Discussion in 'United States' started by superbadbrutha, Apr 29, 2020.
Except Travis didn’t see him running.
Doesn’t matter, they are in the process of a plea.
Greg started this, Travis was in the house and Greg ran and grab him and his gun and they had not seen any footage. The neighbor who had seen the footage wasn't a part of this murder.
Is that why you keep focusing on Arbery because he is black, I notice you don't even acknowledge the white burglars.
What previous incidents? Travis saw someone one in the night, so your assessment is false yet again.
If a frog had a glass ass it would break everytime he jumps, since there was white burglars why wouldn't it stand to reason they had stolen the gun.
Please post where they had watched the footage, why do you keep making up trash to fit your anti-black narrative. Travis saw SOMEONE at night, he doesn't know if it was Arbery another false admission.
Then again, surely Greg McMichael was bound to have worked with the staties and feds too at some stage? Point is it's not a run of the mill 'murder', there are other factors here, this isn't a domestic murder or gang killing, there are shades of grey here. It's not corruption, there's no bribery or theft here. My point on Robocop is an example of the only truly independent judge/juror/police officer, until we get computer judges the human factor will always influence things.
It all boils down to what we consider reasonable. I consider their actions reasonable and would have done the same in their position, by contrast I certainly can't say the same of Arbery. If I was on the jury I wouldn't see that as assault but I certainly would see Arbery punching Travis and trying to wrest his gun off him.
Sure, sure Lionel Hutz, we're sure you have a law practice in the dumpster behind the Delaware traffic court. Saved Hilary Clinton's dentures from the hobgoblins and everything. We're sure because an ACTUAL lawyer would really have you opinions.
Or we could just be civil and stop sniping at one another?
We'll see about the collision, my issue is the palm print, if they hit him that wouldn't be there, if he lashed out it would be. But we'll see what the forensics and Bryan say happened.
He was Superman or more accurately Doomsday, to fight off 4 men and laugh off a taser twice, no wonder they thought he was dusted, once he stopped resisting they stopped hitting and peacefully took him into custody, he has no one but himself to blame. Koon goes into great detail about it, LAPD is verbals followed by hand to hand, non lethals (taser/CS) then batons then firearms (Koon actually stopped the chippie who'd started the chase who was advancing on King with her sidearm drawn).
Occam's razor says no such thing, conspiracy is always the last resort. Reiders retracted his testimony and Martz explained the inconsistencies perfectly. Gerdes and Henry Lee both admitted there was no evidence of contamination under cross examination. The defence had to drum up police conspiracy theories because there was not alternative to explain the mountain of evidence against OJ. Unfortunately Furman's racism fatally undermined the prosecution.
Yes Stone did, unequivocally but so have a great many people from the other side of the political spectrum and they didn't get 29 FBI agents with assault rifles and armoured vehicles turning up to arrest them live on CNN? That's the issue and it seems to be the same with Flynn, the cop in the Wendy's shooting and General Flynn.
True but he did see him fleeing the scene of the previous incidents and correctly surmised he'd done it again. Now you will say "Oh, but he didn't know he was correct" and you'd be right in strictly legal terms but consider the jury, they will be influenced.
I have sympathy with Spacey, he was obviously a closet case for a long time and now is whatever you call the gay equivalent of a womaniser. The allegations against him were weak to say the least, the main accuser's refusal to surrender his phone destroyed the case. Much like MJ, certainly not PBARD and must be considered innocent.
On the previous occasion, check my link.
Yes they had, the previous footage had been circulated. The white burglars are irrelevant, they can't chase people they didn't see, they did see Arbery. They were repeated burglaries by Arbery and others over months as you yourself have pointed out. I'm sure if they'd seen the white suspects they'd have taken their weapons too.
My anti-black narrative? Playing the race card is a sign of desperation, I think you'll find everyone's stock of white guilt exhausted and that you can't play the victim any more. He didn't know it was Arbey but he resembled the suspect, he only needs RGTS.
Prove it, please provide that info.
They are irrelevant because they didn't want to see them.
The homeowner says that is not true.
Again nothing but your opinion, nothing to back it up with.
I am talking on facts and all you are coming with is your opinion. You never posted anything to back up that trash you are posting, it is just amazing how they can identify a man they hadn't seen, but according to you the white burglars are irrelevant because they never saw them. What a load of horse hockey.
