If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
If you are having difficulty logging in, please REFRESH the page and clear your browser cache and try again.
If you still can't get logged in, please try using Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome, Firefox, Opera, or Safari to login. Also be sure you are using the latest version of your browser. Internet Explorer has not been updated in over seven years and will no longer work with the Forum software. Thanks
Their innocence is as obvious as Rittenhouse's But you have to do a little more digging into the facts of the case because they are not as plainly laid out. Also, Rittenhouse having shot three white guys in self defense removes the fake "racism" angle.that is there for Arbury. If Arbury had been white, he'd still be dead, and nobody would care. The case would have never seen the light of day.
For the Arubry case, I do agree the race of the victim/attacker ensured a full disposition of the matter. The Media pressure would have been radically different. It's still within the realm of possibility that they got charged, but the black victim made it 100%.
For Rittenhouse, the race of the victims doesn't matter. He got charged regardless. Once he's charged, it's between the him, the prosectuor the jury and THE FACTS.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
He was on camera in the house multiple times and, as I have pointed out in the past, he did not need to have stolen anything to have committed a crime.
A bunch of other people were caught on camera wandering through the construction site. Why didn't the good ol boys hunt any of them down and arrest them for trespassing on property they neither owned nor were hired to protect?
And as to whatever DSL and Hannibal are disputing as to the facts of the case -- and I really don't care what they are -- the only facts that matter are those that are actual evidence. How much of the evidence corroborates the defense story? I mean, they're going to have to take the stand, I would think, and tell their story. The jury will weigh their credibility and that credibility will either be bolstered or not by corroborating evidence.
If they don't testify, then I'd imagine they're fucked.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
A bunch of other people were caught on camera wandering through the construction site. Why didn't the good ol boys hunt any of them down and arrest them for trespassing on property they neither owned nor were hired to protect?
Is that actually evidence in the case?
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
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.
Rittenhouse got railroaded on trumped up charges that should have never seen the inside of a courtroom. At this point, it seems like he has a strong case to pursue civil action against certain media outlets for slander.
$2,000,000 bond for shooting violent felons who were assaulting you. There should be a reckoning in the Kenosha DA's office after this clown show is over. People should be held accountable for what they did to that kid. They won't be but hopefully he can have MSNBC fund a lavish lifestyle after his acquittal.
Matt Walsh said it best on twitter yesterday, it will be a shame if Kyle Rittenhouse walks away a free man. He should walk away a free rich man.
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.
Correct. That's one of the fundamental reasons why Rittenhouse is way better off. It's pretty clear he was NOT the aggressor. It's pretty clear that he was retreating at various points. It's pretty clear that he only shot folks when actually threatened. That's why the whole "state lines" shit is so important to The Narrative -- THAT is his act of aggression -- THAT is Rittenhouse initating the trouble. And it's utter fucking garbage.
Whereas in Georgia it's pretty clear who initiated the actual encounter. Whether they were legally allowed to do so or whatever, I don't know. But, it's much easier to paint Rittenhouse as a victim -- a legit victim -- than it is the Georgia folks.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
A bunch of other people were caught on camera wandering through the construction site. Why didn't the good ol boys hunt any of them down and arrest them for trespassing on property they neither owned nor were hired to protect?
They were actually asked to keep an eye on the property. You don't have to be "hired" for the task.
They good old boys didn't "hunt down" Arbury. They caught him in the act (running away from the house without wearing any jogging clothes, I might add). Maybe they recognized people on the videos as being people who actually lived in the neighborhood, whereas Arbury didn't. Maybe they weren't caught on camera multiple times like Arbury. Maybe they had some other reason other than the fact that they had a thirst to murder a black man, which is obviously your position. Given Arbury's history, they were obviously right.
Last edited by Hannibal; November 10, 2021, 09:54 AM.
I've seen video of other people walking around inside the construction site. The owner of the home under construction said nothing's ever been stolen and at least 4 or 5 times his motion cameras have caught unauthorized people on the property. He called the cops on a couple of them but did not on Feb. 23, the day Arbery was shot. He doesn't know the McMichaels nor did he ever ask them to help protect his property. The homeowner's name is Larry English and he's given deposition for the trial.
********************
The statement distanced English from the incident, noting he did not seek or sanction the defendants’ actions. According to video clips released by Graddy, Feb. 23 was just one of several occasions when people entered the construction site without permission.
English, who lived 90 miles away at the time, monitored the property via a motion-activated surveillance camera. Graddy said when earlier trespasses occurred, English contacted law enforcement twice -- once via a non-emergency number and once via 911 -- but not on Feb. 23.
"Nothing was ever stolen from the English property," the statement said. "Even if theft or damage had occurred, however, the Englishes would never have wanted a vigilante response. The Englishes did not know the McMichaels. The Englishes never enlisted the McMichaels to do what they did and do not want to be part of any effort to justify the McMichaels' actions."
A key witness in the trial of three men charged with murdering Ahmaud Arbery will be allowed to give recorded testimony in advance due to health concerns.
They were actually asked to keep an eye on the property. You don't have to be "hired" for the task.
They good old boys didn't "hunt down" Arbury. They caught him in the act (running away from the house without wearing any jogging clothes, I might add). Maybe they recognized people on the videos as being people who actually lived in the neighborhood, whereas Arbury didn't. Maybe they weren't caught on camera multiple times like Arbury. Maybe they had some other reason other than the fact that they had a thirst to murder a black man, which is obviously your position. Given Arbury's history, they were obviously right.
The homeowner has reportedly testified under oath to the contrary. He claims to not even know the McMichaels.
I've seen video of other people walking around inside the construction site. The owner of the home under construction said nothing's ever been stolen and at least 4 or 5 times his motion cameras have caught unauthorized people on the property. He called the cops on a couple of them but did not on Feb. 23, the day Arbery was shot. He doesn't know the McMichaels nor did he ever ask them to help protect his property. The homeowner's name is Larry English and he's given deposition for the trial.
********************
The statement distanced English from the incident, noting he did not seek or sanction the defendants’ actions. According to video clips released by Graddy, Feb. 23 was just one of several occasions when people entered the construction site without permission.
English, who lived 90 miles away at the time, monitored the property via a motion-activated surveillance camera. Graddy said when earlier trespasses occurred, English contacted law enforcement twice -- once via a non-emergency number and once via 911 -- but not on Feb. 23.
"Nothing was ever stolen from the English property," the statement said. "Even if theft or damage had occurred, however, the Englishes would never have wanted a vigilante response. The Englishes did not know the McMichaels. The Englishes never enlisted the McMichaels to do what they did and do not want to be part of any effort to justify the McMichaels' actions."
Thanks. This, honestly, doesn't change anything about the actual interaction. It's a necessary piece of evidence for the prosecution to further cut out justifications and make it clear the defendants were acting at their own behest. And it can also undercut their credibility if they should testify to the contrary.
Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]? Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.
And in this story, Larry English testified that a couple things were stolen from his boat that he left at the construction site occasionally. But he didn't believe Arbery was the thief. He believed it was a man and woman who his cameras had also caught wandering his property.
Tweet
Comment