Jogging in Georgia while black.

[quadraginta]

K,

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

I can't eliminate the ones you make up. That's for sure.

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.

Please quote and itemize these "previous incidents" as reported by the killers.

All I have heard about is one grainy video showing someone looking around a partially built house who they allege is the same guy as the guy they murdered.

Why do you feel the need to embellish? Are you that unsure of the foundation of your position that you have to make stuff up?

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

He tried that. They went ahead and put up a roadblock while having him pursued by a separate vehicle.

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.

Because running away from someone who is threatening you with a hunting weapon is always the wisest choice.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

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 worse than that. The reasoning is that the posse of three men, two of whom have guns, have a right to defend themselves against a lone, unarmed man; while the lone, unarmed man does not have the right to defend himself against a posse of three men, two of whom are armed.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Please quote and itemize these "previous incidents" as reported by the killers.

He already did:

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.

Damning indeed.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

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

I freely admit it's a tense and unusual situation to be confronted by strangers with guns, even if they just have them slung down and not pointed at you. Fair point.

However, you are failing to integrate into your mindset about this case just how big of a deal the latest footage is. It confirms that he went straight from being inside this house to being confronted / tailed by these guys.

This means that even if his intentions in the house were completely pure (which of course I don't think they were) he will have had to have understood WHY they were taking an interest in him.

He knew they thought he was doing something wrong / suspicious. He did not think they were the local KKK lynch squad / murder crew.

What this means is that his decision to flee and then physically assault them was almost certainly based on his belief that he would be in deep stuff if he was still there when police arrived. Maybe he actually overestimated his legal peril, but that would appear to be the only logical motivator for what he did.

He thought he was busted, not that he was the target of a 21st century good ole' boy pickup truck lynchin' fer no reason than his skin culler!

 

[Skeptic Tank]

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.

I'm glad you appreciate my honesty. Now I would appreciate if you would increase your own.

Here's the thing - you are framing it as "gun down" - but that's BS and you know it. "Gun down" would be if they literally were like "son, pull the pickup truck right up next to him, I'm gonna blow his darky head off! Yeeeeeee haw!" as the dad just popped him from the truck bed as he jogged innocently.

No, he was shot during a life or death struggle for the shotgun, after he darted toward the son and started punching him / grabbing his weapon. No matter what you think about the circumstances that led to that moment, or how much fault you assign to the McMichaels for that situation arising, THAT is what led to him being shot dead. So not "gunned down."

This annoys me in the same way it annoys me when people always say "in cold blood" about situations like this, when they are literally the opposite. They say "in cold blood" because it sounds bad / assigns more evil to the targets of their hatred, but Trayvon on top of you pounding your head into pavement or a guy charging you, punching you, grabbing for your gun are the very definition of hot blooded scenarios. Hearts pounding, adrenaline pumping, life flash before your eyes scenarios. So thanks for at least not calling this "in cold blood."

But then you say they "gunned him down" because they thought he was involved in crimes. No, they sought to interact with him because they thought that. He was shot and killed because of the aforementioned attack on the son.

 

[quadraginta]

Please quote and itemize these "previous incidents" as reported by the killers.

He already did:

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.

Damning indeed.

Here's what ST wrote;

<snip>

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.

In most versions of English that would suggest that they actually saw him in the act.

There is no evidence, not even (to the best of my knowledge) statements by the killers, which has alleged that anyone actually saw those (alleged) thefts committed.

Now perhaps that is not what ST meant when he made the claim "they recognized him from previous incidents". But if it wasn't then ST needs to try to communicate with the rest of the world with usages which we would understand.

Frankly, I think he is just making **** up because he knows full well he can't support the case he is trying to make without lying through his teeth.

 

[Bob001]

I freely admit it's a tense and unusual situation to be confronted by strangers with guns, even if they just have them slung down and not pointed at you. Fair point.

However, you are failing to integrate into your mindset about this case just how big of a deal the latest footage is. It confirms that he went straight from being inside this house to being confronted / tailed by these guys.

This means that even if his intentions in the house were completely pure (which of course I don't think they were) he will have had to have understood WHY they were taking an interest in him.

He knew they thought he was doing something wrong / suspicious. He did not think they were the local KKK lynch squad / murder crew.

