Jogging in Georgia while black.

[Bob001]

More on McMichael's suspension:

The former police detective whose actions in the fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia were defended as a citizen’s arrest was stripped of his law enforcement certification and power to arrest a year before the deadly encounter, according to personnel records acquired by The Washington Post.

Gregory McMichael’s certification was suspended in February 2019 after repeated failures to complete required training, according to documents from the Brunswick Judicial Circuit District Attorney’s Office, including a warning in 2014 that McMichael had neglected to finish mandatory firearms and use-of-force courses.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...arrests-after-skipping-use-of-force-training/

 

[bluesjnr]

Well yeah because you aren't going to get shotgunned down in the street for jogging.

"LOL doesn't effect me none, so I don't give it no mind" isn't exactly making your case.

Your world view and understanding of both sides of the racist issue, as viewed by someone from outside the US, is beset by your ignorance.

Again the fact that you see being against racism as an ulterior motive that you've "gotcha"ed me on by pointing out is... yeah.

I haven't "gotcha'd" anybody. You're making that up to keep up your head of steam. What is it you think I've "pointed out"?

I read that many posters (yourself included) seemed to be making the case or be of the opinion, that Arbery was doomed from the get go. I wanted to explore that line of thinking and needed to gain confirmation that I wasn't misunderstanding the thrusts of many of the posts. At no point did I express a position for or against that line of thinking.

My question was stated clearly and unambiguously and contained no trap.

You took it and turned it personal from the off.

This idea that somehow me being anti-racist is some corner you've trapped me in and forced me to confess is very, very problematic.

Are you serious? I knew your position prior to asking the question openly in the thread. It woud be impossible not to as you've taken every opportunity, no matter how small (this exchange case in point), to broad brush anybody who does not absolutely conform to your thinking.

Tell me, how did I force you to respond in the first place? I asked you to consider answering the specific question after you responded

"I didn't shoot the black guy for thieving, I just started the altercation within him for thieving and shot him when he resisted."

Which did not address - "do you think Arbery was doomed from the outset" in any substantial way or indeed at all.

I'm trying me best to get from literally anywhere to "LOOKIT! LOOKIT EVERYONE! I GO THIS GUY TO ADMIT HE'S ONLY CONCERNED WITH STOPPING RACISM!" via any good path and I'm not finding one.

Calm down, please. Consider [not a directive, just advice] taking a break from this and the other thread. I think you have amply made your point on the one hand and entirely refute as vexatious any claims you have made about my motivations on the other.

Feel free continue, if you wish, of course.

Go start another thread to whine about it FMF then. Either put me on ignore or don't waste my time telling me don't want to hear me.

Nah, I'm good. I'll whine about it here or anywhere else I feel I need to. Furthermore, I'll make my own decisions about whether to ignore you or not and, finally, I'll consider it time well spent telling you I don't want to hear you... if that is ever the case.

This will, though, be the last response I make, between you and I, on this specific issue, in this thread as I don't want to take away from the subject matter with petty bitching.

 

[bluesjnr]

More interesting is this, I think, from the same article.




Cops on the scene were inclined to make an arrest given what they knew, Johnson intervened. The first move in a series that intended to cover up the killing.

Former boss went to bat for her retired employee. Obvious misconduct, if true.

Do cops have to ask permission from the DA before they arrest someone at the scene, that doesn't sound procedurally correct?

I get it that former boss would have let them go eventually but this procedure sounds strange to me?

 

[Bob001]

Do cops have to ask permission from the DA before they arrest someone at the scene, that doesn't sound procedurally correct?

I get it that former boss would have let them go eventually but this procedure sounds strange to me?

Generally not. The police need "probable cause," and I suspect a dead body and a guy with a shotgun saying "We got him!" (or words to that effect) would be sufficient.

(a) An arrest for a crime may be made by a law enforcement officer:

(1) Under a warrant; or

(2) Without a warrant if:

(A) The offense is committed in such officer's presence or within such officer's immediate knowledge;
.............

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2018/title-17/chapter-4/article-2/section-17-4-20/

I suspect that if an arrest had actually been made, an official public process would have begun that would be harder for the prosecutor to short-circuit. In this case, McMichael probably said "I'm a cop in pursuit of a criminal!," and the real cops at the scene would have asked their bosses for guidance.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Do cops have to ask permission from the DA before they arrest someone at the scene, that doesn't sound procedurally correct?

