Ex Cop and son kill unarmed black man jogging

[JBJ 3649]

2 hours ago, 'stache said:

I haven't seen anywhere that the Cleetii saw him in the construction house. The first reports were that they were suspicious because of "crime" in the neighborhood and that their car was broken into weeks earlier. Is this just to try and make the case that he "wasn't just jogging" to justify a racially motivated execution?

They didn't.

Dad says he recognized him from security footage (probably doorbell camera) from the night his son's truck was broken into.

There is also a hypothesis, based on dad being an investigator during Ahmaud's prior robbery case, that dad and Ahmaud could both recognize each other from that.

The following because "crime in the neighborhood" and "not sure what this disturbance is about" was the one who filmed it.  He says he was trying to get a video/photo for police to ID.

[JBJ 3649]

He committed a Robbery, reduced to Shoplifting.

[Orale 1087]

Could you provide a link? 
Also indictments and charges do not equal commitment of a crime.
That's a monster leep down in charges for any prosecutor to make. 

Prosecutors frequently overcharge then reduce to a lesser offense during plea bargain. As BE said, a charge does not mean the offense occurred. Overcharging is a serious criminal justice issue that needs to be addressed.

[JBJ 3649]

8 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Could you provide a link? 

Yeah, I'll look.  You caught me before edit.  It was a felony theft.  Not a robbery - no force / he wasn't holding a clerk at gunpoint.  He took a TV from the back of a store or something.

The difference in Georgia is value and priors for felony/misdemeanor.

Edited May 13, 2020 by JBJ

[Huckleberry 32710]

15 hours ago, shnsajax said:

I probably stopped by 20ish times when my house was being built to look around at what was going on, check out the work, and look for shit to take back to the builder. Everyone of my white friends who have built a house did the same thing. I wasn't on title yet, my neighbors didn't know me, and the number of contractors that show up during construction through out the day never ends. Hell, even the builder encouraged me to do it.

Exactly, developers and builders encourage people to walk through homes under construction to "tell your friends!" etc.

So, it's 1) not illegal and 2) encouraged. But it sure creates a hellscape.

[Nicole44 22028]

I think, for me, the issue is not whether builders etc...welcome people to go into homes under construction. It would be all about intent. And the defense (while they will not be able to point to Arbery’s SOM on 2/23) will bring up his prior record (such that it is) and combine that with the three prior calls to LE (beginning in October 2019) and suggest/tell the jury that he wasn’t just exploring the home out of curiosity/good will etc...that he was either involved in a prior incident in that neighborhood or connected to people that were. And as such the defendants had every reason to believe he had ill intent, committed a burglary and had a right to chase down and detain him. He resisted with physical force and was shot and killed as a result. 
 

the question that should be asked is: what is a human life worth? And that’s the subject to me that we all dance around.
 

we hear the same bullshit every time. Same reasoning. It’s all over different sites and such. Different person different case. “He’s black. He had a record. He was there with ill intent. He should have listened to the instructions and obeyed them and would have just dealt with some legal problems. No reason for the whole community to get upset by this. He had a record.  It’s not like his life was going to amount to much anyway and if they hadn’t stopped him that day he would have just come back to that neighborhood or somewhere else and committed another crime.”

Those are the thoughts we hear every time there is an incident. Every fucking time and I am sick of it. 

That’s  what people are dancing around. And thinking. And that’s what Arbery’s family and the state/DOJ will be up against—whomever prosecutes this case.

so let me say: No! We don’t get to “Minority Report” people. A human life should be worth more. Arbery’s life was worth more than that. The defendants deserve to be tried for murder. 

Like I have said multiple times before—this whole thing makes me sick. 
 

 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

I think it just boils down to, every single person here knows that if it had been a white woman jogger, who stopped to check out a construction site, even if there had been a white woman package thief incident in the neighborhood a month before, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Because she wouldn’t have been run down and shot dead.

That’s it.  That’s why this story is a “big deal” despite what happens in Chicago.  He was chased down and shot because he was black.    Any other narrative is just semantic bullshit.  

[Texas_Rocks 346]

I really don’t care if there was video of the guy running down the street with a stolen compressor. Chasing him down and shooting him is just a bad play. Those guys are about to find that out now that the local coverup has been burned.

[Nicole44 22028]

10 minutes ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

I think it just boils down to, every single person here knows that if it had been a white woman jogger, who stopped to check out a construction site, even if there had been a white woman package thief incident in the neighborhood a month before, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Because she wouldn’t have been run down and shot dead.

