Brady Campaign Uses ‘Stand Your Ground’ Lies, Fearmongering And Falsehoods in Arbery Shooting Case

RACE CARD

Bigstock

The Brady gun control operation (as they’re currently known; that name is subject to change without notice), is taking advantage of the death of Ahmaud Arbery to criticize a law that protects Georgians’ self-defense rights and to further attack the right to keep and bear arms.

Yesterday they tweeted:

That’s three lies in one brief tweet. As things look now, it seems highly unlikely that the McMichaels will walk free. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation has taken the case away from the local good ol’ boy network and both men have been charged with murder. And the feds are considering charges as well.

Nor will a stand your ground (SYG) defense help them. Georgia Code § 16-3-21(b) does not allow a SYG claim when the shooter initiated the encounter. The McMichaels blocked the road (see video here), and Travis McMichael, holding a shotgun, attempted to stop Arbery. Arbery then tried to avoid Travis by going around the other side of the truck and Travis again intercepted Arbery.

Note that neither the McMichaels or their attorney have invoked a SYG defense, and the video makes it unlikely that a judge would allow if they do in the future. But that hasn’t stopped Brady from claiming the law will spring Arbery’s killers.

Further, the stand your ground law is not racist. Not unless Brady believes that a black person isn’t capable of “reasonably believing that such a threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself,” that they lack the mental capacity to do so. That would be racist.

Otherwise, the code as written in no way distinguishes between people on the basis of their color, sex, sexual orientation, religion marital status, or anything else other than which party is the criminal aggressor. The law is available as a defense to any honest person, regardless of race.

Or perhaps Brady thinks stand your ground is racist because blacks might be more likely to attack people, and thus be shot in self defense. If so, they might want to inspect their own beliefs, and why they hold them.

Some might hold that SYG can still apply in the McMichael case because Arbery effectively initiated the encounter by “burglarizing” an under-construction house and the McMichaels were lawfully attempting a “citizen’s arrest.” (That is not just speculation on my part; Twitter twits have tried that argument on me.)

The problem with that is multi-part. While it appears that Mr. Arbery did enter the house, under § 16-7-21, entering an open structure and just looking around isn’t a crime. It would rise to misdemeanor trespass if he was told to leave and did not do so. But that didn’t happen…he left on his own.

§ 17-4-60, only allows a “citizen’s arrest” “if the [felony] offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.” Even if you claim Arbery entering the building was attempted burglary (something the owner himself says it was not), the McMichaels didn’t see that. Gregory McMichael only reported seeing “a black man running down the street.” The 911 call reporting someone in the house came from a different person not involved in the pursuit.

Ahmaud Arbery did not “initiate” the encounter by committing a crime that day. The McMichaels chose to initiate it and therefore do not have SYG immunity.

And the McMichaels weren’t attempting a “citizen’s arrest.” They never claimed that they were. That excuse was invented in April by Waycross DA George Barnhill as he recused himself from the case.

So to sum up the assertions in Brady’s purposefully incendiary the McMichaels likely won’t walk free, the stand your ground law doesn’t apply, and it isn’t in any way racist.

What is racist is violence-enabling victim disarmament. The earliest “gun control” law in America that I’ve found was a 1656 Colony of Massachusetts Bay “General Court” order:

“…henceforth no negroes or Indians, although servants to the English, shall be armed or pmitted to trayne…”

The “Jim Crow” laws of the Democrat-led Southern states were just as racist, targeting blacks.

So if Brady is concerned with racist laws, they should direct their outrage at gun control restrictions.

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    Well… that’s adorable…

    Everyone on the poverty pimp side knows they’ll walk because it’s a bullshit case, so now they’re already covering their bases as more and more things come out to prove it’s a bullshit case.

    1. My position is based on the police incident report, assorted DA documents, multiple videos, and statements made by Mr. McMichael and the owner of the under-construction house.

      As more comes out about the elder McMichael’s past, he looks even more like a loose cannon. His POST certification was suspended for years, but he continued to work as a law enforcement officer for the DA’s office. That may end up tainting past cases he was involved in. I’ve already seen reports of defense attorneys looking into getting convictions overturned.

      I’ve never claimed Arbery was an angel. But no one has shown that he committed a crime that day that would lawfully justify what the McMichaels admit to doing. If you have something please share.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        The question of if he actually committed a crime is irrelevant. The only relevant question is if the people chasing him had reasonable and probable cause to BELIEVE he committed a crime. Given that he met at least half of the elements of felony burglary in the 1st degree, that’s hard to argue. A police officer would have been perfectly justified in arresting the “jogger”. The same exact standard applies under Georgia law to citizen’s arrests.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Since he clearly did NOT commit a crime, the only reason they had for suspecting him was the color of his skin, which no longer qualifies as “probable cause”. They are going to hang.

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          “His POST certification was suspended for years, but he continued to work as a law enforcement officer for the DA’s office. That may end up tainting past cases he was involved in.”

          Mmmmm, smells like white privilege.…

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          I already laid out how they personally observed two of the three elements of 1st degree burglary. (Entry into the dwelling, and lack of authority to do so.)

          The 3rd (intent) can be inferred from the fact that…
          1. He had been there before (at night) and got caught on tape
          2. Material were missing from the site after his previous “visits”. (Go look it up, the first press conference from the owner revealed he was missing $2500 in fishing supplies.)
          3. He ran when confronted.

          That’s more than enough cause to reasonably suspect that the scumbag in question had committed 1st degree burglary and carry out a citizen’s arrest. This is black letter law commies. Suck it.

          —-
          Added by Carl Bussjaeger:
          The house owner says nothing was stolen.

          The person who saw him enter the house was not the McMichaels. They only told 911 they saw him running.

          Even a strong suspicion is NOT probable cause for a “citizen’s arrest” in Georgia.

        4. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

          FFS will you give it godamn rest. You’re wrong you asshole.

        5. avatar Miner49er says:

          “I already laid out how they personally observed two of the three elements of 1st degree burglary. (Entry into the dwelling, and lack of authority to do so.)

          Wrong, the owner of the owner of the property who had custody of the video, said the murders had never seen the video.

          Ivan, you must be paid by the response.

          You are such an effective ambassador for the character and integrity of out typical responsible gun owner, Bloomberg thanks you!

        6. Incorrect. § 17-4-60: “A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.”

          Reasonable suspicion is what police require. Private individuals require actual knowledge of a crime, and pursuit requires a felony.

        7. avatar pwrserge says:

          When you quote the statute, you might look like less of an ass if you quote the whole thing.

          § 17-4-60
          “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.”

          Georgia has two standards for citizen’s arrest. One general and one for felonies with fleeing suspects. Guess which one applies to 1st Degree Burglary?

          I’d accuse you of misrepresenting the record, but I don’t think you know what that means.

        8. avatar pwrserge says:

          Carl, if you’re going to reply, have the balls to reply and not edit my posts.

          That’s bottom tier level bullshit that is simply unacceptable internet decorum. At this point, if someone can go in and edit any post made by a user, we have no reason to believe anything posted was actually written by anybody other than TTAG staff to drive clicks. That’s rage bait site level scumbaggery and I had expected better from a site that claims to hold itself to some sort of journalistic standard.

          You have no idea how badly you fucked up on that one.

        9. avatar DDay says:

          It’s amazing twits like serge are defending the actions of these two. Go read what Dana Loesch wrote, her detailed piece is spot on.

          The cops on the scene wanted to arrest the mcmichaels that day and now the GBI has. They had ZERO reason to stop or confront Arbery. The GA law requires you to witness a crime, these two twits didn’t know if Arbery was a contractor looking at something, a friend of the builder, etc.

          They should have minded their own business rather than being neighborhood cops.

          They are going to prison for decades if not life. They are not helpful to the pro 2A side.

        10. avatar pwrserge says:

          Old man, the law requires no such thing. It requires reasonable and probable suspicion of a felony and a fleeing felon. That’s it. Learn to read statutes.

      2. avatar neiowa says:

        By Carl’s logic every case that FBI management has touched is tainted (and which is likely the case).

      3. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

        “Arbery then tried to avoid Travis by going around the other side of the truck and Travis again intercepted Arbery.”

