- 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: The dad knew Ahmaud previously
Posted on 5/8/20 at 9:15 am to Caplewood
Posted on 5/8/20 at 9:15 am to Caplewood
Again, all I'm saying is that the documentation we do have, from the police report, to the 911 calls to the witness statements, do not mention a hammer or any type of weapon. That would be a massive oversight if their argument hinges on self-defense, which it did, as the DA memo makes apparent.
1
Posted on 5/8/20 at 9:15 am to rmc
quote:
We have very different definitions of what it means to be aggressive.
i don't like guns being pointed at me, especially while those guys lie in wait for me
BUT THAT'S JUST ME. i am known as a wild card
This post was edited on 5/8/20 at 9:16 am
Posted on 5/8/20 at 9:15 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
these "prior interactions" were criminal investigations
i'm not a GA attorney, but if their laws are anything like our laws, the bad character of the shooters may come into play, but what relevance is the deceased's history? to get back to common law, what probative value does this evidence hold? nothing. how prejudicial would this be? very
why would that come in?
Is it possible that there were prior interactions on that day? I’m just saying if he knew him before, maybe he saw him that day under circumstances that lit a fire. The video obviously would not provide that info.
I agree just because they may have knew each other doesn’t necessarily mean a thing to the murder case, but if those interactions influenced motive, they would matter in the murder case. Am I wrong in thinking motive is the most important factor in which degree of murder is charged?
Posted on 5/8/20 at 9:16 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i don't like guns being pointed at me, especially while those guys lie in wait for me
But they weren't pointing guns at him.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 9:17 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
yeah since they created this story (and the DA has made public comments), i can't imagine if there was a potential weapon it wouldn't have been mentioned by now. hell, the DA seemed to be focusing more on the autopsy report (so i'm guessing he had drugs in his system?)
Again, the degree to which local authorities bungled this initially deserves an investigation. The DA memo is strange, but I don't know the standard for those memos.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 9:18 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
Again, the degree to which local authorities bungled this initially deserves an investigation.
I agree with this. Seems it should have been referred to a grand jury much sooner than this.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 9:18 am to OceanMan
quote:
I agree just because they may have knew each other doesn’t necessarily mean a thing to the murder case, but if those interactions influenced motive, they would matter in the murder case. Am I wrong in thinking motive is the most important factor in which degree of murder is charged?
i don't know GA's laws specifically. i would need to read the indictment and the associated statutes to tell you
Posted on 5/8/20 at 9:18 am to SlowFlowPro
I think this is a good time to run with an unrelated quote that people once laughed at, but that is dead on.
We have things we know here. But they are limited.
We have things we know we don't know here. Things we can actually contemplate.
But, we also have unknown unknowns. And those are the little fricker that get ya.
My knee jerk if you pointed a gun at my head?
1. He wasn't jogging. I suspect that will turn out to be bull shite.
2. They saw him do something that caught their eye, but, wasn't a literal crime.
3. They followed him and yeah, I suspect that him being black contributed to them noticing he wasn't from their neighborhood
4. Up thru 3, they were probably all good, but, it appears they hopped out of their trucks and tried to directly confront him or maybe even take him into custody.
5. If 4 is true, I consider this to be way outside of what is acceptable if they didn't witness can actual crime.
Those are what I think if you forced me to bet money.
But, I also am pretty much 100% certain there's shite I don't know yet that will impact the above.
We have things we know here. But they are limited.
We have things we know we don't know here. Things we can actually contemplate.
But, we also have unknown unknowns. And those are the little fricker that get ya.
My knee jerk if you pointed a gun at my head?
1. He wasn't jogging. I suspect that will turn out to be bull shite.
2. They saw him do something that caught their eye, but, wasn't a literal crime.
3. They followed him and yeah, I suspect that him being black contributed to them noticing he wasn't from their neighborhood
4. Up thru 3, they were probably all good, but, it appears they hopped out of their trucks and tried to directly confront him or maybe even take him into custody.
5. If 4 is true, I consider this to be way outside of what is acceptable if they didn't witness can actual crime.
Those are what I think if you forced me to bet money.
But, I also am pretty much 100% certain there's shite I don't know yet that will impact the above.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 9:18 am to fatheadgator
Any hammer lying in the middle of the road like that object appears, that near the incident scene, would certainly have been retrieved and secured into evidence by police. If there was a hammer, it's in evidence. I'm skeptical about the hammer theory because it hasn't been the subject of any talk in the various articles. No reason it wouldn't have been.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 9:19 am to crazy4lsu
Well the self defense claim would seem to be justified because ahmaud threw hands when confronted. Again, idk and don’t have a fully formed opinion on the matter, because all the facts of the case aren’t out there, but it’s interesting how the narrative gets shaped claiming he was just some completely innocuous jogger that got lynched for absolute no reason.