That’s it.  That’s why this story is a “big deal” despite what happens in Chicago.  He was chased down and shot because he was black.    Any other narrative is just semantic bullshit.  

Exactly. When they loaded up their weapons that day they knew what the likely outcome would be. At the very least they didn’t care. Middle ground, in their minds he deserved to die if it came to that. At the very most, that was the outcome they wanted. 
 

I see more spin being put out. “He May have been armed!”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8315531/Father-son-confrontation-Ahmaud-Arbery-two-weeks-shot.html
 

yeah it’s the Daily Mail but this is defense spin now. Incredible how the defendants don’t realize: they can’t prove Arbery’s SOM, can’t prove he stole anything, can’t prove he was armed. Yet armed themselves with only suspicion of nothing they shot and killed a man. 

[hayden_horn 11360]

2 hours ago, JBJ said:

Yeah, I'll look.  You caught me before edit.  It was a felony theft.  Not a robbery - no force / he wasn't holding a clerk at gunpoint.  He took a TV from the back of a store or something.

The difference in Georgia is value and priors for felony/misdemeanor.

none of which is germane to his being hunted down and fucking killed in the street for doing nothing.

also, you keep saying that he was "recognized" from the burglary of the weapon out of the car. how was he recognized? my odds are that he was recognized because he was black. i imagine that ring doorbell video will clearly show this man stealing out of their drunk, yeah?

also, you keep trying real hard to put shade on the victim here. why is that, exactly?

Edited May 13, 2020 by hayden_horn

[RollLeft 5040]

On 5/10/2020 at 8:29 PM, Nicole44 said:

Georgia AG has requested the DOJ now handle.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/10/us/ahmaud-arbery-surveillance-video/index.html

[Deej 76599]

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

none of which is germane to his being hunted down and fucking killed in the street for doing nothing.

also, you keep saying that he was "recognized" from the burglary of the weapon out of the car. how was he recognized? my odds are that he was recognized because he was black. i imagine that ring doorbell video will clearly show this man stealing out of their drunk, yeah?

also, you keep trying real hard to put shade on the victim here. why is that, exactly?

 

[atomheartbevo 89471]

Didn't see this, sorry if it was posted,

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/video/683159

Quote

Attorney General Christopher Carr announced on Monday that he will formally appoint District Attorney Joyette M. Holmes of the Cobb County Judicial Circuit to lead the prosecution of Gregory and Travis McMichael.

https://www.gpbnews.org/post/who-joyette-holmes-new-prosecutor-ahmaud-arbery-case-0

 

 

Quote

Holmes began her term as Cobb DA in July 2019 after being appointed by Gov. Brian Kemp. She succeeded Vic Reynolds, who previously served in the position before being appointed as the head of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation in February of last year.

Last Friday, Reynolds said there was “sufficient probable cause” to arrest two men on charges of aggravated assault and felony murder.

Holmes served as Chief Magistrate of Cobb County for four years.

Holmes is a native of Valdosta and graduated from the University of Georgia, where she earned dual bachelor's degrees in both psychology and criminal justice. She then attended law school at the Baltimore School of Law in Maryland. She is the the first African American to serve as Cobb County District Attorney.

Family attorneys released a statement:

Quote

"We recently learned that Georgia AG Chris Carr has appointed Cobb County District Attorney Joyette Holmes as prosecutor, replacing Thomas Durden. We made this request of AG Chris Carr because the south Georgia prosecutorial community was tainted by the delay in action prior to the video being released. The family is pleased that Mr. Durden will no longer be responsible for prosecuting two of the killers of Mr. Arbery. This case has been mishandled from the very beginning and we look forward to a comprehensive third-party investigation by the Dept. of Justice into the previous prosecutors. Ms. Holmes just spoke with Ms. Cooper-Jones and we are cautiously optimistic about this turn of events. We remain committed to the pursuit of justice for Mr. Arbery's family and will provide any assistance necessary to Ms. Holmes in her new role."

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by atomheartbevo

[RPM 26237]

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

you keep saying that he was "recognized" from the burglary of the weapon out of the car. how was he recognized?

From what I read they had no idea who stole the gun, it just went missing. Now a black guy running down the street sure looks like whoever it was that stole a gun nobody saw do it. How can you not make the connection. Black guy running, my shit got took a couple weeks ago, it draws it's own picture.

