Status
Not open for further replies.


You don't seem to understand that it doesn't matter! Even if he was a convicted bank robber, the McMichaels had no grounds to chase him, let alone confront him at gun point, let alone kill him in the street.

And that looks like a pretty shaky charge. If the suspect didn't get the goods out the door, it's hard to prove intent. After all, the store didn't actually lose anything.

But you are revealing what will no doubt be the defense strategy: "That thug just needed killin'!"
 
You don't seem to understand that it doesn't matter! Even if he was a convicted bank robber, the McMichaels had no grounds to chase him, let alone confront him at gun point, let alone kill him in the street.

And that looks like a pretty shaky charge. If the suspect didn't get the goods out the door, it's hard to prove intent. After all, the store didn't actually lose anything.

But you are revealing what will no doubt be the defense strategy: "That thug just needed killin'!"

I think it's inherently interesting when info comes out which reveals initial narratives to be questionable.

Not everything posted in here is because it's an item which is going to be admissible at trial. Some stuff is just interesting and helps us understand the involved parties better.
 
You don't seem to understand that it doesn't matter! Even if he was a convicted bank robber, the McMichaels had no grounds to chase him, let alone confront him at gun point, let alone kill him in the street.

And that looks like a pretty shaky charge. If the suspect didn't get the goods out the door, it's hard to prove intent. After all, the store didn't actually lose anything.

But you are revealing what will no doubt be the defense strategy: "That thug just needed killin'!"

"It doesn't matter" - well, I guess hand-waving is all you've got now.

Always entertaining to see that rake get stepped on, and the furious back-peddling afterwards is almost as amusing.
 
You don't seem to understand that it doesn't matter! Even if he was a convicted bank robber, the McMichaels had no grounds to chase him, let alone confront him at gun point, let alone kill him in the street.

And that looks like a pretty shaky charge. If the suspect didn't get the goods out the door, it's hard to prove intent. After all, the store didn't actually lose anything.

But you are revealing what will no doubt be the defense strategy: "That thug just needed killin'!"

The McMichaels need to see this video just before they are jailed for life for their stupidity.

All they had to do was call 911 and let the Police investigate the matter.
 
"It doesn't matter" - well, I guess hand-waving is all you've got now.

Always entertaining to see that rake get stepped on, and the furious back-peddling afterwards is almost as amusing.

There is no backpedaling (not selling anything) here. The McMichaels had no grounds to pursue Arbery with guns. Nothing Arbery did in his life before that moment changes that singular fact.
 
I think it's inherently interesting when info comes out which reveals initial narratives to be questionable.

Not everything posted in here is because it's an item which is going to be admissible at trial. Some stuff is just interesting and helps us understand the involved parties better.

As a dedicated skeptic, though, I have to ask, how does one shoplift a 65 inch TV? Do people really walk out with those things? That's a pretty big item.

Something there was fishy.


And, as other people have said, and you have acknowledged, that won't be admissible at trial. I don't think.
 
As a dedicated skeptic, though, I have to ask, how does one shoplift a 65 inch TV? Do people really walk out with those things? That's a pretty big item.

Something there was fishy.


And, as other people have said, and you have acknowledged, that won't be admissible at trial. I don't think.

A hot seller on eBay a while back was Wal-Mart aprons. You put one on, grab the goodies like you know what you are doing, and blend in with the hustle and bustle of a retail environment. Smart guys got a buddy to distract security
 
As a dedicated skeptic, though, I have to ask, how does one shoplift a 65 inch TV? Do people really walk out with those things? That's a pretty big item.

Something there was fishy.


And, as other people have said, and you have acknowledged, that won't be admissible at trial. I don't think.

Yep, people try to walk out with stuff like that all the time. Put a TV or other large item in their buggy, maybe throw some stuff in walmart bags in there for camouflage, and roll it out the door. Theoretically, the AP greeters are supposed to be checking receipts on unbagged items going out the door, but if the thieves time it right for when they're busy, or taking care of something else and not at their post, it certainly does happen.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom