Jogging in Georgia while black.

[wareyin]

I'm not sure I'd characterize what he was wearing as running clothes, but he may have worn that to jog or run. But if I saw someone walking down the road wearing what Arbery(sp?) was wearing I wouldn't take that as evidence he was running or jogging.

We have two different videos showing him running. You watched him start his run, but think he was too fast so he wasn't running?

 

[Thermal]

In the running community, there is a well known hatred for calling it "jogging". No matter the speed, the majority of runners will say they went for a run, and will be angry if you described them as a jogger. This is the only frame of reference where I can see you watching a man in running clothes go for a run and claim that's evidence he wasn't out for a jog.

Khaki cargo shorts seem to be uncomfortable running attire, especially for a serious athlete. I really think framing all this jogger thing off his mother's stated belief is not helping anything. She doesn't even know what he was doing there, by her own words.

I mean, couldnt he have been just as plausibly been going out on this peninsula to check out the water? I walk up to the beach all the time just to have a look at Her.

 

[Disbelief]

We have two different videos showing him running. You watched him start his run, but think he was too fast so he wasn't running?

Apparently you can only run at one speed, or you are up to no good...

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Because...?

I'm a white guy who lives in a city where the non white population is, while not over 50%, somewhere around 40% and I don't feel like I need a gun. I walk home at night after work (albeit not at the minute for obvious reasons) through an area that I would be quite confident in stating is at least 90% non white and I don't feel the need to have a gun.

Why does having a large number of black neighbours make sense for the white people to want guns? Why should they need them?

I'm pretty sure if you asked people in the UK if they felt they "need" guns, even if they live in a majority non white (or even black) neighbourhood, most of them would laugh in your face.

I lived in the US in several neighborhoods in different states that had heavily black populations (80%+). I was mugged once at gunpoint, had a room-mate almost beaten to death for being white, and there were several other incidents mostly thefts or theft attempts. By a very large margin, most interactions were very pleasant and everyone was very nice.

I don't think it's controversial that crime rates are much higher among the black population, although people often wonder what you're getting at when you bring it up. It is what it is. I don't see much point in denying it. We could argue about why, but that is a topic for another thread. I have some half-baked ideas about it.

 

[dejudge]

However, they do get to kill you for attacking them and trying to wrest control of their firearm away from them.

Actually, as the video shows, it was Travis who initiated the attack and fired a shot at the jogger in front of the truck.

It can be clearly seen that the jogger was running on the left side of the road and after seeing Travis with the shotgun on the left of the truck attempted to evade him by moving to the right and around the truck and then Travis moved from the left of the road and in front the truck and fired the first shot.

Again, it appears that Greg McMichael lied to the Police when he claimed there were only two shots fired when the video clearly shows that there were three.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

I've been following, I'm just wondering if there was also a verbal component that made it explicit that he had no other option. From the very beginning of this, I've believed this is murder and I am not looking to give these lunatics any leeway. Arbery had every right to defend himself whether anything was said or not, just curious if it was verbalized as well.

Yes, I'm wondering about this as well. I think there is still a lot we don't know about this case, and probably a lot we will never know.

I don't think the McMichaels were intending to shoot Arbery that day, but maybe they had a bit more than a citizens arrest planned as well. The idea that if Arbery had stopped and complied they would have just waited politely for the police needs to be taken with a grain of salt as well.

 

[Marcus]

No, they don't. The initial crime was McMichaels and son committing assault with a deadly weapon - defined as, and clearly correct in this case, actions that would make a reasonable person fear for his or her life. Once that assault has been committed, Arbery's subsequent actions are, legally speaking, self-defense; he attempted to disarm the person committing the assault with a deadly weapon. OK, he failed to defend himself; but in law, he was not the person committing a crime at this point, but the person defending himself from a crime being committed upon him. McMichaels and son, in fact, were felons in commission of a felony, Arbery was attempting to prevent them from doing so, and Arbery would have been within his rights to make a citizen's arrest. Your view of this incident is an almost perfect inversion of reality.

Dave

Can it be assault in Georgia without a gun being pointed? Someone did provide enlarged and enhanced images earlier in the thread but they still weren't definitive.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Khaki cargo shorts seem to be uncomfortable running attire, especially for a serious athlete.

Yeah, this is another thing to suggest it was unlikely he was out for a run. He was an athlete in high school and liked running. You would think he'd have some better running gear than that by now. Especially the footwear.

We have two different videos showing him running. You watched him start his run, but think he was too fast so he wasn't running?

I already said he ran out of the house. And he ran when he was being chased. Both different than "being out for a run".

 

[JoeMorgue]

Can it be assault in Georgia without a gun being pointed? Someone did provide enlarged and enhanced images earlier in the thread but they still weren't definitive.

Well **** apparently it can be assault if you fight with someone who has a gun held on you that makes them fear for their life so that they get to shoot you.

What are the goddamn rules here? This is like legal Calvinball.

So two guys with guns in a truck roll on Arbery and he's not allowed to feel threatened because "they didn't like point it directly at him or anything" but the McMichaels get to shot him twice in the chest because he didn't just calmly sit on the curb and let these two citizens arrest him even though they didn't have a right to do that.

 

[pgwenthold]

Can it be assault in Georgia without a gun being pointed? Someone did provide enlarged and enhanced images earlier in the thread but they still weren't definitive.

I'll say it again: two guys with shotguns in a pickup chasing someone is a threat, without even having to add "to a black man in Georgia."

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Apparently you can only run at one speed, or you are up to no good...

Not sure why you think this, but I disagree.

 

[Bob001]

I'll say it again: two guys with shotguns in a pickup chasing someone is a threat, without even having to add "to a black man in Georgia."

