Ahmaud Arbery Had Dirty Toe Nails

[Tiberius]

Ya, the defense isn't counting on racist jurors to get an acquittal. Can't believe this even went to trail, but of course the three armed white men can count on a jury to look the other way after they killed an unarmed black guy. 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/22/us/ahmaud-arbery-trial-toenails-comment-outrage/index.html
 

Quote

"Turning Ahmaud Arbery into a victim after the choices that he made does not reflect the reality of what brought Ahmaud Arbery to Satilla Shores in his khaki shorts with no socks to cover his long, dirty toenails," Hogue told jurors.

 

 

[BillStime]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Ya, the defense isn't counting on racist jurors to get an acquittal. Can't believe this even went to trail, but of course the three armed white men can count on a jury to look the other way after they killed an unarmed black guy. 

 

https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/22/us/ahmaud-arbery-trial-toenails-comment-outrage/index.html
 

 

Clearly self defense, Tibs

[OrangeBills]

Disgusting comment from that Trial Lawyer, zero defending that.  Also zero defending the behavior of the defendants, they are clearly racist scum who need to be punished.  There is no place for this mindset in our society.

[Tiberius]

4 minutes ago, BillStime said:

Clearly self defense, Tibs

What else could those three armed men of done? 

[BillStime]

9 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

What else could those three armed men of done? 

Call Kyle?

[aristocrat]

I don’t think anyone thinks they’re innocent 

[Westside]

I love the faux outrage by the PPP marxists. 😂😂😂

[Wacka]

They're mad we are not acting the way they want us to.

[Tiberius]

12 minutes ago, Westside said:

I love the faux outrage by the PPP marxists. 😂😂😂

Butt hurt much? 

[BillStime]

14 minutes ago, Westside said:

I love the faux outrage by the PPP marxists. 😂😂😂

 

9 minutes ago, Westside said:

WTF are you talking about? Don’t let your racist inclination’s get in the way of coherent thought.

 

I love how you label people you don’t even know. 

 

[aristocrat]

So are you guys not happy they're about to be found guilty?

[Tiberius]

15 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

So are you guys not happy they're about to be found guilty?

That's hardly a 100% guarantee. The fact they didn't plead it out tells me they are counting on the Bubba jurors to hang the jury. 

[aristocrat]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

That's hardly a 100% guarantee. The fact they didn't plead it out tells me they are counting on the Bubba jurors to hang the jury. 

 

One of them tried plea after the trial started and I believe the prosecution told them no. 

[SectionC3]

51 minutes ago, Wacka said:

They're mad we are not acting the way they want us to.

 

Really?  What do dirty toenails have to do with anything?  It’s an asinine comment.  Disgusting.  

16 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

 

One of them tried plea after the trial started and I believe the prosecution told them no. 

 

Not unusual.  Typically the deal has an expiration date/time, an that expiration date/time almost never extends beyond jury selection.  

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

42 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

So are you guys not happy they're about to be found guilty?

The grousing you are seeing is that they already know how much extra work it will be to try and fit that outcome into the narrative. 

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

The grousing you are seeing is that they already know how much extra work it will be to try and fit that outcome into the narrative. 

No, you are grousing. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

42 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

That's hardly a 100% guarantee. The fact they didn't plead it out tells me they are counting on the Bubba jurors to hang the jury. 

I don't expect a hung jury here.  Based on the evidence I'd expect them to be found guilty.  A self-defense argument doesn't hold any merit in this case.  Citizens are generally not empowered to detain a person that poses no immediate threat and in addition has taken no observable action to break any law along with clearly attempting disengaging themselves from any type of confrontation.  I'd expect a competent attorney would have advised his clients to accept or initiate some sort of plea arrangement rather than go to trial.

 

But juries can be unpredictable.  The circumstances here are much like the Zimmerman trial in the killing of Treyvon Martin in Florida.  I thought Zimmerman was guilty there based on police instructions to not engage Martin in any way which Zimmerman ignored to initiate a confrontation.  I don't believe self-defense is a valid argument when you are the instigator.  For me the jury got it wrong here.   

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

14 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

No, you are grousing. 

Come Tibs, You don’t want a conviction, you want the acquittal that fits your mind master’s narrative, even at the expense of the individual who was subjected to a hate crime.  You continue to be the problem, not the solution. 

[Tiberius]

7 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Come Tibs, You don’t want a conviction, you want the acquittal that fits your mind master’s narrative, even at the expense of the individual who was subjected to a hate crime.  You continue to be the problem, not the solution. 

