Jogging in Georgia while black.

[a_unique_person]

I must agree with Bogative here. We simply don't have all of the facts.



All that we know is that there was a confrontation, and the "victim" ran away, prompting at least two people with guns (unknown whether they already had the guns, or were retrieved after the first confrontation) to get into a pickup, and follow him, eventually blocking his path with their truck, with one getting out of the car while displaying a weapon. Also, prompting someone in a second car to follow while taking video of what was about to happen.



At that point, we know that the runner attacked the man, who shot him. Or maybe his friend shot him from the bed of the pickup.



That's all we know.



Based on that, it could be first degree murder.

It could be second degree murder.

It could even be some variation on manslaughter. (That term is used in some states' laws, not in others.)



And I couldn't tell whether all three shots were from the shotgun, or whether the handgun was also fired from the bed of the pickup truck. That could mean that there are possibly two people who could be guilty of homicide, or of assault, possibly assault with attempt to murder (colloquially referred to as "attempted murder").



It could have an additional element of a hate crime.



There's so much we don't know.

Read checkmites previous post for more background.

 

[Thermal]

There's no evidence that the rednecks in question correlated the jogger, let alone a jogger they knew, with any surveillance video, is there?

A road, a street, a public highway. Yes a road that is open to the public who drive on it. Do people going into the neighborhood normally fly? Even if it's a quiet residential street a person would have to be insane to be surprised at the presence of a car on it.

No, I don't film things going on ahead of me when I drive, but many people do, especially if they see something odd. In some places dashcams are a routine item that is always kept on. It's a far more believable scenario than the idea that the person in the car was some sort of accomplice.

And, of course, if the rednecks had actually recognized a known individual on a surveillance video, it was really really stupid and wrong for them to get in a truck and go gunning for him when they could just have called the cops and said they knew who the culprit was.

And (just to cover a following text) I don't think the jogger did run to the truck and attack someone with his bare hands. He ran around the truck, and the occupants then chased him. Accounts have the attack occurring outside of the truck, after the jogger had run around it.

While trying to imagine how things go, I would suppose that in Georgia a pickup truck full of people (I don't know for sure if they also looked like threatening rednecks) is probably pretty common. So I would suspect that the idea that one should turn around and run away when one sees a pickup truck is race-specific.

We're getting dangerously near to the invocation of a unique ******-code (I presume the auto censor will edit that first word out), in which it's the fault of certain folks if they forget their special place in society. Given the sad state of the world, I suppose you can say it's their mistake, but that is far far different from saying it's their fault, and until that difference is recognized improvement will be slow and painful.

Have you actually seen the video? It sounds like you haven't, and are going by text.

That was not dashcam, for instance. It is pretty clearly someone fumbling with a phone. And before the rednecks are in view. They knew something was up around the corner. And said not a word when it happened. And how many people do you count in that truck?

 

[a_unique_person]

Try reading harder. The hillbillies confronted him twice. The first time he ran away. The second time he charged them. They were parked. He ran up to them and attacked.



Would you do that? I wouldn't. Confronted witb armed nutjobs, and being unarmed, I would be cutting across some lawns to get away from them. As fast as I could.



So you advocate charging at armed crazies? Do tell.

They had cornered him. He has nowhere to go.

 

[Jim_MDP]

What are the best vids available now? I hope to be able to view them some time this evening (saving cell data).

 

[Mike!]

They had cornered him. He has nowhere to go.

Cornered him? In the middle of the street, outdoors, in broad daylight, with no visible fences, obstructions or other barricades in most any direction? Confronted? Yes. Cornered? Hard to see how. Sorry. Lots of other directions to go. He could have turned and ran any other direction, including the way he came. Although it's possible he thought camera car was with the rednecks. Still he could have taken off between houses where the truck would have trouble pursuing.

 

[bruto]

You're talking to a dedicated contrarian. If you haven't deduced it yet from his characterizing Arbery's self-evidently trying to run around and past the truck as "charging" the gunman who at that moment was in the middle of the road on the opposite side of the truck, Thermal is arguing in bad faith. At least keep that in mind if you insist on trying to engage him.

I realize this, though I think he is trying more to be a Marplots with specific reference to charges of racism. It's useful up to a point, but I think he tries too hard.

