893
Comments (257)
sorted by:
56
UNITED_WE_STAND1776 56 points ago +79 / -23

If the stupid fucking ginger had not tried to play Robocop, he and his posse would be sitting down to Thanksgiving tomorrow. They fucked themselves, look at the facts of the trial and not your emotions.

36
BallBagBiden 36 points ago +43 / -7

I agree, just so stupid in my opinion. Yeah AA was a career criminal, but why put yourself in that situation, especially when you didn’t see him commit a crime that day. Call the police and let them handle it.

26
FoDoorsMoWhores 26 points ago +28 / -2

The thing is I’m pretty sure they called the cops but ginger bread was outside of his truck with a gun and his dad was in the bed like he was in Afghanistan. Stay in the truck, follow the guy, and wait for the cops.

11
alanlovestea 11 points ago +11 / -0

Their neighbor called the police, and the police asked the neighbor to call them.

1
Flipakademsarepedos 1 point ago +1 / -0

Tell NPR to report on the negro that killed cannon Hinnant and to leave negro’s races in the title like they do w White ppl

19
patrioticwinning3 19 points ago +25 / -6

They did call the police. They had the legal right to make a citizens arrest. Aubery had no right to charge him and try and grab his gun. If someone rushed you and grabbed your gun are you seriously telling me you would let him have it?

15
NoOneSpecial 15 points ago +24 / -9

LMAO You only have the right to perform a citizen's arrest if you actually saw the crime being committed and know for fact that one took place. It has to be at the scene of the crime so your vigilantism doesn't put other people at risk (that's why you let the professionals, aka law enforcement, take care of things after the fact). This was presented in the case.

This is literally the same principle explored in the Rittenhouse case. The three dummies who chased him accused him of being an active shooter when they weren't even there to witness what actually took place. (He was attacked by Rosenbaum and lawfully defended himself.) They were also attempting to perform a citizen's arrest (of a so-called active shooter) but they had no legal basis because Rittenhouse hadn't actually committed a crime. Therefore, they were the wrongful aggressors, and Rittenhouse was within his legal right to defend himself.

It was Arbery, not the three men, who had the right to self-defense. In that circumstance, they had no right to falsely imprison him for a crime he didn't commit, that they didn't witness, etc.

Like, imagine you're a kidnapping victim, and you reach for the kidnapper's gun (which he is pointing at you) to try to save yourself, and they shoot you. It's a chance you take, but should the law consider the kidnapping victim the aggressor and argue the kidnapper was defending himself? HELL NO!

-3
Thrasymachus -3 points ago +3 / -6

Sleeper shill account activated fresh out of the tranny Discord supply closet with a le reddit tier post starting with "LMAO" (naturally) that includes the key phrase of the day: "literally the exact same as the Rittenhouse case".

Many such cases, in addition to the obvious cascade of handshakes. Use your judgement and don't be swayed by these pathetic jogger gobblers.

0
NoOneSpecial 0 points ago +2 / -2

Oh, I’m sorry— did I invade your safe space, you ghoulish pubic hair, with a difference of opinion you could not handle? You shouldn’t bother responding to “shill accounts” whose opinions you detest. I wouldn’t want you to have an early-onset, cortisol-induced heart attack.

The principle upon which self-defence laws are predicated can be applied to multiple cases without losing its integrity. If you interpret me applying the same unbiased reasoning I applied to one case to multiple cases as my saying the cases themselves are “exactly the same,” I suggest you freshen up on your reading skills, and stay far away from a job in law (not that I assume you’d be able to obtain one).

14
txdrew 14 points ago +24 / -10

No, they didn’t have the legal right because they didn’t observe him committing a crime and a citizens arrest has to happen immediately, not after the fact. That’s the law, sorry.

0
deleted 0 points ago +2 / -2
3
deleted 3 points ago +4 / -1
0
txdrew 0 points ago +1 / -1

Probable suspicion of a felony. They observed him trespassing which is a misdemeanor.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
4
slag 4 points ago +6 / -2

They had the legal right to make a citizens arrest.

Judge pretty much dismantled this based on Georgia statute. Does not look like they win on appeal. End result is felony murder. Should watch the trial.

0
patrioticwinning3 0 points ago +1 / -1

I didn't know that. I have a job and a family, I can't keep up with every trial and every political decision, unfortunately this one slipped by me. What is the Georgia statute? Also, felony murder, but at least one was found guilty of murder, which would not fit even if they were committing a felony, as it is a different statute with different standards.

