All 3 defendants found guilty of murdering Ahmaud Arbery

originally posted by: teddyvetter
we should be rioting in the street over this injustice!!!! and it disgusts me to see people cheering on this injustice.

Go for it.

But beware, someone may mistake you as a jogger with athletic shoes or something.

a reply to: teddyvetter

Wow where the heck did you get that info? The house was completely under construction. He as well as other people are on video in that house previous times. Nothing was ever stolen out of the house. The tools, etc still all there.

He did not steal a gun out of any cars. He did not break into any other houses. The defendent himself did not state he was "charged" by Abery. He got out of the vehicle with the gun when they had Arbery trapped and McMichael stated that he didn't even know if Arbery had any contact with him until after he was shot once. The GBI agent stated in the pretrial that self defense should only be mentioned if you were stating that Arbery had a right to defend himself after they had trapped him between the vehicles and Travis got out to go after him with the shotgun.

You have basically all of the facts wrong on the case.

I'm sure you could actually read the information on the case or watch the trial.

It is not perfectly legal to chase and pin someone in, threatening to "blow their gdam head off" because you see him running down the street, hence the false imprisonment charge. The prosecuting attorney clearly laid out the charges, the law and how these men broke all of those laws.

a reply to: teddyvetter

Let's pretend for a moment everything you said in your post is true, just for the sake of argument.

1. Did the defendant deserve the death penalty for those actions?

2. Would he have been able to try to grab a gun if no gun had been pointed at him to begin with?

Remember, you never point a firearm at something or someone you don't intend to destroy (i.e. kill, aka. death penalty).

Now, go back and ask yourself questions #1 & #2 again.

I think the answer is pretty clearly "No" for both answers. And, there you have your verdict.

a reply to: frogs453

The facts were not mine. Both Tim pool and Steven Crowder have covered many of the facts regarding this case.
Steven Crowder did an entire episode analyzing the video.

my question is DID you actually watch the video of this encounter before passing judgement? i have.

Arberry was NOT cornered by the vehicles, there were only 2 vehicles. a truck with the father and son and the friend who was in a car behind recording the video of the encounter. Arberry didnt wish to retreat toward the car behind him, and he was cut off in the front by the truck eventually AFTER he was told to stop several times.

Tim pool and crowder BOTH cover the fact Arberry was a convicted thief.... no one doubts that fact except for maybe you. Arberry WAS NOT convicted of stealing anything from the neighborhood.... the problem here was the police did not do their job in investigating the break in's to the point the people chose to take matters into their own hands.
And no gun was stolen from a car... one of the neighbors houses were robbed by somebody matching Arberrys description and a gun was stolen.

as for the house, Crowder covered the fact the house was being renovated and YES, some of the familys things were crammed into rooms not under construction( they had pictures so im not sure where your getting your facts from on this one). I didn't say anything was stolen from this house... Arberry who was a convicted THIEF was seen entering and leaving the house on video. Some thief's like to scout out the area to see if there is anything worth stealing first.... apparently he didn't find anything worth taking.

and after watching 45 min of slow motion video while crowder analyzed the video... it was clear arberry CHOSE to attack in the hopes to take the son by surprise as the gun was pointed down when he charged.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Well, your entire argument is a waste of time... the "shooter" only had the gun on him to protect himself... the gun was pointed down initially and was brought up ONLY when arberry charged at him grabbing the gun and attempting to wrestle control of it.

and yes... Damn straight, he deserved the end result of these actions(death).

originally posted by: teddyvetter
This verdict is a travesty against justice and is the lynching of these 3 men just because they are white(because if they were any other race they would have walked free.)

You should bake them a cake with a file in it and get them some soap on a rope, they're going to have a rough time in the slam.

Three less dangerous vigilantes out on the street means citizens are safer.

ETA: It will probably further break your heart to know the DA who failed to originally prosecute this case and told the police not to make any arrests has just been arrested herself.

originally posted by: teddyvetter
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Well, your entire argument is a waste of time... the "shooter" only had the gun on him to protect himself... the gun was pointed down initially and was brought up ONLY when arberry charged at him grabbing the gun and attempting to wrestle control of it.

and yes... Damn straight, he deserved the end result of these actions(death).

