Comments by "cchris874" (@cchris874) on "COURT TV" channel.

@TheTruthAllDay Yes, I had a feeling you would have nothing to say about my post. Merry Christmas
3
Along way to go, yes. Like the felony murder law, which has done more harm to blacks, for example.
3
Well IMO it shouldn't. Someone must explain why NOT being a victim of abuse does not lead to bias. Maybe it causes more, for all we know.
2
I think you're missing an important ingredient in the equation.
2
@TheTruthAllDay Had the feeling this conversation would come to an end as soon as it was pointed out that without due process, you have no right to a trial, period. Maybe you would rather live in a dictatorship? (Please reply if I spoke too soon.)
2
@ngc-fo5te Not like him at all. If you know you are innocent, you would be far more passionate, you would call it a grave injustice. You would not so casually say I'm innocent and then ramble on about other things.
2
@ngc-fo5te It's not absolutely certain, I agree. I can only say I would never respond so casually. Would you?
2
Lol It just goes to show how women are instinctively attracted to raw masculinity. And let's face it, criminality is on some primal level the ultimate symbol of raw virility. Not saying this applies to you personally. But for countless women (and no doubt gay men), it does.
2
Because, racists thought they probably are, there's no proof this is why they pursued Arbery. That's speculation, and speculation is what justice seems to be about today. Actual facts don't matter anymore.
2
I would side with you about the meaning of the remark, but we can't pretend to know for sure. I agree about Arbery, but it's ultimately immaterial to whether the two men had a right to detain him, at least as I see it.
2
@cranberrykay3876 Facts: you need(ed) immediate knowledge for citizen's arrest. They did not have immediate knowledge. The enhanced video shows that TM had the gun pointed at AA as he approached the truck. That's armed assault. So while due process may may give the Ms the benefit of the doubt in terms of racist intent, and their probably involuntary defensive reaction to AA rushing them, this is all made moot by the Ms reckless and outrageous endangerment. Based only on a hunch, they create an armed road block and demanded AA stop while assaulting him with a gun. If we allowed any citizen to hunt people down and point guns at them solely on a hunch, how would you feel if you were the hunted? That's why Georgia repealed the law. I think you need to carefully think through this. The devil's in the detail, and the details are what invalidate the Ms behavior. There's no place for this type of behavior in a safe and civil society.
2
@cranberrykay3876 I don't men to sound condescending, and I respecting your point of view. But I have found in Youtube discussions that when we can agree to vigorously analyze one point at a time, progress is more likely. So I hope you are willing to go along with me and resolve this point to both our satisfaction before getting to all the other questions you asked. If I am wrong, which I frequently am, I swallow my pride and admit to error. I hope you have this same spirit.
2
We don't know. The comment, so far at least, is ambiguous.
1
I would say it's up for grabs. The thing here is that the comment is quite ambiguous. It could mean either that killing Arbery was the "good deed." OR he might have simply meant that he was being a good citizen by trying to catch a thief. At this point the case has been so poisoned by public pressure and racial hysteria, that justice here is probably hopeless.
1
I think the mental health issue has mostly been used in Arbery's favor, no?
1
But his sentence was still outrageous.
1
@christyhoehn8244 "Not fair to sway the jury because of his personal history" Yes, I agree. But not being a victim has its potential biases as well. Lots of people who have never experienced abuse or have not read much on the subject, may not realize just how damaging abuse is. Some people like Alan Dershowitz say the legal age of consent should drop to 14. That attitude could easily bias a jury too. So not sure we should always assume the average "normal" person is the gold standard for being unbiased.
1
@daved3948 The bad decision he made was to create reckless endangerment. But the actual pulling of the trigger may have been a reflex reaction when you are suddenly under attack and someone is grabbing your gun. That's where due process and reasonable doubt were thrown to the wind.
1
Possibly, but keep in mind the statement has two possible meanings. 1- the good dead was killing Arbery. 2- the good dead was being a concerned citizen out to protect their neighborhood, the killing not being premeditated.
