- 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: Run 2.23 for Arbery #werunwitharbery
Posted on 4/1/21 at 12:19 am to yesyesyall
Posted on 4/1/21 at 12:19 am to yesyesyall
quote:Can you be more specific? Are you speaking of burglary or something else? And if nothing was stolen, then why would you think you could even establish such intent in the first place?
entering the premises with the intent to steal something of any value is, in and of itself, a felony.
1
Posted on 4/1/21 at 12:41 am to dgnx6
quote:
A little boy was shot in the head by a racist black and no one is out riding their bikes for
Wel the black man was arrested like that day and will probably get life or death.
What upsets people is that Arbery was shot in February and no arrests were made till May after an enormous stink was made.
Posted on 4/1/21 at 1:52 am to Azkiger
Why are y’all arguing about $1500?
The burglary statute talks about entering with intent to commit (1) a felony OR (2) a theft. The theft element can be ANY theft, even misdemeanor theft.
The burglary statute talks about entering with intent to commit (1) a felony OR (2) a theft. The theft element can be ANY theft, even misdemeanor theft.
Posted on 4/1/21 at 1:55 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:This was the point of the new video.
if nothing was stolen, then why would you think you could even establish such intent in the first place?
They have found a bunch of allegations of prior bad acts (mostly without criminal charges and wholly without convictions), which the Defendants want to admit into evidence in hopes that they will help establish that intent.
This post was edited on 4/1/21 at 2:48 am
Posted on 4/1/21 at 7:11 am to Big Scrub TX
quote:
There was no reason to believe a felony was committed. The dip shite neighbor had no idea and the dip shite murderers had no idea.
There was no grounds to even attempt a citizens' arrest - much less insist on doing so with multiple brandished weapons.
These were vigilante a-holes who I hope get what was coming to them. And perhaps even moreso, I hope the corrupt LE that tried to sweep it under the rug is put under the jail.
I’m frankly shocked that there’s a discussion about this. How can anyone see the situation for anything other than what’s described above?
Posted on 4/1/21 at 7:13 am to Azkiger
quote:
Go ahead and just say he was out jogging.
i didn't say that
the people with shotguns who stalked, harassed, followed, and then assaulted an unarmed man don't get to claim self defense when, you know, he tries to defend himself. they are the aggressors in the situation, clearly. he is entitled to reasonable self defense, which using a lesser force (hands v. gun) is valid
Posted on 4/1/21 at 7:14 am to davyjones
quote:
Hank, even if it were somehow proved that Arbery was casing the joint, that in and of itself isn't a crime of any level. In fact, had Arbery been running down that street loudly yelling "Yes, I was casing the joint!!" that still doesn't satisfy the indispensable element of "immediate knowledge of felony crime having occurred".
exactly
unless trespassing is a felony in GA now
Posted on 4/1/21 at 7:18 am to Azkiger
quote:
They didn't kill him because they suspected he had stolen from a neighbor, they killed him because he charged one of them and reached for their gun.
Granted, them being there, armed, blocking his path, is unlikely legal... But he wasn't shot because of 'property crimes'.
here is the thing
if their excuse for trying to hunt him down is "property crimes", which it is, then he was ultimately shot because of "property crimes"
the irony is that you're using some concocted "totality" argument to enhance their knowledge while trying very hard to segregate all of their missteps and illegal behavior. under GA law, it's likely reversed, and we get to view their behavior in totality while the defendants will be required for a much more direct knowledge scenario
Posted on 4/1/21 at 7:21 am to AggieHank86
quote:
Why are y’all arguing about $1500?
because "big scrub" doesn't know anything about the topic he feels so right about.
Posted on 4/1/21 at 7:24 am to AggieHank86
i think the question about burglary is whether or not that place counts as a dwelling " which is designed or intended for occupancy for residential use."
Posted on 4/1/21 at 8:05 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the people with shotguns who stalked, harassed, followed, and then assaulted an unarmed man don't get to claim self defense when, you know, he tries to defend himself.
