AHMAUD ARBERY: Georgia vs Greg & Travis McMichael & William Bryan for murder GUILTY

GrandmaBear · May 27, 2020

Howell said:
They didn't know precisely who it was. They didn't have a name or address. They recognized him from previous occasions. He was trespassing on the same property, once again. They pursued him and tried to stop and talk to him. He attacked them and got shot. That's what happened.

That quite simply is not a proven fact, you are assuming it. It almost sounds like you are saying all black men look alike. You have nothing at all but their word that they tried to stop and talk to him or that they ever even saw the videos/pics from the homeowner, much less ever saw him themselves before that day or that it was him if they did see someone. Also, he did not attack them and get shot, he got shot and then tried to get the gun away.

You are making circular arguments.

GrandmaBear · May 27, 2020

Howell said:
Sure, it could be anyone. If you've seen the footage then you know, as well as I, that it's Arbery. It's pretty amusing to watch how far you guys will go to keep this narrative afloat. 'But he didn't steal anything'!!!

Whether it is or not, it doesn't matter. The one trying to keep that narrative is going is you, as you keep bringing it up lol.

Howell · May 28, 2020

GrandmaBear said:
That quite simply is not a proven fact, you are assuming it. It almost sounds like you are saying all black men look alike. You have nothing at all but their word that they tried to stop and talk to him or that they ever even saw the videos/pics from the homeowner, much less ever saw him themselves before that day or that it was him if they did see someone. Also, he did not attack them and get shot, he got shot and then tried to get the gun away.

You are making circular arguments.

Again, not an assumption. If you've seen the footage, any reasonable person can determine that it's Arbery. I really don't think this is a race case at all. You are the one who called the McMichaels "racist", without a single indication that they are. Only the media have pushed that narrative. But of course, as you told us, your opinions don't come from the media...

Cousin Dupree · May 28, 2020

In Ahmaud Arbery case, unexpected advocates for racial justice

The killing of a black jogger in Georgia is setting up to be a defining moment for conservative ideals and racial justice.

www.csmonitor.com

Why We Wrote This
National narratives around race don’t change easily. But the moral clarity emerging after the killing of a black jogger in Georgia is setting up to be a defining moment for conservative ideals and racial justice.
By Patrik Jonsson Staff writer

Savannah, Ga.

Ben Davis is a self-described Christian conservative and a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights. He also believes citizen arrest laws have solid roots in common law.The one-time campaign chief for former Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach is also a former long-distance runner.And what Mr. Davis saw in the video showing the killing of Ahmaud Arbery, a black runner in Brunswick, Georgia, was jarring.To him, the video offers moral clarity, and he says that standing up publicly for a fellow runner’s constitutional rights doesn’t negate his conservatism.“It seems like conservatives are always kind of Johnny-come-latelies with some of these really important issues, instead of speaking imaginatively about how being conservative applies to the whole sphere of public and collective life together,” says Mr. Davis, who wrote an Op-Ed about the shooting for The Wichita Eagle newspaper in Kansas. “Many say, ‘Oh, this is just a leftist issue so we’re going to sit very comfortably in our own little narrative. We’re going to wait it out and keep ourselves silent.’

“I think that’s wrong.”

Something unusual has happened in the aftermath of the Feb. 23, 2020, shooting of Mr. Arbery: The entrenched political lines around Black Lives Matter cases have not held. Conservative voices – particularly in Georgia government – are joining the chorus calling for justice.
Mr. Davis and other conservatives see the killing of Mr. Arbery – in which armed white men in a pickup truck chased down a black man wearing shorts and sneakers – as a defining moment for conservative ideals and racial justice.

“To see someone killed before one’s very eyes is horrifying, but ... there’s also a sense of weariness and lament that I find in the country after so many cases of this sort of horror happening,” says Russell Moore, author of “Onward: Engaging the Culture Without Losing the Gospel.” “There may be some ambiguities about some of the questions here, but there certainly is no ambiguity about the end result: that private citizens do not have the authority to kill someone. There’s just not a Christian justification nor an American justification for this sort of action.”

