Politics Ahmad Arbury Trial (actually McMicheal & Co.)

Sinister

pari animositate
Premium
FreightCoin
79
Yeah, for some one brave enough to start the thread. So you put my name behind it? That's sheisty!!

@Mike I'm going to need you to do something here.
So you're "brave" enough to make an off topic post in another thread?

What do you suggest Mike do?

You wanted the subject. Here is the subject. Discuss the subject. Stop derailing every other thread with oblique and pedantic crap.
 
Last edited:

Duck

Sarcastic remark goes here
FreightCoin
193
Yeah, for some one brave enough to start the thread. So you put my name behind it? That's sheisty!!

@Mike I'm going to need you to do something here.
Looks like he did. He changed the author of the first post to cabinover.

But he didn't edit the quote in post #2 😂
 

SomethingElse

Well-Known Member
FreightCoin
0
Yes sir. They have about as much of a chance of walking as Chauvin did.

And that's a shame. Because Arbery ended up being the aggressor. I watch the video many many MANY times. And in slow motion. Gregory is innocent of murder.

Arbery ran towards the McMichael's. Travis in the back of the truck. And Greg in the front. Their intentions were to stop him, probably question him, until the cops got there. So he wouldn't get away.

The first video of Arbery was him trespassing in that house. Then it shows him coming out, probably seeing that he was being watched by a neighbor, then bolting.
The shooting video show Arbery running towards the McMichael's. Greg gets out with his gun, and goes to the front of the truck, before Arbery gets there. If they intended on killing him, Greg would've went to the back of the truck. Or stuck his gun through the window to steady his gun. But neither of them fired on Arbery.
Arbery, when he finally got to them, he ran on the passenger side of the truck. Once he got to the front of the truck, he made a left turn, and lunged for Greg and his gun. Greg stepped back then fired as Arbery grabbed for the gun.

The judge did something I COMPLETELY don't agree with. He would not allow Arberys dirty toxicology report to be entered as evidence. Nor would he allow Arberys mental condition to be entered as evidence. So there's no psychologist, even Arbery's therapist to be called to testify.
From what I understand, Arberys mental condition mixed with THC makes people like that aggressive, instead of calm.

There's a webcam video of Arbery being questioned by police not long before that. Arbery was sitting in his car, on a hot day, windows rolled up, and the car parked in the sun at some park. Not in the parking area. But I suppose it's in the back of the park, off the parking and road. Strange place for someone to park.
Anywho, after just a few questions, Arbery got extremely angry, very quick. "Why you F'n with me," over and over. And at one point, almost rushed the cop.
The cop was being respectful and courteous, even after Arbery ran up on him.
 

Mike

Well-Known Member
FreightCoin
543
The judge did something I COMPLETELY don't agree with. He would not allow Arberys dirty toxicology report to be entered as evidence. Nor would he allow Arberys mental condition to be entered as evidence. So there's no psychologist, even Arbery's therapist to be called to testify.
From what I understand, Arberys mental condition mixed with THC makes people like that aggressive, instead of calm.
Because none of this has anything to do with the case.
 

Sinister

pari animositate
Premium
FreightCoin
79
And that's a shame. Because Arbery ended up being the aggressor. I watch the video many many MANY times. And in slow motion. Gregory is innocent of murder.

Arbery ran towards the McMichael's. Travis in the back of the truck. And Greg in the front. Their intentions were to stop him, probably question him, until the cops got there. So he wouldn't get away.

The first video of Arbery was him trespassing in that house. Then it shows him coming out, probably seeing that he was being watched by a neighbor, then bolting.
The shooting video show Arbery running towards the McMichael's. Greg gets out with his gun, and goes to the front of the truck, before Arbery gets there. If they intended on killing him, Greg would've went to the back of the truck. Or stuck his gun through the window to steady his gun. But neither of them fired on Arbery.
Arbery, when he finally got to them, he ran on the passenger side of the truck. Once he got to the front of the truck, he made a left turn, and lunged for Greg and his gun. Greg stepped back then fired as Arbery grabbed for the gun.

The judge did something I COMPLETELY don't agree with. He would not allow Arberys dirty toxicology report to be entered as evidence. Nor would he allow Arberys mental condition to be entered as evidence. So there's no psychologist, even Arbery's therapist to be called to testify.
From what I understand, Arberys mental condition mixed with THC makes people like that aggressive, instead of calm.

