The Next Trayvon Martin Case?

candyx

Private
Belligerents
Minuteman
Apr 6, 2014
2,131
3,575
219
Again, which is my point. “Shall not be infringed” has been interpreted to mean sometimes, with tons of restrictions.

I’m sorry I didn’t put an aterisk next to it as I wrongly assumed people wouldn’t start nitpicking when the point was obviously about laws being interpreted.

If it makes you feel better, replace tank with nuclear warhead, cruise missile, or any other thing you want to replace it with.

If “shall not be infringed” wasn’t being interpreted, you’d be able to go to the store and buy an automatic rifle just like you can anything else.
Has anyone else experience poor customer service with Raytheon , purchase a Tomahawk in January . Dealt with a guy named Fred and got no where for a new triggering system.
 

E. Bryant

Gearhead
Belligerents
Oct 25, 2010
2,247
1,457
219
MI
Because trespass was the very first law broken, then it ramped up from there.
He trespassed in the common use of the term, but Georgia law appears to define it differently. It'll be interesting to see if this is the angle that the prosecutor takes in court.
 

BytorJr

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
Minuteman
Nov 28, 2018
614
405
69
But was Arbrey guilty of trespass?


Simply walking into the home under construction does not make him guilty of that crime. Also, it's not a felony, which changes the standard for citizen's arrest.
Again, not taking any side here as I'll wait for all the evidence, but having said that, the law clearly says this:

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.  Also remember, attorneys get paid to skew the table based on nuance to their clients side.

It could very well come down to whether or not side A can prove the victim had intent or Side B can prove there was no intent. How one determines that I'm not sure really sure other than the owner has said nothing has been stolen (so why did he want somebody watching??); but, this determination will be key as to how the trial ends. I'm maintaining I'll continue to observe the evidence, of which I am willing to guess we MAY have 25%. Once it goes to trial, hopefully we can have all the facts without bias from reporting agencies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: E. Bryant

BytorJr

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
Minuteman
Nov 28, 2018
614
405
69
That is 200% wrong. There are more than a few tanks in private hands an I know of 3 that are 100% live, all guns including main. How about a M35A1 gun truck with a quad 50 an two M60's. Don't try an count the Knee, 60 & 81mm mortars lives out there. Plus you have all the live towed shit as well. If you have the money an clean record you can own anything you want just ask Dick Chaney. Not many M50 Ontos around but enough 106mm RR's to fit more than a hand full if you come up with a hull.
I thought Cheney only needed a 28 ga shotgun, he doesn't need a tank to take care of bidness :):). He's like a slightly less powerful version of Cordell. Did Walker need a revolver to take down bad guys?
 

BytorJr

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
Minuteman
Nov 28, 2018
614
405
69
I though 90% on SH are either rocket scientists or mechanical engineers. I was wrong. 90% are attorneys.
I've dealt with attorneys so much the last 2 years I'm an "honorary" attorney. 🤣 Actually it should be more like this: 😭😭😭. Talk about a money sink!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Longshot231

Ravenworks

Semper-Fi "80-84"
Belligerents
Minuteman
Feb 8, 2019
1,701
2,198
119
North Coast
I've dealt with attorneys so much the last 2 years I'm an "honorary" attorney. 🤣 Actually it should be more like this: 😭😭😭. Talk about a money sink!
I donated about 35k to one working on two estate's.
I kept my foot in his ass for 3 years.
 

BytorJr

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
Minuteman
Nov 28, 2018
614
405
69
I donated about 35k to one working on two estate's.
I kept my foot in his ass for 3 years.
Sounds all too familiar sir and you're also an honorary :). Not blaming the attorney, so I'll say this...family is WAY overrated!!!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ravenworks

SN13

Sergeant
Belligerents
Feb 26, 2009
182
48
34
36
West Palm Beach, FL
That High School photo is very deceiving as you would not think they were one in the same person.

At least he doesn't have an attitude about it. Very nice, upstanding response. Not at all aggressive or threatening.

I'd say the McMichaels are going away after seeing this video.
 

