- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Interesting breakdown of the Arbery case so far.
Posted on 11/16/21 at 7:27 pm to crazy4lsu
Posted on 11/16/21 at 7:27 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
No, I'm saying that if the preponderance of evidence is the standard we are going by, linking the crimes to physical evidence is better than the insistence that he is the thief by virtue of him being on camera.
Well of course. 95% is better than 51%, but if all you need is 51%....
quote:
I've seen nothing to think he has a good grasp on the law. I don't even know where this 51/49 standard you are using is coming from.
Considering he is a she, I'm not surprised you didn't see anything to think that she has a good grasp on the law. You didn't watch the link. If you did, you'd know where the 51/49 standard is coming from.
2
Posted on 11/16/21 at 7:31 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Well of course. 95% is better than 51%, but if all you need is 51%....
You really think they've reached that standard? From the arguments presented in this thread, 51% seems like a reach.
quote:
Considering he is a she, I'm not surprised you didn't see anything to think that she has a good grasp on the law. You didn't watch the link. If you did, you'd know where the 51/49 standard is coming from.
Yeah I haven't watched the link yet, because I just got home. I'm poop-posting. I'll watch when I to my comp.
Posted on 11/16/21 at 7:33 pm to the808bass
quote:no, it was asked what he stole. you dont have to steal to have committed a crime, not even burglary
The police dick suckers never like the question of what crime Arbery actually committed. But it’s kind of relevant.
“He committed a crime!”
“What crime?”
“Irrelevant!!”
This post was edited on 11/16/21 at 7:34 pm
Posted on 11/16/21 at 7:42 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Well of course. 95% is better than 51%, but if all you need is 51%....
wanna know whats even less than 51%?
quote:
Nohilly asked McMichael, "Did this guy break into a house today?" according to his transcript.
"Well that's just it. I don't know," McMichael responded.
I dont think 'IDK' is anywhere near a preponderance of evidence to satisfy immediate knowledge. if they thought they knew he broke in they would have said yes instead of IDK.
Posted on 11/16/21 at 8:04 pm to AMS
quote:
wanna know whats even less than 51%?
An irrelevant number to the point I'm making about what preponderance of evidence means?
quote:
I dont think 'IDK' is anywhere near a preponderance of evidence to satisfy immediate knowledge.
Why are you assuming that's the only evidence they considered before attempting a citizen's arrest? Everything would be placed on the scales, most importantly Arbery being there at least 5 other times.
Posted on 11/16/21 at 8:16 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
This quote: The two white guys had a confederate flag sticker Does not mean this quote: they were almost certainly racist assholes
On it’s own it doesn’t necessarily mean that. It could be that they are just idiotic mouthbreathers. But when you add up everything else that occurred, a reasonable person would have a strong impression that they are likely racist shitheads.
You could certainly make an argument that would wend its way amongst all the facts ending in them being high character guys, but you could do the same for Ahmad Arbery. Only you’re not inclined to defend him so much.
Posted on 11/16/21 at 8:23 pm to Azkiger
quote:You posted an oral statement by a NEW YORK lawyer, purporting to summarize Georgia law. She told Shapiro that Bryan cannot be convicted if he shows "by a preponderance of the evidence" that their attempted arrest was justified, and she seemed amazed that no other commentator is examining this theory.
I've posted a trial lawyer going over Georgia law.
Well, she is correct that no one other than her is analyzing this theory. No one else is looking at this theory, because she is wrong on all counts.
She got this "preponderance of the evidence" business from a pretrial "Motion for Immunity" filed by Roddy Bryan in August of 2020. Apparently, she just accepted Bryan's argument as gospel, without doing any research or even bothering to determine the court's disposition of his motion.
In that Motion, Bryan asserted that he could not be prosecuted, based upon "immunity" under the doctrine of "self-defense" and a few other theories. He argued in that motion that the State could not proceed with his prosecution, if he established "by a preponderance" that he acted in self-defense (nothing about the validity of the attempted citizens arrest).
Setting aside the fact that his Motion did not even address "citizens arrest," but rather "self-defense," such an immunity motion must be resolved PRIOR TO TRIAL. The State's responsive brief DESTROYED Bryan's argument, and Bryan withdrew that Motion WITHOUT HEARING in May of 2021. Because the case against Bryan was not dismissed pretrial based upon Bryan's immunity motion, it goes to the jury based upon the normal criminal trial burden of proof.
Among other things, the State is prosecuting him for false imprisonment, and the State must prove the elements of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt, including the element that he acted without legal authority.
This post was edited on 11/16/21 at 8:27 pm
Posted on 11/16/21 at 8:33 pm to Azkiger
quote:
An irrelevant number to the point I'm making about what preponderance of evidence means?
how is IDK = less than 51%, irrelevant to your point that they need at least 51% for preponderance? its pointing out the obvious fact there was no preponderance of evidence.
quote:
Why are you assuming that's the only evidence they considered before attempting a citizen's arrest? Everything would be placed on the scales, most importantly Arbery being there at least 5 other times.
its not the only evidence at all. the rest of the evidence is also highly devastating considering everyone admits to not knowing any felony occurred when knowledge of a felony is statutorily required.
3rd guy involved in the chase also had no knowledge:
quote:
When the agent asked Bryan what made him think Arbery had done something wrong, Bryan said, "It was just instinct man, I don't know," according to the interview transcript.
