Anyone watching the Ahmaud Arbery murder trial?

H

Hiddengems

Well-Known Member
This couldn't be more different than the rittenhouse case. Rittenhouse was a lone man on foot with a gun being chased in the middle of a riot. This poor guy was doing whatever by himself and ended up being chased for a long time by multiple armed men who eventually caught him and killed him.
When someone runs to escape they cease to be a threat, if they ever were. They should have never pulled up on the guy, let alone continued pursuit.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
CunningCanuk said:
I watched the cross examination today. The prosecutor made mincemeat out of the piece of shit. This one should be a no brainer.
Click to expand...
i hope so; the rittenhouse trial verdict skewed and now you're going to have vigilante Militia showing everywhere; the Stare Decisis is The State v. Rittenhouse.
 
Herb & Suds

Herb & Suds

Well-Known Member
Hiddengems said:
This couldn't be more different than the rittenhouse case. Rittenhouse was a lone man on foot with a gun being chased in the middle of a riot. This poor guy was doing whatever by himself and ended up being chased for a long time by multiple armed men who eventually caught him and killed him.
When someone runs to escape they cease to be a threat, if they ever were. They should have never pulled up on the guy, let alone continued pursuit.
Click to expand...
You are aware he “had no socks and long dirty toe nails? “
 
M

mooray

Well-Known Member
Hiddengems said:
This couldn't be more different than the rittenhouse case. Rittenhouse was a lone man on foot with a gun being chased in the middle of a riot. This poor guy was doing whatever by himself and ended up being chased for a long time by multiple armed men who eventually caught him and killed him.
When someone runs to escape they cease to be a threat, if they ever were. They should have never pulled up on the guy, let alone continued pursuit.
Click to expand...
The problem is that, in Georgia, it was legal to chase him with guns, so once Ahmaud put his hands on the gun, then in the eyes of the law....it's just two people fighting for their life and whomever lives, wins.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Hiddengems said:
This couldn't be more different than the rittenhouse case. Rittenhouse was a lone man on foot with a gun being chased in the middle of a riot. This poor guy was doing whatever by himself and ended up being chased for a long time by multiple armed men who eventually caught him and killed him.
When someone runs to escape they cease to be a threat, if they ever were. They should have never pulled up on the guy, let alone continued pursuit.
Click to expand...
Rittenhouse is so yesterday.

Given the racist bullshit revealed in this trial. I can understand why you want to distance the two. Your problem is, we saw what happened in Kenosha. Kyle behaved like anyone who is guilty as hell after he killed three people. Yet through the minutia of legalities and a warped trial, Kyle got off on a plea of self defense. I can understand why you want to protect his propaganda value by claiming the "self defense" plea in this case is different. Most can't see any difference. They are both bogus. That is your problem.

Time to thaw the ice queen for another round of lies to the media:


1637696905154.png

We aint buying what you are selling.
 
Last edited:
HGCC

HGCC

Well-Known Member
Herb & Suds said:
I keep waiting for geriatric war in The Villages retirement community
I m just glad it isn’t shirts vs skins ;)
Click to expand...
That place is crazy. Saw something for a similar place in New Mexico, just old folks getting wild, drinking, spreading stds, racing golf carts.


I think I want to be elderly soon!

I do think these three will go to jail. Seems way less ambiguous, prosecution is much more competent, judge isn't an obvious trumptard, etc.

I find this case way more disgusting and bothersome than Rittenhouse. The bumpkins chased that man down and murdered him. Rittenhouse was more murky, hope the left learns to just shoot first, kind of see it as losing a duel.
 
H

Hiddengems

Well-Known Member
mooray said:
The problem is that, in Georgia, it was legal to chase him with guns, so once Ahmaud put his hands on the gun, then in the eyes of the law....it's just two people fighting for their life and whomever lives, wins.
Click to expand...
That's Georgia for you, lynch mobs "protect" people I guess.

Not that it's right, but I was always told dead men don't testify. The advantage goes to the winner by default.
 
M

mooray

Well-Known Member
Hiddengems said:
That's Georgia for you, lynch mobs "protect" people I guess.

Not that it's right, but I was always told dead men don't testify. The advantage goes to the winner by default.
Click to expand...
That whole "looking for trouble" thing is a mess. If you walk around a shitty neighborhood flashing cash because you want someone to try to rob you so that you can get your murder boner on, is that a crime? I think that the civilian trolling/entrapment angle is partially why we have the, "significant contributor of reckless behavior" portion of manslaughter laws, but making the connection in a courtroom seems to be easier said than done, which is why zimmerman is free and why these guys will probably go free.
 