You've provided them yourself, McMichael thought he resembled the description of one of the suspects caught on CCTV, Travis had a previous encounter and other people had spoken about it. What do you base that on? Apart from your prejudice? Homeowner says there was nothing stolen, don't need that for burglary. Why wouldn't they have pursued the other suspects? We don't disagree on the facts, we disagree on the interpretation and what should be considered reasonable. Yes, they never saw the white suspects so they could hardly pursue them, they did see Arbery, why can't you understand that? True, you are posting horse hockey, just give up your prejudice, I guarantee you the scales will fall from your eyes like Saul on the road to Damascus.
I haven't provided anything saying they had looked at any videos.
You can't grab your gun and chase someone down on what you thought.
He saw someone and what other people?
Think about what you just said, you are more concerned about some else's home than they are? I think not. Also if nothing is stolen that is trespassing not burglary and since NOTHING WAS EVER TAKEN prove his intent was to take something.
They were white.
Facts are not interpreted.
You claim they saw the tapes, so how did they see Arbery and not the whites who illegally entered the property?
Facts back up what I believe, I have posted facts in my arguments we are all waiting on you to do the same. You keep claiming events or things that never happened.
The thing about that is you can simply check his record and put someone he hasn't worked with on the case. Done. That's exactly what was not done in the initial appointments. Which is why the state had to step in. He hasn't worked with the states and feds assigned to investigate him.
It is a run of the mill murder, the only reason its news is the corruption. Come off it. The corruption being the 2 DAs violating their ethical duties and not recusing themselves and not bringing charges.
You wouldn't make it on a jury dude. You'd be excluded for cause with less than 3 minutes of questioning. The fact that you can't properly answer the jury questions that will be put to you are proof enough. Travis has exactly zero legal excuse for his actions. There is no provision in the citizen's arrest statute for following your Daddy because he says he needs a posse.
And yet I still have my bar card, despite your doubt. But no one believes you
I'm being civil, as stated previously.
If you hit someone with your car its entirely possible they end up with a palm on the car. What color is the sky on your planet?
See prelim hearing, Bryan already gave a statement. He hit Arbery with his car while attempting to box Arbery in. This is one of the reasons I can't take you seriously. We've been discussing the preliminary hearing since it came out and its still abundantly clear you've neither watched the video nor read a transcript of its contents.
Dude, I've watched the tape. He's not moving and they keep hitting him, turning him to burger.
How would the blood preservative make it into the blood at the scene then? What explanation would be more simple, beyond the only entity with access who is also the offering party of the tainted evidence putting it there? Did the blood preservative compound sprout legs and wander over and spill itself only in OJs drops at the scene? Was this magic blood preservative compound?
Yes Stone did.... full stop. You don't get to perjure yourself and then bitch when you catch a case. Saying but what about just means those people deserve the same treatment, not that Stone didn't do anything to merit punishment. Its like when I say I want Hillary locked up for putting classified information on non-gov email servers and people say "but Ivanka Trump does it to": Lock that bitch up in the cell with her for all I care.
I saw the commercials he released on the subject. In my opinion he did it, and that's all I've said. The accuser probably didn't want to release all his personal data to someone with an ax to grind who has tampered with witnesses before. He's probably got family phone numbers, nudes of himself etc in there. Texts with lovers that are likely incredibly graphic etc. Not to mention that numerous victims of sexual assault or domestic abuse often won't ever make it to court. They file reports and no show on day of, **** like that. Part of the damage done to such a person is to their will itself, and often they never recover.
There are several plausible explanations more than just: Must have been bullshit. This is to be contrasted with the events in the OJ case we've discussed about blood preservative compound making it into samples at the scene.
As to Michael Jackson: Are you saying you don't think he was diddling kids? Because he had life size little kid sex toy dolls, dressed up, in a secret room with a child sized entrance, and had sleep overs with vulnerable children. The man had a ****ing ferris wheel in his back yard. His house is like a pedophiles wet dream, perfectly suited to luring children and their parents.
He pretty obviously did that ****.
Travis not only saw the suspect himself and the incidents were discussed around the neighbourhood but circulated on their social media;
You can on what you reasonably suspect and that is what is going to be the issue in court, will the jury consider their actions reasonable given the prior events, Arbery's appearance and behaviour. No, trespassing with intent to steal is burglary, you don't need to actually take anything. For the umpteenth time they didn't chase the other suspects because they never saw them, that is the fact and therefore not open to interpretation.
