Search results for query: *

I mean, BART can be a pretty dangerous place. There are crazy, armed people on it. Oh, I see. You aren't a serious person. That explains it.

Not in my experience.

That seems like a... stretch.

Wait, I'm sorry, I haven't been following this trial, the defense brought up the fact that Wright had unprotected sex? Why?

Wait, I thought you said it doesn't matter? So what is it?

Metaphor already answered your questions directly. And pretty clearly.

Cool. So then, you would be fine with removing Title IX considerations, at least for athletics?

Yup. Voted against by a diverse racial coalition that opposes discrimination. A giant shock!

Given the facts we know right now, it seems reasonable to charge them with something like this. It will be an interesting trial, that's for sure.

Felony murder applies to specifically enumerated felonies. Like aggravated assault, armed robbery, etc. Not to misdemeanors and traffic violations.

You see, it does matter as to whether or not they were guilty of murder, it is critically relevant, in fact.

That is just silly. Why, oh why, is everything so silly.

No, there isn't a law that says you can do what they did, barbos. They decided to run after him with guns and a truck, which actually hit him and tried to run into him, as admitted to by the driver! None of that is legal. This isn't "monday-morning quarterbacking". This is just a plain...

Look, I think the important point is that it doesn't matter if what Arbery did ultimately increased his chances of dying, because it is still a clear-cut case of murder according to the law. But the whole "run, hide, fight" advice is for how to handle spree shooters. Probably not the best advice...

I haven't forgotten them. I mentioned burglary, that is the thefts that were reported. But it doesn't matter, they are not relevant. They do not legally justify you doing what the McMichaels and their neighbor did, which was clearly aggravated assault.

No, I can expect people to follow laws against violent crime. It doesn't matter if it was "random", what matters is if it was legally justified. It wasn't, quite clearly, from all the basic facts. And citizen's arrest laws go way too far as it is, it is a good thing that there was a complete...

I'll give you the TL:DR, Both cases were decided correctly. In both cases you had a lot of video evidence and eyewitness testimony that pretty much established cut and dry conclusions based on the plain reading of the laws. Indeed, I would say I'm very surprised by how well the system worked...

Exactly! By their own words, they admitted to aggravated assault on the stand. Cut and dry once it was established that citizen's arrest was not justified, indeed, given Arbery's actions, it couldn't have been justified.

I don't know if it has been refuted. It has been contested, but I think reasonable people can disagree. I think more importantly, it is irrelevant.

Right, but they did not meet the criteria for citizens arrest, even at the time. If you choose to do this, and you fuck up, that is entirely on you. Because at that point, you are guilty of false imprisonment and, depending on the particulars, assault, aggravated assault (as in this case) etc...