The painful truth about Ahmaud Arberry

[KingGUERRILLA]

That law is written for people who are trying to lock suspects inside of rooms and blocking their ability to move down a Corridor like a hallway or an ally

Show us where in the statute that says “That law is written for people who are trying to lock suspects inside of rooms and blocking their ability to move down a corridor like a hallway or an ally”

Anyway in this case a corridor is a public with private property on both sides.

as if he was somehow reticent to enter someone else's private property in order to escape certain death at the hands of the murderous McMichaels

LOL

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

you're suggesting he was emotionally inprisoned by his fear

You Are a liar. I’m saying that the three armed thugs interfered with AAs liberty to travel on a public street. Nothing
more nothing less. That is a felony in the actual words of the statute.

so basically your argument is he was "emotionally detained"

let's do a hypothetical here...
Let's just say instead of trying to punch Travis in the throat while forcibly dislodging his firearm maud stood his ground and explained himself like a civilized citizen

Would the cops have arrested the McMichaels for false imprisonment after arriving just a few moments later?

Hasn't it ever dawned on you that by your cowardly interpretation of Georgia law you're not allowed to detain someone who has committed an act giving you reasonable suspicion that they are in commission of a felony?

if you catch a disheveled man rummaging through your teenage daughter's underwear drawer while she's fast asleep in bed and he panics jumping out your window the moment you notice him you're not allowed to detain him because you did not witness him commit a felony?

How about if you walk around the corner of a city street and you see a woman laying on the ground unconscious and a man running from her body clutching a purse.... you're not allowed to detain him because you did not witness a felony?

You witness a man crawling out of your neighbor's window covered in blood at 4 am and he locks eyes with you then flees in a panic... you're not allowed to detain him because you did not witness him commit a felony?

 

[SavannahMann]

No prison need for false imprisonment felony
Reply to 26286493

you can't commit false imprisonment in the middle of the road the person

if you are blocking a persons path of travel and restricting their freedom to leave a neighborhood ....you are commiting this simple and straightforward felony in Georgia

False Imprisonment - O.C.G.A. § 16-5-41
A person commits the offense of false imprisonment when, in violation of the personal liberty of another, he arrests, confines, or detains such person without legal authority.
False Imprisonment Explained
Georgia's false imprisonment law is one of the more straight forward crimes in the state. In that the language of the law is simple and there is little confusion as to what it means. Essentially, any time a person keeps, holds, or prevents someone from leaving somewhere against their will, then they may be charged with False Imprisonment.

False Imprisonment Attorney | Newnan, GA

A Newnan false imprisonment attorney could fight on your behalf if you've been accused, arrested, or charged in the Newnan, GA area.

www.jryanbrownlaw.com

Thanks for yet another example of you being an utterly incompetent brain dead goon spewing meaningless hate trash on a message board.

you're suggesting he was emotionally inprisoned by his fear because no one put a hand on him and someone stopping their car in front of you out in the middle of a road it's not even the vaguest form of imprisonment... nobody even grabbed his shirt or anyting

That law is written for people who are trying to lock suspects inside of rooms and blocking their ability to move down a Corridor like a hallway or an ally

Besides I already took you to school on the Escape clause
"To be convicted of false imprisonment in Georgia, the State must demonstrate that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That includes showing that the accused had the intent to confine the victim and that there were no reasonable means of escape"

False Imprisonment | Georgia Criminal Lawyer

www.georgiacriminallawyer.com

you can't imprison someone you didn't even touch standing out in the middle of the road in the middle of the day while on the phone with the police

at the absolute most it's attempted detainment which is a far cry from actual imprisonment and in no way shape form or fashion should elicit a violent reaction from the person who is being detained

Arbery tried to punch Travis in the throat because he didn't want to talk to the cops not because he was afraid that these two men were finally going to shoot him after ignoring the three hundred chances they had prior

By your cowardly interpretation of the law if I was standing on the sidewalk in front of someone I suspected of committing a felony and told them "stop the police are on their way" I would be committing a felony by detaining them LOL