Corruption would involve financial gain or other benefit, that's not the case here, you may mean malpractice? (you'd think if you really were an advocate you'd know the difference). Them not bringing charges is not malpractice, they just had a different opinion. They didn't consider themselves not to be impartial or even appear that way. This was not a run of the mill murder, gang members/drug dealers killing one another over turf, crime of passion, bar fight, death during rioting or robbery etc, these were 3 men trying to detain a suspected burglar with differing opinions over what constituted probable cause and self defence. I would also say how far do you go in terms of independence, who could you find who hadn't had any contact with an officer who'd served 20 years in various different units? Should James Comey, a man appointed as assistant Attorney General by the Clinton administration and FBI director by the Obama administration be allowed to investigate Hilary Clinton over her emails? I think people are unhappy with their decisions so kept swapping prosecutors until they got one who suited their opinions and appeased the mob (much like the appalling double jeopardy in the King prosecutions).
No, I wouldn't make a jury, my profession means I wouldn't be allowed to. Travis has plenty of justification, any jury would think to themselves "Yeah, I would have done the same in that position", who would let their father go to challenge an armed burglar and refuse to accompany them? That would be like a member of shop staff calling to a security guard to stop a shoplifter and the guard would refuse because he hadn't witnessed it himself?
Well, I'm sure you have your Perry Mason fan club card but I don't think anyone believes you...dude. I on the other hand have my warrant card, commendations, medals, training qualifications, long term injuries, low burning rage etc etc
Or we could just stop sniping at one another and keep it civil? And civil does not mean you getting a last dig in at me and me not responding as you seem to assume? Dude! (honestly I feel like I'm debating with Bill and Ted?).
Well, today it's sort of blue and white? I've investigated hundreds of RTCs (one investigation I took part in whilst a trainer actually got an award) and I've never seen a hand print. It makes more sense that Bryan headed Arbery off at the pass and Arbery lashed out in frustration at being unable to get away before the police came. My problem is the nature of Dial's testimony, obviously he is trying to put the prosecution's case in the best possible light but much of it is just opinion, Dial saying it was self defence by Arbery, that it was the result of racial bias that they pursued him etc
Yes but he's also not surrendering, when he stops resisting him they stop hitting him, then they can handcuff him. Remember not only did they have King's violent behaviour but still didn't know if he had weapons on him. Again, read Koon's book.
Marcia Clark described the defence's claims over the blood evidence as a smokescreen. Even Gerdes, the defence's hired gun (a pretty poor choice as he was exposed as having virtually no relevant experience) said three of the blood samples were undoubtedly valid hence why the whole police frame up conspiracy was advanced. The presence of EDTA does not actually suggest conspiracy or malpractice, it occurs in fast food and OJ had McDonalds earlier that evening, the levels in the blood samples weren't actually above normal, the FBI agent brought in as an expert witness actually tested his own blood and got the same results to prove his point. Essentially this was just the defence trying to muddy the waters which is perfectly understandable.
In fairness Ivanka was new at the job and her material wasn't classified, Hilary Clinton was First Lady and Secretary of State for over a decade. Also, much like Nixon it's the cover up that is the disquieting part of this not to mention the strange behaviour of the FBI in regards to the investigation. You know it's not that I think that they didn't ALL do something wrong to a greater or lesser degree, no "Lock her up" or other nonsense, it's that some people get prosecuted and some don't, some folks have 29 FBI agents armed with rifles sent to arrest them and face dying in jail despite being 67 and having no criminal record or firearms whilst others are just invited to interviews and the FBI arbitrarily decide not to press charges.
Commercials? Commercials for what? Who the heck was sponsoring Spacey whilst he was under indictment? Yes, social media evidence has altered the entire nature of rape prosecutions, convictions are about 2% these days, nearly 60% of complainants drop their allegations rather than proceed because of it. But at the same time we have had case after case where social media trawls does bring up exculpatory evidence so it is a necessary evil. My problem with the Spacey case is that the accuser is a young buck in his 20s who claims he was sexually assaulted for half an hour by a 60 year old Spacey in a crowded bar and couldn't fight him off the entire time which sounds frankly unlikely. I think this would never have happened except that he was caught up in the wake of the Weinstein affair.
No one is saying MJ wasn't a grade A weirdo as so many great entertainers seem to be, I'm not sure owning a Ferris Wheel necessarily makes a man guilty? But the case against him is so far from proven it's laughable, the accusers at his trial were such a pack of blatant shysters whilst the accusers now either lied for decades before telling the truth or are lying now. Jackson is dead and unable to defend himself, the case is certainly not PBARD and therefore I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Since everything is blacked out, how do we know those posts don't come from the McMichaels and one other guy.