A consensus across party lines
While some think it’s too soon to say the national narrative has shifted, some black Georgians interviewed welcome white evangelicals stepping off the sidelines.
“Black people in this nation have spent more time in involuntary servitude than in freedom if you add it up over time,” says James Yancey, a Brunswick attorney, who is African American. “It didn’t get that way overnight and it’s not going to change overnight. It will have to come down to a divine change from the hearts of people.” And white people, including evangelical Christians, speaking up for that change is important, he says. “Words have meaning. Words mean something.”
Two months after a prosecutor deemed the chase and killing legal under the state’s self-defense and citizen arrest laws, two men – father and son Greg and Travis McMichael – were arrested on May 7 by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation on charges of assault and murder. A fourth prosecutor has now been assigned to the case. The Department of Justice is probing the incident as a possible federal hate crime. A judge denied bond.

The men say they were chasing a burglary suspect who turned violently on them. Mr. Arbery was shot three times at short range with a shotgun. The elder Mr. McMichael’s attorney said the facts will present a different series of events than the public has seen so far.
For now, the current picture “fits into the worst impressions that people have, that Georgia is still ‘Mississippi Burning’ – that this is still the 1950s, where lynchings take place,” says Charles Bullock III, a political scientist at the University of Georgia, in Athens.

Win McNamee/Reuters

U.S. Sen. Kelly Loeffler, a Georgia Republican, participates in the Senate Committee for Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions hearing on coronavirus response, in Washington, May 12, 2020. Senator Loeffler was among the first Republicans to condemn the killing of Ahmaud Arbery.

Georgia Sen. Kelly Loeffler, a Republican, came out early to condemn the killing, calling for justice for Mr. Arbery.
She was joined by a chorus of major conservative voices.

“The time for being silent ended last week,” Republican Senate leader David Ralston told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, also a Republican, said: “It’s important for people to know that Republicans value each and every human life. I think it’s important for everyone to understand that civil rights is not within the purview of any one party.”

The bipartisan outrage over the killing and how it was handled has jump-started a conversation about a Georgia hate crime bill that has passed the Republican-led House but has lingered in a Senate committee. A previous hate crimes law was voided in 2004, leaving Georgia only one of four states without such laws. Lawmakers may also revisit citizen arrest laws that one Glynn County prosecutor said protected the shooters from prosecution.

One of those supporting a probe into why it took two months to make an arrest is U.S. Rep. Buddy Carter, a Republican whose district includes Brunswick.
“The American people and the people in the First District especially need to be assured not only that justice is going to be done, but that they have confidence in the judicial system and law enforcement,” says Congressman Carter. “I think a reassessment is essential. As damning as that video was, we want to make sure that ... these guys get a fair trial. But, I mean, let’s face it: This should never have happened.”

Is this really a new narrative?

Some historians are critical of purported “new narratives” based on a singular exception.

“Some of the other cases have been more ambiguous in part because the victim’s character gets besmirched pretty quickly in the process, or because of the authority of the person doing the shooting,” says Andra Gillespie, director of the James Weldon Johnson Institute at Emory University in Atlanta, who is black. “But in this case you had an extrajudicial activity where the narrative quickly became an unarmed jogger gets shot by vigilantes. That was visceral and made this a clear black and white issue of right and wrong.”

Others caution that the outcry in this case may be more politically motivated than anything else.
“The outcry and the movement in the criminal justice system, in a lot of ways that’s a response to negative publicity that the local community and the state of Georgia is getting about ... a lynching,” says historian Carole Emberton.

But others see a difference this time – if of degrees.
Professor Bullock draws a parallel to the last American mass lynching, which happened in Georgia in 1946 when two African American couples were killed by a white mob at Moore’s Ford Bridge on the Appalachee River.
State and federal law enforcement poured in, but leads evaporated as the community closed ranks to protect the killers. The FBI investigation was finally and quietly closed a decade ago without any arrests. Historians point out that Georgia ranked second in numbers of confirmed lynchings through the Jim Crow era. There was no official recognition until 1999, when state officials erected a historical marker at Moore’s Ford.

“The governor-elect [in 1946], Eugene Talmadge, didn’t say anything condemning the lynching, and some people believed that the racist campaign he ran that year may have encouraged the lynch mob to think that there are no repercussions,” says Mr. Bullock.
But if the men who chased down Mr. Arbery believed the law and the community would protect them, adds Mr. Bullock, they were eventually proved mistaken.
Continued below...