They could simply walk right around me and keep on moving just like Maud could have done with the McMichaels

he just ran around both their trucks four or five times without getting shot, there's no reason for him to expect the sixth or seventh time they would open fire

Your whole premise is forensically disproved by the fact that all the shots that entered a ahmad's body were from the front

If Travis had shot him while he was innocently jogging by the front of the truck and he responded to the attack by rushing Travis he would have been shot in the side of his body...particularly the left side of his body

Help me out here. I don’t understand something. You keep saying that our cowardly interpretation of the law would result in this or that. The problem is that we did not arrest the McMichaels. We did not convince the Judge or Grand Jury to issue the warrants and indictments. We did not decide that there was sufficient evidence to go forward or that they should not get bail.

The State Investigators convinced the judge to issue the warrants. The DA convinced the Grand Jury to indict them. The DA convinced the Judge there was sufficient evidence. To continue and that Bail was not warranted.

That was based upon the interpretation you deride as not legal. That interpretation is based on previous decisions by other judges around the State. That interpretation was based upon Appeals Court decisions that considered not only Georgia law but the Constitution and Federal Law.

These interpretations you detest have been argued many times before. The law in Georgia is what it is. Blaming the messenger is idiotic. But you do. You shriek that we are cowards for knowing what is legal in our state. And what is not.

The McMichaels and Roddy are facing the same laws that others have been convicted for. They are facing the same interpretations that others have been convicted by. And this is not fair to you. Anyone who says that’s the law is a coward.

Watch the Preliminary hearing. It is very informative. The lawyers for Greg and Roddy are not arguing that the law wasn’t broken. They aren’t arguing that the actions were legal. They aren’t even arguing that it was justified. They are arguing that it is all Travis’s fault and he broke the law and you can’t blame my client for his criminal actions.

When the Defense Attorney is saying one of the three defendants is totally guilty but my guy isn’t. Well. That means that the interpretation you denounce so regularly is well known in the legal community. When two thirds of the defense attorneys are pointing fingers at the third and saying he did it you can’t blame me for it. Well. I guess the Attorneys know that they’re guilty too.

Everyone knows. Almost everyone. I guess I should say everyone but you and a small group who refuses to learn. But hey. A vast majority know it including folks who live in Georgia.

So this cowardly interpretation you deride and denounce and blame on us is apparently known to everyone involved too. So let me ask you just one question. Just one.

How the hell did I manage to convince every member of the legal and law enforcement community that this outrageous interpretation with no basis in law according to you, is the way to go?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

let's do a hypothetical here...
Let's just say instead of trying to punch Travis in the throat while forcibly dislodging his firearm maud stood his ground and explained himself like a civilized citizen

Don’t need that bullshit hypothetical that there was a physical struggle for the gun before AA was shot inb the chest.

I realize that you can see through sheet metal, car seats and an engine compartment but I can’t. So for that split second when the first shot was fired I will take the prosecutions assessment of what was going on. I know this fact - both men cannot be seen because the truck blocks our view. But we know that both men were in fact in front of the truck when the first shot hit AA the chest.

Prosecution says AA was shot first and then fought.

And you have no evidence to contradict what they are saying.

AA was unarmed, no threat, and he was never dealing with civilized men for the entire 7 minute chase and their felonies attempts to catch him.

 

[Muhammed]

Maude, tell me about the 65" TV...

...or I'll crush your head

With your attitude, I bet you don't even live another 5 years, Arbery!

 

[Muhammed]

let's do a hypothetical here...
Let's just say instead of trying to punch Travis in the throat while forcibly dislodging his firearm maud stood his ground and explained himself like a civilized citizen

Don’t need that bullshit hypothetical that there was a physical struggle for the gun before AA was shot inb the chest.

I realize that you can see through sheet metal, car seats and an engine compartment but I can’t. So for that split second when the first shot was fired I will take the prosecutions assessment of what was going on. I know this fact - both men cannot be seen because the truck blocks our view.

