Comments by "cchris874" (@cchris874) on "USA TODAY" channel.

It's a fair question. But even if he was up to no good, Travis had no right to assault him with a gun. That is the primary ingredient that made the chase 100% illegal.
5
@Keyboardwarrior97 I don't recall any videos of him other than the one or two in that one house. FMI, kindly send link if you have time, as I would like to keep that in my "Arbery file."
4
It's utterly irrelevant to the outcome of the trial. The two men behaved recklessly no matter how you slice it.
3
@yampy1353 Agreed with all. But it doesn't prove malice murder. Manslaughter would be more in keeping with the context, IMO.
2
@christin418 Thank you for your suggestions. Have a nice night.
2
Well, I think there's been a decided lack of balance in this case. You have two extremes. The defenders who say they should have bee acquitted. And the liberal/left/BLM crowed whose reaction is, this was a despicable hate crime calling for life for all three. Even the suggestion they were doing it for sport. To me, the truth is somewhere in the middle. I don't think the third man's actions were anywhere commensurate with the life sentence. The felony murder law is a great injustice. The irony is it's often been used to stick it black accomplices. Now the tables are turned, and perhaps there's some poetic justice in that.
2
Roddie was different, IMO. There was a complete absence of communication, as far as we know, and proven by phone records, between him and the McMichaels before the chase started. Roddie didn't bring any guns. Unlike bank robbers, he had no idea what was going on, or what was planned. He made a very stupid decision to trust his neighbor's judgement. Life sentences should be strictly reserved for the worst case behavior, which this was clearly not. The felony-murder rule, and the rage of the moment blotted out true justice. This was payback time, case closed. Another telling chapter on the dark side of human nature.
2
BS. The video was leaked by Bryon after all.
1
Reflex reaction. If someone unexpectedly grabs your gun, and you already think he's potentially dangerous, it's a survival instinct. At least it could have been that.
1
Well that's an interesting question!
1
It seems to me that punishment ought to be reserved for the most heinous behavior, cold blooded calculated pre- meditated murder. Not here.
1
I don't think anyone really knows for sure the burglar stories were lies. Do you have proof? It's also questionable how much race motivated them. It's a myth that every time a white racists pursues a black person, it must be because of racism. Where does that lame argument come from? These are just gut intuitions based on the current sad state of racism and race relations. Humans are routinely outsmarted by reality when they shove the nuances of any situation into a convenient box. If we are honest with ourselves, we should be more modest and say, "I can't be certain."
1
@transhudson "was said to have uttered the term: "Effin N#^$^er" " Only Bryan accused Travis of this according to only one person - himself curiously. And only AFTER the shooting had happened. A reflex reaction from a racist pig doesn't mean that's what motivated them to follow him in the first place. Sure, it's a reasonable guess. But not a known fact. "so don't tell me that racist assaults by WHITE ARMED CREWS against unarmed black and brown people hasn't been common in this country" Hey, read my post before criticizing it. Tell me where I denied this hasn't been common. Where? Give me chapter and verse. Go for it. My whole post is about due process, which means we give the benefit of any reasonable doubt to the accused. That does not mean they weren't racist pigs committing a hate crime. They were racist pigs, especially that Bryan fellow according to police. I'm just saying, don't confuse the history of racism and what your gut tells you with provable facts in any given case.
1
@transhudson "My comments point to the history of racism here in America PLUS the facts of the case. It's virtually impossible to dissect those 2 basic factors of this case from 1 another." It's wrong though. If you used that reasoning in the context of, say, a controlled scientific experiment, you would rightly be accused of not having proved your case. As I said, not everything that happens follows regular predictable patterns. You fail to account for complexity and variance. In a criminal case, you must give the accused the benefit of any reasonable doubt. "I CAN SLAM YOU ALL DAY BECAUSE I KNOW THAT I BELIEVE THAT I'M TELLING THE TRUTH" I believe the truth is that these guys are guilty of murder. I'm talking about whether you can prove racism was the primary motive. Maybe it wasn't.
1
I agree. But the penalty can be reasonably questioned, as is the felony murder law, which to many is a travesty of justice.
1
Who knows. But he was mentally ill according to this mother. Maybe that affected his judgement?
1
I don't see how you can possibly know that. We hear the first shot literally less than a second after Arbery moves towards Travis. It's right in this video at 1:27. The medical examiner also made it clear the first shot happened when Arbery's hand was well within reach of the gun.
1
@yampy1353 "without any body contact," I agree, it doesn't look likely. But it's not something that can be demonstrated using the laws of physics, is it? In any case, the key takeaway for me is, can we use this video to prove malice murder?
