Trayvon Martin all over again.

[Lost_in_the_HTTP]

A white judge says it's OK.


If they convict, the defense can appeal.

If they acquit, what options are there? Can a case be made for bias and re-try based on lack of jeopardy?

 

[HomerJS]

A white judge says it's OK.


If they convict, the defense can appeal.

If they acquit, what options are there? Can a case be made for bias and re-try based on lack of jeopardy?

I think he was hinting it was not ok but the law ties his hands. I don't know much about jury selection rules in GA but usually lawyers only get a small fixed amount they can eliminate without cause.

 

[HumblePie]

@HumblePie why was he supposed to stop again?

Dumbass I never said anything of the sort. I said the McMichael's in Georgia have every right, like another other citizen, to affect a citizens arrest in the state. The issue in this case isn't really the citizens arrest in so far as it pertains to the shooting, only in the mindset for malice. People have every right to be armed in this country which is the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. Carrying a firearm, even in plain view, cannot legally ever be considered a threat. That has been ruled upon by SCOTUS several times and would be literally un-Constitutional otherwise. So a citizen can be armed, and follow another citizen, and attempt to stop them to ask them a question. All of those are LEGAL actions anyone can do at any time in this country. What cannot be done is pointing a weapon at someone to stop them. That is the crux of the case.

Since the various trials have been starting up, been keeping up with them. The Ahmaud cause is going to come down to the credibility of the McMichaels in their assertion that Ahmaud charged at Travis first. Since the video evidence doesn't show us the crucial moment when Ahmaud is running at Travis and if Travis had pointed his weapon at Ahmaud first or not. If Travis pointed his gun first in an attempt to stop Ahmaud, then that is a use of force not allowed by citizens to affect a citizens arrest on someone. It gives Ahmaud the right to self defense in that scenario. If Ahmaud rushed at Travis first when he hopped out of the truck just because he was mad at them, then Travis has the right to self defense. Right now the prosecution in the prelims is doing everything they can to get anything that could bolster the McMichael's credibility thrown out because that is what it is going to come down to in that case. I don't know the outcome and really don't care either way. Unless there is some other contextual evidence, such as another direct eye witness, that comes out which helps illuminate that key moment, it will forever be a he said/she said argument case based on credibility.

 

[HumblePie]

I have too much time on my hands, so used the search function. Just for Breonna Taylor there were these posts that might qualify

Breonna Taylor - Charges Against Officers

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

forums.anandtech.com

Wow, where in my post was I making any of the claims laid out here? I linked a couple of videos talking about the various untruths floating around the whole scenario which most of the media at the time were pushing to the public. I did state I didn't think her family should have been paid out a massive amount before the investigation was finished. There is a reason I never was mad at Walker shooting at the cops when they busted down the door either because it is a justified shooting to shoot someone busting down your door if you don't know who they are. I just said that the cops being there was appropriate and the whole thing was a tragedy overall. While I don't think her death was deserved or anything to celebrate, her past criminal like behavior doesn't let me lend any sympathy to her outcome though. Wouldn't if she was white, hispanic, asian, or whatever. I am completely of the mindset that if you play stupid games you may win stupid prizes.

 

[brycejones]

Dumbass I never said anything of the sort. I said the McMichael's in Georgia have every right, like another other citizen, to affect a citizens arrest in the state. The issue in this case isn't really the citizens arrest in so far as it pertains to the shooting, only in the mindset for malice. People have every right to be armed in this country which is the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. Carrying a firearm, even in plain view, cannot legally ever be considered a threat. That has been ruled upon by SCOTUS several times and would be literally un-Constitutional otherwise. So a citizen can be armed, and follow another citizen, and attempt to stop them to ask them a question. All of those are LEGAL actions anyone can do at any time in this country. What cannot be done is pointing a weapon at someone to stop them. That is the crux of the case.

Since the various trials have been starting up, been keeping up with them. The Ahmaud cause is going to come down to the credibility of the McMichaels in their assertion that Ahmaud charged at Travis first. Since the video evidence doesn't show us the crucial moment when Ahmaud is running at Travis and if Travis had pointed his weapon at Ahmaud first or not. If Travis pointed his gun first in an attempt to stop Ahmaud, then that is a use of force not allowed by citizens to affect a citizens arrest on someone. It gives Ahmaud the right to self defense in that scenario. If Ahmaud rushed at Travis first when he hopped out of the truck just because he was mad at them, then Travis has the right to self defense. Right now the prosecution in the prelims is doing everything they can to get anything that could bolster the McMichael's credibility thrown out because that is what it is going to come down to in that case. I don't know the outcome and really don't care either way. Unless there is some other contextual evidence, such as another direct eye witness, that comes out which helps illuminate that key moment, it will forever be a he said/she said argument case based on credibility.

you have no credibility here clown

 

[Paratus]

Dumbass I never said anything of the sort. I said the McMichael's in Georgia have every right, like another other citizen, to affect a citizens arrest in the state. The issue in this case isn't really the citizens arrest in so far as it pertains to the shooting, only in the mindset for malice. People have every right to be armed in this country which is the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. Carrying a firearm, even in plain view, cannot legally ever be considered a threat. That has been ruled upon by SCOTUS several times and would be literally un-Constitutional otherwise. So a citizen can be armed, and follow another citizen, and attempt to stop them to ask them a question. All of those are LEGAL actions anyone can do at any time in this country. What cannot be done is pointing a weapon at someone to stop them. That is the crux of the case.

Since the various trials have been starting up, been keeping up with them. The Ahmaud cause is going to come down to the credibility of the McMichaels in their assertion that Ahmaud charged at Travis first. Since the video evidence doesn't show us the crucial moment when Ahmaud is running at Travis and if Travis had pointed his weapon at Ahmaud first or not. If Travis pointed his gun first in an attempt to stop Ahmaud, then that is a use of force not allowed by citizens to affect a citizens arrest on someone. It gives Ahmaud the right to self defense in that scenario. If Ahmaud rushed at Travis first when he hopped out of the truck just because he was mad at them, then Travis has the right to self defense. Right now the prosecution in the prelims is doing everything they can to get anything that could bolster the McMichael's credibility thrown out because that is what it is going to come down to in that case. I don't know the outcome and really don't care either way. Unless there is some other contextual evidence, such as another direct eye witness, that comes out which helps illuminate that key moment, it will forever be a he said/she said argument case based on credibility.

Qualified immunity of cops says your first paragraph is useless as simply being armed is more than enough reason to kill you without legal repercussions for the state (cop)

States with stand your ground laws are more than enough legal justification for a citizen to shoot someone pulling what the defendants did in this case. Drive aggressively, block a runner, get out openly armed then your asking to be shot by a runner concealed carrying. The runner can be judged by 12 instead of carried by 6 - isn’t that how it’s supposed to go?

So maybe this fiction of being able to legally take a hostage makes sense in your head but it sure sounds like a good way for folks to end up dead.

 

[FirNaTine]

I think he was hinting it was not ok but the law ties his hands. I don't know much about jury selection rules in GA but usually lawyers only get a small fixed amount they can eliminate without cause.

If I understood what he was saying, and the accompanying legal articles, the judge felt the dismissals showed a pattern of discrimination, but that the defense attorneys provided a plausible alternative explanation for each of them individually. So I would agree it was the judges way of saying it may be legal but wasn't right.

I am not sure how to address it, without creating some sort of strict rule that could have unintended consequences. For example that if the race of the defendant and victim were different that at least 1/4 or 1/3 of the jury pool should reflect each party. This could be waived by mutual consent of both attorneys and judicial approval. But where does that stop? Just race? What about sexual orientation, trans identity, religion, multi-ethnicity, etc.? How would we find a representative pool to draw from in all scenarios? Have each potential juror fill out a form selecting all kinds of demographic info?

I also understand some states are limiting or eliminating peremptory (discretionary with no cause needed to be stated) and only allowing for cause challenges. Others allow the judge to intervene if an "independent observer" were to find the challenges/dismissals discriminatory. Getting something like that legislated on a federal level, with the ability for that particular piece to be quickly reviewed by an appeals court or federal court judge/panel would also be a hard feat to accomplish, but might be the best solution without implementing a quota type system.

