case. Before seeing this, I just figured the 3 defendants would be acquitted based on the actions of authorities at the scene, needing to go through 3 prosecutors to finally get charges even brought, and the over 2 month timespan between killing and arrest. But, she seemed to do a masterful job of blowing up the citizens arrest/self defense argument and really methodically proved that there should be conviction on all charges. Should be an interesting final verdict.
Just watched the prosecutors rebuttal in the Ahmaud Arbery
- Thread starter PUBV
- Start date
Haven't really followed this trial.
But a few questions I have:
What's Albury's criminal background? Does he have a rap sheet?
Wasn't he trespassing in homes under construction and caught on video?
Wasn't there a bunch of thefts recently in that neighborhood, including tools, etc from those construction sites?
Did Albury attack the guy with the gun and try to take the gun from him?
I'm not passing judgement, just asking questions.
But a few questions I have:
What's Albury's criminal background? Does he have a rap sheet?
Wasn't he trespassing in homes under construction and caught on video?
Wasn't there a bunch of thefts recently in that neighborhood, including tools, etc from those construction sites?
Did Albury attack the guy with the gun and try to take the gun from him?
I'm not passing judgement, just asking questions.
I would suggest some simple google searches to answer some of your questions. And then if you can, watch the prosecutions rebuttal which methodically lays out what happened that day
The three white guys need to go to prison for a long time. After watching even just a tidbit of this trial they tried to be the police and were the opposite of Kyle's case. I also don't think his rap sheet is really relevant as at the time, he wasn't doing anything wrong nor was he resisting arrest.
What I also don't like is the intimidation from BLM outside the courthouse. That alone could cause a mistrial if the judge thinks the jury was impacted by them in any way.
There is no intimidation by BLM. You guys don’t know what intimidation is. No white person was lynched because this trial. Blacks were lynched and witnesses beaten by white mobs back in the day. There have been 300 black ministers outside and inside the court room because of that crazy ass defense attorney, speaking of jury intimidation, trying to ban black ministers in the court room. The same attorney that says they weren’t enough “bubbas” on the jury.
Neither do you. You're such a narrowminded fool pretending to be black and have been fully exposed.
Just like Biden said: 'You ain't black'
Your line of questions has passed judgement. First of all, Arbery never took anything from any house on the neighborhood. Even if Arbery had a TV set in his arms running down the street nobody should try and track him down. You call the freakin police.
I guess we see crime differently. Which doesn’t surprise me. I mean, you’re a lefty lib.
I’m OK with criminals not getting away with crimes.
I think the answer to most of your questions was yes but that's not what the prosecutors focused on.
They focused on he didn't take anything and the cameras they installed to monitor the house had quite a few "trespassers" but the first one they came after was the black guy.
Without judgement because there's lots of other details but that is why they decided to prosecute.
WD
We don’t need those 3 goobers playing judge, jury, and executioner.
Some people really show their colors in threads like this.
how is criminal history of the victim relevant to this case?
Shouldnt we be asking of the criminal history of the accused instead?
Even in an open and shut guilty case like this, some folks are still looking for way contort themselves into all sorts of twists to defend the guilty. Some people have real issues.
how is criminal history of the victim relevant to this case?
Shouldnt we be asking of the criminal history of the accused instead?
Even in an open and shut guilty case like this, some folks are still looking for way contort themselves into all sorts of twists to defend the guilty. Some people have real issues.
This thread is nothing compared to what the left and the MSM do daily.
From what I have seen and read the prosecutors have proved their case here.
Completely different than Rittenhouse case. Where the case never should have been brought, based on the facts known to prosecutors.
I don't disagree, but didn't all 3 of these guys have law enforcement training?
I can see why they might take a neighborhood watch role into their own hands if theft, etc was becoming a consistent problem in the neighborhood.
But if a guy is pointing a gun at you, why would you physically assault him and put him in the position of actually pulling the trigger?
Fine. Lay it out there.
What's the criminal history of the accused?
But, list me the criminal history of Albury as well.
By the way, criminal history is always relevant. It shows a pattern of behavior.
If a person gets arrested DUI, is it relevant that they have prior DUI arrests?
The true colors comes out clear as day. Even when agree, kind of, they somehow find a way to blame the victim. Or justify the actions of the accused.
