"Anglo-Saxon law, the body of legal principles that prevailed in England from the 6th century until the Norman Conquest (1066)." Rules made in favor of the monarchy first and foremost.

@@Richard-ii7dk Depends, were their rights read? If not, why? And even that may not matter when you consider that the DA, the cops and the murderers were all involved in a conspiracy to obstruct justice.

@@Richard-ii7dk No, I do not know that because that isn't true. Your definition of "cop for 30 years" is pathetic. Nice try though, lets see if your strawman keeps him out of prison.

@@Richard-ii7dk Three replies to my one in less than an hour? Sorry I triggered you, and no, I'm not reading any of that.

@@Richard-ii7dk I'm a bigot because I refuse to read your bullshit?

Sounds about white 😂

@@TheValk777 right*

But good thing is this isn't the Rittenhouse judge.

@@tycom9328 she said what she said. It’s you who didn’t get it

@@TheValk777 🤣👍

They have looked like down right awful attorneys from the very beginning.

@@leonalove336 A defense attorney is going look that way when the defense has no case.

they are. The judge isn't local.

@@luvitluvitbaby i dont think they had material to work

Almost every time the defense attys questioned witnesses the points they were trying to make, the questions they asked... ended up helping the state more than the defendants. Because their behavior was so malicious and nothing anyone could say was going to change that.

Amen

courtroom ASMR seems like it has some serious potential

Very good.

I wish this judge was on the Rottenhouse case. Hes a good one👍🏽

@@CheyennefromTaos comp to the pro defendent one they got. damn

yep, they really aren't allowed to know what racist POS they are. I wonder who leaked the video, they are heroes. There was a whole thing about not showing the confederate flag on the dad's truck. It's really hard to hide what ass holes they are

AN THATS WHAT SO SICKENING BECAUSE THEY ALL ARE RACISTS THE WHOLE COMMUNITY BUT ITS ALL BACKFIRING IN THEIR RACIST FACES I HOPE THEY OPEN THE WINDOW TO LET IT BE KNOWN WHY THEY SHOULD GO TO JAIL BUT THOSE BLACK PASTORS PRAYERS ARE NOT FALLING ON DEAF EARS OR BLIND EYES HIS EYES ARE ON HIS SPARROWS HE'S ALWAYS WATCHING BUBBAS

They made an informed decision,, they got it exactly right. They didn’t need his statement,, it would have been extra baggage and it truly didn’t bare on the actual crime and neither the prosecution nor the defense wanted it included-- for good reason too.

Hearsay

That’s a stupid interpretation. It’s just about as stupid as the prosecutor’s argument. Neither side gets to bring in partial statements without cross about the full statement.

It is but even they have a conscious and knew what these stooges did was wrong

I think the defense even replaced the black jurors - and yet they still lost lol. Good! Even they knew it was wrong.

@@darkphoenix1836 no, there where other black jurors in the pre pool, but during the questioning of them , many admitted they already had pre conceived views on there guilt. So they had to be removed from the pool. At least they where honest.

Either way the truth needs to be told. Death trial is treated the same way.

it's possibly a death penalty trial

It is a murder trial. We all saw the video. What else you call three armed men ambushing one man.

The trial is to determine whether it is a murder or not. It can now be called a murder trial.

@@JS-jy9og It’s still a murder trial because they were charged with murder. That’s how it’s always been.

Irrevelant..... Because it doesn't change the fact that they were acting like kkk members act. Is normal to kill a non white human being. And act like nothing happen. What is relevant is.... Why you didn't follow the instructions given not to engaged the suspect. Not to follow the suspect. But they were ego to confront the suspect. Any body who is approach with a weapon. Will defend themselves against the mortal attack. By random people. Specially when you have not broken any law. The bottom line is.... They were out there to harm the suspect.... With out no evidence of wrong doing. No probable cause... No nothing. They guilty of murder. They need to pay us for that unnecessary lost of a innocent life. Clear as water. Stop excusing those murders.

@@miguelortiz6404 Who told them not to engage? Is that when Greg McMichael was in the truck bed and called 911?

@@sr2291 correct... We all hear the 911 call. They were told to stop. They didn't listen. So... This is the consequences of been stubborn.

@@miguelortiz6404 But they had already followed him and parked and I think I rememember Greg McM saying something to Travis McM but it was too late.

@@sr2291 no....911 was made during the chase. They were looking for approval. When they didn't get it... They act like they didn't hear it. That's else is a police tactic....and one of them use to be a sheriff... I know... I was an officer too.

Stfu. Go back to your BLM circle jerk.

Just don't burn and loot like BLM thugs do.

@@thetruepatriot7733 BLM wow So your not racist. How Original. Or like those thugs who stormed the Capital.

