All 3 defendants found guilty of murdering Ahmaud Arbery

a reply to: panoz77

OK. Open season then, eh?

Jeez....

originally posted by: panoz77

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.

I think your syntax is getting in the way here.

People, when they're trying to provide examples tend to use words like "perhaps", and "might have been" and "maybe". You make it sounds as though him casing a construction was an absolute and there is no argument there, and if so, you would be wrong.

You know, there actually is justice and balance, right here on ATS!

Despite all the media lies...at least most of us are honest. Some more than others.

Amazing how some of the usual suspects are noticeably missing on this thread.

I'll say it again...SKIN COLOR DOES NOT MATTER TO ME!

Does it to you?

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: panoz77

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.

I think your syntax is getting in the way here.

People, when they're trying to provide examples tend to use words like "perhaps", and "might have been" and "maybe". You make it sounds as though him casing a construction was an absolute and there is no argument there, and if so, you would be wrong.

He was on video inside someone else's house, was he looking for a treadmill?

a reply to: panoz77

The home owner himself believes he was getting water from the faucet on the side of the house. Tell me, were all the other people video taped going into the house casing it as well? Some of those people were on video multiple times also.

originally posted by: panoz77

He was on video inside someone else's house, was he looking for a treadmill?

The point is, you dont know the answer.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: panoz77

He was on video inside someone else's house, was he looking for a treadmill?

The point is, you dont know the answer.

He jogged through that area for years according to testimony. As far as the video in the house that has construction he walked through it I myself have done this on houses being built in my neighborhood out of curisoity of what the builders were doing. The owner of the house suspects he may have used the faucet on the side of the house. He also stated nothing was taken which was obvious because he continued his jog and wasn't carrying anything, Getting water shouldn't lead to a death sentence. And trespass only applies if he was asked to leave or a sign is present.

When they stop him he runs off they chase him down not once but twice as he kept trying to flee from gun wielding assailants. Finally, the three corner him and his choice was fight or flight and he's already tried to flee. So he tries to disarm his assailant ( put yourself in his shoes he did nothing but trespass and 3 armed people are chasing him. The mcmicheals were the aggressors and accosted him on the street.

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: panoz77

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.

I think your syntax is getting in the way here.

People, when they're trying to provide examples tend to use words like "perhaps", and "might have been" and "maybe". You make it sounds as though him casing a construction was an absolute and there is no argument there, and if so, you would be wrong.

He was on video inside someone else's house, was he looking for a treadmill?

You seem to be defending the indefensible.

Why?

If any of this, if even true, and even if these Rednecks actually knew about any of it, is that any justification for the crime they committed?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I already answered that. You ask a question, I gave you the answer. I said the verdict was just in this case, it was certainly not a case of self defense but murder. But I will say again, that Arberry wasn't out for an evening jog.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: panoz77

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.

I think your syntax is getting in the way here.

People, when they're trying to provide examples tend to use words like "perhaps", and "might have been" and "maybe". You make it sounds as though him casing a construction was an absolute and there is no argument there, and if so, you would be wrong.

He was on video inside someone else's house, was he looking for a treadmill?

You seem to be defending the indefensible.

Why?

If any of this, if even true, and even if these Rednecks actually knew about any of it, is that any justification for the crime they committed?

I'm sure that you also feel that the Rittenhouse verdict WAS justified self defense, right? Those antifa pedo/rapist scumbags were trying to kill him, and ate some bullets for their efforts, right?

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: panoz77

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.

I think your syntax is getting in the way here.

People, when they're trying to provide examples tend to use words like "perhaps", and "might have been" and "maybe". You make it sounds as though him casing a construction was an absolute and there is no argument there, and if so, you would be wrong.

He was on video inside someone else's house, was he looking for a treadmill?

You seem to be defending the indefensible.

Why?

If any of this, if even true, and even if these Rednecks actually knew about any of it, is that any justification for the crime they committed?

I'm sure that you also feel that the Rittenhouse verdict WAS justified self defense, right? Those antifa pedo/rapist scumbags were trying to kill him, and ate some bullets for their efforts, right?

Assume away. Wrong , again.

Pedo rapist's? O K...
...

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: panoz77

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.

I think your syntax is getting in the way here.