What this means is that his decision to flee and then physically assault them was almost certainly based on his belief that he would be in deep stuff if he was still there when police arrived. Maybe he actually overestimated his legal peril, but that would appear to be the only logical motivator for what he did.

He thought he was busted, not that he was the target of a 21st century good ole' boy pickup truck lynchin' fer no reason than his skin culler!

This is all your wild racist fantasy. There is no evidence or claim that he stole anything. There is no evidence that he had any reason to think he was "busted." They had no right to confront him, and he had no reason -- let alone any obligation -- to do anything they demanded.

You're spouting the killers' lies and adding to them. And we can't hear his side, can we?

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

i've only seen the video in the OP. Is there better or additional video?

 

[Skeptic Tank]

There is no evidence, not even (to the best of my knowledge) statements by the killers, which has alleged that anyone actually saw those (alleged) thefts committed.

In the 911 call the guy says:

"“he’s been caught on camera a bunch at night. It’s kind of an ongoing thing."

I take that to indicate he believes he has seen the same individual on multiple other occasions behaving suspiciously and/or stealing stuff on video.

Now maybe I'm misinterpreting or maybe he is lying or exaggerating there, but that's what I've taken it to mean.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again "Well we asked the people who killed him if he deserved killing and they said yes, so case closed I guess" is a pretty horrid position to argue from.

 

[quadraginta]

I freely admit it's a tense and unusual situation to be confronted by strangers with guns, even if they just have them slung down and not pointed at you. Fair point.

However, you are failing to integrate into your mindset about this case just how big of a deal the latest footage is. It confirms that he went straight from being inside this house to being confronted / tailed by these guys.
<snip>

Hang on a second.

Are you suggesting that the footage of the surveillance camera taken at the house being built was recorded immediately before the killers jumped in their truck (by their own admission) and lit out after the guy they killed?

Do you have any sources to support that claim, or are you just making more **** up.

Because my understanding is that the surveillance footage wasn't even taken on the same day as the one when they gunned him down in the street for jogging.

Please clarify this point before you go any further, because if you can't then the rest of your comments make no sense.

Not that the earlier one have.

 

[Bob001]

i've only seen the video in the OP. Is there better or additional video?

There's another video that shows someone who may be him wandering around a house under construction. It doesn't show him doing anything for which he deserved to be killed.
https://nypost.com/2020/05/09/ahmaud-arbery-new-video-emerges-of-moments-before-shooting/

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Hang on a second.

Are you suggesting that the footage of the surveillance camera taken at the house being built was recorded immediately before the killers jumped in their truck (by their own admission) and lit out after the guy they killed?

Do you have any sources to support that claim, or are you just making more **** up.

Because my understanding is that the surveillance footage wasn't even taken on the same day as the one when they gunned him down in the street for jogging.

Please clarify this point before you go any further, because if you can't then the rest of your comments make no sense.

Not that the earlier one have.

Yes, the footage of him in the house is immediately prior to them getting in the truck and all news reports attest to this. It also appears he leaves the house abruptly, maybe even fair to characterize it as he "takes off running" from the house - now of course some will say this was just him resuming his jog, but I am wondering if he became alerted somehow that he was being observed. Maybe that info will be forthcoming.

Either way, yes, that footage that has come out is from the same day, immediately prior. The McMichaels have indicated they were reacting directly to him being in there when they set out.

 

[quadraginta]

There is no evidence, not even (to the best of my knowledge) statements by the killers, which has alleged that anyone actually saw those (alleged) thefts committed.

In the 911 call the guy says:

"“he’s been caught on camera a bunch at night. It’s kind of an ongoing thing."

I take that to indicate he believes he has seen the same individual on multiple other occasions behaving suspiciously and/or stealing stuff on video.

Now maybe I'm misinterpreting or maybe he is lying or exaggerating there, but that's what I've taken it to mean.

Until some other indication that such evidence even exists I can only take it to be self serving claims by an obviously guilty party trying to gin up some sort of justification for the crime he knows he just committed.

If "he" (i.e. the victim) actually had been "caught on camera a bunch" then I would think that some of that would have been offered in evidence to the police. Especially since it was "a bunch". In fact, it makes one wonder why some of that "bunch" hadn't already been shared with the police as part of the reports made about all those burglaries.

