A Miscarriage of Justice

the only reason it ever should is if it was known by the Michaels at the time.

You judge the action of someone claiming self-defense by what they knew at the time they defended themselves. That's why in The Rittenhouse case the fact that the first person he shot was a disgusting pervert doesn't play into it because Kyle wouldn't have known that. It was just some guy trying to yank his gun out of his hands possibly to kill him with it you don't take that chance. It doesn't matter if he was a priest or a pedophile or anything else just what he was doing at the time.

Armory was fleeing from the direction of a crime scene. The McMichael's confronted him. Didn't he tried to yank the shotgun out of his hand possibly to kill him with it that's not a chance you can take.

I don't care if arbury just murdered a bus full of nuns or saved a bus full of school children an hour before this incident it doesn't play into the incident

 

I sort of disagree. It also can help give us some insight into what Arbery's likely behavior may have been at the time, and thus how the three men may have reacted to that. Since otherwise we can't know exactly how Arbery was actually behaving, having only the testimony of the three defendants.

It's also unfortunate the jury was not able to be shown that taser video of Arbery's previous interaction with law enforcement. Arbery's behavior in that video is consistent with Travis's testimony of how Arbery was acting.

Of course they didn't want to show the jury because it might "prejudice" them against Arbery.

 

That's not exactly true. Travis testified he assumed or believed there had been some incident, presumably a crime, due to how the other two were acting, but he did not know for sure. He later found it very suspicious Arbery was running away and refused to say anything, so assumed it was probably Arbery who was trying to run away from a crime scene.
There is no evidence of a crime having taken place that day, however.

(Oh, and Travis had recognized Arbery from the construction site days before, where Travis claims - as confirmed on a 911 call at the time - that the suspect had reached into his waistband as if he might have a gun)

 

it doesn't matter if you disagree this is legal rule. You can only go by what the person knew at the time.

false it would give you cause to speculate. Insight into his behavior would only matter if he was being tried. This wasn't his trial so his behavior is irrelevant we can see what he was doing based on the video and eyewitness testimony.

and video so yes we can. Besides the case only has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Yeah no judge no court anywhere would allow that. Because it didn't involve the incident with the McMichaels. It is perfectly reasonable to assume they didn't know about that and they couldn't have used that to gauge whether or not shooting him was appropriate. Since that's what's on trial and not arvaries behavior or arteries history or any of that it's not relevant.

 

No, you didn't listen to what I said.

This is character evidence.

Travis's testimony is more believable if we can confirm Arbery already acted that way in another previous situation.

 

so what? He can follow someone on suspicion he can follow someone because he likes their shoes. As long as that's in public it's not a crime.

right so his thought process was rational.

There doesn't have to be you can follow someone and confront them because you like their shoes.

So the following and confronting part no crime committed there that's not a crime.

So get to the crime please.

 

The issue comes down to did the McMichaels intimidate (in what should be seen as an illegal way) Arbery with a gun.

(I actually argued no for that, or mostly no, in another thread. post #11 with the video, Three men who chased Arbery sentenced the life in prison )

 

yes I did. The trial would have been about the McMichael's guilt or innocence. McMichael's relationship with his mother or what boy scout troop he was a member of or what organized crime organization he was a member of it is not relevant.

and if it was the prosecution of Ahmad arbery that would be relevant.

That wouldn't be relevant make Michaels action only mattered based on what he knew at the time this is legal president you can disagree till time stops that won't change it.

 

In what way did the McMichaels intimidate arbery. Should be illegal means nothing in the court of law whether or not it is illegal is the deciding factor.

This isn't a question of what should be or shouldn't be this is a question of what happened. Did they point the gun at arbury without provocation.

You can ask people questions why holding a gun have you ever heard of the police officer they do that all the time.

If you feel intimidated by the presence of guns the people who have the guns aren't committing crime. Just like if you feel intimidated by someone having a big dog the people who have the big dog aren't committing a crime.

 

I have found many police officers are very ignorant of the law.

I have some late night conversations with officers that come in the store sometimes. I had one straight tell me that it's not illegal for him to lie to you and he will do it in a heartbeat.

A good example is he told me this if he wants to get behind someone and pull them over if he simply follows them long enough he will find a reason .