2
Secretmongoose 2 points ago +7 / -5

They didn’t have the legal right to make a citizen’s arrest. That’s what the trial was just about.

If someone drove up on you in two trucks with a gun pointed at you, you’re telling me you’d take that lying down?

0
Junionthepipeline 0 points ago +2 / -2

Smart man jogs the other way, only a suicidal low IQ hoodrat charges three guys and tries to grab a shotgun

1
Secretmongoose 1 point ago +1 / -0

There was a truck in front of and behind him. Where is “the other way” exactly?

0
patrioticwinning3 0 points ago +3 / -3

Lol troll. They didn't point a gun at him. They drove up asked him some questions and asked him to stay until the police got thier. Next you are going to defend the pedos who tried to kill Rittenhouse.

1
Junionthepipeline 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm seriously saying I'm not putting myself in that position for a bunch of insured construction company junk.

4
Brulz_Lulz 4 points ago +4 / -0

He was terrible on the stand too. Night and day difference between how his testimony went vs Rittenhouse

3
LibertyPrimeWasRight 3 points ago +3 / -0

You’d think they could have at least gotten down to manslaughter or something, though. They probably fucked up in how they confronted him, but they still weren’t going to shoot until he tried to grab the gun.

3
snoopy3210 3 points ago +3 / -0

This doesn't make it a murder with malice automatically. They provoked by pointing the gun, (something Rittenhouse didn't do), and an unafraid Arbery grabbed the gun to stop the insanity but this doesn't make it a intentional first degree murder. Your system is so messed up.

Also the third guy, William "Roddie" Bryan, shouldn't have been charged of murder at all.

3
slag 3 points ago +5 / -2

felony murder doesn't require you to pull the trigger. If you are involved in the felony and someone dies, that's it.

37
conservativefrank 37 points ago +49 / -12

Guy comes to neighborhood to rob homes. He has robbed homes there. He has a history of robbing homes and claiming he was jogging. He was on parole. He attacked them.

They're guilty of murder.

This sets a precedent - if a black man attacks you, you can't defend yourself. If a black man robs you, you have to let him go.

20
deleted 20 points ago +31 / -11
18
Badfinz_FL 18 points ago +21 / -3

i agree, it was pretty stupid of them to go after him

but that part of GA is pretty rural with not a lot of LEO available

still think 5 counts of felony murder is overcharging. manslaughter yes, most likely, but felony murder?

10
N7fury 10 points ago +12 / -2

The guy recording it sealed a guilty verdict for the McMichaels as it painted them as the aggressors. I agree and think the deliberation should have been whether or not they committed manslaughter as the murder charges were unreasonable.

This is why it is a bad idea to pursue someone and conduct a citizen's arrest with a firearm. Trust me I think Arbery is a piece of shit criminal but they created a scenario where means, motive, and opportunity could be applied. Running someone down armed with a gun just isn't a good look. Too much risk. Should have just let the cops handle this

3
BrewSwillis 3 points ago +3 / -0

They were sure that AA stole a gun from their car the previous day or two. I'm pretty sure that was one of the reasons why they were armed. It'd be stupid to try and chase down a criminal, who you think stole your gun, and let them shoot you with it.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
10
conservativefrank 10 points ago +18 / -8

But if he attacks me, I can't defend myself?

How about he doesn't go robbing homes and then attacking people who try to stop him? He could have, you know, done that. He'd still be alive.

Your "You know" tone may work on your kids and weak willed spouse. I eat people like you for breakfast, then have room for eggs, bacon, hash browns, toast, juice, coffee, tomato juice.

I pray your home is robbed, and the thief attacks you. I want to see what you do then.

12
Take_it_back 12 points ago +17 / -5

If you pull a Grosskreutz and come at someone with a gun they have a legal right to self defense.

7
conservativefrank 7 points ago +7 / -0

In the Arbery case, nobody came at him with a gun. He attacked.

-3
Take_it_back -3 points ago +1 / -4

I honestly haven’t been following it that closely, just going off what I heard. Is there a good source available for all the info? If he had a legit fear for his safety; if they were threatening him or trying to detain him he has a right to self defense. He may have been a scumbag but scumbags don’t forfeit their rights.

6
conservativefrank 6 points ago +6 / -0

If he had a fear, he would have departed, not ran at them, grabbed the gun.

His fear was that he would get caught. He was on probation. That info was withheld from the jury.

3
2016TrumpMAGA 3 points ago +3 / -0

If he had a fear, he would have departed

Look at all the blacks who wind up being shot because they made stupid decisions in the face of lethal force. It's an epidemic.

