Florida Concealed Carry banner

161 - 180 of 220 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,650 Posts
If they aren't going to do their job, I see no reason for them to have special 1st Amendment carve-outs that no other citizens enjoy.
I tend to agree, although I think the devil would be in the details of how you apply such a thing.

In any case, I think the problem is that pretty much everyone in the main-stream press was convinced that Hillary could not possibly lose. They were so convinced of it that, even before the election, they were writing their stories as if she was already in the White House. They simply didn't see the writing on the wall.

When the election was over, and Trump won fair and square, they just couldn't believe it. I mean, they literally could not make themselves believe it had happened. So, for the last three years, they have been living in this delusional fantasy world, where Trump really did not win. Hillary was supposed to win by a landslide. Some terrible mistake happened, though, and that's the only reason Trump is the President. What exactly that "mistake" was, they have no idea, but they're going to keep on fishing, desperately believing that they could not have been THAT wrong about the election, and so there MUST be something out there to find.

What it comes down to is their own egos, and their inability to accept and admit that they were wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,573 Posts
I think he's making a huge leap. If the local PD told the homeowner (English) to contact McMichael in the event he picked up something from his camera, that could be (and I think, is) nothing more than telling one neighbor to contact another neighbor who would likely know the correct thing to do (call 911). That's a long way from "enlisting" the help of the former investigator. Enlisting his help would be if the cops told English to contact McMichael, then told McMichael the other guy might call him and if so, go ahead and handle it. Without that second part, I don't see how you say he was "enlisted" to do anything. I don't see how what police might have told Engllish has any bearing on why McMichael did or did not take a certain action.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,573 Posts
I thought the Colin Noir video was very good. Sadly, he seemed to gloss right over the GA open carry laws and made the same mistake he's accusing some viewers of making... presuming guilt without evidence.

Is it legal to carry a shotgun in GA? Yes.
Was McMichael carrying a shotgun? Yes.
Does GA specify a particular way to carry that shotgun in order to NOT be a threat (slung, pointing down, etc.)? No.
Is carrying a shotgun cross-body illegal? No.
Does that mode of carry equate to a threat? No.
Was he commiting a crime by carrying that shotgun? No. The same video evidence that says Arbery didn't commit a crime says McMichael didn't commit a crime by standing there legally holding a shotgun he was legally entitled to have and carry.

Did McMichael threaten him with the shotgun? No. There is no evidence either McMichael did anything beyond say "Hey, Stop. Stop. We want to talk to you." Nothing in that audio says anything close to a threat, let alone a threat to shoot.

Just as Colin Noir asks, "Do Arbery's actions LOOK suspicious? I could see how some might think so," I would make the same statement as regards McMichael. Did McMichael's actions LOOK threatening? I could see how some might think so. But using the same knife Noir uses to slice his ham, we must make a similar cut with the notion that a legal carry becomes a threat ONLY when you have evidence of that threat, you cannot simply declare it.

He also glossed right over McMichael's right to self-defense when charged by Arbery. Because he presumed without evidence McMichael commited a threat, he assumes McMichael has no right whatsoever to do anything when a guy runs at him and tries to pull a shotgun out of his hand. That's BS. We don't know (are you paying attention, Colin?) what McMichael's intention was other than he verbalized "Stop. We want to talk to you." It could well be he was going to cut him in two with that shotgun, but it could also be that he had it only in the event the suspect made as if to pull out a weapon, otherwise it wasn't going to get used at all.

Without any evidence, based on what we know right now as Colin says, we don't have any idea what anyone's intentions were because 1.they didn't state them, 2.the video doesn't show ill intent. What it does show is Arbery lunging at a guy legally holding a shotgun and no shots were fired until his hands were on the gun and trying to move it from where it was. That IS evidence, and it is evidence of an actual, physical threat, and it's the only threat documented.

Watch and see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,141 Posts
I thought the Colin Noir video was very good. Sadly, he seemed to gloss right over the GA open carry laws and made the same mistake he's accusing some viewers of making... presuming guilt without evidence.

Is it legal to carry a shotgun in GA? Yes.
Was McMichael carrying a shotgun? Yes.
Does GA specify a particular way to carry that shotgun in order to NOT be a threat (slung, pointing down, etc.)? No.
Is carrying a shotgun cross-body illegal? No.
Does that mode of carry equate to a threat? No.
Was he commiting a crime by carrying that shotgun? No. The same video evidence that says Arbery didn't commit a crime says McMichael didn't commit a crime by standing there legally holding a shotgun he was legally entitled to have and carry.

Did McMichael threaten him with the shotgun? No. There is no evidence either McMichael did anything beyond say "Hey, Stop. Stop. We want to talk to you." Nothing in that audio says anything close to a threat, let alone a threat to shoot.