People are very stupid if they depend on cops to give them accurate legal advice that is neither their job description nor their duty, it is your duty as a citizen to know your own rights.

Just because you were once a cop does not give your opinion anymore wait or gravity than anyone else participating in this thread.

It's painfully obvious that some cops know far less about the law than average citizens do.

That being said, one must be a true moron to run after a person who has a gun chasing them.

One can almost hear Darwin saying "you out of the gene pool now"

 

Sounds like Arbery would have rather risked death than waited for police to arrive.

Remember, we know he had a bad interaction with police before from that taser video.

I don't buy this "Arbery thought Travis was going to shoot him". If that's what he thought he would never have gotten so close to Travis, nor would he have gotten close enough to try to grab the gun out of his hands.

And he ran along the right side of the truck where Gregory (the old man standing in the raised truck bed) could have easily shot him if that's what he had wanted to do.

 

We also know he was not simply out for a jog as the prosecution claimed.

It is quite likely that over the course of his life he had many bad interactions with the police.

He was obviously up to no good. At least in the State of Florida trespassing on a construction site is an automatic felony offense.

 

Well, we don't know that for certain.

There is some things that are suspicious, but they are not proof.

 

Interesting.

If a law like Florida's had existed, combined with Georgia's citizens arrest law, then what Travis did would definitely not have been a crime.

Georgia just changed their citizens arrest law though, in direct response to the Arbery case.
If someone is stealing from a jewelry store it is now a crime to stop them unless you are an employee of the business. You're not legally allowed to stop someone from stealing a car either. It's an insane and radical law change, which the media presented to the public as "sensible and reasonable".

 

We may not know for absolutely certain.
But one does not sightsee in a house under construction.

Construction sites being prime targets for theft of various sorts.

If he was innocently just looking around a normal person would have had no problem simply saying that to anyone who came to say hey what the hell are you doing there?

 

You're setting there with an encyclopedia at your finger tips. I can't think of a single thing you can't research that you can't do right where you are right now. If you would spend more time doing research and less time spewing venom towards people that simply answer your questions you'll be a much happier person.

 

Did you find something I said to be false?

 

Every American is afforded Freedom of Speech. Why are you arguing for something that isn't a crime?

And, why did you use the word "it" when referring to the victim?

 

Agreed.

 

Yeah, after reading a few sentences into the OP, I also realized who is posting this thread. No need for me to further participate.

 

Right behind you, man. Right behind you. Sometimes, we just gotta thrown in the towel!

 

One of the best^^^

 

Hold on. Gotta check, man. Did you use the standard valuation "less of a person" (Jim Crow) or "not really human" (Hitler) calculations when you crunched the numbers on this "Negro" "it" victim? /sarc.

 

I don't know if the jury even knew what was happening outside. At one point from what I saw on the news, there were about 4 or five negroids among the protesters outside the courthouse holding assault rifles. But the jury didn't need to know about that. As you said, having jesse jackson and probably other black preachers in the audience sent the message loud and clear. "Find them guilty or us "N words" are going to get all uppity!" Also, as I basically already said, the jurors were already psychologically intimidated before they were even sworn in. The McMichaels and Bryan would have stood a far better chance being tried in North Korea. In fact, their attorney should have requested such a change of venue because of the imprinted bias of the american public against them. If that didn't work, when the judge said that no personal information about arbery could be told to the jury, the attorney should have said, "I see. It isn't to be a fair trial. We refuse to participate in a farce." Then have the attorney and the defendants turn their chairs away from the court and remain mute. Let the judge throw a fit if he wanted to. Fuucckk him!

 

I believe the verdict was still wrong, even if we did not know about the suspect having a past criminal history. To me, that's not really entirely relevant. It is just more icing on the cake. We all know if the jury had known about that past history, it very likely may have deeply prejudiced them and they would be less likely to have reached the same verdict. Whether that would have been a good or bad thing, I do not know. (But the judge did allow all sorts of facts about what the McMichaels had said during the incident to be heard by the court, even though that theoretically should not have been logically relevant to the facts, and that did definitely prejudice the judge. So there seems to have been some double standards and what I would call unfairness here.)

I believe the judge truly believed in his opinion. Of course I also believe it was illogical and wrong, based on numerous logical fallacies and lots of emotion. I explained why in great detail here: Critique of the judge's closing statements in Arbery case