(01-10-2022, 09:33 PM)rothschild Wrote:

(01-10-2022, 09:28 PM)sally Wrote: No it is not. If someone is on my property threatening me or on my neighbor's property threatening them then we have the right to protect ourselves however that may be. If someone is down the street acting suspiciously around a construction site then I call the cops if I'm so concerned. Not load myself up with weapons and go chase them down the street, and if I did choose to do something so fucking dumb I would expect whatever resulted from it to come down on me.

Tell me why you think your right to defend your neighborhood ends 1 house away: what's the difference between 1 house away and 3 houses away?

It wasn't a house, it was a goddamn empty construction site. He wasn't there to break in as there are no fucking windows or doors or anyone inside. What's the worst he's gonna do, steal the permit papers out of the box?

(01-10-2022, 10:41 PM)MirahM Wrote:

(01-10-2022, 09:06 AM)rothschild Wrote:

(01-10-2022, 07:02 AM)Duchess Wrote: Look at this cunt trying to justify murder.

There was no murder. The thug ran up and tried to take the man's gun, probably so he could shoot him.

But who is the one who had the gun? 

You really are a cunt trying to justify murder and blame the victim. There is no use debating you after reading the last exchange. 
Of course most people believe in defending themselves, thier homes and property. But also most people stop at going after an unarmed person who was just jogging and checking out some construction sites at the same time.
But go ahead and listen to the brothers say he had no business being there and that he caused his own death and that he had an incident in 2017, wow it is so good they shot him then. They saved the world from a thug.

Now how ironic is that statement.

Maybe you're coocoo, because they were stationary in their truck, while Auberry ran up on them and initiated violent confrontation. Yeah, they wanted to know why he kept trespassing in their neighborhood, but they were not the ones that initiated violence.

(01-10-2022, 10:55 PM)sally Wrote:

(01-10-2022, 09:33 PM)rothschild Wrote:

(01-10-2022, 09:28 PM)sally Wrote: No it is not. If someone is on my property threatening me or on my neighbor's property threatening them then we have the right to protect ourselves however that may be. If someone is down the street acting suspiciously around a construction site then I call the cops if I'm so concerned. Not load myself up with weapons and go chase them down the street, and if I did choose to do something so fucking dumb I would expect whatever resulted from it to come down on me.

Tell me why you think your right to defend your neighborhood ends 1 house away: what's the difference between 1 house away and 3 houses away?

It wasn't a house, it was a goddamn empty construction site. He wasn't there to break in as there are no fucking windows or doors or anyone inside. What's he gonna do, steal the permit papers out of the box?

The pics I saw show framing, so no, it was not empty, and he wasn't there to contemplate the meaning of life. He was hoping to find tools to pawn. No other reason for him to keep going back -- at a time when the neighborhood was experiencing a rash of burglaries.

I'm stunned that you think that has anything at all to do with whether or not he was murdered. It doesn't. But you're too goddamned lazy to read the relevant statutes, so it isn't like you give a half a fuck about your opinion being informed. Knowledge doesn't precede investigation. It never has, and it never will.

Here's George Barnhill's report.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/...d/full.pdf

Maybe he was just there to take a shit in the port o potty. Maggot does it all the time, hopefully he never runs into anyone like you. And so what if he was looking for tools to pawn? Did those tools belong to the guys that chased him and are they worth being in a situation of being charged for murder now?

(01-10-2022, 11:21 PM)sally Wrote: Maybe he was just there to take a shit in the port o potty. Maggot does it all the time, hopefully he never runs into anyone like you. And so what if he was looking for tools to pawn? Did those tools belong to the guys that chased him and are they worth being in a situation of being charged for murder now?

Why do you think it matters why he was there? Trespassing under Georgia law is probable cause for a citizen's arrest, which means everything you're raising is immaterial to whether or not they are guilty of murder. That question hinges entirely on what we see in the video -- as far as the law is concerned.

The house down the street was torn down to framing, no, no trespass signs were posted so I went into see how my house was framed and plumbed, you are going to kill me for that? He was stealing a fucking thing.

(01-10-2022, 11:56 PM)BigMark Wrote: The house down the street was torn down to framing, no, no trespass signs were posted so I went into see how my house was framed and plumbed, you are going to kill me for that? He was stealing a fucking thing.

He didn't get shot at the construction site. He was shot while trying to grab the gun away from McMichael, the first shot blowing a hole in the palm of his hand. There is NOTHING to suggest that he would have been shot if he hadn't done that.

If you don't stop with the hysteria your whopper is going to disown you. 

he was trespassing, not stealing and not complying with the unlawful order the rednecks were trying to impose. I suspect he went into survival mode and that doomed him. He should have complied until law enforcement arrived, but trust me there is a good ol boy network involved there.

