Jogger Chased and Shot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prosecutor gave an effective closing. (Didn’t see the rebuttal.)

Defense lawyer for shooter completely reframed the events and did a good job for his client. Right up till he asked the jurors to reach a hand to pull his client out of trouble.

Defense lawyer for father was as described in PP’s.

Defense lawyer for driver of second truck tried reinterpreting/reframing evidence and shifting blame to other shooters. Multiple long, deep sighs as if he was boring even himself.

The decedent was no angel and may have been up to mischief. But chasing him down and blasting him when he tried to escape wasn’t the right thing to do.

Best guess is a conviction, although the father’s direct involvement seemed fairly minimal and the judge did give lesser included instructions for the second driver.

lol
The decedent ran across the front of the truck to punch and get control of the gun. He wasn't shot trying to escape, nor was it ever their intent to shoot him. They tried to ask him why he was in the neighbors house when he attacked.

Sounds like defense lawyer no. 1 persuaded you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prosecutor gave an effective closing. (Didn’t see the rebuttal.)

Defense lawyer for shooter completely reframed the events and did a good job for his client. Right up till he asked the jurors to reach a hand to pull his client out of trouble.

Defense lawyer for father was as described in PP’s.

Defense lawyer for driver of second truck tried reinterpreting/reframing evidence and shifting blame to other shooters. Multiple long, deep sighs as if he was boring even himself.

The decedent was no angel and may have been up to mischief. But chasing him down and blasting him when he tried to escape wasn’t the right thing to do.

Best guess is a conviction, although the father’s direct involvement seemed fairly minimal and the judge did give lesser included instructions for the second driver.

lol
The decedent ran across the front of the truck to punch and get control of the gun. He wasn't shot trying to escape, nor was it ever their intent to shoot him. They tried to ask him why he was in the neighbors house when he attacked.

Why did they need a shotgun to ask him a question?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prosecutor gave an effective closing. (Didn’t see the rebuttal.)

Defense lawyer for shooter completely reframed the events and did a good job for his client. Right up till he asked the jurors to reach a hand to pull his client out of trouble.

Defense lawyer for father was as described in PP’s.

Defense lawyer for driver of second truck tried reinterpreting/reframing evidence and shifting blame to other shooters. Multiple long, deep sighs as if he was boring even himself.

The decedent was no angel and may have been up to mischief. But chasing him down and blasting him when he tried to escape wasn’t the right thing to do.

Best guess is a conviction, although the father’s direct involvement seemed fairly minimal and the judge did give lesser included instructions for the second driver.

lol
The decedent ran across the front of the truck to punch and get control of the gun. He wasn't shot trying to escape, nor was it ever their intent to shoot him. They tried to ask him why he was in the neighbors house when he attacked.

They chased him and trapped him illegally. He was chased for blocks. They had multiple cars that eventually blocked his way out. He couldn’t go the other way because a truck blocked him.

They hunted him, called him a ni**er and murdered him.

They never followed the other 15 people that are on camera walking through the house.

They were racists that killed because of race.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prosecutor gave an effective closing. (Didn’t see the rebuttal.)

Defense lawyer for shooter completely reframed the events and did a good job for his client. Right up till he asked the jurors to reach a hand to pull his client out of trouble.

Defense lawyer for father was as described in PP’s.

Defense lawyer for driver of second truck tried reinterpreting/reframing evidence and shifting blame to other shooters. Multiple long, deep sighs as if he was boring even himself.

The decedent was no angel and may have been up to mischief. But chasing him down and blasting him when he tried to escape wasn’t the right thing to do.

Best guess is a conviction, although the father’s direct involvement seemed fairly minimal and the judge did give lesser included instructions for the second driver.

lol
The decedent ran across the front of the truck to punch and get control of the gun. He wasn't shot trying to escape, nor was it ever their intent to shoot him. They tried to ask him why he was in the neighbors house when he attacked.

Why did they need a shotgun to ask him a question?

They made the mistake of taking the gun, and pursuing him. Why there will be a conviction, but the fact is he made a bad choice as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prosecutor gave an effective closing. (Didn’t see the rebuttal.)

Defense lawyer for shooter completely reframed the events and did a good job for his client. Right up till he asked the jurors to reach a hand to pull his client out of trouble.

Defense lawyer for father was as described in PP’s.

Defense lawyer for driver of second truck tried reinterpreting/reframing evidence and shifting blame to other shooters. Multiple long, deep sighs as if he was boring even himself.