They do if they were attempting a legal citizens arrest. Maybe you've missed that, but that's been the topic of discussion for at least the last few pages.
quote:
if their excuse for trying to hunt him down is "property crimes", which it is, then he was ultimately shot because of "property crimes"
Hunted, really? You're a lot like the MMA 'expert witness' called to the stand by the prosecution in the Floyd trial who referred to the police as "animals". No one with any intelligence is taking you seriously.
Arbery was only shot when there was a struggle for the gun. The pursuit was over potential property crimes, the trigger pulls were because of a fight over the shotgun.
The only question is whether or not they were attempting a legal citizens arrest. If they were then self defense applies for them. If they were not then self defense applies to Arbery.
This post was edited on 4/1/21 at 8:28 am
Posted on 4/1/21 at 8:13 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:That is not even an element of second degree burglary, which applies to ANY building. As to first degree burglary, the relevant language is as follows:
i think the question about burglary is whether or not that place counts as a dwelling " which is designed or intended for occupancy for residential use."
quote:It was a residence (albeit under construction), clearly “designed for use” as a dwelling.
any building ... designed for use as the dwelling of another.
It is burglary if he entered with intent to either (1) commit another felony OR (2) commit a theft of any size. Since he did not steal anything, the relevant question is “intent.”
This post was edited on 4/1/21 at 9:20 am
Posted on 4/1/21 at 8:23 am to Azkiger
quote:That is one of the the ULTIMATE questions, but hardly the ONLY question.
The only question is whether or not they were attempting a legal citizens arrest. If they were then self defense applies for them. If they were not then self defense applies to Arbery.
INTERESTING POINT
Georgia repealed its “citizen arrest” law yesterday.
Posted on 4/1/21 at 9:06 am to 1BIGTigerFan
You do realize that baw had no business pointing or even brandishing that weapon at him? He was not law enforcement and had no sanction by the state of Georgia to act as one. Arbery was justified in attempting to defend himself.
Posted on 4/1/21 at 9:19 am to Azkiger
The legal citizen's arrest narrative is bullshite in this case. The father and son were self appointed vigilantes with a backdoor approval from the local LEC.
This was not some property owner protecting his castle. This was two baws wanting to play "concerned citizens" while attempting to deprive a citizen of his civil rights without probable cause or state sanction. They did not catch Arbery in the act of doing anything. Only a video of a black man stepping into a construction site where nothing was proved to be taken. Plus, the perpetrators were not even the property owners and did not live in immediate proximity.
I say let the ole baw and his son rot.
This was not some property owner protecting his castle. This was two baws wanting to play "concerned citizens" while attempting to deprive a citizen of his civil rights without probable cause or state sanction. They did not catch Arbery in the act of doing anything. Only a video of a black man stepping into a construction site where nothing was proved to be taken. Plus, the perpetrators were not even the property owners and did not live in immediate proximity.
I say let the ole baw and his son rot.
Posted on 4/1/21 at 9:39 am to KiwiHead
quote:
This was two baws wanting to play "concerned citizens" while attempting to deprive a citizen of his civil rights without probable cause or state sanction. They did not catch Arbery in the act of doing anything. Only a video of a black man stepping into a construction site where nothing was proved to be taken. Plus, the perpetrators were not even the property owners and did not live in immediate proximity.
Yet there are still idiots here defending them.
Posted on 4/1/21 at 9:58 am to Wally Sparks
Yeah I don't get it. Arbery was about to have his civil liberties violated and was having his life threatened by non LEO types and many on here would side with the people violating his rights.
Posted on 4/1/21 at 9:59 am to KiwiHead
quote:
many on here would side with the people violating his rights.
It a knee-jerk reaction to the people championing Arbery’s cause. They can’t stand to be on the same side as Crump et al.
Posted on 4/1/21 at 10:05 am to the808bass
quote:Good summary.quote:It a knee-jerk reaction to the people championing Arbery’s cause
many on here would side with the people violating his rights.
Posted on 4/1/21 at 10:08 am to the808bass
quote:
It a knee-jerk reaction to the people championing Arbery’s cause. They can’t stand to be on the same side as Crump et al.
Ding Ding Ding
Page 21 of 24
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News