(01-11-2022, 12:23 AM)BigMark Wrote: he was trespassing, not stealing and not complying with the unlawful order the rednecks were trying to impose. I suspect he went into survival mode and that doomed him. He should have complied until law enforcement arrived, but trust me there is a good ol boy network involved there.

That looks like a fairly gross exaggeration to me. Trespassing, in and of itself, is a crime, and there were burglaries happening in that neighborhood at the time this went down. There's nothing unlawful about confronting someone who is repeatedly trespassing. Nor is there anything malicious in doing so. Sure, you can assume that that there was malicious and criminal intent, but you ARE making assumptions -- and probably based on racial stereotypes, right?

(01-10-2022, 10:53 PM)rothschild Wrote: They were fully within their rights under Georgia law to respond in the manner that they did. That isn't arguable.

This was just argued in a court of law where the people responsible for the murder of Ahmaud were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. So to be clear, not only was this arguable, it was proven beyond doubt that the murderers had no right to respond in the manner they did.

(01-11-2022, 05:18 AM)Duchess Wrote:

(01-10-2022, 10:53 PM)rothschild Wrote: They were fully within their rights under Georgia law to respond in the manner that they did. That isn't arguable.

This was just argued in a court of law where the people responsible for the murder of Ahmaud were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. So to be clear, not only was this arguable, it was proven beyond doubt that the murderers had no right to respond in the manner they did.

Here's the law re citizen arrests in Georgia:

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

applying normal rules of statutory construction, it's describing 2 different scenarios, not one; the first sentence relates to misdemeanors, the second to felonies. If the two are melded together, which Dunikoski argued was the correct interpretation, it makes no sense as there would no longer be any necessity for probable cause -- both misdemeanors and felonies would have to occur in the presence of anyone attempting to make a citizen's arrest.

It is not the role of a jury to interpret the law, only the evidence. It was incumbent upon Judge Walmsley to clarify this point, which is a critical one for both the prosecution and the defense, and he failed to do so. That's an egregious error and should result in the verdict being thrown out on appeal, though it very well may not.

As for your contention that this point of law *is* arguable, feel free to show that Dunikoski's interpretation is in keeping with the rules of statutory construction.

(01-11-2022, 08:54 AM)rothschild Wrote:

(01-11-2022, 05:18 AM)Duchess Wrote:

(01-10-2022, 10:53 PM)rothschild Wrote: They were fully within their rights under Georgia law to respond in the manner that they did. That isn't arguable.

This was just argued in a court of law where the people responsible for the murder of Ahmaud were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. So to be clear, not only was this arguable, it was proven beyond doubt that the murderers had no right to respond in the manner they did.

Here's the law re citizen arrests in Georgia:

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

applying normal rules of statutory construction, it's describing 2 different scenarios, not one; the first sentence relates to misdemeanors, the second to felonies. If the two are melded together, which Dunikoski argued was the correct interpretation, it makes no sense as there would no longer be any necessity for probable cause -- both misdemeanors and felonies would have to occur in the presence of anyone attempting to make a citizen's arrest.

It is not the role of a jury to interpret the law, only the evidence. It was incumbent upon Judge Walmsley to clarify this point, which is a critical one for both the prosecution and the defense, and he failed to do so. That's an egregious error and should result in the verdict being thrown out on appeal, though it very well may not.

As for your contention that this point of law *is* arguable, feel free to show that Dunikoski's interpretation is in keeping with the rules of statutory construction.

It should also be noted that this statute is very broad and ambiguous, which isn't surprising given that it dates back to the Civil War. As far as law is concerned, legal ambiguities are to be interpreted in favor of defendants, for the obvious reason that it is the state that makes law.

To all of you who got into it with me here, thank you. You too, Duchess.

 No thanks necessary!

Without going through the exact wording there’s the “reasonable person” expectation:

“All members of the community owe a duty to act as a reasonable person in undertaking or avoiding actions with the risk to harm others”.

Georgia has changed its citizen arrest law but there will always be assholes who act unreasonably and then look for the loopholes in the laws. Glad they didn’t skate.

(01-15-2022, 06:07 PM)username Wrote: Glad they didn’t skate.

Damn straight. If it had been up to the former DA they would have.

(01-15-2022, 06:07 PM)username Wrote: Without going through the exact wording there’s the “reasonable person” expectation:

“All members of the community owe a duty to act as a reasonable person in undertaking or avoiding actions with the risk to harm others”.

Georgia has changed its citizen arrest law but there will always be assholes who act unreasonably and then look for the loopholes in the laws. Glad they didn’t skate.

Someone who doesn't bend over backwards for criminals is an "asshole"? Really?

Your homey was on parole when he was trespassing, and was shot as he attempted to grab McMichael's firearm.

If you were consistent you'd be working to legalize trespassing, because it's "harmless", right?

You are exhausting.

(01-15-2022, 07:11 PM)MirahM Wrote: You are exhausting.

I'm just getting warmed up.