Jogging in Georgia while black.

[Thermal]

A) Some people trespassed but did no damage and didn't take anything from a house that didn't belong to the McMichaelses.

B) ???

C) Therefore the McMichaelses are justified in chasing down Arbery with trucks, cornering him, aiming a shotgun at him, and then shooting when he tried to defend himself against an armed threat.

Can someone fill in the missing steps in a way that makes any kind of logical and reasonable sense?

I am given to understand 'B' involves either a paper bag evaluation or Charles Bronson binge watch

 

[dejudge]

...I don't think they wanted a video. I don't think they thought it was hilarious. I think they thought Arbery must be the guy that stole Travis's gun and if they chased him down before he heard the police sirens they could at least give him a good scare and be the neighborhood heroes and probably even catch him carrying the stolen gun.

The McMichaels did not know about the first 911 call at around 1:08 pm on 23 Feb. 20 so had no idea that the Police were on their way to Satilla Drive.

Greg McMichael called 911 at around 1:14 pm and was on the call while Travis was killing the jogger.

If the McMichaels had called 911 [at around 1:09-1:10 pm] when they saw him running down the street they would have probably seen the Police vehicle drive on Satilla Drive a few minutes later.

 

[Meadmaker]

Roddy was the one recoding it. He says he doesn't know the McMichaels and wasn't involved. I think that is likely true.

I agree with everything you wrote in this post except for the above. At least, if it's true, it has to be true with an asterisk.


First, he says he "wasn't involved". Well, he was following Arbery down the road and taking a video of him. That's kind of involved isn't it? Perhaps he meant he did not collaborate with the McMichaels. That is certainly believable. He certainly had some reason to be following and videoing, so he was involved somehow.

Second, I don't remember exactly what was in the police report, but Greg McMichael referred to "Roddy" in his statement. Roddy is not Roddy's real name. I'm sure it's what he goes by, but it's not his legal name. Greg McMichael must have at least known Roddy well enough to know his name. If I recall correctly, Greg McMichael referred to a discussion with Roddy related to the shooting, so if they didn't know each other beforehand, there may have been an awkward, "Hi. My name's Roddy. Who's the dead guy?" conversation. Not impossible, but it seems like there was at least some knowledge of who they were. That doesn't mean anyone is lying. There are plenty of people in the world, and in my neighborhood, that I would recognize but I would say I didn't know them. i.e. That's John. He lives across the street, but I don't know him.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Honestly at this point with the information we currently have I'm not overly tempted to really go after this "Roddy" guy.

In the most likely scenario; i.e "Roddy" heard some sort of ruckus outside, say the McMichaels jumping into their pickup truck yelling about going after someone and he, perhaps stupidly and irresponsibly but not illegally so, decided to after them a film, there isn't really a point in the events that unfolded after that would have been a good time to get "more" involved even him being there filming it wasn't exactly helping the situation.

Again while retaining the right to alter this if new information becomes available I think the most likely thing that happened is the universal "Somethings going on, better whip out my phone and film" it.

And besides without this film the two guys were never going to get charged so I'm tempted to give some leeway.

 

[Meadmaker]

At this point I don't see any reason at all to believe that Roddy did anything either legally or morally wrong. If he was suspicious of Arbery for some reason, following and filming is exactly the right thing to do. A 911 call would be a good idea, too. I haven't seen any confirmation on who made either of the two 911 calls made on that day, so one of them could be Roddy. It's the kind of thing that the police definitely know, and I'm sure we'll find out in the course of time.

He definitely seems to be distancing himself from the McMichaels, which seems like a good idea for a lot of reasons.


ETA: And, another possibility, if he was suspicious of the McMichaels, following and filming was also the right thing to do. Needless to say, later revelations may change our view of Roddy, and conceivably of anyone else involved.

 

[carlitos]

I am given to understand 'B' involves either a paper bag evaluation or Charles Bronson binge watch

False Dilemma. Why not both?

 

[dejudge]

The video by William Roddy Bryan is a huge problem for the McMichaels because it contradicts their story to the Police.

It would appear that Greg McMichael may have lied to the Police when he claimed Roddy participated in the attempt to stop the black guy running down the street.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

We went from "murdering unarmed black men for refusing to explain why they are jogging on white roads is not a crime" in the OP to learning that the "jogger" was not out for a jog, but rather, was a trespasser recognized from previous trespassing. We also learned that he was shot after darting across the road and trying to remove a gun from someone else's hands.

And, in typical ISF fashion, there are a whole lot of skeptics on here who know for certain the motivation of the two white men is racism based solely on the skin color of all involved. I'm not sure if you're one of them, I haven't had the time to read every post.

Very well put, and a good encapsulation of how even after years of these sorts of stories coming around and always following a similar trajectory, most people just cannot apparently be expected to exercise any sort of skepticism or measured thinking about them at all.