1
I think it was a reflex reaction, a survival instinct when being attacked. The kindest that can be said is, the three men used extremely bad judgement, got themselves in over their heads, then were forced to fire as a self-preservation instinct. But they choreographed the whole situation. So, like a screen writer looking for a dramatic plot, they selected a story line fraught with danger.
1
I agree, it cannot be considered legal self-defense. But there was also a lack of proof of malice murder. The truth, I believe, lies somewhere in between.
1
@christin418 I have an open mind. If you were to direct me to the best overall piece of evidence of a Trump victory, please do so.
1
@christin418 I am doing my own research but have failed to come up with the smoking gun. I am unaware of the proof that Trump won Arizona. But i will have a look. Thank you.
1
@christin418 I found this below quote appearing in the Austin American Statesman: ""Facebook posts: “The Arizona forensic audit found over 17,000 duplicates of votes.” PolitiFact rating: False . . . After five months, Florida-based firm Cyber Ninjas released results from its GOP-backed audit of ballots in Maricopa County, Ariz., and found no significant differences from the official vote count. Nevertheless, in a presentation before the Arizona State Senate, officials involved with the audit put forth a wide range of unproven allegations about the election." ----- So, based on the above, how do you know the allegations in that senate presentation are proof? Any senator can make any claim they want. We need a proof that their statements correspond to known facts. Is this a fair request?
1
@christin418 But that's just it. If there's no proof, you or I have no way of knowing if there IS a coup. Evidence comes before conclusion. Is that reasonable?
1
@christin418 Well that's why I asked you for your BEST piece of evidence, and you came back with some unproven talk by Arizona senators, when all the other eivdence of a Trump win in Arizona just isn't there.
1
@christin418 And just because Trump says it's true, doesn't make it true. "huge amount of forensic evidence." So far, you haven't demonstrated that evidence.
1
It can hardly hold a candle to Mr. Trump's lack of consideration for others over the years.
1
Reflex reaction. If someone unexpectedly grabs your gun, it's a self=preservation instinct. The longer answer is, we see that Travis aimed his gun at Arbery several seconds before he even got to the truck. This is assault with a dangerous weapon. It no doubt prompted Arbery to grab it to protect himself.
1
@ViViDG Agreed. We will probably never know exactly what motivated them. Maybe it was racism combined with having a very aggressive/vigilante personality type. Some people are naturally "bad" to go by good old fashion terminology. Reckless, bad judgement, prone to impulsive rage. Who knows.
1
@mvvbb In some cases maybe. But here that information would be entirely irrelevant, wouldn't it?
1
@mvvbb Oh I get it. If he had been breaking in, the hate crime theory would need to be that much more rigorous. I think that's the general direction you're going?
1
@mvvbb I understand, and I agree with you. Just saying, either way you still end up with murder of whatever degree. What he did or didn't do before doesn't make what they did any more justifiable. They should ge the exact same sentence.
1
@yampy1353 I agree these three men are guilty as hell, and the self-defense argument, from a legal standpoint, is mooted by the context. That said I have a few disagreements. "Travis fired the first shot BEFORE any physical contact." Help me with that. I'm looking above at the same video as you, at 1:27. Can you see clearly enough exactly where Travis is standing? I can't. I also watched some of the trial, including the medical examiner's testimony. Did you watch it? His analysis concluded with the claim that Arbery's hands were easily in reach of the gun when it first fired. Doesn't that throw into question your claim? But let's say that's wrong. It's still very obvious that Travis moved from jogging straight, to suddenly turning towards Travis and charging him. Given that, for all we know Travis' first shot could have therefore been an instinctive act of self defense. Not in the legal sense. But in the sense that any person charged like that is likely going to spontaneously shoot. Certainly a police officer would have shot him. That doesn't make it an excusable offense. But it does IMO, count as reasonable doubt as to what was going on in Travis's mind the instant he pulled the trigger. Maybe it was the obvious rage he showed. But even without the rage, he might still have shot instinctively, as any armed police officer would. That's just how I see it, even though both Travises made it clear they were committing an outrageous act, and committing assault. Therefore, leaving aside the hate crime part of it, in my book, due process demands we don't pretend to be a mind reader, as the judge did, and claim to know exactly what prompted him to shoot. So my verdict is manslaughter, rather than provable malice murder. For me, this is the more sensible middle ground that IMO, has been blindsided because of the race factor. Finally, I think a life sentence for Bryan contradicts one of the most basic principles of justice: life sentences should be reserved for intentional malice murder. The Felony murder rule may be the main culprit here.
1
Prison sentence: I can hardly wait myself.
1
I haven't researched this. Did they prove he was the person breaking into houses that winter?
1
While it was the jury that made a big booboo, he seemed to have agreed with them.
1