This truly appears to be a heinous crime, but are these 3 just good ole boys who stepped over the line, or are they part of a larger problem in Glynn county. The 1st officer to arrive on the scene made no attempt to render aid or even check Arbery’s pulse as he lay dying in the street. Instead he stood talking with one of the defendants until a 2nd officer arrived. This defendant is a retired police officer and PI who worked for the county DA. No one was arrested at the scene, in fact 2 defendants were allowed to drive away in the trucks they used during the pursuit of the victim without either vehicle being searched or photographed by forensics on the scene. One of the defendants initial calls was to the DA asking for advice. She would eventually recuse herself and reassign the case to another DA who she had already consulted about the case and who also had worked with the defendant. He would recuse himself but not before advising the police to still not arrest anyone while basically laying out what would become the defendants defense strategy in his opinion to the police dept. It ultimately required police reports released by the press and the case being referred to a 3rd prosecutor and release of video of the crime before any arrests were made, 74 days after the crime. That sure looks like a cover up
Is that your professional opinion as a Harvard-trained medical doctor (or was it Yale?), 'doc'?
Agreed, this is open and shut and anyone without an agenda can see that. Flip side of the coin the same can be said for rittenhouse. Open and shut case and the jury got it correct. Yet some people looking for ways to contort themselves into all sorts of twists and turns…
Too late. These 3 jackasses have been convicted!!!!
The legal system worked.
now, the question is, do you think they’ll convict that jackass Brooks in the Waukesha murders?
Last edited:
I disgree. This is not a legal opinion, just mine. Anytime, there's an avoidable loss of life, i don't think it's open and shut that person that did take the life should go free.
I think as a society we should default towards no loss of human life. And when it does occur, we must and should take our time examining if the person that took the life is guilty of a crime or not. We have defined self defense as one of those times where loss of life is acceptable. I think Rittenhouse was able to reasonably show his actions were in self defence. But the burden of proving it was a necessary homicide should fall on the person that killed and should never be open and shut.
Again this is not a legal opionion. I am not a lawyer, I am just offering my opionions as a member of the society describing the type of society I wish to live. It is one where anyone who killls (including law enforcement officers), even "justifiably" have to convince the rest of us it was indeed absolutely necessary.
I guess you are a better man than me. People like Brooks and others that shoot and kill innocent children in Chicago on a weekly basis could be gathered up and put in the landfill. I’m sick and tired of these people killing innocent people and we as a society just accept it as things happen. We all talk about it, but nothing gets done so it happens over and over.
Burden of proof and presumption of innocence don’t cease to exist when someone dies. The burden is always on the state and should never be placed on the accused to prove their innocence.
wrong. I am not a lawyer, but isn't self defense considered an "affirmative defense," which means the burden of proving self defense is actually on the person using that defense.
Presumption of innocence absolutely still exists if you are trying to prove "who dunnit." But this siutation is different. "Who dunnit" is not in question, what's in question is "why". In such cases, presumptions of innocence , imo, should not exist.
From a societal viewpoint, homicide in my opinion, is just different from other crimes. Anyone claiming justifiable homicide (including law enforcement officers) has to prove it is indeed justifiable. In my opinion, we can't and shouldn't have it any other way. You don't just kill anyone and expect the rest of us to automatically presume you have a good reason for it. That's madness! I think by and large, with some glaring exceptions of certain people, that's how laws are actually structured (but I am not a lawyer).
Think about it, do you really want to live in a society where anyone and everyone who kills another person should be presumed to always be justified? The armed robber or hired assassin who kills can claim it's justfiable, the burden of proof is on the state to prove it wasn't. That's just madness.
Last edited:
Affirmative defense is just a type of defense that can be used by a defendant, it doesn’t alleviate the burden of proof on the state regarding the original charge. The defendant acknowledges they committed the act but then provide credible evidence that mitigate the charges and justify the act. The presumption of innocence still applies to the original charges.
Nope, not a lawyer but work in family law and some criminal law every day for the last 15 years so have gotten somewhat knowledgeable about how it works, although not an expert by any means.
This is why our legal system works as well as it does, although it’s not perfect, it doesn’t, or at least shouldn’t, get emotional and change it’s basic core values based on an emotional crime (someone being killed). As a human I understand and agree with much of what you said, but that’s not how our legal system works. I have similar personal feelings about pedophiles and individuals who commit heinous acts against children, but regardless of my personal views, even those dirtbags are initially presumed innocent in the eyes of our legal system.
I wish we lived in a society where people who are upset about something don’t think the appropriate reaction is to loot, riot, destroy property and attack police.
Especially people who have proven to be a menace to society multiple times in the past.
Kyle took out the trash.
In the vast, vast majority of situations where someone is killed in a self defense situation, the deceased was a piece of shit individual with a rap sheet.
They rolled the dice one too many times. I don’t mourne their death.
It’s super simple: don’t be a criminal.
