The painful truth about Ahmaud Arberry

[KingGUERRILLA]

You posted that guy who says that you dumb ass.

- eloquent as always

You are a liar when you say that because we don’t have video of the entire chase and no one can see on video the position of the shotgun when the first shot was fired

You can tell by the angle of the blast dumbass

 

[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?

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.

So you think it's illegal to detain someone who a former professional law enforcement agent knows (has immediate knowledge) is suspected in a felony crime?

At what point in the video do you believe you see Travis McMichael pointing a shotgun at maud?

So if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony?

"So you think it's illegal to detain someone who a former professional law enforcement agent knows (has immediate knowledge) is suspected in a felony crime?"

Fail. Arbery did not commit a felony by entering that property.

"At what point in the video do you believe you see Travis McMichael pointing a shotgun at maud?"

It's why they were charged with aggravated assault.

"So if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony?"

I don't know why you persist with that hypothetical scenario? Not only were you shown the law does not allow to detain someone because you think they may have committed a felony; but even worse, it bears zero resemblance to anything which occurred in this case.

In fact, that you keep referring to your hypothetical scenario instead of referring to the known facts of this case, you unwittingly confess you can't show any legal reason for the McMichaels to detain Arbery.

The reason you don't want to address my hypothetical scenario is because when you apply your cowardly interpretation of Georgia law to it your cowardly interpretation becomes clearly ridiculous

Law has to be applied across all similar cases it can't just be applied to your favorites in ways you deem favorable

You're suggesting that it was illegal for the McMichaels to pursue Maude because they did not witness him commit a felony in the state of Georgia

apply that ridiculous logic to this scenario and see how it shakes out

if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony in the state of GA

while you're at it review these cases and tell me how many years you think these Good Samaritans should spend in prison for illegally detaining the crooks

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


A Vermont grocery store worker was fired after stopping a purse snatcher who stole from an elderly woman


'Messed with the wrong family:' North Carolina dad fights back against secret peeper he found in child's bedroom

And you link to stories in other states. Thus proving you are ignorant about America.

So you're saying that Georgia has less aggressive criminal penalties than San Francisco?

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

by your cowardly interpretation of law what this man did is illegal

after all he did not witness this citizen commit a felony!!

how many years of prison do you want this San Francisco resident to receive for illegally detaining a citizen?

Since you hate America. Let me say this. Trespassing in Georgia isn’t a major deal. If Arbury rushed out of the house and the cops were there and Arbury had nothing on him that was stolen. Then the cops would have let him go. Because there is a sequence that has to be followed. And part of that Sequence would be English there to press charges.

So keep quoting your other state stories. Idiot. And I’ll keep mocking you.

so english was ok with him robbing his home?

dont think so sport!

English wasn’t there. So he couldn’t press charges for simple trespassing. Which is all Arbury did that day. So the police could not arrest him.

so in the American state of Georgia if I saw someone who committed a crime yesterday I couldn't detain them the next day.

they go by the hour?

LOL

 

[Muhammed]

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.

So you think it's illegal to detain someone who a former professional law enforcement agent knows (has immediate knowledge) is suspected in a felony crime?

At what point in the video do you believe you see Travis McMichael pointing a shotgun at maud?

So if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony?

"So you think it's illegal to detain someone who a former professional law enforcement agent knows (has immediate knowledge) is suspected in a felony crime?"

Fail. Arbery did not commit a felony by entering that property.

"At what point in the video do you believe you see Travis McMichael pointing a shotgun at maud?"

It's why they were charged with aggravated assault.

"So if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony?"

I don't know why you persist with that hypothetical scenario? Not only were you shown the law does not allow to detain someone because you think they may have committed a felony; but even worse, it bears zero resemblance to anything which occurred in this case.

In fact, that you keep referring to your hypothetical scenario instead of referring to the known facts of this case, you unwittingly confess you can't show any legal reason for the McMichaels to detain Arbery.

