Comments by "cchris874" (@cchris874) on "CBS Evening News" channel.

  1. This may be true, but it's irrelevant to the shooting, since the McMichaels could not positively identify him. That means their pursuit of a citizens arrest was illegal.
    3
  2. He attacked a man with a gun after he was illegally chased down for 5 minutes, guns displayed. How would you feel if you were followed by yelling, gun-toting, strangers? Might you feel just a bit afraid? Might you wonder, "who are these lunatics"? Seriously, get real.
    2
  3. Another self-styled armchair psychologist. Any idiot can do that.
    2
  4. It wasn't spread over miles. Only light paper and insulation was found miles away, carried there by breezes aloft. And I can offer proof if necessary.
    2
  5. This thread is about flight 93. See if you can control your instinct to spam at every opportunity.
    2
  6. Because they didn't.
    2
  7. Would you charge an airline pilot with manslaughter for mistakes under stress? It's practically unheard of in the US. But bring in race and cops into the equation, and all semblance of reason vanishes.
    2
  8. But either way their pursuit of an arrest was illegal, thus nullifying their claim to self-defense. Or at least partly so.
    2
  9. Why would they bother making up a story like that?
    2
  10. Easy to say. Impossible to prove.
    2
  11.  @PrimeNPC  They did not say they positively identified him at the time of the shooting. Kindly provide link for that (if you have one.) The issue of whether, based on GMs encounter a few night previous, they had some reason for suspicion is mooted by the fact they were conducting an unwise and illegal pursuit of a citizen's arrest to begin with. That's how i see it.
    2
  12. Because you have a distorted sense of your own abilities.
    2
  13. The truth movement has always been a fraud, I totally agree.
    2
  14. +Andrew Wilson Agreed, it wasn't a simple case. But it's being treated as one: as if it were a matter of agreed upon objective standard of manslaughter. But how can it be manslaughter when Roy presumably had free will? Also, we go by the standard of proof "beyond reasonable doubt." At the very minimum, there's reasonable doubt as to whether this is manslaughter. Why else would the judge have taken three days to render a verdict? Just my thoughts.
    1
  15. +Corvux IX I think the judge did not mean to say that failing to get him help = manslaughter. There's no law I'm aware of in Mass. aside from "hit and run" that requires people to seek help for others. More likely, the judge used that fact to illustrate her evil intent.
    1
  16. +Bonnie "it's possible that free will can be manipulated when dealing with the heart and emotions!" Yes, but in manslaughter, courts have to go by proof, not just that something's possible.
    1
  17. +WCGwkf I see the point, but I'm not sure if it's as cut and dry as that. . For example, if you're under hypnosis, and carry out orders, is that compromised free will?
    1
  18. +Bonnie Lee Or, he employed his free will and reasoned that she was right, if he didn't get back into his truck, he would just put it off again. That process of reacting to inputs from others is not necessarily beyond his control, even if she was manipulative. So there's still reasonable doubt. The process by which we form our beliefs and choose between alternative actions is fantastically complex, and beyond anyone's present understanding. So it's hubris to say "we know" that she rendered his free will null and void.
    1
  19. Actually they could have fallen if you read the failure modes spelled out by not just NIST, but other science papers too. The key to understanding this is that due to the twisting motion of the upper blocks at the beginning of the collapses, the upper block columns were now no longer hitting the lower block columns, but instead twisted out of alignment and thus bearing down their weight on a single floor. One floor, with no other support columns between the core and perimeter columns, could not possibly support the weight of the entire upper block. How could it? I am not trying to prove this IS what happened. Merely that you cannot rule it out.
    1
  20. This makes no sense to me. The FAA only acts when absolutely forced to, like after a deadly crash. There must be some other motive here.
    1
  21. More evidence this was not an inside job.
    1
  22. Who is that following a man for 5 minutes, while displaying their shotguns, reversing when he reverses? Being blocked by a 2nd vehicle. That's just perfectly OK, right?
    1
  23.  ice fishing  Had they actually seen him go in there that morning you might have a case. But they did not. As Greg Travis said himself, they were following him "on a hunch." You don't subject people to a scary armed chase, waiving your guns, when you have no proof of any kind.
    1
  24. That's just ill-informed. Manslaughter does not equate to deadly mistake. Examples abound, including medical malpractice, airline pilots for example. Manslaughter depends on the degree of negligence.
