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

You work with black people? OMFG

No no no.... your wrong... the prosecutor doesnt have to prove that at all.... the defense does...

Excellent rebuttal.

Doesn't everybody?

I don't work

There is a burden of proof shift once the defense of self-defense is asserted. After that, the prosecutor is burdened with proving that the victim wasn't illegally posing an imminent threat to the life of the defendant, i.e., it becomes about the dead man at that point.

Even better.

I dont work very hard.

Work may be a stretch, they are fellow employees.

It really was. It was so well executed that I barely noticed he entwined murder into this discussion of a possible burglary.

People make decisions everyday that ruin their lives or someone elses. Thats what happened here. Decisions were made on both sides that may ultimately cost all three their lives. Thats what happens in a free will society. I personally do my best to avoid areas and people I don't wanna be around. Not afraid, just remove myself from the posibility. Why step in [bleep] if you have don't have to?

Paul,

Between you and me, I never actually read it.

In Georgia, when raised at trial the defendant need only show evidence of justification in an alleged self defense situation then the burden of proof switches to the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn’t justified.

So, necessarily the actions of the victim and his character, at least to some extent will come into play. Most states allow a defendant in a self defense case to offer evidence of pertinent character traits of the victim. So, if there is anything there, you will hear about it. I’ll bet that the defense already knows about or is very interested in the “mental issues” alluded to by the second DA in his letter to the third.

I still think that it is going to come down to what happened in the front of that truck that no one can see. McMillan has right to be armed to be in a public space. And Arbery had a right to be where he was. So, it’s going to come down to those few seconds.

You can argue that the McMillans created the whole situation and were the aggressors. That isn’t completely unreasonable. On the other hand, from what we think we know about the case, they had done pretty much the same thing and tried to get him to stop and talk at least once, maybe twice, a few minutes/seconds before and he had kept running. What was different this time?

It’s going to come down to what the difference was in those split seconds the last time they tried to stop him. The McMillans are behind the eight ball with all the publicity. On the other hand, they appear to be the only witnesses as to what happened in those split seconds.

I think there will be much more legal nuance than we realize. I have read and reread the Georgia statute. What the killers KNEW is going to come into play.

I suspect they knew a lot more than most are giving them credit for knowing.

What disturbs me most is how many of you think a man should allow himself to be disarmed and murdered just because he investigated a suspected burglar in his neighborhood.

You lazy bastard.

He's probably black.

Another contender for the critical thinking hall of fame.

Or that a man who is armed is automatically the aggressor. Some of these guys aren’t too far off from attacking the dude open carrying at the grocery store because they felt threatened.

Break it down to its most simple parts. You can open carry in Georgia. You can open carry in the street in Georgia. You can talk to people, maybe even disagreeably so while open carrying in Georgia. None of that, in and of themselves makes one the aggressor in a confrontation. There is going to have to be some affirmative act...a spoken threat, physical contact, or pointing the gun to make one the aggressor.

Most on here want to argue that the whole situation made the McMillans the aggressors. And maybe, the jury will buy off on that. But if I were their counsel, I would try to break it down to it’s most basic elements and condense their acts down individually and analyze them that way.