The benefit of the doubt should go to the defendant.

He does not have to prove his innocence, the prosecution has to prove him guilty.

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

No prison need for false imprisonment felony
Reply to 26286493

you can't commit false imprisonment in the middle of the road the person

if you are blocking a persons path of travel and restricting their freedom to leave a neighborhood ....you are commiting this simple and straightforward felony in Georgia

False Imprisonment - O.C.G.A. § 16-5-41
A person commits the offense of false imprisonment when, in violation of the personal liberty of another, he arrests, confines, or detains such person without legal authority.
False Imprisonment Explained
Georgia's false imprisonment law is one of the more straight forward crimes in the state. In that the language of the law is simple and there is little confusion as to what it means. Essentially, any time a person keeps, holds, or prevents someone from leaving somewhere against their will, then they may be charged with False Imprisonment.

False Imprisonment Attorney | Newnan, GA

A Newnan false imprisonment attorney could fight on your behalf if you've been accused, arrested, or charged in the Newnan, GA area.

www.jryanbrownlaw.com

Thanks for yet another example of you being an utterly incompetent brain dead goon spewing meaningless hate trash on a message board.

you're suggesting he was emotionally inprisoned by his fear because no one put a hand on him and someone stopping their car in front of you out in the middle of a road it's not even the vaguest form of imprisonment... nobody even grabbed his shirt or anyting

That law is written for people who are trying to lock suspects inside of rooms and blocking their ability to move down a Corridor like a hallway or an ally

Besides I already took you to school on the Escape clause
"To be convicted of false imprisonment in Georgia, the State must demonstrate that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That includes showing that the accused had the intent to confine the victim and that there were no reasonable means of escape"

False Imprisonment | Georgia Criminal Lawyer

www.georgiacriminallawyer.com

you can't imprison someone you didn't even touch standing out in the middle of the road in the middle of the day while on the phone with the police

at the absolute most it's attempted detainment which is a far cry from actual imprisonment and in no way shape form or fashion should elicit a violent reaction from the person who is being detained

Arbery tried to punch Travis in the throat because he didn't want to talk to the cops not because he was afraid that these two men were finally going to shoot him after ignoring the three hundred chances they had prior

By your cowardly interpretation of the law if I was standing on the sidewalk in front of someone I suspected of committing a felony and told them "stop the police are on their way" I would be committing a felony by detaining them LOL

They could simply walk right around me and keep on moving just like Maud could have done with the McMichaels

he just ran around both their trucks four or five times without getting shot, there's no reason for him to expect the sixth or seventh time they would open fire

Your whole premise is forensically disproved by the fact that all the shots that entered a ahmad's body were from the front

If Travis had shot him while he was innocently jogging by the front of the truck and he responded to the attack by rushing Travis he would have been shot in the side of his body...particularly the left side of his body

Help me out here. I don’t understand something. You keep saying that our cowardly interpretation of the law would result in this or that. The problem is that we did not arrest the McMichaels. We did not convince the Judge or Grand Jury to issue the warrants and indictments. We did not decide that there was sufficient evidence to go forward or that they should not get bail.

The State Investigators convinced the judge to issue the warrants. The DA convinced the Grand Jury to indict them. The DA convinced the Judge there was sufficient evidence. To continue and that Bail was not warranted.

That was based upon the interpretation you deride as not legal. That interpretation is based on previous decisions by other judges around the State. That interpretation was based upon Appeals Court decisions that considered not only Georgia law but the Constitution and Federal Law.

These interpretations you detest have been argued many times before. The law in Georgia is what it is. Blaming the messenger is idiotic. But you do. You shriek that we are cowards for knowing what is legal in our state. And what is not.

The McMichaels and Roddy are facing the same laws that others have been convicted for. They are facing the same interpretations that others have been convicted by. And this is not fair to you. Anyone who says that’s the law is a coward.

