Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "Arbery murder trial defendant says jogger never threatened him" video.

In law, a person running AWAY is not a threat.
233
They had phones. They could have called 911. Instead they claim "self-defense".
128
Video later came out of a white couple going into the same building, looking around, and then leaving. The building was not "sealed" against entry, so no "breaking-and-entering".
36
@My2CentsYall There is video of him going into the new-construction house that wasn't "sealed" against entry, and there were no "No Trespassing" signs. He looked around, then left. Subsequently video was released of a white couple doing the same thing: going in, looking around, and then leaving. That the new-construction was not "sealed" against entry -- it was wide open -- there was no "breaking-and-entering". In neither case was anything stolen. I haven't been following the trial closely, so don't know if the judge allowed in the subsequent video of the white couple doing the same as had Arbery.
18
@kkarx You obviously don't know the meaning of "lynching".
4
Rittenhouse with a different name.
3
@ufarkingicehole MSNBC showed the ENTIRE video, as did other media outlets -- except such as FOX. But now we have the UNDER OATH TESTIMONY of Travis McMichael, and he actually confessed details that made it clear that Arbery wasn't a threat, and that HE didn't feel threatened, and that their alleged effort to effect a "citizen's arrest" was based ENTIRELY on ASSUMPTIONS that were FALSE. And there were other FACTS: there was SUBSEQUENT video SHOWN BY THE MEDIA of a WHITE couple who did exactly what Arbery did: entered the UNSECURED -- therefore NO "breaking-and-entering" -- new-construction house, looked around, and then left -- without "stealing" anything. There were NO "No Trespassing" signs. Neither Arbery nor the white couple violated ANY law. BUT: three white men, all three armed, one Black guy, unarmed, and it's "self-defense"? Only racists would defend that BASELESS claim. AGAIN: they had PHONES; they could have called 911. INSTEAD they took the law into their own hands, killed a man for no reason EXCEPT that he was SUSPICIOUS because BLACK, and now they are properly on trial for MURDER.
2
@JS-ul7kz Really? On the bodycam, the police were interviewing the three white men, while Arbery lay dying in the street UNATTENDED.
2
@MajorPayne175 We don't know that because that didn't happen. And the correct word is "have" not "of".
1
@ufarkingicehole I saw all the video that was shown. They were convicted of murder because that is exactly what they did. Watch the cross-examination of Travis McMichael: he ADMITTED that Arbery didn't have a weapon, AND WAS NOT A THREAT.
1
@ufarkingicehole So you approve of the judge's BIASING the case in favor of the defense by restricting the prosecution to references to those shot as being "rioters, looters, and arsonists" -- even though there was NO EVIDENCE, either In or OUT of court, that those shot were any of those things. In other words, you approve the outcome, and don't give the least fuck how that was reached. You approve the judge's BIGOTRY because YOU are also a bigot against a due process that doesn't demonize those who were shot as something they were nowhere proven to be. In sum, you reject the rule of law, which you don't realize is against YOUR OWN interests.
1
@ufarkingicehole What is your native language -- as it obviously isn't English.
1
@npc9378 I stated a simple principle of law -- and that applied in the Arbery case: Three white ARMED men, one UNARMED Black man attempting to escape the situation. The three white men LATER claimed they were attempting a "citizen's arrest" -- under a "slave catching" law enacted in 1863.
1
@caladanrude6395 Arbery changed direction because CUT OFF by one of the three white men. In Georgia, with its racist history, three ARMED white men and one UNARMED Black man -- Arbery was TERRIFIED.
1
@npc9378 Arbery didn't have ANY weapon. Get it through your head: the three ARMED WHITE men had PHONES. They could have called 911. INSTEAD they took the law into their own hands based on suspicions of "crimes" that HAD NOT HAPPENED.
1
@robinsinpost You also have a WISER right to run away.
1
@caladanrude6395 You were being contrarian. One must guard against being contrarian in ways that fuel misinformation.
1
@caladanrude6395 I'm not the issue. I recommend those who only know the word "freedom" to learn the meaning of the word RESPONSIBILITY -- as in SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. There's more than enough destructive disinformation without contributing to it.
1
@caladanrude6395 I'm a centrist who believes in progressive actions as necessary response to crises. However, my adherence is to law and facts. "Justice and the rule of law are to be ABOVE politics." -- John Adams. Since at latest Reagan I've seen the efforts to overwhelm and circumvent the rule of law with politics have increasing success -- to the degree that most people, regardless their political position, at best confuse politics for law, or fail altogether to recognize the distinction between the two. Worse, for whom everything is politics, with law not even an afterthought.
1
@caladanrude6395 I am first and foremost a legal professional. US democracy is founded on RULE OF LAW. "A system of laws, and not of men." -- John Adams. Gov't is by definition RULE OF LAW. "Justice and the rule of law are to be ABOVE politics." -- John Adams.
1
@caladanrude6395 We elect those who make the laws. So perhaps we should pay better attention to our RESPONSIBILITIES as voters. Have you any other pseudo-wise mindless slogans to sling?
1
@robinsinpost Exactly. The prosecutor walked Travis McMichael through the video. She did such a good job that he essentially confessed on the stand. Arbery had no weapon. Travis didn't feel threatened. As the prosecutor said: "Everyone in Georgia had a gun but Ahmaud Arbery."
1