 

[HomerJS]

Dumbass I never said anything of the sort. I said the McMichael's in Georgia have every right, like another other citizen, to affect a citizens arrest in the state. The issue in this case isn't really the citizens arrest in so far as it pertains to the shooting, only in the mindset for malice. People have every right to be armed in this country which is the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. Carrying a firearm, even in plain view, cannot legally ever be considered a threat. That has been ruled upon by SCOTUS several times and would be literally un-Constitutional otherwise. So a citizen can be armed, and follow another citizen, and attempt to stop them to ask them a question. All of those are LEGAL actions anyone can do at any time in this country. What cannot be done is pointing a weapon at someone to stop them. That is the crux of the case.

Since the various trials have been starting up, been keeping up with them. The Ahmaud cause is going to come down to the credibility of the McMichaels in their assertion that Ahmaud charged at Travis first. Since the video evidence doesn't show us the crucial moment when Ahmaud is running at Travis and if Travis had pointed his weapon at Ahmaud first or not. If Travis pointed his gun first in an attempt to stop Ahmaud, then that is a use of force not allowed by citizens to affect a citizens arrest on someone. It gives Ahmaud the right to self defense in that scenario. If Ahmaud rushed at Travis first when he hopped out of the truck just because he was mad at them, then Travis has the right to self defense. Right now the prosecution in the prelims is doing everything they can to get anything that could bolster the McMichael's credibility thrown out because that is what it is going to come down to in that case. I don't know the outcome and really don't care either way. Unless there is some other contextual evidence, such as another direct eye witness, that comes out which helps illuminate that key moment, it will forever be a he said/she said argument case based on credibility.

Your so called premise assumes everyone is treated equally when it comes to carrying. They aren't. Black people are assumed guilty of something for open carrying.

That's why Kyle Rittenhouse was allowed to walk right by the cops after shooting and killing people
That's why Tamir Rice and John Crawford were killed for the crime of open carrying in an open carry state. Rice was carrying a toy.

There is already an attempted fix on this case by kicking off all but 1 black juror. Remnants of the old south. All white jury to acquit white people of crimes against blacks and convict the other way around.

 

[himkhan]

It's almost as if they are setting up the Powderkeg moment so many pretend they welcome and that many will remember for centuries to come. Sometimes we need to revisit recent history lessons and relearn them all over again with a new set of actors. We have gone backwards from the 1960's.

This is what one should expect when they shift their gear to R instead of D

 

[HumblePie]

Qualified immunity of cops says your first paragraph is useless as simply being armed is more than enough reason to kill you without legal repercussions for the state (cop)

States with stand your ground laws are more than enough legal justification for a citizen to shoot someone pulling what the defendants did in this case. Drive aggressively, block a runner, get out openly armed then your asking to be shot by a runner concealed carrying. The runner can be judged by 12 instead of carried by 6 - isn’t that how it’s supposed to go?

So maybe this fiction of being able to legally take a hostage makes sense in your head but it sure sounds like a good way for folks to end up dead.

1) Wrong. Cops cannot shot you just because you are armed. Period. Many a cop has gone to jail over that. You live in a fairy tale world or a different country if you believe that to be the case for the US.

2) Wrong again. Stand your ground doesn't give anyone carte blanch to shoot people just because they want to or feel frightened over anything.

In both cases a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm or death has to be present. Just because someone is armed next to you doesn't give you automatic reasonable fear. Being armed is a LEGAL activity. I know most of the clowns around here don't like that in our country, but it is the law of the land. In order to be armed, you have to CARRY the gun, and the 2nd Amendment doesn't state concealed guns only so as not to upset some little snowflakes sensibilities at the mere sight of a gun being held by another person. Got a little fact for you, full size shotguns aren't something one can conceal readily on a person's body. So the only way to be "armed" with one is in your hand or a sling. Which again, nothing in the 2nd Amendment states as person has to have their firearms attached to their body with a sling.

As I stated, the crux of the case is who started the activity of using attempted lethal force first in this case. If Travis pointed his gun at Ahmaud first to get him to stop, then that is the illegal escalation of force and Ahmaud has a right to defend himself. Which if that is the case Travis will go to jail for that. If the case is Ahmaud decided to rush Travis first because he was angry at them or having an unreasonable fear of people being armed around him then it was justified self defense.

