Jogging in Georgia while black.

[Meadmaker]

His past criminal record

Do you know anything about this? I read one news story that was critical of the original decision not to prosecute, but that news story said he didn't have any violent offenses.

Do you know what he was convicted of? Parking tickets? Drugs? insider trading?


ETA: I looked it up. Georgia has black squirrels.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

His past criminal record + how he behaves on the video + a former police officer (the dad) being confident enough that he was the perp that he was prepared to go confront the guy while armed + the item on the street + the fact he was seen in the unfinished house + the previous burglaries being attributed to him by a former cop and others + the DA's indication of possibly another even more conclusive video of him having stolen something just prior to this (if that is distinct from the unfinished house or if what's shown on it is more clear cut than indications so far)

You want to hear me say it's because he's black? I mean, I would say that statistics about young black men and the fact that 1 in 3 black men will do time in prison do sort of make his race a non-irrelevant factor here, sure.

I would agree the DA's original letter was quite damning of Arbery.

The state police have decided to pursue the case. Either they are buckling to public pressure, or the DA's letter was incorrect and sloppily done.

If it turns out the investigation reveals that the letter was broadly incorrect and overstated the strength of McMichael's claims, how would you interpret that?

 

[whoanellie]

[qimg]https://i.ibb.co/9stf2yJ/raised.png[/qimg]


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13081826#post13081826


Here's the screen grab. It's easier to see if you watch the video at low speed and high resolution, but McMichael raises the shotgun on Arbery while he's still at a distance jogging on the road. It's quite clear that McMichael brings the shotgun up from pointing down and points it at Arbery. It's not until after McMichael points the shotgun at him that Arbery veers off the road and runs around the truck.

Arbery had legal right to attack McMichael at that point in order to defend himself from a man brandishing a shotgun.

Thanks. It is quite clear to me that while standing just outside the truck and within the open driver's door, Travis raises his gun at Arbery causing Arbery to veer to the other side of the truck. Travis then pursues Arbery around the front of the truck. Arbery was clearly acting in self-defense. In my mind, whether what Arbery did is tactically sound is irrelevant.

 

[Ranb]

If you are pointing a loaded lethal weapon at someone then your intent has to be to kill them. Otherwise there would be no reason for you to be pointing a lethal weapon at them.

Brandishing can include bringing the rifle from your shoulder to your front. It seems we have different views on what constitutes brandishing. I would consider a person approaching me with a rifle ready to use, but not pointed at me, as threatening. This of course depends upon the body language of the person holding the rifle.

I'm exposed to people (security on base) walking around and holding weapons nearly every workday. There are varying degrees of readiness and there have only been a few times when I stopped and paid very close attention at what the guard or sentry was doing. This does not include those times when gaining permission from an armed guard to go on board a vessel.

While this is very different from encountering an "armed gang" on the road who are yelling at someone, brandishing can take varying forms.

 

[Arcade22]

I'm saying I think there's a very strong possibility the deceased would've started swinging punches at a cop too.

Even if he would have resisted arrest by the police, police are usually better trained and equipped to restrain individuals without having to use lethal force than lay persons are.

Even if he was a criminal their actions are completely unjustifiable precisely because of the risk of someone being hurt or dying.

 

[uke2se]

I dont understand why guys are entertaining this ****. You are giving a racist the oppurtunity to be the "other side" of the argument. You may all think you're owning him in a debate, but what's really happening in this thread is that you're giving a racist the opportunity to again and again say that it's ok to shoot black people. The racist has completely taken over a thread about yet another killing of a black man, all because you guys just can't stop feeding him.

 

[whoanellie]

I would agree the DA's original letter was quite damning of Arbery.

The state police have decided to pursue the case. Either they are buckling to public pressure, or the DA's letter was incorrect and sloppily done.

If it turns out the investigation reveals that the letter was broadly incorrect and overstated the strength of McMichael's claims, how would you interpret that?

One point in the DA's letter immediately struck me as being a very bad representation of what actually happened:
'From said video it appears Ahmaud Arbery was running along the right side of the McMichael truck then abruptly turns 90 degrees to the left and attacks Travis McMichael who was standing at the front left corner of the truck .'

Travis was not just 'standing' at the front of the truck. He had previously raised his gun at Arbery causing Arbery to run along the right side of the truck at which point Travis moved away from the truck door and was moving towards Arbery.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Do you know what he was convicted of? Parking tickets? Drugs? insider trading?

Not that it matters, but 5 years probation for carrying a weapon on campus, a shoplifting charge, a probation violation (which I think is the shoplifting charge, the article wasn't clear), and several counts of obstructing a police officer.

But that's thing. "But if a black person has any kind of record that justifies their murder" is a bad mentality to feed.

This is just the "But Bonthan Jean smoked pot!" thing again.

 

[Planigale]

I would halt and get quite nervous and explain that I had not done so, but that we should call the police to settle the matter. If they said they already had called, I would wait there and give them zero reason to perceive me as a threat.

I'd do this with white guys too but I'd probably be even more likely to tread lightly and speak gently if it were a couple of black guys.