[TwiceHorn 31322]

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

none of which is germane to his being hunted down and fucking killed in the street for doing nothing.

also, you keep saying that he was "recognized" from the burglary of the weapon out of the car. how was he recognized? my odds are that he was recognized because he was black. i imagine that ring doorbell video will clearly show this man stealing out of their drunk, yeah?

also, you keep trying real hard to put shade on the victim here. why is that, exactly?

If you read the totality of his posts, that's not a fair accusation.

He's just kind of woolgathering about what would or would not be a criminal offense relating to the "house exploration."

[JBJ 3649]

1 hour ago, BurntEyes said:

You all keep referring to the political and historical aspect of this issue.

While I agree they absolutely played a part all of you keep ignoring what I've said time and time again which legally is THE most important part. Not socially, not politically legally.

He was not in the commission of a crime. 

He was not witnessed in the crime which wasn't committed.

He wasn't armed.

Two men approached him, in a car the via foot close to the vehicle armed.

Had the victim been armed he would have been 100% within his legal rights to shoot the accused. 

They engaged presented a level of "response" far in excess of any level of threat they may have perceived.

They were the threat. 

They are the murders. 

There is zero self defense case.

Legally, this is what actually matters, race and politics aside.

I asked this very early on in the thread and was told immediacy / being in the act didn't matter with respect to GA citizen's arrest.  I'm sure it's not in the statute, but it's hard to get past that there has to be some limitation elsewhere in the case law.  I don't think they ever actually made a citizen's arrest, so don't think they can be prosecuted for that, but their actions need to be lawful to even be considered as reasonable.

I don't believe it even matters whether they were correct about Arbery in the video or house, but it may sway a jury one way or another on what is reasonable.

The first question that needs to be asked:  Did the son willfully pull the trigger?  And the folllow up informs it: Why was the safety off?

If you can't sway the jury on those questions, this case is unprosecutable as a murder.

[Js1 85151]

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

 

also, you keep trying real hard to put shade on the victim here. why is that, exactly?

[Lone Star Horn 2010]

32 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Didn't see this, sorry if it was posted,

https://www.fox5atlanta.com/video/683159

https://www.gpbnews.org/post/who-joyette-holmes-new-prosecutor-ahmaud-arbery-case-0

 

 

Family attorneys released a statement:

 

BALLGAME!!!!!!

 

wait, am I in the wrong thread

[Nicole44 22028]

Yeah it’s one thing entirely when a man shacking up with a ho confuses you with his wife. And then shoots multiple times at you. And then calls the cops to say he meant to shoot at her bc he thought she was coming there with some dudes to beat his ass down and the cops let him go bc he was on the city council and such. That was my getting shot at story as briefly as my tiny mind can condense it. Cool shit. We never trespassed. Had no idea guy and his ho were being harassed by his wife. He just saw us driving around and assumed I was his wife and fired repeatedly into my uncle’s truck. No charges filed. No arrests made. Super cool. 

[TwiceHorn 31322]

As I consider it, the whole issue of citizen's arrest, and probable cause, and what crimes Aubery may have committed in the past is largely irrelevant.

Even if it were a valid citizen's arrest, it doesn't change the murder/self-defense calculus, as a legal matter as far as I can tell.

Might it provide some justification in the mind of a juror?  Maybe, but the jury instructions should probably take care of that.

[TwiceHorn 31322]

The biggest problem for the prosecution is only two, maybe three people know what happened at the time of first shot at the front of the Cletii's truck.  One of them's dead and the other two are defendants, so it's all going to be a big accident that the trigger got pulled, and then it was more wrestling for the gun.

Don't think that provides a complete self-defense defense, but it may negate the state of mind necessary for murder.

Agg assault seems like a slam dunk.  So might involuntary manslaughter from my brief read of Georgia law.

[ChiTownDoc 21103]

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The biggest problem for the prosecution is a jury of Cletii's peers. 

Counsel, you know damn well what the real problem is for the prosecutor. 

[kevwun 15675]

If 2 people with guns chase after an unarmed jogger, confront him and end up shooting him while never calling the cops, that's not manslaughter.  They created and escalated a confrontation with an unarmed man.  They were in control of the situation at every point throughout it.

Edited May 14, 2020 by kevwun

[JBJ 3649]

37 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

If you read the totality of his posts, that's not a fair accusation.