    1
  25.  @laurasanchez7105  I hate to break it to you, that timeline is flat out wrong. The video of him that afternoon in the construction zone was neither seen by nor reported to the McMichaels before they began chasing him. Exclamation point! Therefore their chase was illegal. In their lawyer's own words, they sought a citizens arrest merely on a "hunch." That's a direct unequivocal quote. They saw him run by, said to themselves, "well he looks like he could be that man we saw in the past." You cannot start a potentially dangerous chase, with guns displayed, on a hunch. No no no. Absolutely not. The law was very specific here: the arrest was only permitted "in the arrestor’s presence or within his or her immediate knowledge." There was neither presence nor immediate knowledge. Now despite my high level of confidence, if I have somehow not got the facts correct, kindly correct me and I will put my tail between my legs and retract this claim. cheers
    1
  26.  @laurasanchez7105  PS these arrests are only for serious felony offenses. Merely seeing a black man on a property, without any knowledge of who he is or if he has legitimate grounds for being there, and speculatively concluding he's a criminal, is not only a ridiculous ground for a citizen's arrest, it's pure racism.
    1
  27.  @laurasanchez7105  You're right about Arbery. It was stupid to grab the gun. But I cut him slack because as his mother has stated, he suffered from mental illness. Yet another reason it's unwise to allow private citizens to go on armed chases. Travis did see him trespass before, but it's pretty doubtful citizen's arrest law at the time was justified. A citizens arrest was only allowed: " if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion." -no crime was committed in the father/son's presence on this particular day. -no crime was committed within their immediate knowledge. -doubtful a trespass without theft or vandalism would be a felony -even if the trespass was a felony, there's no attempted escape involved I believe the McMichels are victims of the mob mentality. They are being used as examples based on public outrage, and that has led to an almost hysterical overreaction. But they still acted unwisely and illegally, so to me some type of manslaughter-type charge is still appropriate. We cannot allow private citizens to chase people on the basis of a hunch. It's a recipe for more deaths and shootings. The goal of law enforcement is to de-escalate. Citizen's arrests are more likely to escalate things and put the public at greater risk. Had we left it to marked uniformed police, the death would have been far less likely.
    1
  28. I guarantee you don't have a proof.
    1
  29.  @tspan34  The problem is, you cannot prove to anyone but yourself that her body language = shoot down. There is no other evidence of a shoot down, either in the flight data recorder, the witnesses who saw it crash, and the absence of major crash debris anywhere else but within a thousand feet of the impact site.
    1
  30.  @jannops  I love how Youtube works. Never any evidence presented.
    1
  31.  @jannops  OK, that's fair. I think you're referring to Rumsfeld's comment "the people who attacked the United States . . .shot down the plane over Pennsylvania." It's claimed by CNN and others he misspoke, and that makes some sense if you consider the context: "the people," whom he surely meant to be the terrorists. Thus taken literally, he would be claiming the terrorists shot the plane down. That is clearly not what he meant. There was so much speculation, he momentarily forgot there was no shoot down. The same kind of mistake was made by a few people in regard to TWA 800. George Stephanopoulos referred to the shoot down, or bombing, of flight 800, because, I speculate, years later that's what people remember most about the coverage. I don't see any other major inconsistencies -we have the family members confirming the plans of the passengers. How likely is it they were all lying? Many say it was shot down, but there's a remarkable lack of evidence for that. The shoot down theory requires explaining where all the wreckage went, as all but about .001 percent of it was found within 1,000 ft of the main debris area. The FDR did not record any parameters consistent with a shoot down. No one saw a shoot down. I can also give you the names of 12 witnesses who state they saw an intact airliner crashing at Shanksville. I'm not claiming a proof one way or another, but I don't see a strong case for a shoot down. They also announced no shoot down before 2 o'clock on that day, a very risky thing to say if major wreckage were to be found later in more distant locations.
    1
  32.  @jannops  The furthest debris field was actually 8 miles away, and was only paper and insulation, a phenomenon most likely the result of the debris/smoke plume, acting much like a thermal, pulling light debris into higher air, and carried by air currents. The same thing was observed for PSA flight 1771, and US Air 427, where insulation and paper landed at a golf course 2 miles away only moments after impact. A missile needs to account for more than a few pieces of paper and insulation.
    1
  33. While I side with the guilty verdicts, the sentences make sense only as an uncontrolled burst of hatred, making these men the symbol of the entire history of white southern racism. When the ether is soaked with such thinking, principles of reasonable doubt and due process are declared null and void.
    1
  34. Not much evidence for shoot down.
    1
  35.  @haydenhuh2  How so?
