oh shit, I started seeing all those “Greg McMichaels” instead of “the McMichaels”. The lawyer might be trying to throw Travis under the bus
Ahmaud Aubery shooting Video. They claimed self defense. The video shows Pre-Meditated Murder; UPDATE ALL 3 CACS GUILTY of Felony and Malice MURDER!
- Thread starter Tiger_Hood
- Start date
oh shit, I started seeing all those “Greg McMichaels” instead of “the McMichaels”. The lawyer might be trying to throw Travis under the bus
They have separate attorneys.
I dont know. But I wish you stop giving him clicks and views bro.
I went into two high-end homes under construction today and at one of them a neighbor came out and I did everything to avoid eye contact with him because I wanted him to come to talk to me. He just waved at me and I got in my car very slowly, hoping he would come to talk to me.. LOL
Last edited:
Damn I don't care how these dudes make their money but it pains me to see them cutting jokes about such a serious matter, no 23 year old deserves to die for walking into a construction building.
When he said that the last thing he would do was call the police if he were going to commit a hate crime, he was wrong. Calling the police gives people a reason. It backs a claim that they thought something and tried to go the police route. Calling the police is actually a perfect setup to committing murder.
For example, if someone is breaking into a car, the owner might call the police and act terrified. All the while, they are really planning on emptying a clip into the person breaking into the car. They have the built-in fear excuse.
Calling the police is perfect for bait cases. Because if a person don't call them first thing they ask is why if the situation were that bad.
Wtf is wrong with these mfkrs.....
I'm seriously mad at myself for clicking on that damn video.....
They are only following the coon playbook....
He charged Travis?!
No Travis was standing on the driver's side, once Ahmaud saw him, he then changed direction and went to the right of the vehicle.... Travis then walked around the front of the vehicle towards the right side to meet Ahmaud......
So if you see a mfkr walk around a vehicle with a gun pointed at you forcing an interaction with you...... y'all coon ass mfkrs are just gonna what wait an obey a strangers orders and hope he doesn't shoot you or fight for your fuckin life and try to get away?
Ahmuad chose to fight.... that doesn't warrant death....
And they again perpetuate this lie that walking into that construction site was a felony... no its was not.
Since none of the "neighbors" are the owners in most cases it wouldn't have even been a crime / misdemeanor.... the police would have to try to track down the owners names and then phone numbers, talk to them to see if they wanted to press charges, for what, something thats ticketable....?
Police are lazy... that would slide 8 out of 10 times
Man fuck those twin sambos!!
Apparently as of yesterday, this is the scene outisde of the male who filmed the incident’s home.
This is nothing like I have ever seen in GA and I have lived and traveled this state my whole life.
YouTube put a disclaimer at the beginning of the video...
Respect and Propers!!!
Remove spaces
https://www. facebook.com/ 100000538316460/posts/3474721552555754/
Remove spaces
https://www. facebook.com/ 100000538316460/posts/3474721552555754/
Last edited:
The people trying to say the McMichaels were justified in killing Ahmaud keep saying Ahmaud attacked, charged, grabbed the gun and trying to say the gun was pointed down so it wasn’t a threat. I keep reading those comments and can’t b so many of them repeating the same lie
The homeowner might have called the McMichaels to check it out and not this other neighbor that he is claiming. They used that two months to get their story straight and to minimize the damage from a prosecution. If he called the McMichaels, than he could be charged, especially with video like this of him letting white people sleepover. This sounds like a coverup, by delaying shit for two months.
Why not run in a state park or reservoir? He was stupid jogging in an all white neigborhood. He was looking to get some water alright, he was hunting for a Becky to rape in the house. The white mob would have burned down the black area for sure. I would not want people coming into a house I am constructing.
Last edited:
I totally agree with their decision. You can't sit up on these platform inciting people to harm me all day; I am having my attorney contact Youtube and getting these clowns banned completely or they are paying for serious damages.
Antonio Moore
Tariq Nasheed
Lebron James
Boyce Watkins
African Diaspora Channel
MKBHD
Oprah
Will Smith
Denzel Washington
@Dr. Truth
These white supremacists are using these black fronts to spew their nonsense verbatim about me. Their talking points match their words verbatim.
Says protected or deleted...
