101

Still a terrible excuse to chase someone down. It’s a construction site. People get curious and walk through them.

The videos on the property showed various people going through, including kids.

What is likely, is Arbery was getting a drink a water from the sink. Apparently the video showed him walking too and from the location of the sink. And one video showed an unindentfied person doing the same, and wiping their lips.

102

The evidence is that security cameras were installed. It’s reasonable to assume that a sign was also installed. And regardless of the law requiring proof of “unlawful purpose,” it is questionable that any of the parties involved knew about that loophole.

Furthermore, Aubrey is not on trial, so it does not matter whether he committed a crime or not. The defense is claiming self defense, not protecting property.

103

I am only responding to the claim that Arbery committed a crime.

Without evidence that he did, the assumption is that he did not.

104

To be crystal clear, I am NOT defending the actions of the three on trial. But the facts of the case do show that they had cause for suspicion that Aubery may have been trespassing for no good.

105

I don’t think their suspicion was reasonable. When I was a kid, I lived next to a neighborhood that was under construction. I remember walking through the homes that were still being built, as well as seeing plenty of curious people stop and walk through.

Not unreasonable for someone jogging by to stop and take a look and see how things are going. Or to stop and take a drink from the sink.

106

It’s irrelevant.

107

As a kid, later teens, I used to guard construction sites, with a gun. So you would never catch me wandering into one uninvited.

108

I watched the entire trial. It was brought out that there wasn’t any posted or no trespassing signs.

109

I worked in construction sites for over 5 years, track homes as far as the eye could see

No one ever got followed and shot for looking around in broad daylight

110

Does it matter though? My understanding is the law says they can only make a citizens arrest if the crime was a felony. So they are toast either way.

1 Like
111

They also needed direct knowledge of a specific crime committed. They had none. They did not see the video at any time before the shooting.

112

I bet the owners of the construction sites didn’t find your trespasses to be reasonable.

113

I agree. And I said as much,

114

Well since the new standard for deadly force in riots is trespassing those guys who were involved in over 500 riots last year probably should be extra careful in future riots right?

The beating, burning, and killing might not fly any more right? :thinking:

115

I thought the jury would come back with a verdict right away like Chauvin

But even if they’re acquitted, I think they’d still face federal hate crime charges

116

Meh. Couple of kids looking to see how construction is going. And curious people looking to possibly buy in the neighborhood.

No harm done. Outside of safety issues, I doubt they would have cared.

117

The whole concept of a citizens arrest is a bit disturbing. Did the defense claim that Arbery was obligated to stop and let these people he doesn’t know take him away? Imagine a couple of perverts driving up to a young girl and saying that they are making a citizens arrest because they claim she committed a crime. I guess she would have no choice but to get into their car? Absolutely a stupid ■■■■■■■ law!

1 Like
118

No, if she committed no crime she isn’t obligated to. And a false citizen arrest is no different that just plan assault and kidnapping. a young girl stopped by two armed men is in big trouble whether they claim to be making a citizens arrest or not, no material difference as far as she is concerned

119

Libs are gonna be so disappointed when everyone is happy that these dingbats are going to prison. :rofl:

3 Likes
120

Here we go with progs making up lies. I’m not defending them. The one with a shotgun is guilty of manslaughter, in my opinion.