Poster telling me what I think! 👎

[aristocrat]

24 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I don't expect a hung jury here.  Based on the evidence I'd expect them to be found guilty.  A self-defense argument doesn't hold any merit in this case.  Citizens are generally not empowered to detain a person that poses no immediate threat and in addition has taken no observable action to break any law along with clearly attempting disengaging themselves from any type of confrontation.  I'd expect a competent attorney would have advised his clients to accept or initiate some sort of plea arrangement rather than go to trial.

 

But juries can be unpredictable.  The circumstances here are much like the Zimmerman trial in the killing of Treyvon Martin in Florida.  I thought Zimmerman was guilty there based on police instructions to not engage Martin in any way which Zimmerman ignored to initiate a confrontation.  I don't believe self-defense is a valid argument when you are the instigator.  For me the jury got it wrong here.   

 

The Zimmerman doctored phone call  that NBC released is what started all this right?  Now they rush to racism for every narrative even though the Zimmerman thing wasn't about race.  

https://www.businessinsider.com/nbc-apologizes-to-george-zimmerman-for-editing-a-911-call-to-make-him-sound-really-racist-2012-4

 

But they ran with that narrative. 

[Boatdrinks]

2 hours ago, aristocrat said:

I don’t think anyone thinks they’re innocent 

Yet most libs feel Rittenhouse is guilty. Just shows the lack of critical thinking on the left vs the common sense of conservatives. 

[Orlando Tim]

1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I don't expect a hung jury here.  Based on the evidence I'd expect them to be found guilty.  A self-defense argument doesn't hold any merit in this case.  Citizens are generally not empowered to detain a person that poses no immediate threat and in addition has taken no observable action to break any law along with clearly attempting disengaging themselves from any type of confrontation.  I'd expect a competent attorney would have advised his clients to accept or initiate some sort of plea arrangement rather than go to trial.

 

But juries can be unpredictable.  The circumstances here are much like the Zimmerman trial in the killing of Treyvon Martin in Florida.  I thought Zimmerman was guilty there based on police instructions to not engage Martin in any way which Zimmerman ignored to initiate a confrontation.  I don't believe self-defense is a valid argument when you are the instigator.  For me the jury got it wrong here.   

From what I have heard these guys are guilty of flat out murder, maybe legally manslaughter. The Zimmerman case was completely different, Zimmerman was simply following him but Trayvon initiated the confrontation and made it physical. Zimmerman was not standing his ground but at that point it became self defense. 

[Tiberius]

8 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

From what I have heard these guys are guilty of flat out murder, maybe legally manslaughter. The Zimmerman case was completely different, Zimmerman was simply following him but Trayvon initiated the confrontation and made it physical. Zimmerman was not standing his ground but at that point it became self defense. 

He followed with his gun. Zimmerman is a complete POS, as his actions since have demonstrated. He initiated the situation by stalking him. 

[Westside]

22 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Yet most libs feel Rittenhouse is guilty. Just shows the lack of critical thinking on the left vs the common sense of conservatives. 

Being a lifelong democrat, I can’t help but notice the slide into corruption the Democratic Party has turned into. This isn’t the party I grew up in, nor is it the party I support anymore. I just can’t find myself backing the Republican Party, they are just as corrupted without the slime ball pedo supporters who have taken over the Democratic Party.

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

He followed with his gun. Zimmerman is a complete POS, as his actions since have demonstrated. He initiated the situation by stalking him. 

So, then you agree that the two scumbags who chased and hunted down a 17 year old kid are guilty?

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, Westside said:

Being a lifelong democrat, I can’t help but notice the slide into corruption the Democratic Party has turned into. This isn’t the party I grew up in, nor is it the party I support anymore. I just can’t find myself backing the Republican Party, they are just as corrupted without the slime ball pedo supporters who have taken over the Democratic Party.

So, then you agree that the two scumbags who chased and hunted down a 17 year old kid are guilty?

You mean the kid with the assault rifle? 

[Westside]

Just now, Tiberius said:

You mean the kid with the assault rifle? 

The kid running for his life. Keep protecting women beaters and child rapists. You keep being you.

[Tiberius]

3 minutes ago, Westside said:

The kid running for his life. Keep protecting women beaters and child rapists. You keep being you.

The kid who shot three people? 

[Westside]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

The kid who shot three people? 

The kid who defended himself legally.

You can B word and moan all you want, but you’ve been proven wrong once again. You ever get tired of losing?

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, Westside said:

The kid who defended himself legally.

You can B word and moan all you want, but you’ve been proven wrong once again. You ever get tired of losing?

Losing? I didn't lose. You are the one (LOL!!!) who ran off this board when your cult leader was beaten by Biden. 