He's just kind of woolgathering about what would or would not be a criminal offense relating to the "house exploration."

Thanks, but no thanks. There was no offense received.  Hayden has his sensibilities on a topic that is not exactly comfortable and that's fine.

 

17 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

As I consider it, the whole issue of citizen's arrest, and probable cause, and what crimes Aubery may have committed in the past is largely irrelevant.

Even if it were a valid citizen's arrest, it doesn't change the murder/self-defense calculus, as a legal matter as far as I can tell.

Might it provide some justification in the mind of a juror?  Maybe, but the jury instructions should probably take care of that.

The citizen's arrest is only relevant to defeat a self-defense defense.  If it was unlawful to make a citizen's arrest or they did something that exceeded what is allowable, then their actions are contributing/provoking.

[JBJ 3649]

23 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

One of them's dead and the other two are defendants, so it's all going to be a big accident that the trigger got pulled, and then it was more wrestling for the gun.

Don't think that provides a complete self-defense defense, but it may negate the state of mind necessary for murder.

Exactly.  This doesn't even need to go self-defense.  They have to actually prove the murder. I posted the most important questions and it was probably on the first page or right after the video posted.  Everything else assumes those questions go one way - that's far from assured.

Edited May 14, 2020 by JBJ

[Huckleberry 32710]

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 5 - CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
ARTICLE 1 - HOMICIDE
§ 16-5-1 - Murder; felony murder

O.C.G.A. 16-5-1 (2010)
16-5-1. Murder; felony murder


(a) A person commits the offense of murder when he unlawfully and with malice aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of another human being.

(b) Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take the life of another human being which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof. Malice shall be implied where no considerable provocation appears and where all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.

(c) A person also commits the offense of murder when, in the commission of a felony, he causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice.

(d) A person convicted of the offense of murder shall be punished by death, by imprisonment for life without parole, or by imprisonment for life.

Well I don't know about y'all, but I certainly believe that all circumstances here show an abandoned and malignant heart. Arbery showed no considerable provocation at any time and the circumstances show abandoned and malignant hearts on the part of the killers.

So

1. Unlawfully killed a human being - seems pretty clear. I mean they didn't lawfully kill him.
2. No considerable provocation by the deceased - Well I mean in a legal sense. A black jogger not stopping when they yelled HEY STOP THERE WE WANNA TALK TO YA! might be considerable provocation in these guys' minds but I don't think that holds up very well in court.
3. Circumstances show an abandoned and malignant heart - How the hell does shit like this still exist in statutes? But anyway, I say yes. And I also say that the jury selection will determine how they rule on this point.

Most people will agree that they unlawfully killed Arbery with implied malice aforethought based on the situation in totality and the definition above. But most doesn't always get a conviction.

Edited May 14, 2020 by Huckleberry

[Cousin Strawberry 1261]

I believe it's called "yogging."

[atomheartbevo 89471]

1 hour ago, Nicole44 said:

Yeah it’s one thing entirely when a man shacking up with a ho confuses you with his wife. And then shoots multiple times at you. And then calls the cops to say he meant to shoot at her bc he thought she was coming there with some dudes to beat his ass down and the cops let him go bc he was on the city council and such. That was my getting shot at story as briefly as my tiny mind can condense it. Cool shit. We never trespassed. Had no idea guy and his ho were being harassed by his wife. He just saw us driving around and assumed I was his wife and fired repeatedly into my uncle’s truck. No charges filed. No arrests made. Super cool. 

We really need some names to go along with this story.

[Cousin Strawberry 1261]

6 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Do you own or have you ever owned any Affliction apparel? Do you own or have you owned a John Deere or Caterpillar hat? Is your truck jacked up? Do you own a riding mower? Are you a member of the NRA?

Heh.

Even though Tim McVeigh publicly stated on multiple platforms that he hated the federal government and that the NRA was too soft on gun rights, who here thinks the liberal media has fabricated these statements?

Men, raise your hand if you didn't feel gay after you gave your male cousin a hand job because he said it wasn't gay?  

[TwiceHorn 31322]

28 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 5 - CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON
ARTICLE 1 - HOMICIDE
§ 16-5-1 - Murder; felony murder

O.C.G.A. 16-5-1 (2010)
16-5-1. Murder; felony murder


(a) A person commits the offense of murder when he unlawfully and with malice aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of another human being.

(b) Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take the life of another human being which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof. Malice shall be implied where no considerable provocation appears and where all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.