Cousin Dupree · May 28, 2020

A different kind of moment

For many white evangelical Christians, morality, race, and politics have long been wound into one tight cord through the South. The killing of Mr. Arbery has started a vigorous conversation within those Christian communities.

“If you think about Odetta’s song in the mid-20th century, ‘God’s Going to Cut You Down,’ speaking to the Klan and other white supremacist terrorists, the point of that song was to say that what you think is hidden will be ultimately revealed,” says Mr. Moore, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention in Nashville. “That means that Christians have a responsibility to seek to walk in the ways of a just God, and to bear another’s burdens.”
What may also be happening now beyond condemning hate on moral grounds is an understanding that conservatives may lose more broadly when they don’t demand equal justice in cases of racist violence.
“Racial violence often becomes a bifurcated thing on a narrow set of issues,” says Mr. Davis, in Wichita. “The idea of institutional racism ... has always either been used as a weapon or as a way of sidestepping the issue entirely.”

This is a different kind of moment, he hopes.

“When there are real, clear instances of racism such as what we have here, we should collectively speak out,” says Mr. Davis. “This should not be tainted by political ideology. We can be unified with one voice, condemn it and learn from it, and mourn it as a nation. ... It’s got to be citizens leading the cultivation of virtue and a spirit of reconciliation in this country. It’s got to happen among the people.”

Cousin Dupree · May 28, 2020

A modern posse shot Ahmaud Arbery. Has stand your ground gone too far?

A father and son were arrested and charged with the murder of Ahmaud Arbery. The case speaks to how quickly things can go wrong when citizens stand in for cops.

www.csmonitor.com

A modern posse shot Ahmaud Arbery. Has stand your ground gone too far?

Why We Wrote This

Killing an unarmed black jogger in broad daylight? The case of Ahmaud Arbery speaks to a thread of vigilantism that can spin out of control when citizens think they should stand in for cops.

By Patrick Johnson
Savannah, Ga.
May 8, 2020

The two white men said they were justified in killing the unarmed black man who was jogging through their Georgia neighborhood. They never denied doing it, and one district attorney also saw nothing wrong, calling the shooting “perfectly legal.”

On Thursday, however, the two men were arrested and charged with murder by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. The case turned dramatically when a video of the killing – made by a colleague of the two men – surfaced online.

The story of how a fatal shooting in broad daylight could go from something dismissed as of no legal consequence to murder – and why that shift took two months – has many layers. But at its core is the question of whether certain laws are providing cover for racist acts of violence.

Ahmaud Arbery was confronted and killed by what amounted to a modern-day posse. The case has echoes of 2012, when a neighborhood watch volunteer in Sanford, Florida, killed Trayvon Martin – a black teenager in a hoodie – after falsely assuming he might be a criminal. He was protected by the state’s “stand your ground” law, which allows citizens to use lethal force when they deem a situation to be life-threatening.Now, Mr. Arbery’s death has again put a spotlight on self-defense and arrest powers, as well as the racial effects of laws that condone the open carry of weaponry.
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Polit...eniors-virus-is-shifting-their-views-of-Trump

“This is such an egregious example of an abuse of the citizen’s arrest statute and a twisting of the ‘stand your ground’ law, that it will force people to think a little,” says Joëlle Anne Moreno, a professor at Florida International University College of Law in Miami.

What happened that day

The facts of the case are not significantly in dispute. Father and son Greg and Travis McMichael pursued Ahmaud Arbery when they saw him running through their neighborhood in Brunswick, Georgia. Police files indicate that they considered themselves in “hot pursuit of a burglary suspect.”
When the two men confronted Mr. Arbery – with a third colleague in a truck nearby, recording the video – a struggle over Travis McMichael’s shotgun ensued, and Travis McMichael shot him.

A new report by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution Friday suggests that the father, Greg, knew Mr. Arbery from his time as a police detective and was convinced that a surveillance video of a recent burglary showed Mr. Arbery. In high school, Mr. Arbery was sentenced to five years probation on charges of carrying a weapon on campus and several counts of obstructing a law enforcement officer, the Journal-Constitution notes. He was charged with shoplifting in 2018, violating his probation, the paper adds.

