I was referring to this analysis from detective dipshit:

Even if everything was 'lawful' doesn't mean it's a good idea. There's a reason why we created professional police forces and try and dissuade posses

It does not matter. Even if he committed a crime right in front of the two wannabe heroes, there was no crime being committed when this went down, except for the wannabees getting a gun, which made their chase unlawful.

The original DA that dropped the case said there was such evidence. Of course, whether that person's word should be taken at face value is an entirely different issue. At this point I definitely would not take his word at face value. But I tend not to take anything at face value, especially when it is coming from media or a lawyer.

Let me get this straight. You think he attacked guys with guns because he was a burglar, but if he hadn't been a burglar, he would have run in the opposite direction or whatever. That doesn't even make sense. I'm guessing that unarmed burglars and unarmed non-burglars would behave pretty similarly in this circumstance. Burglars generally have the same aversion to dying as non-burglars.

Agreed.

He didn't commit any crimes, as far as I know, but he did peek inside the window of a house that was under construction, his lawyer confirmed this, but he didn't burglarize anything. I do not think the three perps saw him peer into the empty house, they just saw him "hauling ass". But yea, I'd like to see somigo try to back up even half of the things he's saying.

Ahmaud isn't the one on trial here but to those pointing to Ahmaud's past, there are limitations to what you can use in a court of law. I'm no lawyer, but I'm guessing his past convictions will hold no bearing on this case whatsoever.

At least we can agree that these two will be given the chance to be found not guilty, if that is what you mean by “fully exonerated”, by a jury of their peers in both a criminal and civil proceeding. I don’t think their odds are very good...

Video dude probably thought he was filming their exoneration. He's probably still puzzled Eventually it'll sink in. No video and these guys probably never get in any trouble.

Thank you. Saved me writing a post

FWIW FB has been worse than usual the last couple of days. People really showing their true ideologies

As the forum’s confirmed #1 centrist, let us have the patience and trust in the justice system to let the discovery process play out. If the case goes to trial let’s have the patience and wisdom to have the judge assigned to the case preside, have the prosecution make their case, the defendant make their defense, and have the jury render their decision.

Lol

Sure. But based on the information available so far its looking pretty tough for the defendents.

What's really hard is comprehending your level of ******ation. I would have expected that from other people but not from you.

Not a centrist but I'd agree that the good roles of the public in politics of crime are:

a) about how the justice system works - laws, process etc etc
and
b) that cases are correctly and fairly subjected to the justice system.

Trial by public is a disastrous idea.

Fancy yourself a reverse Atticus Fitch eh?

It's amazing how you perceive some to be law abiding citizens and others to be criminal burglars without the benefit of due process. There's no law against running in jeans and your oulda-shoulda-woulda- comments opined from your decidedly comfortable safe vantage point are very easy to say, different story when you're confronted by two armed men, with seconds to react before you're potentially shot. We also don't know the purpose of the car behind Mr Arbery with the driver filming or how Mr Arbery perceived it..

They felt there was a suspected burglar they shoulda waited for the cops instead of engaging in vigilantism. The fact that one's in the back while the other's driving and both were armed highlights how they were looking for a confrontation. The only merit to your post- which is unwitting on your part as I suspect you're mentioning it for your own very specific reason, is people calling it a lynching.Mr Arbery's father can get a pass saying this as his son has been gunned down, but I don't think cases like this should be tinged with emotive hypberbole, especially considering the racial issues in America.
But again I reckon you've your own reasons for saying this.
Or hopefully you're simply trolling in poor taste.

Georgia Code:
§ 16-11-102 - Pointing or aiming gun or pistol at another
O.C.G.A. 16-11-102 (2010)
16-11-102. Pointing or aiming gun or pistol at another

A person is guilty of a misdemeanor when he intentionally and without legal justification points or aims a gun or pistol at another, whether the gun or pistol is loaded or unloaded.

I am not from Glynn county (but I have been there). But the swamps in Alabama, North Florida, South Georgia is all pretty much the same. I love it, would love to grow old down there, but there are some sick people down there.

Of course it was an exaggeration. And yes, the crazies in eastern Oregon and Idaho are pretty similar.

But some folks are acting like the big issue here is whether the dead guy was wearing timberlands ... Somebody needs to shake these *******s. No one wondering why the McMichaels are chasing him with a gun.

And I'm not that old, but where I grew up people got beat with broken bones in race fights and the hunting black people for fun part is real from the 1950s, at least it was real where my father lived. And deep deep racism was still around for sure up in the mountains in the 90s. I remember multiple people telling me they hated Atlanta because of all the "n*****s". They tell me those things because I look and sound like a backwoods cracker too.

Things have changed but they haven't. This case is a good example.

I think they walk

Maybe but charging them with murder is the proper first step. Maybe one guy pleads to a negligent manslaughter charge in the end or the videographer gives evidence of intent to nail the shooter on a higher charge. This needs to play out past the initial investigation interviews with the suspects. Is it even clear how many guns were fired or which shot killed him?

I would have to look carefully at the Georgia statutes on homicide to have a real opinion on what charges would be most likely to stick with these guys.

As for the facts, I suspect that these idiots didn't jump in the truck with a specific plan to hunt and kill Arbery. If that had been the plan, I doubt they would have called the cops. More likely, they grabbed their guns and decided to play Billy Jack without a well thought out plan. When they confronted Arbery, the situation didn't go down like it does in the movies. That's not a surprise. People get scared when you do extremely reckless things like chase and confront them with guns.

My gut instinct is that they could be charged with felony murder if their attempt to detain Arbery at gunpoint was, indeed, a felony under Georgia law. If their attempt to detain Arbery at gunpoint was not a felony (LOL Georgia, if so), then a prosecutor might have a significantly easier time proving manslaughter than proving murder.

I'm different than you. Most of the truly memorable characters I know are from down there, but I didn't love it, and I certainly don't want to grow old down there.

I strongly agree that South Alabama, North Florida, and South Georgia are pretty much the same.