This is not a lighter skinned man. Now that we have established that. How could you see tattoos on a dark skinned man at night?
You can't see any tattoos on him in broad daylight, so how would you see that at night.
The problem is going to be, the description given by Travis doesn't fit Arbery and Greg McMichael is the one who started the encounter and he didn't see Arbery.
So the next question is how do you know his intent was to steal since he NEVER stole anything but a drink of water. Why was none of the white burglars ever arrested or questioned, was their intent to steal as well.
Sure they saw them, you claimed they looked at the videos. So how is it they always saw Amaud, but they never saw any of these white burglars. Nobody with common sense is going to buy that garbage.
Rob if you were these guys lawyer, they would be getting the needle.
They came from before the shooting, from English who owned the house and set up the camera. As for 'light skinned' that's all a question of comparison, Halle Berry to Barry White, tatts wouldn't be that visible and can be temporary or removed, Arbey was in the house on previous occasions and he certainly fits the description in terms of height, dress, hair etc Greg McMichael didn't see Arbery prior to that day but did see the Facebook and had the description from Travis. You're correct in that you could not establish mens rea to PBARD in a court of law but you had plenty for RGTS, otherwise a cop who saw a burglar leaping out of your bedroom window in the middle of the night would not have justification to stop and question them.
Now you see I think you know fine rightly what I'm saying, they saw the other suspects on the Facebook but never saw them in the flesh for them to chase. This is very important to you as you want to suggest that they treated Arbery differently because of the colour of his skin. But there is no evidence of that whatsoever. Everyone with common sense can see your desperation.
They can't get the needle under Georgia law, that would require premeditation, that this was murder for hire or domestic terrorism etc I would love to say that I could have these guys found innocent but that might be a push in the current climate. I repeat my prediction, Bryan and Greg innocent, Travis guilty of manslaughter but may get off on appeal. They are the only witnesses to this, the forensic evidence is inconclusive and the film shows Arbery attacking Travis and trying to wrest his gun away from him.
We know where the videos came from, but English didn't give any to the McMichaels.
The Englishes never enlisted the McMichaels to do what they did and do not want to be part of any effort to justify the McMichaels' actions."
No it is not, nowhere is Arbery considered as a light skinned man. Also there is no way Travis McMichael could see tattoos on the drake skinned black man at night.
What Facebook and Travis's description could be thousands of black men.
So how could Greg stop Arbery, he didn't see him jumping out of a window. So your argument holds no water.
What Facebook? English never posted anything on Facebook. Why do you keep posting false information?
My desperation? I am waiting on you to post one true fact on this case.
I am sure you could if you could get the right jury. Greg started this incident and Bryan struck him with his vehicle, innocent my foot.
[QuoteTravis guilty of manslaughter but may get off on appeal. They are the only witnesses to this, the forensic evidence is inconclusive and the film shows Arbery attacking Travis and trying to wrest his gun away from him.[/QUOTE]
Sorry these clowns are done.
Sorry these clowns are done.[/QUOTE]
No, it was on the Facebook and discussed in the neighbourhood. Arbery still matched the description and no one doubts he actually had been in the house, eyewitness ID is notoriously unreliable (reckoned to be responsible for 70% of false convictions), Arbey did resemble the suspect. You're right in that it resembled the descriptions of a great many people but only Arbey was seen fleeing from the scene. My argument holds water like Seaworld, unless we have a crystal ball or mindreading device you cannot instantly prove mens rea but his actions certainly provide RGTS. The images posted are from English's CCTV camera, that's a fact, plain and simple.
No, YOU think. But that's your prejudice, you see this as a racial incident rather than 3 neighbours pursuing a suspected burglar, a man with a long criminal record and mental illness. Hopefully they will get the right jury, one that will base its' decision on the facts of the case, not from political correctness or fear of mob violence. We'll see if they're 'done', Greg pursued a suspected burglar, Bryan tried to head the suspect off at the pass, nearly everyone would do the same thing in the same circumstances, myself included.
What was on Facebook?
arbery was a criminal, they placed a bet with odds in their favor and won
if he didn't have a rap sheet, the jury would acquit
The pictures of the intruders in the house were on Faceboook. I doubt 50% of black men in America would be Arbery's age, height, have his haircut, wear white sports clothing, skin tone etc, Arbery fitted the description because he'd been in the house. He was fleeing from the scene of a suspected burglary, resembled the description of the suspect, kept running when trio tried to speak to him and attacked Travis and tried to wrench his gun from him. English put all the pics on Facebook or is he racist too now? Arbery was the one confronted inside the house on 2 occasions because he was the only one seen, they didn't see the other people but then they only appear to have entered once.