        There is still a lot of unknowns and a lot of questionable things on both sides of this case which will hopefully be cleared up in the adversarial process. But this is a good example of how multiple people all see different things in the same video. It looks to me like McMichael did not “intercept” Arbery at all. It looks to me like Arbery ran to McMichael.

        That may or may not be material. A man being pursued by men with guns may feel inclined to go on the offensive. But then again a man with a gun who is charged by another man who tries to take his gun may feel inclined to defend his life and his possession of that weapon. And gun that is being fought over may be discharged inadvertently.

  2. avatar Tuber says:

    I hope all the facts come out and we finally get some definitive answers in this case.

    What’s driving me nuts is how everyone is fighting tooth and nail against the 2 surviving guys without having a clue what happened.

    The dead man’s lawyer was comparing this guy to Trayvon in a CNN article I read. That’s not a complimentary comparison. In fact, if the deceased and had actually done nothing wrong, it would be an insult!

    So the family’s legal representation is comparing the case to one that was a perfectly plausible self defense case, called originally what it was by the investigating police. THEN made into a political circus, and once again called defense by a jury?

    I don’t know why you would choose to associate your case with one that was ultimately decided against your position multiple times. Do they WANT to lose because complaining and rioting is better than boring old constitutional justice?

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      DING DING DING! We have a winner. This was never about winning in court but about disrupting the 2020 election so that “Muh’ Bad Orange Man” doesn’t sweep enough of the House or Senate to start passing constitutional amendments. (Oh, and to deflect from news that should get O’bongo’bongo put in the greybar hotel for the rest of his life.)

      1. avatar LifeSavor says:

        Speaking of the upcoming election, Trump visited here, in Allentown, PA today. Just returned from the gathering. People lined the main and side roads for several miles to greet his motorcade. Seemed like many thousands, but so spread out, hard to tell. The enthusiasm was loud, people dancing, chanting, waving flags and signs. A lot of people. It took an hour to make the usual 12-minute drive back to my home. Despite the traffic, everyone was polite, smiling, and waving each other on as we navigated through the driveways and intersections. Uplifting.

        1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

          “Speaking of the upcoming election, Trump visited here, in Allentown, PA today. Just returned from the gathering. People lined the main and side roads for several miles to greet his motorcade.”

          Check this news out –

          “His approval ratings have never been higher, including on Election Day 2016. Plus, he’s ahead of Biden in battleground states.

          Well, that’s interesting, I thought, as I noted that the RealClearPolitics homepage stated that President Trump was tied for his all-time high in CNN polling.”

          https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/cnn-buries-its-own-poll-results-on-trumps-favorability-guess-why/

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          So what? Hey, there were dozens of people within a few miles of Biden’s basement, too. Some of them probably knew his name!

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          Nuremberg, circa 1936 was pretty impressive as well.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          Sharing some fond memories 69er?

        5. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

          “Nuremberg, circa 1936 was pretty impressive as well.”

          The gathering of the National SOCIALIST Party, as I recall. No surprise a good little Nazi like ‘miner would know that… 🙂

        6. avatar LifeSavor says:

          Larry in TX,

          You said “So what?”
          Simple: My wife and I enjoyed it and, apparently, so did many others.

          Or did I miss that the rest of your comment was wry sarcasm about Biden?

        7. avatar LifeSavor says:

          Geoff,

          Thank you for posting that. I used to subscribe to The National Review. Perhaps I should look at them more often.

    2. avatar that one guy says:

      The dead man’s lawyer (Benjamin Crump) was also Martin’s lawyer (and Tamir Rice’s , and Mike Brown’s and Terence Crutcher’s), and I don’t think they’ve ever given up the idea that Zimmerman tracked Martin down and shot him, despite their own witness saying Martin initiated the final, fatal confrontation.

      As far as Crump is concerned, every dead black person was murdered in cold blood, regardless of the facts. There’s a reason all his songs sound the same

      1. Crump has a vested interest in maintaining Martin’s innocence. He’s one of the people being sued over what appears to be a fake witness.

    3. avatar Chief Censor says:

      I think the lawyer for Trayvon was the same for this case, thus they compare Arbery’s case to that one. I don’t like that bald headed lawyer, — he wants gun control.

      Arbery has the right to stand his ground against people trying to unlawfully detain him by use of arms. Trying to physically stop him could lead to numerous different charges ranging from aggravated assault to kidnapping.

      The black man has human rights too. He should have been treated the same way white men want to treat the McMichaels. The constitution is supposed to protect every human.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        So he shouldn’t have resisted a lawful arrest. Sucks to be him.

  3. avatar Free Sch!tt Army Poopa-troopa says:

    When I go “jogging” I always trespass on private property and sneak into unfinished construction to rip off copper tubing and wiring.

    1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

      I have *zero* doubts you do that…

    2. avatar tdiinva says:

      And what evidence do you have Arbery did that? Loh, none since the videos just show him looking around.

      1. avatar The Truth About Ahmaud Arbery says:

        There are at least 4 videos showing Arbery in the residence under construction, at night, since October 2019. The owner stated that stuff has been stolen from there before but he has never reported it to police. That’s why he installed the cameras. Mcmichaels investigated Arbery when he was with the DA’s office and knew him. He was shown the other videos previously by the owner who sought his expertise as former law enforcement. The video of Arbery inside the residence the day he died are 4 minutes long but all anyone ever shows is a 7 second loop. Why?

    3. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

      Yes, closer inspection of the video will show that he was jogging with 8 feet of copper pipe hidden under his T-shirt….

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        Good observation.lol

    4. avatar Rusty Shackleford says:

      Do you also wear unlaced Timberland boots and jorts halfway down your backside when jogging 14 miles from your home?

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        That’s day 2 news. We are already toward the end of the story.

      2. avatar anon says:

        Sneakers no Tims

      3. avatar DDay says:

        He had low top sneakers on, the video from inside the home was very clear. The boots BS is false informatoin.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          We’ll see what the crime scene report says. Oh… wait… you’re just watching highly pixelated video and ASSUMING.

  4. avatar Herbwuz says:

    So I don’t see any evidence Arbery damaged anything nor was he carrying stolen goods as he was jogging. Why interject a baseless speculation into this discussion?

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Because both of those variables are irrelevant to the case at bar. Felony burglary in the 1st degree does not require either to be an element of the crime.

      1. avatar Please Don't Shoot the "Joggers" says:

        …and no one has bothered with criminal trespass claims or why a builder might put video cameras in new houses under construction.

        1. avatar The Truth About Ahmaud Arbery says:

          There are at least 4 videos showing Arbery in the residence under construction, at night, since October 2019. The owner stated that stuff has been stolen from there before but he has never reported it to police. That’s why he installed the cameras. Mcmichaels investigated Arbery when he was with the DA’s office and knew him. He was shown the other videos previously by the owner who sought his expertise as former law enforcement. The video of Arbery inside the residence the day he died are 4 minutes long but all anyone ever shows is a 7 second loop. Why?

      2. avatar tdiinva says:

        Except there is no evidence that he committed felony burglary. And even if he had at some point in the past the McMichaels had not seen it and given that they said “he fit the description” they admitted to not having direct knowledge therefore everything they did was outside the law. Had this ended differently and Arbery was charged with something his defense attorney would point out that he was unlawfully detained. The judge would have dismissed the case and if the DA was unhappy he could not only charge the McMichaels for unlawful detention but obstruction as well since their illegal actions let a “criminal” go free.

        Racism is a much devalued term from over use these days but that doesn’t mean racism doesn’t exist. I think it is safe to say that you are a racist.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          I think it’s safe to say you’re an asshat. See the article picture for why I don’t give a shit if you call me a racist. It’s not an argument and proves you don’t have one.

          Just by entering the building with the intent to steal something, he committed felony burglary. The 911 call immediately before they took after him disproves your bullshit that “they didn’t see anything”. They SAW him leaving the building and take off running when confronted by a neighbor. That is the DEFINITION of reasonable suspicion as required under Georgia citizen’s arrest statute. No “immediate knowledge” is required for a felony.

          Quit regurgitating partial information from the biased mainstream media.

