Comments by "cchris874" (@cchris874) on ""No Good Deed" McMichaels' Jail Call Evidence Weighed in Killing of Ahmuad Arbery Case | COURT TV" video.

  1. 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
  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
  3. We don't know. The comment, so far at least, is ambiguous.
    1
  4. 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
  5. I think the mental health issue has mostly been used in Arbery's favor, no?
    1
  6. 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
  7. And a good sector of the public gets happy when they elevate speculation to the status of certainty.
    1
  8. Problem is, there's no real proof that self-defense was NOT the motive for the shooting. How does one disprove that?
    1
  9. 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
  10.  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
  11. 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
  12.  @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
  13. There's no proof beyond a reasonable doubt they did not kill in self-defense.
    1