The reason you don't want to address my hypothetical scenario is because when you apply your cowardly interpretation of Georgia law to it your cowardly interpretation becomes clearly ridiculous

Law has to be applied across all similar cases it can't just be applied to your favorites in ways you deem favorable

You're suggesting that it was illegal for the McMichaels to pursue Maude because they did not witness him commit a felony in the state of Georgia

apply that ridiculous logic to this scenario and see how it shakes out

if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony in the state of GA

while you're at it review these cases and tell me how many years you think these Good Samaritans should spend in prison for illegally detaining the crooks

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


A Vermont grocery store worker was fired after stopping a purse snatcher who stole from an elderly woman


'Messed with the wrong family:' North Carolina dad fights back against secret peeper he found in child's bedroom

And you link to stories in other states. Thus proving you are ignorant about America.

So you're saying that Georgia has less aggressive criminal penalties than San Francisco?

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

by your cowardly interpretation of law what this man did is illegal

after all he did not witness this citizen commit a felony!!

how many years of prison do you want this San Francisco resident to receive for illegally detaining a citizen?

Since you hate America. Let me say this. Trespassing in Georgia isn’t a major deal. If Arbury rushed out of the house and the cops were there and Arbury had nothing on him that was stolen. Then the cops would have let him go.

The police would have stopped and questioned him and contacted Larry English. When they ran Arbery's name they would have found out that he was on probation for being a thief and took him to jail for up to 2 years.

That's why he fled the scene.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

You can tell by the angle of the blast dumbass

You can see AA grabbing the shotgun and punching TM above the shoulder by the angle of the blast? Explain that. You won’t provide a screen shot showing the first blast? Why all the secrets?

 

[whutTHEYsay]

bro, you can literally see the muzzle blast in the video I posted making it painfully clear what happened


lol @ shadow puppets

Why do you reject the shadows from the two men when they were both in front of the truck as helpful to determining what happened right before the first shut was fired .

 

[whutTHEYsay]

KingG First Shot Video post: 26299462,
KingGUERRILLA ’s First Shot Vudeo


If you learn the truth that AA was shot first and then reacts trying to get the gun away from TM will you admit that it was justified for AA to do so?

 

[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

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.

So you think it's illegal to detain someone who a former professional law enforcement agent knows (has immediate knowledge) is suspected in a felony crime?

At what point in the video do you believe you see Travis McMichael pointing a shotgun at maud?

So if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony?

"So you think it's illegal to detain someone who a former professional law enforcement agent knows (has immediate knowledge) is suspected in a felony crime?"

Fail. Arbery did not commit a felony by entering that property.

"At what point in the video do you believe you see Travis McMichael pointing a shotgun at maud?"

It's why they were charged with aggravated assault.

"So if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony?"

I don't know why you persist with that hypothetical scenario? Not only were you shown the law does not allow to detain someone because you think they may have committed a felony; but even worse, it bears zero resemblance to anything which occurred in this case.

In fact, that you keep referring to your hypothetical scenario instead of referring to the known facts of this case, you unwittingly confess you can't show any legal reason for the McMichaels to detain Arbery.

The reason you don't want to address my hypothetical scenario is because when you apply your cowardly interpretation of Georgia law to it your cowardly interpretation becomes clearly ridiculous

Law has to be applied across all similar cases it can't just be applied to your favorites in ways you deem favorable

You're suggesting that it was illegal for the McMichaels to pursue Maude because they did not witness him commit a felony in the state of Georgia

apply that ridiculous logic to this scenario and see how it shakes out

if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony in the state of GA

while you're at it review these cases and tell me how many years you think these Good Samaritans should spend in prison for illegally detaining the crooks

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


A Vermont grocery store worker was fired after stopping a purse snatcher who stole from an elderly woman


'Messed with the wrong family:' North Carolina dad fights back against secret peeper he found in child's bedroom

And you link to stories in other states. Thus proving you are ignorant about America.

So you're saying that Georgia has less aggressive criminal penalties than San Francisco?