Have there ever been any occasions where a group of armed white men may have taken a black man away because they believe he was guilty of a crime rather than just handing him over to the authorities? Or even when the authorities may have been complicit in the application of 'popular' justice? Have black men disappeared in similar circumstances in living memory?

I think the view of a middle class white man waiting for the arrival of the police in such a situation would be very different from the concerns of a woman or a black person or an undocumented person.

 

[Ranb]

And no you were not ever taught to "brandish" a weapon as part of any normal behavior in the military.

So was the security where you were stationed trained to verbally warn, then open fire without any intermediate steps?

The Marines that were stationed at demonstrated what would happen if we encountered them and did not obey their orders. We could expect to be warned, then see their weapon displayed, then deadly forced used if required.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I dont understand why guys are entertaining this ****. You are giving a racist the oppurtunity to be the "other side" of the argument. You may all think you're owning him in a debate, but what's really happening in this thread is that you're giving a racist the opportunity to again and again say that it's ok to shoot black people. The racist has completely taken over a thread about yet another killing of a black man, all because you guys just can't stop feeding him.

Because the racists is make the same argument the simple apologists are, just not hiding it.

I'm arguing with the racist so when the apologist make the same argument, I can ask them how its different in anything but tone.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

A police officer would have been holding a taser, pepper spray, or a nightstick and not a shotgun. You know, because they actually attempt to apprehend suspects alive.

I dunno. Stories of US police shooting and killing unarmed innocent black men aren't exactly uncommon.

I think Skeptic Tank is right on this one - if the police had pulled up they may well also have murdered this innocent, unarmed man, and they would also have had equal protection from the authorities and had all the closet racists defending their actions, too.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'm saying I think there's a very strong possibility the deceased would've started swinging punches at a cop too.

Nah, you were better with your first go - the police would have been equally racist and would also have committed murder.

 

[JoeMorgue]

So was the security where you were stationed trained to verbally warn, then open fire without any intermediate steps?

I was taught to never raise or unholster a weapon until I was ready to fire it, yes.

A weapon that is out but not firing is a liability to everyone involved and does not de-escalate nor end the situation, a bad thing.

 

[Ranb]

I'm saying I think there's a very strong possibility the deceased would've started swinging punches at a cop too.

Because you know him so well? And I'm not just talking about the color of his skin.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

I would agree the DA's original letter was quite damning of Arbery.

The state police have decided to pursue the case. Either they are buckling to public pressure, or the DA's letter was incorrect and sloppily done.

I don't see how there can be any doubt that they are buckling to public pressure, given the last few days' timeline, etc.

If it turns out the investigation reveals that the letter was broadly incorrect and overstated the strength of McMichael's claims, how would you interpret that?

I would interpret it as indicative of sloppiness as you said and probably some combination of "good ole boy" network + racism + laziness + benefit of the doubt for former law enforcement / the kind of people who are making an effort to stop crime.

None of which particularly ruffles my feathers, tbh. I'm realistic about how humans are and what's required to make a society function (it isn't always pretty.)

By the way, I find your even handedness, open-mindedness and decision to not just lapse into "duh, you racist and dis was lynching!" to be refreshing and impressive. You appear to be approaching this in a way that actually deserves to be associated with a skeptic / critical thinking forum.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Because I think he was a criminal who knew he'd been identified as such and had decided he was willing to risk his life to avoid being held accountable / going to jail.

Yes, this is true. The majority of people guilty of petty theft find death preferable to getting a slap on the wrist.

Similarly, being chased down by men brandishing guns can only be seen as scary by people who have something to hide.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I don't see how there can be any doubt that they are buckling to public pressure, given the last few days' timeline, etc.



I would interpret it as indicative of sloppiness as you said and probably some combination of "good ole boy" network + racism + laziness + benefit of the doubt for former law enforcement / the kind of people who are making an effort to stop crime.

None of which particularly ruffles my feathers, tbh. I'm realistic about how humans are and what's required to make a society function (it isn't always pretty.)

By the way, I find your even handedness, open-mindedness and decision to not just lapse into "duh, you racist and dis was lynching!" to be refreshing and impressive. You appear to be approaching this in a way that actually deserves to be associated with a skeptic / critical thinking forum.

I think this was a lynching and these guys are racist. I'm hoping they both die of covid-19 in lockup and save us the risk of a racist jury letting them walk.

But, if we're going to keep splitting hairs about whether it's actually ok for white vigilantes to gun down unarmed black people in the street, might as well have the conversation go somewhere.

 

[Ranb]

I was taught to never raise or unholster a weapon until I was ready to fire it, yes.

A weapon that is out but not firing is a liability to everyone involved and does not de-escalate nor end the situation, a bad thing.

Okay, we just got trained differently. I'd rather return a pistol to the holster than shoot in this kind of situation. I've watched a person disarm another man with a stolen rifle, he brandished, but held his fire. I'm super glad he did.

 

[uke2se]

Because the racists is make the same argument the simple apologists are, just not hiding it.

I'm arguing with the racist so when the apologist make the same argument, I can ask them how its different in anything but tone.

But they don't care about that, because they are racists themselves.

You can't shame a racist by saying that their argument is racist.