          I’ve posted no less than three analysis videos that go over ALL available information. You have no fucking clue what you’re talking about.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrfTi1RbDf0&t=67s

          https://youtu.be/sjCzJyFKoqo

          https://youtu.be/1pX19TA2n58

          I’ll accept your apology for being an ass when you watch the videos where a cop and a respected civil rights lawyer BOTH tell you your argument is full of shit.

        2. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

          That must be an amazing surveillance camera if it can capture intent.

        3. avatar tdiinva says:

          I have analyses of the video not associated with the MSM. Go back to the Ukraine where belong and yeah, I deliberately inserted the “The.”

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          You don’t have to prove intent to have reasonable suspicion of a crime. Lack of intent is a defense in court, not a reason to invalidate arrest.

        5. avatar LarryinTX says:

          And you know his intent precisely how? They are going to hang. Even in GA.

        6. avatar LarryinTX says:

          You have to have *SOMETHING* to have reasonable suspicion of a crime, they had a black man running down the street. They are gonna hang.

        7. avatar Miner49er says:

          “Just by entering the building with the intent to steal something, he committed felony burglary.“

          Then later on, you say intent is not an element needed for a felony charge.

          By asserting intent, you were a certain facts not in evidence… again.

        8. avatar pwrserge says:

          No commie, I said intent was not an element required for an ARREST. Learn English you kung-pow-troll.

      3. avatar DrDKW says:

        Entering an open building to have a look is not a crime. The owners of the property stated that nothing was stolen.
        The only crime here was committed by two morons who chased, blocked, assaulted and killed an unarmed man!

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Literally wrong on all points.

        2. avatar KenW says:

          Give up guys, the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect is not able to admit he is wrong.
          Feel sorry for him, imagine going through life thinking you are superior to everyone while the reality is you are a dumb ass.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Oh look… Mr. “I can recite 1st year psych bullshit” is back.

          I cited the relevant statutes and provided at least three analyses that go over all available evidence.

          Your only response? “Yous a racis”

          I think we all know who the retard is in this conversation.

        4. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

          “Entering an open building to have a look is not a crime.”

          Yes, it is. The same argument is made by computer hackers. Entry into the system is a crime, even if no theft of data takes place…

        5. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Nothing to do with data. Entering an open building to have a look is not a crime, particularly if it is not posted. There is literally ZERO reason to suspect a crime, and I have not seen that the two jackwads even KNEW he had entered that building that day. Serge, you keep trying to manufacture a crime where there isn’t one, if a middle aged white man and his wife entered that construction, stayed for a few minutes and left, would that be justification for two people with no connection to that construction to hunt them down and kill them? You’re being ridiculous.

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          If they ran when confronted and then tried to grab the guns of the people trying to arrest them? Yes. Yes it would.

          You’re assuming an awful lot of shit not in evidence.

      4. avatar Vic Nighthorse says:

        What do you see as evidence that he intended to commit a crime in that house, other than the entry into that house itself?

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          The fact that he stayed in there for almost 5 minutes and ran when confronted. You don’t have to prove all elements of a crime to make an arrest. Intent is, inherently, a matter of fact for a jury to decide. Lack of said intent is a defense, but not a reason to invalidate an arrest. The questions is simple, did his actions justify “reasonable and probable suspicion” that he had intent? I would think that answer is blindingly obvious.

        2. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

          “What do you see as evidence that he intended to commit a crime in that house, other than the entry into that house itself?”

          How well would that argument hold up if a hacker wandered into a computer system he didn’t have express permission to be in, even if he was “just looking around”?

          You know the answer to that one…

        3. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

          @Geoff – But we can’t shoot people for that either now can we? It’s lucky that Arbery wasn’t playing loud music. God knows what they would have done to him.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          You can if they attempt to grab your gun when you arrest them. If the guys who shot this particular criminal scumbag had been uniformed cops, you wouldn’t hear a peep about it.

        5. avatar napresto says:

          Sigh. Serge, listen to yourself. Just because you say the magic words, “You’re under arrest,” doesn’t mean its okay to stick a gun in someone’s face. If it were, we’d be overwhelmed by the old, “but I told him he was under arrest right before I shot him and raided the cash register, your honor,” defense. This isn’t a game of cops and robbers, where you get to be a cop if you can figure out how to tape a playing card to your bike wheel so it makes a cool motorcycle sound.

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          Please show me where anybody pointed a gun at out jogging thug… I’ll wait.

        7. avatar Napresto says:

          Um… the part where they, you know, shot him.

        8. avatar pwrserge says:

          You mean where he tried to bumrush a guy with a shotgun? Yeah. At no point in the video prior to the felon charging towards them was a gun pointed in his direction. Did you know the father was on the line with 911 as the shorts were fired? That seems an odd thing to do if your intent is to break the law.

        9. avatar napresto says:

          Pwrserge: “Your honor, my clients are innocent, and I would like to direct your attention to the long-established ‘stop hitting yourself’ defense.”

          Judge: (angrily) “Who dressed this low-IQ eight year old like a lawyer and allowed him into my courtroom?”

        10. avatar pwrserge says:

          My Actual Argument:

          “My clients had reasonable and probable suspicion that the decedent had just committed a felony and was attempting to flee. Given this fact, they attempted to lawfully arrest the decedent as provided for in § 17-4-60. To this end they pursued the decedent and on numerous occasions verbally directed the decedent to stop, notifying him that the police had been notified and were en-route. After several such attempts to detain the decedent, my clients pulled their vehicle ahead of the decedent’s path and exited in a continued effort to carry out a citizen’s arrest under § 17-4-60. At this time, while the elder McMichael was on the phone with 911, as presented in Defense Exhibit [x], the decedent turned around and proceeded to run towards my clients’ vehicle. Having passed the vehicle the decedent proceeded to attack the younger McMichael and grab his shotgun. The younger McMichael, at this point in reasonable fear of death or grave bodily injury, had no choice but to discharge his shotgun in defense of his life.”

          Would you like to provide offers of proof as to the reasonableness of McMichael’s belief? Because if you give me a couple of hours, I can write you a full pocket brief on the matter.

          My point has always been that we DON’T KNOW what happened. There is not enough material in the record to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt and the McMichaels haven’t had their chance to make their case. (The one time they did, the riding DA didn’t even want to press charges.) Yet here you clowns are assuming the case was plain old stereotypical racism based solely on the fact that the defendants are white and the decedent was black. That’s the sum total of the evidence you have that any racism was involved.

          But sure, continue being a racist ass and throwing people under the buss when the sum total of the evidence available to you is a grainy 30 second video clip and your own racist assumptions..

        11. avatar pwrserge says:

          Or perhaps you would like me to write a full opening argument? Because I can do that too.

          Simple fact is, proving any kind of murder in this case would require the jury to completely make up a level of intent that is not demonstrated anywhere in the record. You MIGHT be able to get a conviction on involuntary manslaughter, but that’s a stretch if you can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspicions of the defendants were unreasonable.

          You assume that defense has to prove a felony occurred and prove all elements of the crime. That is incorrect. All they have to prove is that the defendants’ suspicion that a felony had taken place was reasonable and probable. The defendant’s prior theft pleading and felony conviction are now suddenly relevant as the father had personal knowledge of both cases.

      5. avatar DDay says:

        crimes require a victim. Either a person, gov’t, company, society, etc.

        The person who owns the under construction house had nothing stolen from the house ever, did not file a police report. There was no crime period

        Stop with your asinie crap. It’s pathetic people who claim to support 2A like you want these morons lumped in with 2A folks. The mcmichaels are a stain on 2A

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          You spineless cunts are a stain on logic and reason. You have no idea how the law works or what it means. You can’t seem to count past 2.

        2. avatar DDay says:

          You’re a sad person serge. Highly disturb and not very bright.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Well, at least I’m not an ignorant racist who thinks its ok to lynch a pair of men over a 30 second cellphone video without even giving them a chance to make their case.

  5. avatar Scott E. says:

    a well written and reasonable piece. thanks.
    now returning the comments section to the rabid…

  6. avatar Debbie W. says:

    In order to sell to those who stand for nothing and fall for anything Brady Gun Control has been packaged and repackaged and sugarcoated like another despicable agenda called marxism.

    The Gun Control the Brady Bunch promotes is Rooted in Racism and Genocide, obviously The Brady Bunch needs to justify their racist and nazi based agenda..

