jurors convicting these guys. And at then end of the day that is all that matters.

They absolutely will. I live here and without a change of venue they're done.

The prosecution is trying to stack the jury with all blacks?

They don't need to. The white people here are overwhelmingly appalled by the McMichaels.

Well that is the first question the Defense asks in jury selection and if they say yes or dance around the topic they get dismissed.

They only get so many challenges.

 

[AMart]

I don't see 12 jurors convicting these guys. And at then end of the day that is all that matters.

They absolutely will. I live here and without a change of venue they're done.

The prosecution is trying to stack the jury with all blacks?

They don't need to. The white people here are overwhelmingly appalled by the McMichaels.

Well that is the first question the Defense asks in jury selection and if they say yes or dance around the topic they get dismissed.

They only get so many challenges.

I doubt that in your county 12 reasonable jurors, who will judge the case on evidence, can't be seated.