I suggest you look at this from the other point of view. He was cornered by 3 people all armed. He was thinking they are going to shoot me so of course he's going to make an attempt to save himself.

On watching the video they made it obvious they were armed as they pulled up on him. These red necks thought it was ok to go all wild west on him. They could have simply called the police instead they decided to take the law in to their own hands and now they will pay for the stupidity if they survive in prison. Don't think people won't be after them.

a reply to: teddyvetter

"AFTER he was told to stop several times".

What right or authority did they have to demand that?

Armed Rednecks kill an unarmed man. On video. Rednecks found guilty. End of.

a reply to: teddyvetter

The defendents themselves stated "he was trapped like a rat". The defendents themselves knew of no crime committed by the victim before they saw him that day. "He must have done something" is what was said.

I mean feel free to chase and kill someone in your neighborhood because you think they "may" have done something. They had no knowledge of the victim, they had no knowledge of any crime being committed.

The victim was unarmed, the victim made no threats. The defendents were armed, the defendents threatened the victim. As the prosecutor stated, you are a free citizen. No one has the right to demand you stop and answer any questions when you are walking or running down a street.
The failure of the police was the failure to charge these men from the beginning. Which thankfully we are seeing fall out from.

Now these 3 will have the federal hate crime case in February. You may wish to send them commissary money for Ramen noodles for a very long time.

originally posted by: teddyvetter
Arberry didnt wish to retreat toward the car behind him, and he was cut off in the front by the truck eventually AFTER he was told to stop several times.

What is it, precisely you do not understand about the fact that they have/had no right to tell him or anyone else to do anything?

In fact the cops can't stop you and force you to answer questions unless they plan on detaining you, and providing an articulable crime, that would compel you to answer.

Everything else you've said simply is not relevant as it wasn't their business.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: panoz77

Point being, he wasn't out for an evening jog in his jogging shoes.

Why not? Apparently, this wasn't the first time he jogged this route.

but he was up to no good in that neighborhood.

Based on what evidence?

Ya, I'm super curious about that as well? I'm sure no answer will likely be provided.

People coming out of the closet.

a reply to: teddyvetter

Tell me, what crime was he guilty of??

Go ahead, I'll wait...

Those three murderers trapped him "like a rat"--their own words--then executed him.

Again, what was his crime?

a reply to: seagull

Exactly. Even if, which he wasn't, how is it justified to murder the guy?

These Rednecks didn't know if he was "guilty" of anything so the point is otiose anyway.

Unbelievable.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: panoz77

Point being, he wasn't out for an evening jog in his jogging shoes.

Why not? Apparently, this wasn't the first time he jogged this route.

but he was up to no good in that neighborhood.

Based on what evidence?

Based on the fact that he was inside another persons property (i.e. home under construction). You don't stop to case a construction site when you are jogging.

a reply to: panoz77

So it's OK for a bunch of armed morons to chase him down and blow him away?

Jeez.....

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: panoz77

So it's OK for a bunch of armed morons to chase him down and blow him away?

Jeez.....

Now your putting words in my mouth. I said early on in this thread that the verdict in this case was correct. Try again.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: panoz77

So it's OK for a bunch of armed morons to chase him down and blow him away?

Jeez.....

originally posted by: panoz77
I don't think the guy that took the video should have been convicted, however the other two did not have much defense to stand on, the law was not on their side on this, so other than the guy who took the video, I think it was a fairly just verdict.

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: panoz77

Point being, he wasn't out for an evening jog in his jogging shoes.

Why not? Apparently, this wasn't the first time he jogged this route.

but he was up to no good in that neighborhood.

Based on what evidence?

Based on the fact that he was inside another persons property (i.e. home under construction). You don't stop to case a construction site when you are jogging.

Maybe cos you said that?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: panoz77

Point being, he wasn't out for an evening jog in his jogging shoes.

Why not? Apparently, this wasn't the first time he jogged this route.

but he was up to no good in that neighborhood.

Based on what evidence?

Based on the fact that he was inside another persons property (i.e. home under construction). You don't stop to case a construction site when you are jogging.

Maybe cos you said that?

You and your buddy asked for an example of why I claimed he was up to no good. I provided the example. He was trespassing and casing a construction site, he was not out for an evening jog.