Watch the Preliminary hearing. It is very informative. The lawyers for Greg and Roddy are not arguing that the law wasn’t broken. They aren’t arguing that the actions were legal. They aren’t even arguing that it was justified. They are arguing that it is all Travis’s fault and he broke the law and you can’t blame my client for his criminal actions.

When the Defense Attorney is saying one of the three defendants is totally guilty but my guy isn’t. Well. That means that the interpretation you denounce so regularly is well known in the legal community. When two thirds of the defense attorneys are pointing fingers at the third and saying he did it you can’t blame me for it. Well. I guess the Attorneys know that they’re guilty too.

Everyone knows. Almost everyone. I guess I should say everyone but you and a small group who refuses to learn. But hey. A vast majority know it including folks who live in Georgia.

So this cowardly interpretation you deride and denounce and blame on us is apparently known to everyone involved too. So let me ask you just one question. Just one.

How the hell did I manage to convince every member of the legal and law enforcement community that this outrageous interpretation with no basis in law according to you, is the way to go?

Lots of people have been arrested due to public outrage and then exonerated in a court of law... Never heard of George Zimmerman?

in fact it happens all the time in our country especially since the BLM characters have been able to spin these ridiculous narratives for crowdfunding dollars and a couple influential celebrities parrot back their BS

 

[whutTHEYsay]

The benefit of the doubt should go to the defendant.

You’ve been saying as if it’s a fact beyond a shadow of a doubt that you’ve seen the video evidence that shows AA attacking TM before he was shot. That is impossible to say that you can see it. It is therefore a lie. It is a lie intended to vilify the victim who is dead.

He cannot tell us what happened. That’s why those of us who have respect for the law and the need for justice must speak out against jerks like you telling lie after lie to desecrate a Young black man who should not be dead.

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

AA was unarmed, no threat,

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

most men are cowards that's why the average person who views these types of situations is perfectly comfortable with the notion that a citizen should never interfere with a Criminal under any circumstances but American law makes exceptions for citizens to take criminals under arrest who they have Reasonable Suspicion have committed a felony... this has been a tenet of English common law from time immemorial

* noticed none of the people defending Maude can answer the simple scenario questions

If you see a man covered in blood jumping out of your neighbor's window at 4 in the morning who Locks eyes with you and then flees in a panic are you allowed to detain him?

if you were walking around the corner and you noticed a man running from a woman's unconscious body while holding a purse are you allowed to detain him?

If you notice a disheveled man rummaging through your daughter's underwear drawer while she's fast asleep in her bed are you allowed to detain him?

In all three of these cases it's perfectly reasonable for you to detain these individuals because you have reasonable suspicion that they have committed a serious crime

A coward's interpretation of the law is that you must witness someone commits a felony in order for you to be allowed to detain them and probable cause is insufficient

When viewing one particular example it's understandable how people could get their wires crossed about the law so you have to bounce your interpretation up against a few other real-world scenarios in order to understand its validity

If I see a creepy disheveled individual staring through my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 in the morning who notices me and then panics running and jumping over The Back Fence it should be perfectly legal for me to arm myself pursue him and detain him for law enforcement because Americans have the right to defend their life liberty and property and this right certainly extends to their neighborhood as it is part of their "village" and everybody knows if you allow crime to flourish across the street it will eventually invade your home also

 

[Muhammed]

American law makes exceptions for citizens to take criminals under arrest who they have Reasonable Suspicion have committed a felony

Neither you, nor anyone else in this thread, has provided even a shred of evidence to show that Travis McMichael ever attempted to arrest Arbery.

 

[SavannahMann]

most men are cowards that's why the average person who views these types of situations is perfectly comfortable with the notion that a citizen should never interfere with a Criminal under any circumstances but American law makes exceptions for citizens to take criminals under arrest who they have Reasonable Suspicion have committed a felony... this has been a tenet of English common law from time immemorial

* noticed none of the people defending Maude can answer the simple scenario questions

If you see a man covered in blood jumping out of your neighbor's window at 4 in the morning who Locks eyes with you and then flees in a panic are you allowed to detain him?

if you were walking around the corner and you noticed a man running from a woman's unconscious body while holding a purse are you allowed to detain him?