Just as Colin Noir asks, "Do Arbery's actions LOOK suspicious? I could see how some might think so," I would make the same statement as regards McMichael. Did McMichael's actions LOOK threatening? I could see how some might think so. But using the same knife Noir uses to slice his ham, we must make a similar cut with the notion that a legal carry becomes a threat ONLY when you have evidence of that threat, you cannot simply declare it.

He also glossed right over McMichael's right to self-defense when charged by Arbery. Because he presumed without evidence McMichael commited a threat, he assumes McMichael has no right whatsoever to do anything when a guy runs at him and tries to pull a shotgun out of his hand. That's BS. We don't know (are you paying attention, Colin?) what McMichael's intention was other than he verbalized "Stop. We want to talk to you." It could well be he was going to cut him in two with that shotgun, but it could also be that he had it only in the event the suspect made as if to pull out a weapon, otherwise it wasn't going to get used at all.

Without any evidence, based on what we know right now as Colin says, we don't have any idea what anyone's intentions were because 1.they didn't state them, 2.the video doesn't show ill intent. What it does show is Arbery lunging at a guy legally holding a shotgun and no shots were fired until his hands were on the gun and trying to move it from where it was. That IS evidence, and it is evidence of an actual, physical threat, and it's the only threat documented.

Watch and see.
Which has been my contention all along. Without evidence it is speculation and rhetoric.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,573 Posts
Absolutely. What I am waiting to see is how they handle the issue of the shotgun. GA code requires a person lawfully carrying a shotgun to carry it in a manner that's fully exposed, and that's what I saw in the video. The only part of their code that addresses threatening and firearms specifically says "pointing it at" a person. So I'm curious how it's going to go from the required legal way to carry a weapon lawfully to a perceived deadly threat only because of the words "Stop. We wanna talk to you." I think it's going to take more than that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
The “Major News” doesn’t change anything. My suspicion is that a jury will not likely parse out each step of the analysis above. The case will be racially charged and at trial the two defendants will be all cleaned up wearing new suits. The prosecution will show the booking photographs. Jurors may well say “man, they look like a couple of goobers and if they were all riled up they would be pretty scary“ and things will not tilt in favor of the defendants. Those same jurors may likely give a pass to the deceased for doing anything he could under the circumstance. They will fault the defendants by discussing “if they hadn’t jumped out there in their truck none of this would’ve happened”

There will be a giant battle over jury selection. The prosecution will do everything they can to keep a black person on the jury and the defense will do everything they can in the opposite direction.

Here’s the other side of the argument in the general Flynn matter. Lying to the FBI is a crime but it can’t be as simple as being asked if you did it and saying “no I didn’t“ it has to be a false statement that your know was false dealing with something that matters to the investigation. They call that a “material“ statement. In Florida, under similar laws, it could be something like giving a friend a false alibi in his murder charge and then it’s proven otherwise.

Perjury is a little different. Perjury is an intentional lie in an official proceeding regarding a material matter. That would normally be under oath in a deposition or court proceeding. Prosecutors handle perjury cases, in the Federal system, it would come under the DOJ.

Now to put the two concepts together, the Attorney General is trying to dismiss the charges saying that Flynn lied but it wasn’t “material“ because it was a bad investigation. The court, no doubt, is aware of the 2000+ Democrat and Republican former FBI agents and former DOJ employees complaining that it’s improper. The court, right or wrong, seems to suspect it’s a political favor like they all do and not legit. The court does have the final say and the question becomes can he correct something like this what can he do to correct things if they need correcting and how can he do that. ??

It’s mildly complicated but It looks like the court now is seeking outside input on whether or not Flynn perjured himself during the case where he was accused of lying but now DOJ is saying it’s was not a material lie.

There are cases that allow these sort of things, although rare. The recent Supreme Court decision may be an issue but not precisely on point.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,141 Posts
The “Major News” doesn’t change anything. My suspicion is that a jury will not likely parse out each step of the analysis above. The case will be racially charged and at trial the two defendants will be all cleaned up wearing new suits. The prosecution will show the booking photographs. Jurors may well say “man, they look like a couple of goobers and if they were all riled up they would be pretty scary“ and things will not tilt in favor of the defendants. Those same jurors may likely give a pass to the deceased for doing anything he could under the circumstance. They will fault the defendants by discussing “if they hadn’t jumped out there in their truck none of this would’ve happened”

There will be a giant battle over jury selection. The prosecution will do everything they can to keep a black person on the jury and the defense will do everything they can in the opposite direction.