Longshot231

Major Hide Member
Belligerents
Minuteman
Mar 8, 2018
2,321
8,417
119
That High School photo is very deceiving as you would not think they were one in the same person.

I watched the video in the article. I've seen that behavior and that attitude all to often. Pardon me for using stereotypes but that belligerent attitude seems much to prevalent whenever a white guy has an encounter with a black guy.

The black guy is going to do whatever he can to intimidate the white guy and show how tough he is. I've seen it too much. It's like a conditioned response with them. That video shows a lot about Mr. Arbery's mindset but watch the American Prvada spin the video another way.

They will show only the portion of the video where Mr. Arbery is on his knees explaining to the RACIST cops that he was just at the park on his day off, "rapping" and "chilling" when they started harassing him.

Prvada won't show the part when Mr. Arbery approaches the officer with his hands up in the air, moving excitedly, aggressively and quickly. Before the 2nd officer showed up, I would bet you that Mr. Arbery would have attacked the officer had he not been given the warning to back up. You can also bet that warning was given with his hand on his pistol.

That video confirms my suspicion that Mr. Arbery was a hot-head who didn't want any "cracker" cops asking him questions. He was also a hot-head who wanted to shove a shotgun up some "cracker's" ass and paid for that attempt with his life.

EDIT: For something to be funny, there has to be some truth to it:

 
Last edited:

E. Bryant

Gearhead
Belligerents
Oct 25, 2010
2,247
1,457
219
MI
I though 90% on SH are either rocket scientists or mechanical engineers. I was wrong. 90% are attorneys.
It's something I dabble in when I'm not handing out medical device, providing political consulting, or negotiating trade agreements. Hey, if Elon Musk can become a paper billionaire by pretending to know a bunch of stuff, then maybe I can at least get enough gain in wealth to buy a new optic and some reloading supplies. Hasn't happened yet, but gotta fake it until ya make it...
 

Longshot231

Major Hide Member
Belligerents
Minuteman
Mar 8, 2018
2,321
8,417
119
I though 90% on SH are either rocket scientists or mechanical engineers. I was wrong. 90% are attorneys.
I attended a seminar on self-defense shootings taught by an attorney one evening. He opened up the floor for questions.

I asked him about asserting self-defense without jeopardizing the fifth amendment right against self-incrimination.

Before he answered my question he said; "Sir, you sound a lot like a lawyer. Are you an attorney?"

I told him no but that I had too many ex-wives.

He replied, "That's why I got in to a legal career myself." Then he answered my question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BytorJr

Dthomas3523

Hall Monitor
Staff member
Hessian
Commercial Supporter
Online Training Access
Belligerents
Jan 31, 2018
7,556
8,571
119
South Texas
Again, not taking any side here as I'll wait for all the evidence, but having said that, the law clearly says this:

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.  Also remember, attorneys get paid to skew the table based on nuance to their clients side.

It could very well come down to whether or not side A can prove the victim had intent or Side B can prove there was no intent. How one determines that I'm not sure really sure other than the owner has said nothing has been stolen (so why did he want somebody watching??); but, this determination will be key as to how the trial ends. I'm maintaining I'll continue to observe the evidence, of which I am willing to guess we MAY have 25%. Once it goes to trial, hopefully we can have all the facts without bias from reporting agencies.
Intent would only need to be proven for a conviction. Typically the act is what gets you arrested and then intent is the job of the prosecutor.

Say I pull you over and you allow me to search your vehicle. I find narcotics hidden in the spare tire area. You just purchased the vehicle at an auction and claim you didn’t know it was there. I’m still going to arrest you (possibly with an intent to distribute charge if the amount of narcotics is enough). But the prosecutor might determine he either believes you or he thinks a jury would believe you, so the charges are dropped. Or you go to trial and a jury finds reasonable doubt and returns a not guilty verdict.

But at any time during that arrest you fought back, I would be justified in using the necessary amount of force up to and including deadly force if necessary. Even if it turns out you actually had no idea the narcotics were in the vehicle. The facts *at the time* supported my probable cause to arrest you.

