You are delusional in thinking "nothing is going to happen" to the goon squad, they tracked AA, stopped him from avoiding confirmation by striking him with a motor vehicle when he tried to move away, then presented a loaded shotgun at point blank range and killed him when he tried to defend himself. All for a possible simple trespass on SOMEONE ELSE'S property.I never said he could be hunted down and executed. You are the one injecting hyperbole here. Along with everyone else. The issue at hand was that Ahmaud had a felony history of burglarizing houses and stores while pretending to be a jogger. The neighborhood KNEW who he was and had actually given him a nickname for it called "the jogger." George McMichael while he was previously working the case on Ahmaud would have history and knowledge to all this.
Every place in the US and most freedom based countries, allow common citizens to affect a "citizen arrest" to varying degrees. For example, if you feel someone trying to reach into your pocket to steal your wallet and then you grab their arm to stop them. That is a citizen arrest. Defining how a citizen arrest has to be carried out is what allows for problems with the legal system. The fact is, citizens in most countries can affect an arrest for a crime they know of. In Georgia, this includes crimes reported to them as they are happening like in the example in the video I posted where the guy talks about a theft at a Win Dixie and the ruling there where the crime was reported to the employees to handle. If you tell an employee at a store that you witness someone stealing something while they are still in the store, that person can affect an arrest. That is legal everywhere in the US. The point I was making, especially with the video, is trying to focus on what the real issues at hand were. The prosecution at this point is trying to prove that Travis getting out of his vehicle with a gun in hand escalated the situation to make that a criminal aggravated assault since the weapon was pointed in the general direction of Ahmaud. If the prosecution can prove that, then it makes it then easier to tack on felony murder charges. The only way the prosecution is going to be able to do that is by proving intent on behalf of Travis that he was intending by getting out to use the gun in the first place regardless. Meaning that Travis had the intent to harm Ahmaud there regardless of Ahmaud's actions up to that point. On a side note, the idea of felony murder charges when you can't prove murder is stupid in various legal systems, but it is there for Georgia still.
The case at this point isn't that the McMichael's have a right to affect a citizens arrest on Ahmaud. The case is about HOW they went about it. That is how it is playing out in court now. Personally, from a legal standpoint I don't see the prosecution at this point winning on any charge. Still, as I have stated before, I don't think what Travis did to step out of the vehicle was the right thing to do. They had him contained, knew the cops would be there soon enough, and Travis knew he could have been easily arrested later even if Ahmaud managed to slip away from them. Again, he was a KNOWN entity. That is why I find the action of Travis to be a complete block head move. I understand that it could have been an adrenaline and heat of the moment thing for him to step out of the vehicle to personally confront Ahmaud. Still, I think he was an idiot for doing so. Just because one is in the heat of the moment it doesn't excuse bad decisions.
With the evidence presented thus far, I am still saying that legally nothing is going to happen to the McMichaels in this case in terms of criminal charges sticking.
But @HumbleMoron and his online-degree legal analyses are NEVER wrong...You are delusional in thinking "nothing is going to happen" to the goon squad, they tracked AA, stopped him from avoiding confirmation by striking him with a motor vehicle when he tried to move away, then presented a loaded shotgun at point blank range and killed him when he tried to defend himself. All for a possible simple trespass on SOMEONE ELSE'S property.
I think my favorite criminal one was where he spent like ten pages telling Don Vito Corleone (an actual lawyer with criminal experience) that he was wrong about Montana castle doctrine, and that this guy who was under indictment for shooting a kid in his garage was going to get off because the shooting was legal.But @HumbleMoron and his online-degree legal analyses are NEVER wrong...
I think my favorite criminal one was where he spent like ten pages telling Don Vito Corleone (an actual lawyer with criminal experience) that he was wrong about Montana castle doctrine, and that this guy who was under indictment for shooting a kid in his garage was going to get off because the shooting was legal.
The guy was almost immediately convicted, exactly as DVC said he would be, and sentenced to 70 years in prison.
