Jogging in Georgia while black.

[Marcus]

The defense will have to argue that the victim wasn't in "reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily injury". The only way I can see of doing this is to argue something along Skeptic Tanks lines, that he was afraid of being detained for the cops, not of being injured.

 

[Crossbow]

Alright now add this factor:

You were just trespassing and got caught, and you've been caught doing so previously as well. You know this neighborhood has individuals in it who don't want you trespassing in that building, and you know the people who "just want to talk" are among those individuals. You also see that the elder gentleman in the bed of the truck is on the phone with cops.

Now, do you still lunge, punch, and grab at the shotgun?

I was in such a situation, then expect that I would fight.

First, there is no way that I could that the person in the truck is actually talking to the police.

And second, if I was directly confronting angry people who are brandishing firearms, then I strongly suspect that such people are quite dangerous and they actually want to do much more than "just talk".

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Don't JAQ off. If him being on probation doesn't matter, why did you mention it?

For the thousandth time:

There are more reasons something can matter AKA shed light on this case and help us understand what happened, than just "this piece of information directly leads to the conclusion that the person deserved to be executed!"

Information can also MATTER in the sense that it helps us understand the likely mindset and the reasons for actions taken, of parties involved.

This standard of "if you bring up anything at all about the deceased that isn't 100% positive, doing so is both incredibly racist and it's also you saying you think they deserved to die!!!!" would never be applied if the deceased were white.

 

[carlitos]

Cargo shorts are, after all, the superior form of shorts.

You are dead to me.

 

[Thermal]

You are dead to me.

Please tell me you don't live in Georgia

 

[Dr. Keith]

You are dead to me.

Worst than racist, right?

- guy wearing cargo shorts while typing this post

 

[Bob001]

.....
This standard of "if you bring up anything at all about the deceased that isn't 100% positive, doing so is both incredibly racist and it's also you saying you think they deserved to die!!!!" would never be applied if the deceased were white.

It doesn't matter what you say about the victim (the only correct word here), true or false. The only question is whether the McMichaels had any grounds to chase him down and confront him at gunpoint. And all of the evidence is that they did not.

 

[Emily's Cat]

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

Are you sure?
Workout Cargo Shorts for Running & Jogging

 

[Leftus]

It doesn't seem likely he was planning on stealing anything. Where would he keep it?

Did you miss the Cargo part of Cargo shorts? Clearly, he was packing an unknown quantity of copper in them.

As to his footwear, I really don't know what he was rocking, but the Autopsy stated they were "grey athletic shoes"

 

[Leftus]

You are dead to me.

Facts are facts. I wear them all the time. Even when hiking. Can pack all sorts of snacks / water in them. Regular shorts? They offer nothing. Jorts? Wanna be cargo shorts.

I'll even make a case for cargo pants being the superior form of pants. More place to store stuff, I'll take.

 

[Bob001]

Some commentary on this "citizens' arrest" business.

Managing Partner of Bowen Law Group, Charles Bowen says this situation is “dumbfounding” to him. That’s how Bowen feels about the confrontation between Travis and Gregory McMichael and Ahmaud Arbery.

“Certainly when that video was released my initial thought as an attorney was these people will be in custody within a matter of hours,” Bowen said.

https://www.wsav.com/news/local-news/breaking-down-georgias-citizens-arrest-law/

Under Georgia code, Moore says a citizen can use force if they fear for their life, but they cannot create a confrontation themselves and then claim self defense after harming someone. Especially if they did not witness a crime take place.

"It does not allow us to create armed posses and roam the community looking for someone we think might have done something wrong," Moore said.

https://www.13wmaz.com/article/news...oting/93-31294ef7-70d4-4fa8-926e-6fde7a1bc075

Brunswick criminal defense attorney Page Pate, who has been practicing criminal defense for 25 years in the state of Georgia, said the state's citizen's arrest law was created to allow retailers to apprehend someone they think might be shoplifting. He said he can't think of any legitimate legal reason why the law would be cited to defend the actions of the men involved in Arbery's shooting death.

https://www.news4jax.com/news/georg...-shouldnt-apply-in-deadly-brunswick-shooting/

Plenty more to find. These guys need to go away forever.

 

[Thermal]

Are you sure?
Workout Cargo Shorts for Running & Jogging

Oh, im sure there is stuff out there. Lot of useless products productson the market.

Have you ever run with a hem around knee level? Hem rubs you raw. Not important, mostly just in line with him wearing shoes that don't look like they are runners, either.

Btw, it changes nothing in terms of his being a victim of violent criminals. It's the tacked on Twitter narrative that I am challenging. 'Just a wholesome innocent jogger'. The gaslighting gets under my skin.

 

[Meadmaker]

The defense will have to argue that the victim wasn't in "reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily injury". The only way I can see of doing this is to argue something along Skeptic Tanks lines, that he was afraid of being detained for the cops, not of being injured.