So, in this case, as long as they can articulate their probable cause they believed he had possible committed a felony, they don’t need to show any intent.
 

Dthomas3523

Hall Monitor
Staff member
Hessian
Commercial Supporter
Online Training Access
Belligerents
Jan 31, 2018
7,556
8,571
119
South Texas
Basically, the exact time the two accused initiated the attempted arrest (by either telling him to stop or driving up aggressively with weapons......whichever the courts decide is that moment), the clock stops.

At this point, only the past matters. Nothing in the future. What they knew previously about the subject, the felony/s they believe just occurred in the past few months and the one they believe they just witnessed.......is all that matters. They have to be able to articulate why they have probable cause to arrest this person. And nothing that took place afterwards or they did not have knowledge of (videos or police reports for example) can be used as an articulable fact.

Now, if they can articulate this properly, and they in fact do have probable cause......the clock starts again. The clock stops at the point of aggression. If the subject initiated the aggression and tried to take the weapon........justifiable homicide. If the two accused started beating on him or whatnot, that’s a different story. We all saw the video of them fighting for the shotgun. What we did not see is the beginning of that encounter. Unless a witness comes forward and gives a difference account, the two accused’s account will have to be taken as truth and the subject initiated the aggression and attempted to take the shotgun away.

So, unless some other witness shows up, it’s basically a case of articulating their probable cause. Which honestly, is very possible. Personally speaking, from what I’ve seen, I think it’s more reasonable suspicion and I’d need to talk to the subject before developing probable cause for an arrest. But, there is a very real possibility of more facts being known by the two accused that pushes it into probable cause.
 

Longshot231

Major Hide Member
Belligerents
Minuteman
Mar 8, 2018
2,321
8,417
119
Basically, the exact time the two accused initiated the attempted arrest (by either telling him to stop or driving up aggressively with weapons......whichever the courts decide is that moment), the clock stops.

At this point, only the past matters. Nothing in the future. What they knew previously about the subject, the felony/s they believe just occurred in the past few months and the one they believe they just witnessed.......is all that matters. They have to be able to articulate why they have probable cause to arrest this person. And nothing that took place afterwards or they did not have knowledge of (videos or police reports for example) can be used as an articulable fact.

Now, if they can articulate this properly, and they in fact do have probable cause......the clock starts again. The clock stops at the point of aggression. If the subject initiated the aggression and tried to take the weapon........justifiable homicide. If the two accused started beating on him or whatnot, that’s a different story. We all saw the video of them fighting for the shotgun. What we did not see is the beginning of that encounter. Unless a witness comes forward and gives a difference account, the two accused’s account will have to be taken as truth and the subject initiated the aggression and attempted to take the shotgun away.

So, unless some other witness shows up, it’s basically a case of articulating their probable cause. Which honestly, is very possible. Personally speaking, from what I’ve seen, I think it’s more reasonable suspicion and I’d need to talk to the subject before developing probable cause for an arrest. But, there is a very real possibility of more facts being known by the two accused that pushes it into probable cause.
Keep in mind that the defendants don't have to articulate anything at all. They can still assert their 5th amendment rights and not take the witness stand.

Their attorneys will have to do the articulating. In some states, if a defendant asserts self-defense, the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that he or she was justified in using deadly force.

Florida, for example, is different. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that the self-defense assertion is weak or fallacious. I don't know if Georgia requires the defense to prove a self-defense assertion or not.

If I were the McMichaels' attorney, I would keep them off of the witness stand and make the prosecution earn their paycheck. If either of the McMichaels gives up their 5th amendment right against self-incrimination the prosecutor could shred them during cross-examination.
 

Longshot231

Major Hide Member
Belligerents
Minuteman
Mar 8, 2018
2,321
8,417
119
@Dthomas3523 and @Longshot231

Would either of you care to state your credentials?

You both seem more knowledgeable than laymen on these legal issues.

Thanks
No credentials other than just been in a court room a lot. My current job requires me to look at a lot of rules, regulations, polices and law. That's all that I care to reveal about myself now. My current employer wouldn't appreciate it if I said much more about my identity.

