Jogging in Georgia while black.

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Here's an essay, sparked by this incident, talking about race in and the law in America

 

[whoanellie]

If he pointed the gun at him prior to Mr. Arbery's physical assault being launched on him, that would constitute a crime per my understanding of Georgia law.

Bookmarked for reference during upcoming court proceedings.

 

[quadraginta]

Well apparently one of the McMichaels had had guns stolen from his unlocked car.

And then I think there was a claim of one other incident as well.

I think it's a distinct possibility that more things had happened than had resulted in police reports. Ironically, an ex cop might be less likely to report certain things knowing that it had like a zero percent chance of being solved, especially if it was due to a car being left unlocked.

He might also be less likely if he wanted to avoid any complications or embarrassment resulting from an ex-cop leaving a firearm in an unlocked car. For example, he might not want to have to provide the registration papers for that firearm.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Can I just say that I enjoy the narrative that a violent criminal, on being confronted by two men with guns, would first drop his hammer and then move in to attack?

Some possibilities:

1.) It was some other tool, not fit for use as a weapon
2.) It fell out of his pants and was not dropped intentionally
3.) He was focused on ditching evidence and not thinking about it as a possible weapon at that time, and did not think he'd end up in a physical fight with the men in the truck
4.) He felt it was inhibiting his running and his focus was on ditching it for that reason

I have no idea what the tool was, if he brought it or stole it, dropped it on purpose or not, or if it ever crossed his mind to use it as a weapon or if it would have been viable as one.

On the video, it seems to be on the ground a good ways prior to where the confrontation ended up happening.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

So far, the evidence that Mr. Arbery was a robber, or even a burglar, is incredibly thin. The investigation might paint a clearer picture, but it seems that your belief that he was a criminal of any sort may be based primarily on his appearance.

Specifically, his skin color.

And this is not hyperbole or an ad hominem. ST has pretty much stated as much in his descriptions of his beliefs about crime and blacks. He has as much as stated outright that the fact the victim was black was strong evidence of his guilt.

 

[quadraginta]

That sounds like a law which applies to a large office building being constructed downtown, not a single dwelling residential lot with a house completed to the point of having walls and roof. I'd be very surprised if it's okay to just stroll inside someone's mid-construction house on their private property / private residential lot.

<snip>

I have to assume you are unfamiliar with the normal process of residential construction. (Also true to a large degree for commercial construction, but we don't need to go into that.)

The very first things to be done (after foundations and site utilities) are to get the structure framed and sheathed and roofed. This is called "getting it dried in".

A house which has reached this stage isn't substantially completed, or largely completed or even somewhat completed. It is just getting started.

 

[quadraginta]

I am also surprised that there was surveillance video at a construction site. If there had been a theft at the site of seems it wasn't reported.

Surveillance is dirt cheap these days. It would be a simple and wise precaution if only as an insurance CYA measure to have in case some rubbernecker managed to get themselves hurt while checking the site out and tried to sue.* It might have even been an insurance requirement.

*If you think that's unlikely I have some real-life stories I could tell you. A couple of them aren't pretty.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

I have to assume you are unfamiliar with the normal process of residential construction. (Also true to a large degree for commercial construction, but we don't need to go into that.)

The very first things to be done (after foundations and site utilities) are to get the structure framed and sheathed and roofed. This is called "getting it dried in".

A house which has reached this stage isn't substantially completed, or largely completed or even somewhat completed. It is just getting started.

The point I was making is that I don't think most people would feel comfortable or like they were doing nothing wrong if they walked all the way inside of a structure on a private residential lot.

I think someone could be forgiven for gawking a bit from the outskirts, maybe even walking up near the outer walls, but to be inside an enclosed structure, especially in the era of copper wire being such a hot item to steal, etc. - I think is fishy at best.