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

by your cowardly interpretation of law what this man did is illegal

after all he did not witness this citizen commit a felony!!

how many years of prison do you want this San Francisco resident to receive for illegally detaining a citizen?

Since you hate America. Let me say this. Trespassing in Georgia isn’t a major deal. If Arbury rushed out of the house and the cops were there and Arbury had nothing on him that was stolen. Then the cops would have let him go. Because there is a sequence that has to be followed. And part of that Sequence would be English there to press charges.

So keep quoting your other state stories. Idiot. And I’ll keep mocking you.

so english was ok with him robbing his home?

dont think so sport!

English wasn’t there. So he couldn’t press charges for simple trespassing. Which is all Arbury did that day. So the police could not arrest him.

think they might get in touch with English about the incident?

he spent so much money on a security system it rang his phone whenever the cameras tripped

he had a representative like Diego respond

do you know who Diego is?

You mean Ring Cameras. Those are cheap pal. I’ve got six of them. I don’t call the cops every time one goes off. And I don’t press charges every time a neighbor walks across my acreage. Idiot.

 

[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

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.

So you think it's illegal to detain someone who a former professional law enforcement agent knows (has immediate knowledge) is suspected in a felony crime?

At what point in the video do you believe you see Travis McMichael pointing a shotgun at maud?

So if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony?

"So you think it's illegal to detain someone who a former professional law enforcement agent knows (has immediate knowledge) is suspected in a felony crime?"

Fail. Arbery did not commit a felony by entering that property.

"At what point in the video do you believe you see Travis McMichael pointing a shotgun at maud?"

It's why they were charged with aggravated assault.

"So if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony?"

I don't know why you persist with that hypothetical scenario? Not only were you shown the law does not allow to detain someone because you think they may have committed a felony; but even worse, it bears zero resemblance to anything which occurred in this case.

In fact, that you keep referring to your hypothetical scenario instead of referring to the known facts of this case, you unwittingly confess you can't show any legal reason for the McMichaels to detain Arbery.

The reason you don't want to address my hypothetical scenario is because when you apply your cowardly interpretation of Georgia law to it your cowardly interpretation becomes clearly ridiculous

Law has to be applied across all similar cases it can't just be applied to your favorites in ways you deem favorable

You're suggesting that it was illegal for the McMichaels to pursue Maude because they did not witness him commit a felony in the state of Georgia

apply that ridiculous logic to this scenario and see how it shakes out

if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony in the state of GA

while you're at it review these cases and tell me how many years you think these Good Samaritans should spend in prison for illegally detaining the crooks

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


A Vermont grocery store worker was fired after stopping a purse snatcher who stole from an elderly woman


'Messed with the wrong family:' North Carolina dad fights back against secret peeper he found in child's bedroom

And you link to stories in other states. Thus proving you are ignorant about America.

So you're saying that Georgia has less aggressive criminal penalties than San Francisco?

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

by your cowardly interpretation of law what this man did is illegal

after all he did not witness this citizen commit a felony!!

how many years of prison do you want this San Francisco resident to receive for illegally detaining a citizen?

Since you hate America. Let me say this. Trespassing in Georgia isn’t a major deal. If Arbury rushed out of the house and the cops were there and Arbury had nothing on him that was stolen. Then the cops would have let him go. Because there is a sequence that has to be followed. And part of that Sequence would be English there to press charges.

So keep quoting your other state stories. Idiot. And I’ll keep mocking you.

so english was ok with him robbing his home?

dont think so sport!

English wasn’t there. So he couldn’t press charges for simple trespassing. Which is all Arbury did that day. So the police could not arrest him.

so in the American state of Georgia if I saw someone who committed a crime yesterday I couldn't detain them the next day.

they go by the hour?

LOL

Now you are learning. That is exactly correct.

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

You can tell by the angle of the blast dumbass

You can see AA grabbing the shotgun and punching TM above the shoulder by the angle of the blast? Explain that. You won’t provide a screen shot showing the first blast? Why all the secrets?