What are your credentials?
 

Longshot231

Major Hide Member
Belligerents
Minuteman
Mar 8, 2018
2,321
8,417
119
That High School photo is very deceiving as you would not think they were one in the same person.

There is also another aspect with this video. If I were an attorney and was the defense attorney, this video would be subpoenaed and used as evidence to show that Mr. Arbery was a hot-head and reveals something about his mindset toward attacking first and asking questions later.

The prosecution would probably object with a flimsy excuse of citing relevancy.

If the Judge sustains the objection, the Jury may not like that. It would also be an appealable assignment of error should the McMichaels be convicted.

Like I said, the Jury may not like that. Even though they are supposed to rule on the evidence they have been exposed to, they will wonder "what are they trying to hide from us? Do they think we are too stupid to watch the video and judge for ourselves?"

If the Judge overrules the objection the smartest thing the prosecution could do would be to keep their mouths shut about the video and let the Defense run with it. Why?

1) If the prosecution cross examines any witnesses about this video, they run the risk of an appellate court ruling in favor of the defense. In other words, they cannot use the same evidence they objected to in order to cross examine any witnesses about it. They cannot have it both ways. They can't object to the video then use it to cross examine a witness.

2) If they do object to it and have to twist the events in their favor to secure a conviction then they would have to do everything they can to throw the officers in the video and the Glynn County Police Department under the bus. Politically, that may not be a very smart move.
 

rth1800

Two Star General
Belligerents
Sep 16, 2009
6,799
2,702
219
I was not questioning your credentials in a critical way. I thought you both sounded knowledgeable.

Regarding law, I have no credentials whatsoever.

My experiences with LE mostly are related to being a property owner over several counties. I have had literally hundreds of vandalism, trespass, theft and poaching events. Most of which went unpunished even though I had photos, names and details .

I have been sued twice over property boundaries.

I have received two seatbelt tickets.

That is the extent of it.
 

Longshot231

Major Hide Member
Belligerents
Minuteman
Mar 8, 2018
2,321
8,417
119
I was not questioning your credentials in a critical way. I thought you both sounded knowledgeable.

Regarding law, I have no credentials whatsoever.

My experiences with LE mostly are related to being a property owner over several counties. I have had literally hundreds of vandalism, trespass, theft and poaching events. Most of which went unpunished even though I had photos, names and details .

I have been sued twice over property boundaries.

I have received two seatbelt tickets.

That is the extent of it.
Thanks for the complement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rth1800

Longshot231

Major Hide Member
Belligerents
Minuteman
Mar 8, 2018
2,321
8,417
119
This doesn't look good for the defendants. The sister of the younger McMichael, took a photo of the deceased Mr. Arbery and posted it on Snapchat.

That was really bad taste in the court of public opinion. It also makes her a material witness as she "heard the commotion." The prosecution will be able to submit those photos as evidence. It's true they can always use the official crime scene photos but by using the sister's pictures they will be able to plant a seed in the Jury's mind that the entire McMichael family are a bunch of ghouls.

The prosecution won't have to say that. All they have to do is put her on the witness stand and ask her some objective questions and submit the photos as evidence.

Buried in the article is her statements about the McMichaels accepting her non-white boyfriends. So hopefully, the defense can use her to show the Jury that the Defendants are not racists.

https://www.the-sun.com/news/837071/sister-ahmaud-arbery-killer-picture-dead-body-snapchat/
 

Dthomas3523

Hall Monitor
Staff member
Hessian
Commercial Supporter
Online Training Access
Belligerents
Jan 31, 2018
7,556
8,571
119
South Texas
Keep in mind that the defendants don't have to articulate anything at all. They can still assert their 5th amendment rights and not take the witness stand.

Their attorneys will have to do the articulating. In some states, if a defendant asserts self-defense, the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that he or she was justified in using deadly force.

Florida, for example, is different. The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show that the self-defense assertion is weak or fallacious. I don't know if Georgia requires the defense to prove a self-defense assertion or not.