There's stretching the truth and then there's bald-faced lying. I'd rate this description as about 9/10 the latter.

How so? It's entirely accurate.

 

[Meadmaker]

We went from "murdering unarmed black men for refusing to explain why they are jogging on white roads is not a crime" in the OP to learning that the "jogger" was not out for a jog, but rather, was a trespasser recognized from previous trespassing. We also learned that he was shot after darting across the road and trying to remove a gun from someone else's hands.

And, in typical ISF fashion, there are a whole lot of skeptics on here who know for certain the motivation of the two white men is racism based solely on the skin color of all involved. I'm not sure if you're one of them, I haven't had the time to read every post.

Very well put, and a good encapsulation of how even after years of these sorts of stories coming around and always following a similar trajectory, most people just cannot apparently be expected to exercise any sort of skepticism or measured thinking about them at all.



How so? It's entirely accurate.

It's mostly accurate, and the inaccuracies aren't all that critical, but let's dissect it anyway, because that's what we do.

We went from "murdering unarmed black men for refusing to explain why they are jogging on white roads is not a crime"

Suburban Turkey described the incident in very different terms than the quote above. The quote above is his characterization of the local DA's lack of an initial arrest. It's a bit hyperbolic. However, Suburban Turkey's description of the incident that precedes the quote is quite accurate, and nothing has been revealed since then to show any error in that description. That description said the white men were attempting a citizen's arrest. The description said that there was a struggle for the shotgun. The description said that there was "little to no evidence" that Arbery was doing anything suspicious.

All of those things were true when the OP was written and they remain true today. The only change is that a bit more evidence was revealed that might have created suspicion on the part of "the white men", as they were referred to in the OP. Since "little to no" isn't a well defined term, we could argue for days about whether or not that was true when the OP was written, and whether it was true now. We would be arguing about the definition of "little".

What was certainly true then and is certainly true now is that the available evidence was not sufficient to justify the men attempting a citizen's arrest under Georgia's citizen's arrest law. On that, there really is no dispute. Some parties might try to ignore the standards in the citizen's arrest law, but anyone who bothers to look at those standards ought to agree that the standards were not met.

Any time I see on this forum an attempt by one person to characterize what a different person says, it always seems that the person performing the characterization ends up doing it in, shall we say, a less than perfect fashion. I think there are two examples here. I think that Suburban Turkey's characterization of the DA's stance is not entirely complete or accurate, and Bogative's description of Suburban Turkey's starting point is also not accurate.

Suburban Turkey's characterization does, however, capture the fact, accurately, that the DA refused to charge the men in circumstances where an awful lot of people would have charged them, leaving people to come up with explanations of why they were not charged.

in the OP to learning that the "jogger" was not out for a jog,

We don't know that. So far, we do not know if he was jogging before he entered the construction site. We do know that he did something other than jogging while he was out.

but rather, was a trespasser recognized from previous trespassing.

I think that's a fair statement. At the time the OP was written, there was very little evidence that he was recognized. I know that I, at least, did not believe that to be the case, but I think today there is much more evidence that he was recognized. It's not absolutely conclusive, but it's much stronger than it was at the time of the OP.

We also learned that he was shot after darting across the road and trying to remove a gun from someone else's hands.

That was in the OP. At least, it was said that the men "struggled over a shotgun", and the video, which was linked, shows the "darting".

And, in typical ISF fashion, there are a whole lot of skeptics on here who know for certain the motivation of the two white men is racism based solely on the skin color of all involved. I'm not sure if you're one of them, I haven't had the time to read every post.

I think that's fair, although one might also say that they seem certain of the motivation because it fits a pattern of so many incidents where the motivation turned out to be, or at least include, racism. However, there is not currently any clear proof that racism was involved. It just fits a pattern of other events where racism was involved.

To my way of thinking it isn't all that important. Dead is dead, whether or not the killer was racist, and the "murder" part is more important than the "racism" part. On the other hand, I can see why people think that it might matter, because they might feel that this pattern will repeat in the future.


So, Bogative's summary isn't horribly wrong. However, it could easily be misleading. The fact is that not much has changed since the OP was written. We still have an unauthorized attempt at a citizen's arrest, resulting in death. The major points have stayed the same, so one has to wonder why Bogative thinks the new developments are all that significant.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Travis’ attorneys press conference: https://youtu.be/66Wg-hI8IDM

 

[Robin]

Travis’ attorneys press conference: https://youtu.be/66Wg-hI8IDM

Tight lipped. Well that's reasonable at this stage.

 

[Robin]

So, Bogative's summary isn't horribly wrong. However, it could easily be misleading. The fact is that not much has changed since the OP was written. We still have an unauthorized attempt at a citizen's arrest, resulting in death. The major points have stayed the same, so one has to wonder why Bogative thinks the new developments are all that significant.

