Jogging in Georgia while black.

[pgwenthold]

But the brick wall we hit, we hit hard in the Amber Guyger thread and it pops up a lot in other cases, is that if the two gun happy twits believed the fiction, that somehow makes it okay.

But we don't even have that in this case. There is no reason to think that the gun happy twits who shot they guy had any inkling there was a hammer near the scene. We have their reports - they never said he brandished a hammer. Just as they never said there was an accomplice in the bushes flashing a gang sign. So playing Rorschach test and "finding" those things in the video goes beyond fantasy.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Say it was two cops in uniform in a patrol car and they witnessed him actually burglarizing a residence and running away.

It's still murder.

Amber Guyver was a cop and still nearly got off and had a lot of defenders because she was a cop when it was convenient and not a cop when it was convenient.

The same dance will be danced here. They'll be citizens acting as cops because of "citizens arrest rights" when convenient, citizens just defending themselves from teh big scawwy black guy when not.

 

[Meadmaker]

But we don't even have that in this case. There is no reason to think that the gun happy twits who shot they guy had any inkling there was a hammer near the scene. We have their reports - they never said he brandished a hammer. Just as they never said there was an accomplice in the bushes flashing a gang sign. So playing Rorschach test and "finding" those things in the video goes beyond fantasy.

I heard he threatened them with a squirrel. Those things carry rabies, ya know.


Taking another look at the video, squirrel is a distinct possibility. Certainly I would not be able to say, based on my analysis, whether it was a hammer or a squirrel. Someone with some better video viewing software will have to take a closer look.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

For the most part, you can wash away all of the following when thinking about this case:

1.) Whether they were right or wrong about who he was and what he was up to
2.) Whether you like Southerners or white people
3.) Whether it was the wisest move to confront him / bring guns or not
4.) Whether he'd stolen anything then or another time

Ultimately, his decision to start throwing punches and grabbing guns is why he was shot. He had easily available means to come out of this alive - he could have stopped, spoken with these guys, and waited for police to arrive to sort the situation out. He instead confirmed his criminality at least in their minds by fleeing and then he got himself shot by attacking.

I believe he did both because he saw himself as a criminal who'd been caught and was in jeopardy of incarceration if he didn't make good his escape before police arrived.

I'm not saying those other factors aren't interesting or potentially important to the trial, I'm just saying that all these narratives about lynching and hunting are stupid because he was shot for a very clear reason in a very short period of time immediately prior to it happening.

 

[Sideroxylon]

For the most part, you can wash away all of the following when thinking about this case:

1.) Whether they were right or wrong about who he was and what he was up to
2.) Whether you like Southerners or white people
3.) Whether it was the wisest move to confront him / bring guns or not
4.) Whether he'd stolen anything then or another time

Ultimately, his decision to start throwing punches and grabbing guns is why he was shot. He had easily available means to come out of this alive - he could have stopped, spoken with these guys, and waited for police to arrive to sort the situation out. He instead confirmed his criminality at least in their minds by fleeing and then he got himself shot by attacking.

I believe he did both because he saw himself as a criminal who'd been caught and was in jeopardy of incarceration if he didn't make good his escape before police arrived.

I'm not saying those other factors aren't interesting or potentially important to the trial, I'm just saying that all these narratives about lynching and hunting are stupid because he was shot for a very clear reason in a very short period of time immediately prior to it happening.

I like the citizens not playing cop option with guns drawn. That is a nice tidy solution to nobody ending up grieving the loss of a son, brother, father, partner friend etc. Those **** sticks should have reported any suspicions they had to police.

 

[Garb]

Ah yes, you can shove a gun in someone's face all you want, but as soon as he so much as touches you then it is okay to murder him.

Air-tight reasoning, yet again.

 

[Cavemonster]

For the most part, you can wash away all of the following when thinking about this case:

1.) Whether they were right or wrong about who he was and what he was up to
2.) Whether you like Southerners or white people
3.) Whether it was the wisest move to confront him / bring guns or not
4.) Whether he'd stolen anything then or another time

Ultimately, his decision to start throwing punches and grabbing guns is why he was shot. He had easily available means to come out of this alive - he could have stopped, spoken with these guys, and waited for police to arrive to sort the situation out. He instead confirmed his criminality at least in their minds by fleeing and then he got himself shot by attacking.

I believe he did both because he saw himself as a criminal who'd been caught and was in jeopardy of incarceration if he didn't make good his escape before police arrived.

I'm not saying those other factors aren't interesting or potentially important to the trial, I'm just saying that all these narratives about lynching and hunting are stupid because he was shot for a very clear reason in a very short period of time immediately prior to it happening.

Yes, we must always comply with strange people with guns, or else we deserve to get shot.

**** you.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay so, to the apologists, what was the ideal outcome here? What should have happened.

The guy just meekly and politely submits to the two random guys, the real police come, take him in for questioning?

You understand that is still just... like awful right?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Ultimately, his decision to start throwing punches and grabbing guns is why he was shot.

It may well be that his instinctive choice to fight rather than run or surrender was not his best option. It also seems that his killers confronting him with guns was not their best option either since now he's dead as a consequence of their illegal act so they're murderers.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Okay so, to the apologists, what was the ideal outcome here? What should have happened.

