A Miscarriage of Justice

Hate to start my first real thread off on a sour note. But I wan t to speak of one of the miscarriages of justice that I have seen recently. It is the guilty verdict of Gregory and Travis McMichael in the killing of ahmaud arbery. Also the guilty verdict of William Bryan who recorded the event. In my opinion, the outcome of the trial was decided before any trial really took place. This was done by the judge not allowing any background of ahmaud arbery even being discussed in court. And there was much to be said on that account.

The reason why I think the guilty verdict had already been decided upon is because it was more expedient to throw the McMichaels and Bryan to the wolves than to see more negro riots. Some may be comfortable with being the bitch of a blacks who only makes up 12.7 to 13.4% of the U.S. population. But I'm not. I agree with the sentiments of Charles Cotesworth Pickney, U.S. Minister to France, when he said, "Millions for defense, not a penny for tribute."

Starting out with William Bryan, wouldn't he have had to have known a "murder" was going to take place to be convicted as an accomplice in the "crime?" As for the McMichaels, I have often heard the BS on TV that they chased arbery down. I will show you a video of the incident that William Bryan recorded. You can clearly see that it is arbery running towards the McMichaels! So who was chasing who. You can't run toward somebody and claim the person you are running toward is chasing you!

Also, as far as I know, it was legal at the time it was legal to attempt a citizens arrest. In the end they may not have been legally justified in doing so because they didn't actually see him taking anything. That they could be found guilty of. But murder? In the video you can clearly see that it was arbery attacking Travis. Even hitting Travis at least a couple of times at Travis continually back peddled away from arbery. Some would prefer you to believe that Travis was actually hitting arbery in the knuckles with his head. But I'm not that stupid. Are you?

Travis had the same exact undeniable right that every living creature on the planet has. The right to self preservation. Which is what he was doing when he tried to keep an aggressive, and as it turns out a criminally insane person from taking their gun from them. So now I will post the video. (Even though it contains some BS written commentary) I will also give you a link to a website that tells what the jury wasn't allowed to hear. With documentation to back it up. I will also post a picture of the real arbery that the jury probably wasn't allowed to see either.





legalinsurrection.com › 2021 › 10Ahmaud Arbery Case: Seven Facts the Jury Will (Probably ...

 

You do not have to 'know in advance' that there will be a killing to be guilty of murder. The members of the jury and I disagreed with your opinion which is o.k.

 

I am conflicted about whether or not Arbery's past criminal history should have been allowed into evidence.

On that one hand, that may have very likely deeply prejudiced the jury. (I'm not sure in a totally good way or a bad way)

But so too did William Bryan's testimony that Travis said a racial slur after Arbery was dead. I cannot see how that should have been logically relevant to the case (anymore than Arbery's past criminal history), but it was still allowed and no doubt deeply prejudiced the jurors (and probably judge too).
(And this is a separate issue, but I have severe doubts about whether Bryan's testimony about this was actually truthful, whether the prosecutor may have tricked and put pressure on him to give some sort of testimony like that, like the prosecutor perhaps implying that she would take it easier on Bryan)

Also another little interesting fact of possible relevance, in 2018, Gregory McMichael had helped an investigation in the DA's office about Arbery's shoplifting charge, which led to a subsequent revocation and extension of Arbery's probation. It is unclear whether McMichael recognized him when he encountered Arbery on the day of the shooting. (The prosecutor told the court that those prior charges had nothing to do with the chase)

 

What did William Bryan do that was both a felony and contributed towards Arbery being killed?

 

Unfortunately for him, the law only required that he had to be there as a participant which he was.

 

So he is guilty of murder, even though he did not actually commit murder or really contribute to the killing?

Please help us understand what is going through your head.

 

related thread about the injustice of this case: Three men who chased Arbery sentenced to life in prison

 

Oh dear, I see the problem now. Wow.

 

You can see another video here that gives an overview and map of the chase.


Ahmaud Arbery: Timeline of events - YouTube June 5, 2020
News4JAX

 

Arbery RAN at Travis and tried to use his strength to take away his gun. At that point, what else was Travis supposed to do?