 

You are a sore loser. 
 

[snafu]

11 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

You mean the kid with the assault rifle? 

 

Maybe they should have thought about chasing someone with an assault rifle.

Seems like a bad idea.

 

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, snafu said:

 

Maybe they should have thought about chasing someone with an assault rifle.

Seems like a bad idea.

 

Sure turned out that way 

[Westside]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Losing? I didn't lose. You are the one (LOL!!!) who ran off this board when your cult leader was beaten by Biden. 

 

You are a sore loser. 
 

Lol, I’ve been here, under a different name. Something you’re very familiar with. 😂

[Orlando Tim]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

He followed with his gun. Zimmerman is a complete POS, as his actions since have demonstrated. He initiated the situation by stalking him. 

What kind of person was Trayvon? Why was he in Orlando? Unless that is a relevant question than Zimmermans other behavior is not relevant. Both parties that night were stupid and the physical confrontation was started by Trayvon, therefore self defense comes into question.

[SectionC3]

2 hours ago, Westside said:

The kid running for his life. Keep protecting women beaters and child rapists. You keep being you.

 

Please.  This is where common sense takes over.  If one takes a very narrow view of the relevant law with respect to justification, then Rittenhouse is not guilty.  That’s the verdict, and that’s the way it is.  We all have to respect that.  

 

If, however, one takes a broader, more practical view of the law, then his case is much more difficult.  Was it a good idea for a kid to take an assault rifle to a messy scene like Kenosha?  Definitely not.  And, did his presence and activity with that rifle make him the initial aggressor?  Different issue.  Maybe so.  Not what the jury concluded, but a conclusion that many a reasonable mind could reach. 

 

No matter how one views the outcome of this case, we seem—as a society—to have checked our heads at the door if we somehow think it’s a good idea to have a heavily armed child, or any heavily armed person who is not on-duty law enforcement, roaming the scene of what was fairly characterizable as a riot.   The result, which was totally unnecessary and could have been avoided if this kid, who had no business being there in the first place, had simply stayed home and kept to himself.  

2 hours ago, Westside said:

Being a lifelong democrat, I can’t help but notice the slide into corruption the Democratic Party has turned into. This isn’t the party I grew up in, nor is it the party I support anymore. I just can’t find myself backing the Republican Party, they are just as corrupted without the slime ball pedo supporters who have taken over the Democratic Party.

Matt Gaetz is a Republican.  FYI.  So is the Don who, last I checked, hung with Epstein. 

Edited November 23, 2021 by SectionC3

[Westside]

1 minute ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Please.  This is where common sense takes over.  If one takes a very narrow view of the relevant law with respect to justification, then Rittenhouse is not guilty.  That’s the verdict, and that’s the way it is.  We all have to respect that.  

 

If, however, one takes a broader, more practical view of the law, then his case is much more difficult.  Was it a good idea for a kid to take an assault rifle to a messy scene like Kenosha?  Definitely not.  And, did his presence and activity with that rifle make him the initial aggressor?  Different issue.  Maybe so.  Not what the jury concluded, but a conclusion that many a reasonable mind could reach. 

 

No matter how one views the outcome of this case, we seem—as a society—to have checked our heads at the door if we somehow think it’s a good idea to have a heavily armed child, or any heavily armed person who is not on-duty law enforcement authority, roaming the scene of what was fairly characterizable as a riot.   The result, which was totally unnecessary and could have been avoided if this kid, who had no business being there in the first place, had simply stayed home and kept to himself.  

I actually agree with you. I don’t think he should have been there. I would never allow my 17 year old son to do what he did. It was dangerous and stupid. But, he still had a right to defend himself. 
Being a democrat all of my life, I for the life of me understand why they protect child molesters and scumbags. Those three who attacked him had no business being there either. I’m still waiting for the convicted felon who pointed his illegal gun and got his arm shot off to be arrested for having an illegal gun.

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

3 hours ago, Buffalo Timmy said:

From what I have heard these guys are guilty of flat out murder, maybe legally manslaughter. The Zimmerman case was completely different, Zimmerman was simply following him but Trayvon initiated the confrontation and made it physical. Zimmerman was not standing his ground but at that point it became self defense. 

Being followed by some unknown person for some unknown reason can be easily interpreted as threatening or a potential danger.  Why is this guy following me?  I'm not doing anything.  What does he want?  Is he going to jump me or something?  This guy is acting "suspicious".  That's likely what Martin was thinking.

