Jogging in Georgia while black.

[catsmate]

My best friend in my last year of primary school (10-11) was a black kid, Tyrone, really nice guy.

 

[catsmate]

Look people, it's real simple - it's become abundantly clear that Arbery's character was going to land him in a bad place sooner or later. That character was what got him shot dead. If you want to believe, with nothing to support that belief, that McMichael wanted to shoot him, malice-aforethought, and was happy do have done so, you're ****** in the head.

The stench of bigot and prejudice again.

 

[catsmate]

No. What?

They're more intelligent, better educated, happier, more stable in relationships, enjoy better mental health....

 

[catsmate]

He was not "jogging while black."

Lie.

The video shows him "trespassing while black",

Also untrue.

"fleeing while black",

"Fleeing" from what? A lynch mob?

"trying to steal a shotgun while black"

You mean attempting to protect himself?

and "punching a white dude while black."

You mean attempting to protect himself?

But "jogging while black" is just another fake narrative created by the Left.

Yes, the Alt-right is merely empiricism applied to politics.

A pathetic bunch of no-hopers really.

The Guardian is a newspaper for the brain-dead lobotomized zombies that inhabit the political Left.

So you're unable to deal with the facts then?

Nope, it is the worldview that practically every person in history had up until a few decades ago. You can read Western literature or Eastern literature and you'll not find any inkling of politically correct thought. Political Correctness, Wokeness, and the Cult of Diversity were only made possible by mass media propaganda and mass indoctrination in public education over the latter half of the 20th century till the present day.

Ah, the pathetic mewlings of those terrified by change.

But trying to steal someone's shotgun while punching someone in the face does not constitute a criminal nature.

You mean defending himself against an unlawful assault....

 

[catsmate]

Wot?!

"Wah, wah, I've lost the argument so I'll try an divert attention from my racism by mundering about black racism".

 

[catsmate]

In Tombstone they were supposed to turn in their guns when they came into town. That's what the dust-up at the O.K. Corral was about.

​

A historical tit-bit that's often ignored.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Look people, it's real simple - it's become abundantly clear that Arbery's character was going to land him in a bad place sooner or later. That character was what got him shot dead. If you want to believe, with nothing to support that belief, that McMichael wanted to shoot him, malice-aforethought, and was happy do have done so, you're ****** in the head.

It is abundantly clear, aka "real simple", that you, as a mortal, are destined to die sooner rather than later in the scheme of the cosmos. Shall we hurry that along for you? Minor blip, statistically speaking, but think of the misery you'll be saved! It's the Christian thing to do, after all. Aw, shucks, now I'm misting up, what with these holy inclinations inspiring me so.

 

[quadraginta]

No, felony murder is when someone is killed by someone else during a violent crime in which the defendant was a participant: You wait outside in the getaway car when your partner does the robbery, you're grabbing the money when your partner shoots the clerk, etc. A criminal can even be charged with felony murder if his partner is killed by a victim defending himself during a crime. The reason that some people have reservations about it is that the defendant didn't directly cause the death or necessarily intend it.

https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/homicide/felony-murder/

In this case one could argue that Greg M. didn't intend to kill Arbery, but he actively participated in the crimes that resulted in his death.

Also Roddy.

 

[Meadmaker]

Really?

If an armed robber kills a security guard in the course of robbing an armoured car, you don't think the robber ought to be charged with murder?

If a burglar kills a home owner the course of robbing his house, you don't think the burglar ought to be charged with murder?

If a person beats someone to death in the course of committing an aggravated assault, you don't think the person ought to be charged with murder?

If a rapist kills their victim during the course of attempting to restrain the victim, you don't think the rapist ought to be charged with murder?

These are all killings committed during the commission of a felony.... no charges for the killings?

Classic forum "logic". Take one statement out of context, make up the absolute worst possible thing that could be meant by it. Invent an argument around it.

In those cases, those are all just plain murder. No felony murder statute required.

I don't really want to derail the thread with a discussion about examples where most people would be reluctant to call the persons involved murderers. The point I was making to Captain Howdy was that Travis committed a crime when he pointed the gun at Arbery. Arbery subsequently ended up dead as a consequence of that crime. Captain Howdy wants to claim self defense by Travis, and, realistically, Travis was indeed defending himself at the time he shot Arbery. However, whether you like the law or not, the law is that by committing the felony of pointing the gun at Arbery, any death that arises from that crime is considered murder under the law. Travis cannot use self defense as a justification for shooting Arbery, because Travis committed a crime that led to the fatal struggle.

 

[catsmate]

Keep your racism out of the thread please.

You first.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

It is abundantly clear, aka "real simple", that you, as a mortal, are destined to die sooner rather than later in the scheme of the cosmos. Shall we hurry that along for you? Minor blip, statistically speaking, but think of the misery you'll be saved! It's the Christian thing to do, after all. Aw, shucks, now I'm misting up, what with these holy inclinations inspiring me so.

I don't think you're helping.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

I won't disagree, but I'm not seeing the importance of this assessment.

At the trial of the three men charged in Mr Arbery's death, the wisdom of Mr. Arbery's choice to attempt to wrest control of the shotgun from Travis McMichael will not be an issue. The trial will be about the choices made by the men who were charged. The most significant of those choices will be the choice to threaten Mr. Arbery with a shotgun.