Even that is a stretch, because the victim's state of mind is not the actual legal test. The question is not whether Arbery felt one way or another, but rather whether a reasonable person in his situation would have felt one way or another.


Of course, juries don't always follow the lawbooks strictly, so the defense can give it their best shot, as long as they aren't too blatant about putting thoughts into the deceased victim's head.

 

[bluesjnr]

Oh, im sure there is stuff out there. Lot of useless products productson the market.

Have you ever run with a hem around knee level? Hem rubs you raw. Not important, mostly just in line with him wearing shoes that don't look like they are runners, either.

Btw, it changes nothing in terms of his being a victim of violent criminals. It's the tacked on Twitter narrative that I am challenging. 'Just a wholesome innocent jogger'. The gaslighting gets under my skin.

Yeah! Your lily white skin! ETC! ETC!

 

[Marcus]

Even that is a stretch, because the victim's state of mind is not the actual legal test. The question is not whether Arbery felt one way or another, but rather whether a reasonable person in his situation would have felt one way or another.


Of course, juries don't always follow the lawbooks strictly, so the defense can give it their best shot, as long as they aren't too blatant about putting thoughts into the deceased victim's head.

I suppose that if I am to decide what a reasonable person would have felt, I would also have to decide what the situation was exactly, was I an innocent jogger or a fleeing criminal?


I agree that chances for the defense are slim though, especially after reading the comments of the Georgia attorney above.

 

[turingtest]

Lawyer: Security video in Arbery case may show water breaks.
No, not the kind of breaks ST so desperately needs, the other kind- the sort of thing someone out for a run might do-

A young black man filmed by a security camera walking through a home under construction in December and in February may have stopped at the site for a drink of water, according to an attorney for the homeowner thrust into the investigation of the fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery.
...
“It now appears that this young man may have been coming onto the property for water,” J. Elizabeth Graddy, the attorney for homeowner Larry English, said in a statement. “There is a water source at the dock behind the house as well as a source near the front of the structure. Although these water sources do not appear within any of the cameras’ frames, the young man moves to and from their locations.”

And then there's this-

English has said nothing was ever stolen from his property. Graddy said his security cameras had recorded “numerous clips of persons entering the property” and shared two clips that showed a pair of children riding bicycles up to the home and then walking inside.

Probably more reasonable to assume that he was there stealing hammers and whatnot, though. Right?

 

[Ryokan]

Aha! So he was stealing water!

 

[Skeptic Tank]

I'll say it again. You can assert that he wasn't doing anything suspicious or illegal on his repeat visits to that house, but he disagrees with you.

His reaction on Feb 11 and Feb 23 indicate he was quite convinced he had been up to something he shouldn't have been, in there.

Now, English who is terrified of getting the same kind of treatment Bryant is getting, is cowed into saying absurd things like "the person on the other videos doesn't resemble Arbery" (when the guy is literally recognizably him, or at the very bare minimum someone who looks VERY much like him) and insisting nothing was stolen.

Well, in his interview he simply says he can't say when/where the fishing gear was stolen. He mentions it was transported in the boat. Okay, well - I think the period of time where the boat was in this open house that kept having people sneaking around in it, is a pretty solid candidate for the location where the theft took place.

He wants to avoid saying ANYTHING which could paint Ahmaud in a negative light. I can understand why.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Greg McMichael attorneys speak:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gP5--CNCw8

 

[turingtest]

I'll say it again. You can assert that he wasn't doing anything suspicious or illegal on his repeat visits to that house, but he disagrees with you. His reaction on Feb 11 and Feb 23 indicate he was quite convinced he had been up to something he shouldn't have been, in there.
Now, English who is terrified of getting the same kind of treatment Bryant is getting, is cowed into saying absurd things like "the person on the other videos doesn't resemble Arbery" (when the guy is literally recognizably him, or at the very bare minimum someone who looks VERY much like him) and insisting nothing was stolen.

Well, in his interview he simply says he can't say when/where the fishing gear was stolen. He mentions it was transported in the boat. Okay, well - I think the period of time where the boat was in this open house that kept having people sneaking around in it, is a pretty solid candidate for the location where the theft took place.

He wants to avoid saying ANYTHING which could paint Ahmaud in a negative light. I can understand why.

You can say it till you're blue in the face, and the repetition won't make it any truer. The fact is that his actions after being confronted are also consistent with being innocent of any wrongdoing and outraged that he would be treated as if he was guilty. You can not get around the fact that your idiot heroes just had no basis in law or reason to pull guns on him and try to "arrest" him, and that he had every right to act just as he did when they did try. Would you act that way? Well. you've already said you would have eaten the **** and asked for more; so I'd guess that the state of mind of an actual man in a situation like that is not something you would get.

You're reasoning in stupid circles- your only evidence that he was guilty of something is your perception of his actions, and your perception is predicated on the assumption he was guilty of something.

And your mindreading of English is just laughable; really, is that what a "skeptic" must resort to when faced with such unpalatable evidence? "Well he doesn't mean it!"