 

[lionking]

Some possibilities:

1.) It was some other tool, not fit for use as a weapon
2.) It fell out of his pants and was not dropped intentionally
3.) He was focused on ditching evidence and not thinking about it as a possible weapon at that time, and did not think he'd end up in a physical fight with the men in the truck
4.) He felt it was inhibiting his running and his focus was on ditching it for that reason

I have no idea what the tool was, if he brought it or stole it, dropped it on purpose or not, or if it ever crossed his mind to use it as a weapon or if it would have been viable as one.

On the video, it seems to be on the ground a good ways prior to where the confrontation ended up happening.

Oh for ****'s sake. You can't run like he did with a hammer in your pants.

Look I know your admitted racism determines your response to events like this, but give us a break. Show evidence for your comments.

Then again, don't bother. Your "evidence" will be black = criminal.

 

[quadraginta]

This is why it's so dangerous to leap to conclusions.

I look at a video that appears to show a normal house and think, "Whoa. That's bad. He shouldn't be there." Then I learn that it's just the shell of a house, and an active construction site, and I think. "Oh...that's different, but it's still not a good thing, and is a bit suspicious." Then I find out he's an aspiring electrician, and think, "Well, of course. Nothing suspicsious about it."

And some other new piece of evidence will trickle in and maybe change my perception again. Perhaps we will gain strong confirmation that the squirrel was obtained at the construction site.

In the interior footage shown on the newscast, it showed about 10 seconds. If we saw the whole clip, would we see him poking around for loose tools, or would we see him tracing conduit lines and examining outlet locations?

By way of example, some years ago a house was being built next door to mine.

I've been in the construction industry all my life. Industrial, commercial and residential. I noticed that they were using a very new type of composite floor joist which I had never encountered before. So I went over one Sunday afternoon when it wasn't busy to check it out.

I was all over that structure. Looking at joins, jumping up and own on the completed floors and decking.

I guess it was trespassing, but there was certainly nothing unusual about my being curious.

Large or small, construction sites are legendary for attracting rubberneckers of all stripes. To the point that when builders fence in an area downtown for a project they will intentionally make openings for people to look through. They do this because they know that if they don't do it on purpose people will start doing it for themselves. Doing it on purpose is neater.

I've worked on projects where we put up publicly accessible, controllable webcams so that anyone who wanted to could go on-line and check out the building going up in real time. I could wave to my wife from the jobsite.

There is absolutely nothing innately unusual or suspicious about checking out a house going up.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

There is absolutely nothing innately unusual or suspicious about checking out a house going up.

K,

But you can't eliminate the context of the situation here.

These guys say they recognized him from previous incidents where things were stolen, apparently including in that same structure? He also took off running and wouldn't stop when asked to communicate with them, which indicated guilt.

If it was all a misunderstanding, this could have been cleared up with conversation or he could have just kept running past them.

There was one truly dumb choice available to him which would almost ensure someone ended up dead, and that's the choice he made: to attack someone with a gun and start swinging fists and grabbing for said gun.

 

[Arcade22]

There is absolutely nothing innately unusual or suspicious about checking out a house going up.

Unless you are black (or classified as being of some other undesirable racial/ethnic group). Then it's proof you are up to no good.

 

[quadraginta]

In all my many years alive, I've never just seen some hammer or something laying in a residential street. It was there because he dropped it.

Squirrel.



Or.....we need those internet sleuths with their photo enhancement capability.

I have to think he must not have all that many years alive to use as a baseline.

I've seen all sorts of things laying in residential streets. A hammer wouldn't strike me as particularly unusual. I've seen entire tool boxes. I even went to the guy's house and told him where it fell off his truck. (Yeah, I knew him. He lived down the street from me.)

What I don't understand is where ST gets the idea that the victim would have been carrying a hammer to begin with. Is it his assertion that the guy had just completed a second pass on the house being built, and having scored himself a hammer this time he was now running away from the scene?

Or does he think the guy has been carrying it with him all this time since the last "break-in"?

If there actually was a hammer (and if there was I think it would have made the news by now) how can he or the murderers have any way of knowing it wasn't the guy's own hammer that he carried with him while jogging in case he got attacked by bloodthirsty rednecks? He certainly couldn't carry a firearm, 'cause any ****** running down the street in a white neighborhood like that one toting a gun isn't going to live long.