What was Zimmerman's motive for following Martin?  Simply because he thought he looked or acted "suspicious"?  Zimmerman was a private citizen, not an officer of the law.  He has no legal right to question or detain anyone on a public street that is not actively involved in a crime.  To me this is consistent with the scenario with the defendants in Georgia.      

 

I remember being followed when driving one night, by a police patrol.  This is how I experienced and felt about being "followed".  My wife and I had just left a family gathering at around 11 PM across town.  About 3/4 mile away from the party I'm sitting at a red light and a local cop pulls behind me.  Long story short, he's glued to my bumper for about 6 miles through 7 or 8 left and right turns.  And follows me right down my street and as I turn into my driveway and patrol car passes by.  As I was doing nothing illegal, exhibited no signs of erratic driving or speeding, and the worst thing on my driving record is an expired inspection sticker, I viewed this as plain and simple harassment.  My conclusion was the cop was a dick weed that was trying to panic me into doing something stupid to give him an excuse to pull me over.  But I wasn't going to let it happen.  My initial urge was to get on the phone and file a citizens complaint with the township's chief of police but I reconsidered because I concluded I'd get no redress doing that and it would lead to further acts of harassment. 

Edited November 23, 2021 by All_Pro_Bills

[Wacka]

Zimmerman was qt least 7-8 years ago, possibly longer( remember I heard the verdict when I lived in CA). Hang it up, libs.

[Chef Jim]

8 hours ago, BillStime said:

Clearly self defense, Tibs

I have a feeling this will age poorly.  

[Orlando Tim]

1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Being followed by some unknown person for some unknown reason can be easily interpreted as threatening or a potential danger.  Why is this guy following me?  I'm not doing anything.  What does he want?  Is he going to jump me or something?  This guy is acting "suspicious".  That's likely what Martin was thinking.

What was Zimmerman's motive for following Martin?  Simply because he thought he looked or acted "suspicious"?  Zimmerman was a private citizen, not an officer of the law.  He has no legal right to question or detain anyone on a public street that is not actively involved in a crime.  To me this is consistent with the scenario with the defendants in Georgia.      

 

I remember being followed when driving one night, by a police patrol.  This is how I experienced and felt about being "followed".  My wife and I had just left a family gathering at around 11 PM across town.  About 3/4 mile away from the party I'm sitting at a red light and a local cop pulls behind me.  Long story short, he's glued to my bumper for about 6 miles through 7 or 8 left and right turns.  And follows me right down my street and as I turn into my driveway and patrol car passes by.  As I was doing nothing illegal, exhibited no signs of erratic driving or speeding, and the worst thing on my driving record is an expired inspection sticker, I viewed this as plain and simple harassment.  My conclusion was the cop was a dick weed that was trying to panic me into doing something stupid to give him an excuse to pull me over.  But I wasn't going to let it happen.  My initial urge was to get on the phone and file a citizens complaint with the township's chief of police but I reconsidered because I concluded I'd get no redress doing that and it would lead to further acts of harassment. 

I am assuming you did not follow the case closely- Trayvon was not walking directly from the store to the house he was staying in- he was wondering through people's yards, and Zimmerman at no point tried to detain him he simply followed him through his neighbors yards, until Trayvon attacked him. As for your cop, I agree with you, he was being a douche.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

 

Please.  This is where common sense takes over.  If one takes a very narrow view of the relevant law with respect to justification, then Rittenhouse is not guilty.  That’s the verdict, and that’s the way it is.  We all have to respect that.  

 

If, however, one takes a broader, more practical view of the law, then his case is much more difficult.  Was it a good idea for a kid to take an assault rifle to a messy scene like Kenosha?  Definitely not.  And, did his presence and activity with that rifle make him the initial aggressor?  Different issue.  Maybe so.  Not what the jury concluded, but a conclusion that many a reasonable mind could reach. 

 

No matter how one views the outcome of this case, we seem—as a society—to have checked our heads at the door if we somehow think it’s a good idea to have a heavily armed child, or any heavily armed person who is not on-duty law enforcement, roaming the scene of what was fairly characterizable as a riot.   The result, which was totally unnecessary and could have been avoided if this kid, who had no business being there in the first place, had simply stayed home and kept to himself.  

Matt Gaetz is a Republican.  FYI.  So is the Don who, last I checked, hung with Epstein. 

 

 

I think we, as a society, have checked our heads at the door when we whistle past the question "Why were the good people of  Kenosha abandoned and victimized by lawless rioters intent on harming people and property?".    The result, clearly, was that bad sh%t happens when bad people are allowed to rage unabated, and sometimes, the bad guys lose.  

 

If everyone stays home, none of this happens.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 23, 2021 by leh-nerd skin-erd