Oh, yeah. That's right. They weren't reported.

Curious, that. Multiple burglaries over an extended period of time. A "bunch" of them "caught on camera". And yet, the burglaries weren't reported, even though they had evidence.

Sure.



Now maybe you're willing to take the hasty, desperate statements of someone who has just killed a man as unadorned gospel truth, but I am just a bit more (if you'll excuse the term) skeptical.

Far from having camera evidence of a "bunch of (alleged) nighttime burglaries, all that has surfaced so far is one daylight sequence of a guy looking at a partially built house, with nothing being stolen.

You're going to need more than that to back up a claim made by an admitted killer during a 911 call.

 

[Ranb]

Another aside I have been kind of morbidly wondering about: what kind of shotgun and shells was the hillbilly packing? Arbery was hit at point blank range. If a 12 GA with buckshot, he would have been missing his torso. Maybe Travis had low brass birdshot, or even a handloaded rocksalt, that penetrated enough to cause him to bleed to death?

At the extreme close range of the last shot, the shot shell wad is just starting to open and the pellets of any size are still in a tiny group. There was a stain on Arbery's shirt side/back as he fell. I think buckshot or bird shot was used and it completely penetrated the side of his abdomen.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Until some other indication that such evidence even exists I can only take it to be self serving claims by an obviously guilty party trying to gin up some sort of justification for the crime he knows he just committed.
If "he" actually had been "caught on camera a bunch" then I would think that some of that would have been offered in evidence to the police. Especially since it was "a bunch". In fact, it makes one wonder why some of that "bunch" hadn't already been shared with the police as part of the reports made about all those burglaries.

Oh, yeah. That's right. They weren't reported.

Curious, that. Multiple burglaries over an extended period of time. A "bunch" of them "caught on camera". And yet, the burglaries weren't reported, even though they had evidence.

Sure.



Now maybe you're willing to take the hasty, desperate statements of someone who has just killed a man as unadorned gospel truth, but I am just a bit more (if you'll excuse the term) skeptical.

Far from having camera evidence of a "bunch of (alleged) nighttime burglaries, all that has surfaced so far is one daylight sequence of a guy looking at a partially built house, with nothing being stolen.

You're going to need more than that to back up a claim made by an admitted killer during a 911 call.

The 911 call takes place prior to the confrontation / shooting.

 

[Bob001]

At the extreme close range of the last shot, the shot shell wad is just starting to open and the pellets of any size are still in a tiny group. There was a stain on Arbery's shirt side/back as he fell. I think buckshot or bird shot was used and it completely penetrated the side of his abdomen.

I haven't seen any close-ups. Apparently three shots were fired. Was this a semiauto or a pump? If it was a pump, who racked it twice? Even if it went off once during a struggle, the next two shots had to be deliberate.

 

[whoanellie]

Hang on a second.



Are you suggesting that the footage of the surveillance camera taken at the house being built was recorded immediately before the killers jumped in their truck (by their own admission) and lit out after the guy they killed?



Do you have any sources to support that claim, or are you just making more **** up.



Because my understanding is that the surveillance footage wasn't even taken on the same day as the one when they gunned him down in the street for jogging.



Please clarify this point before you go any further, because if you can't then the rest of your comments make no sense.



Not that the earlier one have.

Yes it was the same day. There is a much longer video posted above from a different camera showing Arbery entering the construction site. another person coming from across the street (calling 911?), Arbery leaving the site, and police cars arriving. Police arrived within a couple of minutes. The posse didn't need to take matters into their own hands.

 

[whoanellie]

I haven't seen any close-ups. Apparently three shots were fired. Was this a semiauto or a pump? If it was a pump, who racked it twice? Even if it went off once during a struggle, the next two shots had to be deliberate.

I think the video shows all shots going off during a struggle.

 

[quadraginta]

There's another video that shows someone who may be him wandering around a house under construction. It doesn't show him doing anything for which he deserved to be killed.
https://nypost.com/2020/05/09/ahmaud-arbery-new-video-emerges-of-moments-before-shooting/

Something's out of whack here. There's a video of him looking around the construction, and a claim that he was looking around it again. Is there video of that as well? Are there two videos of him looking at the construction site?

Did either of them show him stealing anything?