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

The law is unconstitutionally bias against people of European decent (aka white).
That is problem. Jury should follow the law i.e. essentially assume white guilt (and so called white privileges) when making their decision.

 

The jury did follow the law - their verdict was based on the facts presented in court, which proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the relevant laws were broken. An alternate verdict was not possible. Any belief to the contrary - that it involved bias - is not only uninformed, but a figment of your imagination arising from your bias.

 

I am not sure what country you are talking about but in United States the law is clear.
Black people have privileges, where people with lighter skin, have to pay toll (socio economic tax) to people with darker skin.
The reason for those privileges is an assumption that ANY white person have inherited tremendous amount wealth from the white Americans who lived in United States in the past.
That automatically means that in controversial issues like e.g. black and white altercation white man more guilty then black man.

 

What do your racial grievances have to do with this case? Do you think they are innocent? Do you think Travis wasn't racially motivated? Can we, by some miracle, return to the topic of this case?

 

The word innocent is not really appropriate in this case. No one is innocent when we deal with racial confrontation organized by Democrat party.
Democrat party promotes crime and encourage black people fight against law and order, as the result many people live in unsafe environment (essentially war zone).
So this case should be decided from military perspective rather then civil.

 

So . . . you actually believe that the Democrat party forced the McMichaels to chase down Arbery and kill him? You really expect me to believe that anyone would be deluded and brainwashed enough to believe that?

 

I think so. This unfortunate event is a social issue. I am sure McMichaels did not want to kill Ahmaud Arbery.
It has happened due to fight.
And that fight would never happen if Democrat party stayed on the side of law and order.

 

So the McMichaels chased down an innocent man, illegally tried to detain him, and then murdered him in the street . . . cuz Democrats. Got, this just gets more pathetically desperate by the minute.

 

That is all your imagination, that is not what has happened.
Like I said, Democrats promote racial wars.
War is ugly, because innocent people are suffering and dying.

Are you trying to say that Democrats are not for racial war?

 

According to the video and the testimony, that's exactly what happened. Please try to review the video and the testimony. This should not be too much to ask.

I'm saying you are leveraging your fantasies of racial war to flee from the topic since you know you can't actually address it.

 

We can't call him a burglar because there is no proof but by the same token, there is no proof he was an innocent man either.

 

I take it this is the first time you've encountered the concept of "innocent until proven guilty." By your own "logic," I can just assume that all three of these men were neo-Nazis who wanted to ignite a race war, and they knew all along that this jogger was innocent and they murdered him in cold blood anyway. You can't prove otherwise. You need to think these things through before posting.

 

No, I think what I said was accurate. It still is.

 

No they didn't, how could you possibly think that? They simply wanted to detain him for the police, don't make this what it isn't.

My thoughts exactly!

No it does not but it does require Mens Rea, Travis shot him in self defence, all three only wanted to detain a suspected burglar for the police. I'm still waiting for the evidence that anyone threatened to blow anyone's head off?

They did have justification, whether they were right in their suspicions or not is now irrelevant, their belief was genuine and reasonable. Travis shot him in self defence because he attacked him, his dad never did anything and nor did their neighbour.

Because they saw how the odds were stacked against them? What is the point with Hate Crime prosecutions when they've been sentenced to life? This is farcical!

 

I've repeatedly asked you to listen to their own testimony, I've asked you watch the video, and you continue to refuse. And no, mens rea is not required for felony murder. All that is required is that someone dies while you are committing another felony.

No, they did not.

The genuineness of their belief doesn't matter, and it wasn't reasonable.

No, Travis shot him when he acted in self defense against Travis. His dad had already threatened to shoot the man's head off and the neighbor had already joined them in vehicular assault. You'd know this if you had familiarized yourself with the facts of the case instead of basing all of your "arguments" on your daydreaming.

 

Latest update: all three men have been found guilty of hate crimes as well. I'm glad these violent criminal thugs have had the book thrown at them.

 

Oh dear. I'm talking about the same country. You, it seems, are on a different planet.

 

Yes, the odds were - and are - stacked against them, because of their own words and actions. What's the point? (a) Because a crime is a crime (b) Any other crimes committed don't change or erase this fact (c) It makes the associated crime (in this case murder) more egregious (d) It just so happens in this case that the associated crime carries a greater penalty - see (b).

 

Why? Do you want their skeletons to be left to rot in their cells for 100 years? Arbery was the violent criminal thug as we can see from his criminal record and the footage of him attacking Travis. They simply wanted to detain a suspected burglar for the police.

No, he's on planet reality, you're on planet "I refuse to accept black privilege exists and that African Americans can and do simply exploit the race card in virtually any situation".

Which words and actions were those? There was no crime except for Arbery, all they wanted to do was detain a suspected burglar for the police.

 

Arbery had committed non-violent crimes in the past. He didn't "attack" Travis until Travis pointed a shotgun at his face and was trying to illegally kidnap him. They simply were engaged in violent crimes and killed the man who defended himself against those crimes.

 

If you had ever taken the time to watch the trial you have been been afforded an explanation of the law, which stipulates that you cannot detain someone because you suspect them of something. It is illegal.

 

This is so very stupid, that I cannot comprehend why you would even attempt such a comparison.

Rittenhouse was the chasee, who rightfully responded to a deadly threat with a legal lethal response. The McMichael's were the CHASERS(!), and were facing no such threat.

The only way these cases would be comparable would be if Arbury had been the one with the gun and responded with lethal force against the McMichael's. That would have been a righteous shoot, just as Rittenhouse's was.

What is it with you guys who think self-defense ought not be legal??

 

I explained how it compares, the main point being they both used the same defense in court (shot in self defense when the other guy tried to grab the gun), and it did not work for McMichael for the reasons I explained.

I don't know who "you guys" are. I only speak for myself, and I believe self defense should be legal, but McMichael's verdict was exactly as I predicted: Not self defense.

 

Arbery had both brought a gun to school and threatened police officer who confronted him. Watch the footage, Travis had the gun safely pointed away from him when Arbery attacked him and tried to shoot him with his own weapon. No one was trying to kidnap anyone, they simply wished to detain him for the police. What violent crimes were they involved in? Travis killed Arbery in self defence, watch the video and this is self evident.

 

I did watch the trial and they had plenty of ground to detain a suspected burglar, who had entered as a trespasser with intent to commit theft. If their grounds were nebulous it was only by the slimmest margin. They had no Mens Rea, they had no Malice Aforethought. The idea that they deserve to die in prison over this is obscene and disgusting.