1
Take_it_back 1 point ago +2 / -1

I thought they were going to shoot me and I thought fighting back was my only hope of survival.

-2
deleted -2 points ago +5 / -7
7
fskfsk 7 points ago +11 / -4

It's an incident where both sides were idiots.

He obviously was there to rob or scout for future robberies. Anyone who doesn't understand that is out of touch with reality.

They shouldn't have initiated the confrontation with him. Yeah it sucks that he got away with it, but there isn't anything you can do about it. Let the construction site hire their own security if they care.

Ironically, the old-style Jim Crow laws would have prevented this situation, because he wouldn't have been allowed to go "jogging" someplace where he didn't live. It's almost like those laws existed for a reason.

5
conservativefrank 5 points ago +5 / -0

It's not idiotic to try to stop someone from stealing in your neighborhood. These convictions are blatant racism. It is 100% race based.

1
fskfsk 1 point ago +2 / -1

Idiotic given that we live in a society where you can get life in prison for trying to stop a criminal.

1
deleted 1 point ago +8 / -7
-3
conservativeyuppie -3 points ago +4 / -7

I must have missed the video where arbery robs jimbo podunk's house and attacks him seconds before he's shot dead.

2
conservativefrank 2 points ago +3 / -1

I didn't say there's video of it. He had a history of robbing homes and claiming he was jogging.

-7
txdrew -7 points ago +5 / -12

I pray your home is robbed, and the thief attacks you. I want to see what you do then.

Garbage human right here. Repent and pray

5
conservativefrank 5 points ago +5 / -0

Interesting. Merely suggesting it makes me a garbage human. But you being against the self defense in an actual situation is OK.

That's telling. You may not realize it, but I just razed your city and salted the ground.

2
txdrew 2 points ago +2 / -0

Do you support the jogger’s right to self defense? You know the one who was chased by people in a truck and then when they caught him they hopped out with a weapon and tried to falsely imprison him? Did he have a right to defend himself in that moment?

The state law is clear on this type of situation, not even a gray area. Sorry you don’t like it, but you can’t claim to be about law and order and then cry foul when the law is applied.

1
conservativefrank 1 point ago +1 / -0

He wasn't self defending. He was the attacker. He was, you know, following his history - robbery but claiming jogging.

It's clear - I pray you find yourself attacked by a thug who was robbing homes in your neighborhood - also your kids. Then let's see what you do/think about it.

1
txdrew 1 point ago +1 / -0

Praying for evil again huh? Repent

5
deleted 5 points ago +9 / -4
-2
txdrew -2 points ago +3 / -5

Newsflash, they broke the law, no matter how righteous they felt they were with their actions.

2
deleted 2 points ago +6 / -4
0
txdrew 0 points ago +1 / -1

Help me with the blacks? Wtf are you talking about

2
yukondave 2 points ago +4 / -2

Pre-crime is risky business.

5
strawman7 5 points ago +5 / -0

Armed Robbery is henceforth known as Rormaud Arbery

1
conservativefrank 1 point ago +1 / -0

Good one.

5
slag 5 points ago +6 / -1

If you don't see them commit the crime (contemporaneously) and you try to arrest them, then you are committing false imprisonment, which is a felony. What happens after that stems from the initial felonious conduct. Apropos, self defense is not a defense for people committing a felony. That's the gist of it.

1
conservativefrank 1 point ago +1 / -0

Glorious dark skinned people get to take your stuff if you're evil light skinned.

2
CreepingCreeper 2 points ago +5 / -3

Yup. It's more proof that justice is dead in America.

1
Bigblue725 1 point ago +3 / -2

Or not report your self defense. Lowe’s has plenty of shovels

3
jubyeonin 3 points ago +4 / -1

Yep. They self-reported thinking the law was on their side and it was the right thing to do.

21
Schiffblower 21 points ago +28 / -7

Where they are from, you cannot chase someone with a gun when you haven’t witnessed that someone committing a crime

They only witnessed him running through the neighborhood, nothing else

They chased him

They were the aggressors

Since they were not allowed to be making a citizens arrest, the only one who could claim self defense in that county was Arbery

The guy filming should not have been convicted of murder and neither should the father

13
Balsha8chan [S] 13 points ago +17 / -4

Still doesn’t justify that he was found guilty of malice murder. Malice literally means ill intent.