(c) A person also commits the offense of murder when, in the commission of a felony, he causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice.

(d) A person convicted of the offense of murder shall be punished by death, by imprisonment for life without parole, or by imprisonment for life.

Well I don't know about y'all, but I certainly believe that all circumstances here show an abandoned and malignant heart. Arbery showed no considerable provocation at any time and the circumstances show abandoned and malignant hearts on the part of the killers.

So

1. Unlawfully killed a human being - seems pretty clear. I mean they didn't lawfully kill him.
2. No considerable provocation by the deceased - Well I mean in a legal sense. A black jogger not stopping when they yelled HEY STOP THERE WE WANNA TALK TO YA! might be considerable provocation in these guys' minds but I don't think that holds up very well in court.
3. Circumstances show an abandoned and malignant heart - How the hell does shit like this still exist in statutes? But anyway, I say yes. And I also say that the jury selection will determine how they rule on this point.

Most people will agree that they unlawfully killed Arbery with implied malice aforethought based on the situation in totality and the definition above. But most doesn't always get a conviction.

Agreed on the statutory language, that virtually renders this a common-law crime because resort must be had to case law to determine what is an abandoned and malignant heart.

It could be that saddling up as they did is sufficient.

It might take more proof of what Cletus was doing and thinking at the front of the truck.

I don't know, but I feel certain there's considerable play in that particular joint.

[Fondren & Main 6675]

16 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Dude, Stop.

Edit - I can tell you EXACTLY what he was thinking. Because I and probably every person has thought the same thing every time they've pointed a gun at a target, with a finger on the trigger.

I'm going to hit that target.

I'm going to hit that squirrel.

I'm going to hit that clay.

I'm going to hit that dear.

I'm not going to miss.

I'm going to hit.

I don’t know about all of that.  I can tell you this, I bet the older guy still thinks he’s a police officer.

Y’all just reminded me of a story involving my cousin; a former police officer.  A few years ago, around Christmas, he chased a guy out of my grandmother’s house with a pistol.  My dad questioned why he didn’t call the police and he replied, “Steve, I guess it’s because I still think I am the police.”

Not excusing it.  It’s incredibly dumb.  They should pay the price for this.

[JBJ 3649]

26 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Agreed on the statutory language, that virtually renders this a common-law crime because resort must be had to case law to determine what is an abandoned and malignant heart.

This is an either/or:

(b) Express malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take the life of another human being which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof. [OR] Malice shall be implied where no considerable provocation appears and where all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.

The latter is doing something that you know is likely to kill someone as opposed to express malice being actually trying to kill them.

[Huckleberry 32710]

6 minutes ago, JBJ said:

The latter is doing something that you know is likely to kill someone

That logic (that you must be doing something you know is likely to kill someone) appears nowhere in the statute. 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Huckleberry

[Nicole44 22028]

37 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I wouldn't mind some pics too. Some of OP and the time and said ho and wife. You know, so we could compare for science. Maybe there substance to the confusion. Let's not judge that shooter until we have further evidence.

Pics of me y’all have seen. Not much to see. don’t think I know of any pictures of the ho but I am sure my cousin can give me pics of the ho-doer/shooter/Cheater. Basically just have pictures of my uncle’s brand new (at the time) silver dodge pickup truck with a bunch of bullet holes in the passenger side. 
I wasn’t jesting with the story. Mentioned it only because that cheater’s “mistaken belief/reasonable suspicion” that could have got me or my other cousins killed. 
 
My two cousins and I always hung out when I’d come to visit. We’d drink beer. Drive around country roads because it was in the country. That night we parked the truck in the middle of the county road about two football fields from my grand parents home (which was adjacent to the ho-biscuits property) and get out to get more beer out of the bed cooler. We grabbed more beer. Realize we are almost out and decide to go back to my uncle’s house for more. Get back into his truck. Then a bunch of pops over and over. We drive about a minute to my uncle’s house and get out of truck and see the whole side has bullet holes in it. Uncle comes storming outside and says we’d better our stories straight because council cheater guy had already called the sheriff. Sheriff called my uncle because as it was a small town most everyone knew my uncle who had lived there his whole life bought a new truck. Sheriff came over asked all three of us questions separately. We managed (all being underage of legal limit) to seem sober. Sheriff left. Said later to my uncle that the guy admitted shooting at us but thought I was his wife. (Attempted murder?) Sheriff said council guy was real sorry and all and would pay for the damage. Sheriff said couldn’t arrest him because anyone in cheater’s situation would think the same thing. Encouraged my uncle to “let it go.” Ho later moved away. Keep I mind my grandparents (lived there their whole lives same county until they died) and uncle still lives there.

