Cont: Jogging in Georgia while black - The Trial

[plague311]

I'm pretty sure the defense is just objecting for the sake of objecting and pissing the jury off because they have to go into the juror's room every time. They haven't been winning the objections, and I think Ronnie's attorney just asked for his 3rd or 4th mistrial.

 

[Ranb]

I think their expectation was that he'd finally stop and await the arrival of police.

They failed to anticipate just how impulsive, violent, dangerous, and stupid Arbery was. In other words, they ended up in the awful position they're in now, due to insufficient racism.

If you were chased until exhausted, would you trust a man with a gun to not shoot you or try to defend yourself?

 

[Ranb]

I would DEFINITELY be way more sympathetic to any arguments about him having no obligations to explain himself, if he'd just kept running, or sat down and silently awaited police, refusing to speak to the three guys, instead of lunging, punching, and grabbing hold of the shotgun.

If you're trying to convince the forum that you are stupid enough to just sit and wait for the police while armed men chase you down, I'm not buying it.

Why would you think that anyone would be stupid enough to not defend themselves against armed men trying to run them down?

 

[Skeptic Tank]

If you were chased until exhausted, would you trust a man with a gun to not shoot you or try to defend yourself?

If you're trying to convince the forum that you are stupid enough to just sit and wait for the police while armed men chase you down, I'm not buying it.

Why would you think that anyone would be stupid enough to not defend themselves against armed men trying to run them down?

There's important context here that has to be factored in.

If it's 3am and I'm out for a walk, and I've literally done nothing wrong at all, just walked down public streets, and suddenly a car is behind me and slowly following, headlights off, and then after doing that for 10 minutes pulls up next to me and starts saying threatening things to me, I could see myself going into a "fight or flight, do or die" mode where I would view any sort of compliance with them as being off the table. In that sort of circumstance, I could see charging someone, fighting them for control of a gun, etc.

However, if it's the bright of day, on a Sunday, and I'm in a neighborhood that I don't live in, and which I've visited multiple times previously, and I'm walking around inside of a house under construction there, which I've visited multiple times previously and walked around inside of, and then I look through the window and see a guy in his front yard looking at me, with a phone up to his head --- then I know immediately (whether it's true or not) that the man in question thinks I'm doing something questionable / illegal inside that structure.

At that point, I'd come out and explain myself to him, proactively. I'd say "sorry, do you know the owner? I was just curious and looking around." - and if he said the owner had indicated he did NOT want people doing that, I'd convey my apologies and indicate I wouldn't be doing it again.

If that man in the yard across the street on the phone said "well, the police are on the way already, explain it to them" - then I would do precisely that. I'd sit down in the front yard of the property I was inside of, and await their arrival. I'd then explain myself to the cops, and face whatever music was coming re: trespassing or whatever.

If, back at the moment I saw the person on the phone, I panicked and bolted down the street like Arbery did, and then found myself being pursued by a couple of pickup trucks, and men inside the one closer to me were saying "where are you coming from? what did you do? We want to talk to you" I'd know exactly what was going on, just as Arbery did.

I'd know that these men thought I had been doing something criminal, and that it would be in my interest to explain myself to them.

I'd submit myself to their questioning and give them no reason to perceive me as a physical threat, because I'd know they were acting in a watchful neighbor / busybody way, where they were suspicious of me and thought I was a criminal.

Whether I was a criminal or not, it would be in my best interest in that situation to stop, because I'm not going to outrun a truck, and interact with the men / wait for the police.

I wouldn't consider such men shooting me with a gun to be a scenario that would seem at all likely, unless and until I attacked them.

I think Arbery's chances of being shot dead were hanging at 0% until he attacked.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I'm pretty sure the defense is just objecting for the sake of objecting and pissing the jury off because they have to go into the juror's room every time. They haven't been winning the objections, and I think Ronnie's attorney just asked for his 3rd or 4th mistrial.

This can't be great for working the jury. Constantly bringing the trial to a halt must smack of desperation, and surely this must influence the jury to some extent.

Working the judge for a mistrial is probably the only way that the three killers aren't convicted in this trial, though it would simply kick the can down the road for another equally terrible retrial. I suppose if there's no other viable options, why not?

 

[Darat]

There's important context here that has to be factored in.


...snip...

Why type all that rubbish when for you it is as simple as your fellow whites killed a black man and that should be legal under all circumstances.

 

[JoeMorgue]

At that point, I'd come out and explain myself to him, proactively. I'd say "sorry, do you know the owner? I was just curious and looking around." - and if he said the owner had indicated he did NOT want people doing that, I'd convey my apologies and indicate I wouldn't be doing it again.