So the witness' attorney is making it seem like ole Billy was on the side of Albert's family in leaking the video.....
When initially he was saying he hoped the video would prove the McMichaels did nothing wrong....
Dude just trying to stay out of jail.... He was following along helping the McMichaels stalk Ahmaud, he's an accomplice but his naivete made all the difference in getting Travis in jail...
Exactly. But it's one of those things you can't prove unless you have them blabbing about it. But prosecutors should know that this kind of shit happens.
Well, you have to know what the other side is saying/thinking in order to mount a good offense. If the gun was pointed down, they going to make all kinds of arguments.
I'm not a prosecutor, but I know if I confront someone in Ohio with my hammer out, I'm the aggressor and it's assault. So If I'm committing assault just by brandishing, is it automatically self-defense for the other person? I don't think people are aware that brandishing can lead to an assault case.
The argument about charging the guy with the gun. Well, that's specific to the person obviously. Some people run. Some just stand there. Some might try to go for the gun. Really not interested in hearing online speculation as to what people would do with a gun pointed at them unless they actually been in that spot before(much like a fight, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth). And that's arguments both fucking ways. I'm really only interested in the legality of the situation. In Ohio, the person with the firearm would have to eat at least a manslaughter case. Something.
Those cacs weren't LE. Weren't bail agents. So it seems to me they committed the first assault. Shit, I've seen cats get kidnapping charges without pointing the gun at people. These cacs should be in a world of shit period just for having those weapons OUT and making vocal commands.
Exactly. But it's one of those things you can't prove unless you have them blabbing about it. But prosecutors should know that this kind of shit happens.
Well, you have to know what the other side is saying/thinking in order to mount a good offense. If the gun was pointed down, they going to make all kinds of arguments.
I'm not a prosecutor, but I know if I confront someone in Ohio with my hammer out, I'm the aggressor and it's assault. So If I'm committing assault just by brandishing, is it automatically self-defense for the other person? I don't think people are aware that brandishing can lead to an assault case.
The argument about charging the guy with the gun. Well, that's specific to the person obviously. Some people run. Some just stand there. Some might try to go for the gun. Really not interested in hearing online speculation as to what people would do with a gun pointed at them unless they actually been in that spot before(much like a fight, everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth). And that's arguments both fucking ways. I'm really only interested in the legality of the situation. In Ohio, the person with the firearm would have to eat at least a manslaughter case. Something.
Those cacs weren't LE. Weren't bail agents. So it seems to me they committed the first assault. Shit, I've seen cats get kidnapping charges without pointing the gun at people. These cacs should be in a world of shit period just for having those weapons OUT and making vocal commands.
that’s probably the law in every state, you can’t block the road with your truck and then stand there with a shotgun and then say you got attacked, plus they said in the police report that they took the guns out of their house and put them in their car because they thought Ahmaud might have one so they basically said they were prepared to use deadly force
Last edited:
Yo, that's another fucking thing. Retrieving the weapons. I know even in Florida with their liberal gun/defense laws that retrieving the guns makes a world of difference.
Every state has its own shit, but damn they would be fucked in my state and in Florida for retrieving those guns.
Youtube adshare revenue from the clickbait with the "both sides" facade game he's playing.
I wish i could download the video its 11 minutes of Khalid Muhammad laying out the proper response to police shootings.
The real reason the NOI got rid of Khalid Muhammad
https:// www. facebook.com/ trueafricanorigin/videos/269298291114557/
never thought I'd see the day that I agree with Dana Loesch, but damn she was spot on with this one:
danaloesch.com
"Irresponsibly holding someone under the claim of citizen’s arrest without meeting the litmus test required by law may earn you some sort of unlawful detainment charge.
So there wasn’t any clear evidence tying Arbery to any burglary other than the McMichaels claim that they saw him at a construction site and assumed he was a burglar. Furthermore, there is nothing to justify the McMichaels’s pursuit. I’ve heard from some that there exist videos of Arbery burglarizing other houses, if so, where are they? Why haven’t they been presented to police? Even if these videos exist, that still doesn’t justify the pursuit of someone by others who did not witness the crime of which they’re accusing Arbery. That’s an incredibly important detail in Georgia law as it relates to citizen’s arrests. There was no evidence of Arbery committing a crime on the video necessitating the pursuit and confrontation."