    RE: “The “Jim Crow” laws of the Democrat-led Southern states were just as racist, targeting blacks.”

    Those laws were not limited to the south as history whitewashing democRats want people to believe. Discrimination spanned the North South East and West. And there never was some mass migration of racists to the Party of Lincoln. When democrats like algore;s father were voting against Civil Rights Republicans were voting for Civil Rights and that is not something that attracts racist democrats. No racist democrat voter registrations changed during the so called migration and Republicans continued to lose elections in racist democrat strongholds. Following the “racist migration” Jimmy Cater running for gov. of GA. said he did not need one Black Vote to defeat his Republican opponent. How can that be when all the democrat racists jumped up and switched parties? It never happened. The democRat Party still owns lock, stock and barrel the legacy of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow, lynching, the KKK, Eugenics, Gun Control and other race based atrocities. They have no podium.

  7. avatar Rod says:

    “Brady Campaign Uses ‘Stand Your Ground’ Lies, Fearmongering And Falsehoods in Arbery Shooting Case”

    That is all they know.

  8. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

    I’m waiting to see what comes out in court. Until then I’ll reserve judgement. I’ve been skeptical about these cases ever since the “Hands up, don’t shoot” circus in Ferguson.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      The Brown-Wilson confrontation was the result of a lawful police stop.

      The McMichaels were acting outside the law.

      See the difference?

      Bringing up Brown-Wilson is just much a false comparison as Zimmerman-Martin.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        You’re full of shit… Again.
        § 17-4-60
        “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.”

        Let me point out the key detail for you.
        “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.”

        Two SEPARATE standards legal eagle. Learn to read statutes.

        1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

          Point out the GA law where trespassing is a felony, and you’ve got a good argument.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          § 16-7-1

          “(b) A person commits the offense of burglary in the first degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant dwelling house of another or any building, vehicle, railroad car, watercraft, aircraft, or other such structure designed for use as the dwelling of another.”

          You don’t have to prove all elements of a crime to have reasonable suspicion of a crime. Lack of intent is a defense against conviction, not a reason to invalidate arrest.

        3. avatar tdiinva says:

          Moron, by the McMichaels own statement they fail the test. They did not observe and as soon as they said fits the description they are admitting they only have indirect knowledge. That is an admission that they could have been mistaken. And trespassing is a misdemeanor not a felony.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          They don’t NEED “immediate knowledge” because the crime they reasonably suspected was a felony.

          Also… I just fucking CITED the relevant burglary statute. That’s a felony, even in the 2nd degree. Intent is the only element of the crime they could not prove at the time and that’s a matter of fact for a jury, not a reason to invalidate an arrest.

        5. avatar tdiinva says:

          Where is the proof of theft? Where is the proof of intent? There isn’t any.

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          Dipshit, what part of “you don’t have to prove every element of the crime” was unclear to you? Police arrest on probable cause every single day. The statute in GA allows the exact same standard for citizen’s arrests. (as I already cited)

          Did he enter a dwelling? Yes.
          Did he do so without authority? Yes.
          Did he have intent? Unknown

          A reasonable person can infer that someone who runs when confronted did not have legal intent. He might not be RIGHT, but it is more than enough for REASONABLE SUSPICION.

        7. avatar tdiinva says:

          Moron. The Statute says immediate knowledge. They admit they did not have it nor did they witness it and they never claimed a citizens arrest. Their friend, the corrupt DA did.

          If the races were the opposite you would be calling it murder. If they were both white you would be calling it murder.

          You are a racist.

        8. avatar pwrserge says:

          So… we’re just going to ignore an entire sentence from the statute now? Ok…

          Guess you don’t give a shit about what the law is. You’re just arguing what the law SHOULD be.

          Go watch the videos I cited and get back to me. In reality, the SAW him exit the building and said so on the 911 call. If that doesn’t constitute “immediate knowledge” I don’t know what does. It legally doesn’t matter, so your argument is bullshit on both counts. No immediate knowledge is required for a felony, only “REASONABLE AND PROBABLE SUSPICION”.

        9. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

          Oh, so the wannabe cops had reasonable cause to believe that someone was dwelling in the house under construction?

        10. avatar pwrserge says:

          Go look up the definition of “dwelling” under Georgia law. The building only has to be INTENDED to serve as such. Doesn’t have to be occupied. GA precedent is that even a construction site constitutes a “dwelling” for that purpose so long as there is a structure.

        11. avatar LarryinTX says:

          While typing it, did you note that “with intent …” passage, again, which you argue is not necessary, I ask again how you knew his intent? Were you an accomplice? Were you there at the time?

        12. avatar pwrserge says:

          Again.. Intent is never a relevant element for a crime during arrest. It is a matter of fact for the jury to decide. All that is required for arrest is that the arresting citizen has personal knowledge or reasonable/probable suspicion of the material elements of the crime. No court in history has held an arrest invalid due to a lack of intent.

        13. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

          “We find the decisions in cases such as Clark and Angel persuasive, and hold that a “building” under the burglary statute includes a house under construction which is so far completed as to be capable of providing shelter to people, animals, or property” Smith v. State, 226 Ga. App. 9, 11-12 (Ga. Ct. App. 1997)

          https://casetext.com/case/smith-v-state-6642

          Not quite the same defintion as merely a construction site.

        14. avatar pwrserge says:

          1. That ruling was overturned last month.
          2. 2nd degree burglary is still a felony and does not require a dwelling making it irrelevant to the case at bar.

        15. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

          So, overturned subsequent to the unfortunate “citizen’s arrest” attempt, and thus not at all relevant to their actions at the time.

          Even 2nd degree burglary appears to require a building or structure, not merely a site where such building or structure is being built. If there’s video showing the shooting victim inside such a structure, link it up. If he was merely prowling around an open construction site, it was trespassing.

        16. avatar pwrserge says:

          Opposing council is misrepresenting the record. The dwelling in question is a fully constructed building.

        17. avatar DDay says:

          The owner of the property would need to press charges or have an issue with Arbery being at the house under construction. He didn’t have an issue with it, he had nothing stolen. Only he could make the claim of a burglary, it was his house, his property.

          It’s really sad people like serge are defending the actions of the mcmichaels. Two bozo’s who think it’s ok to chase someone down with a truck, then confront them with a shotgun in the middle of a street are not people who support 2A

        18. avatar pwrserge says:

          Old man, you REALLY need to read the relevant statutes before you make more of an ass out of yourself.

          These guys will walk and I will be mocking you dumbasses for falling for YET ANOTHER “hate crime” hoax. The story being spun by the defenders of the ventilated felon makes about as much sense as Juicy’s.

      2. avatar Jimmy Beam says:

        Just like the Ferguson case, this one has a lot of information, some of it questionable, thrown about by both parties. In Ferguson, the truth came out in front of the grand jury. Something similar will happen here.

      3. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

        I always thought that once the protests began in earnest they should have dug up Michael Brown and shot him 4 or 5 more times again in downtown Ferguson.

        That opinion should demonstrate that I’m no bleeding heart.

        That said, totally, totally different situations between Brown and Arbery.

      4. avatar Miner49er says:

        Discussing the construction site trespass video is a red herring, they never saw the video so they can’t claim that’s the basis of their reasonable suspicion.

        This is much more about the alleged theft of Travis’ firearm from his vehicle.

        1. avatar DDay says:

          Also, the mcmichaels do not own the house under construction. They have no idea if the owner gave Arbery permission to be there, was a worker on that house or didn’t care if people walked through it.

          Their entire reason to pursue Arbery was the gun theft from Travis’s car/truck at the beginning of January. This case is a great example of why you better be VERY sure of your actions when you decide to confront someone with a your gun. I have no idea if the mcmichaels are decent people or not but I do know their decisions that day were beyond stupid

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          So you’re a psychic now commie? I suppose that you know for a fact that they never saw a video that was on their neighborhood Facebook group for weeks?

  9. avatar Leighton Cavendish says:

    Perhaps there should be an arrest made in most shooting incidents…or at least a detention…
    look at cop shootings….they take the cops weapon and give them other duty while they investigate shootings…
    it would make the public feel like something is being done…even if it is not…and with dems/libs it is all about the FEELS

    1. avatar DDay says:

      When there is a shooting, there will always be someone detained for the initial investigation. An arrest is only made when there is probable cause to believe a crime was committed. Without cause, there can be no arrest.

