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

No, it's that they had reasonable grounds to suspect and all subsequent evidence proves that.

 

The thefts in the neighbourhood were real and Arbery's behaviour extremely suspicious. Because of your political partisanship (dishonestly applied) is more valuable to you than justice.

 

They didn't murder anyone, they went to detain a reasonably suspected thief for the police and when he attacked and tried to turn their gun on them they killed him in self defence. Or rather he got himself killed. Unfortunately nowadays the fear of black rioting warps the enactment of justice.

 

Yes it is, the thefts were real, his burglary was too, entering as a trespasser with intent to steal. You just don't want to accept it as it interferes with your narrative that African Americans are still oppressed which you can exploit for you political advantage

 

Entering a building with intent to commit theft is a burglary.

Not trespass because he actually enters the house, they reasonably suspected him of that felony and therefore were justified in stopping him for the police, their beliefs were genuine and virtually anyone would do the same. They didn't admit anything, violent criminal Arbery Ahmaud attacked a man trying to detain him for the police and got himself killed.

 

He was suspected, they didn't have concrete evidence, hence why they tried to detain him for the police. Seriously, haven't you watched the video? Didn't you watch Arbery viciously attacking Travis and trying to turn his gun on him?

 

No, I'm not going back through 16 pages of comments to try and find a point you're trying to make. It is SO OBVIOUS you have not actually read the facts to the case and are just regurgitating a twisted version which advances the obscene fallacy that this is a modern version of Emmett Till. So Habeas Corpus, if you do not you implicitly accept you were wrong.

 

There is no 'subsequent evidence' proving that!

If the evidence proved they had reasonable grounds to suspect Aubery had committed a crime they wouldn't have been charged in the first place. And if you have that evidence where is it!!!!

Your basically arguing that:

A) Police deliberately ignored evidence proving the three men were innocent;
B) The Prosecution for some reason then decided to do the same thing;
C) The 3 men's lawyers chose to ignore the existence of this so called evidence (or were so hopeless they couldn't find it);
D) The judge had no problems with evidence of their innocence not being admitted to trial; and
E) Journalist's familiar with the case everywhere decided the 'evidence' wasn't worth disclosing.

You are basically the only person on the planet who thinks that this so called 'evidence' exists and even then that's only because you insist on conflating what you want to be true with what is true. You insist on deep diving into their minds, somehow second guessing what they were thinking or feeling at the time because you basically want them to be innocent. Which, in the real world (outside your head) actually has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of them actually being innocent. What you want and what is are not the same thing. Get used to it. Everyone else does when they start growing up.

 

Civilians are not allowed to detain people who they suspect of something. Them rednecks breached the law by doing so, and they made it WORSE with their guns out making death threats. That's where the rednecks are assaulting Arbery / where Arbery gets the right of self defense. And then them rednecks made it even worse by ending up killing a person who had the right to self defense.

 

No, it's not obvious to you at all because, having NOT acquainted yourself with the full facts, you're not in a position to judge!

 

Yes, because all were terrified of black rioting and being "cancelled". Except the journalists who share your viewpoint and want these poor guys locked up because they assume they are "deplorables" and the dead man is black. Come on, the pendulum is swinging the other way now, people like you are growing up and realising the truth, get used to it

 

Yes they are if the circumstances justify it, this incident seems to fall short of that but only just so they should be given the benefit of the doubt. They took guns because one of the thefts in the neighbourhood was of a firearm so if Arbery was responsible they had RGTS he was armed. What death threats were those? Do elaborate? It's Arbery who assaults Travis and tries to turn his gun on him. The fact that you refer to the trio as rednecks reveals your mindset, what would you think if I used a similar term about Arbery?

 

I sure have, you are just squirming because you cannot produce the evidence to prove your assertion, habeas corpus or yield?

 

Saying so doesn't make it so. And your own posts make it quite clear that you haven't. Even the now-convicted defendants didn't say half the stuff that you do, even though they faced life imprisonment LOL.

 

They don't since there is no connection to any theft and Arbery.

Oh really?
It has been elaborated with you in this thread with multiple posters.
How about you go and refresh your memory on your own, ey?

Nope.
1) They made death threats with their guns out, and so that gives Arbery the right to defense
2) They boxed Arbery in after an endless chase, and were busy with imprisoning Arbery like that. That's against Arbery's constitutional rights, and so he has a right to defense.

The label "redneck" fits the picture. One of the rednecks even admitted he chased down Arbery, just because he's black in an attempt to get a plea deal for a nicer prison. The judge rejected the plea deal. But that's what they did. And you are their champion on this forum with some weird kind theme of inserting Jim Crow norms and values.

 

??? So your saying then entire trial was a 'conspiracy'? And 'people like me'? Really? What sort of 'people' are they? By all means explain/clarify exactly what sort of person it is you think I am. Because speaking personally, I came into the Aubery trial without any preset opinions whatsoever. I just watched the prosecution unfold, saw the facts as presented before the court (facts the defense had every opportunity to rebut BTW) and then formed an opinion based on those facts.

Thing is every crime is unique and because of that fact every crime deserves to be assessed on an individual basis. I don't give a flying 'F' whether the perpetrator or the victim is black or white, or for that matter any shade in between. I don't care whether one or the other was male or female, rich or poor, theist or atheist etc etc. All I care about are the facts surrounding the alleged offense. Nothing else matters. And in the case of Aubery's death the facts indicate that the actions taken by Aubery's assailants were neither reasonable nor justifiable.