Well, in their defense, only one guy had a shotgun. The other guy had a .357 magnum revolver. More sinister was the fact that instead of riding in the passenger seat, that guy was standing in the truck bed, no doubt so he could offer helpful advice to the guy he was chasing.

 

[wareyin]

Khaki cargo shorts seem to be uncomfortable running attire, especially for a serious athlete. I really think framing all this jogger thing off his mother's stated belief is not helping anything. She doesn't even know what he was doing there, by her own words.

I mean, couldnt he have been just as plausibly been going out on this peninsula to check out the water? I walk up to the beach all the time just to have a look at Her.

Cargo shorts? That's not what I saw in the video. Where did you pull that one from?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Can it be assault in Georgia without a gun being pointed? Someone did provide enlarged and enhanced images earlier in the thread but they still weren't definitive.

OCGA 16-5-20 (2010)
(a) A person commits the offense of simple assault when he or she either:
[…]
(2) Commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.

OCGA 16-5-21 (2010)
(a) A person commits the offense of aggravated assault when he or she assaults:
[…]
(2) With a deadly weapon or […]

McMichaels and son clearly committed an act - chasing Arbery in a pickup truck while armed with a shotgun and repeatedly blocking his path - which placed Arbery in reasonable apprehension of violent injury, and were clearly armed with a deadly weapon while doing so. I can't see the slightest room for doubt on this.

Dave

 

[dejudge]

Yeah, this is another thing to suggest it was unlikely he was out for a run. He was an athlete in high school and liked running. You would think he'd have some better running gear than that by now. Especially the footwear.

Maybe there was better running gear in the construction site.

Whether or not he had better running gear, he certainly did not have any gear to suggest he was going to take stuff from the construction site unless he wanted some sawdust.

I already said he ran out of the house. And he ran when he was being chased. Both different than "being out for a run".

There is really no evidence that he was being chased. The only video of the killing so far shows that the McMichaels were waiting for him in a parked truck when Arbery was at least 10 seconds away.

 

[Bob001]

....
What are the goddamn rules here? This is like legal Calvinball.
....

I had to look up Calvinball.

Calvinball is a game invented by Calvin and Hobbes. Calvinball has no rules; the players make up their own rules as they go along, making it so that no Calvinball game is like another.

Rules cannot be used twice (except for the rule that rules cannot be used twice), and any plays made in one game may not be made again in any future games. The game may involve wickets, mallets, volleyballs, and additional sports-related equipment.

But I don't think it applies here. The rule has always been the same: white guys with guns can do what they want to black guys they don't like.

 

[Bob001]

....
McMichaels and son clearly committed an act - chasing Arbery in a pickup truck while armed with a shotgun and repeatedly blocking his path - which placed Arbery in reasonable apprehension of violent injury, and were clearly armed with a deadly weapon while doing so. I can't see the slightest room for doubt on this.

Dave

And stopping him from getting away is false imprisonment and/or kidnapping.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And stopping him from getting away is false imprisonment and/or kidnapping.

Which is a crime that Arbery apparently wasn't allowed to react to because... reasons I guess.

So just so we're 100% clear. The McMichaels attempt to "citizens arrest" someone who did not met the requirements for Citizens Arrest in Georgia, making their actions illegal imprisonment/kidnapping.

Kidnapping/false imprisonment, it should be noted, is a felony in Georgia.

But Arbery was not allowed to defend himself because doing so make the McMichaels "fear for their life" and shoot him.

So the McMichaels were, again by their own admission, in the actual act of committing a felony when they then proceeded to murder Arbery.

Call things what they are. These two people attempt to kidnap/imprison another person, and then shot him when he resisted.

That's what we're arguing. That a kidnapping/imprisoning victim deserved to die because he made his kidnappers fear for their lives by not being a passive enough kidnapping victim.

And no, this is not an exaggeration or a strawman.

And all this... didn't even warrant a trial. It's not like the McMichaels were arrested and got off on some technicality. There were never even put into the system to be judged and never would have had the video not gotten out.

So that kind of puts a damper on all the "Well it's a jury to decide it was self defense, reasonable, justified, etc" excuses because... they were never gonna hear about it to judge it. So all the "Well we have to let the system decide if the two men acted rationally or not" excuses can go out the window because they were never going to until outside forces made them do it.

Two men attempted a daylight kidnapping/imprisonment of another person, shot him dead when he resisted, never have argued that isn't exactly what they did, and the law looked at that and didn't say "Innocent" it said "Not even worthy of asking the question, why are you bothering me with this?"

And that's without bringing up that word we're just not supposed to say because it makes people uncomfortable.

 

[Leftus]

If someone were to pull up to me and demand that I stop because "they just want to talk" while holding a shotgun, and there being no reason that I should stop and talk to them, I'm not sure I would have reacted much differently than Arbery did.

 

[Marcus]

Well **** apparently it can be assault if you fight with someone who has a gun held on you that makes them fear for their life so that they get to shoot you.

What are the goddamn rules here? This is like legal Calvinball.

So two guys with guns in a truck roll on Arbery and he's not allowed to feel threatened because "they didn't like point it directly at him or anything" but the McMichaels get to shot him twice in the chest because he didn't just calmly sit on the curb and let these two citizens arrest him even though they didn't have a right to do that.

I'll say it again: two guys with shotguns in a pickup chasing someone is a threat, without even having to add "to a black man in Georgia."

The legal question is not what one of us would consider a threat, but what, under Georgia law, is considered assault or brandishing.



There has been quite a bit of discussion already on this thread about this, even some statutes provided, I just don't recall if any of them said that what we do know, armed men telling the victim he must stop but not touching him, constitutes assault with a deadly weapon under Georgia law. Perhaps it does, that is why I am asking. If it doesn't, the perps may get off on self-defense without video evidence that proves they were pointing a weapon.