Jogging in Georgia while black.

[TurkeysGhost]

It's easier to tell if you watch the video, you can see the glare frame by frame, but McMichael raises the shotgun on Arbery as he's jogging down the road. Arbery then veers off the road and the camera man loses the frame (likely because he is in the line of fire)

Arbery was still jogging at a medium pace at this point, and looks to be at least 10-15 yards behind the truck.

The DA's characterization of Arbery initiating force at the front of the truck is a total fiction. Even in open carry backwaters like GA, aiming a shotgun at someone is well understood to be an assault.

 

[Meadmaker]

[qimg]https://i.ibb.co/9stf2yJ/raised.png[/qimg]

It's easier to tell if you watch the video, you can see the glare frame by frame, but McMichael raises the shotgun on Arbery as he's jogging down the road. Arbery then veers off the road and the camera man loses the frame (likely because he is in the line of fire)

Arbery was still jogging at a medium pace at this point, and looks to be at least 10-15 yards behind the truck.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but the guy in the bed of the truck also looks like he is pointing his pistol at Arbery in that frame.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And he is supposed to just surrender?

Now the fun part is watching how elaborate the apologist's fan fiction is gonna have to get so they can keep saying that without directly saying it.

Because yeah there's no way to square that circle. Either this is outright murder or you're arguing the guy should have surrendered.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

And correct me if I'm wrong, but the guy in the bed of the truck also looks like he is pointing his pistol at Arbery in that frame.

harder to say. Later in the video it seems like he is holding a phone to his head with on hand and fumbling with the pistol in another.

The video may be too grainy to clearly see the pistol. I can just barely pick out the shotgun barrel, and only because it makes an obvious arc as McMichaels takes aim at Arbery.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't think the moral compass here points anywhere near a hairsplit between "He had one gun pointed at him" and "He had two guns pointed at him."

 

[Meadmaker]

harder to say. Later in the video it seems like he is holding a phone to his head with on hand and fumbling with the pistol in another.

The video may be too grainy to clearly see the pistol. I can just barely pick out the shotgun barrel, and only because it makes an obvious arc as McMichaels takes aim at Arbery.

What I can see is a raised arm. I assumed it was holding a gun, but it would be consistent with holding a phone as well.

 

[Meadmaker]

I don't think the moral compass here points anywhere near a hairsplit between "He had one gun pointed at him" and "He had two guns pointed at him."

It could change who was charged. If the man in the pickup truck is pointing a gun at the jogger, he is committing a crime. If not, then he is merely a witness to a crime.

 

[crescent]

Okay, here's a question I'm going to love watching the apologist twist and turn their fan fiction in on itself to explain.

How were most lynching not just simple "citizens arrests gone bad" by the arguments being put forth in this thread?

My impression is that most lynchings involved taking someone who had already been arrested from the jail to kill them. But that's neither here nor there, really.

The sad, frustrating part about this is that I think they'll get off. Why? Because he fought back. At trial the defense will just make the argument that the shooter was in fear for his life at the moment he shot the guy - which was probably true. That's all they have to do. Get one member of the jury to buy into it - one out of twelve in an area with plenty of racists who pine for the old days.

The rest of it just won't matter once a lawyer starts to argue before a jury. The lawyer will say something along the lines of: "They were fighting over a gun - what was my client supposed to do, just let the man he was fighting with have the gun?" The lawyer will just hit on that, over and over.

They'll just confuse and obfuscate over how the fight actually got started, and focus on the fight itself.

It sickens me, but I think they'll get off.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It could change who was charged. If the man in the pickup truck is pointing a gun at the jogger, he is committing a crime. If not, then he is merely a witness to a crime.

Yes because running down a black guy with a gun isn't a crime until you raise the gun.

 

[pgwenthold]

Now the fun part is watching how elaborate the apologist's fan fiction is gonna have to get so they can keep saying that without directly saying it.

Because yeah there's no way to square that circle. Either this is outright murder or you're arguing the guy should have surrendered.

Oh yes, the argument is that he should have surrendered, and because he didn't, he was killed. Because, hey, he was just asking for it.

Seriously, the argument is that a black jogger getting chased by white guys with shotguns should just surrender to them. It's almost like they are the authority and he is just a ******.

 

[Thermal]

Gotta admit, this is entertaining as hell. A veritable army of scarerows ITT.

No one on the thread is saying this is Arbery's fault. Is that in dispute?

No one is saying that he should have surrendered to a citizens arrest. Got that, kids?