Greg McMichael “said he planned to make a citizen’s arrest,” the Journal-Constitution writes.
Regardless of Mr. McMichael’s assertions, the manner in which he and his son pursued them is deeply troubling.
“They just meted out a death penalty to this guy for what, at worst, is a crime of breaking and entering,” says Bob Spitzer, author of “Guns Across America.” “It’s a half-step away from a lynching.”

Mr. McMichael’s supposed evidence linking Mr. Arbery to burglary is also problematic on many levels.

“They said he was a suspect – well, anybody can be a suspect,” says James Yancey, a defense attorney in Brunswick. “There’s no indication that either one of the McMichaels were threatened, about to be threatened or where anything dangerous was going to happen to them – there’s no evidence of that. Instead, we’re left to say, ‘There’s this thing called a phone and this number called 911.’”
It turns out someone did call 911 to report a black man running through the neighborhood. That caller, too, suspected some kind of crime. But the dispatcher struggled with the caller’s inability to articulate evidence of a crime.

“I just need to know what he’s doing wrong,” the dispatcher said.

John Bazemore/AP/File
Capitol police clear protesters from the office of Sen. Jesse Stone, Feb. 10, 2014, in Atlanta. The protesters were calling for an end to Georgia's "stand your ground" law. Several people were arrested after refusing to leave.

Citizen’s arrests

For these reasons, the right of citizens to arrest fellow citizens focuses on the need to actually witness the crime. The legal principle is rooted in English common law dating back to 1285, which empowers anyone witnessing a crime to make a “hue and cry” against the criminal. The role of citizens in law enforcement, however, has declined as police officers have taken over the arrest function for the state and as the desire for accuracy has increased.
Unlike citizens, “peace officers were given greater leeway to investigate and arrest for criminal conduct that they did not personally witness, the presumption being that those responsible for enforcing the law were presumptively more reliable than the average private citizen,” writes Ira Robbins, a professor at American University’s Washington College of Law, in a 2016 journal article.

One lesson from this incident might be that once citizens engage, it can be hard to de-escalate a situation. In April, the RAND Corp. released a report recommending that states rescind stand-your-ground laws because they increase homicide rates.

“There’s a study that shows people honestly believing that they’re engaging in self-defense, but actually engaging in assaults or brandishing or murder, which ties together a lot of what we’re seeing with open carry that looks like intimidation rather than what is protected by law,” says Joseph Blocher, a professor at Duke University School of Law. “In other words, once the fight starts, the self-defense argument is available to everybody.”
Whether Mr. McMichaels engaged because of racism or simply as a former cop – “either way, it’s still violating the law,” says Professor Blocher.

“We need a change of heart”

To some, the broader conversation around law and order today is helping to fuel vigilante justice.

“When people are being taught by ... the NRA that they are the ones responsible for standing up to criminals and tyrants, and that you can’t trust the government to do it for you, it encourages people to take the law into their own hands, be armed, and act upon their fears and prejudices,” says Adam Winkler, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law.
But for Mr. Yancey, the Brunswick defense attorney and an African American, what is most needed is a change of heart.

He tells of how, during a hurricane in 2007, his son and his white roommate went outside to check on a truck. A police officer emerged from his cruiser, pointing his handgun at Mr. Yancey’s son and asking the white friend to explain what was going on.

“God has given me this phrase: condition of the heart,” says Mr. Yancey, who attended segregated schools in the area until eighth grade. “When my white friends and white church members say they don’t see color, I tell them, ‘Then you need to get your eyes checked because that means you don’t see me at all, even when I’m standing right here in front of you.’

“The question is, what do you think in your mind when you see that person? What is in the abundance of your heart? To get past the stronghold of racism, we don’t need new laws or another court case. We need a change of heart.”

Guess Who · May 28, 2020

Howell said:
Again, not an assumption. If you've seen the footage, any reasonable person can determine that it's Arbery. I really don't think this is a race case at all. You are the one who called the McMichaels "racist", without a single indication that they are. Only the media have pushed that narrative. But of course, as you told us, your opinions don't come from the media...

Then why.are they saying it has only been confirmed that it was him seen ONCE on tape? You would think they would know better than you, wouldnt you?

Guess Who · May 28, 2020

Cousin Dupree said:
A modern posse shot Ahmaud Arbery. Has stand your ground gone too far?