Nobody can see exactly what happened on the other side of the truck but you can tell by the angle of the blast that Travis did not aim his shot but fired from the hip as you can clearly see the blast in the upper right portion of the screen moving in about a 45 degree angle

clearly Travis did not shoot an innocent jogger as he was moving past the vehicle or arbery would have been hit in the side of the body

Arbery made a 90-degree change of Direction and then moved in a skipping motion just before contact was made

This plus his hand injury is highly indicative that he was trying to grab the muzzle of the firearm and or strike Travis

either way it's perfectly reasonable for someone to pull the trigger when someone is attacking you

Perhaps your instincts would be to hand the rifle over and get down on your hands and knees to beg for forgiveness but any normal man would pull the trigger at that point because the criminal who was attacking you would then represent a deadly threat

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

bro, you can literally see the muzzle blast in the video I posted making it painfully clear what happened


lol @ shadow puppets

Why do you reject the shadows from the two men when they were both in front of the truck as helpful to determining what happened right before the first shut was fired .

All those ridiculous Shadows do is prove the Travis McMichael was on the left and arbery was on the right

Like I said you'd have a case if arberry moved past Travis McMichael and was shot in the back but that mentally retarded Street criminal attacked a man with a gun and then the man with the gun responded to his attack by pulling the trigger

There's no way your shadow puppets are going to be able to convince anyone that arberry was shot before he made his 90° change of Direction and any reasonable person would pull the trigger on a Shotgun If someone who they had been chasing made a 90-degree turn and came directly at them

He wasn't trying to hand Travis a flower

he wasn't trying to give Travis a hug

He was trying to forcibly extract a firearm from a man who was chasing him thus becoming a deadly threat

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

AA was shot first and then reacts trying to get the gun away from TM

if he were shot in the side or the back you may be able to convince a few people but every rational human being saw the video and knows that maud made the 90-degree turn and came directly at Travis McMichael hence was shot directly square in the chest as he grabbed for the firearm

Since Travis McMichael had a week load not designed to stop a human threat and hit shotgun Maude was able to continue his assault after sustaining a direct shotgun blast to the chest

Had Travis who was an experienced military operator planned to murder someone that day he would have had slugs loaded in the shotgun and blown a crater size hole in maud dropping him with one shot but instead it took 3 Point Blank shotgun blasts to stop the threat

What's really going to cause trouble for you is the fact that he was moving backwards throughout the entire assault and he immediately dropped his aim and stopped firing once Maude let go of the firearm

 

[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?

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.

So you think it's illegal to detain someone who a former professional law enforcement agent knows (has immediate knowledge) is suspected in a felony crime?

At what point in the video do you believe you see Travis McMichael pointing a shotgun at maud?

So if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony?

"So you think it's illegal to detain someone who a former professional law enforcement agent knows (has immediate knowledge) is suspected in a felony crime?"

Fail. Arbery did not commit a felony by entering that property.

"At what point in the video do you believe you see Travis McMichael pointing a shotgun at maud?"

It's why they were charged with aggravated assault.

"So if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony?"

I don't know why you persist with that hypothetical scenario? Not only were you shown the law does not allow to detain someone because you think they may have committed a felony; but even worse, it bears zero resemblance to anything which occurred in this case.

In fact, that you keep referring to your hypothetical scenario instead of referring to the known facts of this case, you unwittingly confess you can't show any legal reason for the McMichaels to detain Arbery.

The reason you don't want to address my hypothetical scenario is because when you apply your cowardly interpretation of Georgia law to it your cowardly interpretation becomes clearly ridiculous

Law has to be applied across all similar cases it can't just be applied to your favorites in ways you deem favorable

You're suggesting that it was illegal for the McMichaels to pursue Maude because they did not witness him commit a felony in the state of Georgia

apply that ridiculous logic to this scenario and see how it shakes out

if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony in the state of GA

while you're at it review these cases and tell me how many years you think these Good Samaritans should spend in prison for illegally detaining the crooks

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


A Vermont grocery store worker was fired after stopping a purse snatcher who stole from an elderly woman


'Messed with the wrong family:' North Carolina dad fights back against secret peeper he found in child's bedroom

And you link to stories in other states. Thus proving you are ignorant about America.