      The cops in GA wanted to arrest the father and son that day after their initial investigation, mcmichaels former boss, the DA, told the cops not to make an arrest.

  10. avatar Ralph says:

    Brady scvmbags lie when they say “hello.”

  11. avatar Chief Censor says:

    I did a little quick research on the Arbery case for the latest info. Possible inaccuracies on my part.

    They knew Arbery. It appears he was going to the house since October, 2019. He shows up a few times a month day or night.

    According to Diego Perez, Travis confronted Arbery on February 11th in the yard of the construction site and talked to him. Travis claims Arbery reached for his shorts like he had a gun. Travis went home and told his father [Greg] to get a gun and confront Arbery. Travis and Greg confronted Arbery and determined he didn’t steal anything. Arbery went home.

    Arbery came back to construction site on February 23. Diego Perez and Larry English got an alert from the motion sensing cameras. Perez seems to have access to them because Larry asked Perez to watch over his property. Perez then called the police to report Arbery inside the site. He is seen standing outside watching Arbery walk around and run down the street. He may also have been seen on the same camera following Arbery using his bike. After Arbery was shot dead Larry called Perez to ask if he needs to call the police on the person walking around his property, Perez informed English that Arbery was killed by the McMichaels and Roddy.

    Perez may have left a note at the site where Arbery was killed apologizing for not stopping the McMichaels and Roddy from setting up a lynch mob against Arbery. The police and lawyers are asking for the person who wrote the note to come forward as a witness.

    This is an act of premeditation. This wasn’t a straight up random encounter between the men. It may have not been racism, it looks more personal. The father already knew Arbery for like a year and a half before the shooting. They know his history, maybe he forget. But they already planned the lynching days ahead of time.

    It appears the McMichaels asked their buddy Roddy to help out with the armed hunt of Arbery. The lawyers are claiming Roddy can be heard pulling the slide on a pistol as he fumbles to record Arbery as he drives. Roddy has went silent and his lawyer was going to have a press conference but canceled it. It appears Roddy is going to cop a plea to get the McMichaels put away. However, the government doesn’t seem to want to play that hand after looking deeper into the case.

    Greg lost his arresting powers after he refused to complete his required training. He couldn’t legally make an arrest or carry a gun for at least 8 years of his working career. The corrupt DA got him a waiver so he could continue working and moved him around positions. He never got the proper training for a current day police officer. He should have been fired. He was working as a chief investigator without proper police powers.

    The Travis claims a gun was stolen from his truck. Travis confronted Arbery the next month in the yard of the site. Travis shot Arbery to death less than 2 weeks later.

    Larry English said he had fishing wire disappear from his boat, he doesn’t know when that happened. He had his boat in the construction site at one point, in the same room you can see Arbery on camera. If Arbery stole that fishing wire he should be on camera doing so. So far no one can provide evidence Arbery stole the wire. Maybe everyone is too damn lazy in that town to look at the videos.

    This was an act of premeditated unjustified homicide. Four men were involved: Travis McMichael, Greg McMichael, William Bryan and Diego Perez. Responsibility goes in that order.

    With the corruption in that area, I find it hard to believe Travis when he says someone (main suspect being Arbery) stole his handgun and that Arbery threatened him with a handgun. I don’t know if these guys are racists, but something isn’t right here. They had months of opportunities to go to the police and show them the evidence of criminality coming from Arbery if he was committing crimes. They had cameras, they had witnesses, they knew him. Yet they decided to plan out a hunt the next time they saw him.

    That’s why Arbery decided to beat up Travis. He was being chased and threatened with a gun again. This time he snapped and rushed Travis. He kept hitting him even after he was shot 3 times with a shotgun. He wasn’t on any drugs, he was just mad.

    The McMichaels and Roddy got what they were looking for. They didn’t want a search warrant out for Arbery. They didn’t want to use Greg’s chief investigator’s skills to figure out how the item/s went missing. No oath or affirmation for Arbery. They wanted to catch him themselves. Greg couldn’t even make a fucking arrest when he worked for the police, now he wants to make a “citizen’s arrest.”

    Fuck those guys. They didn’t follow the constitution. The black man has to follow the law while the white man breaks it. Arbery may have been a thief, but the lynch mob are murderers.

    A thief gets a hand taken off, a murderer loses their head.

    What’s going to happen to the corrupt DAs and police? I don’t foresee any arrests, there should be. They helped cover up a murder after the fact. Institutional good old boys club of white privilege. Everyone sees it for what it is. We are not stupid. We have seen this BS way too much. Kick in a door you have no lawful authority to kick in and shoot a black woman dead then charge her BF for attempted murder of a cop.

    1. avatar KenW says:

      Waiting cpowertemps post.
      I’m beginning to suspect not only does he have a really bad case of Dunning-Kruger effect he also seems to have the hots for either the father or the son. Why else would this be so personal for him?

      1. avatar Geoff "Guns. LOTS of guns..." PR says:

        “Waiting cpowertemps post.”

        It sure looks like the one with the raging hard-on is you, KenW.

        Bad news, I *really* doubt you’re his type… 😉

        1. avatar Chief Censor says:

          You sure do have a purdy mouth.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      That’s a cute fairy tale… A better work of fiction I have never read.

      Now go to law school and you might be qualified to argue the relevant statutes.

      Oh, and you might want to stop hitting up blakkk Storm Front for your news.

    3. avatar Chief Censor says:

      Oh, yeah!

      Greg knew Arbery had felonies on his record. He probably wanted that final felony to put Arbery in prison for life. Well, his son stole his life.

      Get rekted McMichaels. Justice through the system because you deserve it.

      Those who make peaceful justice impossible will make violent justice inevitable. Don’t forget it’s election time.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        … and there’s the terrorist threat. Classy commie. Classy.

        It’s adorable that you think Biden will stay out of jail long enough to run.

        1. avatar Chief Censor says:

          It’s a play on a JFK quote. Clearly, I said justice through the system. I don’t live in Georgia. If these guys get off because they are friends with the Republican government the black people in Georgia will do something. It only takes one person.

          Trump has no competition. Biden is a racist. Local government is more at risk. What is Trump going to do when everything is controlled by the Democrats? Trump will flip back to his New York Democrat policies.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Lol… Given that the Demokkkommies just lost a CA house seat with a swing of over 20 points… Unlikely. You’re going to see one hell of a red wave come November.

          But sure… Let’s just pretend that when these guys walk out of court (and they will) some random didndu shoots them… Great plan. Is that going to make things better or worse? Because if your objective is to get people to be LESS racist, you probably don’t want to give them MORE evidence that their beliefs are perfectly justified.

    4. avatar The Truth About Ahmaud Arbery says:

      OR they are a bunch of guys in the neighborhood fed up with someone coming there, committing burglaries and thefts and the cops not doing anything.

      They follow the guy and try to stop him until he attacks one of them and tries to take his gun which then goes off.

      On Feb 11 Travis calls the cops while Arbery is in the house being remodeled and stays on the phone waiting for them while Arbery runs off. 4 men, including Diego Perez, go looking for him while McMichaels stays at the scene in his truck on the phone with the police.

      The owner of the house was posting the videos of the trespassing and thefts to the neighborhood facebook group for months. They were there for anyone and everyone including the cops.

      Doesn’t sound like premeditation or a hunting party to me. Sounds like fed up and frustrated locals trying to hold someone for the cops and it goes sideways.

      And for those blaming racism, these so called racists include one Diego Perez. Somehow he doesn’t sound like the KKK confederate flag type.

      1. avatar Chief Censor says:

        Larry English said he never shared videos with the McMichaels. He only shared videos with Perez.

        I am not aware of a Facebook group. I haven’t seen that yet. Maybe you listen to that dishonest Stefan Molyneux? I have heard that there is a posse in that neighborhood of armed men chasing black men away from the construction site. So, apparently, these men have a little neighborhood militia group patrolling when they hear about alerts from the construction site. They literally chase black men through the neighborhood with their guns in hand.

        I would not want to live in such a neighborhood. These dudes be running around like a bunch of Zimmermans. That’s not good for open carry in Georgia.