1
@TheTruthAllDay The biased assumption was what led the two men to start chasing a black man under questionable circumstances. However, the state of mind when Travis pulled the trigger is key here. It MAY have been an auto reflex reaction, an instinctive self-defense response when someone turns to confront you and grab your gun. This doesn't get the Ms off the hook. But it creates obvious reasonable doubt regarding malice murder versus 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, or the equivalent thereof in Georgia. I fail to see how we can rule this possibility out. Can you rule this out beyond a reasonable doubt?
1
@Khadijah459 It's annoying that you aren't using your brain. I can easily prove to you I'm not a bot by engaging me in a real conversation about due process and reasonable doubt. But I fear as with everyone else, you will turn down the offer and either not respond, or continue with more accusations and no actual analysis of the facts. Prove me wrong. I guarantee anyone reading this will see that Khadijah will not deliver.
1
@MeghanS9883 Thank you. But my guess is he or she won't return. People who have nothing to say usually disappear very quickly.
1
@TheTruthAllDay Lisabaginski? She seems to be on your side.
1
@TheTruthAllDay If that means you're willing to have a respectful discussion, then let's do it. Start with due process and reasonable doubt. They are the foundation of the American justice system. So the first question I would ask is, do you accept that due process is essential for justice?
1
@TheTruthAllDay No. But two wrongs don't make a right. Without due process, our system could dispense with a trial altogether. Are you in favor of that?
1
And a good sector of the public gets happy when they elevate speculation to the status of certainty.
1
He did say this. But ugly as it is, when you sense your life is in danger, and you are forced to shoot, your worst side may come out. It doesn't rise to the level of a proof that Travis wanted this man dead no matter what.
1
@ngc-fo5te I don't think she/he means the judge.
1
Problem is, there's no real proof that self-defense was NOT the motive for the shooting. How does one disprove that?
1
Because his mental health status HELPS his (Arbery's) case. It protects him against the claim he should have "known better not to charge Travis."
1
Mind reading should have no place in a fair discussion. Especially bad mind reading.
1
But not common sense to call this malice murder. It was more akin to manslaughter.
1
R Do Do you have a proof that if Arbery had been white, they wouldn't have chased him? If so, let's hear it.
1
It might well be a hate crime. But there's no proof hate was the primary motive. You need proof in a court of law.
1
@rotuman78 No I don't know that. That they they are racists is hard to deny, especially in the case of Bryan. Its said they found tons of racist comments on his phone. But here's the thing. For any crime which carries a significant jail sentence, it's only fair, and based on the US justice system of due process, you have to be sure beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't see that here. The assumption you appear to be making is that when a white racist pursues a black man, only racism can be the motive. How can you know that for an absolute fact? This reasoning is lame. Yes, it's a perfectly legit theory. But we don't convict on the basis of a theory. You have to prove it with facts. I see only limited evidence to prove racism was the motive. Racism does not always mean hate crime. That's basic common sense, which has been discarded by many in this case. Emotion is driving this case. Balanced objective respect for due process has taken a back seat.
1
But at least not a moral lunatic, psychopath and multiple criminal like Trump.
1
But we also must bear in mind that racists don't always pursue black people because of their race. The denial of this astoundingly obvious fact shows once more very few people have the balance or judgement to be on a jury in a courtroom.
1
It turns out the hunch Greg had was correct. BUT, what concerns me is the extremely fragile justification for this chase. By my reading of the evidence, their pursuit violated the citizens arrest requirements. By his own admission, GM stated his decision to pursue was based on a hunch. I don't know about you, but I would not want to live in a place where anyone on a hunch can not only chase you, but create what amounts to an armed road block. If you were innocent, as this man could well have been, how would you feel if a couple of men started chasing with guns displayed for 4 minutes, following hou back and forth, and set up a road block. I would be pretty alarmed, maybe scared for my life. I would be thinking, who the hell are these crazy lunatics? If we agree this is totally unacceptable behavior towards an innocent person, then we have to demand a little bit more proof of guilt. This is why "immediate knowledge" is written into that law. This the two men did not have.
