Posted on 05/18/2020 2:59:21 PM PDT by wanganghi
BRUNSWICK, Ga. (AP) — Justice for Ahmaud Arbery, a black man killed during a pursuit by a white man and his son in Georgia, isn't just prison time for his killers — it's changes in a local justice system that never charged them with a crime, rallygoers said Saturday.
(Excerpt) Read more at kutv.com ...
Justice or Revenge?
I hope he gets justice.
Maybe not. If they can get a jury of their peers, i.e., a jury from their home county, I'd say they have a decent chance of a not-guilty verdict. If the trial is moved to Atlanta and they get an OJ jury, then there's not a chance.
Were they practicing social distancing at the rally?
Did they wear masks? (was that required in GA)?
He choose poorly.
They want to lynch them.
They want a guarantee that no white man can harm a black man, even in self defense, without his life being turned into hell.
They want the right for young black men to do as they please with impunity.
You would too if someone chased you down, and kept pointing it at you. Not every case is the same.
He may have gotten his justice already...we don’t know yet.
“They want a guarantee that no white man can harm a black man, even in self defense, without his life being turned into hell.
They want the right for young black men to do as they please with impunity.”
This, exactly. That is what it really is all about.
Bull crap. They chased him down, you would lunge for the gun too. Your disgusting.
******************************************
Sorry, I would certainly NOT have assaulted the son and tried to take the shotgun away; I’m not that STUPID. But perhaps you are?
I know most folks are committed to one position or the other regarding this incident, however, what will be the determining factors in a trial will be what the jury is given as evidence.
You state that Arbury was the lawful combatant and McGivern the aggressor- fine, that is what the juries ( grand and trial) will have to determine but and until that time, that is not a fact, indeed, there is much for experienced folks to look at to lead them to another conclusion, regardless of all or none of the prior occurrences.
The video of the actual shooting is one major piece of the equation and by itself, a jury would likely acquit as it depicts a man run alongside of a truck and then viciously assault the man holding a shotgun in a non aggressive manner, resulting in a fight for life. The facts would be made that McGivern was indeed fighting for his life and for retention of his shotgun ( ask a cop what he assumes if someone attempts to disarm him ( hint- a lethal force encounter underway)).
The fact that Arbury was unarmed at the outset is moot. IF he had won control of the shotgun, he would be able to use it, right? When one tries to and takes a weapon from another, it IS reasonable to assume that the result would be the USE of the lethal weapon once control was obtained.
As to what McGivern intended, well, that may be the point of the matter- IF he can be shown trying to facilitate an citizens arrest ( lawful in GA, based on knowledge of a crime- more there than we need to discuss here), lawfully possessed his shotgun, and had a lawful right to be where he was, then it could be an easy case to prove that Arbury was the aggressor and use of lethal force to stop could be justified.
Other facts could lead a jury to decide that the McGiverns were indeed exercising restraint and caution in that they were constantly on the line with police, police were responding and conversation is alleged to be in the vein of an attempt at citizens arrest.
Also, the fact that the senior McGivern had some knowledge of the past robberies of the site, and that entrance to private property is in fact unlawful , w/o permission or license ( no, one cannot lawfully enter PP w/o permission, even just to see the build etc).
Finally, the fact that the McGiverns drove around, located Arbury and lost him several times may not have any bearing regarding the original paragraph- or any of the following comments. In a lethal force encounter, the person who initiates the unlawful attack is not justified regardless of how it ends up. IF a jury views it as described, then expect an acquittal, all other things being equal ( but of course, it won’t be).
Regards.
“They chased him down, you would lunge for the gun too.”
From what I’ve read the man running was continuing to move, never down, until after the incident suddenly escalated into a fight for the gun.
The man running was kept under observation and spoken to when within speaking distance.
Attention. Turmoil. Money.
The video may not be the whole story. Just sayin’.
Let the games begin. This is all choreographed and timed. This should have been to trial already.
If you own one, better close down the hair weave places, liquor stores and pharmacies or the FSA will loot them.
I thought AA already got it...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.