The decedent was no angel and may have been up to mischief. But chasing him down and blasting him when he tried to escape wasn’t the right thing to do.

Best guess is a conviction, although the father’s direct involvement seemed fairly minimal and the judge did give lesser included instructions for the second driver.

lol
The decedent ran across the front of the truck to punch and get control of the gun. He wasn't shot trying to escape, nor was it ever their intent to shoot him. They tried to ask him why he was in the neighbors house when he attacked.

Why did they need a shotgun to ask him a question?

They made the mistake of taking the gun, and pursuing him. Why there will be a conviction, but the fact is he made a bad choice as well.

No he didn’t he was trying to get away from crazy racist with guns.

I’m a woman and there is no way men are allowed to “detain” me without that being a threat to my self.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prosecutor gave an effective closing. (Didn’t see the rebuttal.)

Defense lawyer for shooter completely reframed the events and did a good job for his client. Right up till he asked the jurors to reach a hand to pull his client out of trouble.

Defense lawyer for father was as described in PP’s.

Defense lawyer for driver of second truck tried reinterpreting/reframing evidence and shifting blame to other shooters. Multiple long, deep sighs as if he was boring even himself.

The decedent was no angel and may have been up to mischief. But chasing him down and blasting him when he tried to escape wasn’t the right thing to do.

Best guess is a conviction, although the father’s direct involvement seemed fairly minimal and the judge did give lesser included instructions for the second driver.

lol
The decedent ran across the front of the truck to punch and get control of the gun. He wasn't shot trying to escape, nor was it ever their intent to shoot him. They tried to ask him why he was in the neighbors house when he attacked.

They chased him and trapped him illegally. He was chased for blocks. They had multiple cars that eventually blocked his way out. He couldn’t go the other way because a truck blocked him.

They hunted him, called him a ni**er and murdered him.

They never followed the other 15 people that are on camera walking through the house.

They were racists that killed because of race.

Did the other people keep coming back over and over? Did they run out of the house when spotted?

He could have told them what he was doing, and waited for the cops. However, he was on probation and knew he'd get in trouble for the trespassing. Probably jail time since he was on probation, and likely why he did what he did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prosecutor gave an effective closing. (Didn’t see the rebuttal.)

Defense lawyer for shooter completely reframed the events and did a good job for his client. Right up till he asked the jurors to reach a hand to pull his client out of trouble.

Defense lawyer for father was as described in PP’s.

Defense lawyer for driver of second truck tried reinterpreting/reframing evidence and shifting blame to other shooters. Multiple long, deep sighs as if he was boring even himself.

The decedent was no angel and may have been up to mischief. But chasing him down and blasting him when he tried to escape wasn’t the right thing to do.

Best guess is a conviction, although the father’s direct involvement seemed fairly minimal and the judge did give lesser included instructions for the second driver.

lol
The decedent ran across the front of the truck to punch and get control of the gun. He wasn't shot trying to escape, nor was it ever their intent to shoot him. They tried to ask him why he was in the neighbors house when he attacked.

Why did they need a shotgun to ask him a question?

They made the mistake of taking the gun, and pursuing him. Why there will be a conviction, but the fact is he made a bad choice as well.

No he didn’t he was trying to get away from crazy racist with guns.

I’m a woman and there is no way men are allowed to “detain” me without that being a threat to my self.

All made bad choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prosecutor gave an effective closing. (Didn’t see the rebuttal.)

Defense lawyer for shooter completely reframed the events and did a good job for his client. Right up till he asked the jurors to reach a hand to pull his client out of trouble.

Defense lawyer for father was as described in PP’s.

Defense lawyer for driver of second truck tried reinterpreting/reframing evidence and shifting blame to other shooters. Multiple long, deep sighs as if he was boring even himself.

The decedent was no angel and may have been up to mischief. But chasing him down and blasting him when he tried to escape wasn’t the right thing to do.

Best guess is a conviction, although the father’s direct involvement seemed fairly minimal and the judge did give lesser included instructions for the second driver.

lol
The decedent ran across the front of the truck to punch and get control of the gun. He wasn't shot trying to escape, nor was it ever their intent to shoot him. They tried to ask him why he was in the neighbors house when he attacked.

They committed multiple felonies while “trying to ask him” about something they didn’t see that day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prosecutor gave an effective closing. (Didn’t see the rebuttal.)