Dana Loesch#1 Female Radio Host in AmericaThe Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Consistency is important, particularly when it comes to due process. So, too, is discussion of self defense rights. I’ve seen the video of Ahmaud Arbery’s killing (a link to this video …
danaloesch.com
"Irresponsibly holding someone under the claim of citizen’s arrest without meeting the litmus test required by law may earn you some sort of unlawful detainment charge.
So there wasn’t any clear evidence tying Arbery to any burglary other than the McMichaels claim that they saw him at a construction site and assumed he was a burglar. Furthermore, there is nothing to justify the McMichaels’s pursuit. I’ve heard from some that there exist videos of Arbery burglarizing other houses, if so, where are they? Why haven’t they been presented to police? Even if these videos exist, that still doesn’t justify the pursuit of someone by others who did not witness the crime of which they’re accusing Arbery. That’s an incredibly important detail in Georgia law as it relates to citizen’s arrests. There was no evidence of Arbery committing a crime on the video necessitating the pursuit and confrontation."
Another excerpt from the Dana Loesch written article above:
"Some argued that Travis McMichael had the right to use lethal force when Arbery crossed in front of the truck. This argument doesn’t make sense to me. Here’s why: In the video Arbery looked as though he was going to run on the right side of the truck to avoid the driver. When Travis McMichael exited his truck with his shotgun, went around the open driver’s side door to the front of the truck, that’s when Arbery crossed. While the younger McMichael and his shotgun are out of frame at this point, I can only extrapolate on this from the perspective of placing myself in Arbey’s situation at that moment: If I’m running, walking, whatever, and I see two men (with one standing in the back of the truck like he’s in a parade) who followed me and then pulled into my oncoming path while demanding I stop to talk with them, and one comes out with a shotgun? I’m going to fear for my safety. If one points the barrel at me you’re damn right I’m going to go for control of that barrel because there is no way on foot I’m going to outrun two guys in a truck. I’m amazed that some think Arbery should have extended the benefit of the doubt to the McMichaels when the McMichaels did not extend that courtesy to Arbery. And no — private citizens do not have the right to stop the actions or movement of other private citizens and if someone in a vehicle demands you stop to talk to them you are under zero obligation — legal or otherwise — to do so. Besides, doing so would violate every single “stranger danger” lesson I ever learned in school.
Those who say that the McMichaels have their right of armed self defense apparently don’t realize that it can also be viewed that Arbery also had his right of self defense and I’m pretty sure felt as though his life was in danger the moment Travis McMichael stopped his truck in the road and got out to confront him with his shotgun."
"Some argued that Travis McMichael had the right to use lethal force when Arbery crossed in front of the truck. This argument doesn’t make sense to me. Here’s why: In the video Arbery looked as though he was going to run on the right side of the truck to avoid the driver. When Travis McMichael exited his truck with his shotgun, went around the open driver’s side door to the front of the truck, that’s when Arbery crossed. While the younger McMichael and his shotgun are out of frame at this point, I can only extrapolate on this from the perspective of placing myself in Arbey’s situation at that moment: If I’m running, walking, whatever, and I see two men (with one standing in the back of the truck like he’s in a parade) who followed me and then pulled into my oncoming path while demanding I stop to talk with them, and one comes out with a shotgun? I’m going to fear for my safety. If one points the barrel at me you’re damn right I’m going to go for control of that barrel because there is no way on foot I’m going to outrun two guys in a truck. I’m amazed that some think Arbery should have extended the benefit of the doubt to the McMichaels when the McMichaels did not extend that courtesy to Arbery. And no — private citizens do not have the right to stop the actions or movement of other private citizens and if someone in a vehicle demands you stop to talk to them you are under zero obligation — legal or otherwise — to do so. Besides, doing so would violate every single “stranger danger” lesson I ever learned in school.
Those who say that the McMichaels have their right of armed self defense apparently don’t realize that it can also be viewed that Arbery also had his right of self defense and I’m pretty sure felt as though his life was in danger the moment Travis McMichael stopped his truck in the road and got out to confront him with his shotgun."