I get it that former boss would have let them go eventually but this procedure sounds strange to me?

Yes, it is strange that the police would contact the DA before making an arrest at the scene of a crime. I'm guessing the advance notice was a professional courtesy (or corruption, depending on how you see it) given the history between the suspect and the DA.

 

[Garb]

You removed the answer from your quote of my post. What part do you disagree with? I doubt I can convince you, though.

Edited to add: In both cases the victim wasn't doing anything worth confronting them with guns and killing them over.

I don't believe your answer was sufficient and wanted you to go into more detail.

The gunmen did not chase the victim in your example. They had a lengthy back and forth argument where the victim repeatedly threatened the safety of the gunmen. Both parties understood why they were in that argument, both parties escalated throughout the entire exchange, AND both parties had the opportunity to walk away at any time.

These key issues make me question the use of your example to imply that people are manufacturing an issue based on race. I do not believe the situation is comparable because Arbery was not given the same chance to de-escalate the situation.

 

[Shepherd]

Did the McMichaels witness or have immediate knowledge that Arbery committed any offense? The presumed offense would be trespassing. It does not appear so. Greg says he was standing on his lawn when he saw Arbery running down the street. Travis was in the house. Neither were in the presence of any offense.

Travis had confronted Arbery standing on English’s property about two weeks before. That raises the question whether that constitutes immediate knowledge of an offense. It appears the phrase “immediate knowledge” is not defined in Georgia law and that it is not even a common legal term.

The “immediate” part does not appear to mean that the offense just happened recently. Although that does raise some issues about how long after an offense a person can make a citizen’s arrest. If someone sees someone committed a simple misdemeanor and then they run into that person two years later, can they arrest that person? Probably not, but it isn’t laid out in the law.

The term “immediate knowledge” basically means direct knowledge. Knowledge that is not based on hearsay or putting a bunch of clues together. For example: a person is standing at the end of a fence with a road on the other side of the fence. They hear a car crash on the other side of the fence and then see past the fence a car drive away with a banged up front end. They look around the fence and see a parked car with the side smashed in. The person didn’t see the car crash into the parked car, but they have immediate knowledge that that is what happened.

It could be argued that Travis had seen or had immediate knowledge that Arbery had trespassed on English’s property from the confrontation two week ago.

But it is not clear that Arbery even committed criminal trespass. Here is the relevant law:



Arbery was not given any proper notification. If there were No Trespassing signs that might be a different issue, but I had not been able to readily see any in the videos. That leaves the question of whether Arbery entered the property for unlawful purposes. We don’t know. And neither did the McMichaels.

So, this isn’t a slam dunk case. There are some questionable issues. But I think there is a string case that the McMichaels could not have made a lawful citizen’s arrest under this standard.

Supposedly, there was a sign posted on English's property that said "Trespassers will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law."

...according to this article:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...hmaud-Arbery-says-suspicious-saggy-pants.html

ETA: Here's the quote from the article:

The current owner, Larry English Jr., bought it in June 2016 for $120,000 and has built the majority of the structure which has a sign posted outside, warning: 'Trespassers will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.'

Well, because of the verb tense there, I guess it's possible that the sign was posted since the incident, but that would be something to explore.

 

[Scopedog]

I don't believe your answer was sufficient and wanted you to go into more detail.

The gunmen did not chase the victim in your example. They had a lengthy back and forth argument where the victim repeatedly threatened the safety of the gunmen. Both parties understood why they were in that argument, both parties escalated throughout the entire exchange, AND both parties had the opportunity to walk away at any time.

These key issues make me question the use of your example to imply that people are manufacturing an issue based on race. I do not believe the situation is comparable because Arbery was not given the same chance to de-escalate the situation.

You ignored my mugging analogy. The McMichaels had a different motivation than a mugger but they were clearly in the wrong, like armed muggers. What should the response to an armed mugger be? Probably not Arbery's response. You probably should do what they want to avoid getting shot. The McMichaels should have been arrested immediately after shooting him but Arbery had a choice to act in a manner that would be more likely to preserve his life. The cost to him would have probably been contact with the police (perhaps he had a reason to not want that) and perhaps other unfortunate legal hassles (even if completely innocent, the police might still have put him through the rigamorole and that would be an injustice, too) but he would probably still be alive. It's possible that the McMichaels would never face any charges if Arbery submitted to their will, and that would be an injustice, but he would probably still be alive. The McMichaels shouldn't have created the situation and muggers shouldn't create mugging situations.