Shut the **** up, no you would not. Especially if the owner was black.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Why type all that rubbish when for you it is as simple as your fellow whites killed a black man and that should be legal under all circumstances.

And you have already admitted as such, it's not some ulterior motive we're putting on you.

Why put your racism genie back in the bottle?

 

[plague311]

However, if it's the bright of day, on a Sunday, and I'm in a neighborhood that I don't live in, and which I've visited multiple times previously, and I'm walking around inside of a house under construction there, which I've visited multiple times previously and walked around inside of, and then I look through the window and see a guy in his front yard looking at me, with a phone up to his head --- then I know immediately (whether it's true or not) that the man in question thinks I'm doing something questionable / illegal inside that structure.

This never happened. The prosecution has had multiple detectives read the transcripts of their interview with the McMichael's. The McMichael's stated with no hesitation that they had absolutely no idea where Arbery was coming from, or where he was going. I've already stated this multiple times. No one was in their front yard with a phone up to their head watching Arbery. It just wasn't a thing.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

And you have already admitted as such, it's not some ulterior motive we're putting on you.

Why put your racism genie back in the bottle?

Nothing's going back into any bottle.

When I agree to acknowledge being "racist" - I'm not signing off on some mindless caricature version of a person who crawls out of the back woods wearing overalls and spits out their chewing tobacco as they say "I just plain don't like N-words. Not one little bit." or someone who literally cares not one whit about the particulars of any situation, and looks only at the races involved.

No, what I'm signing off on is the version of being "racist" that all of you people on this and other forums have made clear many, many times - is really no different to you THAN that, but is in fact quite distinct.

If someone intelligently looks at statistics, and differences between races, and accepts the reality that human subgroups that evolved separately for hundreds of thousands of years in relative isolation have ended up with important differences, and if someone is realistic about racial dynamics in a multiracial society (as in, how humans are tribal, etc.) then you all call that "racist" and make no real distinction between that and just brute, mindless dislike for "the other."

I was a liberal SJW type who actively signed onto the same sort of anti-white thinking that I still see in so many others, and I occupied that mental territory for a long, long time. I came by my current views quite honestly. It was not a comfortable process, and it was based on observation, evidence, and painfully forcing myself to accept things I did not want to.

If you all want to call that being "racist" - fine. I can't stop you, and I'll agree to the term.

It would be nice if conceding to that term ever actually allowed for any sort of meaningful move to a subsequent phase where the realities of the situation are discussed ("okay, now that we've gotten that out of the way") but that never seems to really happen. Whether someone agrees to the designation of "racist" or not, some people just seem to perch in that same spot and just keep repeating "you're racist."

The particulars of the situation Arbery faced which I called attention to, really are salient regarding whether his actions were reasonable or made any intelligible sense.

I continue to believe and assert that his behaviors made sense really only in the context of him being a criminal, which he was.

This never happened. The prosecution has had multiple detectives read the transcripts of their interview with the McMichael's. The McMichael's stated with no hesitation that they had absolutely no idea where Arbery was coming from, or where he was going. I've already stated this multiple times. No one was in their front yard with a phone up to their head watching Arbery. It just wasn't a thing.

Incorrect. The other neighbor, who first called cops that day, and who lived across the street from the empty property, whose name is something like Diego or something, is the one who believes Arbery bolted upon seeing that he was watching him through the window on the house under construction.

 

[plague311]

Incorrect. The other neighbor, who first called cops that day, and who lived across the street from the empty property, whose name is something like Diego or something, is the one who believes Arbery bolted upon seeing that he was watching him through the window on the house under construction.

You'll have to provide me with a link, but even if what you say is true it doesn't matter because the McMichael's wouldn't have known anything about it.

According to his testimony, McMichael said he was refinishing seat cushions in his garage when Arbery came “hauling ass” past their home on 230 Satilla Drive. Greg McMichael quickly ran inside and alerted his son, Travis McMichael, who had his 5-year-old son over for a weekend visitation.

So again, they had no idea where Arbery was coming from or where he was going. The owner of the house said Arbery had never taken anything or caused any damage.

Its owner, Larry English of Douglas, said Arbery never took anything or caused harm inside. He had been seen on the structure’s surveillance cameras three times between October 2019 and Feb. 11.

English had never made a report against Arbery. Why do you think that is?

 

[Myriad]

It would be nice if conceding to that term ever actually allowed for any sort of meaningful move to a subsequent phase where the realities of the situation are discussed ("okay, now that we've gotten that out of the way") but that never seems to really happen. Whether someone agrees to the designation of "racist" or not, some people just seem to perch in that same spot and just keep repeating "you're racist."