@@thetruepatriot7733 Yup , just like the kkk. 👍

@@superstick1336 kkk? Where? There are like 5,000 registered kkk members left in the US, there basically extinct.. BLM on the other hand is the largest and most violent hate group in this county, they are domestic terrorists! who beat and murder people in the streets, burn down entire communities, and steal anything worth value. They are a plague to society.. kkk has dissipated down to almost nothing and been replaced by BLM.

@@kushmontedecalifornia3394 BLM are thugs and domestic terrorists.. facts are not racist. Stormed the capital? How many state capital buildings, police buildings, and other governmental buildings have blm burnt and destroyed? DOZENS. They have done far worse damage then the people who invaded the capital. BLM is the largest, most violent, hate group in this country.

Normally the ones involved are immediately separated, possibly by putting them in separate patrol cars, which didn't happen. U see both of the McMichael's talking with each other, going to their truck and desperately trying to wash off evidence with the officers help. Who allows suspects to go home and change their clothes. That's normally done at the station. They all incriminated themselves at the scene, thinking what they did was justified. The lawyer for Roddy is insane. He's so sure his client wasn't involved, although his statement at the scene clearly shows he was. Hell, all are guilty and I hope the jury clearly see this.

Om site

On site

They are probably going to go scott free. Have heard of a thing called Wetiko?

To understand , you need to go and look at Bruton v. United States , the state doesn`t want to use McMichaels statement because its very very complicated because of the case law in Bruton v. United States .

Not that simple when 3 defendants are being on trial together but represented separately as the Bruton rule comes into play whereby the statement of a defendant could incriminate another defendant thus causing difficulty on a persons 4th amendment rights . Hence why this trial is so complex .As Davi said you would need to read up on the original case that the ruling was formed from. So it is not that the State don’t want to it had agreed not to due to the issues it raised , the defence was quite crafty in trying to make it look that the State was trying to hide his statement which was not the case! That’s what It appears to me as a layman lol

@@davidhaney1394 His statement has some key points in providing evidence of what happened, he gave a hour long statement

The Defense lawyer wants to leave out true information if it's going to hurt his client. But the truth is the truth so it should not be ommitted .. .

They want him to get on the stand and say it himself so they can cross examine him,otherwise if he just says it on video it just seems like what he saying is true without anyone actually challeging him on the lie

That's what probably cost them their case.

@@karltonwebb or the fact that the 3 bimbos were guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

They can talk about it. Problem is The 3 Stooges arent trying to incriminate each other. Which should tell you all you need to know

Bruton law

Because there are 3 people on trial all 3 with separate lawyers. That is what makes this case so complicated.

Because if one defendant incriminates another, the defense cannot cross examine that statement unless the incriminated defendant takes the stand.. The prosecutor is trying to avoid grounds for appeal, and feels they do not need that statement to convict..

And to further explain.. There’s no rule that says the prosecutor has to divulge all information to a jury.. That’s taken care of in discovery by handing all material to the defense, who can raise any point they want when it’s their turn.. The prosecutor must, however, release any “Brady” material.. Which is any evidence that is exculpatory..

What happened is he wasn't arrested, therefore, he wasn't read his miranda rights and freely spoke to the officers at the scene.

@@colico14 He wasn't under arrest. But *anything* you say *can* and *will* be used against you. Rule #1 when interacting with police is A) Tell them you're exercising your right to remain silent, and (B) record everything. Miranda rights must be read to anyone being arrested, but it's not like you have this magical window where you can say anything you want to police. If he/they were under arrest, but weren't informed of this, and they were interrogated, then it could be thrown out. But if they were interviewed and let go, no charges filed, the statement *can* be used against him/them. However just because it *can* be used against them doesn't mean it *will* be used against them. Particularly if the prosecution has reason to believe that there were irregularities involved in the statement. Including mis-statement of facts, police misconduct, and anything else that renders the statement's veracity suspect. (Like if the accused told the cop "He came at me, it was so unexpected, and the gun went off, if he didn't attack me he'd still be alive." and the cop believes his buddy, or the son of his buddy, and his recollection of the interview is shaded by that belief-in-innocence that makes the hearsay evidence truly useless in any court of law.)

I think you're onto something. .🤔

Listen Stevie 🎶 you truly are blind.

Because they want to let him go. Just like with kyle...... not long before he shot 3 peo and killed 2 of them there's a video of him saying he wishes he had his gun to shoot/or shoot towards people who who thought may have been looters..... however the judge won't allow that statement, but he will allow the 3 people to be referred to as looters and rioters. If he said it he said it. If they were committing crimes then that's fine to bring up but the "judge" is picking and choosing what best helps Kyle walk free.... just like how it seems this judge wants to let these 3 men get off easily or go free.

