Riot Watch...

[76Too]

Doubtful that he was ‘just out jogging’ and probably likely that he may have had more than a little to do with the missing items from the construction sight, but these idiots on trial got what they deserved.

Life>Property in 100% of cases where the property isn’t even yours. If the job site contractors cared so much about their ****, they wouldn’t have left it laying around after the first time anything went missing.

These three had no business doing what they did and they’re lucky they escaped with their lives. These morons just fed the fire and gave the left the ammunition they needed to fuel their narrative. They WANT you to react and take matters into your own hands. They WANT you to bring violence upon their kind so they can vilify and cancel you.

Mind your business. Clean up your job site and lock up your ****. Most of all, don’t chase unarmed folks with shotguns without a backhoe handy.

 

[BigRed]

Sharpton talking, "ten years after Travon..."

 

[mark40sw]

You may have missed some of the nuances....

Putting one into the back of the head of the guy spread-eagled on the pavement is probably a bit too much.

I probably woulda shot the guy in the car and messed up the upholstery.

You may have missed some of the nuances....

Man, in video i linked, drew a gun on someone who he thought was committing theft and held him at gunpoint until police arrived.
McMichaels brought guns to what they thought was a crime in progress.

Man, in video i linked, did not fire his gun "into the back of the head" because the suspected thief did not charge him.
McMichael fired because he was charged at and tried to have his weapon taken.

 

[KG1]

No matter what your suspicions about this Arbery guy are the jury followed the law in GA. along with the evidence and came to the correct verdict.

According to the law in GA those three now convicted individuals could not legally do what they did.

In order to attempt a citizen’s arrest until the police arrive you must actually catch a perp in the act of committing a felony and not just suspicion of doing so.

On the night they tried to detain him he was not witnessed by them committing a criminal act. They tried to stop him for just being in the neighborhood under suspicion of committing a crime.

According to the law they were not entitled to do so thusly they were charged with false imprisonment.

Then they were charged with two counts of felony aggravated assault, I believe one was for assault with a vehicle when they tried to box him in and another when they physically tried to detain him with a weapon.

Now the reason why they were charged with felony murder when Arbery was shot and killed was because they weren’t entitled to claim self defense even though he was allegedly trying to go for the shotgun that one of the defendant’s had. They all three were in the commission of multiple crimes according to the law at the time Arbery was shot and killed which they were ultimately convicted of.

The jury got this one right in GA according to the law and the evidence just like the jury did in WI.

 

[Alpo]

You may have missed some of the nuances....

Man, in video i linked, drew a gun on someone who he thought was committing theft and held him at gunpoint until police arrived.
McMichaels brought guns to what they thought was a crime in progress.

Man, in video i linked, did not fire his gun "into the back of the head" because the suspected thief did not charge him.
McMichael fired because he was charged at and tried to have his weapon taken.

Well, let's review the bidding.

You changed the subject. I made your change absurd.

Watch your step as you deboard the thread.

 

[mark40sw]

"Watch your step"
Care to explain?

 

[jamil]

About the NFAC. I think the group is probably gonna break up with their moron leader now that he and some of his “militia” were indicted for pointing their guns at police

You may have missed some of the nuances....

Putting one into the back of the head of the guy spread-eagled on the pavement is probably a bit too much.

I probably woulda shot the guy in the car and messed up the upholstery.

I took what he said as mocking the idiots who insist that murder is now legal because of the Rittenhouse outcome. I could be am apparently wrong about that.

 

[Alpo]

"Watch your step"
Care to explain?

It's a way of saying end of discussion. Au Revoir. It's the last thing you hear as you arrive at a destination from those who carried you to that point.

In the context of a firearms competition, it would be the RO saying "Next Shooter!"

 

[bwframe]

It's a way of saying end of discussion. Au Revoir. It's the last thing you hear as you arrive at a destination from those who carried you to that point.

In the context of a firearms competition, it would be the RO saying "Next Shooter!"

Make ready...

 

[mark40sw]

Lawyer Says Ahmaud Arbery Cases' Judge Ruled INCORRECTLY, All Three Defendants Were Charged

 

[KG1]

It all comes down to the interpretation of the citizen's arrest law and if the judge's interpretation unfairly influenced the verdict against the defendants as in a directed verdict in favor of the state.. It will be contested in an appeal most definitely. I posted this Nate the Lawyer's rundown in another thread..

 

[ancjr]

My opinion is worth little, but the video I've seen makes it look like all 4 men were acting strangely.

 

[mark40sw]

It all comes down to the interpretation of the citizen's arrest law and if the judge's interpretation unfairly influenced the verdict against the defendants as in a directed verdict in favor of the state.. It will be contested in an appeal most definitely. I posted this Nate the Lawyer's rundown in another thread..

The vid i posted, at the 12:00 to 13:30 mark, talks of The Rule of Lenity that appears to not have been followed by the judge.

"The Rule of Lenity: in construing an ambiguous criminal statute, a court should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the defendant."

statutory construction

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[KG1]

The vid i posted, at the 12:00 to 13:30 mark, talks of The Rule of Lenity that appears to not have been followed by the judge.

"The Rule of Lenity: in construing an ambiguous criminal statute, a court should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the defendant."

statutory construction

www.law.cornell.edu

Yeah I saw the video you posted before. It will for sure be a major ground of contention on appeal.

Batten down the hatches. This ain't over yet.

 

[jamil]

The vid i posted, at the 12:00 to 13:30 mark, talks of The Rule of Lenity that appears to not have been followed by the judge.

"The Rule of Lenity: in construing an ambiguous criminal statute, a court should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the defendant."

statutory construction

www.law.cornell.edu

I think the judge in that case punted to the jury. Everyone is saying that the interpretation of that law determines the outcome. He didn't want to determine the outcome.

 

[KG1]

I think the judge in that case punted to the jury. Everyone is saying that the interpretation of that law determines the outcome. He didn't want to determine the outcome.

The defense is saying that the judge should not have given the jury instruction on his interpretation of the disputed private person arrest code and by doing what he did it gutted their whole case resulting in a directed verdict in favor of the state.

The video I posted gives a pretty good rundown with the actual court debate between the defense and the judge over their difference in interpretation.

The statute is ambiguous and open to interpretation and in a case like that the defense's argument can be made that the court should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the defendant in accordance with the Rule of Lenity.

Another point of note is that the original prosecutor declined to file charges because of their interpretation that it was a legit case of citizen's arrest further demonstrating the ambiguous nature of the statute.

Ultimately it will be up to the appellate court to decide. This could get really ugly before it's over.