Travis McMichael says in his murder trial that he felt threatened by Ahmaud Arbery

They had no grounds for such suspicion, and they admitted that most of those "thefts" were just based on rumors they had heard on Facebook and from Travis's mom.

Even the police only wanted to talk to him to trespass him. He wasn't a suspect in any burglary. Catch up.

Gregory McMichael. Notice how the people defending the murderers haven't even looked into the bare basic facts of the case?

Travis McMichael. Notice how the people defending the murderers haven't even looked into the bare basic facts of the case?

He had more info about the fake "burglary" than anyone else.

 

No you haven't - that's clear from your posts. Which is why, as predicted, you went with option 2.

 

No, someone committed thefts around the neighborhood, there is zero evidence it was Aubery. And if he 'hadn't been identified' (your own words) as a suspect in those crimes then the three convicted felons had no grounds (or evidence) upon which to base their decision to make their arrest. Other that is than he was a stranger to the area.

And if you think those are sufficient grounds for anyone to try and make an armed citizens arrest God help any random Joe walking down the street past your house.

 

They weren't going to be charged until the footage came out because the video showed a version of events that differed at key points from their original statements (in particular the manner in which both Aubrey and they acted during the 'citizens arrest') . That error created sufficient suspicion for Police to then conduct further inquiries which, at almost every junction only further undermined their story. No outstanding warrants, no burglaries, no then ongoing Police investigation involving Aubery, no evidence of Aubrey's involvement in any other felony immediately prior to his death and lots of little details like confirmation of the time he left home to go jogging vs his time of death.

And so there's a lesson in all this for all would be vigialntees/neighborhood 'hero's'. If your going to commit completely unwarranted 'citizens' arrest at gun point and botch it, don't film yourself doing so. Or if you do at least be smart enough not to contradict the video evidence.

The really scary takeaway? If they hadn't filmed themselves they might have got away with it.

 

1. They did have grounds and the thefts were a fact
2. Trespass with intent to commit theft IS burglary. Why on earth would they want to talk to him about trespass, not even a criminal offence? That and your wrongly citing the idea of a warrant shows your ignorance of the law.
3. No, when did that happen?
4. Ditto.
5. The same as the trio and how was it fake?

 

I certainly have. Define option 2 for me precisely?

 

He hadn't been identified but the CCTV clearly showed him and they correctly presumed he resembled the suspect. Apparently he ran their often and was captured by CCTV entering the premises illegally. But he WASN'T random, that's the whole point.

 

Warrants are irrelevant here, that would mean he was identified which he hadn't been, you don't need a warrant to arrest. What were the key points exactly? And it's Arbery, not Aubrey. And "vigilantes".

You seem awfully cutting towards these three good men who took it upon themselves to stop a suspected thief plaguing their neighbourhood. In such high pressure situations it's natural for them not to have perfect recall, happens to people all the time as Elizabeth Loftus proves. The fact they WERE filming it proves they lack Mens Rea.

 

To quote: 'He hadn't been identified but the CCTV clearly showed him and they correctly presumed'

'Presumed' definition - suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability. And there, in a nut shell is your problem.

You start from the assertion that they correctly 'presumed'. Yet you literally have no evidence that this presumption was correct. They 'correctly' presumed? WTF!

Where is the evidence that Arbery had committed a crime? Answer: there is none. The Defense didn't allege Arbery had committed a crime. The prosecution didn't concede he had. That being the case you tell me (Eisenstein) how anyone can correctly (your words) presume Arbery had committed a crime when no-one, apart from you apparently alleges that he had?

Short and sweet. In your mind Arbery is 'guilty until proven innocent'. Which would in one sense be OK were it not for the fact that if you were in his shoes I can predict with 100% certainty you'd be crying (and pissing your pants) that you 'innocent until proven guilty'.

 

Misspelling Artery's name is was accidental, no disrespect intended. Anymore than if I accidentally misspell your name or my own. Of the rest?

Saying 'that would mean he was identified which he hadn't been'. Really? Your basically admitting Arbery hadn't been connected to any crime, in that neighborhood or anywhere else for that matter in the time immediately prior to his death. And since that's the case what grounds did the three convicted men have for attempting to make an arrest?

Vigilantes - 'a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority'. Those three men only had 'legal authority' if they had reasonable grounds to suspect Arbery had committed a crime. They didn't.

'You seem awfully cutting towards these three good men who took it upon themselves to stop a suspected thief plaguing their neighbourhood. In such high pressure situations'

Firstly (as an aside) your assuming they were 'good' men. You can't know that for a fact. Anymore that I can know they weren't. Fact is I'm not even going to insist they weren't good men. After all who am I to judge? (Answer, no-one.) The real tragedy of this situation?