No, that was your later, revised position after originally misstating Montana castle doctrine law. DVC then spent several pages painstakingly explaining to you why you were wrong while you became more and more agitated and more and more insistent that your plainly wrong reading of the law was the correct one.Wow, you are still lying again. I never said the guy wouldn't go to prison, I said he would because the dumbass kept advancing on the person that broke into the garage to "finish" the job of killing. You are literally a lying sack of shit. DVC was arguing it was a trap and murder 1 would be leveled from that. He was WRONG and murder 1 was not based on the trap set for the convicting charge at all. You, like DVC most of the time, are lying wrong shills. We never were arguing about him being guilty of murder in that case. From the outset I said he was guilty of murder. I said that had he stopped after first firing, instead of calling out to get the direction of the person he hit to follow up the shots to kill the person, then he probably wouldn't be found guilty. The rest of the argument was an argument on "what ifs" about that.
No, that was your later, revised position after originally misstating Montana castle doctrine law. DVC then spent several pages painstakingly explaining to you why you were wrong while you became more and more agitated and more and more insistent that your plainly wrong reading of the law was the correct one.
It was absolutely hilarious, but also an impressive display of patience on his part considering how embarrassingly badly your criminal justice degree that you insist is a fake law degree was serving you.
That thread was amazing for the sheer number of times he would say something and then immediately after claim he didn’t say it, even when his own words were quoted to him.I look forward to the next time he quotes a dissent against me to substantiate his legal argument and insists that it is not a dissent.
I never said he could be hunted down and executed. You are the one injecting hyperbole here. Along with everyone else. The issue at hand was that Ahmaud had a felony history of burglarizing houses and stores while pretending to be a jogger. The neighborhood KNEW who he was and had actually given him a nickname for it called "the jogger." George McMichael while he was previously working the case on Ahmaud would have history and knowledge to all this.
Every place in the US and most freedom based countries, allow common citizens to affect a "citizen arrest" to varying degrees. For example, if you feel someone trying to reach into your pocket to steal your wallet and then you grab their arm to stop them. That is a citizen arrest. Defining how a citizen arrest has to be carried out is what allows for problems with the legal system. The fact is, citizens in most countries can affect an arrest for a crime they know of. In Georgia, this includes crimes reported to them as they are happening like in the example in the video I posted where the guy talks about a theft at a Win Dixie and the ruling there where the crime was reported to the employees to handle. If you tell an employee at a store that you witness someone stealing something while they are still in the store, that person can affect an arrest. That is legal everywhere in the US. The point I was making, especially with the video, is trying to focus on what the real issues at hand were. The prosecution at this point is trying to prove that Travis getting out of his vehicle with a gun in hand escalated the situation to make that a criminal aggravated assault since the weapon was pointed in the general direction of Ahmaud. If the prosecution can prove that, then it makes it then easier to tack on felony murder charges. The only way the prosecution is going to be able to do that is by proving intent on behalf of Travis that he was intending by getting out to use the gun in the first place regardless. Meaning that Travis had the intent to harm Ahmaud there regardless of Ahmaud's actions up to that point. On a side note, the idea of felony murder charges when you can't prove murder is stupid in various legal systems, but it is there for Georgia still.
The case at this point isn't that the McMichael's have a right to affect a citizens arrest on Ahmaud. The case is about HOW they went about it. That is how it is playing out in court now. Personally, from a legal standpoint I don't see the prosecution at this point winning on any charge. Still, as I have stated before, I don't think what Travis did to step out of the vehicle was the right thing to do. They had him contained, knew the cops would be there soon enough, and Travis knew he could have been easily arrested later even if Ahmaud managed to slip away from them. Again, he was a KNOWN entity. That is why I find the action of Travis to be a complete block head move. I understand that it could have been an adrenaline and heat of the moment thing for him to step out of the vehicle to personally confront Ahmaud. Still, I think he was an idiot for doing so. Just because one is in the heat of the moment it doesn't excuse bad decisions.
With the evidence presented thus far, I am still saying that legally nothing is going to happen to the McMichaels in this case in terms of criminal charges sticking.
The neighborhood KNEW who he was and had actually given him a nickname for it called "the jogger."
George McMichael while he was previously working the case on Ahmaud would have history and knowledge to all this.