    1
  36.  @haydenhuh2  Here are the specific facts, which I have researched many many times. There were only two confirmed secondary debris fields. The closest was about 1.3 miles downwind in the town of Indian Lake. A few small pieces of bone, some part of a seat, and "bolt sized" pieces of metal was all that was reported found. The second was 8 miles downwind in the town of New Baltimore, just paper and insulation. This is a tiny amount of debris, not even one millionth of the plane. Comment: since bullets can get even further than 1.3 miles, it it is not obvious or self-evident that tiny pieces of metal could not be blasted over a mile away. If it is, kindly provide the physics equations disproving this. Interestingly, some of the pine needles from the main site were also found at Indian Lake, which tends to confirm this debris was from the main crash site. While it may seem counter-intuitive, light debris being carried by air currents is almost certainly the cause of the 8 mile away debris field. This is proven by two other crashes: PSA flight 1771 also saw light debris showing up 8 miles away. And USAir flight 427, which crashed 100% intact, caused light paper insulation to fall on a golf course some 2 miles away just moments later. See the NTSB report for confirmation. Please note also all this debris was found downwind, which means no debris was found under the flight path itself. Now add in the complete lack of missile evidence, which includes the FDR based flight parameters which were published online, it means the missile theory is very speculative at best. Please do be sure to incorporate these points into your conclusion of what likely happened.
    1
  37. They didn't. The hijackers did.
    1
  38. No I haven't noticed this. Bottom line, the McMichaels pursued an illegal citizens arrest. Their self-defense claim must be seen in this broader context. They created reckless endangerment. So it's up for grabs how much if any weight should be given to their right of self-defense.
    1
  39. She's crying because she's human. Manslaughter is totally inappropriate for negligence. You need criminal intent or gross recklessness. Society is going mad.
    1
  40. You don't know that. The evidence doesn't fit in any case.
    1
  41. You could argue that case for both parties.
    1
  42. It's possible, but there's not much supporting evidence.
    1
  43. The phone calls do indeed admit to the truth. The passenger revolt foiled the hijackers.
    1
  44. I agree, they should not be in jail for now. But that doesn't excuse their unwise and illegal pursuit.
    1
  45. Yes, it seems both sides are ultra polarized as usual. I think it's just as ridiculous to say these 2 men acted wisely and judiciously.
    1
  46. I did do my own research. Virtually all the debris fell within 1,000 ft of the impact crater. About 1.3 miles distant a very few small fragments of seat, bone, and tiny pieces of metal were found. 8 miles distant, only paper and some insulation was found. The latter was carried there by air currents. The former could have easily been blasted there due to the kenetic forces. So the shoot down theory has to explain where virtually the entire plane went, as all but about .001 % of it was ever found outside the primary debris field.
    1
  47. Well the above is all quite speculative. Bush continuing to read "My Pet Goat" could well be interpreted as simply an incompetent president, which he surely was, paralyzed by the indecision one expects from a poor leader. In addition, no script writer in her or his right mind is going to come up with that pathetic screenplay. They would would want to make the president look on top of things. especially given the stinging criticism the government failed to stop a single attack. "Then the Missile that at the pentagon, it was proven that only a missile could make a huge hole that did not extend to the sides like an airplane would have made with its wings." Not proven to even most "truthers." Discussion welcome. "This shows that Govt, had to plant these explossives." Then by definition, this was not "let it happen" but active perpetration. "And people would have seen a big airplane coming in way before it hit the pentagon." So, the magical government somehow managed to convince most witnesses they saw a 757 (as most of them claimed) instead of a missile. And decided it would be perfectly sensible to fire a missile over rush hour traffic for all to see. No offense intended, but this is some of the worst speculation I've come across, even for Youtube, and has the distinct ring of someone who does not critically question the alleged proofs offered by truth sites: a movement which by and large is a collection of lies and misinformation that puts even the government to shame.
    1
  48. Neither can the twoof movement. For both, lies are their stock in trade.
    1
  49.  @somethinglikethat212  There were no whole bodies, but there were several hundred lbs of small body parts. I was from these that the county coroner was able to ID all the passengers except the hijackers. Look up the name Wally Miller if you honestly think he thought there were no remains at all.
    1
  50. You obviously can't do research. Ethiopian flight 302 also completely buried itself. About .02 percent of the wreckage of F93 fell more than a 1.5 miles distant, and all of it light paper debris and insulation. I keep forgetting this is Youtube.