Some or all of the convicted men could have been 'good', decent, law abiding citizens their entire lives. (In the case of the former Police officer you would definitely hope that was the case.) They may well have obeyed the law, been loving husbands, good fathers, loyal sons & caring neighbors. Point? None of that matters.

What they were held accountable for and what they were found guilty of was their conduct on that one singular day, in those few critical minutes. And in the same situation, in their shoes, having the chance to make similar decisions? We'd all be accountable, regardless of how 'good' we may be.

So everybody involved in this mess loses. Arbery, his family and friends, the three men convicted of his murder, their family and friends, the State of Georgia and even the US as a nation? None of what happened has a good outcome, for anybody.

 

It doesn't need defining. Just re-read it.

And you most certainly have not acquainted yourself with the evidence in full, by watching the trial. Insisting that you have is like joining a book club where you're the only one who hasn't read the latest book. Doesn't matter how many times you say you have read it, your comments on the book will make it patently and painfully obvious that you have not, lol.

 

It wasn't a crime for him to enter the building. He wasn't a suspect in any crime. And he wasn't the only one who entered the construction site.

 

He wasn't a suspect in any theft. They had no evidence of any theft on his part.

Entering a construction site isn't a crime if you haven't been trespassed. And there is no evidence that his intent was to commit burglary. If he had been trespassed (which is what the cops wanted to do, so that any future entry would be criminal trespassing), then it still would only be a misdemeanor for him to enter . . . which would have made it illegal for these guys to chase him. You can only do that for a felony.

While they were illegally chasing him. He openly admitted to it. Have you seriously not even looked at a single pertinent fact in this case?

Just after they illegally blocked his path. It's in the video. You seriously haven't even watched the video? No wonder you are defending murderers.

There was no "string of burglaries."

 

Another fact for you to consider, @Reasonablerob . What was it that Gregory McMichael said when recruiting his son to engage in this chase? He said, "It's the guy who has been breaking into peoples' houses." When prosecutors pointed out that only one house had been broken into (and it was a white couple that had been caught on camera doing it -- Arbery was never a suspect), Travis McMichael admitted that this "string" of break ins was based on rumors her had heard from his mom and on Facebook. Is that now reasonable suspicion in your mind? And I'll ask again: why didn't they form the same conclusion about any of the other people caught entering the construction site on CCTV?

 

Also curious to hear more excuses about why, if the intent was to arrest him, did they never tell him he was under arrest? They shouted other things at him, like death threats. They told him they wanted to question him. But they never said to him that they were attempting a citizen's arrest. In fact, they didn't tell the cops who arrived at the scene that this is what they were trying to do. They said they were trying to hold him for their own questioning. Why?

 

The root cause of this unfortunate event is a widespread support of lawlessness and crime initiated by Democrat party.

 

Congrats: you've managed to be even more wrong than the people explicitly defending the murder. But gotta use those dead bodies for something, right? Might as well **** on their grave for fake political victory points.

 

Yep, Democrat party promote crime and killing in order to express "emotional" support for those who have been killed.

 

The criminals in this case were the ones who did the chasing and the killing. The only people offering them emotional support are a handful of conservatives.

 

Sure, it is setup. That is how Democrat party works. Make normal, law obedient people, crazy by promoting crime and lawlessness, then get political score be expressing compassion and condolences for the victims.

 

Yet another person who will defend the murderers by refusing to actually examine any facts of the case. Looks like we have a collection going.

 

Well, if you intentionally create unsafe environment sooner or later you will have victims.
That is a goal of Democrat party, to make as many victims as possible if it requires to promote murders.

 

The only people at fault here are the murderers. Liberal derangement syndrome isn't an excuse for their behavior. They heard rumors of break-ins and the murdered an innocent man over it. They are murderers. "But does mean ol' Democrats gave them the scaries, so they had to murder" isn't an excuse.

 

"You" (Democrat party) have created unsafe environment you are 100% responsible.
Unsafe conditions always lead to unwanted accidents.
If you care about victims, first thing that should be done is to change crime policy.
It has been proved many many times that crime can be eliminated substantially if policy is changed.

 

I'm not a Dem, and Dems have nothing to do with what happened here. There was no "unsafe environment" here. The house break-in spree was purely imaginary. And they chased down an imaginary culprit. And they murdered him. And you are defending them for their murder. Because your political partisanship (dishonestly applied) is more valuable to you than any human life.