1
Daffy 1 point ago +1 / -0

If Kyle's trial taught us anything, don't chase someone period. Unless they are actively committing a crime or doing bodily harm let them run call them a pussy if you want, but don't chase after them. Bad decision making.

11
BallBagBiden 11 points ago +13 / -2

I feel some people are not understanding the fact that they did not see him commit a crime. Hell, even if they did, outside of him coming into my house, I wouldn’t get involved outside of being an eyewitness and reporting what I see to the police to allow them to make an arrest.

Just low IQ to put yourself in this situation. Now they get to spend the rest of their lives behind bars.

4
BidensPrisonWallet 4 points ago +4 / -0

"the guy filming" is the key to this whole situation.

-7
Schiffblower -7 points ago +4 / -11

What exactly are you implying?

Because the correct verdict was reached because the video shows the truth

6
Balsha8chan [S] 6 points ago +10 / -4

Video shows ill intent? Last I checked Arbery chimped out and wrestled McMichael to take his gun.

3
deleted 3 points ago +7 / -4
4
Balsha8chan [S] 4 points ago +11 / -7

Bullshit. Nobody wanted to kill him. He chimped out.

-1
MAGARickster -1 points ago +4 / -5

So if three armed black guys chase you down you’ll just let them detain you?

5
Balsha8chan [S] 5 points ago +6 / -1

I sure as hell ain’t wrestling a man with a gun. They weren’t going to kill him. It was a decent neighborhood. And Travis said I JUST WANT TO TALK

2
BrewSwillis 2 points ago +2 / -0

I believe he was caught on film the day one of them had a pistol stolen from one of their vehicles. I'm not sure if the actual crime was on tape, but he was probably the only known criminal caught on camera that day when their gun was stolen.

2
slag 2 points ago +2 / -0

McMichael (the younger) got dismantled by prosecutor about this on cross examination. He admitted they had a different suspect in mind for the pistol on a forum prior to the AA incident. He tried to say they had a general suspicion of AA due to break ins and the like from recent activity, since he was actually on camera etc. Prosecutor used that to undermine his probable cause claim.

0
deleted 0 points ago +2 / -2
-2
Schiffblower -2 points ago +2 / -4

Ok buddy

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
1
Schiffblower 1 point ago +3 / -2

Not a chump, champ

11
BallBagBiden 11 points ago +18 / -7

I feel it was stupid to put themselves in that situation. Just call the police and watch the dude from your car at the very most.

5
thetenman 5 points ago +12 / -7

What do you do when he charges you? That is what happened in this case.

11
becky21k1 11 points ago +12 / -1

Why is this different than the dude in St. Louis those years ago? Mike Brown? He charged the cop unarmed, tried to take the cop's gun, the cop shot him.

The only difference I see here is these guys are not cops. But they also tried to stop someone suspected of committing a crime, who then charged them and tried to take their gun away.

6
jubyeonin 6 points ago +6 / -0

Yep. They were in the process of detaining him for a citizen's arrest which they thought was legal and the law itself still lends itself to that interpretation with the way it's written. Their legal protection was essentially revoked and that's the main reason they are being sentenced.

It's still really two situations. They either broke a law with unlawful imprisonment unknowingly due to a misinterpretation of the law or didn't and the one with the gun either defended himself from an attempt by a known criminal to take his gun and use it or he didn't.

The whole thing was lumped as unlawful detainment was murder. It's just dumb.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
3
deleted 3 points ago +5 / -2
0
2016TrumpMAGA 0 points ago +1 / -1

The difference is that these guys were not cops, and did not have a legal right to detain the scumbag.

2
becky21k1 2 points ago +2 / -0

They reasonably suspected he had committed a crime.

-1
Secretmongoose -1 points ago +1 / -2

I mean that’s a big difference. They also didn’t reasonably suspect him of committing a crime. Just saying you suspected someone committed a crime isn’t some shibboleth to justify false imprisonment.

3
thetenman 3 points ago +4 / -1

The only reason they were convicted is because they are White. If the races were reversed there wouldn't have been a trial.

0
45fan 0 points ago +1 / -1

There almost wasn't a trial anyway. No DA wanted it.

1
becky21k1 1 point ago +2 / -1

Ooookay sparky

0
Secretmongoose 0 points ago +2 / -2

Strong retort. They should’ve had you as their lawyer.

1
becky21k1 1 point ago +3 / -2

Just the fact that a jogger is on private property he doesn't belong on is perfectly reasonable to suspect he's up to no good.