Here’s the other side of the argument in the general Flynn matter. Lying to the FBI is a crime but it can’t be as simple as being asked if you did it and saying “no I didn’t“ it has to be a false statement that your know was false dealing with something that matters to the investigation. They call that a “material“ statement. In Florida, under similar laws, it could be something like giving a friend a false alibi in his murder charge and then it’s proven otherwise.

Perjury is a little different. Perjury is an intentional lie in an official proceeding regarding a material matter. That would normally be under oath in a deposition or court proceeding. Prosecutors handle perjury cases, in the Federal system, it would come under the DOJ.

Now to put the two concepts together, the Attorney General is trying to dismiss the charges saying that Flynn lied but it wasn’t “material“ because it was a bad investigation. The court, no doubt, is aware of the 2000+ Democrat and Republican former FBI agents and former DOJ employees complaining that it’s improper. The court, right or wrong, seems to suspect it’s a political favor like they all do and not legit. The court does have the final say and the question becomes can he correct something like this what can he do to correct things if they need correcting and how can he do that. ??

It’s mildly complicated but It looks like the court now is seeking outside input on whether or not Flynn perjured himself during the case where he was accused of lying but now DOJ is saying it’s was not a material lie.

There are cases that allow these sort of things, although rare. The recent Supreme Court decision may be an issue but not precisely on point.
What cases specifically allows outsiders to come into a case and make the case for the state? Because as the case I stated above, SCOTUS has ruled they can’t.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
Can’t recall the case name but the Judge cited it in his order. Also SCTOUS filed an appendix citing cases where they have utilized amicus briefs. It is done a fair amount.

Their beef was it was an issue the 9th invented and invited, not something the parties briefed. Unlike CT’s discretion in Perjury matters, it was an unrelated issue.

The issue in the Supreme CT’s opinion was different but not sure if different enough to make it applicable or not. Someone above my pay grade will have to decide.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,573 Posts
According to the opinion of the recent SCOTUS case, they said it could sometimes be appropriate to seek outside opinion, but what the 9th Circuit had done was try to entertain opinions on issues that neither party had raised, essentially expanding the scope of the case to beyond those raised by the parties themselves. Judge sullivan appears to be doing that. The DOJ is not raising the issue of plea change being inappropriate, they aren't raising the issue of whether or not the statement was material - they're openly admitting it was not. Flynn's lawyers certainly aren't raising either of those two issues... so the only one doing so is Judge Sullivan. He's inserting himself into the case by forcing the case to go in directions neither party desires it to go, and to that the SCOTUS unanimously said no go.
But, as I said earlier, I don't see an appellate court accepting the notion of a faulty warrant leading to a disguised interview with no warnings, missing original paperwork, and documented evidence that the prosecution was slacking in handing over exculpatory facts to the defense. I think there's plenty there for them to put this case on the football tee and boot it as far away as it will fly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,141 Posts
According to the opinion of the recent SCOTUS case, they said it could sometimes be appropriate to seek outside opinion, but what the 9th Circuit had done was try to entertain opinions on issues that neither party had raised, essentially expanding the scope of the case to beyond those raised by the parties themselves. Judge sullivan appears to be doing that. The DOJ is not raising the issue of plea change being inappropriate, they aren't raising the issue of whether or not the statement was material - they're openly admitting it was not. Flynn's lawyers certainly aren't raising either of those two issues... so the only one doing so is Judge Sullivan. He's inserting himself into the case by forcing the case to go in directions neither party desires it to go, and to that the SCOTUS unanimously said no go.
But, as I said earlier, I don't see an appellate court accepting the notion of a faulty warrant leading to a disguised interview with no warnings, missing original paperwork, and documented evidence that the prosecution was slacking in handing over exculpatory facts to the defense. I think there's plenty there for them to put this case on the football tee and boot it as far away as it will fly.
SCOTUS was specific in their ruling. The ruling specifically addressed judges bring in anyone outside it the prosecutor and defense to argue either side of the case or bringing up issues that were not argued by the two sides.
And that is exactly what this is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
OHEng, I agree with a lot of what you said but disagree with your conclusion it’s a slam dunk appeal win. Bob, if only it were that easy. I’m trying to give a middle of the road explanation of how I understand the matter and I find it fascinating.

These days we are increasingly running into political matters winding up in court. This has increased tremendously since President Trump took office of course. The matter of his owning big hotels, being elected and then giving taxpayer business to those hotels is being challenged as is his refusal to disclose tax returns. I don’t take any position on those cases but mention them as an example that we have not seen as frequently in other administrations.

Courts do you have an inherent authority to supervise the cases before them. They also have an obligation to try to do justice and of course justice to one judge might not be justice to another. That’s why we have appeals courts.

Of course this forum is heavily weighted towards President Trump and Democrats are regularly despised and demeaned. That’s natural for a strong second amendment advocacy group considering some of the crap that is threatening us.