I don't see the need to change anything I have said.

When I saw the thread I adopted a wait-and-see attitude to the victim being just a jogger or.this being a hate crime.

But either the McMichaels are murderers or else they are unbelievably stupid and irresponsible. I can't see see any other possibility.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

I don't see the need to change anything I have said.

When I saw the thread I adopted a wait-and-see attitude to the victim being just a jogger or.this being a hate crime.

But either the McMichaels are murderers or else they are unbelievably stupid and irresponsible. I can't see see any other possibility.

They behaved 100% reasonably and this was backed up by the authorities not charging them until media insanity at a global scale.

Their actions only look unreasonable in hindsight because of the dramatic conclusion which was entirely something Ahmaud chose would happen.

 

[Darat]

They behaved 100% reasonably and this was backed up by the authorities not charging them until media insanity at a global scale.

Their actions only look unreasonable in hindsight because of the dramatic conclusion which was entirely something Ahmaud chose would happen



White=Right

FTFY

 

[Meadmaker]

They behaved 100% reasonably and this was backed up by the authorities not charging them until media insanity at a global scale.

Their actions only look unreasonable in hindsight because of the dramatic conclusion which was entirely something Ahmaud chose would happen.

In the world in which I want to live, "reasonable" doesn't include civilians chasing people with shotguns. I suppose it's all a matter of opinion. What sort of world do you want?

Alas for the McMichaels, I think that they will find that the law agrees with me about what is and isn't reasonable.

 

[Robin]

They behaved 100% reasonably .

We will have to agree to disagree that their behaviour was somehow "reasonable"

If two strong adult men had wished to see to it that one unarmed man was handed over to the police then they could have done so without anyone getting hurt, unless they were incredibly stupid

I can't see how it is even possible to bungle something as badly as the McMichaels allegedly did.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

We will have to agree to disagree that their behaviour was somehow "reasonable"

If two strong adult men had wished to see to it that one unarmed man was handed over to the police then they could have done so without anyone getting hurt, unless they were incredibly stupid

I can't see how it is even possible to bungle something as badly as the McMichaels allegedly did.

How were they to know he was unarmed?

He ended up being a violent thug prepared to attack to avoid police contact, so it seems like they made the right call bringing guns.

 

[Dave Rogers]

We went from "murdering unarmed black men for refusing to explain why they are jogging on white roads is not a crime" in the OP[…]

Nicely skimming over the fact that the DA more or less decided that the killing was not a crime and prevented the local police from instigating any form of prosecution. Does anyone think this would have happened had the shooters been black and the victim white? There's your racism, right there.

to learning that the "jogger" was not out for a jog,

This is an outright, bare faced lie.

but rather, was a trespasser recognized from previous trespassing.

...which, we have learned, is irrelevant, whatever level of truth it contains, to the fact that his killing was unlawful.

We also learned that he was shot after darting across the road and trying to remove a gun from someone else's hands.

...which said person was illegally threatening him with, causing him to have a very reasonable fear of an imminent attack using deadly force and therefore justifying him in law to use whatever proportionate means of self-defense were available to him.

And, in typical ISF fashion, there are a whole lot of skeptics on here who know for certain the motivation of the two white men is racism based solely on the skin color of all involved. I'm not sure if you're one of them, I haven't had the time to read every post.

And in typical racist hatemongering fashion, those who declared this yet another isolated incident that has nothing to do with racism find themselves unable to do more than double down on long-debunked claims in desperate defense of the God-given right of whites never to be prosecuted for killing black men.

Just to clarify: whether McMichaels and son were motivated by racism or not, the decision of the DA to suppress any prosecution is utterly indefensible, and cannot be viewed in any other context than his racist belief that white men killing black men is a lesser crime that is unworthy of serious attention. That's the real dirty story here, one that lies and half-truths about Arbery's background do not diminish in the slightest.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

They behaved 100% reasonably and this was backed up by the authorities not charging them until media insanity at a global scale.

If two black people, one of them an ex-cop, had chased down a white jogger who they'd seen looking round a construction site, then shot him dead when he tried to defend himself, would you consider that reasonable too, and expect no charges to be brought?

Dave

 

[Robin]

How were they to know he was unarmed?

If they had suspected he was armed then their behaviour was doubly stupid.

Remember the police were on their way, all they had to do was keep him in sight until they arrived.

Any reasonably intelligent person could have handled that situation with ease - if the intention really was to hand him over

He ended up being a violent thug prepared to attack to avoid police contact, so it seems like they made the right call bringing guns.

Arbery was, by the McMichaels' own testimony trying to run away. Right at the end McMichael was far to the left of the truck and Arbery runs to the right of it to evade him. Once they are back in shot McMichael is in front of the truck so he has run toward Arbery.not Arbery towards him.

No, any way you look at it they were either trying to kill him or they were imbeciles.