The issue as I see it for how this case will play out is based on credibility. There is no contention on how Ahmaud was killed. That is on video and not in dispute. What is not on video is who escalated the use of force first. The only evidence we, the public, have seen to that is witness testimony from the McMichaels and Rodney who are all being charged right now. So it is literally up to the jury to decide their credibility on their testimony. Unless there was another witness, or some other video footage, the prosecution has nothing but to go after their credibility. Which is why every prelim motion the prosecution was making so far was to impede anything that would bolster their credibility or reduce the credibility of Ahmaud. The defense is obviously making motions for the opposite.

I don't really care if you don't understand how this case is going to play out or how the world works. Maybe you should take a few civics courses from a non woke school?

 

[HumblePie]

Your so called premise assumes everyone is treated equally when it comes to carrying. They aren't. Black people are assumed guilty of something for open carrying.

That's why Kyle Rittenhouse was allowed to walk right by the cops after shooting and killing people
That's why Tamir Rice and John Crawford were killed for the crime of open carrying in an open carry state. Rice was carrying a toy.

There is already an attempted fix on this case by kicking off all but 1 black juror. Remnants of the old south. All white jury to acquit white people of crimes against blacks and convict the other way around.

Keep race baiting, keep race baiting and believing in non sense.

 

[HomerJS]

Keep race baiting, keep race baiting and believing in non sense.

I notice you didn't address my examples. Deflect is a favorite tactic of the right to avoid answering tough questions.

Try it again, Kyle Rittenhouse vs Tamir Rice and John Crawford

 

[HumblePie]

I notice you didn't address my examples. Deflect is a favorite tactic of the right to avoid answering tough questions.

Try it again, Kyle Rittenhouse vs Tamir Rice and John Crawford

I noticed you were using fictional opinioned strawman samples that aren't worth the time or effort to address. When you start from such a false premise as what you stated, there is no point in trying to address point you are making as there would be literally no point to it. When you have an actual point to make in this case with real comparative examples, then we'll talk on that.

 

[HomerJS]

I noticed you were using fictional opinioned strawman samples that aren't worth the time or effort to address. When you start from such a false premise as what you stated, there is no point in trying to address point you are making as there would be literally no point to it. When you have an actual point to make in this case with real comparative examples, then we'll talk on that.

Fictional? Those were real events. Don't be so fucking lazy just to avoid being wrong.

You said...
"Carrying a firearm, even in plain view, cannot legally ever be considered a threat."
"Cops cannot shot you just because you are armed. "

I told you that is incorrect and gave real examples. Your response was to deflect.

 

[Pohemi]

1) Wrong. Cops cannot shot you just because you are armed. Period. Many a cop has gone to jail over that. You live in a fairy tale world or a different country if you believe that to be the case for the US.

2) Wrong again. Stand your ground doesn't give anyone carte blanch to shoot people just because they want to or feel frightened over anything.

I don't really care if you don't understand how this case is going to play out or how the world works. Maybe you should take a few civics courses from a non woke school?

Keep race baiting, keep race baiting and believing in non sense.

I noticed you were using fictional opinioned strawman samples that aren't worth the time or effort to address. When you start from such a false premise...

Strawmen, false premises, misrepresentation, and misinformation are your fucking bread and butter, you clown.

And your "legal analyses" and opinions based upon bullshit are as silly and untrue as ever. Fuck off, c*nt.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Strawmen, false premises, misrepresentation, and misinformation are your fucking bread and butter, you clown.

And your "legal analyses" and opinions based upon bullshit are as silly and untrue as ever. Fuck off, c*nt.

Just wait until he links to amren again, lol.

 

[Paratus]

1) Wrong. Cops cannot shot you just because you are armed. Period. Many a cop has gone to jail over that. You live in a fairy tale world or a different country if you believe that to be the case for the US.

2) Wrong again. Stand your ground doesn't give anyone carte blanch to shoot people just because they want to or feel frightened over anything.