[jimmyjazz 45604]

How much time must elapse before malice is provable?  At what point after strapping up is intent no longer an impossibility? 

These guys weren't unfortunate victims of circumstance.  They didn't accidentally shoot the mailman, two on one, three times in the torso.

I hate these threads.

[purplepride95 6890]

 

 

[TwiceHorn 31322]

50 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

That logic (that you must be doing something you know is likely to kill someone) appears nowhere in the statute. 

I'd have to have some case cites to know.  And I expect it's still a squishy jury question.

[freyguy 4245]

9 minutes ago, purplepride95 said:

 

 

Well this is getting juicy.  Or just someone leaving some BS behind for the media.  I'm gonna laugh my ass off when they find a bunch of white supremacist crap & kiddie porn on the cleatii's computers.

[JBJ 3649]

This can be confusing, I guess:

Express malice = actually meaning to kill ("deliberate intention unlawfully to take the life...")

Implied malice = doing something that you know is likely to kill ("where all circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart")

 

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

That logic (that you must be doing something you know is likely to kill someone) appears nowhere in the statute. 

Above.  I'm clarifying the language because you guys seem confused or at least presented it in a way I thought would confuse others.  The actual standard in Georgia for each will be a bullet point list of requirements, but above is the gist.

Edited May 14, 2020 by JBJ

[Nicole44 22028]

6 minutes ago, JBJ said:

This can be confusing, I guess:

Express malice = actually meaning to kill ("deliberate intention unlawfully to take the life...")

Implied malice = doing something that you know is likely to kill ("where all circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart")

 

See above.  I was clarifying what "abandoned and malignant heart" meant because you guys were going on a wild goose chase.  It describes an action, not the person.  The actual standard in Georgia will be a bullet point list of requirements, but above is the gist.

1) So they didn’t mean to kill?

2) here we might call it reckless endangerment perhaps?

3) The defendants were not cognizant that their actions could result in the taking of a human life?

      a) if so did they feel justified?

4) are not most questions (1-3a) answered in the video and subsequent statements of the defendants after the incident?

 

[purplepride95 6890]

 

[Nicole44 22028]

26 minutes ago, purplepride95 said:

 

Pretty damning for the defendants. And the story they concocted. And are still vomiting all over MSM. 
 

edit: I’d be curious to know what type of drug: alcohol history Travis has and if a gun was “stolen” whether it was reported and if so pawned out of state. 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Nicole44

[Brian Fantana 6671]

JBJ's endless quest to demonize the victim and exonerate the perpetrators is inspiring. Inspiring me to vomit, haaaaa....

Edit: just to be clear he is a fucking concern troll at best and you should stop engaging with him

Edited May 14, 2020 by Brian Fantana

[Nicole44 22028]

5 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

JBJ's endless quest to demonize the victim and exonerate the perpetrators is inspiring. Inspiring me to vomit, haaaaa....

I don’t know the poster. Or his/ her family’s history with LE or incarceration. 

[Bobby_Batronic 1994]

3 hours ago, Cousin Strawberry said:

I believe it's called "yogging."

YOJO?

[DigglerontheHoof 21081]

5 hours ago, Brian Fantana said:

JBJ's endless quest to demonize the victim and exonerate the perpetrators is inspiring. Inspiring me to vomit, haaaaa....

Edit: just to be clear he is a fucking concern troll at best and you should stop engaging with him

Just asking questions...

[Nicole44 22028]

Kinda fitting in a way if you stop to think about it.

[Guest Lobo]

9 hours ago, Cousin Strawberry said:

I believe it's called "yogging."

With a "Soft 'J'"  

I'm Ron Burgundy, you go fuck yourself Georgia.  

Edited May 14, 2020 by Lobo

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

11 hours ago, BurntEyes said:

 I'm not lawyer but I've quite possibly spent more time educating myself on the legal aspects of self defense than a large number of lawyers, and that's no small feat. 

 

Spent a lot of time in the prison library have ya ??

[Guest Lobo]

 

17 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Maybe, maybe not, maybe go fuck yourself.

Please tell me your keyboard has a Bostonian accent.