10-20 people + the agent had no knowledge of AA committing a felony burglary.
quote:they were not deputized to perform a CA.
Rash said he talked to 10 to 20 people in the neighborhood as he attempted to find out who was entering English's home and said he had no knowledge of Arbery stealing anything from the site.
quote:
The state asked the officer, "Was it your intent to deputize them when you sent the message?"
Rash responded, "never."
quote:
But prosecution witnesses have testified McMichael did not know at the time Arbery was at the site that day or whether the man in English's surveillance videos had ever stolen anything.
no one had any knowledge, nor any evidence AA was committing any type of felony when immediate knowledge is required. its just that simple.
Posted on 11/16/21 at 8:39 pm to Anne_R_Key
didnt quote the rest of your post but its hilarious to point out the fact that azkiger again grossly misconstrued the facts in order to fabricate some nonsense. even if you accept his false preponderance of evidence standard, the mcmichaels still said they didnt know of a crime, which in no way shape or form is compatible with knowledge of a crime.
then he is very screwed along with the mcmichaels considering he also admitted to not knowing of a crime being committed.
quote:
Among other things, the State is prosecuting him for false imprisonment, and the State must prove the elements of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt, including the element that he acted without legal authority.
then he is very screwed along with the mcmichaels considering he also admitted to not knowing of a crime being committed.
quote:
When the agent asked Bryan what made him think Arbery had done something wrong, Bryan said, "It was just instinct man, I don't know," according to the interview transcript.
Posted on 11/17/21 at 4:02 pm to Azkiger
quote:
The McMichaels didn't need to know, as in be certain, that he entered the property that day. All that's required is preponderance of the evidence tilted in the direction that he did with the intent to steal.
travis own testimony today - 'I didnt know what was going on'. preponder that.
Posted on 11/17/21 at 4:11 pm to AMS
quote:Actually he hasn't hurt himself ... yet. He's done far far better than I thought he would.
travis own testimony today - 'I didnt know what was going on'
Posted on 11/17/21 at 4:16 pm to AMS
quote:Negative. You're overreaching.
its not the only evidence at all. the rest of the evidence is also highly devastating considering everyone admits to not knowing any felony occurred when knowledge of a felony is statutorily required.
"It was the same guy who they'd seen at 2020 before"
Again. IDK what the defense has in terms of Arbery on surveillance video, but if they've got him caught in the act at some point, you're peeing on the wrong fire hydrant.
This post was edited on 11/17/21 at 4:17 pm
Posted on 11/17/21 at 4:22 pm to Flats
quote:Lot's of folks keep forgetting that little tidbit of info.
They shot him because he tried to grab their gun.
Posted on 11/17/21 at 4:23 pm to greygoose
Yes. And if you remove all context from that event, it looks great for McMichaels.
But it does not, in fact, look great for the McMichaels.
But it does not, in fact, look great for the McMichaels.
Posted on 11/17/21 at 4:25 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Negative. You're overreaching.
"It was the same guy who they'd seen at 2020 before"
Again. IDK what the defense has in terms of Arbery on surveillance video, but if they've got him caught in the act at some point, you're peeing on the wrong fire hydrant.
negative. they also saw multiple other people, none including AA were seen stealing anything. you cant effect a CA because 'youve seen the guy before' with that maybe they can suspect trespassing, but that wouldnt justify their CA either.
travis testified he did not know if AA had done anything wrong at all, he wanted to go identify him and see if anything was wrong. that does not justify a CA either.
Posted on 11/17/21 at 4:57 pm to AMS
quote:Sorry. Misread. Yes, they also saw multiple other people, none including AA were seen stealing anything. WTF does that have to do w/ Arbery?
negative. they also saw multiple other people, none including AA were seen stealing anything.
This post was edited on 11/17/21 at 4:59 pm
Posted on 11/17/21 at 5:07 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Dunikoski said nothing was stolen from the site in 2019 or 2020. But in late 2019, she added, English realized some items were missing from inside his boat nearby. He set up motion-activated surveillance cameras, and while Arbery was seen wandering around inside the house several times, he never took anything, Dunikoski said. Instead, it was a white couple who were seen carrying a bag at the property that aroused English's suspicions, she said.
LINK
theres other articles you can google. no one ever saw him steal anything on camera. the neighbor suspected employees of his contractor or something stole from his trailer before. the homeowner denied knowledge of AA stealing anything.
Posted on 11/17/21 at 5:11 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Sorry. Misread. Yes, they also saw multiple other people, none including AA were seen stealing anything. WTF does that have to do w/ Arbery?
...because there is no evidence AA was stealing anything. no one knew who the thief was. there is footage of AA on camera walking by things he could have stolen, and they were not stolen.
quote:
Rash said he talked to 10 to 20 people in the neighborhood as he attempted to find out who was entering English's home and said he had no knowledge of Arbery stealing anything from the site.
the cops investigated like half the neighborhood and no one had any knowledge of AA stealing anything. this is just going to show how little justification the mctards had. they had no clue about a crime for which they were attempting to CA AA for.
Posted on 11/17/21 at 5:13 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Entering a residency with the intent to steal is a felony.
Smh lol
Posted on 11/17/21 at 5:16 pm to JohnnyKilroy
quote:
Entering a residency with the intent to steal is a felony.
Smh lol
its even funnier because the mcmichaels admitted to not even being aware if AA entered a residence lmao. azkiger just invents shite.
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News