Jogging in Georgia while black.

[Skeptic Tank]

Nope. They have clearly stated their were trying to curtail his movements in a public place, that is a crime whether they were armed with a lethal weapon or not. The fact they were undertaking a criminal act whilst armed with lethal weapons is what makes them “1st degree” murderers.

Thing is though, I think most jurors would be heavily influenced by finding out that the McMichaels had correctly identified the deceased as responsible for repeatedly trespassing and likely stealing from houses/cars on their street.

It seems like there is room for interpretation and argument in the citizens arrest and how it intersects with open carry, etc. - it's not so clear cut as to preclude arguments here, that's for sure.

I think if it can be demonstrated at trial that he wasn't just an innocent jogger in the neighborhood gunned down because these good ole' boys in the pickup truck didn't much care for the color of his skin *spittoon noise* but rather that he was a criminal fleeing justice when he was killed, I think the McMichaels may very well get the benefit of the doubt and some leeway about the particulars of citizens arrest.

 

[sackett]

When dealing with a racist,

it's helpful to remember that he's a fantacist. His beliefs are simple ones, based on nothing more than antiquated pseudoscience. Reality can do nothing for him; he must seek self assurance by sinking constantly deeper into his ugly make-believe.

You can't reach him down there. It's his safe place.

 

[The Atheist]

I get it. This is all considered acceptable in some minds, as Black people aren't really people deserving or rights, and freedoms, and respect.

In this mind view, Blacks are not truly human.

Bingo.

It's a popular point of view among some groups of white people.

Much as I am anti-capital punishment, I'd gladly watch these two murderers twitching at the end of a rope.

 

[Darat]

Thing is though, I think most jurors would be heavily influenced by finding out that the McMichaels had correctly identified the deceased as responsible for repeatedly trespassing and likely stealing from houses/cars on their street.

It seems like there is room for interpretation and argument in the citizens arrest and how it intersects with open carry, etc. - it's not so clear cut as to preclude arguments here, that's for sure.

I think if it can be demonstrated at trial that he wasn't just an innocent jogger in the neighborhood gunned down because these good ole' boys in the pickup truck didn't much care for the color of his skin *spittoon noise* but rather that he was a criminal fleeing justice when he was killed, I think the McMichaels may very well get the benefit of the doubt and some leeway about the particulars of citizens arrest.

You need to reread their statements.

 

[Reactor drone]

If Travis stopped his truck in the street and just stood by the drivers door with a gun, he was not preventing anything or even breaking a law. Maybe illegal parking. Keep in mind, on your street or mine, any of this gun-toting would be a serious crime. Not so in Georgia USA.

Having a gun on the streets down in this particular holler is not preventing movement, or threatening, or anything like that. Any assault was only in your feelings, unless Travis directed that gun at Arbery. Its unthinkable to you or I. Its normal and legal there.

You'd have to have very broad definition of open carry for that to be legal. Deciding to take your shotgun out of the truck when you set up a road block and holding it at low ready probably doesn't fall under the category of open carry.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Why are they just reviewing security footage now?

The homeowner hadn't released the footage, I believe.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The homeowner hadn't released the footage, I believe.

But again that leads back to the whole basic problem.

The story the shooters are telling us is basically that they were justified because Arbery had been committing crimes in their neighborhood but those crimes are never reported and never investigated.

But as soon as "Wait... why did the black guy get shot" come up then security footage of him starts pouring out of the woodwork.

Why did the homeowner release the footage now and not then if his site was being broken into?

At the end of the day nobody has the answer to "Why are the crimes only be investigated after the person who possibly committed them has been killed because literally nobody seems to have cared 1 iota about any of the crimes inbetween the point where they supposedly happened and the them becoming the excuse for why the black guy getting shot was justified."

 

[wareyin]

The problem comes with open carry. To me, that is naked intimidation under the circumstances. In Georgia, it's a common and legal choice. What we see as a clear threat is what you see on a Georgia street any day.

Speaking as a Georgia resident who is well acquainted with both rural streets and downtown Atlanta streets, you are wrong.

 

[dejudge]

..... Mr. Arbery had already made a failed attempt to evade these people, and they persisted in pursuing him.

There is no evidence that Arbery had already made a failed attempt to evade these people.

It is extremely important to observe the available videos.

No-one was following the jogger immediately before and after he left the construction site. No-one approached him before and after he exited the building.

There is no footage of the McMichaels near the construction site before or after Arbery entered and left the building.





In the totality of the circumstances, a jury will understand the intentions of the armed roadblock quite well. A reasonable person in Mr. Arbery's situation would be intimidated by this display of firearms, and clearly this is the intention of the men trying to force him to stop.



https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-5/article-2/16-5-20/[/QUOTE]

 

[ponderingturtle]

Speaking as a Georgia resident who is well acquainted with both rural streets and downtown Atlanta streets, you are wrong.

Exactly chasing down blacks in trucks with shotguns is just good old fun in georgia and they are used to it. Shows how crazy this "jogger" must be to be freaked out by their behavior.

I mean imagine all the times you got chased down by armed men for fun and laughs?

 

[JoeMorgue]

People are putting a lot more faith in some hypothetical group of "Reasonable People" than I am.

You can't invoke the "Reasonable Person" standard in an unreasonable world.

 

[ponderingturtle]

There is no evidence that Arbery had already made a failed attempt to evade these people.

The killers own statements for one.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

There is no evidence that Arbery had already made a failed attempt to evade these people.

It is extremely important to observe the available videos.

No-one was following the jogger immediately before and after he left the construction site. No-one approached him before and after he exited the building.

There is no footage of the McMichaels near the construction site before or after Arbery entered and left the building.




In the totality of the circumstances, a jury will understand the intentions of the armed roadblock quite well. A reasonable person in Mr. Arbery's situation would be intimidated by this display of firearms, and clearly this is the intention of the men trying to force him to stop.



https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-5/article-2/16-5-20/

[/QUOTE]

According to the statement given by the killers in the police report, they previously tried to cut him off once. They claim Arbery responded by turning back and running from where came. The video showing Arbery being chased into the men waiting in the road was the second attempt to cut him off, at least according to their police statements.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery#Police_report

I think Arbery previously attempting to evade makes the case stronger for murder. Arbery had already attempted to escape without resorting to violence to defend himself. His pursuers continued the chase. The killers were determined to force a confrontation and took steps to ensure it would happen, at which point they killed Arbery. I think a jury could easily be persuaded that Arbery likely felt trapped and had no other option but to charge his armed assailant.

That's not to say that I think it was necessary for Arbery to exhaust his evasion options first, but it definitely helps remove a lot of ambiguity from the narrative. This wasn't a quick moment of confused misunderstanding. By the time the fatal confrontation occurred, both parties knew exactly what this was, a hostile chase.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

According to the statement given by the killers in the police report, they previously tried to cut him off once. They claim Arbery responded by turning back and running from where came. The video showing Arbery being chased into the men waiting in the road was the second attempt to cut him off, at least according to their police statements.

I think Arbery previously attempting to evade makes the case stronger for murder. Arbery had already attempted to escape without resorting to violence to defend himself. His pursuers continued the chase. The killers were determined to force a confrontation and took steps to ensure it would happen, at which point they killed Arbery. I think a jury could easily be persuaded that Arbery likely felt trapped and had no other option but to charge his armed assailant.

That's not to say that I think it was necessary for Arbery to exhaust his evasion options first, but it definitely helps remove a lot of ambiguity from the narrative. This wasn't a quick moment of confused misunderstanding. By the time the fatal confrontation occurred, both parties knew exactly what this was, a hostile chase.

You give him credit for not responding violently at that stage... um, what was he going to do then, punch the truck?

He got violent as soon as human beings were outside of vehicles and available to attack physically.

I don't see why the McMichaels forcing a confrontation or trapping him is a problem. That was the entire point of what they were doing? He was a thief and it was appropriate to confront and trap him and to kill him if he attacked.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

You give him credit for not responding violently at that stage... um, what was he going to do then, punch the truck?

He got violent as soon as human beings were outside of vehicles and available to attack physically.

I don't see why the McMichaels forcing a confrontation or trapping him is a problem. That was the entire point of what they were doing? He was a thief and it was appropriate to confront and trap him and to kill him if he attacked.

It was a problem because his attempt to confront and trap a suspected thief was unlawful. No burglary was committed that day. No burglary was witnessed. Trespass in a construction site is not a felony in which forceful citizen's arrest is lawful.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

It was a problem because his attempt to confront and trap a suspected thief was unlawful. No burglary was committed that day. No burglary was witnessed. Trespass in a construction site is not a felony in which forceful citizen's arrest is lawful.

Better hope something doesn't get confirmed about that hammer or whatever it was, eh?

 

[Garb]

Better hope something doesn't get confirmed about that hammer or whatever it was, eh?

I'm sure you will concede if/when the hammer turns out to be nothing.

Also the hammer having been stolen doesn't justify the actions of the assailants, unless you can argue that he committed a felony in stealing the hammer AND you can argue they saw him steal it.

 

[Thermal]

Better hope something doesn't get confirmed about that hammer or whatever it was, eh?

Would have to be a diamond encrusted Fabrige hammer to constitute a felony snd armed arrest.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Okay so yet again we've landed on "Well we all agree that the conservatives are impossible to talk to and are only here to troll."

Put all the conservatives on ignore. Exclude them from the conversation.

Don't make the mistake of conflating "blatant racist" with "conservative". IIRC, at least a few of the people in this thread calling this even atrocious and abhorrent are conservative, but are NOT racists.

I consider myself slightly conservative-leaning... really more of a "libertarian inspired pragmatist" though. I'm pretty broadly liberal on most social issues, and pretty broadly conservative on most fiscal issues. And in the truest sense of the term "conservative", I tend to approach change in a very tentative and slow way.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Don't make the mistake of conflating "blatant racist" with "conservative". IIRC, at least a few of the people in this thread calling this even atrocious and abhorrent are conservative, but are NOT racists.

I consider myself slightly conservative-leaning... really more of a "libertarian inspired pragmatist" though. I'm pretty broadly liberal on most social issues, and pretty broadly conservative on most fiscal issues. And in the truest sense of the term "conservative", I tend to approach change in a very tentative and slow way.

It takes some of the punch out of calling me "racist" when a lot of the same people are using that term to refer to the most milquetoast of conservatives pushing back on the narrative ever so gently.

And these are the same people who are literally saying things like "he was murdered, lynched in fact... for being black and jogging"

It's buffoonish.