Defense lawyer for shooter completely reframed the events and did a good job for his client. Right up till he asked the jurors to reach a hand to pull his client out of trouble.

Defense lawyer for father was as described in PP’s.

Defense lawyer for driver of second truck tried reinterpreting/reframing evidence and shifting blame to other shooters. Multiple long, deep sighs as if he was boring even himself.

The decedent was no angel and may have been up to mischief. But chasing him down and blasting him when he tried to escape wasn’t the right thing to do.

Best guess is a conviction, although the father’s direct involvement seemed fairly minimal and the judge did give lesser included instructions for the second driver.

lol
The decedent ran across the front of the truck to punch and get control of the gun. He wasn't shot trying to escape, nor was it ever their intent to shoot him. They tried to ask him why he was in the neighbors house when he attacked.

Why did they need a shotgun to ask him a question?

They made the mistake of taking the gun, and pursuing him. Why there will be a conviction, but the fact is he made a bad choice as well.

No he didn’t he was trying to get away from crazy racist with guns.

I’m a woman and there is no way men are allowed to “detain” me without that being a threat to my self.

All made bad choices.

No only the 3 racist white men madd bad choices. Amaud did nothing wrong … he died trying to defend himself from false imprisonment and kidnappings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prosecutor gave an effective closing. (Didn’t see the rebuttal.)

Defense lawyer for shooter completely reframed the events and did a good job for his client. Right up till he asked the jurors to reach a hand to pull his client out of trouble.

Defense lawyer for father was as described in PP’s.

Defense lawyer for driver of second truck tried reinterpreting/reframing evidence and shifting blame to other shooters. Multiple long, deep sighs as if he was boring even himself.

The decedent was no angel and may have been up to mischief. But chasing him down and blasting him when he tried to escape wasn’t the right thing to do.

Best guess is a conviction, although the father’s direct involvement seemed fairly minimal and the judge did give lesser included instructions for the second driver.

lol
The decedent ran across the front of the truck to punch and get control of the gun. He wasn't shot trying to escape, nor was it ever their intent to shoot him. They tried to ask him why he was in the neighbors house when he attacked.

They chased him and trapped him illegally. He was chased for blocks. They had multiple cars that eventually blocked his way out. He couldn’t go the other way because a truck blocked him.

They hunted him, called him a ni**er and murdered him.

They never followed the other 15 people that are on camera walking through the house.

They were racists that killed because of race.

Did the other people keep coming back over and over? Did they run out of the house when spotted?

He could have told them what he was doing, and waited for the cops. However, he was on probation and knew he'd get in trouble for the trespassing. Probably jail time since he was on probation, and likely why he did what he did.

Why did he have to tell three random people who he was and what he as doing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prosecutor gave an effective closing. (Didn’t see the rebuttal.)

Defense lawyer for shooter completely reframed the events and did a good job for his client. Right up till he asked the jurors to reach a hand to pull his client out of trouble.

Defense lawyer for father was as described in PP’s.

Defense lawyer for driver of second truck tried reinterpreting/reframing evidence and shifting blame to other shooters. Multiple long, deep sighs as if he was boring even himself.

The decedent was no angel and may have been up to mischief. But chasing him down and blasting him when he tried to escape wasn’t the right thing to do.

Best guess is a conviction, although the father’s direct involvement seemed fairly minimal and the judge did give lesser included instructions for the second driver.

lol
The decedent ran across the front of the truck to punch and get control of the gun. He wasn't shot trying to escape, nor was it ever their intent to shoot him. They tried to ask him why he was in the neighbors house when he attacked.

They chased him and trapped him illegally. He was chased for blocks. They had multiple cars that eventually blocked his way out. He couldn’t go the other way because a truck blocked him.

They hunted him, called him a ni**er and murdered him.

They never followed the other 15 people that are on camera walking through the house.

They were racists that killed because of race.

Did the other people keep coming back over and over? Did they run out of the house when spotted?

He could have told them what he was doing, and waited for the cops. However, he was on probation and knew he'd get in trouble for the trespassing. Probably jail time since he was on probation, and likely why he did what he did.

Why did he have to tell three random people who he was and what he as doing?

Because he was black, they are white, they are armed, and, most importantly, they are in Georgia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prosecutor gave an effective closing. (Didn’t see the rebuttal.)

Defense lawyer for shooter completely reframed the events and did a good job for his client. Right up till he asked the jurors to reach a hand to pull his client out of trouble.

Defense lawyer for father was as described in PP’s.