 

[smartcooky]

Here ya go. And tell me if it is too outlandish:

The hillbillies were right, and Arbery was in fact the burglar captured on video. The first time they tried to confront him, he took off running. The second time, there was a car following him.

Remember the inexplicable car, that was following Arbery and captured the video? And who's occupants said nothing audible while witnessing a killing?

And?

Hillbilly boys see Arbery now charging down the street toward their parked truck, with a vehicle following. Say that (since you ask for a hypothetical) they recognize the car, or see that it is full of unfriendly faces, looking like Arbey has rounded up a posse and is charging them to bring trouble.

Now our innocent jogger is still inexplicably running towards a man with a shotgun and diverts to the other side of the truck for cover and, without breaking his stride, attacks Jethro (there was no warning shot, btw. The first shot is when Arbery is in full charge, a couple feet away).

How's that? Anything that doesn't fit?

ARBURY WAS UNARMED!

ARBURY WAS A KNOWN JOGGER WHO HAD JOGGED THAT SAME ROUTE FOR YEARS!

He was JOGGING, not running away, not charging towards them. He was JOGGING at a rate that would have made him easy to catch for anyone who wasn't a fat, white, good-ol-boy, tub of lard with a gun!

FFS, did you actually watch the video?

Do you really have to create harebrained stupid scenarios in order to make excuses for these rednecks

I'm not saying this happened, of course. But as skeptics, shouldn't we at least consider something besides the Murdering Racists narrative? How many threads before has it turned out the narrative was wrong?

Very few. In most cases, at least on this forum, when a video is shown of a cold blooded murder, it turned out to be a cold blooded murder.

 

[whoanellie]

Try reading harder. The hillbillies confronted him twice. The first time he ran away. The second time he charged them. They were parked. He ran up to them and attacked.



Would you do that? I wouldn't. Confronted witb armed nutjobs, and being unarmed, I would be cutting across some lawns to get away from them. As fast as I could.



So you advocate charging at armed crazies? Do tell.

My understanding is that the person taking the video was in cahoots with the two men in the pickup and was pursuing the jogger. The jogger is trapped and surrounded.
As the jogger approaches the pickup he veers to the right, apparently trying to avoid the man in the middle of the street with a shotgun. The shotgun toter moves across the front of the truck to confront the jogger. I can't see the confrontation but the gun goes off immediately

 

[Planigale]

The striking thing from a non-US basis is that shooting someone dead would not be subject to a trial. Any defence to killing someone should be presented at a trial. The default should be a trial. Only under the most exceptional circumstances should killing someone not be subjected to judicial review. Stand your ground etc. may be a defence to homicide but such a serious outcome should never be subject to an occult decision by police or prosecution authorities, even a grand jury since it is secret is not appropriate. If you kill someone even if it is justified the consequence should be a trial when you can justify the killing.

 

[whoanellie]

Cornered him? In the middle of the street, outdoors, in broad daylight, with no visible fences, obstructions or other barricades in most any direction? Confronted? Yes. Cornered? Hard to see how. Sorry. Lots of other directions to go. He could have turned and ran any other direction, including the way he came. Although it's possible he thought camera car was with the rednecks. Still he could have taken off between houses where the truck would have trouble pursuing.

it was.

 

[Thermal]

My understanding is that the person taking the video was in cahoots with the two men in the pickup and was pursuing the jogger. The jogger is trapped and surrounded.
As the jogger approaches the pickup he veers to the right, apparently trying to avoid the man in the middle of the street with a shotgun. The shotgun toter moves across the front of the truck to confront the jogger. I can't see the confrontation but the gun goes off immediately

Where did you read that the cameraman is known? The reports I've read said specifically that it was unknown who recorded it

 

[Mike!]

it was.

It was what?

 

[Thermal]

And?



ARBURY WAS UNARMED!

ARBURY WAS A KNOWN JOGGER WHO HAD JOGGED THAT SAME ROUTE FOR YEARS!

He was JOGGING, not running away, not charging towards them. He was JOGGING at a rate that would have made him easy to catch for anyone who wasn't a fat, white, good-ol-boy, tub of lard with a gun!

FFS, did you actually watch the video?

Do you really have to create harebrained stupid scenarios in order to make excuses for these rednecks



Very few. In most cases, at least on this forum, when a video is shown of a cold blooded murder, it turned out to be a cold blooded murder.

