Comments by "Ember Fist" (@emberfist8347) on "Judge DESTROYS Defense In Ahmaud Arbery Trial" video.

  1. No because he is using the full law. The defense claims that B can be used on its own. But the Judge is saying is that B can only be used after A is satisfied. The defendants don't satisfy A so they can't use B as a defesne.
    7
  2. No he interpreted the law and in my book did so accurately. He is operating under the assumption both A and B need to be satisfied to be admissible but the defense only thinks B is needed.
    4
  3.  @vergil8833  They didn't know he committed a felony.
    4
  4.  @vergil8833  Yes. It is the same reason the past criminal records of Kyle's attackers weren't admissible either. Kyle didn't know he was shooting a convicted pedophile but he was found not guilty because the dude was assaulting him.
    4
  5. No he says they need to witness the felony or know about it. He says you need that before you can perform a citizens arrest only if you satisfy the first requirement which they did not.
    3
  6. No what he is saying is since they didn't know he was committing a felony at the time, they didn't satisfy both requirements.
    3
  7.  @BenjaminWeeb  Due Process isn't being violated and when the crux of your argument is a specific interpretation of the law, you need to start over. At least get some form of legal precedent first.
    3
  8. Yeah any defense that is just based on interpreting a law is doomed to fail.
    2
  9. No he is following the law as it is written not the defense's attempt to reinterpret the law which is basically their whole argument. If that is their only argument, they deserve to lose frankly.
    2
  10.  @ChefBoyarDEEZ  No he is saying they would require to satisfy the entire law as written not the parts the defense cherry-picked.
    2
  11.  @ChefBoyarDEEZ  Except He is saying they have to know about the felony which the defendants admitted not to.
    2
  12.  @ChefBoyarDEEZ  Still doesn’t allow them to chase him down.
    2
  13. Because they didn't know that at the time.
    2
  14. Except that isn't how the government works. The entire rule of the Judicial Branch is to interpret the law. This extends to all levels. It is part of the system of checks and balances. Legislature Branch makes laws, the Executive Branch enforces laws, and Judicial Branch interprets laws.
    2
  15. They admitted they didn't know if he committed a crime.
    2
  16. He didn't interpreted the to say that both A and B need to satisfied to count not B on its own.
    2
  17. Second Degree would still require it to be premeditated. Felony Murder doesn't.
    2
  18. The Judge's interpretation is clearly how the was written to apply you need to satisfy A and if you do and B happens, you can do C too. The defense is leaving out A.
    2
  19. No they legally broke the law. Also Felony murder can mean any felony including a hit and run during a Grand Theft Auto.
    2
  20. He isn't writing legislation just interpreting it which is what a judge does. If there is earlier precedent for the defense it becomes murkier but there doesn't appear to be any.
    2
  21. Well in my book two wrongs don't make a right. Arbery wasn't innocent but neither were the defendants.
    2
  22. Technically pointing a gun at Arbery was aggravated assault as mentioned in AJW's last video.
    2
  23. But you need to see or know there was the felony not just suspicion.
    2
  24. No he is interpreting the law.
    2
  25.  @Daddy_Bear_722  Well as a Georgia resident and someone who does have some knowledge of legal precedence, their defense was only based on an interpretation of the law rather than the law itself. The Judge is interpreting the law as applying when both criteria are satisfied and not either-or like the defense in this case. Unless the defense has legal precedence, their case is doomed. It is often up to the judge to decide what the text of a law actually means. An example is a case about the laws about search and seizure which define a search needing a warrant if there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. One person once tried to sue when he was convicted for a conversation he had in a phone booth claiming it fell under the reasonable expectation of privacy but the judge decided that it was a public phone booth and thus there is no expectation of privacy.
    2
  26.  @Br3ttM  Except that isn't the job of the defense. The Judicial Branch is the one that interprets the law.
    1
  27. No he is interpreting it. He is saying A and B need to satisfied not just B.
    1
  28. Well Felony Murder basically means if they committed a felony and someone dies as a result, it counts as murder regardless of the cause of death. The matter is if they committed a felony.
    1
  29. You realize the entire point of the judicial system is to interpret the laws. By your logic, we should go back to "separate but equal" because that was only repealed because of judicial interpretation.
    1
  30. They did commit assault by threatening him with a weapon so Felony Murder is on the table as it means any death related to a felony so if someone has a heart attack during a bank robbery that is felony murder.
    1
  31. Your lack of legal knowledge is showing. This isn't changing the law. The defense trying to reinterpret the vague wording of the law as their defense but the judge is saying you can't do that the law was written this way and I will use this definition for the trial so we are all on the same page.
    1
  32. No he is telling them that since the defendants didn't satisfy both requirements, the defense's interpretation is in admissable.
    1
  33.  @charlie15627  Except he is using the full law while the defense is cherry-picking.
    1
  34.  @charlie15627  Yes but they didn’t have probable cause.
    1
  35.  @charlie15627  No he including the full law and saying that you need to satisfy the entire law
    1
  36. No it is because the Defense is misinterpreting the law.
    1
  37. He isn't changing the law. He is interpreting the law to be use as it was written. The defense was trying to claim that you only need half the law to be satisfied to be allowed to make a citizen's arrest when there isn't an "or" and the Judge is saying both criteria listed are required.
    1
  38.  @isaacrich7722  That is job of the judicial branch to interpret the law. After all not every law is written clearly so it has to be someone's job to determine if X law applies in case Y or if Law X and Law Z appear to contradict each other which law should be followed, or if Law X is constitutional or not. That last one is mostly handled by the Supreme Court but it did provide us with important legal precedence such as the claim "separate but equal" isn't constitutional which was the beginning of the end for Jim Crow.
    1
  39.  @isaacrich7722  The defense's sole argument boils down to that they satisfied B in the law as written but the judge is saying you need to satisfy A first before you can move on to B.
    1
  40.  @isaacrich7722  The law said it had to be a felony.
    1
  41. This is still during the investigation phase. and he hasn't set it in stone. He said if the defense proved compelling evidence supporting their interpretation of the law, he received any yet so he is going by his interpretation.
    1
  42. Travis was threatening him with the gun before the incident technically qualifying as aggravated assault.
    1
  43. Except it isn't. If they know the suspect committed a felony, they can still a citizen's arrest.
    1
  44. Well if they are found guilty, the ambiguity would be gone as the precedent would be set their interpretation was invalid.
    1
  45. No they just can't threaten a guy with gun just because they suspect he is doing something illegal. Cops have the same rule.
    1
  46. He isn't rewritting he is interpreting it as he is allowed to do because it is his job.
    1
  47. But two wrongs don't make a right and by the law, they committed aggravated assault.
    1
  48.  @disgruntledbear2764  He didn’t do that. He just said you need to satisfy both A and B
    1
  49. This is in the investigation phase according the vidoeo.
    1
  50. Not really legally they committed assault first.
    1
  51.  @nigelstanford4  For me it is a case of two wrongs not making a right.
    1
  52.  @carllennen3520  Because it is based on an interpretation of the law. If that is the crux of your not argument and not backed by legal precedence that is a poor argument.
    1
  53. Really? What is wrong about saying A and B need to satisfied to apply and not just B?
    1
  54. A judge is legally allowed to interpret the law and set precedent. He is following the law as it is written.
    1
  55. Nah the Judge is saying they can't cherry-pick part of the law they need to satisfy all the requirements of the law.
    1