No one murdered anyone, you've taken the idea that this was a racist murder and are refusing to accept any evidence to the contrary or have any empathy with the trio, you know fine rightly Arbery brought this on himself and the trio have no case to answer, just admit it.
Whose Facebook page and if that was the case why wasn't the neighborhood on alert for white burglars?
Open your eyes if you believe that. What white sports clothing, if you are out jogging it's safe to say you would be wearing sports clothing.
Whites had been in the house as well.
Now you are back in the fiction writing again. When did Greg McMichael see him committing a burglary? Who jumps out of their vehicle with loaded guns when they want to speak to someone. He felt his life was in danger, which it was.
[Quote) English put all the pics on Facebook or is he racist too now? [/quote]
When did he do that? Link please.
Post those 2 occasions with links.
Bull there was multiple people seen besides Arbery, but the black man was the only one the Mcmichaels and folks like you saw as a suspect.
Had Greg and Travis McMichael and Bryan not taken it upon themselves to play cops this young man would be alive today. So yes it was murder.
he wore sports clothing because he was in the sport of thieving, and jogging away on 40 acres of private property.
Corruption does not require financial benefit: it requires a violation of ethical duties. Them not recusing themselves when they were conflicted out is corruption. That corruption ending in the person they are conflicted in favor of skating when they admitted to the predicates for felony murder is not a "difference of opinion". Its not about whether you consider it, its about what the RULES SAY.
Opinions are not what generates probable cause or self defense. You're either under the statute or you're not, by the terms of the STATUTE and the facts. Greg said he wasn't chasing anything current, FACT = he's not under the statute. Travis didn't see anything but joined in anyway, FACT = not under the statute. Roddy joined in when he had no reasonable way to determine what was going on, FACT = not under the statute.
Its a run of the mill murder: 3 men killed another during an assault for which they had no legal excuse by their own admission.
Its not no contact. Its not significant ties IE you weren't given an award for service by the DA who is investigating you and you didn't work the dead man's case together with the replacement.
This isn't selecting the crew of the mission to mars, its very basic ****. Do you know this person? Yes, I gave them an award when they worked for me for 20 ****ing years: Guess you're out then.
What about you guy #2? O yeah, hey we worked a case on the dead man once: Guess you're out too.
What about you random person from 3rd county? Nah never seen the dude before, or the two defendants: Good to go.
Being a mall cop doesn't bar you, hell being a lawyer doesn't bar you. They'd have to waste a strike on you if that was all they could generate. That's not how strikes for cause work. I would illicit from you your existing bias on the issue and you'd be outtie 5000 without me wasting a discretionary strike. Hell, you demonstrating that you think CA allows a "Daddy says" exception would be more than enough.
Google "Shopkeeps privilege" and how it works. Who knows, maybe you'll learn something?
Sure you do Jan, sure you do.
I'm being perfectly civil, I'm not sorry that you think otherwise nor do I care.
Let's assume what you say is true, that Bryan "headed" arbey off: That's still false imprisonment and assault as assault does not require actual contact. Thanks for playing.
Witnesses are able to give opinions. I'm not talking about DIAL I'm talking about his report of what the SUSPECTS SAID. That's not hearsay, they're stuck with those statements they made. Those statements HANG them. Which is why you don't talk to cops: Its hearsay if you want to offer your statement, its not hearsay if they want to offer your statement. Your statement can only be used against you, so shut the **** up and call your lawyer.
As to racial bias: Travis' text messages and actions right after the murder are pretty obvious indicators of racial bias on Travis' part.
Again: I'm not giving that **** royalty money when I've seen the tape. He's not moving and they're beating on him: That's excessive force.
I've. Watched. The. Trial. I. Don't. Need. To. Pay. That. Bitch. Royalty. Money.
The jury didn't believe the expert: that happens when you blow your side's credibility with tainted evidence and a good explanation for how it could've gotten there: This lead cop is so racist he can't keep a lid on it in official communications.
That's not muddying the waters: That's called reasonable doubt: And they couldn't have done it without the cops AND the prosecutors screwing the pooch.
The standard is not whether or not its classified IE has marking. The standard is whether its national defense information. 1st family schedules are nat def info, Ivanka had that in her unsecured e-mail. She's guilty of the exact same statute Hillary is, 18 usc 793(f).