No ir can't

Exactly he said it and he hate black people and love calling them the N-word. Just like he called Ahmaud the N-word standing over him as he was dying.

It has to do with a rule for joint trials. I don’t understand it though. They’ve just mentioned it a few times.

@@ShabazzTBL so that means they must ve not charged them with conspiracy. Another mishap on the prosecution

@@antt4998 I dont see anything about it not applying to conspiracy and also the bar for conspiracy is high. I don’t think they’d be able to prove that. Definitely not for the third guy because he apparently just up and decided he wanted to be get in on a good lynchin and didn’t even know why they were doing it.

@@ShabazzTBL when he up and jumped in That's when they started coordinating to attack him. But tying it in or if it applies has never been the case for prosecutors. They bring conspiracy to people in ethnic communities darn near every case just cause they new a guy they get conspiracy

@@antt4998 That’s not how conspiracy works. Trying to add the charge would give the defense something to attack and make the case look weaker. There’s no reason to charge it was a conspiracy because of the felony murder charge which means they all get hit with the murder. They do give out bullshit conspiracy charges to us but the difference is that we can be convicted on bullshit charges. White people usually won’t. That’s fucked up but I want a conviction, not to be able to say “Well at least they got charged with conspiracy like they do to us.” Not really accomplishing anything.

There’s a rule in court called,”Rule of Evidence “ which the judge has to enforce. It is for that very reason that the prosecution was not able to introduce Travis’ racist statement after shooting Ahmaud. I watched the entire trial and I didn’t see the 10000 criminals waiting outside. I saw peaceful protesters. That’s the problem with mediocre people believing they are superior to others.

Yeah, the police like to say the "and will" part, but that's not true. They are required to warn you that everything MAY be used, but not everything WILL be used. The issue at hand is that he apparently uttered a racist slur *after* the shooting directed at the by-then dead Mr. Ahmaud. And this really swings both ways - because if (as the defense argues) this was a case of self-defense and he shot an attacker because he felt threatened for his life, the "excited utterance" (that's the legal term) of a slur, even a racist one, may be expected and not a reflection of his usual character when not attacked by a black man. On the other hand, if (as the prosecution argues) he hunted down a black man on a thin hunch that he may have been on other people's property and shot him for not stopping on his demand, then the "excited utterance" may very well speak of motive and state of mind during the incident. The defense (knowing that their defense is BS) wants the judge to allow them to question the trooper weather he ASKED the McMichaels about utterances and what they did after the shot - but simultaneously want the judge to forbid the prosecution to question the trooper about the ANSWERS they gave. The state is (I think rightfully) concerned that this would look like the state hiding the answers of the McMichaels to the trooper's questions. Just imagine this: Defense: Were you asked by the trooper about what you did? Travis McMichael: Yes Defense: Thank you. Your witness. Prosecution: So the trooper asked you about what you said to the dead body right after the shooting? Travis McMicheal: Yes. Prosecution: Okay. Lt's move on.... The judge (I think correctly) adjudicated that they may enter the fact that he was questioned by the trooper as evidence without going into the contents of the talk - but if they wanted to enter ANY contents (like what questions were asked), they would also need to allow all other contents of the talk (like what answers Travis gave). [Side note: This is only a discussion because Travis McMichael is the defendant in the case - and as such he has a right against self-incrimination. So even admissions of guilt to a trooper are not automatically admissable. This exists to protect people from pressure to confess by police. If Travis McMichael was a witness in the case, the interview with the trooper would be admissable in full. One of the many reasons, you should NEVER talk to police. They have the right to identify you, so give them your name and an adress where the court can reach you - but then you shut up.] [Edit: Also... I just recalled that Travis McMichael was never read his Miranda rights, because he wasn't arrested on the scene. He just... freely talked to police and gave them the BS about being attacked by an unknown black man running at him. Police believed him and went on their way. It wasn't until the video of the incident came out that public outcry brought the GBI onto the scene, which then launched their own investigation. It was only by the GBI that the McMichaels were ever read their Mrianda rights.]

did you even watch the video? The defense wants his reactions to be known. Meaning, his lawyers.

It was to force him on the stand. If u just play the video of what he says u don’t get to question the video so now u just allowed his side of the story in without being able to question him. But if u don’t show the video the only way he can tell his side is by going on the stand & when he’s on the stand u get to question him

Just you🤷🏾‍♂️

Apple and eggplants. Two completely different scenarios where Kyle clearly acted in self defense to anyone who understands basic self defense laws and saw the videos.

Rittenhouse signature, lol.

Even if it was before he was read his rights, it can still come in it to show the defendant's state of mine. But the State doesn't want to use it, which doesn't make any sense if was damaging to the defendant. So a lot of these comments don't make any sense to me.