13% of the population commits 56% of burglaries in this country. The majority of those committing these acts are males, so it's closer to 7%. That alone makes it reasonable.

Your previous comment is utterly retarded.

1
Secretmongoose 1 point ago +1 / -0

I like how quickly you gave up trying to make an actual legal argument and instead turned to trying to pretend that any court in the country would recognize “He was a black man” as a standard to base reasonable suspicion upon. I’m sorry the rest of the country isn’t as racist as you.

You’re not going to convince anyone to force 7% of the population to give up their basic liberties because a minority of that minority is convicted of a disproportionate amount of crime. The fact that you think that’s a plausible argument is fucking retarded.

-1
MAGARickster -1 points ago +2 / -3

Key word is suspected. They didn’t actually witness anything other then him jogging.

3
becky21k1 3 points ago +3 / -0

Cop in the Mike Brown case didn't witness anything either

0
BallBagBiden 0 points ago +8 / -8

You stay in your car or you don’t chase the guy down and put yourself in that situation.

5
AmericanJawa 5 points ago +5 / -0

DON'T BREAK THE SAFARI PRINCIPAL!

-1
thetenman -1 points ago +6 / -7

The only reason they were prosecuted is because they are White. Reverse the races and the charges would never be brought. You are just anti-White.

0
slag 0 points ago +2 / -2

He charges after they get out of the truck. If I'm in my truck and an unarmed douche charges me, I laugh. Can surveil until police catch up.

-1
deleted -1 points ago +5 / -6
0
thetenman 0 points ago +6 / -6

Defended himself from what? He was not being attacked. You are an anti-White liar.

-1
deleted -1 points ago +2 / -3
3
deleted 3 points ago +5 / -2
-3
deleted -3 points ago +1 / -4
3
deleted 3 points ago +5 / -2
2
Drainthecommies 2 points ago +2 / -0

If they blocked his path of escape how the fuck did he run in front of the vehicle at the guy on the left side of it? He wasn’t blocked from doing shit. Unless there are two perpendicular walls a single car can’t block shit

0
thetenman 0 points ago +3 / -3

At least you admit your hatred for White people. Enjoy the third world hell your evil ideology is creating.

-1
deleted -1 points ago +1 / -2
1
thetenman 1 point ago +2 / -1

You created an odysee channel to repeat Charlie Kirk memes? This is the most pathetic thing I have ever seen.

-2
sickofaltspin -2 points ago +3 / -5

They committed assault when they aimed the gun at him.

3
thetenman 3 points ago +4 / -1

You don't know what you are talking about just repeating your anti-White programing. The gun was never aimed at him. Even if it was it isn't first degree murder. The only people that disagree are anti-White faggots like you.

4
deleted 4 points ago +6 / -2
-1
deleted -1 points ago +1 / -2
-1
sickofaltspin -1 points ago +2 / -3

I mean if you want to call their own testimony anti-white programming I will have to assume you have agenda.

1
thetenman 1 point ago +3 / -2

Your lies are anti-White propaganda.

-2
C_Macks -2 points ago +1 / -3

I thought whining and calling someone racist was the left's strategy when they're losing an argument?

0
thetenman 0 points ago +2 / -2

Imagine thinking this is an argument. I wouldn't waste the energy arguing with people that hate me and my people for who we are. Better to just call you what you are, anti-White.

9
Goozmania 9 points ago +10 / -1

3 WHITE men.

Don't let anything go to waste, faggot terrorist NPR

1
thetenman 1 point ago +3 / -2

That is why they were convicted. They are White men that made the mistake of thinking they had rights.

7
Nearlydearly2 7 points ago +9 / -2

Arbery won the Darwin award that day.

5
BrewSwillis 5 points ago +6 / -1

Careful, the people on this board will say the "jogger", running down the middle of the street, towards a person with a gun, and then veering off to the side of the street to take the person's gun........ was "cornered at gunpoint".

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
4
Sylvester1212 4 points ago +11 / -7

Are you legally allowed to hold someone at gunpoint you didn't see commit a crime? This case is nothing like the Kyle case and your a fool to think so. It's flawed I know but it's not nearly the same.

5
El-Duderino 5 points ago +6 / -1

He never pointed his gun, so it wasn't "at gun point".

4
arkivx 4 points ago +5 / -1

Yes, if it's a felony like burglary, that's why the judge told the jury to ignore that part of the law. The shills are pushing this narrative hard today.

3
becky21k1 3 points ago +6 / -3

What kind of retard charges someone holding a gun on them?