Okay, you've described the mental model by which you evaluate the situation, which is (you've conceded) one that others describe as racist.

Now, as far as I can tell you also concede that the defendants in this case were also acting based upon a similar mental model. That is, their actions reflected their internal mental narrative that Arbery was attempting or engaging in criminal activity to which he was predisposed by the cultural evolution of his ethnic group.

Now, let's consider the results so far of applying that particular mental model to the situation in the instance under discussion. One man was shot to death, despite having committed at the outset of the incident no known crime deserving of incarceration let alone death according to the laws of the land. The three others are now on trial for acts for which, should they be found guilty of, the laws of the land prescribe long prison sentences.

Applying that mental model to an ordinary real-world situation resulted in four people's lives ruined. It caused the defendants to misjudge, or we can say pre-judge, what their response to their observations should be, without knowing all the facts, in an unjust and ultimately disastrous way. (That's what we used to talk about, when I was a child during the climactic years of the "civil rights era." Prejudice, unjust pre-judging leading to social ills and suffering. Racism was the abstract theory, the mental model, while prejudice was its nasty real-world consequence.)

That would appear to be a rather serious downside to employing that particular mental model.

What do you think its upside is?

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Why won't anyone have a civil debate with me about my inherently uncivil opinion? Come back and debate me about my belief that some people are arbitrarily worth less than others you coward! You being intolerant of my intolerance makes you a hypocrite. I'm really the victim here."

*Jerk off motion*

 

[turingtest]

There's important context here that has to be factored in.

If it's 3am and I'm out for a walk, and I've literally done nothing wrong at all, just walked down public streets, and suddenly a car is behind me and slowly following, headlights off, and then after doing that for 10 minutes pulls up next to me and starts saying threatening things to me, I could see myself going into a "fight or flight, do or die" mode where I would view any sort of compliance with them as being off the table. In that sort of circumstance, I could see charging someone, fighting them for control of a gun, etc.

However, if it's the bright of day, on a Sunday, and I'm in a neighborhood that I don't live in, and which I've visited multiple times previously, and I'm walking around inside of a house under construction there, which I've visited multiple times previously and walked around inside of, and then I look through the window and see a guy in his front yard looking at me, with a phone up to his head --- then I know immediately (whether it's true or not) that the man in question thinks I'm doing something questionable / illegal inside that structure.

At that point, I'd come out and explain myself to him, proactively. I'd say "sorry, do you know the owner? I was just curious and looking around." - and if he said the owner had indicated he did NOT want people doing that, I'd convey my apologies and indicate I wouldn't be doing it again.

If that man in the yard across the street on the phone said "well, the police are on the way already, explain it to them" - then I would do precisely that. I'd sit down in the front yard of the property I was inside of, and await their arrival. I'd then explain myself to the cops, and face whatever music was coming re: trespassing or whatever.

If, back at the moment I saw the person on the phone, I panicked and bolted down the street like Arbery did, and then found myself being pursued by a couple of pickup trucks, and men inside the one closer to me were saying "where are you coming from? what did you do? We want to talk to you" I'd know exactly what was going on, just as Arbery did.

I'd know that these men thought I had been doing something criminal, and that it would be in my interest to explain myself to them.

I'd submit myself to their questioning and give them no reason to perceive me as a physical threat, because I'd know they were acting in a watchful neighbor / busybody way, where they were suspicious of me and thought I was a criminal.

Whether I was a criminal or not, it would be in my best interest in that situation to stop, because I'm not going to outrun a truck, and interact with the men / wait for the police.

I wouldn't consider such men shooting me with a gun to be a scenario that would seem at all likely, unless and until I attacked them.

I think Arbery's chances of being shot dead were hanging at 0% until he attacked.

Utter crap. If Arbery should have just waited for the police after seeing the neighbor call them, why shouldn't the idiot rednecks also have waited and let the police handle it? Nothing about what Arbery did created any right for the McMichaels to assume the role of the police and pursue him with guns. In fact, their actions outside the law in pursuing him gave him the right, under Georgia's Stand Your Ground law, to act exactly as he did in his own defense; and they had no SYG right in a situation which their own illegal actions instigated.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Okay, you've described the mental model by which you evaluate the situation, which is (you've conceded) one that others describe as racist.

Now, as far as I can tell you also concede that the defendants in this case were also acting based upon a similar mental model. That is, their actions reflected their internal mental narrative that Arbery was attempting or engaging in criminal activity to which he was predisposed by the cultural evolution of his ethnic group.