Here’s an illustration of kind of the question in the Flynn matter: Let’s make it another example to remove some of the politics. Let’s assume they Arbery case went forward and both defendants entered a plea of guilty. They were sentenced to 10 years in prison and then later the local state attorney and local police department came forward to dismiss the case. The judge really thinks there was something corrupt about the motion to dismiss the case. He knows the prosecutor and defendant are fishin buddies. The question is can or should the judge do anything to right what he thinks is wrong and then what can he do.

In the Flynn case, over 2000 former DOJ and FBI former employees objecting in writing and calling for Barr’s removal as well as career prosecutors resigning in protest ought to tell an objective minded person that just maybe there’s something that should to be looked at. It appears they are appointees of both parties and don’t represent on political side or another. Even some current employees are risking their jobs by speaking out.

Now here’s the clever part by the judge. He’s asked for an amicus brief on the issue of whether there was perjury and he, of course hasn’t ruled yet. The rules he cites are vague and are sort of like “obstruction of justice” When I was LEO we could always find a charge, Creeping with intent to Crawl of sorts. In my Army investigation days there was always article 134 of the UCMJ, conduct that is of a nature to bring discredit to the armed forces or prejudicial to good order and discipline.

Whether right or wrong, these seem to be the issues. It will give all us armchair quarterbacks plenty to contemplate and pontificate upon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,202 Posts
I thought the Colin Noir video was very good. Sadly, he seemed to gloss right over the GA open carry laws and made the same mistake he's accusing some viewers of making... presuming guilt without evidence.

Is it legal to carry a shotgun in GA? Yes.
Was McMichael carrying a shotgun? Yes.
Does GA specify a particular way to carry that shotgun in order to NOT be a threat (slung, pointing down, etc.)? No.
Is carrying a shotgun cross-body illegal? No.
Does that mode of carry equate to a threat? No.
Was he commiting a crime by carrying that shotgun? No. The same video evidence that says Arbery didn't commit a crime says McMichael didn't commit a crime by standing there legally holding a shotgun he was legally entitled to have and carry.

Did McMichael threaten him with the shotgun? No. There is no evidence either McMichael did anything beyond say "Hey, Stop. Stop. We want to talk to you." Nothing in that audio says anything close to a threat, let alone a threat to shoot.

Just as Colin Noir asks, "Do Arbery's actions LOOK suspicious? I could see how some might think so," I would make the same statement as regards McMichael. Did McMichael's actions LOOK threatening? I could see how some might think so. But using the same knife Noir uses to slice his ham, we must make a similar cut with the notion that a legal carry becomes a threat ONLY when you have evidence of that threat, you cannot simply declare it.

He also glossed right over McMichael's right to self-defense when charged by Arbery. Because he presumed without evidence McMichael commited a threat, he assumes McMichael has no right whatsoever to do anything when a guy runs at him and tries to pull a shotgun out of his hand. That's BS. We don't know (are you paying attention, Colin?) what McMichael's intention was other than he verbalized "Stop. We want to talk to you." It could well be he was going to cut him in two with that shotgun, but it could also be that he had it only in the event the suspect made as if to pull out a weapon, otherwise it wasn't going to get used at all.

Without any evidence, based on what we know right now as Colin says, we don't have any idea what anyone's intentions were because 1.they didn't state them, 2.the video doesn't show ill intent. What it does show is Arbery lunging at a guy legally holding a shotgun and no shots were fired until his hands were on the gun and trying to move it from where it was. That IS evidence, and it is evidence of an actual, physical threat, and it's the only threat documented.

Watch and see.
by the same token, would arbery have a reasonable feeling of being threatened when a truck stops in the road and two men displaying guns approach him?...lets not gloss over that...again...many people on this forum go into protective mode when someone merely enters their space...i wanna know how many would react calmly when a truck pulls up on them and two men lawfully openly carrying guns in hand approach them...without hindsight...when in an open carry state do you consider it the norm to exit a vehicle with a long gun in your hand to have a conversation with someone you dont know?...just because it's legal doesnt make it a good idea...

and i am enjoying people who have openly chastised groups for open carry fishing events find ways to make this situation just seem "normal"...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,573 Posts
by the same token, would arbery have a reasonable feeling of being threatened when a truck stops in the road and two men displaying guns approach him?...lets not gloss over that...again...many people on this forum go into protective mode when someone merely enters their space...i wanna know how many would react calmly when a truck pulls up on them and two men lawfully openly carrying guns in hand approach them...without hindsight...when in an open carry state do you consider it the norm to exit a vehicle with a long gun in your hand to have a conversation with someone you dont know?...just because it's legal doesnt make it a good idea...
First I have said from the very beginning of this discussion that what the McMichaels did was ill advised. I think the adjective I used was dumb, but it might have been stupid or perhaps moronic. That's my opinion of what actions they took.