Howard Moseley
Howard Moseley is on Facebook. Join Facebook to connect with Howard Moseley and others you may know. Facebook gives people the power to share and makes the world more open and connected.
www.facebook.com
I don't know what's going on but it plays and has not been removed. I just watched it and added the lind w/o spaces and got this message.
never thought I'd see the day that I agree with Dana Loesch, but damn she was spot on with this one:
Dana Loesch#1 Female Radio Host in AmericaThe Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
Consistency is important, particularly when it comes to due process. So, too, is discussion of self defense rights. I’ve seen the video of Ahmaud Arbery’s killing (a link to this video …
"Irresponsibly holding someone under the claim of citizen’s arrest without meeting the litmus test required by law may earn you some sort of unlawful detainment charge.
So there wasn’t any clear evidence tying Arbery to any burglary other than the McMichaels claim that they saw him at a construction site and assumed he was a burglar. Furthermore, there is nothing to justify the McMichaels’s pursuit. I’ve heard from some that there exist videos of Arbery burglarizing other houses, if so, where are they? Why haven’t they been presented to police? Even if these videos exist, that still doesn’t justify the pursuit of someone by others who did not witness the crime of which they’re accusing Arbery. That’s an incredibly important detail in Georgia law as it relates to citizen’s arrests. There was no evidence of Arbery committing a crime on the video necessitating the pursuit and confrontation."
‘Also people keep getting confused about the events that happened on Feb 23rd, they keep saying “they“, as in the McMichaels, saw Ahmaud run from the house but it was the neighbor who saw all this, the McMichaels never saw any of this. The McMichaels chased Ahmaud because he had confrontation with Travis McMichael on Feb 11 where Travis said he saw him in the yard and went to confront him but left because Ahmaud put his hand in his waistband and he thought Ahmaud had a gun
The McMichaels said that there had been a lot of break-ins in their neighborhood, except that this isn’t confirmed by fact or police reporting. They saw a guy, Ahmaud Arbery, looking around at the entirely open, under-construction house across the street and felt the best way to handle this situation was to pursue him after Arbery left the site. Even if this makes sense, how is this not bad judgment?
What the fuck wrong with you? Hunting for a Becky to rape? That man can run wherever the fuck he wants too. Its a free country. What are you, a fucking CAC? Hell, the man could have been looking at the construction of the place and saw some shit he wanted to learn. Or, he might just been dreaming about building and buying a house one day. Shit is stupid. I don't have to say why is this happening in 2020. It shouldn't happen at anytime. Nonetheless, I don't like one bit what you wrote.
The homeowner might have called the McMichaels to check it out and not this other neighbor that he is claiming. They used that two months to get their story straight and to minimize the damage from a prosecution. If he called the McMichaels, than he could be charged, especially with video like this of him letting white people sleepover. This sounds like a coverup, by delaying shit for two months.
Why not run in a state park or reservoir? He was stupid jogging in an all white neigborhood. He was looking to get some water alright, he was hunting for a Becky to rape in the house. The white mob would have burned down the black area for sure. I would not want people coming into a house I am constructing.
Howard Moseley
Howard Moseley is on Facebook. Join Facebook to connect with Howard Moseley and others you may know. Facebook gives people the power to share and makes the world more open and connected.
I don't know what's going on but it plays and has not been removed. I just watched it and added the lind w/o spaces and got this message.
You see my man laid it out straight ether
I wasn't sure if he was copying a quote from somewhere, being in "character," or what? At any rate, I just kept it moving...that statement just could NOT be taken seriously.
Fam you are 100% in everything you wrote....
The problem is, he is a troll and loves the attention
So even though you're right, you're wrong in execution..
let's not give this troll any more attention
I wasn't sure if he was copying a quote from somewhere, being in "character," or what? At any rate, I just kept it moving...that statement just could NOT be taken seriously.
Yeah gotta ignore that mfkr
Woman whose brother and father 'killed' Ahmaud Arbery speaks out
Lindsay McMichael, 30, was inside in her pajamas when her father Gregory, 64, and brother Travis, 34, shot and killed Arbery, 25, down the road from their Brunswick, Georgia home on February 23.