If I were the McMichaels' attorney, I would keep them off of the witness stand and make the prosecution earn their paycheck. If either of the McMichaels gives up their 5th amendment right against self-incrimination the prosecutor could shred them during cross-examination.
Pleading the 5th is the absolute worst thing for this case.

Prosecutors will show they knew the house was completely under construction and argue they knew it wasn’t a felony (especially with the father’s prior LE).

Prosecutor will also argue they had prior knowledge of multiple individuals in that property over the course of several months. So at the very very best they just knew he fit a description (reasonable suspicion and not enough).

The only chance these guys have is to explain themselves.
 

Dthomas3523

Hall Monitor
Staff member
Hessian
Commercial Supporter
Online Training Access
Belligerents
Jan 31, 2018
7,556
8,571
119
South Texas
Not to mention, jury will have a chance of thinking these men aren’t sure enough of their actions to speak up. While legally they aren’t allowed to take that into consideration as its their right to plead the 5th......humans are humans.

Prosecuting attorney just has to mention it, defense attorneys objects and jury is instructed to not take that into account. But seed is planted.

Not to mention, this isn’t a standard self defense situation. These two attempted to detain/arrest someone.

If they articulated their PC in the initial police report and its good enough, defense attorney may let that speak for itself. If it just says “we saw him running and tried to stop him,” they are absolutely going to have to get their articulates facts out in the open somehow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5x5 and Ghost1941

Longshot231

Major Hide Member
Belligerents
Minuteman
Mar 8, 2018
2,321
8,417
119
@Dthomas3523, those are all good points. Does Georgia require the defendants to prove their assertion of self-defense or is the burden of proof placed on the prosecution?

That affects the way both parties approach the case.
 

SN13

Sergeant
Belligerents
Feb 26, 2009
182
48
34
36
West Palm Beach, FL
The photo was taken from approx. this spot: https://www.google.com/maps/@31.123...4!1sZXDJZW7jyuqzMVbC-JRqCw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Right on the corner where my previous map put the McMichael's Truck.

Now..... She "heard the commotion" so that means her home is Very Near the corner.

It's human nature to approach from "Your side" and you wouldn't circle the scene to take a photo. That places her residence on the South/East side of Satilla, and very near the intersection.
 

Dthomas3523

Hall Monitor
Staff member
Hessian
Commercial Supporter
Online Training Access
Belligerents
Jan 31, 2018
7,556
8,571
119
South Texas
@Dthomas3523, those are all good points. Does Georgia require the defendants to prove their assertion of self-defense or is the burden of proof placed on the prosecution?

That affects the way both parties approach the case.
That I don’t know. I’d imagine it’s on the state, as they didn’t arrest them the first go around.
 

Dthomas3523

Hall Monitor
Staff member
Hessian
Commercial Supporter
Online Training Access
Belligerents
Jan 31, 2018
7,556
8,571
119
South Texas
Either way, public won’t be happy. They go free, people lose their shit without being neutral and looking at the facts.

They go to jail and those same people just point out that it took them two months to arrest them.

And for the two accused, they either go to prison or they have to move away and basically hide for quite a while. Regardless of the legality, they made a fairly poor decision and whatever the outcome, their lives will not be the same.
 

Longshot231

Major Hide Member
Belligerents
Minuteman
Mar 8, 2018
2,321
8,417
119
He never learned what to say which could of saved his life " Hands Up Don't Shoot "
Exactly. He was a hot-head and the police body-cam from 2017 showed that. He may have lived if he had put his hands up or run the other direction.

That same body-cam video may offer us a peak into his mindset as well.

Because he had run-ins with the police prior to the shooting he may have thought that they would take him away for good. Having been arrested before he probably didn't want to go that way again. So in his mind, the best way out of an arrest is fight the guy with a gun. It's still a foolish move.
 

Dthomas3523

Hall Monitor
Staff member
Hessian
Commercial Supporter
Online Training Access
Belligerents
Jan 31, 2018
7,556
8,571
119
South Texas
Exactly. He was a hot-head and the police body-cam from 2017 showed that. He may have lived if he had put his hands up or run the other direction.