Tf u even saying bruh just delete this dumb stupid ass shit

Right, not innocent at all. Policing people for no good reason. George has his day coming, mark my words.🤡🤬And if u believe they are all innocent u have your day coming also.

The problem is that if you do something that is a felony, and as a result someone dies, you're culpable for their death. One example (and I still don't know why it hasn't been used!) is the January 6th attack on the capitol. Ashli Babbit's death should have made it felony murder for anyone convicted of a felony during the assault. If they committed a felony (bludgeoning a police officer is, I believe, a felony) and during the commission of that felony someone dies, they're guilty of murder. Even if the dead person is on "their side." But for the felonious action, the person would not be dead, therefore the felon should be charged with the death. I think the biggest problem with Bryant was that he had the most inept lawyer of the bunch. A decent lawyer might have been able to argue the need for a separation with greater skill and finesse. But his doofus lawyer was the worst of the group.

He was the one who trapped him in; without his role in it, Ahmaud could've kept running, but Bryan cut him off with his truck. When Greg and Travis were chasing him, Bryan saw and asked "you get him yet?" and when they didn't, he jumped in his truck. He didn't do the shooting, but he still had a big role in Ahmaud's murder. He only submitted the video because he (stupidly) thought it would help in their case.

🤔he went along with the ride. .. no one forced him. He will have to live with a bad ,bad ,decision. Let's face it...have you ever tried to force a runner to move with your car? I cannot even contemplate that act. I'm UK , maybe it's normal in USA ?

I don't understand ? Why are people falling for the I'm a stuipd tosser and I'm innocent act by Roddy ..he got the conviction and sentence he deserves..he filmed ( which got him the conviction in the first place ) and hurt poor Arbury with his truck and boxed him in ...no way in hell dose Roddy only DESERVE only a year in prison is actions lead to the murder of an innocent young black man....all three ate very lucky they are not sat on Death Row FFS

@@rosemarymcgrory5678 nah, honestly roddy shouldnt be in prison and even if he was, just maybe a short time. the others need to be locked up for life.

No evidence? Are you fucking stupid?

He wasn’t.

@@richardvinsen2385 are you his doctor psychologist probation officer? If not . how would you know?

@@richardvinsen2385 He was false imprisonment once they surrounded him in that field of amaze he was false imprisoned and killed

@@meetupspeakup4161 because someone would have mentioned it. Jeesh.

@@richardvinsen2385 it also could have been sexually but nobody has mentioned that either. think about it. late at night and Arbrey coming back. He's not stealing so is for something or somebody . it's pitch dark in the construction area and the only one that shows up is Mr McMichael. I've seen cases worse when it comes to disability people.

Get a job

Wtf are you on drugs mate

Stop being a loser and a coward.

There is no evidence he stole anything.

@@TheBerylknight there's plenty of evidence he was a violent crook kzfaq.info/get/bejne/b718o7WQrsWVZac.html

@@chrisholifield8571 I don't click on links. But I'm guessing this is the video where he gets an attitude with a cop? If so: that is hardly evidence he is a violent crook. Just your typical male teenager.

Trouble is they never witnessed any theft only speculation.

Tell that to the three idiots that are on trial now. There lives are ruined even if they get off.

Nick Oliver there are no videos that show him on that property repeatedly and do stupid shit u get prison time I advise u don’t try it

It doesn't matter if repeatedly went to the site the owner said he never took anything. And you only can use deadly force to protect your own family and property. You can't shoot anyone for being on someone else property and they shouldn't have been the ones to arm themselves and go searching for a him.if they would've stayed home and let the police do their job.the worst that could've happened to Aubrey is a misnomer criminal trespassing violation.

@@josephpayne4591 BEFORE you can charge someone with Trespass; they must be warned. There is no assumption of or for trespass. If you have a road going from the street to your house, if you want to close off access to your driveway, you MUST either post a sign or install a gate and some 'effective' control ...i.e. a guard, a lock, a gate, sidewalk, stairs, phone or other communication device... and contact information, which are may not be required. After the perpetrator has been made aware - (legally warned) - that access is 'limited' then(and there after and only then!) he/she can be cited - the NEXT time they enter the restricted area. (Note: if you look for it - you will find a plaque embedded in common access points; sidewalks, entrance doorways, for every shopping center, mall and some businesses...which state something to the effect of "this is notice that access is limited... etc.etc."....Then it is no longer considered "Public property or considered Public domain use/access".

@@lesliejackson1507 ... that "should be the case.... However, if you check, you will see case after case of of cops, police, favored criminals - who lie, strong arm, abridge the rights of victims, detained people. The courts have specialized in finding loop-holes - NEW and Unique ways to invent "new" and unique ways to "legally" make a desert into a lake" - and 'corrected" by nothing stronger than get nothing more than a week or so vacation!.