A father and son were arrested and charged with the murder of Ahmaud Arbery. The case speaks to how quickly things can go wrong when citizens stand in for cops.

www.csmonitor.com

A modern posse shot Ahmaud Arbery. Has stand your ground gone too far?

Why We Wrote This

Killing an unarmed black jogger in broad daylight? The case of Ahmaud Arbery speaks to a thread of vigilantism that can spin out of control when citizens think they should stand in for cops.

By Patrick Johnson
Savannah, Ga.
May 8, 2020

The two white men said they were justified in killing the unarmed black man who was jogging through their Georgia neighborhood. They never denied doing it, and one district attorney also saw nothing wrong, calling the shooting “perfectly legal.”

On Thursday, however, the two men were arrested and charged with murder by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. The case turned dramatically when a video of the killing – made by a colleague of the two men – surfaced online.

The story of how a fatal shooting in broad daylight could go from something dismissed as of no legal consequence to murder – and why that shift took two months – has many layers. But at its core is the question of whether certain laws are providing cover for racist acts of violence.

Ahmaud Arbery was confronted and killed by what amounted to a modern-day posse. The case has echoes of 2012, when a neighborhood watch volunteer in Sanford, Florida, killed Trayvon Martin – a black teenager in a hoodie – after falsely assuming he might be a criminal. He was protected by the state’s “stand your ground” law, which allows citizens to use lethal force when they deem a situation to be life-threatening.Now, Mr. Arbery’s death has again put a spotlight on self-defense and arrest powers, as well as the racial effects of laws that condone the open carry of weaponry.
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Polit...eniors-virus-is-shifting-their-views-of-Trump

“This is such an egregious example of an abuse of the citizen’s arrest statute and a twisting of the ‘stand your ground’ law, that it will force people to think a little,” says Joëlle Anne Moreno, a professor at Florida International University College of Law in Miami.

What happened that day

The facts of the case are not significantly in dispute. Father and son Greg and Travis McMichael pursued Ahmaud Arbery when they saw him running through their neighborhood in Brunswick, Georgia. Police files indicate that they considered themselves in “hot pursuit of a burglary suspect.”
When the two men confronted Mr. Arbery – with a third colleague in a truck nearby, recording the video – a struggle over Travis McMichael’s shotgun ensued, and Travis McMichael shot him.

A new report by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution Friday suggests that the father, Greg, knew Mr. Arbery from his time as a police detective and was convinced that a surveillance video of a recent burglary showed Mr. Arbery. In high school, Mr. Arbery was sentenced to five years probation on charges of carrying a weapon on campus and several counts of obstructing a law enforcement officer, the Journal-Constitution notes. He was charged with shoplifting in 2018, violating his probation, the paper adds.

Greg McMichael “said he planned to make a citizen’s arrest,” the Journal-Constitution writes.
Regardless of Mr. McMichael’s assertions, the manner in which he and his son pursued them is deeply troubling.
“They just meted out a death penalty to this guy for what, at worst, is a crime of breaking and entering,” says Bob Spitzer, author of “Guns Across America.” “It’s a half-step away from a lynching.”

Mr. McMichael’s supposed evidence linking Mr. Arbery to burglary is also problematic on many levels.

“They said he was a suspect – well, anybody can be a suspect,” says James Yancey, a defense attorney in Brunswick. “There’s no indication that either one of the McMichaels were threatened, about to be threatened or where anything dangerous was going to happen to them – there’s no evidence of that. Instead, we’re left to say, ‘There’s this thing called a phone and this number called 911.’”
It turns out someone did call 911 to report a black man running through the neighborhood. That caller, too, suspected some kind of crime. But the dispatcher struggled with the caller’s inability to articulate evidence of a crime.

“I just need to know what he’s doing wrong,” the dispatcher said.

John Bazemore/AP/File
Capitol police clear protesters from the office of Sen. Jesse Stone, Feb. 10, 2014, in Atlanta. The protesters were calling for an end to Georgia's "stand your ground" law. Several people were arrested after refusing to leave.