That same body-cam video may offer us a peak into his mindset as well.

Because he had run-ins with the police prior to the shooting he may have thought that they would take him away for good. Having been arrested before he probably didn't want to go that way again. So in his mind, the best way out of an arrest is fight the guy with a gun. It's still a foolish move.
To play devil’s advocate a bit, none of the videos that are likely him in the house show him taking or damaging anything.

His state of mind probably wasn’t expecting a truck with armed men running up on him for walking into a property under construction.

They are seeing who they believe to be a criminal.

He is seeing what he believes is two armed men trying to harm him.

What would any of us do if say, you jaywalked. You know it’s wrong, but you also know it’s something trivial. And two people run up on you like this? Do you put your hands up and do what they say?

I’m in no way saying he wasn’t doing shit he shouldn’t be doing. Just attempting to put myself in his shoes.

These situations make me think of the below pic. Each party sees/interpreted something completely different and neither knows the whole story. Unfortunately this time, someone died.



D430E76B-97CF-444F-B660-8851364F4F7F.jpeg
 

rth1800

Two Star General
Belligerents
Sep 16, 2009
6,799
2,702
219
I still come down on the “Don’t tug the two row” side.

I cannot see any outcome other than being shot at contact range by a shotgun which I find most distasteful.

I might stop, I might run away, might evade behind truck or tree, might wait for better chance at defense. Just not grabbing a gun pointed at me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: supercorndogs

Dthomas3523

Hall Monitor
Staff member
Hessian
Commercial Supporter
Online Training Access
Belligerents
Jan 31, 2018
7,556
8,571
119
South Texas
Unfortunately the video is panned away on almost the most important part, the initial physical encounter between the two.

This is a large reason why LEO’s typically don’t go hands on with a weapon out when solo unless subject is prone out (even then you holster once in arm’s reach). You introduce a gun into what is currently not a gun fight. Almost assuredly turns into a fight for a gun now.

Mistake getting that close to him with weapon out, and mistake trying to take the shotgun from him.
 

rth1800

Two Star General
Belligerents
Sep 16, 2009
6,799
2,702
219
Appeared to be exactly the case on my small screen. More than once. That is why I thought drugs might be involved. Someone posted negative on that.
 

Ravenworks

Semper-Fi "80-84"
Belligerents
Minuteman
Feb 8, 2019
1,701
2,198
119
North Coast
It's something I dabble in when I'm not handing out medical device, providing political consulting, or negotiating trade agreements. Hey, if Elon Musk can become a paper billionaire by pretending to know a bunch of stuff, then maybe I can at least get enough gain in wealth to buy a new optic and some reloading supplies. Hasn't happened yet, but gotta fake it until ya make it...
Fuck,you should send that resume to *****
I heard the Gaga needs help.
 
Last edited:

BytorJr

Gunny Sergeant
Belligerents
Minuteman
Nov 28, 2018
614
405
69
Intent would only need to be proven for a conviction. Typically the act is what gets you arrested and then intent is the job of the prosecutor.

Say I pull you over and you allow me to search your vehicle. I find narcotics hidden in the spare tire area. You just purchased the vehicle at an auction and claim you didn’t know it was there. I’m still going to arrest you (possibly with an intent to distribute charge if the amount of narcotics is enough). But the prosecutor might determine he either believes you or he thinks a jury would believe you, so the charges are dropped. Or you go to trial and a jury finds reasonable doubt and returns a not guilty verdict.

But at any time during that arrest you fought back, I would be justified in using the necessary amount of force up to and including deadly force if necessary. Even if it turns out you actually had no idea the narcotics were in the vehicle. The facts *at the time* supported my probable cause to arrest you.

So, in this case, as long as they can articulate their probable cause they believed he had possible committed a felony, they don’t need to show any intent.
No disagreement. This is going to be a very interesting and likely very technical trial forthcoming should it get to that stage.
 

rth1800

Two Star General
Belligerents
Sep 16, 2009
6,799
2,702
219
What is it about the winter coat and nothing underneath while others are in T shirts? Is that a hood style or was the guy just odd?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tokay444