What I am trying to point out is that IF a person carries a long gun by choice into a situation where they have at least some reason to believe the person they are going to stop and talk to might be armed, then it makes very little sense to expect them to keep the gun in the truck and not at the ready. Do you agree with that, or not?

Assuming you do agree, then when he gets out of the truck he must, by law, carry that shotgun in a manner that is open - meaning he can't hide it under an overcoat or toss a blanket over it. The video shows him standing with his shotgun carried across his body. It's assault if he points that weapon at the guy, and in that situation the law specifies he has a right to presume danger and act accordingly, but the same laws are dead silent on exactly what threat is constituted by a person standing legally holding a weapon, and it doesn't matter what they are doing so long as they make no direct threat such as threatening to shoot if he moves or pointing the gun at him.

There is no evidence we know of that says he made a verbal threat. The video never shows him pointing the gun AT Arbery. It only shows him standing there holding it.

Now, could Arbery have THOUGHT it to be threatening? Of course. But just as we have sliced the bologna over the matter of tresspass/burglary/suspicion to produce a pile of cold cuts that say without evidence you can't just assume, then you can't just assume Arbery felt threatened. You could say, "I would feel threatened," but there's a good reason you and your feelings aren't earning you a place on the witness list - because how YOU feel isn't relevant to the case. Only how Arbery felt, and it's speculative. How does anyone know he didn't feel threatened at all, maybe he was just ticked off about being confronted and thought he could snatch a shotgun away and show these two guys a thing or two? We don't know, because he's dead. All we can do is watch his actions, and they are as equally stupid as the McMichaels actions seem to be.

He grabbed the shotgun at the muzzle end, and we know that as fact because shot#1 was reported to have gone through his hand. We see more of the action right after that point, him struggling to take a shotgun away from the man holding it. I don't know a soul alive who would have that happen to them and think they had no right to try and keep control of that gun even if doing so meant shooting the person trying to snatch it away. What did the video show? A guy defending from being attacked by a guy who suddenly ran at him and brought the fight into the equation.

To say McDaniels is the aggressor, you have to assume motives and actions that there is no evidence ever occurred. To say Arbery showed aggression, all you have to do is watch him perform it on video. But I defer to Shark on this; no one knows what is up the sleeve of either side, we don't know how the trial will be run, what kind of jury we'll see, but there is one thing we can rely on and that's that the media will inflate this balloon to the maximum psi because it draws readers/viewers/audience. The more controversy they can make of it, they better they'll like it. Maybe Nancy Grace can make a comeback on this case, who knows?

You mentioned
i wanna know how many would react calmly when a truck pulls up on them and two men lawfully openly carrying guns in hand approach them
I don't know, but I'll tell you what I would NOT do, and that's suddenly swerve my path and ran at someone with a shotgun to try and pry it away. Because if I can't do that, I'm probably going to get shot for certain as opposed to "maybe." BTW, you might want to review the video again because there were not two men openly carrying guns in hand, the father (in bed of truck) has his handgun in his holster and it doesn't even come out until the second, possibly the last of three shots had already been fired.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,573 Posts
OHEng, I agree with a lot of what you said but disagree with your conclusion it’s a slam dunk appeal win.
I think you're right on this point, Shark, because it pretty much is a slam dunk that nothing is ever guaranteed to be a slam dunk. I was really trying to make the point that I felt there were already sufficient grounds for an appeals court to consider without having to latch onto the latest SCOTUS opinion. I do think Flynn would prevail because I believe when the appeals court considers the whole case back to front, it will be hard for them to claim they are not signing onto a faulty warrant process leading to a stealth FBI interview that involved no standard waiver/warning. That alone has a history of getting the full attention of appellate courts. Then from that comes an investigation and a prosecution of a person when there was, buy DOJ's own admission, never grounds to do in the first place.

I saw that some 2000 former FBI/DOJ/feds had signed on to a letter. That could suggest something, but doesn't always equate to substance. 98% of the entire membership of the Women's League of Voters responded to a survey once asking them to rank a dozen or so causes of death from most frequent to infrequent. They cited as their #1 pick death caused by or related to nuclear power plants. At that date, there had only been 7 known deaths in the US in all of history, yet they ranked it above drowning and firearms-related deaths.

I could point to all the scientists who signed onto the now infamous IPCC Climate Report that contained the famous "hockey stick" graph featured in Al Gore's climate movie. Thousands of them, and they even went so far as to declare themselves "a concensus." Took a few years, but finally two Canadian mathematicians completely disassembled the report and proved beyond any doubt it was based on false data and used faulty statistical protocols no college sophomore would get a passing grade for using.