People, when they're trying to provide examples tend to use words like "perhaps", and "might have been" and "maybe". You make it sounds as though him casing a construction was an absolute and there is no argument there, and if so, you would be wrong.

He was on video inside someone else's house, was he looking for a treadmill?

You seem to be defending the indefensible.

Why?

If any of this, if even true, and even if these Rednecks actually knew about any of it, is that any justification for the crime they committed?

I'm sure that you also feel that the Rittenhouse verdict WAS justified self defense, right? Those antifa pedo/rapist scumbags were trying to kill him, and ate some bullets for their efforts, right?

Assume away. Wrong , again.

Pedo rapist's? O K...
...

You didn't know that all three of the attackers of Rittenhouse were convicted felons? Huber was wife beater convicted of domestic violence and rape, Rosenbaum was a convicted pedofile, and Grosskreutz was convicted of burglary and the state dismissed two of his DUI charges in order to get him to testify against Rittenhouse. Sheesh, where have you been?

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: panoz77

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.

I think your syntax is getting in the way here.

People, when they're trying to provide examples tend to use words like "perhaps", and "might have been" and "maybe". You make it sounds as though him casing a construction was an absolute and there is no argument there, and if so, you would be wrong.

He was on video inside someone else's house, was he looking for a treadmill?

You seem to be defending the indefensible.

Why?

If any of this, if even true, and even if these Rednecks actually knew about any of it, is that any justification for the crime they committed?

I'm sure that you also feel that the Rittenhouse verdict WAS justified self defense, right? Those antifa pedo/rapist scumbags were trying to kill him, and ate some bullets for their efforts, right?

Assume away. Wrong , again.

Pedo rapist's? O K...
...

You didn't know that all three of the attackers of Rittenhouse were convicted felons? Huber was wife beater convicted of domestic violence and rape, Rosenbaum was a convicted pedofile, and Grosskreutz was convicted of burglary and the state dismissed two of his DUI charges in order to get him to testify against Rittenhouse. Sheesh, where have you been?

Did he know any of that when he shot them?

a reply to: panoz77

Well I do have to agree he wasn't out for an evening jog. He was killed at 1pm.

Not sure that would have been the best time to steal the table saw or lawnmower considering neither could fit in the pockets of his shorts. It's likely with so many people out that day like Roddie and others it was likely it would have been noticed you think?

As for the inevitable "he was probably going to come back" line you will most likely say, these are the items that had been there and were never stolen any time he or others were in the site previously.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: panoz77

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.

I think your syntax is getting in the way here.

People, when they're trying to provide examples tend to use words like "perhaps", and "might have been" and "maybe". You make it sounds as though him casing a construction was an absolute and there is no argument there, and if so, you would be wrong.

He was on video inside someone else's house, was he looking for a treadmill?

You seem to be defending the indefensible.

Why?

If any of this, if even true, and even if these Rednecks actually knew about any of it, is that any justification for the crime they committed?

I'm sure that you also feel that the Rittenhouse verdict WAS justified self defense, right? Those antifa pedo/rapist scumbags were trying to kill him, and ate some bullets for their efforts, right?

Assume away. Wrong , again.

Pedo rapist's? O K...
...

You didn't know that all three of the attackers of Rittenhouse were convicted felons? Huber was wife beater convicted of domestic violence and rape, Rosenbaum was a convicted pedofile, and Grosskreutz was convicted of burglary and the state dismissed two of his DUI charges in order to get him to testify against Rittenhouse. Sheesh, where have you been?

Did he know any of that when he shot them?

Why does that matter? He killed them in self defense as judged by a jury of peers, but the world is certainly better without them. Why did you say "pedo rapists, OK"? His attackers were pedos and rapists. Do you have any other questions you need clarification on?

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: panoz77

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.

I think your syntax is getting in the way here.

People, when they're trying to provide examples tend to use words like "perhaps", and "might have been" and "maybe". You make it sounds as though him casing a construction was an absolute and there is no argument there, and if so, you would be wrong.

He was on video inside someone else's house, was he looking for a treadmill?

You seem to be defending the indefensible.

Why?

If any of this, if even true, and even if these Rednecks actually knew about any of it, is that any justification for the crime they committed?

I'm sure that you also feel that the Rittenhouse verdict WAS justified self defense, right? Those antifa pedo/rapist scumbags were trying to kill him, and ate some bullets for their efforts, right?