That will depend on Georgia's laws regarding self-defense, stand your ground, brandishing a firearm, carrying a loaded gun, etc. I know in California, the actions that Travis took prior to defending himself are illegal. I'm not familiar with Georgia laws.

I think that was a very bad choice, and turned out very badly for Travis McMichael, his father, and for Roddy.

It certainly looks that way.

 

[Marcus]

That will depend on Georgia's laws regarding self-defense, stand your ground, brandishing a firearm, carrying a loaded gun, etc. I know in California, the actions that Travis took prior to defending himself are illegal. I'm not familiar with Georgia laws.


It certainly looks that way.

The Georgia law has been referenced on this thread. Although it hasn't been proven (on this thread at least) that they pointed a gun at Arbery, all the prosecution has to show is that A reasonable person would be afraid of immediate bodily injury. That would mean they were committing a felony (prior to Abery charging McMichael) and so would be liable for the shooting.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

I still don't know what you are getting at. Is it that the McMichaels could not have known whether Arbery was legally criminally trespassing rather trespassing in a general sense? Or you think the videos are fake. Or that they faked the 2/11 incident. Or...I'm not sure.

In regards to the issue of trespassing versus criminally trespassing, the issue asked was whether the McMichaels killed Arbery solely because he was black. I do not think that was the sole reason and that they the fact that they knew that Arbery had been on English's property when English did not want him on that property (whether you want to call that trespassing or not) was a significant factor in addition to race.

Nothing that happened that day was race related. Arbery wasn't being chased because he was black. He was being chased because he was suspected of trespassing. He wasn't shot because he was black. He was shot because he attacked Travis.

 

[Ryokan]

Nothing that happened that day was race related. Arbery wasn't being chased because he was black. He was being chased because he was suspected of trespassing. He wasn't shot because he was black. He was shot because he attacked Travis.

Since you are making statements of facts, where is your evidence for all this?

 

[johnny karate]

Nothing that happened that day was race related. Arbery wasn't being chased because he was black. He was being chased because he was suspected of trespassing. He wasn't shot because he was black. He was shot because he attacked Travis.

What a weird and completely implausible rationalization from someone who is on record claiming that black people are inherently dangerous.

 

[Meadmaker]

Nothing that happened that day was race related. Arbery wasn't being chased because he was black. He was being chased because he was suspected of trespassing. He wasn't shot because he was black. He was shot because he attacked Travis.

Questions about "why" people do things rarely have simple, concise, answers.

I think it would be more accurate to say that in the absence of further evidence we cannot be certain race played a role in the incident. Legally, it is not an issue.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

The Georgia law has been referenced on this thread. Although it hasn't been proven (on this thread at least) that they pointed a gun at Arbery, all the prosecution has to show is that A reasonable person would be afraid of immediate bodily injury. That would mean they were committing a felony (prior to Abery charging McMichael) and so would be liable for the shooting.

I can't recall where, but I've heard it reported several times that there is another video of the shooting. If that is true, it may (or may not) clearly show Travis pointing his gun at Arbery. It seems likely that he does it in the video, but I'm not going to take the time and slow it down and count pixels, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if there is another video. It sounds like the neighborhood was on alert, and I'll be this was a noisy spectacle.

Nothing that happened that day was race related. Arbery wasn't being chased because he was black. He was being chased because he was suspected of trespassing. He wasn't shot because he was black. He was shot because he attacked Travis.

I think it's safe to say, as Devil's Advocate has, that it wasn't solely race related. In contrast to the fantasies of several in this thread, the McMichael's didn't just wake up that morning and think "let's go shoot a black guy". I agree that he was chased because he was suspected of trespassing (and probably suspected of stealing, and maybe known to have been trespassing). I also agree he was shot because he attacked Travis. But there is still room for racial biases and such.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Nothing that happened that day was race related. Arbery wasn't being chased because he was black. He was being chased because he was suspected of trespassing. He wasn't shot because he was black. He was shot because he attacked Travis.

What a weird and completely implausible rationalization from someone who is on record claiming that black people are inherently dangerous.

That doesn't make any sense, johnny.

I can believe pit bulls are inherently more dangerous than other dog breeds but still believe that, in any given scenario, it is the manifested actual behavior (in the real world) of the specific pit bull in question which results in it being shot by a police officer or put down by a veterinarian.

Likewise, it is clearly the case that in almost all instances, the bad outcomes of black people (whether that be ending up dead or in prison or poor or whatever) can be traced very clearly to specific actions they took, and that black people who don't take those sorts of actions tend to do alright and stay out of trouble.

Believing pits are more dangerous than other breeds and blacks are more dangerous than other races doesn't negate the importance of actual events playing out for each specific case, and doesn't conflict with an understanding that (with statistics being what they are) there will of course be non-violent examples (and lots of them, in fact) for both.

"More likely" does not mean "a total 100% certainty this individual will be violent" and accepting that higher likelihood does not mean you lose the ability to assess specific cases and events.

 

[Matthew Best]

I can't recall where, but I've heard it reported several times that there is another video of the shooting.

I think we'd have either seen it by now, or it would have been reported somewhere (other than in the imagination of internet posters).