If you notice a disheveled man rummaging through your daughter's underwear drawer while she's fast asleep in her bed are you allowed to detain him?

In all three of these cases it's perfectly reasonable for you to detain these individuals because you have reasonable suspicion that they have committed a serious crime

A coward's interpretation of the law is that you must witness someone commits a felony in order for you to be allowed to detain them and probable cause is insufficient

When viewing one particular example it's understandable how people could get their wires crossed about the law so you have to bounce your interpretation up against a few other real-world scenarios in order to understand its validity

If I see a creepy disheveled individual staring through my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 in the morning who notices me and then panics running and jumping over The Back Fence it should be perfectly legal for me to arm myself pursue him and detain him for law enforcement because Americans have the right to defend their life liberty and property and this right certainly extends to their neighborhood as it is part of their "village" and everybody knows if you allow crime to flourish across the street it will eventually invade your home also

And if Georgia operated under English Common Law you would be arrested for disdain for those in authority. Then again. We would have fought a duel over your insults before now.

But let’s talk law. Lots of things have changed. Restrictions on the actions of the citizenry is of course obviously relevant.

One of those restrictions is who can effect a citizens arrest. And under what circumstances they can get involved. The reason behind this is that in history there were yahoo idiots running around dispensing “Justice”. The citizens got tired of those idiots. And the legislature passed laws making the practice illegal.

Under Georgia Law which has been in effect for decades the power of arrest is severely restricted. Old English whatever don’t mean shit. Under that law Larry English could have placed Arbury under arrest. Maybe. His designated employee or representative could. Maybe. But neighbors had no such authority.

The law specifically states this in precedence. The Winn Dixie case as one example. That decision from 1992 states that the victim of a crime has the right and responsibility to effect an arrest. No one else has the responsibility or authority. If they do then the one effecting the arrest is breaking the law.

The McMichaels broke this law. Roddy Broke this law. Their attorneys admit this. Roddy’s attorney says Roddy did not know the pursuit and attempt to stop was illegal. He believed the McMichaels were acting within the law. So Roddys attorney says that Roddys actions should be excused because he was acting in good faith.

Let me repeat that. Roddy’s attorney says that the McMichaels were breaking the law. He admits that Roddy did too. But that Roddy should be excused because he had no way of knowing the McMichaels were acting in a criminal manner.

Here there is a ton of precedence. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Greg’s attorney says that it was Travis who broke the law. Again not denying the law was broken. Just pointing the finger of blame at Travis.

The only people who are claiming they did not break the law is Travis’s attorney. Who is grasping at straws. And you.

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

American law makes exceptions for citizens to take criminals under arrest who they have Reasonable Suspicion have committed a felony

Neither you, nor anyone else in this thread, has provided even a shred of evidence to show that Travis McMichael ever attempted to arrest Arbery.

One can successfully argue in court that ordering someone to stop fleeing a crime scene is in fact an arrest

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

most men are cowards that's why the average person who views these types of situations is perfectly comfortable with the notion that a citizen should never interfere with a Criminal under any circumstances but American law makes exceptions for citizens to take criminals under arrest who they have Reasonable Suspicion have committed a felony... this has been a tenet of English common law from time immemorial

* noticed none of the people defending Maude can answer the simple scenario questions

If you see a man covered in blood jumping out of your neighbor's window at 4 in the morning who Locks eyes with you and then flees in a panic are you allowed to detain him?

if you were walking around the corner and you noticed a man running from a woman's unconscious body while holding a purse are you allowed to detain him?

If you notice a disheveled man rummaging through your daughter's underwear drawer while she's fast asleep in her bed are you allowed to detain him?