    1
  51.  @stevevarTX  It didn't all "dissolve." There were pictures taken of flight 93 and presented in an exhibit for the Moussaoui trial, which included the black boxes, part of an engine and a 5-7 ft piece of 757 skin with window panes clearly in the UA livery. Thus it is not true there wasn't even "one suitcase." 911 represented a fairly rare type of plane crash: high speed, steep angle. But there have been a few others, such as Northwest flight 710, whose entire fuselage was swallowed whole by the earth. It can be just as shocking to investigators: "The residue of flight 710 was something even the most veteran investigators had never come across before. There were no bodies." In the case of PSA flight 1771, 1st responders had no idea they were looking at an ailriner. It was just confetti strewn on a hillside.
    1
  52.  @stevevarTX  The engine is not all titanium. Look up Ethiopian flight 302 wreckage engines, and you'll see the core part of an engine shorn of its cowling and outer parts. I mean, this is a no-brainer. "22 caliber bulle-t can tra-vel over 1 ½ mile. A center-fire bullet can travel several miles." That bullets can travel over 1.5 miles shows that unless you talk to a crash physics expert, you are speculating to claim tiny parts from an airplane cannot be blasted such distances.
    1
  53. Nope, didn't happen.
    1
  54. If it was an inside job, why did they want to crash a plane in the middle of nowhere?
    1
  55. That's not why she drew a weapon. Let's get real here.
    1
  56. "guys somehow didn't figure" Not sure I see that point. Either way, the terrorists were not about to cancel their mission. Why would it matter to the government after the fact whether the terrorists did or did not know?
    1
  57. There was a plane on the ground: smashed up and mostly buried. Just like Ethiopian flight 302.
    1
  58.  @brucejensen3700  M West also writes: "Uniqueness has long been put forward as evidence of a conspiracy, and nowhere more so than in the highly unique events of 9/11. What are the odds, they will ask, that three tall building could collapse from fire when this has never happened before? These arguments are specious, of course, as the events of 9/11 were unique from the outset. Never before had hijackers attempted to fly four planes into large structures. The outcome was bound to be unique, even spectacularly unique. But this mantra of "what are the odd" and "never happened before" became such an integral part of the 9/11 conspiracy mythology, that when it finally DID happen again they were forced to either incorporate this new occurrence into their mythology or discard a huge swath of "evidence." Thus after the 17-floor high Plasco building in Tehran caught fire and then collapsed, we were faced with the bizarre spectacle of 9/11 Truthers, particularly the supposedly sensible Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, insisting that this collapse of an office building in Iran was somehow a continuation on 9/11. They pointed to the same things they pointed to in the World Trade Center: the expulsions of dust, the rapid descent, the fires after the collapse, the color of the smoke, reports of bangs. They did this because these were all pieces of evidence they used 16 years earlier to insist that the World Trade Center collapse was a controlled demolition. So the 9/11 Truthers became Plasco Truthers."
    1
  59. But she shouldn't go to jail.
    1
  60.  @Flashphotography15  What makes you think the reason she wanted to taze him was because he was a risk to traffic? Or is this not what you mean?
    1
  61. Well, Ethiopian flight 302 refutes you decisively.
    1
  62. It was not shot down. There is next to no evidence it was shot down.
    1
  63. Alternative reality you are in. The 2 McMichaels created their own reckless pursuit. The enhanced video shows that Travis lifted his gun and pointed it at AA several seconds before AA got to the truck. This is assault with a deadly weapon. Discuss.
    1
  64.  @dragorn3212  I agree the racism card distorts everything. You are right, ultimately the criminals are the primary reason they and law enforcement and others get killed. But in the age of BLM, basic principles no longer matter. The same goes for the alt-right lest I be accused of racism. But that doesn’t give the McMichaels a free pass. Do I have some sympathy? Yes. I believe that despite most likely being typical racist pigs, in their own minds they probably felt they were in the right: just trying to be proactive citizens and keeping their neighborhood free of crime. But they used poor judgment. I have read the former Georgia citizen’s arrest statute several times. The McMichaels jumped the gun because they could not positively ID Arbery. In the words of GM’s lawyer, they chases him on a “hunch.” Hunches don’t cut it. If they did, then every time someone suspected somebody of something, we would have to put up with armed chases and roadblocks around the clock. Do you want to live in a society like that? The FBI enhanced version of the video shows that Travis had his gun aimed at Arbery before he even neared the back of their truck. That’s armed assault!! An armed road block and assault with a deadly weapon is reckless when you can’t positively ID your man. So while I have given the Ms the benefit of the doubt, the fact remains they created reckless endangerment. We can’t just erase their contribution to the killing on the grounds that the criminals are the primary sources of harm.