In both cases a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm or death has to be present. Just because someone is armed next to you doesn't give you automatic reasonable fear. Being armed is a LEGAL activity. I know most of the clowns around here don't like that in our country, but it is the law of the land. In order to be armed, you have to CARRY the gun, and the 2nd Amendment doesn't state concealed guns only so as not to upset some little snowflakes sensibilities at the mere sight of a gun being held by another person. Got a little fact for you, full size shotguns aren't something one can conceal readily on a person's body. So the only way to be "armed" with one is in your hand or a sling. Which again, nothing in the 2nd Amendment states as person has to have their firearms attached to their body with a sling.

As I stated, the crux of the case is who started the activity of using attempted lethal force first in this case. If Travis pointed his gun at Ahmaud first to get him to stop, then that is the illegal escalation of force and Ahmaud has a right to defend himself. Which if that is the case Travis will go to jail for that. If the case is Ahmaud decided to rush Travis first because he was angry at them or having an unreasonable fear of people being armed around him then it was justified self defense.

The issue as I see it for how this case will play out is based on credibility. There is no contention on how Ahmaud was killed. That is on video and not in dispute. What is not on video is who escalated the use of force first. The only evidence we, the public, have seen to that is witness testimony from the McMichaels and Rodney who are all being charged right now. So it is literally up to the jury to decide their credibility on their testimony. Unless there was another witness, or some other video footage, the prosecution has nothing but to go after their credibility. Which is why every prelim motion the prosecution was making so far was to impede anything that would bolster their credibility or reduce the credibility of Ahmaud. The defense is obviously making motions for the opposite.

I don't really care if you don't understand how this case is going to play out or how the world works. Maybe you should take a few civics courses from a non woke school?

Lol Look how naive you are!

In the first case, in the real world 9/10 police will be acquitted for shooting someone for any reason. If they have a firearm that'll go to 999/1000.

It's so telling that you keep throwing out "who attempted to use lethal force" and then try to compare as equal someone who's armed and has agressively used a vehicle to attempt to detain someone with Ahmaud who "rushed" at someone. Aguably "rushing" was simply trying to escape the illegal detention.

 

[JD50]

I don't even know why you guys engage with him, he's been proven wrong so many times on this forum it's almost impressive. He doesn't argue in good faith.

 

[Pohemi]

I don't even know why you guys engage with him, he's been proven wrong so many times on this forum it's almost impressive. He doesn't argue in good faith.

Yeah...none of his nonsense is stated in good faith, and I know it's pointless to state what a dishonest and disingenuous clown he is. It's admittedly like throwing tomatoes at an offender in the stocks.

It makes me laugh reading his BS though...it's the only thing that prevents me from dwelling on the tens of millions of daft c*nts in the US that are as dishonest and maladjusted as he is.

 

[HomerJS]

Who are they?

Want to see a flaming member of that group, check the posts of @HumblePie on the last few pages, my response to him and his deflection

 

[sportage]

This is going to be a trial buried under legalities and technicalities. It will be amazing if the truth ever comes out. They might as well send the jury home.

And remember, this took place during the reign of Donald Trump when hate was through the roof. Now, when things have settled down a bit, what happened proves even more shocking. During the reign of Trump, this type of incident was just another day. An average day under Donald Trump.

 

[pcgeek11]

We have gone backwards from the 1960's.

No, we have not gone backwards from the 60's.

We have gone way far forward from the 1960's.

Three bathrooms.
Separate water fountains.
Separate schools, buses.
Black people had to go to the rear of the Dairy Queen for service.

 

[rmacd02]

No, we have not gone backwards from the 60's.

We have gone way far forward from the 1960's.

Three bathrooms.
Separate water fountains.
Separate schools, buses.
Black people had to go to the rear of the Dairy Queen for service.

Mark Twain once wrote, "It is better to be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

You did not know this, though.

 

[Vic]

No, we have not gone backwards from the 60's.

We have gone way far forward from the 1960's.

Three bathrooms.
Separate water fountains.
Separate schools, buses.
Black people had to go to the rear of the Dairy Queen for service.

All that, and yet somehow it's still okay to hunt another human being down and kill them, and pieces of shit will still go to desperate lengths to apologize for that by pointing at far how far we've come.

 

[rmacd02]

And the same people will, in the same breath, tell us how we are the greatest country in the world.