TexasCHLforum.com

K.Mooneyham wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 7:59 pm

Jeff B. wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 1:36 pm I've got an issue with the entire concept of "hate crimes" and how, predictably, they've become a club to be used against some portions of society by the government and other groups.

There's a crime. Murder, assault, robbery, theft, embezzlement, whatever... charge the person under the statute and if guilty, convict them in a court of law and send them to jail. We're having trials in the media now and allowing public opinion and sentiment to render verdicts.

Jeff B.

County me in on that. Either it was a deadly crime or it was not.

Jeff B. wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 1:36 pm I've got an issue with the entire concept of "hate crimes" and how, predictably, they've become a club to be used against some portions of society by the government and other groups.

There's a crime. Murder, assault, robbery, theft, embezzlement, whatever... charge the person under the statute and if guilty, convict them in a court of law and send them to jail. We're having trials in the media now and allowing public opinion and sentiment to render verdicts.

Jeff B.

philip964 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 3:53 pm https://www.click2houston.com/news/nati ... sentences/

Two life without parole. Guy filming, life with possibility of parole.

Lesson here. Call the police.

srothstein wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 11:57 pm

philip964 wrote: ↑Fri Jan 07, 2022 3:53 pm https://www.click2houston.com/news/nati ... sentences/

Two life without parole. Guy filming, life with possibility of parole.

Lesson here. Call the police.

And the actual sentence shows a major problem with our judicial system.The actual sentence was life without parole plus 20 years. How do they expect anyone to serve more than their life in jail? Keep the cadaver in the cell for twenty years before the funeral?

oljames3 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 5:21 pm

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 1:52 pm

AndyC1911 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:45 pm

philip964 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 9:52 am Aubrey’s Mental Heath records can’t used as evidence in trail of men a used of murdering him.

Sounds fair to me - if they didn't know at the time he actually had mental issues, the accused can't use that.

I agree. The way I see it is they did not actually witness Aubrey committing a crime. They knew nothing of his history. They just assumed the random black jogger must have done something illegal.

https://lawofselfdefense.com/ahmaud-arbery-files/
Georgia law is different from Texas law. It is not necessary that anyone "actually witness Aubrey committing a crime." GA 17-4-60 A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion. https://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/ga ... or-arrest/

AndyC1911 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 12:45 pm

philip964 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 03, 2021 9:52 am Aubrey’s Mental Heath records can’t used as evidence in trail of men a used of murdering him.

Sounds fair to me - if they didn't know at the time he actually had mental issues, the accused can't use that.

Soccerdad1995 wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 5:00 pm

philip964 wrote: ↑Mon May 10, 2021 4:40 pm https://news.yahoo.com/gov-kemp-set-rep ... 29969.html

Citizens arrest law repealed in Georgia.

A citizens arrest is probably a bad idea anyway.

Not something I would want to do.

I agree that it is a bad idea for a casual observer to try to arrest someone they see committing a crime, where the observer is not a victim of the crime.

But I also think the devil is in the details here. The article says that businesses can still detain people, presumably with force, and that licensed security officers can also detain people.

To me, a key question would be whether a regular homeowner could detain an intruder until police arrive, including the use of force to do so. Or would this be unlawful under the revised law?

MaduroBU wrote: ↑Mon Nov 16, 2020 9:58 am

From a personal perspective, I have publicly stated that Biden will never be my president. He may become THE president, but everything that he stands for is so diametrically opposed to anything that I stand for, that on his very best day, he can never represent ANY of my interests, and will never defend them against those who would trample them. He is nothing more than a symbol of a dying republic. I have publicly stated that he deserves nothing less than the exact same levels of respect and cooperation that his supporters gave Trump for the past 4 years. I have publicly stated that I will resist him in every way that I can lawfully do so as an individual, and I have repeatedly (and deliberately ironically) used the #resist hashtag in online posts stating my opposition to a possible Biden administration. If, once he has been inaugurated, some feckless boneheads unknown to me attempt to kill him, do my words constitutionally justify rounding me up as well and denying me bail? What if it turns out that I “follow” one of them on Twitter? I don’t advocate for murder and would never be party to such a conspiracy, but the main reason I pray for Biden's good health is Kamala Harris.....who may in fact be a greater threat to Biden than anyone who voted Republican.....and I have stated those sentiments publicly.

IANAL, but my caveman understanding is that in both scenarios, posting that sort of general criticism of the president is laughably distant from evidence that someone has or might commit a crime. In every case, I am suggesting that publicly available speech might be used to reinforce other evidence, but I cannot envision a scenario in which such speech were used as evidence of a crime unless the problem had shifted from "suppression of speech" to "outright political oppression". I agree that broadening evidentiary standards to include any sort of criticism of the ruling party is deeply problematic, but I think that it fits into a different bucket (essentially a denial of due process rather than some form of prior restraint). There is is a large body of case law on the general topic of "chilling effect", but I think that is a due process problem creeping into the area of suppressing free speech. The suppression of relevant evidence in some cases doesn't directly address the issue of the same sort of wildly insufficient evidence being misused in other cases.

One other important thing to learn: Text messages are discoverable.

philip964 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 2:10 pm

Flightmare wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 1:07 pm

philip964 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 12:58 pm

Flightmare wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 10:27 am

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 8:26 am

philip964 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 12:06 am https://news.yahoo.com/judge-weigh-bond ... 55083.html

Judge weighs bond. Prosecutor reads racist texts from father and son.

I don't like that they are using racist texts as an excuse to punish them before they have had a trial by refusing to set a bond. Being racist is not a crime in itself and even if it was, punishing them for it with no trial is not in keeping with our constitution. I would understand no bond if they were a flight risk but that is not what is happening there.

Bond should ONLY be used as insurance against someone who would otherwise flee. That being said, such texts COULD/SHOULD be used as evidence of their state of mind and motive during the trial. But yes, I agree, the texts SHOULD be irrelevant for a bond hearing, in my opinion. IANAL

I posted the update as a caution that what you say on line could come back and haunt you. I think we all know this, but it was a gentle reminder.
A shame how our first amendment rights come with such restrictions.

I would counter that it is NOT a restriction. They were allowed to engage in free speech, as we all are. However, we are not free from the consequences said speech. It is not unfair or unjust to say that we should all be accountable for what we say or do.

To me if you are held in jail by the government based on what you have previously written, and what you have said is not illegal speech, then
your 1st amendment rights have been violated.

philip964 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 12:06 am https://news.yahoo.com/judge-weigh-bond ... 55083.html

Judge weighs bond. Prosecutor reads racist texts from father and son.

philip964 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 11:48 am Snip...
And then there is the Confederate sticker on the tool box.

How long before pick ups are racist?

https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/gbi ... 4JRu5u3JN/

More on this.

3rd guy really should have had an attorney before talking.

philip964 wrote: ↑Thu Jun 04, 2020 11:48 am https://apple.news/Ay58Fg5p2S82l7cGMSXL7sg

Well none of this looks good. Apparently chase was more involved than the video shows. Evidence of video guy doing more chasing with fibers and dent from contact with Ahmaud on his pick up.

And then there is the Confederate sticker on the tool box.

How long before pick ups are racist?

parabelum wrote: ↑Sun May 31, 2020 8:46 am Nice TAM, thanks for the link.

“ Those who say that the McMichaels have their right of armed self defense apparently don’t realize that it can also be viewed that Arbery also had his right of self defense and I’m pretty sure felt as though his life was in danger the moment Travis McMichael stopped his truck in the road and got out to confront him with his shotgun.”



From the video to me at least it is apparent that he was fighting for his life.