The painful truth about Ahmaud Arberry

[KingGUERRILLA]

Notice how all these cowards can't address this simple scenario with their cowardly interpretation of citizen's arrest requirements

You see a man covered in blood jumping out of your neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 in the morning who locks eyes with you and then flees in a panic

Under your cowardly interpretation of the law you're not allowed to even pursue this man much less detain him since you did not witness a felony!!!

 

[whutTHEYsay]

reply to 26290604

AA was unarmed, no threat,

View attachment 439477

In your top image AA has already been shot.

Yes. It is a fact that In your top image AA has already been shot.

AA had every right to take the gun from the ruthless ignorant vulgar slob of a man who demanded AA stop and when AA didn’t he shot him.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

You see a man covered in blood jumping out of your neighbors daughter's bedroom

The killers eye-witnessed no blood, no weapon on AA or saw AA jumping out of a Window.

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

reply to 26290604

AA was unarmed, no threat,

View attachment 439477

In your top image AA has already been shot.

Yes. It is a fact that In your top image AA has already been shot.

AA had every right to take the gun from the ruthless ignorant vulgar slob of a man who demanded AA stop and when AA didn’t he shot him.

What would have happened if Maud would have surrendered like a civilized human being in this photo?

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

You see a man covered in blood jumping out of your neighbors daughter's bedroom

The killers eye-witnessed no blood, no weapon on AA or saw AA jumping out of a Window.

True but they recognized the man from their personal interactions with him and the security camera footage so they knew exactly who they were dealing with and exactly what he was suspected of

The citizens of Southern California recognized Richard Ramirez from a photograph and we're legally allowed to run him down and detain him for the police

One day when you grow up and you have a husband a home and a property you'll have a different attitude about Street crime

If you see a man running from a woman's unconscious body clutching a purse your not allowed to detain him since you didn't witness a felony?

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

I wonder how many years in prison the social justice mob would demand for this man's criminal actions

After all he detained an individual who he did not witness commit a felony

SF Man Catches Prowler In The Act, Hangs Onto Him Until Police Arrive: SFist

The suspect appears to have used a garage door opener to enter the home.

sfist.com

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

Looks like we have another criminal detention on our hands...how many years in prison should this kid get for daring to stop a man who he did not witness commit a felony?

Redirect Notice

 

[Faun]

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

I got as far as this ...

* 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? ​

Seeing what you describe is nothing at all like the McMichaels' witnessed. They didn't see anyone exit a residence. They didn't see anyone with any evidence of a crime having been committed. They didn't see anyone suspiciously "lock eyes" then flee. And based on the events which actually occurred, according to Georgia law, they had no right to detail Aubrey.

§ 17-4-60

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.​

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

Look at this disgusting monster who beat the heck out of a man who just was looking around in his daughter's bedroom

he probably only wanted a drink of water

how many years in prison should this father get for attacking a poor innocent individual who had a health problem?

Redirect Notice

 

[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

I got as far as this ...

* 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? ​

Seeing what you describe is nothing at all like the McMichaels' witnessed. They didn't see anyone exit a residence. They didn't see anyone with any evidence of a crime having been committed. They didn't see anyone suspiciously "lock eyes" then flee. And based on the events which actually occurred, according to Georgia law, they had no right to detail Aubrey.

§ 17-4-60

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.​

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?

 

[Canon Shooter]

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

And from the looks of things, the prosecution is going to have a pretty easy time of doing exactly that...

 

[Canon Shooter]

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?

You continue with this idiocy.

Travis McMichael didn't see Arbery jumping out of anywhere...

 

[Faun]

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

I got as far as this ...

* 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? ​

Seeing what you describe is nothing at all like the McMichaels' witnessed. They didn't see anyone exit a residence. They didn't see anyone with any evidence of a crime having been committed. They didn't see anyone suspiciously "lock eyes" then flee. And based on the events which actually occurred, according to Georgia law, they had no right to detail Aubrey.

§ 17-4-60​

​

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.​

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?

According to that law, no. You'd have to have seen, or have immediate knowledge, that a felony was committed. I see nothing in that statute that allows for suspicion of a felony to detain someone.

That aside, again, your hypothetical still bears absolutely no resemblance to what actually occurred. The McMichaels didn't even see anything to make them suspicious that a felony had been committed. Travis McMichael saw nothing at all -- he was inside his residence. All Gregory McMichael saw was a guy jogging past his residence who he says he recognized being inside the house under construction in the past. Even that event they witnessed in the past doesn't satisfy § 17-4-60 because trespassing isn't a felony.

They had absolutely no legal recourse to detain Aubrey. And Aubrey had absolutely no obligation to stop for them. Once Travis exited his vehicle and pointed a shotgun at Aubrey, he already committed aggravated assault. At that point, if anything, Aubrey had the right to defend himself from an imminent threat to his life. The McMichaels' are fucked. And not in a good way.

 

[Muhammed]

reply to 26290604

AA was unarmed, no threat,

View attachment 439477

In your top image AA has already been shot.

Yes. It is a fact that In your top image AA has already been shot.

AA had every right to take the gun from the ruthless ignorant vulgar slob of a man who demanded AA stop and when AA didn’t he shot him.

What would have happened if Maud would have surrendered like a civilized human being in this photo?View attachment 439561

What I think would have happened is that the police who were only a minute or so away would have ran Arbery's ID and found out that he was on probation.

Larry English probably would have declined to prosecute Arbery for his trespass/burglary because he lives out of the county and it would be a bother. A waste of time.

Cops would have explained to Arbery that, whether he knows it or not, he has been menacing the neighborhood by prowling around at night and frequenting a vacant house, and that he is featured on several security camera videos that were posted on facebook and nextdoor.

Arbery would have said "I dindu it" and copped a nasty attitude.

Arbery would get out of jail Monday morning.

Arbery's probation officer would give him a stern warning and threaten to make him wear a GPS ankle monitor.

 

[Muhammed]

All Gregory McMichael saw was a guy jogging past his residence

That's complete bullshit.

According to multiple eye witnesses and the video evidence, Arbery was NOT jogging.

But apparently, due to your low IQ, the fake news media has easily convinced your feeble mind that he was jogging.

 

[SavannahMann]

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.

And the lawyer? Is the lawyers for Greg and Roddy both morons too?

 

[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?

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

Or charge towards someone with a shotgun shouting stop get on the ground?

Only a person who hates America would claim the McMichaels were innocent.

 

[Faun]

All Gregory McMichael saw was a guy jogging past his residence

That's complete bullshit.

According to multiple eye witnesses and the video evidence, Arbery was NOT jogging.

But apparently, due to your low IQ, the fake news media has easily convinced your feeble mind that he was jogging.

The same eyewitnesses who murdered him? He's seen on video jogging away from the house under construction.

 

[Muhammed]

All Gregory McMichael saw was a guy jogging past his residence

That's complete bullshit.

According to multiple eye witnesses and the video evidence, Arbery was NOT jogging.

But apparently, due to your low IQ, the fake news media has easily convinced your feeble mind that he was jogging.

The same eyewitnesses who murdered him? He's seen on video jogging away from the house under construction.

And of course you are simply lying again.

 

[Faun]

All Gregory McMichael saw was a guy jogging past his residence

That's complete bullshit.

According to multiple eye witnesses and the video evidence, Arbery was NOT jogging.

But apparently, due to your low IQ, the fake news media has easily convinced your feeble mind that he was jogging.

The same eyewitnesses who murdered him? He's seen on video jogging away from the house under construction.

And of course you are simply lying again.

Nope, there is surveillance video from the house across the street.