Assume away. Wrong , again.

Pedo rapist's? O K...
...

You didn't know that all three of the attackers of Rittenhouse were convicted felons? Huber was wife beater convicted of domestic violence and rape, Rosenbaum was a convicted pedofile, and Grosskreutz was convicted of burglary and the state dismissed two of his DUI charges in order to get him to testify against Rittenhouse. Sheesh, where have you been?

Did he know any of that when he shot them?

Why does that matter? He killed them in self defense as judged by a jury of peers, but the world is certainly better without them. Why did you say "pedo rapists, OK"? His attackers were pedos and rapists. Do you have any other questions you need clarification on?

Yes. Why do you continue to defend these Rednecks?

originally posted by: panoz77

Why does that matter?

Because in no state in the union is Pedophilia or Rape a capital crime.

originally posted by: panoz77

He killed them in self defense as judged by a jury of peers

Indeed, because of poorly written Wisconsin law.

originally posted by: panoz77

but the world is certainly better without them.

So, you're both
1) Pro vigilantism
2) Anti-law enforcement due to 1

Congratulations, you're an anarchist.

originally posted by: panoz77
Do you have any other questions you need clarification on?

Questions rarely require clarification, typically only answers do. Your answers aren't answers as much as they are opinion wrapped in ignorance. I hear kool-aid goes really well with it though.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: panoz77

Why does that matter?

Because in no state in the union is Pedophilia or Rape a capital crime.

originally posted by: panoz77

He killed them in self defense as judged by a jury of peers

Indeed, because of poorly written Wisconsin law.

originally posted by: panoz77

but the world is certainly better without them.

So, you're both
1) Pro vigilantism
2) Anti-law enforcement due to 1

Congratulations, you're an anarchist.

originally posted by: panoz77
Do you have any other questions you need clarification on?

Questions rarely require clarification, typically only answers do. Your answers aren't answers as much as they are opinion wrapped in ignorance. I hear kool-aid goes really well with it though.

No, but attempting to attack someone that puts them in a position of fear for their life is a capital crime, especially when they are holding lethal counter force, it's called self defense. No kool-aid needed. You have a right to defend your life against aggressors. Self defense is not vigilantism.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: panoz77

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: panoz77

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.

I think your syntax is getting in the way here.

People, when they're trying to provide examples tend to use words like "perhaps", and "might have been" and "maybe". You make it sounds as though him casing a construction was an absolute and there is no argument there, and if so, you would be wrong.

He was on video inside someone else's house, was he looking for a treadmill?

You seem to be defending the indefensible.

Why?

If any of this, if even true, and even if these Rednecks actually knew about any of it, is that any justification for the crime they committed?

I'm sure that you also feel that the Rittenhouse verdict WAS justified self defense, right? Those antifa pedo/rapist scumbags were trying to kill him, and ate some bullets for their efforts, right?

Assume away. Wrong , again.

Pedo rapist's? O K...
...

You didn't know that all three of the attackers of Rittenhouse were convicted felons? Huber was wife beater convicted of domestic violence and rape, Rosenbaum was a convicted pedofile, and Grosskreutz was convicted of burglary and the state dismissed two of his DUI charges in order to get him to testify against Rittenhouse. Sheesh, where have you been?

Did he know any of that when he shot them?

Why does that matter? He killed them in self defense as judged by a jury of peers, but the world is certainly better without them. Why did you say "pedo rapists, OK"? His attackers were pedos and rapists. Do you have any other questions you need clarification on?

Yes. Why do you continue to defend these Rednecks?

Defend which rednecks? The ones that I already said committed murder? I'm not defending them. What color neck do you have? Does it match your yellow belly?

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: panoz77

Well I do have to agree he wasn't out for an evening jog. He was killed at 1pm.

Not sure that would have been the best time to steal the table saw or lawnmower considering neither could fit in the pockets of his shorts. It's likely with so many people out that day like Roddie and others it was likely it would have been noticed you think?

As for the inevitable "he was probably going to come back" line you will most likely say, these are the items that had been there and were never stolen any time he or others were in the site previously.

So just an afternoon stroll then? I'm sure he was just doing a friendly complimentary home inspection for the property owner.