(See, I can play the 'hypothetical' game, too. )

 

[Olmstead]

I don't know why people are trying to argue with a person that is quite literally racist and proud of it. If the situation were reversed, and it was a white person getting killed in a neighbourhood where mostly black people live under exactly the same circumstances, he'd find a way to argue the exact opposite. In fact, he'd probably admit that he'd do that, and actually attempt to justify it. Some people are just too far gone.

 

[quadraginta]

Georgia does not have laws specifically related to storage of firearms so, to the best of my knowledge as I can find, leaving a weapon in an unlocked car is not illegal there.

Neither is not reporting a lost or stolen firearm, apparently. In Georgia, that is. Which strikes me as an even more egregious oversight in the law.

I still have to wonder why it is that an ex-cop would not want to have his butt protected by reporting the theft, just in case the weapon turns up involved in a later crime. You know, since there is no law about having it in an unlocked car.

Unless, of course, there was some other reason that he didn't want that particular firearm to be brought to the attention of law enforcement.

 

[Bob001]

But you can't eliminate the context of the situation here.

These guys say they recognized him from previous incidents where things were stolen, apparently including in that same structure? He also took off running and wouldn't stop when asked to communicate with them, which indicated guilt.

If it was all a misunderstanding, this could have been cleared up with conversation or he could have just kept running past them.....

1/ "These guys" are mistaken at best, or more likely just plain lying like rugs.

2/ He "could have just kept running?" That's what he tried to do. They stopped him at gunpoint and killed him when he tried to get away. He had no obligation to "communicate" with two strangers waving guns. And I can imagine exactly how that "communication" would have started: "Hey, n-----r! Freeze! We gotchu!"

You seem to think it's okay for two gunslinging white guys to confront a black man in a public place and demand that he account for himself? It's not, and you're just delusional if you think it wouldn't be different if the races were reversed. As at least one commentator observed, this is exactly like the pre-Civil War slave patrols. These guys are charged with murder and they deserve to be convicted.

 

[quadraginta]

The point I was making is that I don't think most people would feel comfortable or like they were doing nothing wrong if they walked all the way inside of a structure on a private residential lot.

And you would be wrong. "Most people" is a cagey way to phrase that. I can be far less cagey and far more accurate by saying that lots of people wouldn't have any compunctions about it.

A majority? Mebbe not. A substantial minority (if you'll excuse the term )? Sure.

I think someone could be forgiven for gawking a bit from the outskirts, maybe even walking up near the outer walls, but to be inside an enclosed structure, especially in the era of copper wire being such a hot item to steal, etc. - I think is fishy at best.

And I think I know why you think that.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I have no idea what the tool was, if he brought it or stole it, dropped it on purpose or not, or if it ever crossed his mind to use it as a weapon or if it would have been viable as one.

Or if it's a tool at all, or if it's got anything to do with Arbrey. You're just choosing to believe that. Because you are the poster-child of reinforcing your prejudices through confirmation bias and good, old-fashioned making **** up.

 

[Darat]

K,

But you can't eliminate the context of the situation here.

These guys say they recognized him from previous incidents where things were stolen, apparently including in that same structure? He also took off running and wouldn't stop when asked to communicate with them, which indicated guilt.

If it was all a misunderstanding, this could have been cleared up with conversation or he could have just kept running past them.

There was one truly dumb choice available to him which would almost ensure someone ended up dead, and that's the choice he made: to attack someone with a gun and start swinging fists and grabbing for said gun.

How many conversations have you started with people who chase you and are holding lethal weapons?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again when two white people gun down a black man in broad day light because they thought was some guy who committed a bunch of crimes they never bothered to report and we only hear about months later, being over the top cartoonishly racist is only slightly better then putting on some big show about "not jumping to conclusion" and "waiting to hear the whole story."

At least Skeptic Tank's racism is honest.