Citizen’s arrests

For these reasons, the right of citizens to arrest fellow citizens focuses on the need to actually witness the crime. The legal principle is rooted in English common law dating back to 1285, which empowers anyone witnessing a crime to make a “hue and cry” against the criminal. The role of citizens in law enforcement, however, has declined as police officers have taken over the arrest function for the state and as the desire for accuracy has increased.
Unlike citizens, “peace officers were given greater leeway to investigate and arrest for criminal conduct that they did not personally witness, the presumption being that those responsible for enforcing the law were presumptively more reliable than the average private citizen,” writes Ira Robbins, a professor at American University’s Washington College of Law, in a 2016 journal article.

One lesson from this incident might be that once citizens engage, it can be hard to de-escalate a situation. In April, the RAND Corp. released a report recommending that states rescind stand-your-ground laws because they increase homicide rates.

“There’s a study that shows people honestly believing that they’re engaging in self-defense, but actually engaging in assaults or brandishing or murder, which ties together a lot of what we’re seeing with open carry that looks like intimidation rather than what is protected by law,” says Joseph Blocher, a professor at Duke University School of Law. “In other words, once the fight starts, the self-defense argument is available to everybody.”
Whether Mr. McMichaels engaged because of racism or simply as a former cop – “either way, it’s still violating the law,” says Professor Blocher.

“We need a change of heart”

To some, the broader conversation around law and order today is helping to fuel vigilante justice.

“When people are being taught by ... the NRA that they are the ones responsible for standing up to criminals and tyrants, and that you can’t trust the government to do it for you, it encourages people to take the law into their own hands, be armed, and act upon their fears and prejudices,” says Adam Winkler, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law.
But for Mr. Yancey, the Brunswick defense attorney and an African American, what is most needed is a change of heart.

He tells of how, during a hurricane in 2007, his son and his white roommate went outside to check on a truck. A police officer emerged from his cruiser, pointing his handgun at Mr. Yancey’s son and asking the white friend to explain what was going on.

“God has given me this phrase: condition of the heart,” says Mr. Yancey, who attended segregated schools in the area until eighth grade. “When my white friends and white church members say they don’t see color, I tell them, ‘Then you need to get your eyes checked because that means you don’t see me at all, even when I’m standing right here in front of you.’

“The question is, what do you think in your mind when you see that person? What is in the abundance of your heart? To get past the stronghold of racism, we don’t need new laws or another court case. We need a change of heart.”

From your article

It turns out someone did call 911 to report a black man running through the neighborhood. That caller, too, suspected some kind of crime.

But the dispatcher struggled with the caller’s inability to articulate evidence of a crime.

“I just need to know what he’s doing wrong,” the dispatcher said.

Guess Who · May 28, 2020

Guess Who said:
From your article

It turns out someone did call 911 to report a black man running through the neighborhood. That caller, too, suspected some kind of crime.

But the dispatcher struggled with the caller’s inability to articulate evidence of a crime.

“I just need to know what he’s doing wrong,” the dispatcher said.

That right there proves that they had no case for citizens arrest. They couldn't even state what crime was committed.

kdg411 · May 28, 2020

GrandmaBear · May 28, 2020

Howell said:
Again, not an assumption. If you've seen the footage, any reasonable person can determine that it's Arbery. I really don't think this is a race case at all. You are the one who called the McMichaels "racist", without a single indication that they are. Only the media have pushed that narrative. But of course, as you told us, your opinions don't come from the media...

I believe reasonable people saw this footage and a whole lot more footage than we have, examined it all and far more closely than we can, and those people arrested and charged all three men.

Guess what as far as whether that was him or not? It doesn't matter to me as I have reiterated ad nauseum, as I don't think it gives them any just cause for what they did that day. My personal opinion is these men were flat out frustrated that they never could catch him at anything more than entering a house under construction and they assumed he was up to no good, as you are, but they took matters into their own hands without a single cause/right to do so in the way they did.
As far as my remark calling them racist, I explained that before as well :sigh:

I said I did something I rarely do and judged a book by its cover because in my opinion that is what they had done with Arbery.

When you choose one person out of many seen in the house, and we don't even know that it was him that was in there on other occasions, and pick and single out just that black one, well it seems kind of logical to me that they just may be assuming a whole lot because he is black and that is racist.

The media can push the narrative all they want unfortunately but GBI and prosecutors have taken the evidence and charged the men and view it in the same way most of us seem to. The media does not determine my opinions.