No one is saying that the hillbilly bigots had any legal , moral, ethical, etc justification for their actions. Clear enough?

The only peripheral issue is, as Suburban Turkey and MeadMaker point out, a tactical one. Arbery took a run at a truck full of armed crazy rednecks. That will get a brother killed right pronto, I hear.

One guy at close range...maybe try to control the gun if unarmed. Multiple guys though? No way. You're going to lose, damn near guaranteed.

Can you guys walk me through your pearl clutching to say what part of that is so offensive?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Gotta admit, this is entertaining as hell. A veritable army of scarerows ITT.

No one on the thread is saying this is Arbery's fault. Is that in dispute?

No one is saying that he should have surrendered to a citizens arrest. Got that, kids?

No one is saying that the hillbilly bigots had any legal , moral, ethical, etc justification for their actions. Clear enough?

No because you say all that... and then you keep talking.

We're all familiar with your "I'm totally not saying........ but" routine.

 

[pgwenthold]

Yes because running down a black guy with a gun isn't a crime until you raise the gun.

Crime or not, as I said above, it is certainly a THREAT

They created a threat, and when he fought back (his right) they killed him, claiming he was a threat to them.

This is such ********.

 

[Meadmaker]

Yes because running down a black guy with a gun isn't a crime until you raise the gun.

It would be a lot easier to get a conviction with a raised gun, although the very fact that he retrieved the gun before following the jogger might be enough.

Generally, following someone in a car wouldn't be considered a crime. Blocking their path by using a car may very well be, although it would be easier to convict the driver than a passenger. It's all about what you can convince a jury. If I believe, even mistakenly, that a person is a suspect in a burglary, no jury in the world would convict me for making a 9-1-1 call and then following the guy until the police showed up. If I attempt to detain the guy by blocking his path with my truck, then I'm more likely to be convicted. If I point a gun at him, then the chance of my being convicted goes way, way, up.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It would be a lot easier to get a conviction with a raised gun, although the very fact that he retrieved the gun before following the jogger might be enough.

Yes will know. Getting white people convicted for murdering black people will be difficult.

 

[Thermal]

No because you say all that... and then you keep talking.

We're all familiar with your "I'm totally not saying........ but" routine.

My position is consistent. Yours relies on argumentum ad scarecrowbuim.

Is there some benefit you glean in lying about others arguments? I don't see it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

My position is consistent.

Yes it is. 100%.

Everytime a black person is killed by a white person the black person's action must be analyzed and nitpicked to death and back.

You have been 100% consistent on that.

Oh you're just doing a "tactical analysis" because "he took on a truck of armed rednecks." Do you even hear yourself? They ran him down on foot while they were in a vehicle. What was he supposed to do sprout goddamn wings and fly away?

 

[BobTheCoward]

Yes it is. 100%.

Everytime a black person is killed by a white person the black person's action must be analyzed and nitpicked to death and back.

You have been 100% consistent on that.

Oh you're just doing a "tactical analysis" because "he took on a truck of armed rednecks." Do you even hear yourself? They ran him down on foot while they were in a vehicle. What was he supposed to do sprout goddamn wings and fly away?

Run perpendicular to the road.

 

[Jim_MDP]

If they are allowed to force the confrontation and allowed to use guns in the process of a citizens arrest, then is it still brandishing?

Placeholder
... reply shifted to post 205.

 

[Thermal]

Yes it is. 100%.

Everytime a black person is killed by a white person the black person's action must be analyzed and nitpicked to death and back.

You have been 100% consistent on that.

You're a liar. Never once.

Most recently, on Guyger: I called her an indisputable Murder2. No fault for Botham Jean at all, even any microscopic triviality. You had me confused with another poster there, but that's another dumbassery. On the Welfare Check thread, same. The cop murdered her. I don't even recall arguing any other black person killed by a white one.

You're a liar.

h you're just doing a "tactical analysis" because "he took on a truck of armed rednecks." Do you even hear yourself? They ran him down on foot while they were in a vehicle. What was he supposed to do sprout goddamn wings and fly away?

They were roadblocking ahead of him. I see means of escape to the left and right.

You seriously think the tactical move is to rush them? Virtually guaranteed death.

That does not mean it is even a little tiny bit his fault. It was not. Even if he was a burglar or whatever, it DOES NOT MATTER. Rednecks can't be roadside executioners in any scenario short of an active shooting or the like, full stop. Are there smaller words I can use for you?