        I have only seen 2 videos confirming Arbery at the construction site: one was at night on February 11 and the other during the day on February 23. The posse claims they have seen black men at the site since October. However, they are claiming the earlier incidents was a different black man with tattoos and possibly another man. The man with tattoos looks more like a guy that would steal your gun from your truck.

        It’s crazy how these men act like they don’t know each other and had no idea things would turn out this way. They all seem to be lying. It’s not just the McMichaels who are running around chasing people with their guns. They want to distance themselves from the killing.

        This case is going to be a big circus with a bunch of MAGA guys in the court room pointing fingers. No loyalty, which is not surprising.

        It’s premeditated when you have a plan that is constantly carried out every time you get an alert from the cameras and you rally your armed posse to go on the hunt.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          You lying commie piece of shit. The videos were posted on their neighborhood Facebook group for months. Get bent.

      2. avatar Chief Censor says:

        @pwrserge

        I am going by the owner’s word and what I have seen. His property is at the center of the issue in this neighborhood.

        I don’t have a Facebook, I don’t use that platform. I have not seen reports about a Facebook page where Larry uploads his videos. Maybe Perez is uploading the videos for his posse? So, don’t call me a liar, call Larry English a liar.

        The people involved are clearly lying to protect themselves from felony convictions. These men are Zimmerman on steroids; that’s very bad for Republicans and the second amendment.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          CNN? Really? Was Blakkk Storm Front not available?

          You have no idea what you’re talking about legally or factually. Sit down, shut up, and remember that we have this thing called “due process” in this country along with the presumption of innocence. Oh, and Zimmerman did nothing wrong, as his acquittal would prove to any reasonable person.

        2. avatar Mister Fleas says:

          “The people involved are clearly lying to protect themselves from felony convictions. These men are Zimmerman on steroids”

          Yes, the hoodlum did attack the gun owner and got killed for his efforts.

          You know, as far as Zimmerman goes, there was a trial, and he was found not guilty. You know that, right? We talked about the case here extensively when it was ongoing.

      3. avatar Chief Censor says:

        @pwrserge

        A December video of Arbery leaving the construction site at night. Appears no one saw him in person that night. He runs away from the house like he did the day he was killed, he ran in the same direction too, he was dress very similarly as well. And it appears to be raining!

        The man really likes to run.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah, I know when I go running I regularly enter private property that doesn’t belong to me. At best, this felon got the Darwin award he was angling for.

      4. avatar Chief Censor says:

        It’s looking like Arbery was in love with running. A black man running through a white neighborhood doesn’t mean he is up to no good. Why can’t a black man be Forrest Gump in America? Why can’t he just be a long distance runner looking to be an electrician one day?

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Because it makes exactly zero sense unless the guy was pants on head retarded. No reasonable person would believe that story if it was a white guy. Entering somebody else’s property at night is not indicative of benign intentions. Oh, and if nothing was missing, why would the property owner go to the trouble and expense of installing those cameras?

        2. avatar Chief Censor says:

          @pwrserge

          The owner lives 90 miles away. He put cameras up and asked a neighbor to watch over the property. It’s a smart thing to do for insurance purposes and for the police. The man isn’t dumb. He has to watch over his property from afar. He has to make sure the workers and the noisy people are not doing anything wrong.

          Everyone can afford security cameras these days. A lot of people have them. It’s not something only rich people have or want.

        3. avatar Chief Censor says:

          @pwrserge

          If this is actual video from the same place.

          Why do white people think they can just walk into other people’s property in a white neighborhood? Grab the guns, boys!

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          Sure it is commie, sure it is… 10 seconds of video without context or authentication.

          You lost all credibility when you cited XiNN

        5. avatar Chief Censor says:

          @pwrserge

          You cite race baiters and grifters.

          The video is on other websites and they claim it’s from Larry English. I post links from Youtube regardless of the channel because that’s how WordPress works when it comes to videos.

          Stop being a white supremacist. Stop being racist.

          Non whites have human rights. The system should represent them like it does white people. It’s not racism against “whites” when someone calls for equality and justice for all.

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          You cited XiNN… I cited a random Canadian lawyer, a well respected Civil Rights attorney who handled DOZENS of REAL hate crime cases, and Stefan Molyneux. Oh, and an actual retired cop.

          Funny now NONE of them agree with XiNN.

          I guess now you’re going to claim that Robert Barnes is a grifting racebaiter?

      5. avatar Chief Censor says:

        @pwrserge

        So you are still going to say the black man didn’t deserve due process and should have been lynched like he was? That a black man should stay out of a white neighborhood? That a black man running is suspicion enough of a felony? That a black man doesn’t have the human and legal right to stand their ground?

        Arbery appears to be a black Forrest Gump. Forrest wasn’t smart and he loved to run. People picked on Forrest too.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Son, what sort of lynching waits until the guy is in arms reach to light him up? You clowns are adorable.

          If this was an actual lynching, you would have never heard about it and that video would have disappeared weeks ago. What this was, was a convicted felon getting caught in the act of committing another felony, and deciding he’d rather try his luck fighting a guy with a shotgun than go to prison.

        2. avatar Chief Censor says:

          @pwrserge

          The evidence proves you wrong. The more videos that come out the more it proves this was racial bias and premeditated murder.

          Lynch

          verb (used with object)
          1. to put to death, especially by hanging, by mob action and without legal authority.

          They don’t need to use a rope for it to be a lynching. Ignorant people think a lynching requires a person to be killed with a rope. Hence why people are using “modern day lynching” to denote the usage of guns over rope.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Again kung-pow commie, if they intended to kill him, why did it take them so long to light him up?

          Dear god you kung-pow commies are retarded.

        4. avatar pwrserge says:

          I know if I intended to kill somebody for no reason, I would totally be ON THE LINE WITH 911 AS I DID SO. Oh… wait… no… that would be RETARDED. Did you forget that the father was on the line with 911 DURING the video?

        5. avatar Chief Censor says:

          @pwrserge

          Did you see how the father seems to be throwing his son under the bus? I think he has his own lawyer and he is saying he is not a party to murder, his son is the murderer. Maybe that’s how it came off, but it looks like Travis was just like you.

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          Ok… You can apologize now and wipe some of the egg off of your face.

          https://youtu.be/T7SNSq8sVBA

        7. avatar Chief Censor says:

          @pwrserge

          Gregory McMichael gave the video to Alan Tucker so he could deliver it to a local radio station.

          Roddy, Travis, Greg, Diego, Alan, the three DAs and the police are liars. Every damn person there is a liar. Only Arbery was the honest one involved. I don’t trust Larry English, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt until I see otherwise.

          https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/exclusive-man-charged-ahmaud-arbery-murder-leaked-original-video-shooting/KCWVSD4IP5FPRO24I47ZBMPPNE/

          As I said, they created some lynch mob to catch people in the construction site using their guns. Maybe they only focused on black people because I only hear 911 calls regarding black people although there are white people trespassing at night too.

          Why does a white couple show up, the same day Arbery is murdered, during the night carrying a bag into the home yet not get the same response?

          https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/texts-reveal-police-enlisted-help-suspect-arberys-death-months-before-shooting/TO367WP3HVAYHC2MHABCT2EL2Y/

          This is very bad news for the entire local government and everyone else involved. It’s a huge network of good ol’ boys. They murdered an innocent (black) man and covered it up until they got scared their neighborhood was going to burn once a race riot breaks out.

          Why would the cops ask a non cop (a person who was stripped of his police powers) to setup a neighborhood lynch mob? Like a Zimmerman neighborhood watch on steroids. Why would they try to get Larry English involved in this criminal behavior? Larry English said he did not get involved with this criminality like the police asked him to. He never read the texts asking him to inform the McMichaels about the sensors going off.

          But of course it has nothing to do with race. This case has nothing to do with race. Zero!

          It’s nothing like I predicted when the video came out.

          The McMichaels weren’t trying to place cops from the old days.

  12. avatar WI Patriot says:

    Surprise, surprise…

  13. avatar Kendahl says:

    Andrew Branca, author of The Law of Self Defense, has been discussing this case in depth on his blog. According to Branca, Georgia splits citizen’s arrest into felony arrests and all others. Since burglary is a felony there, only that part of the law matters.