3
MrSir 3 points ago +7 / -4

Somebody who doesnt think they have much left to lose I'd imagine.

Or do you get on your knees for armed strangers and just hope they have no ill intent? Do you just get in the box car? Dig your own grave?

Or do you fight and hope for the better outcome?

3
arkivx 3 points ago +3 / -0

Especially if they caught you inside a house you don't own.

-1
deleted -1 points ago +4 / -5
1
arkivx 1 point ago +3 / -2

Lots of people don't try to fight the people asking you what you were doing there when they get caught either...

0
MrSir 0 points ago +4 / -4

Most people dont confront you from the back of a truck with a shotgun.

3
arkivx 3 points ago +4 / -1

I'm not a serial burglar or trespasser, so I guess I wouldnt know for sure. My father told me when I was about 6 years old and we were hunting that trespassing is a good way to get yourself shot. So I try not to do it, especially into houses.

1
becky21k1 1 point ago +4 / -3

Presuming this creature was capable of any critical thought at all is the first mistake. It just reacted in an irrational manner because it was incredibly stupid.

-2
MrSir -2 points ago +2 / -4

I hope your life is peaceful and without having to make life and death decisions while sprinting toward some random ginger with a shotgun.

2
becky21k1 2 points ago +4 / -2

Fortunately I'm not retarded, so I wouldn't sprint towards someone with a gun.

-2
NoOneSpecial -2 points ago +6 / -8

A person who has a lawful right to self-defense in a situation where they are being attacked.

What would you do, Becky? Beg? Bend over? Aim somewhere else and still end up shot?

They fucked up by putting another person in that situation in the first place.

3
becky21k1 3 points ago +5 / -2

I wouldn't go around casing places to commit more crimes while out on bail from previous ones, in the first place.

3
arkivx 3 points ago +6 / -3

I'd start by not jogging into strangers property.

2
deleted 2 points ago +6 / -4
1
slag 1 point ago +2 / -1

Not in georgia. That was the defense's entire theory. Judge cut it to pieces and basically created a directed verdict situation. There may be an appeal, but doubtful.

4
Slugbert 4 points ago +4 / -0

If you’re white, never let yourself be taken in.

4
arkivx 4 points ago +7 / -3

The judge told the jury to ignore what the law said. The judge set them up 100% on purpose.

5
deleted 5 points ago +7 / -2
2
Winner45 2 points ago +2 / -0

Can you explain more?

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
3
_Sully_ 3 points ago +3 / -0

“Three white men”

3
sub-collector 3 points ago +4 / -1

So many lessons here. But these guys are political prisoners now.

2
Priopism 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is a terrible outcome. But it would have never gone to trial had their friend not released the video because he thought it would clear everything up. There’s got to be a lesson there for everyone.

2
scrobin 2 points ago +4 / -2

Why care now? I didn't see a single post about the trial on here. Was all Rittenhouse...

4
deleted 4 points ago +8 / -4
2
thetenman 2 points ago +3 / -1

The anti-White right sees White men free and wants them in a cage. White men were convicted for defending themselves. Tell whatever anti-White lies you want on you pathetic channel. Here we will call you out.

0
deleted 0 points ago +2 / -2
1
thetenman 1 point ago +3 / -2

A basic understanding of history would disabuse you of that foolishness.

2
jubyeonin 2 points ago +2 / -0

Because the feds were successful at distraction. I was watching this trial's highlights for the past few days myself.

1
Snooptwo 1 point ago +1 / -0

NPR can’t help bringing up race, unless it’s bleeps doin bad stuff.

0
thetenman 0 points ago +1 / -1

Because they are anti-White.

1
mcoulton 1 point ago +4 / -3

Getting a posse and deciding to go vigilante will get you put in a cage.

The idea of, he was guilty of something, of not liking the system and taking the law into your own hands makes you a murderer.

This is what happens when you take the law into your own hands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosewood_massacre

3
thetenman 3 points ago +5 / -2

Bullshit. They were convicted for being White. No other reason. You are either anti-White or in a copium induced stupor.

0
mcoulton 0 points ago +1 / -1

Tell me your version of the story.

If 3 black men hunted down a white person and killed them, would it of gone down any differently in court.

0
thetenman 0 points ago +1 / -1

There wouldn't even be a court case. They would have been let off, no charges. You don't know that because you are anti-White.

1
mcoulton 1 point ago +1 / -0

I know you think that the race war has already started and if i do not agree then I am an enemy.

Why not be honest and start talking about ZOG, you know that you want to.