I think you're a little behind on the thread. Please read the posts

 

[Meadmaker]

Where did you read that the cameraman is known? The reports I've read said specifically that it was unknown who recorded it

Undisclosed, not unknown.


To us, it is unknown though (unless there was some story I haven't seen, which is quite possible.)

 

[smartcooky]

I think you're a little behind on the thread. Please read the posts

What posts?

I'm going by the news reports, the video and statements from Georgia authorities.

 

[lionking]

Instead of going straight to a childish 0/12, how about you contribute?

Do you think it is bright to ask for an alternative hypothetical and then complain when you get exactly what you ask for?

Expecting crickets in 3...2...1...

I don’t plan to contribute with fairy tales, which your “hypothetical” is.

 

[Thermal]

I realize this, though I think he is trying more to be a Marplots with specific reference to charges of racism. It's useful up to a point, but I think he tries too hard.

Raism fascinates me. The way people distort their thinking to give the appearance of 'right thinking'. The way a poster will refuse to question anything that conflicts with a narrative.

So yeah, I poke the bear a little. You learn a lot about people in touchy subjects.

Look how many posters are already lying through their teeth, acting like I am advocating this, when I openly gave it to JM at his specific request for a hypothetical with filled in details. People have a hard time keeping their masks on when you touch a nerve.

 

[Meadmaker]

My first post was a way of making fun of Bogative's response, because although we don't know a great many things, I think we know enough to draw some very easy conclusions, and although I am not a lawyer, I think I understand the basic legal questions here.


What we see on the video is that the men in/near the pickup truck were behaving in a threatening manner toward the jogger (by deliberately blocking his way.) It also appears that part of their threatening manner was display of and possibly pointing a weapon at the jogger. I say "appears" because I didn't watch the video frame by frame to be absolutely certain that the driver was threatening the jogger with the gun, but it sure seemed that way.

At that point, a reasonable person in the jogger's position would believe that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm, and that escape from that situation was impossible. (i.e. you can't run away from a bullet, and the fact that they deliberately blocked his path would be perceived by a reasonable person as an aggressive act. A reasonable person would fear being shot in the back.)

In doing this, the men in the pickup truck have committed a crime. You can't go around pointing guns at people. You just can't. In some states, there's an exception if you happen to be in your house and he's breaking in, and in all states there's an exception if you are under a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm, but there is no way any of those circumstances applied to the pickup truck people in this video. It's illegal to go pointing guns at people. Someone could get hurt.

So, the jogger's action, attempting to wrest the gun away from the driver, is justified. Preceiving himself to be under a threat of death or great bodily harm, he is justified in taking action to neutralize that threat, which he did, unsuccessfully.


Now, as a matter of principle, I must say that everyone is entitled to a fair trial, and even to the presumption of innocence, so we must remain open to the theoretical possibility that some future evidence will be presented that makes it clear that there was some extremely important but currently unknown (to us) piece of evidence that would put a completely different spin on what appears to have happened.

However, based on preliminary evidence, it seems these guys are guilty as sin. I suspect both of them, not just the man with the shotgun, because I think both of them brandished weapons. I would have to watch the video again to be sure about the guy in the bed of the truck, but I think he did.

Prosecutors and/or juries will have to decide exactly what charges will be filed and what the convictions will be, but if it isn't something, I will be very surprised, and the people of Georgia will be very angry.

 

[whoanellie]

Where did you read that the cameraman is known? The reports I've read said specifically that it was unknown who recorded it

d

https://www.fox23.com/news/trending...ill-go-grand-jury/EXGDU3DAIJEHXAXW6DAYVRW6EQ/

The person in the car filming the video was allied with the two men in the pickup. Likely Arbery knew that. Does he turn around to look at the car while running? (I can't actually even find a clean version of the video today). Arbery couldn't turn around and run the other way. The two men in the pickup had stopped because they knew Arbery was being driven towards them. I don't know if it's possible he could have run off the road but if it isn't safe for him to jog on the public road does anyone really think he should have gone onto private property.

 

[pgwenthold]

Just to repeat, we have the suggestion that an unarmed black person out for a jog who gets chased by white guys with shotguns in a pickup deserves to get shot if he doesn't surrender to them.