    Georgia’s definition of burglary is very (overly?) broad. It’s entering a place unlawfully with the intent to steal from it. The place doesn’t have to be secured. If you leave empty handed, because you didn’t find anything worth stealing, you’re still guilty of burglary. (Snooping around a house under construction is trespassing. The only thing that separates it from burglary is the intent to steal.)

    The fuzzy part is intent which can only be inferred unless the burglar actually does take something away. Supposedly, the senior McMichael knew of Arbery and his record of petty theft. There is also supposed to be a surveillance video of Arbery entering the house under construction shortly before the McMichaels went looking for him.

    Finally, Arbery was running which could be interpreted as an attempt to escape from the scene of the burglary.

    Putting all of those together establishes justification for the McMicahaels to make a citizen’s arrest.

    Citizen’s arrest laws are relics of the days when there was no real law enforcement out in the country. Authorizing private citizens to make arrests wasn’t an ideal solution but it was the only feasible one. We don’t need them anymore. At the least, they should be limited to interrupting crimes in progress. The alternative is the mess we have here, a confrontation which turned fatal that could and should have been left to a uniformed police officer. It might have turned out exactly the same way, with Arbery dead because he attacked a police officer the way he did the junior McMicael, but the heat would be on the officer and his department instead of the McMichaels. Then, we might have a repeat of Ferguson, Missouri.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      There’s the legal argument and the moral argument.

      Everyone here (with a few exceptions) seems to think that their FEELS should substitute for THE LAW. Well, that’s not how our country works.

      You can argue what the law SHOULD BE all day in the legislature. Trying to string up a pair who did nothing wrong under what the LAW IS, is not a productive use of your time and just makes one sound like an illiterate retard.

      I happen to like citizen’s arrest laws, as ultimately, the power of arrest is a power derived FROM the people.

      But I’ve mostly given up on having a rational discussion on the finer points of legal theory with the left wing trolls who have infested this site like a bad case of syphilis.

    2. avatar Cloudbuster says:

      Citizen’s arrest laws are relics of the days when there was no real law enforcement out in the country. Authorizing private citizens to make arrests wasn’t an ideal solution but it was the only feasible one. We don’t need them anymore.

      Because the cops are totally going to be right there when your property is burgled. They’re definitely not just going to show up a couple hours later and take a report that will accomplish nothing.

      1. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

        If it’s MY property I would defend it with deadly force. If I’m living in it with my family. If it’s a house that my neighbor is building and NO ONE lives there, I’m not killing someone for being there whether they’re committing burglary or not.

        I’ve killed some people before. I’m just not that anxious to do it again. It’s not as good a time as some people seem to think that it is. Call the cops and let them sort it out. And if they don’t and you don’t have to kill anyone, it’s a pretty good day.

        I’d rather do nothing about the burglary of a house under construction than go to jail for a year or 2 until I stand trial for murder.

        But that’s just me.

        1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

          What does that have to do with the obsolescence, or not, of citizens’ arrest laws?

        2. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

          I guess it means if you want to partake in a citizen’s arrest of someone who isn’t trying to harm someone physically, knock yourself out. I’m not going involve myself in a property crime where it can escalate to me having to kill someone or being killed myself. A house that no one lives in is just not worth it to me. I value my soul and my freedom too much.

          Again, that’s just me.

        3. avatar Miner49er says:

          Thank you for your clarity, Klaus.

          That pure, clear tone you hear is the ring of truth in your statement.

  14. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    Arbery then tried to avoid Travis by going around the other side of the truck and Travis again intercepted Arbery.

    That’s astoundingly inaccurate. Arbery went around the other side of the truck and charged Travis.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      To be fair, assumes facts not in the record. At the moment, we don’t know what happened behind the truck because the camera pans away. A forensics report would tell us more. My money is on you being right, but without said report in the record, we can’t just assume.

      1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

        There was barely an instant obscured behind the truck. You can clearly see Arbery charge toward the front of the truck and an instant later Travis is backing away with Arbery clutching the barrel of the shotgun. I don’t know what kind of miraculous event you think could have occurred in that instant that changes the fact that Arbery charged Travis.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          I’m going to maintain my position about assuming facts not in the record at this point.

          The only questions of fact for the jury in this case are rather simple.

          Did they have reasonable and probable suspicion necessary to execute a felony citizen’s pursuit and arrest?
          If so, did the son act in self-defense during the altercation?

        2. avatar DDay says:

          the mcmichaels used their truck to try to stop arbery prior to when they parked the truck, that’s why they are charged with aggravated assault as well as murder. The event didn’t start at the parked truck, the even started blocks earlier when they tried to stop him with the truck. So they are considered the aggressors in the incident and Arbery would be viewed as trying to defend himself by trying to take the shotgun.

          You have two people who used a truck to try to stop you, then get out of the truck with a shotgun. You’re not outrunning the round from the shotgun, Arbery chose to fight for control of the gun.

          You can’t instigate something then claim self defense.,

          This is a very simple case, the mcmichaels are going away for decades or life.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          It’s not “instigation” when it’s a lawful citizen’s arrest. GA law only requires “reasonable and probable suspicion” of a felony if the felon in question is fleeing. Don’t give up your day job.

          Oh, and for all you inbred illiterates, I already cited the relevant statute several times. Just like the 2nd amendment, it has two parts.

      2. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

        Can I ask you a basic question?

        Would you have interjected yourself into that situation? Making a citizens arrest on someone who may or may not have burglarized a half-finished, unoccupied house? Knowing full well that it might escalate to the point where you have to kill someone?

        1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

          No, I’m not going to answer that because it is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make: the author’s description “Arbery then tried to avoid Travis by going around the other side of the truck and Travis again intercepted Arbery” is inaccurate, bordering on deliberately misleading.

        2. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

          That answer tells me all I need to know about you. All anxious to to get into the shit till there’s blood and then you piss yourself and freeze up like a bunny under a bush.

      3. avatar Ifimust says:

        I would never want any of the people commenting against you on a jury for anyone. You have stated only the laws, how they apply, and that this will be presented and argued in court. I think just like the real facts that were presented in court in the Martin case have been obscured by the media and useful idiots who believe what they hear, these people will never accept a verdict against their beliefs despite when evidence is presented to the contrary. An open mind is required here, and withholding of judgement until that time comes. People do need to remember the words “alledged” and “innocent until proven guilty.” No one apologized, not even Obama when evidence contradicted the narrative in Martins case, and they never will. Don’t waste time trying to argue with people who don’t care to understand the specific wording of laws. These are emotional retorts, and they feed the fire.

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          Thank You Sir (?). I really needed that. I had hoped that the “gun-rights intelligencia” would have recognized the importance of looking at relevant laws and not making judgements based on first impressions or media reports. You’d have thought that ten years of hoax after hoax would have taught us to be skeptical of media and activist claims. Sadly, I get about as much “muh’ racism” screeching here as I do on the average SJW site. Sad, really.

        2. avatar Some Other Sucker says:

          It happens.

          I am constantly amazed at the way pro gun people who believe that the government is totalitarian, untrustworthy, and out to take their guns suddenly turn around and believe what they are fed and support the government on other subjects. You’d think people who are pro freedom would be so on every topic. You’d think that people who are anti central control would be so on every topic. You’d think that people who repeatedly state “enforce the laws we have” would read and follow the law on every topic.

          Sadly, it ain’t so. It turns into pick a team and fight.

  15. avatar Miner49er says:

    Frankly, the deep south is an embarrassment to the rest of America.

    It’s about time for the lights to go out in Georgia… again.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Yeah… that’s not racist at all…

      The “Deep South” is objectively a better place to live than most blue states.

    2. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

      Just because you seemed to agree with one of my previous statements doesn’t mean this isn’t where I tell you to go fuck yourself. You couldn’t be more wrong about the south.

      Proud southerner here.

    3. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      @miner49

      Seriously?

      ~rolls eyes

    4. avatar Hugh Glass says:

      Cmon On down here and flick the switch boy.

  16. avatar enuf says:

    The Brady Campaign is full of shit, so no surprise there.

    And look, our resident apologist for murderers is there too, posting all kinds of shit.

    Ain’t it a beautiful day in nutjob liar heaven around here?