This post was edited on 5/8/20 at 9:20 am
Posted on 5/8/20 at 9:19 am to moneyg
quote:
* Victim wasn't simply a jogger * Victim probably was doing something illegal * Victim wasn't carrying a weapon of any type * Killers aggressively confronted Victim with weapons * Fight started between victim and killer * Victim was shot
LOL. I didn't even see your post before I posted my 1-5 points
But yes. That seems to be a pretty good list of assumptions.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 9:22 am to fatheadgator
There is a lot to be learned from this situation:
1. Don't go jogging in unfamiliar neighborhoods with cargo shorts, high tops and a hammer.
2. If you break guideline 1 and you encounter a residence of the neighborhood be polite.
3. If you are a residence of the neighborhood and you suspect the cargo short high top wearing and hammer carrying man may be a robber, call the cops.
4. If ignore guideline 3 and you are compelled to approach the suspected robber, retain enough distance to avoid a physical confrontation.
5. If guideline 4 is ignored and a confrontation occurs, make sure your buddy backing you up doesn't go for vital organs. Shooting the leg could have been sufficient.
6. If you can't implement any guidelines 1-5, make sure you are not being videoed.
Following any of these guidelines could have avoided the national political hornets nest that is being stirred up from this stupidity.
1. Don't go jogging in unfamiliar neighborhoods with cargo shorts, high tops and a hammer.
2. If you break guideline 1 and you encounter a residence of the neighborhood be polite.
3. If you are a residence of the neighborhood and you suspect the cargo short high top wearing and hammer carrying man may be a robber, call the cops.
4. If ignore guideline 3 and you are compelled to approach the suspected robber, retain enough distance to avoid a physical confrontation.
5. If guideline 4 is ignored and a confrontation occurs, make sure your buddy backing you up doesn't go for vital organs. Shooting the leg could have been sufficient.
6. If you can't implement any guidelines 1-5, make sure you are not being videoed.
Following any of these guidelines could have avoided the national political hornets nest that is being stirred up from this stupidity.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 9:22 am to moneyg
quote:
*Victim wasn't simply a jogger
* Victim probably was doing something illegal
Without having a hammer in his possession, how did you come to this conclusion?
Posted on 5/8/20 at 9:22 am to Caplewood
quote:
but it’s interesting how the narrative gets shaped claiming he was just some completely innocuous jogger that got lynched for absolute no reason.
Exactly, and that is dangerous because if the prosecutor ran with that as fact they would be lit up in court if those circumstances proved to not be true.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 9:22 am to imjustafatkid
quote:
Reading your description of events, I would have to say no you wouldn't be justified. Especially if they aren't even pointing their guns at you.
might be semantics, but i read his post as being confronted “with guns”.
Meaning the guns themselves were used in the confrontation.
had he put the phrase with guns before the word confronted, the. i would read it as just a guy that happened to be carrying stopping him to talk, but wasn’t using the gun as a part of the confrontation.
dudes with guns confront me = couple guys who have guns talked to me.
dudes confront me with guns = guys using guns in a threatening way.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 9:23 am to GumboPot
quote:
6. If you can't implement any guidelines 1-5, make sure you are not being videoed.
Speaking of which, would be cool to know who was videoing.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 9:23 am to Caplewood
quote:
Well the self defense claim would seem to be justified because ahmaud threw hands when confronted.
He had been apparently been boxed in, so I'm extremely skeptical the self-defense angle will work for the McMichaels, as the Georgia statue that someone posted here or on the OT showed that self-defense can't be used by someone who provoked the interaction, which I would argue the McMichaels definitely did. But we will see.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 9:23 am to OceanMan
quote:
Is it possible that there were prior interactions on that day? I’m just saying if he knew him before, maybe he saw him that day under circumstances that lit a fire. The video obviously would not provide that info.
The father was former LEO, if he recognized Ahmaud and suspected he was involved with a crime- why didn’t he just call a buddy still on the force? Hell, I’ve called a cop buddy to try and get out of a ticket ....why wasn’t his first response- get LEO help?
Strange....
Posted on 5/8/20 at 9:24 am to Azkiger
quote:
Without having a hammer in his possession, how did you come to this conclusion?
I don't think he did
I think he was trying to summarize what's been said in the thread.
Posted on 5/8/20 at 9:25 am to ShortyRob
quote:
Speaking of which, would be cool to know who was videoing.
William Bryan, the third member of the McMichael's party who helped box Arbery in.
Page 7 of 33
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News