Arbery had no reason to do this. His chances of success were virtually zero, given that there were also two other men with guns. How can Arbery's actions even constitute self-defense if it was very stupid and would have had virtually zero chance of sucess at increasing his own safety, not to mention a large chance of ending up in his death?

If we assume Arbery was indeed "trying to act in self defense", isn't it logical to assume Arbery most likely would have immediately shot the other two men if he had been able to pull that shotgun out of the hands of Travis?


I know you will argue Travis never should have put himself into that situation to begin with. But once he was already in that situation, what was he supposed to do at that point?

Should what Arbery did actually be seen as constituting self defense?

Self defense usually implies you do something to protect your life or others. Did Arbery's action have any chance whatsoever of putting him in a better position or reducing the risk to himself? Considering there were two other men with guns present, I would say the answer is no.
On the contrary, any rational logical person would have known that those actions would have resulted in a high chance of being shot and likely death.

Arbery also had to have known the other men weren't just going to shoot him as he was running away down the street, because if they had wanted to do that they would have certainly already have done so.

Arbery's actions were probably because he did not want to be there when the police arrived. Right before Arbery ran at Travis, Travis told Arbery he was on the phone with police and police would be there soon.

 

Some will claim that "Arbery acted in self defense".

Really?
With two other men with guns there?

What you're saying doesn't even make sense.

If they had wanted to kill Arbery, they would have already done so. And if Arbery had actually taken that shotgun, and the other man standing in the back of the pickup truck had any intentions of killing Arbery, such an action would have forced his hand at that point, and Arbery would most likely have been shot before Arbery could use the shotgun. Whereas, on the other hand, if Arbery would not have immediately been shot at that point, then there was no reason in the first place for him to have feared being shot.


Or maybe you are arguing that Arbery had some chance, however small, of being able to wrestle the gun away from Travis and then shoot the man standing in the back of the pickup truck (Gregory) before he could shoot him. In which case, that would give Travis a pretty strong reason to shoot Arbery before Arbery could kill his father.

Whichever possibility you want to go with this, it doesn't really lend much support to Arbery's side.

 

Do some research and you'll find that there were a few benefits of my being a cop for seven years.

 

Some will say when McMichael exited the vehicle with a gun, that suddenly changes the claim from self defense to aggressor.

I think there may be some partial truth to that. Of course, Travis did not see it that way. He seemed to be focused on a mentality of "protecting" his truck, using his gun to try to keep Arbery away. But of course that "defensive" action also could be perceived from Arbery's point of view as an "offensive" action.

To be honest, I don't think the laws were very well written to apply to a specific sort of situation like this one.

Travis's actions were totally understandable. But his actions also resulted in intimidation against Arbery and sort of cutting off his path, with the truck stopped in the road, the driver's door opened, and Arbery moved away further to the left, trying to have some distance away from Arbery, while pointing a gun towards him to keep him away. Travis was trying to keep Arbery away from both his truck (especially open drivers side door) and himself, but in so doing, that also pretty much intimidated Arbery to push him off the road (Arbery ended up going around the other right side of the truck).

Don't forget that Travis had stopped his truck and stepped out of the car after Arbery was running away from him. But then (allegedly) Arbery turned back and started running towards Travis's truck after he saw Bryan's truck coming at the end of the street.

In court, Travis said (we don't know if it's true) that the shotgun that was positioned in the truck had fell down onto the floorboard and he initially opened the door and stepped out to reposition it.

 

I listened to the prosecutor's full cross-examination of Travis, and also the prosecutor's closing arguments. (These were the main parts of the trial. Even just these were tediously long)

They shed more details on what happened, but I just do not feel any differently about it. This case feels the same as it did before.

In my opinion the prosecutor's logic was just not rational, and the prosecutor did not have the evidence to be able to back up and substantiate her speculations.

I know it's horrible to say, but if we view Arbery as an animal, or a child with no control over his emotions and not entirely capable of rational thought, then I think Travis could be found somewhat guilty for putting Arbery into that situation. Not that it was intentional, but it was more a reckless mistake (going out of his truck the way he did), the same as mishandling an animal and causing the animal to panic which then results in someone getting hurt.