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      Yeah… I’m sure that the media and the blakkktivists are TOTALLY truthful about EVERY detail of the event like they were with the Zimmerman case… Oh… wait… The Brown case? shit shit shit… The BLM Kidnapping? Maybe the Juicy Smouliet case?

      Can you name ONE national “hate crime” story in the past 10 years that WASN’T a massive hoax?

      1. avatar Dude says:

        You can’t draw proper conclusions without proper facts. It’s like a global warming study, excuse me, I mean a !Climate Crisis!! study. When your data is biased to begin with, then your conclusions will be wrong, which hindsight shows us that their models are always wrong, and always in one direction.

        The “news” we were told, said he was jogging through the neighborhood because he lived close by. That makes it sound like he lived within four blocks. Now I’m hearing from people that he lived over 10 miles away. So which is it? If he lived over 10 miles away, then why would the “news” report that he was on a jog in that area because he lived close by? That would mean he was running a marathon. Was he really wearing boots? No one runs a marathon in boots! So the problem is you can not trust the news. Why not just be honest about everything and lay out the actual facts from the beginning?

        I’m not giving any sort of legal opinion, and I think the loss of life here is tragic, but have people really not learned their lesson from the news gate keepers over the past four years? You can’t trust them, especially when it involves one of their preferred narratives. The only evidence based opinions I’ve developed so far is that he was most likely not just going for a jog. He was also most likely not just innocently admiring some house under construction. We keep hearing Ahmaud’s defenders talking about other people checking out houses under construction. Do those people also take off running when a neighbor asks what they’re doing? No? Then it isn’t the same.

        1. avatar Dude says:

          I have to say that, it may not matter whether he was going for a jog. But, you should ask yourself why that narrative was pushed at the beginning. If it isn’t true, it seems to be in order to manipulate you, and get people’s emotions stirred up.

  17. avatar Rick says:

    If they knew him, they didn’t need to do anything but call the police and say what they saw, identifying him so the police could question him.

    If I saw someone I knew doing something suspicious, calling the police is all I would do. Their attempt to play cop seems way beyond the actions of reasonable men.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      It’s nice to live in a place where the police give a shit about property crime. Most people aren’t that lucky.

      1. avatar Rick says:

        Why are you so aggressive about this? Do you know the two accused men?

        1. avatar pwrserge says:

          I’m so aggressive about it because I’m tired of poverty pimps and racist turning every ventilated scumbag into a martyr and setting back the rule of law and the principles I lost one functional leg to defend. I’m also tired of people who claim to be interested in protecting constitutional rights forgetting to count past 2.

        2. avatar DDay says:

          After seeing his posts for a few years, I think most have come to see serge as mentally ill.

          God help anyone who believes a word he says.

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah… Which one of us is citing statutes and case law and which one is making ad-hominem attacks? You need to take your pills old man.

    2. avatar Chief Censor says:

      I was very tired. It was very early morning, somewhere around 2am. I heard someone banging on something, sounded like a sledge hammer. I go look out the window and see a person on the school property stealing from the vending machines. I was too tired to bother and the man is clearly desperate for cash. I went back to bed. It wasn’t a big deal in my mind, at the time. Confronting a desperate man, who’s likely a drug addict, is probably going to lead to a fight I can’t handle when I am already falling asleep. The little money he would steal from a school vending machine didn’t reach my level of care at the time. Later on, the police come knocking on my door to ask if I heard or seen anything going on at the school. I said, “”Yeah.” The detective got very excited and pulled out his notebook. I told him everything. He left very happy.

      What happened with the burglar? I have no idea. All I know is the school decided they didn’t make enough money on the vending machines to have to deal with druggies smashing them. They got rid of the vending machines to prevent people going on to the property.

      When I look back on it, I realized that guy cost the school more money by smashing the machine than he took. That was worth stopping him and arresting him to get the druggie to work off that damaged property. However, he did smash it before I could do anything. So…

      Now it’s skateboards who unlawfully enter the school grounds day or night to skateboard. I don’t call the police nor whip my gun out to arrest them. It’s loud and bothersome, but let the kids have fun even though you could argue they are committing felonies. I’m not a Karen. The school is angry that people skateboard there; they made modifications to stop the criminal trespassing and destruction of property by skateboards. For awhile the skateboards would still come back and remove the modifications so they can continue to skateboard. Eventually, the city opened up skate parks instead of arresting kids and making silly modifications to school property to stop skateboarding. Now it’s rare to see skateboarding at the school.

      The neighborhood minds their own business for low level stuff that police would chase people around town for. We don’t want any trouble, especially trouble we can’t handle. If a family is fighting and it sounds bad, we pay attention enough to determine if police action is necessary, it hasn’t been, thus we go about our business as they go about theirs. We don’t like to call the police around here. They only call for the big stuff. People get along better that way. You don’t build up tensions in the community nor personal vendettas.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        … and that is why every neighborhood that acts like that is a crime ridden shithole. Go look up the concept of “Broken Windows Policing”

        1. avatar Chief Censor says:

          It’s safe where i live though crowded. There is no need to put a wall around the neighborhood. Back when there was a lot of gangs it wasn’t so safe, but the internet has taken a lot of teen males off the street.

          I used to walk home at 3am and not have to deal with the police. I could wear a hoodie and walk around at 3am without guns chasing me down to check who I am. Old people go on their nightly walks without issue.

          We are not savages. Our area is full of diverse capitalists. Gang culture is gone. Gun ownership common.

          Gang culture causes many crimes. Get rid of the reasons kids join gangs and you will find crime drop big time. You don’t need a police state to do that. It’s about parenting, capitalism and gun ownership.

  18. avatar Frank says:

    here you go

  19. avatar Warlocc says:

    pwserge is why we have red flag laws.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Exactly.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Commie cunts like you two are why we had the holodomor.

        1. avatar DDay says:

          Your parents did a terrible job raising you. Or they tried but you went bad. Either way, I’m sure they’re very embarrassed by you.

        2. avatar pwrserge says:

          Yeah… Whatever you say old man. Go take your fatass pills and sit your demented ass back on the porch.

    2. avatar pwrserge says:

      No, eunuch wonders like you are why we have “red flag” laws. Your generation caved on TROs because of “muh’ whamenses” now we just see the inevitable result of what happens when you give a whiny bitch an inch.

  20. avatar Peter Gunn says:

    Local news here in North Florgia just reported that the property owner has released all surveillance video from the home construction site- and it shows multiple individuals on the property/inside the house on multiple dates. They showed video of adults, teenagers, and children all walking in and around the house during daylight and nighttime hours.

    The property owner said he believes Mr. Arbery was on the property at least twice, and that he didn’t steal anything- nor was anything ever missing from his property. The owner said that even if he had reason to believe someone had taken anything, he would most likely not have pressed charges.

    The property owner said that it appears to him that in both instances Arbery had used his property to get some water (there’s two sources of water on the property), and that on Arbery’s previous visit he walked out of the house and across the yard, and then began jogging down the street in the direction of the McMichael’s house- exactly the way he did the day he was killed.

  21. avatar Peter Gunn says:

    Local news here in North Florgia just reported that Gregory McMichael contacted the Glynn County Police Department and asked them to tell Larry English, the construction site property owner, to contact him directly if “…you get action on your camera.”. They showed the actual text sent to the property owner from a Glynn Co. police officer specifically telling him McMichael’s name and address, and that he could “…call him (McMichael) day or night..:”. Interesting.

    Local law enforcement directing a civilian to contact another civilian to handle a law enforcement matter. How extraordinary.

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      It is what I was saying it was: good ol’ boys setting up a lynch mob to protect their white neighborhood. It’s the old systemic racism network playing out in 2020 in front of the world. People recognized it for what it is because they have been seeing it for centuries in America. Of course it’s not as common, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

      The system is corrupt. Non whites get shafted more because the majority doesn’t care for people that don’t look like them; that’s normal human behavior. When people have their own children they are more empathetic to stories about children being harmed. When you see a picture of a victim that looks like your son or daughter you have a stronger emotional response.

      Americans have to look at each other as Americans. They have to look at each other as family. Once America does that things will improve significantly. All people are the children of God.

      By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: anyone who does not practice righteousness is not of God, nor the one who does not love his brother.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email