So they might have a point, they might not. How many of the 2000 do you suppose had any first hand knowledge of this case? How many knew DOJ never wanted to prosecute this from the start but only did when pressured by the same FBI agent who told his secret squeeze that he "had an insurance policy" (in the event Trump won the election). How many knew the FISA warrant that began this whole mess was based on a report bought and paid for by the DNC? You see, political perspective does matter, and not just in court.

Courts do you have an inherent authority to supervise the cases before them. They also have an obligation to try to do justice and of course justice to one judge might not be justice to another. That’s why we have appeals courts.
Supervise, yes. Funnel into a foregone conclusion, no. We already have two parties in the case representing their side of the case. Both have presented, now one side, based on additional facts now coming to lilght and hidden from the defense all along, decides that in the interest of justice the case needs to be withdrawn. OH NO, says the Judge. Why? No other reason than his own personal peeve. Judicial personal peeves, no matter how cleverly disguised, just don't fly.

Tell me, if you think this Judge is not demonstrating bias, then why is he inviting this Watergate lawyer's group to brief on THIS case? None of them had a thing to do with it. They haven't seen the investigation, haven't been privvy to the evidence nor the intelligence reports that go along with them. So what is it they are going to inform the court of that the court doesn't already know?

Here’s an illustration of kind of the question in the Flynn matter: Let’s make it another example to remove some of the politics. Let’s assume they Arbery case went forward and both defendants entered a plea of guilty. They were sentenced to 10 years in prison and then later the local state attorney and local police department came forward to dismiss the case. The judge really thinks there was something corrupt about the motion to dismiss the case. He knows the prosecutor and defendant are fishin buddies. The question is can or should the judge do anything to right what he thinks is wrong and then what can he do.
Well let's tune up that example to make it more like the case under consideration here. Let's say one of the defendants was interviewed by police who knew he was a suspect yet they failed to give him a Miranda warning, and it turns out the answers in his interview were used against him in court. Or let's say GBI conducted a search of the McMichael's home and evidence seized in that search was used against him in trial, but now it turns out that the affiant in that search warrant swore to facts he didn't really know about, only said he did. Oh, and there were other facts he should have put on the warrant but never did. And finally, suppose the prosecutor in the case was well aware of these irregularities, these problems, and never revealed any of it to the defense. When new management of the DA's office discovers these, they go to court and try to undo the injustice these prior mistakes led to. Oh, and yes they have been good fishing buddies for years, which is irrelevant to justice but is relevant for accusations of prejudice.

Are you really saying that none of that matters, that that new team is just stuck with the injustice a previous team dropped in their lap, and too bad about the citizens robbed of their freedom as a result? Now a judge with those facts in hand has more questions, like that's not enough? He must hear from "friends of the court" because the accused entered a plea bargain agreement (being completely in the dark about what REALLY happened), but now that the defense does know, a plea bargain isn't the path they want to go.

What is confusing about any of that, what gap is there that only amici has the ability to fill in? If the judge thinks he's guilty, then deny his motion, sentence him, and move along as would happen in any other case minus political fallout. Then it can move to appeal. That fact alone, that this case is being treated differently than any other, is exactly the thing courts are there to make sure doesn't happen, not cause. Was there perjury? You mean he's sitting on a federal bench and can't figure that out without Watergate lawyers or Judge Gleeson? That simply defies common sense. When Flynn first appeared to enter into the plea bargain, Judge Sullivan asked DOJ if they'd considered charging him with treason. Answer: No. Perjury? No. Seems he had a good idea what it was a few months ago... did he forget? He told Flynn in court he thought his actions were treasonous. No uncertainty there. But now when Flynn seeks justice for having been wronged, and DOJ concurs that he was indeed wronged, the Judge doesn't know what treason is or perjury is, or if they apply? Just not believable. His bias is sticking out the bottom of his robe.

Even some current employees are risking their jobs by speaking out.
Exactly what facts are they presenting? Do they have evidence there is some political influence that is improper, or do they run to a microphone and declare this unusual, maybe something isn't right? Well that's no different that what's happening in Judge Sullivan's courtroom, so what's the big deal here? Sullivan can have what appears to be a circus, but the AG and leaders of DOJ trying to fix a system that broke and covered it up isn't allowed to look like one? Says who?