Defense lawyer for driver of second truck tried reinterpreting/reframing evidence and shifting blame to other shooters. Multiple long, deep sighs as if he was boring even himself.

The decedent was no angel and may have been up to mischief. But chasing him down and blasting him when he tried to escape wasn’t the right thing to do.

Best guess is a conviction, although the father’s direct involvement seemed fairly minimal and the judge did give lesser included instructions for the second driver.

lol
The decedent ran across the front of the truck to punch and get control of the gun. He wasn't shot trying to escape, nor was it ever their intent to shoot him. They tried to ask him why he was in the neighbors house when he attacked.

They chased him and trapped him illegally. He was chased for blocks. They had multiple cars that eventually blocked his way out. He couldn’t go the other way because a truck blocked him.

They hunted him, called him a ni**er and murdered him.

They never followed the other 15 people that are on camera walking through the house.

They were racists that killed because of race.

Did the other people keep coming back over and over? Did they run out of the house when spotted?

He could have told them what he was doing, and waited for the cops. However, he was on probation and knew he'd get in trouble for the trespassing. Probably jail time since he was on probation, and likely why he did what he did.

Yes they did it’s on video, happened all the time. The owner was fine with it.

He could have been a worker. They have no idea, they just chase the black guy, who has not committed any crime. They have no right to detain him, if somebody commits a crime against you you have the right to defend yourself.

[Anonymous]

It’s so frustrating to understand the law and to read the ignorance of people who think the 3 racists are not breaking the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prosecutor gave an effective closing. (Didn’t see the rebuttal.)

Defense lawyer for shooter completely reframed the events and did a good job for his client. Right up till he asked the jurors to reach a hand to pull his client out of trouble.

Defense lawyer for father was as described in PP’s.

Defense lawyer for driver of second truck tried reinterpreting/reframing evidence and shifting blame to other shooters. Multiple long, deep sighs as if he was boring even himself.

The decedent was no angel and may have been up to mischief. But chasing him down and blasting him when he tried to escape wasn’t the right thing to do.

Best guess is a conviction, although the father’s direct involvement seemed fairly minimal and the judge did give lesser included instructions for the second driver.

lol
The decedent ran across the front of the truck to punch and get control of the gun. He wasn't shot trying to escape, nor was it ever their intent to shoot him. They tried to ask him why he was in the neighbors house when he attacked.

They committed multiple felonies while “trying to ask him” about something they didn’t see that day.

Yes and based on past incidents of African-Americans being “questioned” in that neck of the woods he felt threatened as he should. They were going to probably do more than just question him and he knew it so he was trying to protect himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prosecutor gave an effective closing. (Didn’t see the rebuttal.)

Defense lawyer for shooter completely reframed the events and did a good job for his client. Right up till he asked the jurors to reach a hand to pull his client out of trouble.

Defense lawyer for father was as described in PP’s.

Defense lawyer for driver of second truck tried reinterpreting/reframing evidence and shifting blame to other shooters. Multiple long, deep sighs as if he was boring even himself.

The decedent was no angel and may have been up to mischief. But chasing him down and blasting him when he tried to escape wasn’t the right thing to do.

Best guess is a conviction, although the father’s direct involvement seemed fairly minimal and the judge did give lesser included instructions for the second driver.

lol
The decedent ran across the front of the truck to punch and get control of the gun. He wasn't shot trying to escape, nor was it ever their intent to shoot him. They tried to ask him why he was in the neighbors house when he attacked.

They chased him and trapped him illegally. He was chased for blocks. They had multiple cars that eventually blocked his way out. He couldn’t go the other way because a truck blocked him.

They hunted him, called him a ni**er and murdered him.

They never followed the other 15 people that are on camera walking through the house.

They were racists that killed because of race.

Did the other people keep coming back over and over? Did they run out of the house when spotted?

He could have told them what he was doing, and waited for the cops. However, he was on probation and knew he'd get in trouble for the trespassing. Probably jail time since he was on probation, and likely why he did what he did.

Why did he have to tell three random people who he was and what he as doing?

When you're trespassing into someone's home, and the neighbors want to know why it's pretty valid. Instead after being spotted he ran back inside the house, then made a run for it. He was there 4 times and at night. Doubt he was a night jogger. On one of the nights he was there a gun was stolen out of the defendants car. A police report was made. He was scoping out the home, and in court Travis said he took the gun fearing Arbery might be armed. And as it turns out he was a thief and on probation.