In all three of these cases it's perfectly reasonable for you to detain these individuals because you have reasonable suspicion that they have committed a serious crime

A coward's interpretation of the law is that you must witness someone commits a felony in order for you to be allowed to detain them and probable cause is insufficient

When viewing one particular example it's understandable how people could get their wires crossed about the law so you have to bounce your interpretation up against a few other real-world scenarios in order to understand its validity

If I see a creepy disheveled individual staring through my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 in the morning who notices me and then panics running and jumping over The Back Fence it should be perfectly legal for me to arm myself pursue him and detain him for law enforcement because Americans have the right to defend their life liberty and property and this right certainly extends to their neighborhood as it is part of their "village" and everybody knows if you allow crime to flourish across the street it will eventually invade your home also

And if Georgia operated under English Common Law you would be arrested for disdain for those in authority. Then again. We would have fought a duel over your insults before now.

But let’s talk law. Lots of things have changed. Restrictions on the actions of the citizenry is of course obviously relevant.

One of those restrictions is who can effect a citizens arrest. And under what circumstances they can get involved. The reason behind this is that in history there were yahoo idiots running around dispensing “Justice”. The citizens got tired of those idiots. And the legislature passed laws making the practice illegal.

Under Georgia Law which has been in effect for decades the power of arrest is severely restricted. Old English whatever don’t mean shit. Under that law Larry English could have placed Arbury under arrest. Maybe. His designated employee or representative could. Maybe. But neighbors had no such authority.

The law specifically states this in precedence. The Winn Dixie case as one example. That decision from 1992 states that the victim of a crime has the right and responsibility to effect an arrest. No one else has the responsibility or authority. If they do then the one effecting the arrest is breaking the law.

The McMichaels broke this law. Roddy Broke this law. Their attorneys admit this. Roddy’s attorney says Roddy did not know the pursuit and attempt to stop was illegal. He believed the McMichaels were acting within the law. So Roddys attorney says that Roddys actions should be excused because he was acting in good faith.

Let me repeat that. Roddy’s attorney says that the McMichaels were breaking the law. He admits that Roddy did too. But that Roddy should be excused because he had no way of knowing the McMichaels were acting in a criminal manner.

Here there is a ton of precedence. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Greg’s attorney says that it was Travis who broke the law. Again not denying the law was broken. Just pointing the finger of blame at Travis.

The only people who are claiming they did not break the law is Travis’s attorney. Who is grasping at straws. And you.

well I said American law was based on English common law not that it was English common law and I never said the McMichaels broke no laws whatsoever but the shooting was justified

You believe that Maud was justified using deadly force to resist a citizen's arrest because he was scared

So by your cowardly interpretation of the law if I catch a Prowler staring through my daughter's bedroom window at 4 in the morning and confront him it would be legal for him to punch me in the throat because he was scared.

LOL

if I see a man running away from a woman's unconscious body it would be illegal for me to detain him since I didn't witness a felony according to your cowardly interpretation of law

 

[SavannahMann]

most men are cowards that's why the average person who views these types of situations is perfectly comfortable with the notion that a citizen should never interfere with a Criminal under any circumstances but American law makes exceptions for citizens to take criminals under arrest who they have Reasonable Suspicion have committed a felony... this has been a tenet of English common law from time immemorial

* noticed none of the people defending Maude can answer the simple scenario questions

If you see a man covered in blood jumping out of your neighbor's window at 4 in the morning who Locks eyes with you and then flees in a panic are you allowed to detain him?

if you were walking around the corner and you noticed a man running from a woman's unconscious body while holding a purse are you allowed to detain him?

If you notice a disheveled man rummaging through your daughter's underwear drawer while she's fast asleep in her bed are you allowed to detain him?

In all three of these cases it's perfectly reasonable for you to detain these individuals because you have reasonable suspicion that they have committed a serious crime

A coward's interpretation of the law is that you must witness someone commits a felony in order for you to be allowed to detain them and probable cause is insufficient

When viewing one particular example it's understandable how people could get their wires crossed about the law so you have to bounce your interpretation up against a few other real-world scenarios in order to understand its validity

If I see a creepy disheveled individual staring through my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 in the morning who notices me and then panics running and jumping over The Back Fence it should be perfectly legal for me to arm myself pursue him and detain him for law enforcement because Americans have the right to defend their life liberty and property and this right certainly extends to their neighborhood as it is part of their "village" and everybody knows if you allow crime to flourish across the street it will eventually invade your home also

And if Georgia operated under English Common Law you would be arrested for disdain for those in authority. Then again. We would have fought a duel over your insults before now.

