- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 6:45 pm to Azkiger
Posted on 11/16/21 at 6:45 pm to Azkiger
quote:I think everyone is waiting for you to provide some sort of authority or link to substantiate this ridiculous notion.
All they need is the preponderance of evidence tilted in their favor.
Thus far, all we have seen is “I think I heard someone say something like this on Shapiro.”
1
Posted on 11/16/21 at 6:47 pm to AMS
quote:
the statute requires immediate knowledge... and your argument is that they dont need any knowledge??
And I've posted a trial lawyer going over Georgia law.
Assuming she was correct...
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.
This post was edited on 11/16/21 at 6:53 pm
Posted on 11/16/21 at 6:48 pm to Anne_R_Key
quote:
I think everyone is waiting for you to provide some sort of authority or link to substantiate this ridiculous notion.
This is one way to tell me you didn't read the OP without telling me you didn't read the OP.
quote:
Thus far, all we have seen is “I think I heard someone say something like this on Shapiro.”
Because you didn't click the link that you just bitched about me not posting.
This post was edited on 11/16/21 at 6:55 pm
Posted on 11/16/21 at 6:51 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
It seems that actually linking the thefts to him with some sort of physical evidence would be the best way to make that argument
Arebry being physically present, 5 times, at night, at a property he does not own, would lead any reasonable person to suspect that he could be the person who stole whatever was stolen from the property.
Posted on 11/16/21 at 6:54 pm to Azkiger
quote:
They don'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.
aaaaand they admitted to having no knowledge of him entering any residence. how can they have a preponderance of evidence that he entered a residence with intent to steal if they admitted they didnt know if he entered a residence?
Posted on 11/16/21 at 6:58 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Arebry being physically present, 5 times, at night, at a property he does not own, would lead any reasonable person to suspect that he could be the person who stole whatever was stolen from the property.
I'd say it would lead any reasonable person to suspect that he was the person who stole whatever. I have no idea if that legally puts them in a better position or not but it's strange to see people act as if they had no reason to think he'd stolen something.
Posted on 11/16/21 at 6:58 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Arebry being physically present, 5 times, at night, at a property he does not own, would lead any reasonable person to suspect that he could be the person who stole whatever was stolen from the property.
But none of the objects were found in his possession or linked back to him, so that you made this statement a conditional means that it would be more believable if there were actually physical evidence tying him to the thefts. Otherwise, I honestly don't see how they reach this very odd 'preponderance of evidence' threshold that appears to be the standard.
Posted on 11/16/21 at 6:59 pm to AMS
quote:
aaaaand they admitted to having no knowledge of him entering any residence.
What exact question and answer you're speaking of?
quote:
how can they have a preponderance of evidence that he entered a residence with intent to steal if they admitted they didnt know if he entered a residence?
He's been spotted there 5 times. Here he is a 6th time, one house away. I guess it's more reasonable to assume that he's just jogging by this time...
Posted on 11/16/21 at 7:02 pm to Flats
quote:
I'd say it would lead any reasonable person to suspect that he was the person who stole whatever. I have no idea if that legally puts them in a better position or not but it's strange to see people act as if they had no reason to think he'd stolen something.
i mean sure I agree with all that, but their own statements to police indicated they didnt even know if he had entered the residence at all, they just saw him hauling arse.
even if the CA began justified, it became illegal very quickly considering they hit him with their vehicle and committed aggravated assault along the way. but thats just extra considering the highly dubious at best grounds for a CA. you dont get to claim self defense if you are the one committing aggravated assault.
Posted on 11/16/21 at 7:07 pm to Azkiger
quote:
What exact question and answer you're speaking of?
police "did he enter any residence?"
mcmichaels "thats just it IDK".
ive posted this for you now multiple times in multiple threads.
quote:
He's been spotted there 5 times. Here he is a 6th time, one house away. I guess it's more reasonable to assume that he's just jogging by this time...
they also spotted multiple people on the cameras there on multiple occasions. they did not spot him stealing anything on the cameras, you have trespassing at best with that.