Commercials: You haven't seen the kevin spacey creeper commercials? https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2019-12-24/kevin-spacey-holiday-video < one of them at least is in there and the others are linked I think.
They're not the sort of thing I expect from an innocent man. It raises my red flags. I freely admit I would be biased out of a jury on this issue as I have no explanation for exactly why, its simply something in the presentation and context.
Being groped is something even fit men have to deal with. Social pressure, pressure on the job etc can all make a person not feel 'safe' to respond in that manner lest they be attacked in ways not physical. Its why a lawyer, for example, is not supposed to **** a current client unless you were already ****ing: You have a position over them that can be abused and which makes you unequal in power. It doesn't beggar belief that this young man felt the same pressure to acquiesce that a secretary might for her boss. Not responding with immediate violence does not negate his ability to have a plausible claim.
The ferris wheel thing I part of a comedy routine. The point being: If he ain't a pedophile, he's sure got all the things a pedophile would want to lure children in, and he's certainly got weird **** going on: Little kids sleeping over, and they're sick kids so they're more vulnerable. A secret "play room" with child sized **** dolls in outfits etc. You've got to admit that's weird as **** and in the "it makes these allegations rather more plausible then they would be otherwise" sort of way.
Hearing that bill cosby might be a rapist was a shock. Hearing that michael jackson might have been a rapist: color me unsurprised.
As to MJ and BARD: He's dead so there is no criminal case. We're talking civil litigation and that's by preponderance of the evidence, not BARD.
When did he do that? Link please.
Post those 2 occasions with links.
Bull there was multiple people seen besides Arbery, but the black man was the only one the Mcmichaels and folks like you saw as a suspect.
Had Greg and Travis McMichael and Bryan not taken it upon themselves to play cops this young man would be alive today. So yes it was murder.[/QUOTE]
It’s the neighbourhood Facebook page and NextDoor social media app. Yes, isn’t that obvious? The white/light coloured sports clothing he was wearing that day. Yes, other suspects were seen in the house but the trio never saw them fleeing from the scene, did they? Greg McMichael saw him fleeing the scene of the previous offences after being disturbed and correctly assumed he’d been at it again. People carry loaded guns when going to speak to a suspected burglar when they’re also suspected of having stolen a pistol and intimated that they were armed when previous challenged. Arbery fled because he’d been spotted in the house and correctly assumed he’d probably be arrested and this time go to jail with his record and mental health problems. Arbery was spotted by Travis and the other neighbour who said he’d reached into his shorts as if going for a weapon not to mention the cctv. If Arbery wasn’t a mentally ill criminal who attacked Travis rather than wait for the police he’d be alive today.
Corruption does not need pecuniary advantage but it does imply some form of gain, malpractice is the word you’re looking for improper or negligent behaviour. The point is they didn’t consider it to be felony murder therefore they didn’t consider it malpractice, you do so you do consider it to be so. Do show me the bit in the testimony where the McMichaels said “Yeah, we murdered the guy!” It’s a chicken and egg scenario. Greg said he pursued Arbery because he resembled the past suspect and he saw him fleeing the scene again. He never said outright that he suspected him off another burglary but that was implied, why else would he be running from the location of the previous incidents. His actual words were that he “didn’t know if Arbery had stolen anything or not”, he never says “This time” but I’m pretty sure his defence solicitor will ask him to elaborate on the stand, aren’t you?
It’s not a run of the mill murder if indeed it is a murder at all. This isn’t Arbery and George Floyd spraying the streets of Chicago with an Uzi or one spouse killing another for cheating. Even you accept they genuinely wanted to just detain him for the police because they thought he was a burglar, you just think their grounds were insufficient.
Again, the DA’s didn’t see themselves as compromised and they had plenty of precedent. Andrew McCabe investigated Crossfire Hurricane when his wife was the Democrat candidate for the Virginia Senate. Mueller investigated the Russian interference with Comey and Peter Stroczk when they had served with him in the FBI. He also brought in lawyers to his team who had previously represented HRC, the Clinton foundation and Obama administration over Banghazi. Loretta Lynch did not recuse herself from the investigation into HRC’s emails, instead having cosy 5 minute chats with her on the runway about “travels, golf and grandchildren”? (even Comey was suspicious of this, so much so that he bypassed Lynch when making his decision on the matter). Even Lance Ito’s wife was Mark Furhman’s boss prior to the OJ trial. So compared to this case…?