But let’s talk law. Lots of things have changed. Restrictions on the actions of the citizenry is of course obviously relevant.

One of those restrictions is who can effect a citizens arrest. And under what circumstances they can get involved. The reason behind this is that in history there were yahoo idiots running around dispensing “Justice”. The citizens got tired of those idiots. And the legislature passed laws making the practice illegal.

Under Georgia Law which has been in effect for decades the power of arrest is severely restricted. Old English whatever don’t mean shit. Under that law Larry English could have placed Arbury under arrest. Maybe. His designated employee or representative could. Maybe. But neighbors had no such authority.

The law specifically states this in precedence. The Winn Dixie case as one example. That decision from 1992 states that the victim of a crime has the right and responsibility to effect an arrest. No one else has the responsibility or authority. If they do then the one effecting the arrest is breaking the law.

The McMichaels broke this law. Roddy Broke this law. Their attorneys admit this. Roddy’s attorney says Roddy did not know the pursuit and attempt to stop was illegal. He believed the McMichaels were acting within the law. So Roddys attorney says that Roddys actions should be excused because he was acting in good faith.

Let me repeat that. Roddy’s attorney says that the McMichaels were breaking the law. He admits that Roddy did too. But that Roddy should be excused because he had no way of knowing the McMichaels were acting in a criminal manner.

Here there is a ton of precedence. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Greg’s attorney says that it was Travis who broke the law. Again not denying the law was broken. Just pointing the finger of blame at Travis.

The only people who are claiming they did not break the law is Travis’s attorney. Who is grasping at straws. And you.

well I said American law was based on English common law not that it was English common law and I never said the McMichaels broke no laws whatsoever but the shooting was justified

You believe that Maud was justified using deadly force to resist a citizen's arrest because he was scared

So by your cowardly interpretation of the law if I catch a Prowler staring through my daughter's bedroom window at 4 in the morning and confront him it would be legal for him to punch me in the throat because he was scared.

LOL

if I see a man running away from a woman's unconscious body it would be illegal for me to detain him since I didn't witness a felony according to your cowardly interpretation of law

Actually that is not what anyone has said. Let me again point out you are not discussing anything similar to the situation of the McMichaels.

I posted this before. Here we go again.



That woman shot at the intruders in HER home. Nobody charged her with Disturbing the Peace much less any other crimes. She killed one. Nobody even considered charging her. What is the difference?

For your scenario to be similar let’s make it so. Your neighbor whom you can’t see from your house has someone inside. Maybe. You see a guy running down the street. You decide this individual is up to no good and set off in pursuit. You have no evidence he has committed any crimes that day much less moments before. You chase him down and shoot him.

If you find someone in your house. You would be fine shooting them just as the woman in the video was. However. That was nothing like the McMichaels. They decided to be thug vigilantes and their lawyers acknowledge that fact. The lawyers admit they broke the law.

Your silly claims are nothing like what happened. And you know it. You are just too stubborn to admit you are wrong.

 

[SavannahMann]

Let me ask you this. I believe you are a drug dealer. You are dealing out of your house. Why can’t I kick your door in and enter the house shooting because I know you are a drug dealer? You are a criminal. I am certain. If the McMichaels chasing a man they had no evidence of committing a crime is fine why not allow people to kick in doors and enter the house shooting? What is the difference between the crimes the McMichaels committed and what I describe? Are you going to claim criminals should be safe in their homes?

 

[Muhammed]

The McMichaels broke this law. Roddy Broke this law. Their attorneys admit this. Roddy’s attorney says Roddy did not know the pursuit and attempt to stop was illegal. He believed the McMichaels were acting within the law. So Roddys attorney says that Roddys actions should be excused because he was acting in good faith.