1
And act as if he deserved life in prison.
1
Thank you. (But I will at least give him a bit of credit for trying to show his humanity.)
1
The only problem is, there's no solid proof Arbery was stalked due to race. In a court of law at least, we always owe the accused the benefit of any legitimate doubt. I think you would agree with that.
1
@giodonni7127 Agreed. But in a court of law we have to go by proof.
1
@giodonni7127 History says many things. Does it say the US has a racist history? Yes. Does recent history tell us that the police system suffers from racism? I'll go along with that. Does it also show that BLM can rush to judgement? Yes, as Ferguson showed. Does it show that all whites are racist? No. So history is complex, and shows that anything is possible. Including critics of police brutality making incorrect assumptions. Including white cops shooting unarmed black men without malintent. History shows all the time that juries constantly get things wrong. It shows innocent people going to jail or worse. It shows that some people, like yourself, believe people should be judged by the color of their skin, and not by due process and a fair trial. That puts you in the same space as the racist police. Each of you judges on the basis of skin color. That's what history shows. All of these things. That's why I believe in love, not an endless cycle of feud based on racism. That is perpetuating hate. But I do agree with you that black people have far more to complain about than white people or policemen/women. That doesn't mean denying due process. It means punishing racism severely when the evidence is strong. Not when it's weak and speculative.
1
@giodonni7127 PS yes, the evidence here is very strong that the two men are racists. What I mean by weak and speculative is the claim their primary motive was just to go out hunting down blacks and killing them for sport. If that were true, why did they only do this to one particular black person? Explain how that fits with your belief that this was just killing for sport. And why didn't they shoot him dead the instant they caught up with him? Why wait for 3 more minutes?
1
@giodonni7127 Sorry if your inbox is receiving duplicate messages. Youtube's bogus filters are probably blocking me from public replies for the moment. There's a simple question that can help answer my sense that bigotry may be present in your posts. Only you can answer it. Is it possible that a caucasian's pursuit of an African American man might have nothing whatever to do with bigotry? Thank you.
1
@giodonni7127 OK, thanks. Appreciate your reply. The reason I am being blocked is use of key words that I avoided this time. These filters are key word algorithms, so your theory there's someone monitoring the character of my words is wishful thinking. If you think such a non-r-cist pursuit is highly unlikely, what would your evidence be? History does not tell us "highly unlikely." because you are reducing the complexity of history. What comment of mine indicates evading history? I gave you a long list of historical phenomena. Maybe you are evading some this too? Possible?
1
She knew AFTER she shot him. Obviously not before unless we go by the almost-nuts theory she deliberately choreographed a fake mistake so she could shoot a black person. Given all the racism in the US, and the understandable rage, I actually don't hold it against some people for thinking this. But it's borderline nuts all the same. No one would make that assumption if it were a black women who shot a black man. This shows the poisonous assumptions people constantly make when driven by sheer rage.
1
There's no proof beyond a reasonable doubt they did not kill in self-defense.
1
It was really two things though. Yes, I agree, there was the self-defense part. But the other part is equally important: did the two McMichaels cross the line of legality, as well as common sense, by being too sure about whom they were chasing? I think the answer is yes. In his own words Greg M said his pursuit was based on a hunch. While he lucked in, it could well have been different. I don't think we have the right to scare the living crap out of potentially innocent people, and create an armed roadblock based on a hunch, That's the ingredient the defenders of father and son seem to be missing. There was an absence of immediate knowledge. There was no positive identification. Thus the reckless endangerment charge has merit in my opinion. That means that what otherwise would be legitimate self-defense has to weighed against having created a dangerous and illegal situation to begin with.
1