- 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: Question for the Joggers of Political Talk
Posted on 5/8/20 at 8:08 am to Ace Midnight
Posted on 5/8/20 at 8:08 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
If Arbery has a record of property offenses and violence, they will almost certainly walk.
??? Delete this ...
Our laws do not allow for vigilante murders ....this is not SYG or castle doctrine- they were on a public road, had a myriad chances to diffuse this ...they chose murder-
1
Posted on 5/8/20 at 8:08 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
The description of the video and then ascribing some weird stuff to Arbery at the end struck me as extremely strange.
It’s a CYA memo for sure.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 8:09 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
The McMichael's hadn't seen him commit a crime though.
The DA believes otherwise.
Have you interviewed the mcmichaels ? Or is there some interview I can read?
Ugh. I really wasn’t interested in getting caught up on another Trayvon but I guess I’ll have to.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 8:10 am to fatheadgator
quote:
Our laws do not allow for vigilante murders
Ok this is stupid hysteria.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 8:10 am to Mooreman
quote:
who are clearly racially prejudiced
Citation needed.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 8:10 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Also, if Arbery had a gun, using the DA’s argument, he could have shot McMichaels. Probably would have. What’s your point?
Then, if the DA was consistent, Arbery wouldn’t have been charged. If either side can argue “stand your ground,” then I’m not especially impressed with the argument.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 8:11 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Our laws do not allow for vigilante murders Ok this is stupid hysteria.
It was vigilante justice. It ended in homicide. The jury will decide if it’s murder.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 8:13 am to baldona
quote:
If he had a hammer, why would he not have used it to defend himself? So he tossed it before running past their truck? That doesn’t make any sense. Yes I’m in the group of he wasn’t jogging. But still.
Theory: Bc the hammer was for ripping copper pipe or for breaking in. He dropped it to look less guilty.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 8:13 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
Compare that to Zimmerman/Martin - the evidence was clear that Zimmerman may have been an a-hole, but he wasn't brandishing a weapon and Martin likely initiated the physical altercation. In this case, the guys in the truck were brandishing weapons and were easily discernible as a threat from Arbery's perspective.
I wholeheartedly agree that Trayvon prolly started the fight but...why isn’t TM allowed to claim “self defense” ...he clearly was being hunted - i can’t recall if GZ mentioned that he had a gun to police
Posted on 5/8/20 at 8:14 am to OleManDixon
quote:
Question for smoke ‘em if you got ‘em: when do you plan on offering anything relevant to the shooting and whether or not it’s justified? High tops and hammers ain’t gonna get you there on their own.
The hammer might.
If the truck guys witnesses the jogger breaking into homes or cars then, while dumb, the law in Georiga does allow them to make a citizens arrest.
I have a hard time believing that he was hammering in windows in broad daylight so that's not likely the case.
But the hammer could help the truck guys case. Who brings a hammer to jog?
Posted on 5/8/20 at 8:14 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Have you interviewed the mcmichaels ? Or is there some interview I can read?
I'm basing this off this CNN article the808bass posted yesterday. LINK
The shoddiness of the DA memo, and the fact he had to recuse himself after it was shown that his son and the elder McMichael worked out of the same office, means I really don't trust the DA's conclusions.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 8:14 am to the808bass
quote:
It was vigilante justice.
I know if I was going to kill a burglar because I just had enough of the cops not getting it done, id call the cops and record it.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 8:15 am to the808bass
quote:Justice for what crime?
It was vigilante justice.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 8:15 am to Turbeauxdog
quote:
I know if I was going to kill a burglar because I just had enough of the cops not getting it done, id call the cops and record it.
There is no indication these people are intelligent. Plenty of evidence that they're not.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 8:15 am to Azkiger
quote:
But the hammer could help the truck guys case. Who brings a hammer to jog?
No hammer, or any type of weapon, was mentioned in the early official documentation.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 8:16 am to ell_13
quote:
Justice for what crime?
