Thanks to the video.
Watch – Ahmaud Arbery's Father Declares 'All Lives Matter'
The father of Ahmaud Arbery declared "all lives matter" shortly after a jury found Travis and Gregory McMichael guilty of murdering his son.
Thanks to the video.
Samm:How can you say that the video was not the key to conviction?
Because it wasn’t. Have you followed the case?
That does not answer my question.
Thanks to the video.
There were no facts in dispute at all. They admitted to everything, to the cops at the scene - before any of them other than Bryan knew a video existed.
That does not answer my question.
The video did not, by itself, prove any disputed facts in this case.
The video did not, by itself, prove any disputed facts in this case.
I think that the prosecution did a good job at proving the crime without the video. Having the video was a bonus that they could use.
This was a fine statement by the father. He emphasized ALL lives matter as Sharpton watched and nodded. Actual healing…Biden can’t seem to do.
The father of Ahmaud Arbery declared "all lives matter" shortly after a jury found Travis and Gregory McMichael guilty of murdering his son.
I haven’t followed this case closely because it seemed at first glance sort of open and shut. But, without the video then wouldn’t what happened be sort of uncontested by any living person? Just as, without video, Rittenhouse would have given one story against the rest. Grosskretuz even initially lied to police that he had dropped his pistol before confronting Rittenhouse. This would no doubt be considered a fact without the video.
Good thing there are videos.
The investigators had access the the videos. They just didn’t charge anyone.
The first prosecutor is being charged with misconduct.
A former Georgia prosecutor allegedly used her position to shield the men who chased and killed 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery from being charged with crimes immediately after the shootings.
If the initial investigators had access to the video, they should face consequences, just like Kyles should. Both cases were obvious given the video.
A former Georgia prosecutor allegedly used her position to shield the men who chased and killed 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery from being charged with crimes immediately after the shootings.
What’s not perfect about a corrupt DA being indicted?
How many other cases did she squash?
No they are not … Corrupt people are an aberration to the system. If the system was corrupt, this corrupt DA would not be facing punishment.
For this case…how many others did she shield from justice?
Giving the possibility of parole may be enough.
The father is 64. A life sentence will literally mean that
His kid might get released but he will be an old, old man.
Allan
No it wasn’t. Pictures don’t have to be seen on the same day for the person in the picture to be identified as a suspect.
SoMeone running by in shorts and no backpack seems an unlikely burglary suspect to me.
Maybe he his his swag. But that’s just speculation.
Allan
Tom_Ch: Samm: plsd2mechu:Ahmaud didn’t break any LAW!
Actually, he did. Just like Ashli, he trespassed.
There is no evidence or video of Ahmad trespassing.
There is clear video of ashlii doing that.
You mean other than in the video surveillance? Twice?
So you admit, Ashli was shot for trespassing. Progress.
Good for business owners to know next time left wing thugs decide to riot, loot, and try to burn things down.
New standard.
The McMichaels set a new standard for murder. They call 911 about their intended victim and have 911 on the phone as they murder the guy.
Changed my mind on this after researching it, it will be revered on appeal.
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.
If the first standard is applicable to every crime what is the purpose of the second part? In addition if the law can be interpreted two ways the judge is supposed to rule the way that benefits the defendant has to be used. The judge punted and left that decision to the jury, non lawyers instead. Brace for it down the road.
Um, what. This is all over the place.
What specific reversible error did the judge commit?
Not ruling the statute is unconstitutionally vague? Submitting an affirmative defense to the jury?
Changed my mind on this after researching it, it will be revered on appeal.
By “researching it”, you mean you read Andrew Branca’s column, and blindly accepted it as truth?
He lied. The judge didn’t punt anything. Watch the whole jury instructions.
zantax:Changed my mind on this after researching it, it will be revered on appeal.
By “researching it”, you mean you read Andrew Branca’s column, and blindly accepted it as truth?
He lied. The judge didn’t punt anything. Watch the whole jury instructions.
Well that and reading the statute. Which made his argument make sense. And what’s the problem with that? I am open to more discussion and changing my mind when I find out new things. And yeah I will watch the jury instructions and if it turns out Branca is wrong, I won’t give him as much credibility going forward. My opinions aren’t set in concrete. Nor do they matter in this instance.
Samm:Thanks to the video.
There were no facts in dispute at all. They admitted to everything, to the cops at the scene - before any of them other than Bryan knew a video existed.
Bryan was one of the suspects. Therefore, all three knew the video evidence existed. So of course their story was consistent. Had it not existed, there is no telling how their story would have been spun.
Samm:That does not answer my question.
The video did not, by itself, prove any disputed facts in this case.
I didn’t say by itself, I said it was key.