So you're saying that Georgia has less aggressive criminal penalties than San Francisco?

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

by your cowardly interpretation of law what this man did is illegal

after all he did not witness this citizen commit a felony!!

how many years of prison do you want this San Francisco resident to receive for illegally detaining a citizen?

Since you hate America. Let me say this. Trespassing in Georgia isn’t a major deal. If Arbury rushed out of the house and the cops were there and Arbury had nothing on him that was stolen. Then the cops would have let him go. Because there is a sequence that has to be followed. And part of that Sequence would be English there to press charges.

So keep quoting your other state stories. Idiot. And I’ll keep mocking you.

so english was ok with him robbing his home?

dont think so sport!

English wasn’t there. So he couldn’t press charges for simple trespassing. Which is all Arbury did that day. So the police could not arrest him.

think they might get in touch with English about the incident?

he spent so much money on a security system it rang his phone whenever the cameras tripped

he had a representative like Diego respond

do you know who Diego is?

You mean Ring Cameras. Those are cheap pal. I’ve got six of them. I don’t call the cops every time one goes off. And I don’t press charges every time a neighbor walks across my acreage. Idiot.

I guess if you were suffering repeated home intrusion burglaries you might call the cops heck Larry English was even calling the neighbors

the Satilla Shores Facebook page was lit up with people identifying mod as the primary suspect and a host of crimes in the neighborhood

even the cops told the neighborhood they can rely on the McMichaels

 

[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?

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.

So you think it's illegal to detain someone who a former professional law enforcement agent knows (has immediate knowledge) is suspected in a felony crime?

At what point in the video do you believe you see Travis McMichael pointing a shotgun at maud?

So if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony?

"So you think it's illegal to detain someone who a former professional law enforcement agent knows (has immediate knowledge) is suspected in a felony crime?"

Fail. Arbery did not commit a felony by entering that property.

"At what point in the video do you believe you see Travis McMichael pointing a shotgun at maud?"

It's why they were charged with aggravated assault.

"So if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony?"

I don't know why you persist with that hypothetical scenario? Not only were you shown the law does not allow to detain someone because you think they may have committed a felony; but even worse, it bears zero resemblance to anything which occurred in this case.

In fact, that you keep referring to your hypothetical scenario instead of referring to the known facts of this case, you unwittingly confess you can't show any legal reason for the McMichaels to detain Arbery.

The reason you don't want to address my hypothetical scenario is because when you apply your cowardly interpretation of Georgia law to it your cowardly interpretation becomes clearly ridiculous

Law has to be applied across all similar cases it can't just be applied to your favorites in ways you deem favorable

You're suggesting that it was illegal for the McMichaels to pursue Maude because they did not witness him commit a felony in the state of Georgia

apply that ridiculous logic to this scenario and see how it shakes out

if I see a disheveled individual climbing out of my neighbors daughter's bedroom window at 4 a.m. covered in blood who locks eyes with me and then flees in a panic I'm not allowed to pursue or detain him because I did not witness him commit a felony in the state of GA

while you're at it review these cases and tell me how many years you think these Good Samaritans should spend in prison for illegally detaining the crooks

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


A Vermont grocery store worker was fired after stopping a purse snatcher who stole from an elderly woman


'Messed with the wrong family:' North Carolina dad fights back against secret peeper he found in child's bedroom

And you link to stories in other states. Thus proving you are ignorant about America.

So you're saying that Georgia has less aggressive criminal penalties than San Francisco?

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

by your cowardly interpretation of law what this man did is illegal

after all he did not witness this citizen commit a felony!!

how many years of prison do you want this San Francisco resident to receive for illegally detaining a citizen?

Since you hate America. Let me say this. Trespassing in Georgia isn’t a major deal. If Arbury rushed out of the house and the cops were there and Arbury had nothing on him that was stolen. Then the cops would have let him go. Because there is a sequence that has to be followed. And part of that Sequence would be English there to press charges.