And in your head? If you want to conflate BLM, 'Cancel Culture' and umprovable conspiracy theories about the perversion of the US legal system? Well that's all on you, and all your comments on this thread prove is that you have 'issues' (would probably be the polite way of saying it). Me? all I'm interested in are the facts.

 

Yes they did, I asked you for evidence you gave me none. You know they should never have been charged.

We'll never know because Arbery got himself killed. But certainly RGTS

No, if you have the counter to my argument produce it, Habeas Corpus

What death threats? Come on, what? Please list them. They carried their weapons in self defence because they had RGTS the suspect was armed. Yes, they detained a reasonably suspected burglar for the police.

WHAT? Do please produce the quote where one of the defendants said that? The fact that you chuck out words like "redneck" and "Jim Crow" shows you don't care about the facts, you're just biased because the dead man is black and the defendants fit a stereotype you hate.

Really because I watched the trial too and came to completely different conclusions? This is like McMartin, there's a hysteria in the country otherwise they would never have been charged. There is no conspiracy but it's crazy to say they weren't unfairly influenced. I don't see how you could actually examine the facts and come to your conclusion? Yes I have issues, it's called wanting justice to be done and not to bow to the threats of the mob.

 

Nope. It remains so that there is no and there has never been any evidence at all linking to Arbery .
So the idea of seeing a black man running around and linking it to a crime without any kind of evidence at all, is just being a racist.

It's has been discussed with you endlessly in this very threat before.
You're obviously trolling to demand this discussion must be done again.
They made death threats while armed -> Arbery got a right to defend.
It was different under Jim Crow, I know... but your norms and values have no place today.

That is violating Arbery's constitutional rights -> Arbery got a right to defend.
It was different under Jim Crow, I know... but your norms and values have no place today.

Travis McMichael admitted for the first time race was his motivation for chasing Mr Arbery.
https://www.bbc.com/news/60201894

You say you are following the case about 3 rednecks going on this lethal hunting party... but you're not. You're just venting here what falls within your Jim Crow like norms and values.

 

Sorry, but I think you mistook the meaning of my previous posts. My 'opinion' about the outcome of the trial (and yours BTW is, in the final analysis irrelevant). This is because the only opinions that actually matter in this trial (or any other) are those of the Judge, the jury and, to a lessor extent those of the prosecuting and defense attorneys.

Yes, I did form an opinion of the trial based on the facts as they were presented. The difference between us however is that I didn't come into the trial with a preconceived position. You apparently did. That said, the key take-a-way is that neither your opinion or mine actually matters a dam.

The opinion of the prosecutor who presented a case matters. The opinion of the defense attorney's whose job it was to identify flaws in the State's case, offer alternate explanations and in general prove that the case against their client had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt matters. The opinion of the Judge presiding over the case whose sole responsibility was to ensure that the trail was conducted impartially and in strict adherence with the laws of the State concerned matters. Finally the opinion of the jury (12 free willed, independent citizens whose job it was to consider the evidence provided and decide in the end in the if State had proven it's case beyond reasonable doubt matters.

Your opinion and mine? Don't matter. That is until or unless new and compelling/contradictory evidence is uncovered. But FYI your 'opinion' about what the three defendants were thinking at the time of the offense was committed is not 'new and compelling/contradictory' evidence!

 

How the hell did you watch the trial and walk away with this f****** horrible take

 

Another F-Bomb?

It seems you can't make one post without one. The anger.......

If you disagree that Rittenhouse had a better chance of being acquitted than these guys, then why not just explain why as opposes to making a post to say nothing at all.

 

We just watched the entire court proceedings we watched all the evidence we heard all the arguments we listened to all the testimony and it all was very clear and evident as clear as any situation could possibly be that Kyle Rittenhouse acted in self-defense.

To have any doubt at this point any doubt it all is ridiculous. You are now the equivalent of someone who still thinks that Trump won the 2020 election kind of ridiculous.

There's nothing I can say that's going to convince you to not be ridiculous.

F****** hell.

 

Another F-Bomb.....? Grow up!

If you disagree that Rittenhouse had a better chance of being acquitted than these guys, then why not explain why, as opposed to dropping childish F-Bombs and arguing against points no one has made.

Convince me that Rittenhouse did NOT have a better case?

No, I don't think you can convince me of that.

He had a much better case, which was my whole point, which seems to sail a mile over your head.

 

And yet you just made the false argument point that Kyle pointed his gun at people first, causing them to attack him, causing him to defend himself.

That never happened.

"Both claim they were defending property.

Both pointed a gun at their target

Both shot their target

Both claim the target tried to grab their firearm

Both claim they feared the target was a threat and they feared for their lives

Both targets were unarmed

Both are calling for mistrial

..."

Kyle is only on video pointing his gun WHILE HE IS BEING CHASED DOWN... Don't talk about the Rittenhouse trial because you are not getting the very important details wrong.

 

You are still arguing against points no one has made. Why waste your time?

You have to point the gun if you want to shoot it, so the comment "both pointed a gun at their target" merely states the obvious, but even that sailed over your head.

If you disagree that Rittenhouse had a better chance of being acquitted than these guys, then just say so. I didn't ask to see a chicken dance.