Now, let's consider the results so far of applying that particular mental model to the situation in the instance under discussion. One man was shot to death, despite having committed at the outset of the incident no known crime deserving of incarceration let alone death according to the laws of the land. The three others are now on trial for acts for which, should they be found guilty of, the laws of the land prescribe long prison sentences.

Applying that mental model to an ordinary real-world situation resulted in four people's lives ruined. It caused the defendants to misjudge, or we can say pre-judge, what their response to their observations should be, without knowing all the facts, in an unjust and ultimately disastrous way. (That's what we used to talk about, when I was a child during the climactic years of the "civil rights era." Prejudice, unjust pre-judging leading to social ills and suffering. Racism was the abstract theory, the mental model, while prejudice was its nasty real-world consequence.)

That would appear to be a rather serious downside to employing that particular mental model.

What do you think its upside is?

I am not aware of any reason to believe that Arbery's race played any particular role in this event.

It may have played a similar role to if the person they'd been on the lookout for had been a redheaded man who was unusually thin, or something like that. Him being black, of a particular age, etc. may have simply been something that helped distinguish him from other people seen around the area.

I've heard that defendant Bryan claimed that Travis McMichael said something with the N word in it after shooting Arbery, but I am not sure what credence to give his statements. He seems to have gone into a back-stab to save his own skin type of posture at one point.

Whether Arbery's race played the kind of role in their appraisal of him that you are implying or not, they were correct about him. He had been trespassing there, and had a history of criminality. To try to stop him and question him seems to me to be completely reasonable.

They find themselves in the situation they do now, due entirely to a combination of Arbery's irrational violent reaction and society's irrational posture currently toward cases like this. There's a reason they weren't charged for a while, and it's the same reason Zimmerman wasn't charged for a good long while.

Some people talk about drumming up attention for these cases and getting Benjamin Crump types involved as something to be proud of. Like "we drew attention to this and got the justice system to do the right thing!" but in reality it's cases that shouldn't be brought, ending up being brought to appease irrational, ignorant mobs which are comprised of the people who are most racially tribalistic in these matters out of anyone.

 

[Ranb]

....I think Arbery's chances of being shot dead were hanging at 0% until he attacked.

When being chased by a civilian with a gun, the chances of being shot are most likely not going to be zero or anywhere near it.

 

[Myriad]

I am not aware of any reason to believe that Arbery's race played any particular role in this event.

It may have played a similar role to if the person they'd been on the lookout for had been a redheaded man who was unusually thin, or something like that. Him being black, of a particular age, etc. may have simply been something that helped distinguish him from other people seen around the area.

I've heard that defendant Bryan claimed that Travis McMichael said something with the N word in it after shooting Arbery, but I am not sure what credence to give his statements. He seems to have gone into a back-stab to save his own skin type of posture at one point.

Whether Arbery's race played the kind of role in their appraisal of him that you are implying or not, they were correct about him. He had been trespassing there, and had a history of criminality. To try to stop him and question him seems to me to be completely reasonable.

They find themselves in the situation they do now, due entirely to a combination of Arbery's irrational violent reaction and society's irrational posture currently toward cases like this. There's a reason they weren't charged for a while, and it's the same reason Zimmerman wasn't charged for a good long while.

Some people talk about drumming up attention for these cases and getting Benjamin Crump types involved as something to be proud of. Like "we drew attention to this and got the justice system to do the right thing!" but in reality it's cases that shouldn't be brought, ending up being brought to appease irrational, ignorant mobs which are comprised of the people who are most racially tribalistic in these matters out of anyone.

If you're claiming racism had nothing to do with the events leading to and including the killing, then there's really no "subsequent phase" to move onto. So I now have no idea what you were complaining about there.

 

[Darat]

If you're claiming racism had nothing to do with the events leading to and including the killing, then there's really no "subsequent phase" to move onto. So I now have no idea what you were complaining about there.

That's easy - his complaint is that white men can't hunt down black men and kill them without being arrested and even put on trial for murder!

 

[plague311]

Man, the facial expressions of the judge when dealing with the defense is starting to get pretty animated. I'm not a huge fan of judges showing a lot of emotion, I made mention of it in the Rittenhouse thread, but the judge looks frustrated.

 

[Shepherd]

plague311, here is a link to a news report that shows some surveillance video from a house across the street from the one under construction which Arbery had apparently entered. In it they've highlighted the two individuals believed to be both Arbery and the first (I think) 911 caller. Obviously, the caller was able to see Arbery from where he was standing, and so it would appear that Arbery should have been able to see the him also.

"Surveillance video appears to show Ahmaud Arbery minutes before his death | WSB-TV - Youtube"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5THIjKra1Q