So keep quoting your other state stories. Idiot. And I’ll keep mocking you.

so english was ok with him robbing his home?

dont think so sport!

English wasn’t there. So he couldn’t press charges for simple trespassing. Which is all Arbury did that day. So the police could not arrest him.

so in the American state of Georgia if I saw someone who committed a crime yesterday I couldn't detain them the next day.

they go by the hour?

LOL

Now you are learning. That is exactly correct.

LOL
you think crimes dont count if you wait a few hours!!!
HAHAHAHA

you sound like the idiot who returned to the bank he had previously robbed

Redirect Notice

 

[whutTHEYsay]

ITS The Final Take Down reply to 26305410

if he were shot in the side or the back you may be able to convince a few people but every rational human being saw the video and knows that maud made the 90-degree turn and came directly at Travis McMichael hence was shot directly square in the chest as he grabbed for the firearm

You have never shown one lick of visual evidence that confirms at any point of the 1.1 seconds prior to the sound of the first shot being fired that AA ran past the front of the truck heading west and made an abrupt turn 90 degrees and began to run six feet straight at TM who was positioned ???? oh wait we don’t know exactly where TM was positioned when the first shot was fired because you refused to tell us where in relation to the truck, the front grill, the distance west of the bumper, the distance to the north or south of the clearest marker of them all for this purpose, the double yellow line. The DYL.

So let’s just stick to actual reality that is visible since I don’t have your super power ability to see through sheet metal, seat backs and engine compartments and front truck grills.

(1) This is the last split second visual of AA heading southwest assuming that the truck is facing due west. Do you agree.

(1a) That is not a 90 turn. It is a 45 turn heading southwest and we never see AA complete the turn to be heading south.
Do you agree? Muhammed you can chime in here too.

(1b) We have no visual evidence as to where exactly TM was positioned at the exact second that that AA is captured by Frame 1.

IF you know where TM was positioned at this exact moment in time please submit it because you are very vague on that while claiming that you know that TM was a short distance due south standing his ground with his weapon in a non-threatening hold. Without proof you claim TM was due South of AA thus requiring him to make the abrupt 90 turn and split second run heading straight south straight at TM before being shot.

Do you have any visual way to establish that AA had to head south before he was shot and there was no reason that would in fact physically prevent him on a wide open road from continuing to head in a southwest direction?

Please take your time before you respond and have video evidence for your claims instead of knee jerk conjecture and get over your obsessive ifear of shadows.

(2) Faun ‘s image when the first shot was fired showing two separate shadows that move from right to left as the action transpires

 

[Muhammed]

(2) Faun ‘s image when first shot was fired showing to separate shadows that move from right to left as the action transpiresView attachment 440577

That's not when the first shot was fired, jackass.

You are simply lying again.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

(2) Faun ‘s image when first shot was fired showing to separate shadows that move from right to left as the action transpiresView attachment 440577

That's not when the first shot was fired, jackass.

You are simply lying again.

Give me your visual frame where you think it was. Then we can all agree on one unless you are being absurd as usual.

I’ll insert yours into this exercise if it’s close because it really doesn’t matter because AA did not run east to the front of the truck and make an abrupt 90 degree turn, run south to attack a stationary TM standing his ground somewhere close to the truck and south of the DYL.

So let’s see your screenshot again.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

(2) Faun ‘s image when first shot was fired showing to separate shadows that move from right to left as the action transpiresView attachment 440577

That's not when the first shot was fired, jackass.

You are simply lying again.

Here are the movements the shadows

Which one do you hear the first shot?