What cop is ever going to get through jury selection? If it’s a case against the police the prosecution will insist they’re gone, if it’s a case against normal criminals the defence will purge them. I googled shopkeeps privilege and I did learn something, that is nothing to do with what we are talking about. My analogy was that of a security guard or other member of staff refusing to aid the person stopping the suspected shoplifter because they hadn’t witnessed the crime themselves. No jury in the world will not sympathise with Bryan and Travis that they went to help Greg rather than leave him to pursue a possibly armed suspect by himself. Whether Bryan is guilty of false imprisonment depends on whether they had reasonable grounds, I think they did, you disagree. The proof will have to be in the pudding.
You’re not being civil, you’re trying to sneak in one last little dig at me under the radar. Aren’t you, Julia? You may be just the night janitor at the Nebraska traffic court but I expect better. Don’t forget to get all that gum stuck under the desks now.
Or we could be civil to one another?
Did you actually read Dial’s testimony? He actually says things such as he believes Bryan joined in the chase due to his racist attitudes and that he believed it was self defence by Arbery, pure conjecture from a man who wasn’t even there. Personally I think Bryan and Travis were racists but that certainly wasn’t their motivation here.
King is still resisting, the whole point of using force is to make him comply, when he does they stop. The whole idea of the police is that they enforce the will of the government upon the population, they’d already tried their lesser methods, it was he who escalated the situation, his companions co-operated and were arrested without incident then released. I have little sympathy for King who was a loathsome thug who badly beat a shopkeeper whilst robbing him.
I understand why you may not like Koon but honestly what have you got against Marcia? The defence sought to muddy the waters, casting reasonable doubt upon the forensic evidence, their accusations of tainted evidence were quickly shot down, even their expert witness saying he was only talking about “what might have occurred and not what actually did occur”. Furhman screwed the case, aside from him the prosecution was sound. Rhyming gloves notwithstanding.
Ivanka’s use of emails was before she became a government employee and only threatened her and her family. HRC was secretary of state. I’m not one of these “Lock her up!” types but the way it was simply decided HRC had no case to answer is unsettling.
Oh, you said commercials, yeah I’ve seen these and agree Spacey is a grade A weirdo but that doesn’t suggest guilt, probably just a result of him staying in the closet all these years. And his specialty is playing villains. The accuser in this case wasn’t someone Spacey had power over he was just a waiter in a bar. It’s one man’s word against another and far from PBARD. So I give him the benefit of the doubt.
“The Ferris wheel thing I part of a comedy routine”? Again MJ was a weirdo but so was Prince and a great many others in showbiz. You could say the same of Walt Disney, Mr Rogers and others, it’s sad these days that no one can do stuff for kids without such suspicions. We’ll see what happens in civil court (as the families off OJ’s victims at least got that) but if I was a juror I’d ask myself how the accusers can be believed now having denied everything for so long and why they waited until Jackson was dead, when they don’t have to stand a criminal trial and can only get money rather than a conviction?
Cosby is another case which disturbs me, why did the judge allow for a pattern of similar conduct in the 2nd trial? What had changed? (except the political climate?). My problem is that these women had sex with Cosby after consuming drugs and alcohol with him and only seemed to decide it was rape years later, having maintained friendly relations with him in the meantime? Prior like convictions would be different for me but it seems akin to smoke without fire?
It is also malpractice, that doesn't mean it wasn't also corruption. Protecting the person you're biased for is considered a gain.
A man was dead, and they were called upon to make decisions as the prosecutor. Because they knew the potential defendant personally, any decision but "I recuse myself and someone else must make the decision" was a breach of their ethical duty.
It doesn't matter the circumstances, you're conflicted out. Conflicts checks are first, THEN you can make any other decision including "no charges". You do otherwise and there's a conflict? You ****ed up.
Defense ATTORNEY. We don't have barristers and solicitors here, just Attorneys. He's going to ask him to elaborate and no one is going to find the man credible. Not to mention: Travis did the shooting and Travis didn't see **** so Travis has no excuse and participating with Travis makes it a crime for Greg even if Greg had cause which he freely admitted he did not already.
It is a run of the mill homicide: The suspects admit to no legal excuse in their own statements, making it assault and felony murder. Open, shut. I never said I accepted that was their sole motive, I simply assumed it arguendo. I have no need to show any other motive, because the one they freely admitted to convicts them of felony murder.
His wife was not involved in crossfire hurricane. He wasn't investigating his wife. FFS you can't even make an analogy.