For Travis, I would see this as about 10% of an ordinary felony murder, combined with unlawful intimidation, even though the majority of the illegality of that intimidation was not intentional.

Maybe 4 years would have been a reasonable sentence. That's as generous to the anti-Travis side as I can honestly bring myself.

We do have to remember that Arbery ran at Travis, tried to take his gun, and caused his own death.

Maybe even punish him with an additional year for what he "might have" been doing, even though there's not solid enough evidence for it. So maybe 5 years.

 

There was probably at least one person somewhere who also witnessed the event. Were they guilty of "murder" too? Because they too didn't know that a "murder" was going to take place.

 

Arbery was a criminal with a criminal history. The jury should have been allowed to hear about it. Instead of making it look like he was just some innocent jogger minding his own business. As for any racial slur Travis might have used, the fact of the matter is that arbery was one of those racial slurs. And anybody who was attacked by one and forced to shoot it should be allowed to use the "N" word. Also, you say you are conflicted. Are you conflicted as to whether or not a living being should be allowed the undeniable right to self preservation? Because that is what it comes down to. In that regard, was justice done or not.

 

If that is the "law," I say fukc the "law." I say that to be a participant in any event, you have to be present at that event. Not just within visual range.

 

As I said, arbery was already on felony probation. That made him a desperate criminal. It is far from unknown that such people will risk death rather than go back to the slammer. Travis had every right to shoot arbery.

 

That may be true, but I think the fact is Arbery had the right to be treated in that situation with the presumption of innocence (like any other person).
That is undoubtedly the reason why that information was not allowed to be heard by the jury (whether you agree or disagree).

 

Just for those who do not know, those who are on probation don't get treated like normal people with normal rights. Their probation can be revoked and they can be returned to prison for the slightest reason, with little evidence. Or they can have additional restrictions imposed on them, simply based on an accusation against them without solid evidence.

There was very good reason Arbery did not want to wait around for police.
Also there is a previous video, from three years prior to his death, where Arbery was being very uncooperative with police and the officer even, at one point, attempted to shoot him with his taser gun, except the taser gun malfunctioned and did not shoot. This suggests a past pattern of behavior and aversion to police. (Of course the jury was not allowed to know about that either)

If the jury had been allowed to know that Arbery was on probation, I wonder whether that would have changed their view.
It gives us some insight into how Arbery likely may have been acting during the incident, and why he might engage in such a desperate act (running at someone with a gun).

The taser gun video suggests this is not the first time Arbery's behavior and interaction gave cause for suspicion.

 

You are wrong. The reason the jury wasn't allowed to hear about arbery is what I said it was. They wanted to hang the McMichaels and Bryan out to dry to prevent yet another negro riot. But here's the interesting thing. Our media has brainwashed the population into being anti-White. It is a sort of Stockholm Syndrome. It has even become a filthy cult. So even if the jury was allowed to hear about arbery, I doubt if it would have made any difference.

 

I saw the video once of where a cop tried to taser arbery. I also say about 4 different pictures from video surveillance cameras taken at different times and maybe different locations showing him being where he had no business being. But as I said, the american public has been trained to kow tow to blackroids. So even knowing what a psycho negro arbery was most likely wouldn't have swayed the jury. Especially with the famous (to blacks) religious negro jesse jackson sitting in the audience and glaring at them.

 

Probably those black preacher civil rights activists played a role in guilt tripping the jury, maybe even some mild psychological intimidation, like "You had better find them guilty of murder, or we're going to be very angry."
I doubt they were just sitting there with blank expressions on their faces and calm composures. We don't really have any video of this, but when the judge was announcing the sentence against Travis, a black man sitting back in the audience got too emotional, letting out a triumphal sound and ebullient body gesture, and was ordered by the judge to be immediately removed.

 

Possible. Just three rednecks no one cared about, and it wouldn't matter if they were thrown under the bus.
After all, "they probably shouldn't have done that", so they are responsible for whatever punishment they get.

What they are really be punished for however is racism. That they shouldn't have suspected Arbery of being the neighborhood burglar just because he was a young black male in their neighborhood whom they did not know.

 

They are getting what they deserve, period.