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

ITS The Final Take Down reply to 26305410

if he were shot in the side or the back you may be able to convince a few people but every rational human being saw the video and knows that maud made the 90-degree turn and came directly at Travis McMichael hence was shot directly square in the chest as he grabbed for the firearm

You have never shown one lick of visual evidence that confirms at any point of the 1.1 seconds prior to the sound of the first shot being fired that AA ran past the front of the truck heading west and made an abrupt turn 90 degrees and began to run six feet straight at TM who was positioned ???? oh wait we don’t know exactly where TM was positioned when the first shot was fired because you refused to tell us where in relation to the truck, the front grill, the distance west of the bumper, the distance to the north or south of the clearest marker of them all for this purpose, the double yellow line. The DYL.

So let’s just stick to actual reality that is visible since I don’t have your super power ability to see through sheet metal, seat backs and engine compartments and front truck grills.

(1) This is the last split second visual of AA heading southwest assuming that the truck is facing due west. Do you agree.

View attachment 440560
(1a) That is not a 90 turn. It is a 45 turn heading southwest and we never see AA complete the turn to be heading south.
Do you agree? Muhammed you can chime in here too.

(1b) We have no visual evidence as to where exactly TM was positioned at the exact second that that AA is captured by Frame 1.

IF you know where TM was positioned at this exact moment in time please submit it because you are very vague on that while claiming that you know that TM was a short distance due south standing his ground with his weapon in a non-threatening hold. Without proof you claim TM was due South of AA thus requiring him to make the abrupt 90 turn and split second run heading straight south straight at TM before being shot.

Do you have any visual way to establish that AA had to head south before he was shot and there was no reason that would in fact physically prevent him on a wide open road from continuing to head in a southwest direction?

Please take your time before you respond and have video evidence for your claims instead of knee jerk conjecture and get over your obsessive ifear of shadows.

(2) Faun ‘s image when first shot was fired showing to separate shadows that move from right to left as the action transpiresView attachment 440577

Nobody runs at two people who they're afraid of without an intention to attack them

Your Best Shot is to suggest that mauds mental retardation and exposure to BLM propaganda caused him to panic at the sight of a white man with a firearm and attack him rather than take the multiple opportunities he had to escape, surrender or just keep on running

perhaps if your criminal hero was stuck in a dark alley with men on either side you might have a case but because he's out in the middle of a wide open road with wide-open acreage in the middle of the day confronting two men who are on the phone with 911 it's pretty obvious who the aggressor was under these circumstances

they weren't even chasing him anymore they were standing their ground when he closed on their position from a football field length and attacked them

it's even plausible that he planned to murder both his pursuers because he knew he had been identified

in order to legally attack someone you have to have no reasonable means of escape and actually be cornered

if a black guy holding a gun in a low position ran up to me and asked me what I was doing trespassing in broad daylight while he was on the phone in front of Witnesses it would not be legal for me to punch him in the throat because I was scared of his Blackness or his gun

 

[Canon Shooter]

in order to legally attack someone you have to have no reasonable means of escape and actually be cornered

Travis McMichael had primary control of the shotgun when Arbery tried to grab it.

According to you, instead of McMicael allowing Arbery to get close enough to grad the barrel of the shotgun, he (McMichael) should've run, since he had plenty of space and opportunity. He had a reasonable means of escape and he was not cornered.

Travis McMichael acted unlawfully...

 

[KingGUERRILLA]

in order to legally attack someone you have to have no reasonable means of escape and actually be cornered

Travis McMichael had primary control of the shotgun when Arbery tried to grab it.

According to you, instead of McMicael allowing Arbery to get close enough to grad the barrel of the shotgun, he (McMichael) should've run, since he had plenty of space and opportunity. He had a reasonable means of escape and he was not cornered.

Travis McMichael acted unlawfully...

maude did something illegal giving the mcmichels probable cause to persue him then closed on and attacked a man standing his ground just like travon Martin

once someone STOPS CHASING YOU its unreasonable to run them down and attack

a man who is not threatening you and standing his ground is not legally attackable

nobody pointed a gun at or even tried to grab maude

he had no legal right to attack and did so because he was nutz

he was diagnosed as hearing voices just prior to the incident

you idiots are trying to defend a criminal with severe mental health issues

i can give him a pass for the suicide charge considering his history but that dosent "negate" the mcmichels right to defend themselves