Let me repeat that. Roddy’s attorney says that the McMichaels were breaking the law. He admits that Roddy did too. But that Roddy should be excused because he had no way of knowing the McMichaels were acting in a criminal manner.

Here there is a ton of precedence. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Roddy is a moron.

Cop: He actually exits outta the passenger side, goes to the front of the truck with a handgun.

Roddy: mmm hmmm..

Cop: At some point, the gentleman...

Roddy:... I didn't see him get out the truck but he had to get outta the passenger side, OK go ahead.

Raw video 3: Body cam from Ahmaud Arbery shooting , William "Roddie" Bryan speaking to police. - YouTube

Just the tiniest little suggestion from the cop made Roddy agree with the cop that GM got exited from the passenger side and went around to the front of the truck.

However, we know from the video evidence that the elder McMichael certainly did not get out of the passenger side and go around to the front of the truck. He was actually standing in the bed of the truck talking on the phone with the police dispatcher, then clambered over the tailgate at the rear of the truck and went around to the driver's side of the truck.

That shows that Roddy is extremely suggestible. A clear sign of low intelligence.

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

The McMichaels broke this law. Roddy Broke this law. Their attorneys admit this. Roddy’s attorney says Roddy did not know the pursuit and attempt to stop was illegal. He believed the McMichaels were acting within the law. So Roddys attorney says that Roddys actions should be excused because he was acting in good faith.

Let me repeat that. Roddy’s attorney says that the McMichaels were breaking the law. He admits that Roddy did too. But that Roddy should be excused because he had no way of knowing the McMichaels were acting in a criminal manner.

Here there is a ton of precedence. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Roddy is a moron.

Cop: He actually exits outta the passenger side, goes to the front of the truck with a handgun.

Roddy: mmm hmmm..

Cop: At some point, the gentleman...

Roddy:... I didn't see him get out the truck but he had to get outta the passenger side, OK go ahead.

Just the tiniest suggestion from the cop made Bryan agree with him that GM got out of the passenger side and went around to the front of the truck, in a split second.

We know from the video evidence that the elder McMichael certainly did not get out of the passenger side and go around to the front of the truck. He was actually standing in the bed of the truck talking on the phone with the police dispatcher, then clambered over the tailgate of he truck and went around to the driver's side of the truck.

That shows that Roddy is extremely suggestible. A clear sign of low intelligence.

anyone can make a minor mistake in a interview under stress however the information they give right after the incident is usually more reliable than the information they give after they've been threatened with death and have lawyers whispering in their ear

They mcMichaels and Roddy are all three morons to be certain but their intentions were good and had Maude surrendered like a civilized citizen he would be in jail and they would be neighborhood Heroes because Larry English would be perfectly happy pressing charges since he wouldn't have a BLM Target on his back without the death of this mentally retarded Street Criminal

Remember Larry English called his buddy Diego to catch Maude the same night that Travis had his encounter with the prowler who happened to look exactly like arberry

Larry English is a worthless sniveling piece of human filth whose cowardness is likely to send these men to jail because he doesn't have the guts to admit that he was asking the whole neighborhood to help catch arbery and sharing his photo all over social media to that effect

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

Let me ask you this. I believe you are a drug dealer. You are dealing out of your house. Why can’t I kick your door in and enter the house shooting because I know you are a drug dealer? You are a criminal. I am certain. If the McMichaels chasing a man they had no evidence of committing a crime is fine why not allow people to kick in doors and enter the house shooting? What is the difference between the crimes the McMichaels committed and what I describe? Are you going to claim criminals should be safe in their homes?

you're such a silly drama queen

you're not allowed to kill somebody because their Criminal just like you're not allowed to kill somebody simply because they are fleeing from you

they have to threaten you with great bodily harm

IE run toward you grab your firearm and start punching you in the face

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

You chase him down and shoot him.

you forgot the part where he attacked you

that happens to be the integral part

... coincidence I think not