Police officer told homeowner he could contact Ahmaud Arbery shooting suspect for help with potential trespassers, text message shows | CNN
A text message obtained by CNN shows a Glynn County police officer told the owner of a home under construction near the Georgia coast that he could contact Gregory McMichael for help with potential trespassers seen in surveillance video from his property.
It looks like they were acting as agents of law enforcement and not performing a citizen arrests if this is true. The homeowner consented to the McMichaels patrolling their property as I suspected through his lack of refusal. I always thought it was a little too presumptive for a McMichaels to confront the victim like that on another person property that they allegedly did not know.
If they were acting as agents of law enforcement, they could detain him based on reasonable suspicion and have other qualified immunity. I don't know why they are claiming this other garbage. It does not look too good for Ahmaud.
Here is an example of a person acting as an agent of the police:
An “Illegal” Search
Many cases over the years have defined what constitutes an illegal search by law enforcement. But, in some ways, there’s really no such thing as an “illegal” search by a private citizen, at least in the sense that police searches can be illegal: Regardless of issues like lack of probable cause, evidence found by private citizens acting on their own is usually admissible in court. That’s true even if the private citizen committed a crime like trespass or theft to accomplish the search. (Regardless of the admissibility of evidence, though, the citizen will be liable for any crime committed in the course of the search.)
State Actors?
Because the exclusionary rule applies to government conduct, evidence from a search by a private citizen who acted on behalf of law enforcement, but without probable cause, is usually inadmissible. For example, if the police don’t have probable cause but employ an informant to look through someone’s bag, a judge will likely suppress any evidence of the contents.
Although police officers sometimes seek the help of private citizens, many professions that appear to be “law enforcement” aren’t. For example, courts typically don’t consider security guards employed by private businesses to be government agents. The same goes for private investigators and bounty hunters, who operate from profit motive rather than to assist a government investigation. Even off-duty police officers employed as private security aren’t government agents for Fourth Amendment purposes.
Police officer told homeowner he could contact Ahmaud Arbery shooting suspect for help with potential trespassers, text message shows | CNN
A text message obtained by CNN shows a Glynn County police officer told the owner of a home under construction near the Georgia coast that he could contact Gregory McMichael for help with potential trespassers seen in surveillance video from his property.www.cnn.com
It looks like they were acting as agents of law enforcement and not performing a citizen arrests if this is true. The homeowner consented to the McMichaels patrolling their property as I suspected through his lack of refusal. I always thought it was a little too presumptive for a McMichaels to confront the victim like that on another person property that they allegedly did not know.
If they were acting as agents of law enforcement, they could detain him based on reasonable suspicion and have other qualified immunity. I don't know why they are claiming this other garbage. It does not look too good for Ahmaud.
Here is an example of a person acting as an agent of the police:
An “Illegal” Search
Many cases over the years have defined what constitutes an illegal search by law enforcement. But, in some ways, there’s really no such thing as an “illegal” search by a private citizen, at least in the sense that police searches can be illegal: Regardless of issues like lack of probable cause, evidence found by private citizens acting on their own is usually admissible in court. That’s true even if the private citizen committed a crime like trespass or theft to accomplish the search. (Regardless of the admissibility of evidence, though, the citizen will be liable for any crime committed in the course of the search.)
State Actors?
Because the exclusionary rule applies to government conduct, evidence from a search by a private citizen who acted on behalf of law enforcement, but without probable cause, is usually inadmissible. For example, if the police don’t have probable cause but employ an informant to look through someone’s bag, a judge will likely suppress any evidence of the contents.
Although police officers sometimes seek the help of private citizens, many professions that appear to be “law enforcement” aren’t. For example, courts typically don’t consider security guards employed by private businesses to be government agents. The same goes for private investigators and bounty hunters, who operate from profit motive rather than to assist a government investigation. Even off-duty police officers employed as private security aren’t government agents for Fourth Amendment purposes.
You missed a very important detail though, they said he could contact GREGORY MCMICHAEL because he was a retired police officer and private investigator, they said nothing about Travis McMichael. Also the homeowner said potential “trespassers”, he said nothing about burglaries, so for one Travis McMichael had no business trying to stop anybody and if the homeowner just described trespassers neither Travis nor Greg McMichael should have grabbed their guns. One last thing, the owner said he didn’t even know the McMichaels so it seems he never even told them to watch his property to begin with