Now here’s the clever part by the judge. He’s asked for an amicus brief on the issue of whether there was perjury and he, of course hasn’t ruled yet.
You know, this is like saying a court asked a pro-immigration group for a brief on the issue of whether unfairness exists in the Dept. of Immigration. Or a matter of asking Planned Parenthood to provide a brief on the pros and cons of abortion. It's as one-sided an asking as an asking can get. Why isn't this judge turning to, for example, the 2000 former prosecutors/DOJ-ers who signed the letter of protest, AND ALSO seeking input from the 100,000 or so current and former prosecutors/DOJers who did not sign that letter? See the difference? You pack what seems like a legit request with amici that amounts to stacking a deck, that doesn't represent any better justice than all the other errors made in this case. It only makes it clear he's not really interested in some weighty issue of balance, he's simply playing politics to drag it out because he can, justice be damned.

In his own order, Judge Sullivan cites what precedent allows any party to be considered amici in the first place. It states that they must be distant enough from the case to not be a party in it (check), but they must also be close enough such that the outcome of the case effects them in some way. Could you please define for me, how are a bunch of Watergate lawyers connected in ANY way to this matter, let alone connected close enough to be impacted by it, yet distant enough to not be a party in it? Because as far as I can tell, whether Flynn goes to jail, gets to reverse his plea, or skips out the courtroom a free man. it has no possible bearing on those lawyers. None of them have similar matters before this or any other court.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,297 Posts
Well, time will tell. I’ve been trying to put things in perspective objectively. I think we know where folks stand by now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,202 Posts
First I have said from the very beginning of this discussion that what the McMichaels did was ill advised. I think the adjective I used was dumb, but it might have been stupid or perhaps moronic. That's my opinion of what actions they took.

What I am trying to point out is that IF a person carries a long gun by choice into a situation where they have at least some reason to believe the person they are going to stop and talk to might be armed, then it makes very little sense to expect them to keep the gun in the truck and not at the ready. Do you agree with that, or not?

Assuming you do agree, then when he gets out of the truck he must, by law, carry that shotgun in a manner that is open - meaning he can't hide it under an overcoat or toss a blanket over it. The video shows him standing with his shotgun carried across his body. It's assault if he points that weapon at the guy, and in that situation the law specifies he has a right to presume danger and act accordingly, but the same laws are dead silent on exactly what threat is constituted by a person standing legally holding a weapon, and it doesn't matter what they are doing so long as they make no direct threat such as threatening to shoot if he moves or pointing the gun at him.

There is no evidence we know of that says he made a verbal threat. The video never shows him pointing the gun AT Arbery. It only shows him standing there holding it.

Now, could Arbery have THOUGHT it to be threatening? Of course. But just as we have sliced the bologna over the matter of tresspass/burglary/suspicion to produce a pile of cold cuts that say without evidence you can't just assume, then you can't just assume Arbery felt threatened. You could say, "I would feel threatened," but there's a good reason you and your feelings aren't earning you a place on the witness list - because how YOU feel isn't relevant to the case. Only how Arbery felt, and it's speculative. How does anyone know he didn't feel threatened at all, maybe he was just ticked off about being confronted and thought he could snatch a shotgun away and show these two guys a thing or two? We don't know, because he's dead. All we can do is watch his actions, and they are as equally stupid as the McMichaels actions seem to be.

He grabbed the shotgun at the muzzle end, and we know that as fact because shot#1 was reported to have gone through his hand. We see more of the action right after that point, him struggling to take a shotgun away from the man holding it. I don't know a soul alive who would have that happen to them and think they had no right to try and keep control of that gun even if doing so meant shooting the person trying to snatch it away. What did the video show? A guy defending from being attacked by a guy who suddenly ran at him and brought the fight into the equation.

To say McDaniels is the aggressor, you have to assume motives and actions that there is no evidence ever occurred. To say Arbery showed aggression, all you have to do is watch him perform it on video. But I defer to Shark on this; no one knows what is up the sleeve of either side, we don't know how the trial will be run, what kind of jury we'll see, but there is one thing we can rely on and that's that the media will inflate this balloon to the maximum psi because it draws readers/viewers/audience. The more controversy they can make of it, they better they'll like it. Maybe Nancy Grace can make a comeback on this case, who knows?