That’s the problem with the vigilante part. The crime gets a little muddled.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 8:17 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
The shoddiness of the DA memo, and the fact he had to recuse himself after it was shown that his son and the elder McMichael worked out of the same office, means I really don't trust the DA's conclusions.
He didn’t have to, that’s a lie, he chose to because the mother was alleging something.
And that article is pretty worthless as far as facts for a case go.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 8:17 am to Manzielathon
Your questions are weak. You decided the outcome before looking at the evidence then looked at the evidence specifically for anything to exonerate the shooter(s). 
For your question to have any merit it would mean that all those people jogging around the LSU lakes every day live either very close to or IN the lake. The same with those jogging up and down Kennilworth, on campus or along the levee. Answering that question is like shooting fish in a barrel... with no water in it.
For the shooting itself, it's irrelevant in the eyes of the law if he had stolen something or not. He was so far from the location in question that they had time to coordinate vehicles to chase him down and sandwich him in between two vehicles.
In the video when the runner sees someone outside the truck and on the side of the road he's running, he tries to avoid him by dodging around the truck to the opposite side. The driver in that first truck then moves to engage.
They also outnumbered him 2 (or 3 if you count the person running the video) to 1.
They had the numbers and they were in vehicles while he was on foot. They chased him down with the intent to cause an armed confrontation. There was no immediate danger to them nor their property. The Castle Doctrine does not apply here, at all, and that is really their only option.
At the very least they could have just chased him until he wore out. He was sprinting at a pretty good pace, he would have soon tired had they just paced him (especially if they used the trucks to surround him). As they outnumbered and apparently had the time to set themselves up in a barricade-type manner they could also have prepared to stop him physically, leaving the firearms as their last-resort.
The shooter could get Murder 2 or 3 (Manslaughter), the guy in the back of the truck might get charged with being an accomplice.
At best what they did was overly aggressive and now they are paying the price for their impatience and stupidity.
For your question to have any merit it would mean that all those people jogging around the LSU lakes every day live either very close to or IN the lake. The same with those jogging up and down Kennilworth, on campus or along the levee. Answering that question is like shooting fish in a barrel... with no water in it.
For the shooting itself, it's irrelevant in the eyes of the law if he had stolen something or not. He was so far from the location in question that they had time to coordinate vehicles to chase him down and sandwich him in between two vehicles.
In the video when the runner sees someone outside the truck and on the side of the road he's running, he tries to avoid him by dodging around the truck to the opposite side. The driver in that first truck then moves to engage.
They also outnumbered him 2 (or 3 if you count the person running the video) to 1.
They had the numbers and they were in vehicles while he was on foot. They chased him down with the intent to cause an armed confrontation. There was no immediate danger to them nor their property. The Castle Doctrine does not apply here, at all, and that is really their only option.
At the very least they could have just chased him until he wore out. He was sprinting at a pretty good pace, he would have soon tired had they just paced him (especially if they used the trucks to surround him). As they outnumbered and apparently had the time to set themselves up in a barricade-type manner they could also have prepared to stop him physically, leaving the firearms as their last-resort.
The shooter could get Murder 2 or 3 (Manslaughter), the guy in the back of the truck might get charged with being an accomplice.
At best what they did was overly aggressive and now they are paying the price for their impatience and stupidity.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 8:17 am to Azkiger
quote:
If the truck guys witnesses the jogger breaking into homes or cars then, while dumb, the law in Georiga does allow them to make a citizens arrest.
Does it allow them to execute the guy?
The 911 call shows that they had no degree of certainty to make an arrest.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 8:17 am to Azkiger
quote:
I have a hard time believing that he was hammering in windows in broad daylight so that's not likely the case. But the hammer could help the truck guys case. Who brings a hammer to jog?
If the police had actually investigated this case in February, it could’ve helped. It’s unlikely it will help now.
Page 7 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News