Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Trayvon Martin II

One was a theft of $2,500 worth of fishing equipment from English’s property, which he said he didn’t report to police but confirmed.

JoeBob,

Cite your source to your claim that $2500 in tackle
was robbed from the structure in question.

Statements from Mr English say he has never
been robbed, but alas, non-fiction attorneys like
You seem to know better... LOL.

No, it's not.

It also explains the more details explanation of a later Georgia case you ignored:

And this is an actual Georgia Supreme Court Case, not an appellate case like you quoted.

. “Generally speaking, in a burglary trial a jury must, of necessity, find intent to commit a felony on the basis of circumstantial evidence.” Jackson v. State, 270 Ga. 494, 496 (1) (512 SE2d 241) (1999). We have long recognized that intent may be inferred from the presence of valuables inside the place the defendant sought to access. Steadman v. State, 81 Ga. 736, 736 (2) (8 SE 420) (1888); accord Long v. State, 307 Ga. App. 669, 671 (1) (705 SE2d 889) (2011) (holding that a jury may infer that a defendant intended to commit theft based on the presence of valuables inside the premises, when the jury concludes that there is no other apparent or credible motive for the defendant's unauthorized entry). The jury is thus allowed, but not required, to infer an ultimate fact from proof of a basic fact. See Pollard v. State, 249 Ga. 21, 22 (2) (287 SE2d 189) (1982). “It places no burden on the defendant; it merely advises and guides the jury as to what conclusions they might draw from circumstantial evidence presented at trial.” Id. The fact that the jury is permitted to exercise a permissive inference of intent to steal when deciding a burglary charge does not mean that the defendant has any obligation to testify or otherwise contest that inference. But it also does not mean that another charge must be offered even where there is no evidence to support it.

Dumb and dumber have a huge legal fee coming now, I think that part we can all agree on. They are going to need a serious legal team to get in front of this one....

https://kcsenior.net/classes/


There you go buddy... they even offer transportation it seems...

I can find you reading and comprehension classes as well? Just let me know...

Hey! you're poachin *my* moron.

Go find your own.

Pretty accurate if you’ve met Big Jim 🙂

It's a certainty that that link isn't the "official" GA statute site.

Just like it's a certainty, that you never had a fkn clue what the real statute contains.

And it's a certainty that you posted the stupid shat you copied from Democrat Underground, bout forcible entry and postin.

You know Jag is not a real doc, right?

My, how opinions change like the weather...

According to some of these guys if you got home and found a guy dressed in black with a mask on in your house, you wouldn’t be able to hold him at gunpoint until the police got there. Why? Because unless he was carrying a sack of valuables on his back, you couldn’t prove that he was guilty of anything other than criminal trespass. And therefore, since he wasn’t in the act of committing a felony, you would not be entitled to make a citizens arrest.

Not me... hes in your house.... not running past your house down the street. Then, out of harms way, you go inside and arm yourself to pursue him, actually setting up a road block to attempt to “detain, or kill him”...

But, since most can say the victim was clearly burglarizing, then its also fair to say the two doofuses were clearly there with the intent to kill... see how tbat works?

Learn to read. I haven’t said that he was clearly burglarizing. I’ve said that his actions were sufficient to sustain a conviction for it.

Was he wearing a uniform or a jogging outfit?

And from my quick, very easy google search here is why it wasnt burglary...

1.) no forceable entry, nor was the property marked. To be such there must be obvious unlawful entry... i.e., someone stops in to ask for directions is no more or less guilty or innocent then the deceased in this instance.

2.) you must prove intent... you have to prove he had intent of committing a felony. You cant, hes dead.... and not at the scene.

Old timer.... its on here now like 5x’s... im not sure how more dense you can be? Its freaking word for gosh darn word....

And differs from the 3rd party line the other guy posted, YOU WANT TO BELIEVE...

Google it jackass.... Im not doing it for you. Im allowing you to rebel in your profound misery of a proclaimed victory....

Go find some conspiracy website to post some more of your daydreams for everyone to read.... talk about someone consumed with fallacies!!

Google it dumbass