You mentioned I don't know, but I'll tell you what I would NOT do, and that's suddenly swerve my path and ran at someone with a shotgun to try and pry it away. Because if I can't do that, I'm probably going to get shot for certain as opposed to "maybe." BTW, you might want to review the video again because there were not two men openly carrying guns in hand, the father (in bed of truck) has his handgun in his holster and it doesn't even come out until the second, possibly the last of three shots had already been fired.
do i agree with that?...yes...see below...

so, in short...youre saying he exited the truck prepared for a confrontation with a man who could be armed...thanks...ive seen enough...kind of leaves a question as to who really is the aggressor...as that doesnt necessarily have to be the one who took action...if i was holding a gun and gave you the impression i intended bodily harm would you not be within your rights to take whatever action you thought necessary to prevent that?...his feelings actually earn him a position on the witness stand...but thats not possible...because...well...

like i said....bad decisions made on both sides by many people...what a great situation for 911 and a good witness...sometimes the decisions we make...legal or not...may not be the right ones and we will have to live with the consequences whether they be legal or not...

and yes...i feel a lot better about dad carrying his gun holstered...i'm sure it had a calming effect on the guy they headed off on the road also...

you see...feelings are where every bit of this confrontation comes from...feeling like walking into a new construction home and looking around...regardless of the intent...which is assumed by the guys who chased him down (yes)...feeling that one has a responsibility to intervene because they "assume" a crime was committed...feeling they should approach with a gun (because there is a chance the guy could be armed--is that your feeling or theirs?)...feeling threatened to the point you are desperate enough to challenge the guy with the gun and attempt a disarm (doesnt matter what you would have done or not done)...feelings...nothing more than feelings...feelings for all my life...
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
26,039 Posts
. . .
you see...feelings are where every bit of this confrontation comes from...feeling like walking into a new construction home and looking around...regardless of the intent...which is assumed by the guys who chased him down (yes)...feeling that one has a responsibility to intervene because they "assume" a crime was committed...feeling they should approach with a gun (because there is a chance the guy could be armed--is that your feeling or theirs?)...feeling threatened to the point you are desperate enough to challenge the guy with the gun and attempt a disarm (doesnt matter what you would have done or not done)...feelings...nothing more than feelings...feelings for all my life...
Now I can't seem to get a particular song out of my head! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,573 Posts
They aren't my feelings, they are based on the statements the McDaniels made and were released. They armed up before leaving their home because the senior McDaniel had just had his pistol stolen from his truck about a month earlier and they weren't sure if this might be the same guy who did that or not. Naturally they didn't want to go stop and talk to him unarmed if they thought maybe this could be that same guy and he still had the weapon. That seems legit enough, without getting into the matter of was it a wise thing to do in the first place.

If the father's holstered gun that wasn't visible in the video (until he took it out, fumbled to put his cell phone down, then brought it to where it can be seen) was a concern to Arbery, then he had to have ESP since no one could see it. Why should that gun have been of any concern to him at all? I think it more likely he'd be concerned that there were two guys plus another following versus only himself than whether or not a gun he couldn't see was a factor.

I do agree that he possibly felt some fear seeing the other McDaniel holding a shotgun. But it is clear that gun was held in a non-threatening way, and there's no fact we now know of that claims McDaniel verbalized a threat, and that means while he may have felt fear, it wasn't necessarily reasonable. I've used the example of legally open carrying while fishing and someone expresses fear and wants the cops to come lock 'em up. Fear - yes. Reasonable fear? No, because though it was a firearm, what they were doing with it was legal at the time. What McDaniel did with his shotgun was legal at the time unless or until we learn other facts that demonstrate it wasn't.

No feelings in that. Just what was reported said and what the video shows.

Consider a different scenario. It's early morning in GA, still dark. I pull into a McDonalds type restaurant to grab a coffee and a square of morning chow. As I get out of my truck, I notice another fellow getting out of his truck not far from me, and he's got a shotgun. He begins to walk in my general direction - I have fear he might be looking to hurt me, so I draw and shoot him dead.
Am I justified in doing that based on my fear of death/GBH?

Turns out that behind the McDonalds is a trail I don't know about, but it leads down through woods to a wetland area popular for duck hunting. Turns out that's where he was heading, and we know that from his hunting pal who came back up the trail looking for him when he didn't show. The guy did have a cammo jacket on, but I didn't give it any special meaning because a lot of guys wear them that time of year. All I knew is he had a shotgun, I felt threatened, so I drilled him.

Are you ready to clear my good name based on that alone, that I had fear and therefore a right to take his life? Don't you think it will be germane to look at what the dead fellow was doing, was it legal (no matter how ill advised it might be to start your day duck hunting from a McDonalds), and was there anything about him or his actions aside from just having a shotgun that made me feel threatened? Things like, did he say anything to me, or did he point/try to point the gun at me, etc.
I think those things have to be looked at in order to decide if the fear was reasonable or it wasn't. Anything short of that effectively declares open season on hunters walking while armed.

I suspect when this hits a courtroom all these things will be sliced and diced by both sides, with each drawing a different conclusion so it will up to the jury to figure out which one sounds more reasonable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,590 Posts
^^^ the scenario we saw and the scenario you just described was not comparing apples to apples.

The court will get to see all the evidence that I’m sure we are not at this time. The rest is speculation.

YMMV.
 
161 - 180 of 220 Posts
Top