H

Hiddengems

Well-Known Member
mooray said:
That whole "looking for trouble" thing is a mess. If you walk around a shitty neighborhood flashing cash because you want someone to try to rob you so that you can get your murder boner on, is that a crime? I think that the civilian trolling/entrapment angle is partially why we have the, "significant contributor of reckless behavior" portion of manslaughter laws, but making the connection in a courtroom seems to be easier said than done, which is why zimmerman is free and why these guys will probably go free.
Click to expand...
What automatically makes any homicide a murder and not manslaughter is if it was committed in the commission of another crime. Chasing an unarmed man for any distance while you are armed should at least be menacing.

I don't believe in "suspicious looking" persons either. Either you saw someone break a law, or you didn't. And unless it's a violent act against someone, it's none of your business anyway.
 
doublejj

doublejj

Well-Known Member
mooray said:
That whole "looking for trouble" thing is a mess. If you walk around a shitty neighborhood flashing cash because you want someone to try to rob you so that you can get your murder boner on, is that a crime? I think that the civilian trolling/entrapment angle is partially why we have the, "significant contributor of reckless behavior" portion of manslaughter laws, but making the connection in a courtroom seems to be easier said than done, which is why zimmerman is free and why these guys will probably go free.
Click to expand...
If these guys go free it's because Ahmaud was black and this is Georgia....
 
M

mooray

Well-Known Member
Hiddengems said:
What automatically makes any homicide a murder and not manslaughter is if it was committed in the commission of another crime. Chasing an unarmed man for any distance while you are armed should at least be menacing.

I don't believe in "suspicious looking" persons either. Either you saw someone break a law, or you didn't. And unless it's a violent act against someone, it's none of your business anyway.
Click to expand...
That's not true though. Go get drunk and crash into someone and kill them, you're going to be charged with manslaughter, not murder. It's about your intent. If you do something really stupid that results in someone dying, that's manslaughter. If you're angry with someone and you kill them, that's murder. It's a religious remnant of, "did you have hate in your heart?".
 
thumper60

thumper60

Well-Known Member
mooray said:
That's not true though. Go get drunk and crash into someone and kill them, you're going to be charged with manslaughter, not murder. It's about your intent. If you do something really stupid that results in someone dying, that's manslaughter. If you're angry with someone and you kill them, that's murder. It's a religious remnant of, "did you have hate in your heart?".
Click to expand...
thats called aggravated manslaughter around here 10-20
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Hiddengems said:
What automatically makes any homicide a murder and not manslaughter is if it was committed in the commission of another crime. Chasing an unarmed man for any distance while you are armed should at least be menacing.

I don't believe in "suspicious looking" persons either. Either you saw someone break a law, or you didn't. And unless it's a violent act against someone, it's none of your business anyway.
Click to expand...
I don't understand why no nothings like you think they are lawyers but grandiosity was always one of the hallmarks of right wing belief, so maybe that's it.

Anyway, this "self defense" thing is pretty complex. It seems that carrying a rifle to a protest and shooting people if they scare you was "self defense". It seems that stopping a person who doing nothing wrong while walking through a neighborhood and forcing them to defend themselves then when losing the wrestling match, shooting the person is "self defense". The gun lobby is waging war on personal safety Seems that all one needs is to be white and use a gun is called self defense nowadays. But an axe or a knife would not be an acceptable excuse, has to be a gun. From these cases, it is clear that there is nothing rational regarding the self defense argument. It all depends on the judge and the jury. Instead of trying the case through a computer terminal, maybe waiting to see what the jury decides is a better idea..
 
Dr.Amber Trichome

Dr.Amber Trichome

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I don't understand why no nothings like you think they are lawyers but grandiosity was always one of the hallmarks of right wing belief, so maybe that's it.

Anyway, this "self defense" thing is pretty complex. It seems that carrying a rifle to a protest and shooting people if they scare you was "self defense". It seems that stopping a person who doing nothing wrong while walking through a neighborhood and forcing them to defend themselves then when losing the wrestling match, shooting the person is "self defense". The gun lobby is waging war on personal safety Seems that all one needs is to be white and use a gun is called self defense nowadays. But an axe or a knife would not be an acceptable excuse, has to be a gun. From these cases, it is clear that there is nothing rational regarding the self defense argument. It all depends on the judge and the jury. Instead of trying the case through a computer terminal, maybe waiting to see what the jury decides is a better idea..
Click to expand...
Does a jury have to be locals to the area where trial is or can jurors be from all over the country and be paid for living expenses while working on the decision?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top