Posted on 11/16/21 at 7:09 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
But none of the objects were found in his possession or linked back to him, so that you made this statement a conditional means that it would be more believable if there were actually physical evidence tying him to the thefts. Otherwise, I honestly don't see how they reach this very odd 'preponderance of evidence' threshold that appears to be the standard.
So you think that if something stolen was found in his possession, that that would retroactively justify their citizen's arrest?
I don't think it matters what was or wasn't on Arbery at the time of shooting. What matters is what the McMichaels thought/knew at the time they attempted the citizen's arrest.
Assuming the lawyer in the OP has a good grasp on the law, all you need to do is to think that it's more likely than not, even if its 51/49, that Arbery was a thief entering the property looking for things to steal.
Posted on 11/16/21 at 7:09 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
So why are people so sure he was responsible for the previous thefts? Did the video evidence show that he took things? I haven't followed this since it broke.
Because they are dishonesty making excuses for the killers.
Posted on 11/16/21 at 7:13 pm to OccamsStubble
quote:
What did he steal the day he was shot?
More importantly, what did he steal in the days(months) AFTER he was shot?
Posted on 11/16/21 at 7:13 pm to AMS
quote:
police "did he enter any residence?"
mcmichaels "thats just it IDK".
Ok, so we can cross off "know". What about suspect or think?
quote:
ive posted this for you now multiple times in multiple threads.
I mean, when you post "IDK" in quotes of a verbal interview, I sort of assume you're paraphrasing.
quote:
they also spotted multiple people on the cameras there on multiple occasions. they did not spot him stealing anything on the cameras, you have trespassing at best with that.
So your stance is that it's more likely than not that someone who's been spotted on camera at night, poking around a construction site where things have been taken, isn't there intending to steal something?
Ok, I have a jogging narrative for you to buy as well...
Posted on 11/16/21 at 7:14 pm to Azkiger
quote:Right. Then the court system can sort it out. If the McMicheals had arrested Arbery, we'd not be having this conversation though.
a citizen's arrest.
Posted on 11/16/21 at 7:15 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Assuming the lawyer in the OP has a good grasp on the law, all you need to do is to think that it's more likely than not, even if its 51/49, that Arbery was a thief entering the property looking for things to steal.
aaaand they had not knowing if he entered the property
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.
"IDK" seems like a bridge too far from the requirement of immediate knowledge.
Posted on 11/16/21 at 7:16 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Right. Then the court system can sort it out. If the McMicheals had arrested Arbery, we'd not be having this conversation though.
Yes, sadly Arbery didn't stop and wait for police.
Posted on 11/16/21 at 7:18 pm to Azkiger
quote:
So you think that if something stolen was found in his possession, that that would retroactively justify their citizen's arrest?
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. If they themselves admitted they had no immediate knowledge of any crime and instead chased him because he was hauling arse, linking Arbery to an actual crime with physicial evidence rather than an assumption of a crime is a far stronger argument than what has been presented in this thread.
quote:
Assuming the lawyer in the OP has a good grasp on the law, all you need to do is to think that it's more likely than not, even if its 51/49, that Arbery was a thief entering the property looking for things to steal.
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.
Posted on 11/16/21 at 7:23 pm to AMS
quote:
aaaand they had not knowing if he entered the property
The McMichaels told Officer Rash, about two weeks prior, when he responded to one of the incidents where Arbery was poking around Mr. English's property, that he had been spotted there 5 times.
The day he was shot the dad saw him running by as he was washing his boat. They live two houses down. So he saw him one house away from Mr. English's property.
I guess it's more reasonable to assume he was just jogging by and hadn't entered the property again?
quote:
"IDK" seems like a bridge too far from the requirement of immediate knowledge.
I haven't found a definition for that term (and I have looked a bit). But considering the K in "IDK" is know, and since knowledge is being modified (changed) by the word immediate, there's certainly room for you to have immediate knowledge of something without knowing 100%.
Posted on 11/16/21 at 7:24 pm to AMS
quote:
police "did he enter any residence?"
mcmichaels "thats just it IDK".
There it is, in his own words. “I don’t know, but I can, quite a while after he may or may not have entered, chase, confront, and as much as is possible with two trucks and two guns, detain”.
These fools are going to prison.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News