There's a webcam video of Arbery being questioned by police not long before that. Arbery was sitting in his car, on a hot day, windows rolled up, and the car parked in the sun at some park. Not in the parking area. But I suppose it's in the back of the park, off the parking and road. Strange place for someone to park.
Anywho, after just a few questions, Arbery got extremely angry, very quick. "Why you F'n with me," over and over. And at one point, almost rushed the cop.
The cop was being respectful and courteous, even after Arbery ran up on him.
Arbery tried to disengage from these people for well over five minutes.

Arbery had ZERO obligation to talk to them.

These guys kept chasing him, which resulted in his death.
 

SomethingElse

Well-Known Member
FreightCoin
0
Arbery tried to disengage from these people for well over five minutes.

Arbery had ZERO obligation to talk to them.

These guys kept chasing him, which resulted in his death.

Arbery had just been caught breaking the law. You call it "disengage himself." I call it fleeing.
Citizens have a right and a duty, if they're able, to catch a criminal and follow him, or try to get him to stop until the police arrived.

What resulted in his death, was him lunging for someone and their gun, instead of continuing on about his way. McMichael wasn't in front of Arbery when Arbery got to the front of the truck. And according to the video, he wasn't even pointing his gun at Arbery. It was pointing towards the ground. Not straight down, but not at Arbery either.

If they just wanted to gun Arbery down, they had many opportunities to do so prior to Arbery going after Greg's gun.
 

SomethingElse

Well-Known Member
FreightCoin
0
And they had absolutely zero right to do this. They didn’t see him do anything, and they were no in the process of stopping a crime in progress.

You're joking right? He was witness on camera and also coming out of the house. Once Arbery seen that he was being watched, he bolted like a criminal.

Surely you don't think crooks are entitled to just not answer to neighbors about why your trespassing, do you? I would do it for my neighbors. And I'd hope my neighbors would do it for me.
If I was caught trespassing, I'd have a conversation. I'm not entitled to anything pertaining to the crime I just committed. Maybe it's because I'm a white guy. and don't actually have any "white privilege."
Nor do I have any white guilt for thugs.

One of Arberys priors was bringing a gun to a high school basketball game. I think I mentioned that already. But this dude wasn't a decent person. So be dayumed if I'm going to take up for him.

For the record, had either of the McMicheal's just drove up on him and shot him, ran towards Arbery and shot him, I would side with Arbery in a heartbeat. I'd call'm racist white thugs, and just about anything else I could think of. Because that would prove there's still a lot of racism in this country, from my own race. They would be an embarrassment to my race. And would make things harder for other non racist white folks.
But that's not the way it went down.
 

Duck

Sarcastic remark goes here
FreightCoin
193
You're joking right? He was witness on camera and also coming out of the house. Once Arbery seen that he was being watched, he bolted like a criminal.

Surely you don't think crooks are entitled to just not answer to neighbors about why your trespassing, do you? I would do it for my neighbors. And I'd hope my neighbors would do it for me.
If I was caught trespassing, I'd have a conversation. I'm not entitled to anything pertaining to the crime I just committed. Maybe it's because I'm a white guy. and don't actually have any "white privilege."
Nor do I have any white guilt for thugs.

One of Arberys priors was bringing a gun to a high school basketball game. I think I mentioned that already. But this dude wasn't a decent person. So be dayumed if I'm going to take up for him.

For the record, had either of the McMicheal's just drove up on him and shot him, ran towards Arbery and shot him, I would side with Arbery in a heartbeat. I'd call'm racist white thugs, and just about anything else I could think of. Because that would prove there's still a lot of racism in this country, from my own race. They would be an embarrassment to my race. And would make things harder for other non racist white folks.
But that's not the way it went down.
What video did you see?
 

Duck

Sarcastic remark goes here
FreightCoin
193
No, because they had no right to be hunting him down in the first place. They were nowhere within their rights to be hunting this man down, and they all need to rot in prison for it.
I dunno...

There needs to be a vigilante clause in the new constitution after the communists get evil enough to wake up & motivate the masses.