    1
  65. = twoof movement and its insatiable desire for drama.
    1
  66. Your argument is based, it seems, on what the government "should" have, and could have done. But if we go by physical evidence and witnesses, there's not much of it. We also have a pretty well documented case that the passengers were indeed revolting. I think you discard a little too easily what that outcome might have been. I see your point about passenger fear in the future. But at the same time I believe the government would be dying to take the credit, given the stinging criticism they failed to stop any of the planes. The shoot down theory is not crazy, and might be true. But it's hardly a proven fact.
    1
  67.  @FirstLast-xr9lo  There have been, over the years, various versions of the engine story, including it being variously over a mile away, and 300 yard away. What does a scholarly minded person do when confronted with conflicting info? He does his best to reconcile the info. Firstly, when you have two different distances, you don't latch on only to the one that fits your bias. 2nd, e know the engine was found in a catch basin, which in point of fact was 900 feet away, well within the distance of debris fields from other crashes. No Easter Bunny here. Again we have different stories about the shoot down order. The most credible is that it was issued after flight 93 crashed. This was made clear by the release of a batch of new documents about 2010. "If the passengers were to rush the cockpit they somehow did it during the only 3 minute window when there would not be any casualties on the ground?!?!?! " And how do you know that? Did you plot the flight path?
    1
  68. @Catie R Everything you say may be correct. But it doesn't change the fact that the McMichaels handled the situation poorly. They violated both the spirit and the law in their pursuit. If you are being followed back and forth by some stranger with a gun, maybe you are the one trying to defend yourself. Especially if the gun was already pointed at you, which would be assault with a deadly weapon.
    1
  69.  @catier4008  I don't dispute the stand your ground law. I dispute the claim of Gregory that he was pursuing a legal citizen's arrest. I'm not from Georgia, so I welcome any corrections, but it seems pretty clear from what I have read thus far that these two men did not meet the standards for conducting a legal citizen's arrest. As an ex-cop, the father should have known better. So whether they had a right to self-defense/stand your ground, they still behaved unwisely. Their illegal pursuit violated both the spirit and legal code of the citizen's arrest law. So I am saying, the two McMichaels created a needlessly risky situation for everyone.
    1
  70. If you're a pilot and you are told that a passenger might have a "meltdown and try to scratch" might you not react the same way and divert?
    1
  71. There's plenty of doubt. So why do people keep saying this?
    1
  72. Operation Twoofer ad infinitum.
    1
  73. It's important to be informed, but this past history is ultimately irrelevant. Because either way, the McMichaels' broke the law: they were pursuing a citizen's arrest based on a "hunch," to use the defendants' word. That's out of bounds, period, exclamation point.
    1
  74. While one can't have 100% safety, looking more and more to me that bunk deck should never have been certified as safe. Given all the other overkill of regulations everywhere else, this seems like a pretty serious hazard.
    1
  75. The evidence for a shoot down doesn't add up for 2 main reasons 1) There would be major wreckage all over the place, or at least in one spot. There wasn't, except at Shanksville. 2) a dozen named witnesses testified they saw an intact airliner hit the ground in Shanksville. You have to prove they were all liars before getting any further with this theory.
    1
  76. Misses the point. The McMichaels' unwise and illegal pursuit created a needless risk of death. They set the whole dangerous process in motion with their grab the guns mentality.
    1
  77. It crashed in Shanksville. Most people figured that out 22 years ago.
    1
  78. Cruelty at the failing of others is as old as mankind.
    1
  79. No way. By that standard you have the right to execute reckless drivers on the spot.
    1
  80. How did the magical government manage to convince most witnesses they saw a 757 instead?
    1
  81. And quite disgusting the company has already invoked an ancient mariner provision strictly limiting their liability. They won't gain much sympathy from this move. Maybe they panicked after getting advice from a maritime lawyer. I hear the diving boat community is like a big family. Doesn't seem like a very family oriented position to take.
    1
  82. You will hear constantly that it was shot down. But the proof is lacking.
    1
  83.  @AB-mw8oz  And Ethiopian 302 also was swallowed whole by the ground. Just like flight 93. In fact even more so.
    1
  84. The CIA enabled 9/11, but did not orchestrate it.
    1
  85.  @nicmagnus819  I don't get the idea that every fatal mistake should land you in jail. Where did this absurd notion originate?
    1
  86. I am continually shocked by the cruelty expressed in these forums.
    1