:jail:

is where these men are, for good reason, and the prosecutors will have to show cause for the charges at the preliminary.

GrandmaBear · May 28, 2020

kdg411 said:
View attachment 3883

Interesting. Thanks for giving this overview. I didn't picture them all that far apart... So McMichaels is not even right next to the home under construction? And Bryan is quite a ways in the other direction?

GrandmaBear · May 28, 2020

Guess Who said:
That right there proves that they had no case for citizens arrest. They couldn't even state what crime was committed.

I heard this call prior and the caller seemed frustrated that the dispatcher expected a reason than just that past things had happened in the area. LE knew not to respond, too bad the McMs couldn't see that if LE had no right to arrest him, then they certainly had no right to go after him with guns.

Guess Who · May 28, 2020

kdg411 said:
View attachment 3883

ahhh, so not right next door.

GrandmaBear · May 28, 2020

Guess Who said:
ahhh, so not right next door.

I found that very interesting as well.... It sure is not how I pictured it...

KareBear · May 28, 2020

I'm just awaiting their conviction... there is no further a debate in my mind. It appears to me that the general consensus is accurate and we have good reason to believe that these men will be prosecuted accordingly. Just waiting and

'ing..

GrandmaBear · May 28, 2020

KareBear said:
I'm just awaiting their conviction... there is no further a debate in my mind. It appears to me that the general consensus is accurate and we have good reason to believe that these men will be prosecuted accordingly. Just waiting and 'ing..

I agree unless there is something we have not seen which supports them and not more evidence for the prosecution, which I highly doubt--I think if anything the prosecution has even more than we even know. Do you know what I find ironic, without taking a political stance here, and trying to say it just generally, these three men, and two for sure, would probably be pro gun rights, stand your ground rights and citizen's arrest rights, etc. and yet their very irresponsible and illegal use/behavior in any of those three possible behaviors will probably get the laws they would likely support revoked or seriously reconsidered. It also gives "ammo" (no pun intended) to the very opposite of what they believe or agree with because they went and abused such laws and played modern day posse and vigilantes. Responsible gun owners will likely not end up happy with them either. Jmo.

Cousin Dupree · May 29, 2020

GrandmaBear · May 29, 2020

Cousin Dupree said:

I watched this this morning and meant to comment but got sidetracked. Well worth watching, he covers everything and it matches just about how most of us have interpreted the law and evidence shown thus far.

His comments on Barnhill who recused but not before he rendered an opinion (which makes no sense) was very much what I think about it. The man should not have been commenting or determining anything since he had a conflict right...?

Thanks for sharing it. It is worth watching. All jmo.

Cousin Dupree · May 29, 2020

GrandmaBear said:
I watched this this morning and meant to comment but got sidetracked. Well worth watching, he covers everything and it matches just about how most of us have interpreted the law and evidence shown thus far.

His comments on Barnhill who recused but not before he rendered an opinion (which makes no sense) was very much what I think about it. The man should not have been commenting or determining anything since he had a conflict right...?

Thanks for sharing it. It is worth watching. All jmo.

He covers the legality of many things and they're all really well done. He's really good at making things easy to understand for people who don't have law degrees.

AHMAUD ARBERY: Georgia vs Greg & Travis McMichael & William Bryan for murder *GUILTY*

Attachments

Deputized Emu Slayer/Horse Thief Hunter

Deputized Emu Slayer/Horse Thief Hunter

Howell

Glory to #Ukraine 🇺🇦✊🏻

Glory to #Ukraine 🇺🇦✊🏻

Glory to #Ukraine 🇺🇦✊🏻

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Administrator

Deputized Emu Slayer/Horse Thief Hunter

Deputized Emu Slayer/Horse Thief Hunter

Deputized Emu Slayer/Horse Thief Hunter

Well-known member

Deputized Emu Slayer/Horse Thief Hunter

“In a gentle way, you can shake the world.” Gandhi

Deputized Emu Slayer/Horse Thief Hunter

Glory to #Ukraine 🇺🇦✊🏻

Deputized Emu Slayer/Horse Thief Hunter

Glory to #Ukraine 🇺🇦✊🏻

Forum statistics

AHMAUD ARBERY: Georgia vs Greg & Travis McMichael & William Bryan for murder GUILTY