The guy just meekly and politely submits to the two black guys, the real police come, take him in for questioning?

You understand that is still just... like awful right?

I would also like to know what apologists think should have happened.

 

[RedStapler]

For the most part, you can wash away all of the following when thinking about this case:

1.) Whether they were right or wrong about who he was and what he was up to
2.) Whether you like Southerners or white people
3.) Whether it was the wisest move to confront him / bring guns or not
4.) Whether he'd stolen anything then or another time

Ultimately, his decision to start throwing punches and grabbing guns is why he was shot. He had easily available means to come out of this alive - he could have stopped, spoken with these guys, and waited for police to arrive to sort the situation out. He instead confirmed his criminality at least in their minds by fleeing and then he got himself shot by attacking.

I believe he did both because he saw himself as a criminal who'd been caught and was in jeopardy of incarceration if he didn't make good his escape before police arrived.

I'm not saying those other factors aren't interesting or potentially important to the trial, I'm just saying that all these narratives about lynching and hunting are stupid because he was shot for a very clear reason in a very short period of time immediately prior to it happening.

Soooo, if I approached you on the street with a shotgun and demanded you stop and wait for the police to arrive, you would do what I demanded from you?

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Okay so, to the apologists, what was the ideal outcome here? What should have happened.

The guy just meekly and politely submits to the two black guys, the real police come, take him in for questioning?

You understand that is still just... like awful right?

Typo, right?

I would also like to know what apologists think should have happened.

I think he should have stopped and talked with them, accounted for himself, and awaited the arrival of the police to sort the matter out.

I think he didn't view this as a good option because he thought he'd end up in the back of the police car and later in jail if he did that.

I believe his every action was informed by his self-perception of being a criminal who'd been caught committing crime.

I don't think there's anything awful about armed citizens stopping burglars.

Soooo, if I approached you on the street with a shotgun and demanded you stop and wait for the police to arrive, you would do what I demanded from you?

I'm fond of living so... yeah.

Whether you were right about me doing something illegal or not, you've got a gun so I'm going to comply.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Typo, right?



I think he should have stopped and talked with them, accounted for himself, and awaited the arrival of the police to sort the matter out.

If I'm innocent, I'm going to run from strange civilians with guns yelling at me. I'm fond of living.

 

[JoeMorgue]

But we don't even have that in this case. There is no reason to think that the gun happy twits who shot they guy had any inkling there was a hammer near the scene. We have their reports - they never said he brandished a hammer. Just as they never said there was an accomplice in the bushes flashing a gang sign. So playing Rorschach test and "finding" those things in the video goes beyond fantasy.

It won't matter to the apologists. They "thought" he was the burglar, so everything they did from that point on was okay.

The fact that we only have their word to go on that they actually thought he was the burglar, and indeed the fact that whether the burglaries in question even happened or not seems to be more up in the air everytime we hear their story, will not matter to them.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Typo, right?

Yes, I corrected the post.

 

[Meadmaker]

Ultimately, his decision to start throwing punches and grabbing guns is why he was shot. He had easily available means to come out of this alive - he could have stopped, spoken with these guys, and waited for police to arrive to sort the situation out. He instead confirmed his criminality at least in their minds by fleeing and then he got himself shot by attacking.

Ahhh, that hilited part is what will end them up in jail, probably for a long time.

In their minds, there was a bunch going on, and they acted on it. The problem is that when you make a mistake, and someone ends up dead, you don't get to say, "But I thought...…"

You can try, but the best you might come up with is a reduced sentence, if you can afford a good lawyer.


And you left out the most important part of the analysis, which was why this guy was carrying a dead squirrel.

 

[Sideroxylon]

“I think he should have stopped and talked with them, accounted for himself, and awaited the arrival of the police to sort the matter out.” Nice idea of a free country where any random moron with a gun and a bee in his bonnet can bail you up. I have to kiss his ass real good so he don’t shoot me. Freedomz!

 

[Darat]

Poor wording on my part.

What I was getting at was that

IF the surveillance video really exists
AND the surveillance video showed a felony in progress
AND the person on the video was Arbery

then I would have a different attitude toward the shooters. Even then, I would say they committed a serious crime, and I would still think of them as gun toting fools who are pretty dangerous. However, I would be less inclined to lock them up and throw away the key.

My guess is that of the three conditions described above, only the first one is actually true.

Surely you would need to add in a:

AND they knew 100% it was the same person

 

[Darat]

Given that these killers are trying to argue that they were lawfully pursuing a burglar, you can almost guarantee that any stolen tools would be mentioned in any of the police reports.

Unless the suggestion is that the stolen hammer is new evidence that was missed by those involved, Occam's razor is at play here.

Well when you think about it the police seemed to have missed that someone had been murdered so them missing a hammer wouldn't be out of the question.

 

[Meadmaker]

Surely you would need to add in a:

AND they knew 100% it was the same person

I would cut them some slack on that one. If they thought it was Arbery, and later it turned out that they were right, I would cut them some slack that they didn't do sufficient analysis to be absolutely certain.

However, in reality, I think the chance that they actually saw Arbery on any videotape committing any crime is about the same as the chance that a dead squirrel was actually a hammer.