Mueller working with investigators he's worked with before, investigating: Not a thing here. Cops are not lawyers, there are differing ethical duties and standards. You've been told this. You've brought up this horseshit before. Stop doing it if you don't want me to point out that its horseshit and disingenuous of you to bring up since you've already been told.
As to bringing on investigators who had worked for the opposite campaign directly or Loretta Lynch's atrocious behavior: Yes that's fairly unethical and they shouldn't have been allowed to do that. Numerous things about his investigation were incredibly unethical or irregular. Pointing out the unethical behavior of others does not excuse the unethical behavior of the prosecutors in this case who KNEW the potential defendant personally over a substantial period of time and interactions when they made their rulings. Particularly when your examples are at the highest echelons of politics which tend to break rules with impunity. As stated: This is a run of the mill murder, you don't make decisions when you personally know the defendant, you recuse yourself that's basic PRIOR TO TAKING THE BAR EXAM ****.
I've gotten through jury selection as a lawyer. You don't say anything to get struck for cause, and both lawyers think the other guy is going to use a discretionary strike on you so they use one of theirs on someone else. And poof like magic you're on the jury.
You realize juries sit for civil matters as well..... right? Nor is the excuse "he's a cop" or "he's a lawyer" amenable to strikes for cause, only to discretionary strikes.
You just walk through how the CA statute works, and ask if I show you someone outside the CA statute because they didn't see anything, but followed along with someone else who claims they might have, could you convict? Anyone who says no, gets struck for cause. Nice easy way to root out that "sympathy" jury nullification you're suggesting will occur.
I'm being civil, you just want to micromanage what I consider that to mean. I find myself unmoved. O noes!! A girl's name!?!?! How ever shall I go on? I just got through charging $200/hr for my time since 8am with a break for lunch at noon that also goes on the invoice. I got to charge for taking a **** today ffs. You make all the jokes you want mallcop, it doesn't change the fact that my law license pays the bills.
I'm being civil, maybe you just need to grow skin of an average thickness?
That's dials testimony. I'm not overly interested in his opinions on their thoughts as proof of their thoughts, I'm more interested in Travis' private communications where he has no motive to hide his true thoughts.
He's down on the ground not moving and they're still hitting him. The problem with the king case is they don't know when to stop. There is no excuse for that. You're a cop not a ****ing thug, if you act like a thug I'm going to see that you're treated like one.
Rights of the perfectly acceptable are not normally habitually violated: Its the rights of the vile, the distrusted, etc that are the beginning of every abuse of right. Even thugs have a right not to experience excessive force.
She was part of the team, ****ed up royally therefore, and is trying to profit off the deal after the fact. **** her.
They took a full day for opening: They were very far from ok and broadcast it by ************ around like that.
She's been caught out as an employee, and she did it during and after the emails scandal. Hard to claim she didn't know she couldn't do that. Nat def info is nat def info, it doesn't matter if you're an employee its criminal law.
He's had far more than one accuser, the one I'm thinking of was auditioning or understudying etc for a roll spacey had some control over.
Its not that no one can be nice to children. He had a room full of child sized sex dolls in little kids clothes that were USED in a secret hideaway off his bedroom. He admits to sleeping in the same bed as these kids. I'm not aware Prince or Mr. Rogers doing any of that. Are you?
He apparently slipped them the drugs, is the claim. Its not any more odd than weinstein's case, he had power to exercise to keep them quiet. There's plenty of evidence in the cosby cases.
Addendum: Not to mention even if they were doing dope with him, that wouldn't give him the right to grope them when they pass out unless that was agreed to before hand. Which would mean he would have to admit to agreeing to it before hand, and drugging them by consent, and ****ing them. Which he has denied. So I doubt that's the story.
Post the link for either one.
This Travis McMichael's description.
That would be damn near every black man in America.
Wow you don't have a clue what happened in this case do you?
Please point out in the police report where Greg stated he saw Arbery leaving the scene of a crime that had been committed or if you have another source by all means post it.
So if you come down my street and I think you might have broke in somebody else's house I can grab my gun and chase you down. I am pretty sure a 10yr old can answer that question.
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that would indicate that Arbery stole Travis's pistol, how do you know one of the white burglars didn't steal it.
Nobody is buying that garbage about someone acting like they had a weapon, that is BS.
Greg McMichael didn't spot him in English's house, so your premise is false.
More of this fictional story you are writing.
No if he wouldn't have been chased, assaulted and murdered by 3 racist cowards he would be alive today.
Separate names with a comma.