1
kanabiis 1 point ago +16 / -15

Imagine not understanding who had the right to self defense in this case.

Tell me you didn't watch the trial without saying you didn't watch the trial.

You don't have the right to chase someone down armed with a weapon and claim self defense when that person defends himself.

9
Balsha8chan [S] 9 points ago +15 / -6

Explain to me. How is that malice murder?

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
7
AlFreeman 7 points ago +9 / -2

Imagine thinking only cops have the right to pursue a criminal. If this guy tried to wrestle a gun away from a cop and got shot, it wouldn't even be news. He knew why they were chasing him. He knew the guy was a ex-cop. They had history.

0
kanabiis 0 points ago +6 / -6

Considering the fact that a citizens arrest in GA requires the person to have reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed, and the McMichaels testified that they had NO IDEA if AA had committed a crime, your comment is a total fail. They had no idea if AA was a criminal.

They had zero citizens arrest protections, because they were not making a lawful citizens arrest.

Imagine being so stupid as to bring up an argument that was utterly destroyed in trial, and still thinking you are right.

6
ThoughtCrimeConvict 6 points ago +6 / -0

Nice try. The McMichaels were not trying to arrest, they were trying to keep eyes on until the cops arrived. They had several opportunities to detain him and never once acted on them. Arbery charged at Travis, so he raised his gun to deter him. It worked. But Arbery went around the truck and attacked Travis and paid the price for attacking an armed man. He should have kept his original trajectory and ran off into the adjacent yard or continued down the road (again). This was a self defense shooting. The defense attorneys are dogshit for entertaining the citizens arrest narrative and probable cause to do so when there was no evidence of any attempt at detaining. Dipshit Williams was guilty of aggravated assault and attempted false imprisonment. That's it.

-2
kanabiis -2 points ago +2 / -4

Keep their eyes on AA until the cops arrived? You literally did not watch anything in this trial, obviously.

The direct testimony was that nobody had called 911 until after the shooting, how did they expect to keep eyes on him until the cops arrived if they never called the cops? ESP?

Go watch Travis testimony again and come back with facts, not bullshit you are making up in your head.

Once I watched his testimony I knew he was fucked, he admitted to not only the cops not being notified, but that he didn't know if AA had done anything that day, just that he might be 'that guy' from 2 weeks ago.

4
ThoughtCrimeConvict 4 points ago +4 / -0

You are a fucking liar. Why are you leaving out the fact that Travis thought his father had already called the cops? He later found out that he hadn't, so he made the call and passed the phone to his father, but it was too late. I watched Travis's testimony onward. So if I missed something prior, please explain.

-2
kanabiis -2 points ago +1 / -3

So nobody called the cops until the shooting, where am I a liar?

By the testimony of the shooter.

Though he called the cops, just like they thought AA had maybe done something.

Thinking was not these guys gift, a bunch of thinking, not a lot of doing.

Stupid guys do stupid things, this entire case is about 4 stupid people doing stupid things and stupid things happened.

5
ThoughtCrimeConvict 5 points ago +5 / -0

Lies by omission are still lies. The fact that he thought cops were called and on the way is important to his defense, is it not? The fact that he never tried to detain AA in anyway is important to his defense, is it not? You keep omitting these important facts throughout this thread. That makes you a liar. The defense attorneys are the ones that should be going to jail. Travis McMichaels was not trying to effectuate an arrest but his attorney continuously argued that he had probable cause to do so when he didn't. This is what makes your lie so egregious. You keep saying he admitted that he didn't see AA commit a crime. True. But he wasn't trying to arrest him, so it doesn't fucking matter.

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
-1
kanabiis -1 points ago +2 / -3

Anti white, you are delusional.

I just disagree with you, that is all. I have years of post history here, all pro MAGA comments. The fact that this shooting was stupid, by stupid people does not make me anti white, it makes me anti stupid people.

4 stupid people woke up that morning, and the universe brought them together and stupidity ensued. That is all.

2
thetenman 2 points ago +3 / -1

White men defending themselves is stupid? In a just society those men would get medals for what they did. They took a dangerous criminal off the streets and will spend the rest of their lives in jail because they are White and the criminal was a precious jogger. This is an attack on human rights of all White people. If you don't see that it is you who is stupid. Maybe the universe will bring you together with 3 stupid joggers you love so much and they can be stupid all over your retarded ass.