I don't think a race issue is being manufactured, I think examining various issues of the case is made out to be off-limits because of race.

Edited to add: Perhaps BStrong or another member with law enforcement experience could comment on this but I doubt the police spend a lot of effort investigating every reported mugging (in many cases it may be almost impossible) so that might be another similarity in the aspect of delayed or denied justice.

 

[Garb]

You ignored my mugging analogy.

<snip>

I didn't ignore it, I do not believe it is relevant in this case. You even admit that they had a different motivation, so the comparison doesn't work. If they aren't acting like muggers and don't have the motivation of muggers, why is Arbery expected to act like they are muggers? If you are jogging down the street and two men in a truck brandishing firearms start chasing you, then try to box you in, do you think there is a chance you might consider yourself in a very dangerous situation where no matter what you do your life will be in danger?

The McMichaels should have been arrested immediately after shooting him but Arbery had a choice to act in a manner that would be more likely to preserve his life. The cost to him would have probably been contact with the police (perhaps he had a reason to not want that) and perhaps other unfortunate legal hassles (even if completely innocent, the police might still have put him through the rigamorole and that would be an injustice, too) but he would probably still be alive. It's possible that the McMichaels would never face any charges if Arbery submitted to their will, and that would be an injustice, but he would probably still be alive.

Arbery may not have thought he had a chance to get away. It isn't up to him to act perfectly in this situation, it is up for the two gunmen not to act unlawfully and put someone in a situation where they may think they are in grave danger. Armchair judgement from the comfort of your computer is problematic, and I do not think the focus on him in this situation would be as pronounced if he was white (I also don't think that white people are generally followed like this to where they are even forced to react to such a situation).

I don't think a race issue is being manufactured, I think examining various issues of the case is made out to be off-limits because of race.

I don't agree with this at all. I think people are commenting that race is playing a factor as to why he is being targeted for "doing the wrong thing" while under extreme duress and possibly fearing for his life.

 

[Scopedog]

I didn't ignore it, I do not believe it is relevant in this case. You even admit that they had a different motivation, so the comparison doesn't work. If they aren't acting like muggers and don't have the motivation of muggers, why is Arbery expected to act like they are muggers? If you are jogging down the street and two men in a truck brandishing firearms start chasing you, then try to box you in, do you think there is a chance you might consider yourself in a very dangerous situation where no matter what you do your life will be in danger?

I tried to sneak in one more sentence which happens to agree with you: "The McMichaels shouldn't have created the situation and muggers shouldn't create mugging situations."

This is true of any situation where a malefactor has knowingly created a situation where a victim has only a moment to choose the wisest response to avoid injury, death, or legal consequences (such as being so angry you continue beating a thief after they're no longer a threat and being prosecuted for murder or facing civil liability). What if you had a bad day that day? The malefactor doesn't know or care but the consequences for the victim who responds unreasonably to an adrenaline rush can be devastating.

IArbery may not have thought he had a chance to get away. It isn't up to him to act perfectly in this situation, it is up for the two gunmen not to act unlawfully and put someone in a situation where they may think they are in grave danger. Armchair judgement from the comfort of your computer is problematic, and I do not think the focus on him in this situation would be as pronounced if he was white (I also don't think that white people are generally followed like this to where they are even forced to react to such a situation).

I don't agree with this at all. I think people are commenting that race is playing a factor as to why he is being targeted for "doing the wrong thing" while under extreme duress and possibly fearing for his life.

I think It's an aspect of the case, not a sole focus, that can be discussed without eliciting outrage. I appreciate your reasonable reponses.

 

[IsThisTheLife]

This is classic racist denialism... <snip>

Dave

"Classic racist denialism"? LoL. Is that as in "we got ourselves a racist denier here"?

Could it refer to a 'denier' (say of The Holocaust or AGW) who is also a racist, taken as implicit in their "denialism". LoL. Oh my.

If you <snip> want to carry on trying to frame and control discourse with your infinitely elastic meanings/definitions you'll have to do better than this.

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rules 0/12.

 

[catsmate]

They targeted him because they thought he was a burglar. Can you give me links to specific evidence otherwise?

And why did they think he was a criminal?