Something that says that if police refuse or are unable to investigate certain crimes, the victims &/or their families get to hunt down the perps and administer justice themselves.

That should motivate the politicians to keep police departments properly funded and staffed. 😎👍
 

Mike

Well-Known Member
FreightCoin
543
I dunno...

There needs to be a vigilante clause in the new constitution after the communists get evil enough to wake up & motivate the masses.

Something that says that if police refuse or are unable to investigate certain crimes, the victims &/or their families get to hunt down the perps and administer justice themselves.

That should motivate the politicians to keep police departments properly funded and staffed. 😎👍

If anything you said made any sense, which it doesn’t, how would that apply to this situation?

If a person has been seen in your area, you now get to go hunt and kill people you don’t know because they are in your area?
 

Duck

Sarcastic remark goes here
FreightCoin
193
If a person has been seen in your area, you now get to go hunt and kill people you don’t know because they are in your area?
If, and only if, police are unwilling or not allowed to respond & do their jobs. But yes.

What if some piece of shit attacked your wife or one of your kids, and the police refused to do anything about it, but you knew damn well for a fact who it was and where to find him? What then? Do you not have the right to protect your family? I would say you most certainly do.

What if some piece of shit set your house on fire while you were out on the road, and you have his face on your doorbell cam. The fire department saves your house, and damage is minimal, but police refuse to charge the piece of shit "because blah blah blah", and meanwhile the piece of shit is threatening to come back and torch it again? What then? Do you not have the right to protect yourself, your family and your home, because the politicians said "blah blah blah"?

What about the owners of the businesses that were destroyed in the riots because the same terrorists who orchestrated the riots are also running city hall and ordered the police to do nothing. Don't those business owners have the right to protect their property?

Maybe there is something to what @SomethingElse is saying.

He watched some video. We didn't. I'd like to see the same video he saw. What if it was indeed a case like that, where they knew he was a serial burglar but police didn't care, or weren't allowed to care because democrats ran the local government?
 

Mike

Well-Known Member
FreightCoin
543
If, and only if, police are unwilling or not allowed to respond & do their jobs. But yes.

What if some piece of shit attacked your wife or one of your kids, and the police refused to do anything about it, but you knew damn well for a fact who it was and where to find him? What then? Do you not have the right to protect your family? I would say you most certainly do.

What if some piece of shit set your house on fire while you were out on the road, and you have his face on your doorbell cam. The fire department saves your house, and damage is minimal, but police refuse to charge the piece of shit "because blah blah blah", and meanwhile the piece of shit is threatening to come back and torch it again? What then? Do you not have the right to protect yourself, your family and your home, because the politicians said "blah blah blah"?

What about the owners of the businesses that were destroyed in the riots because the same terrorists who orchestrated the riots are also running city hall and ordered the police to do nothing. Don't those business owners have the right to protect their property?

Maybe there is something to what @SomethingElse is saying.

He watched some video. We didn't. I'd like to see the same video he saw. What if it was indeed a case like that, where they knew he was a serial burglar but police didn't care, or weren't allowed to care because democrats ran the local government?
What ifs have nothing to do with this case.

This basically centers around the dead man going into a home that was being built. Might be shocking, but when homes are being built, lots of people go inside multiple times looking around.

Did he intend to steal something? Nothing indicates that.

Did he steal something? Apparently not, because….

The owner of the house to reported him to the police never reported anything being stolen, and he said in court that he knew of nothing that was stolen.

The owner of the house simply didn’t want him in there, which is his right as the owner.

The officer, once he ever was able to identify this man positively as being the person going into the house, was going to give a “warning” and let the man know that if he continued going into the house after the warning that he would be arrested.

Nothing was ever stolen from this house, and that is what this case is centered around.

The officer apparently spoke with this retired investigator about watching out for the guy going in as he would be experienced enough to positively identify him and allow the officer to issue an official warning.

Nobody had the right to hunt this man down and kill him. Especially for the vicious crime of walking into a house that was being built. If this was justification, it would be legal to kill lots of people in new construction areas.

There is literally nothing to defend here.
 

Duck

Sarcastic remark goes here
FreightCoin
193
Travis McMichael guilty on all 9 counts.

Greg McMichael guilty on 8 of 9 counts.

William Bryan guilty of about half of them.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top