3
arkivx 3 points ago +3 / -0

Wrong and I quote

"The judge explained the law governing criminal trespass and burglary, which are relevant because the McMichaels’ lawyers argued their clients believed Arbery had been inside a house under construction and was responsible for burglaries".

The judge literally told the jury to ignore the part of the law that says if the person being arrested is fleeing a felony you don't have to see it.

-1
kanabiis -1 points ago +1 / -2

Travis testified that he did not know AA had done anything that day. Only that he thought he might have been the same guy from 2 weeks before. He had no idea if AA had done anything and testified to that. Here is the quote from that testimony.

“Based on everything, you think something had happened. But you had no idea what happened?” Dunikoski asked.

“At that time, no ma’am,” McMichael told her.

Your narrative is just made up, Travis had no idea if a crime had been committed, and his father did not call 911 until after the shooting. If they actually believe a crime was being committed, why didn't they call police during the pursuit?

3
arkivx 3 points ago +3 / -0

Lmao, I literally quoted the judge and I can quote the law too if you want. The law say you don't have to see them doing it. But go ahead and try jogging into random houses and fighting the people asking you what you're doing and let me know how it works out.

-1
kanabiis -1 points ago +1 / -2

The law says reasonable suspicion, an actual legal term.

They had no reasonable suspicion, they just thought he was that guy from 2 weeks ago. That is why they are going to jail. Cope.

The McMichaels did not catch him in the act of anything, they just believed he did something. That is not reasonable suspicion, but keep making up strawmen to fit your narrative, not the actual facts in this case.

3
arkivx 3 points ago +3 / -0

I disagree, it's obvious they are going to jail because the activist judge told the jury to ignore half of the law(what's the point of having a law if you ignore parts of it), just like you are doing. They had a reasonable suspicion that's why they were following him.

4
jubyeonin 4 points ago +4 / -0

Our lord and savior LeBron James is right. They are hunting down black people.

This is you right now.

0
kanabiis 0 points ago +2 / -2

Who is 'they'?

3 morons in GA is not 'they', its just 3 stupid people.

You and Lebron are actually the same person, someone not armed with any facts, just bias.

Kyle was a just verdict, this is also a just verdict, cope.

3
jubyeonin 3 points ago +3 / -0

I'm not your lord and savior, fed. Stay on Reddit. They are in need of your assistance now that maxwellhill is on trial.

-1
kanabiis -1 points ago +1 / -2

Fed? Because I watched the entire trial?

Get a life man.

2
Balsha8chan [S] 2 points ago +8 / -6

They’re not innocent but malice is a serious charge like ill intent and racism. That wasn’t the case. They were just dumb and tried to be vigilante.

3
deleted 3 points ago +5 / -2
1
MAGA_Argent_Crusade 1 point ago +1 / -0

How did Zimmerman get off but these three did not? Aren't they similar cases?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
2
Deaditewater 2 points ago +2 / -0

Unlike the McMichaels, Zimmerman was not attempting a citizens arrest which means he didn't risk having the false imprisonment felony, and subsequently wasn't engaging in a felony (false imprisonment) when someone was shot and killed. Z was just attacked and defended himself with much less culpability for the death.

0
TAIWANNUMBERONE 0 points ago +10 / -10

Everyone trying to demonize them is a paid shill, period. They'd all be saying the same thing about Kyle if he killed a black person.

3
deleted 3 points ago +8 / -5
1
conservativeyuppie 1 point ago +4 / -3

Kyle didn't go around chasing people, he was the one being chased.

-1
Firespawn -1 points ago +3 / -4

We see a video with no audio. You dumbfucks don't take into account that, faced with 3 white guys with death very likely, he chose fight instead of flight. Imagine Arbury was white, I bet most of you would look at this differently. If I did nothing wrong and 3 dudes rolled up on me, I know I'd have a bad feeling, and my first thought would be how I could escape, but if that didn't seem like an option, then I'm not going down without a fight. They admitted they knew he wasn't armed. They got what they deserved.

-5
Packstinator -5 points ago +2 / -7

I thought these guys were guilty the morning it hit the news. Nothing that came out in the trial dissuaded me from that opinion either. The people monitoring the worksite only called the cops on him because he was black. They didn't call the cops on all the other people who did what he did, only on him. They hopped in the pickup with shotguns like a couple cowboys. They weren't protected by Georgia's citizens arrest law either because none of the 3 men saw any crime take place. Chasing after him didn't comply with the law regardless.

3
thetenman 3 points ago +5 / -2

Take your anti-White bile back to reddit.

-1
deleted -1 points ago +1 / -2