 

[IsThisTheLife]

Or if the same event had happened but all involved parties were of the same race ...

Well, you wouldn’t be participating, that’s for sure.

There wouldn't be discussion here, period. Nor would there had the tableau involved blacks having killed a white with any way of spinning race hatred of whites by blacks into it (unthinkable as that might be), or pretty much any other permutation.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

And why did they think he was a criminal?

Because they knew he was trespassing on English's property and that he had been caught on tape, which they presumably found out about when English informed a neighbor that his camera picked up somebody there who shouldn't be there and the neighbor went to confront him and Travis pulled up and heard about what was going on and confronted him as well.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Are you an actual lawyer?

No. Just an interest in law. If you want an opinion from a lawyer that reflects what I am saying, here is just one example from Attorney Lori Bluff:

http://news.monroelocal.org/legalese-citizens-arrest/

I'll just note that DA's interest in legal matters is at a high level and he typically does very thorough research on legal issues discussed in his posts on this forum. As a lawyer I look forward to DA participating in threads that touch on legal topics because it typically saves me time.

 

[Shepherd]

And why did they think he was a criminal?

Because he looked like the guy that Travis McMichael had reported in his 911 call of Februrary 11 to have entered Mr. English's house on that day?

...and who might have been a criminal if the "Trespassers will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law." was already posted there and was considered to be sufficient notice to would-be trespassers?

Seeing that we have video footage of Arbery just coming out of that house, it does raise some legitimate questions, doesn't it?

Did it look to them like the same guy because it could have been the same guy?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The most enjoyable part of being a member of ISF is watching the "OMG-America-is-so-racist" social justice mob fall for stories like this without being the least bit skeptical before they work themselves into a frenzy and step directly on the rake laid out in front of them and get whacked right in the face.

Never gets old.

Please, elaborate, what should we be skeptical about in this story ?

Appears to be a well documented murder, imo.

40 pages in, and it continues to be a story about a well documented murder.

Still not sure what I was supposed to have been more skeptical about.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Babbylonian]

Because he looked like the guy that Travis McMichael had reported in his 911 call of Februrary 11 to have entered Mr. English's house on that day?

...and who might have been a criminal if the "Trespassers will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law." was already posted there and was considered to be sufficient notice to would-be trespassers?

Seeing that we have video footage of Arbery just coming out of that house, it does raise some legitimate questions, doesn't it?

Did it look to them like the same guy because it could have been the same guy?

There's one itsy-bitsy problem with this...just kidding, there are multiple problems, but I'll focus on one: Absent a property owner's request with accompanying instructions on who is and isn't authorized to be on their property, the gun-wielding attempted kidnappers turned murderers have no standing to determine whether or not a person is trespassing on property that they don't own. Hell, they couldn't even legally ask police to arrest someone in such a situation since only the actual property owner would have standing to press a trespassing charge.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Seeing that we have video footage of Arbery just coming out of that house, it does raise some legitimate questions, doesn't it?

No, it really doesn't.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I take it if you saw that same dude in the dark of night on your security camera video walking around your back yard, you'd just shrug it off?

"Meh, I see him walking around my back yard... I don't see him murdering my family. Big deal"

You've got a bit of a false dichotomy here. If some stranger (regardless of their skin color), is in my backyard at night, I'm calling the cops. If they try to enter my house, I'm going to shoot them.

What I'm NOT going to do, however, is grab a gun, jump in a car, and chase them down.

Now, if they're caught on my security camera at night looking around a house I'm having built and they don't do anything wrong while they're there, I'm going to guess they're probably just being nosy. I might call someone nearby who I trust and ask them to keep an eye on the place just in case, but that's about it.

I'm NOT, however, going to grab a gun, jump in a car, and chase them down.

If they're caught on someone else's security camera at night looking around a house that someone else is building... it's not my goddamned business at all. At the very worst, I might contact the homeowner and tell them that someone was checking out their construction site. That's it.

Again, I'm NOT going to grab a gun, jump in a car, and chase them down.

Now let's make this even more accurate. If I've heard rumor from person A that Person B saw someone checking out Person B's construction site... and then I see someone who might or might not be the checker-outer... I am definitely NOT going to grab my gun, jump in car, and chase down a person who might or might not be someone who might or might not have been looking at someone else's uncompleted house and to the best of my knowledge hasn't actually done anything wrong!

You might note that absolutely zero of my post has anything to do with race.