Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Hannibal]

The determining factor in the Georgia case is how their self-defense laws are written. I'm no expert but I believe in most states, if you are considered the aggressor, you forfeit your right to use lethal force. IOW, I can't go start a fight with someone and then shoot the guy if he starts kicking my ass and claim self defense. I'm sure the defense will argue that Arbury charged at him and wrestled for the gun, which is true. But WHY did he do that. It can be reasonably argued that he feared for his life, since, you know, some dudes rolled up on him with weapons drawn.

Arbury did not have any legitimate reason to fear for his life. He charged at the man with the shotgun because he was stupid and impulsive.

https://www.glynncounty.org/Document...tice-of-Intent

In 2019 and 2020, local convenience store Witness interviews reveal Mr. Arbery became known as ”the jogger" for his repeated conduct and behavior of running up, stretching in front in, and then entering several convenience stores where he would grab items and run out before he could be caught; and 10.In 2020, witness cell phone video reveals Mr. Arbery was confronted at convenience store by employees about his theft conduct and behavior. Mr. Arbery, cornered about his thefts, chose to fight man who worked on location at the adjacent truck stop who tried to confront him

That's one of about half a dozen incidents there that establish a pattern.

[Hannibal]

The homeowner has reportedly testified under oath to the contrary. He claims to not even know the McMichaels.

The homeowner has also received death threats and has every incentive to distance himself from the McMichaels, having seen what happened to the convenience store where Fentanyl Floyd passed his bad check.

[iam416]

Well, are those death threats evidence in the case? Doesn't mean jack fucking shit if they ain't evidence.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Mike- If a pickup truck pulled up alongside of you while you were out walking/jogging and two guys you've never seen before, clearly not cops, pointed shotguns at you and ordered you to stop and let them handcuff you (or whatever they planned to do), do you think it's unreasonable to fear for your life at that moment?

[Mike]

Arbury did not have any legitimate reason to fear for his life. He charged at the man with the shotgun because he was stupid and impulsive.

https://www.glynncounty.org/Document...tice-of-Intent



That's one of about half a dozen incidents there that establish a pattern.

Yeah, I don't doubt it. I'm guessing that if none of that is allowed at trial it's because the McMichaels didn't have prior knowledge of Arbery's history. Otherwise it seems like it would be very relevant information.

[Hannibal]

Mike- If a pickup truck pulled up alongside of you while you were out walking/jogging...

LMAO. They have him on camera darting into the house that fucking day.

He was so infamous for committing crimes under the pretense of jogging that he literally earned the nickname "the jogger" before he got killed.

[Mike]

Mike- If a pickup truck pulled up alongside of you while you were out walking/jogging and two guys you've never seen before, clearly not cops, pointed shotguns at you and ordered you to stop and let them handcuff you (or whatever they planned to do), do you think it's unreasonable to fear for your life at that moment?

Nope! Although I wouldn't try to wrestle away a shotgun. I'd just run like hell.

[iam416]

Just a quick circle back -- again, "transistory" inflation is at a 30-year high. One way to maybe combat this is to actively engage in policy choices designed to cheapen energy. You know, since basically everything in the fucking supply chain requires energy. That would, you know, maybe require some sort of active domestic policy in that area instead of, you know, screaming at OPEC "Lower your prices!!!"

But, the Chairman ain't gonna do that. The Chairman and the Ds, whether they want to acknowledge it or not, WANT high energy prices.

[iam416]

Yeah, I don't doubt it. I'm guessing that if none of that is allowed at trial it's because the McMichaels didn't have prior knowledge of Arbery's history. Otherwise it seems like it would be very relevant information.

Mike should be a lawyer. Self-defense is a state of mind defense. The defendant has to reasonably believe that he/she needed to use deadly force. If a fact ain't in the defendant's mind then it can't go toward the state of mind. So, whatever Arbery did in the past is irrelevant unless the defendants' knew of it and were, accordingly, fearful of him.

The reasonableness question goes to the jury. They don't need all of the jury to agree. Just 1 to get a hung jury. I'd bet against the hung jury.

[Mike]

But, the Chairman ain't gonna do that. The Chairman and the Ds, whether they want to acknowledge it or not, WANT high energy prices.

What gives you that impression?

[Hannibal]

Yeah, I don't doubt it. I'm guessing that if none of that is allowed at trial it's because the McMichaels didn't have prior knowledge of Arbery's history. Otherwise it seems like it would be very relevant information.

If that's your reasoning, then you are essentially admitting that Arbury wasn't an innocent jogger but a guy who was killed in legitimate self defense, but that the McMichaels still deserve to go to prison because they didn't have enough evidence to know that Arbury was just a garden variety lowlife piece of crap (he was). That's a pretty flimsy reason to send three guys to prison who legitimately had no intention of doing anything wrong. At any rate,

WRT his criminal history -- at least one of the guys was a former cop, so they may have very well known about him, although I haven't seen that argument introduced.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Mike should be a lawyer. Self-defense is a state of mind defense. The defendant has to reasonably believe that he/she needed to use deadly force. If a fact ain't in the defendant's mind then it can't go toward the state of mind. So, whatever Arbery did in the past is irrelevant unless the defendants' knew of it and were, accordingly, fearful of him.

The reasonableness question goes to the jury. They don't need all of the jury to agree. Just 1 to get a hung jury. I'd bet against the hung jury.

I suppose the defense of having weapons drawn is going to be that McMichael Junior saw Arbery in the neighborhood before and he stuck his hand in his pants at one point. He never technically saw him with a weapon but (per McMichael) there's no other reasonable explanation for sticking your hand in your pants than to fondle a weapon. So it was perfectly reasonable for them to take no chances with Abrery and have guns drawn even as they approached him.

What's ridiculous is believing all THAT and simultaneously claiming that it's unreasonable to feel fear when two total strangers in a bigass truck point guns at you, order you to halt, and declare you their prisoner.

[Kapture1]

Does Kyle have grounds to sue this demented fuk?

FDt68edUUAQgjwB?format=jpg&name=medium.jpg

[Hannibal]

Mike should be a lawyer. Self-defense is a state of mind defense. The defendant has to reasonably believe that he/she needed to use deadly force. If a fact ain't in the defendant's mind then it can't go toward the state of mind. So, whatever Arbery did in the past is irrelevant unless the defendants' knew of it and were, accordingly, fearful of him
.

What Arbery did in the past isn't irrelevant when you consider his state of mind when being confronted with a crime. Read the document that I posted above. His standard reaction to confrontations on his criminal behavior was violence.

Arbery was caught trespassing that day. Probably looking for more crap to steal. He got caught. If somebody catches you trespassing or stealing and they have a gun pointed at you, the natural reaction for 99.9% of the population is to freeze and not move a muscle. He had no reason to think that the guys were about to shoot him on the spot.

[iam416]

What Arbery did in the past isn't irrelevant when you consider his state of mind when being confronted with a crime. Read the document that I posted above. His standard reaction to confrontations on his criminal behavior was violence.

Arbery's state of mind isn't at issue. And "habit" evidence requires way more than 1 or 2 incidents. And the incidents need to be almost identical. I mean, maybe judge lets it in. I dunno. If Arbery were the actual defendant there's no fucking way his past actions would come in as evidence. NONE. I mean like ZERO POINT ZERO ZEO PERCENT.

But, if as he's the victim maybe the judge errors way in favor of the defendants.