Personally, from a legal standpoint I don't see the prosecution at this point winning on any charge.
With the evidence presented thus far, I am still saying that legally nothing is going to happen to the McMichaels in this case in terms of criminal charges sticking.
Projectionist says what?Wow, you are still lying again.
No, that was your later, revised position after originally misstating Montana castle doctrine law. DVC then spent several pages painstakingly explaining to you why you were wrong while you became more and more agitated and more and more insistent that your plainly wrong reading of the law was the correct one.
It was absolutely hilarious, but also an impressive display of patience on his part considering how embarrassingly badly your criminal justice degree that you insist is a fake law degree was serving you.
That's a serious case of denial you have there. Keep that stomping up and your foot is going to go through the floor soon.I was RIGHT and DVC was WRONG. You still are wrong on yet another thing again.
NO. You are lying again. Without even talking to anyone I made this as my third post in the thread.
Page 7 - German exchange student killed in Montana by home owner.
Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.forums.anandtech.com
I stated from the get go he was going to jail for repositioning to get a better shot to kill the kid. That was before DVC even entered the thread. Again, you are a LYING sack of shit. Literally the entire interaction with DVC afterwards was his interpretation that the murder conviction could have been based upon the "trap" and that it invalidated castle doctrine in the state. I said it wasn't a trap since the garage door was basically closed with the door being only opened inches from the ground. The argument stemmed not that the guy was guilty, but why he was guilty. I said it was because he advanced upon the kid and did a double tap. I was RIGHT and DVC was WRONG. You still are wrong on yet another thing again.
What a fucking moron, lmao.JFC that thread, do you have a fetish for getting constantly dunked on?
This won't stand! #mailordercriminaljusticedegree
Justice has been far too slow for black people in this country. At least in a few instances a glimmer of light.
Former Georgia prosecutor indicted over handling of Ahmaud Arbery's case (msn.com)
That was something. I thought it was worse. I thought he quoted the dissent and argued that the dissenting opinion was actually the ruling of that case. He then went on for pages defending the fact that the "dissent" was actually the ruling. It was precious. I guess they didn't teach him the workings of a judicial decision in his "LAW degree".I look forward to the next time he quotes a dissent against me to substantiate his legal argument and insists that it is not a dissent.
Justice has been far too slow for black people in this country. At least in a few instances a glimmer of light.
Former Georgia prosecutor indicted over handling of Ahmaud Arbery's case (msn.com)
Agree, this is nearly unique. Conviction of a DA for using their office to maliciously persecute/prosecute innocent people is nearly impossible, and even more of a stretch to go after a DA for not pursuing a case. There is a reason DA's are rarely prosecuted even in the most egregious cases - they have broad discretion and absolute immunity from liability on anything remotely related to their job duties.Wow, that is quite unusual. Never heard of a DA being prosecuted for anything like this. I assume they must think they have a strong case.
Agree, this is nearly unique. Conviction of a DA for using their office to maliciously persecute/prosecute innocent people is nearly impossible, and even more of a stretch to go after a DA for not pursuing a case. There is a reason DA's are rarely prosecuted even in the most egregious cases - they have broad discretion and absolute immunity from liability on anything remotely related to their job duties.
Arbury was subjected to the same mindset that this black guy went through while eating in his car in a white neighborhood in Redneck, USA.Once again all the big mouths who assumed Arbury was committing a crime that had no evidence other then he was black are silent.
N o idea??? You gotta be kidding? The district attorney acted in a manner not consistent with her oath of office........its called being one of the good ole boys or the thin blue line watchin g out for each other....Yeah, they do.
The indictment is based only on two very specific things. First, they say that when she recused herself because she knew the elder McMichael well since he had been her chief investigator for years, she recommended that the state AG appoint this other prosecutor who she knew also had connections to McMichael and she also knew that McMichael had called this prosecutor the day of the shooting just as he had called her. But failed to disclose those facts to the AG's office when she made the recommendation.
Second, they say she told the officers on scene that day not to arrest Travis McMichael.
No idea if these behaviors fit the definition of the crimes she is charged with.