Jogging in Georgia while black.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Tank said:
It would be really interesting to see how this same thread would unfold if mentioning "racism" was simply not allowed.
Click to expand...

I think you would be disappointed. I believe that nearly everyone in this thread would still find the two people who chased down an unarmed person with a vehicle, threatened him with a shotgun, and ultimately killed him when he attempted to defend himself are in the wrong and should be charged with murder.

The events in question, to me and apparently to most others, are fairly clear. The McMichaelses, regardless of their skin color, are in the wrong and are murderers. Arbery, regardless of his skin color, is a victim who was murdered by the McMichaelses.

I think you're likely the only person in this thread who feels that the actions taken by the McMichaelses are appropriate and justifiable... and I believe I'm correct in assuming that almost all of us in this thread feel that the only reason you are willing to take that view is directly driven by your own admitted views on race. That assumption is reinforced by comments you've made in this thread.

I will concede that in all likelihood, the McMichaelses did not leave their house with the express intention of killing a black guy. Most likely, they firmly believed that they were doing the right thing, trying to catch a "bad guy". I do, however, believe that their perception of Arbery as a "bad guy" is strongly influenced by racial bias. I believe that if Arbery had been white, there is extremely low probability that the McMichaelses would have armed themselves and chased him, and very likely wouldn't have considered him a threat at all. I think they would have assumed that a white kid running through the neighborhood and poking around at a construction site was just a curious kid checking it out.

Furthermore, I very strongly believe that if Arbery had been white, the McMichealses would have been arrested at the time of the confrontation, and would have been charged with murder, and an investigation launched.

You might think this is some over-sensitivity on my part. You're welcome to hold that view, although it is incorrect. I freely admit that my views are opinion, but they are also based on many observations of disparate treatment of people on the basis of race, as well as several research reports that have validly measured that disparity. It's based on the acknowledgment that black people and white people on average are measured against different expectations, and subject to different thresholds.
 
Scopedog said:
If you disagree, I doubt I can convince you. I've read that Aaron Howard was a big jerk and his neighbors are probably glad he's dead. I imagine that would be a pretty unwelcome statement if he were black. The idea of examining whether Ahmed Arbery may have been a petty criminal is generally met with disgust in this thread, but I doubt it would get the same general reaction if he was white. It also reminds me that it's okay to scrutinize, dissect, and cast aspersions on Tara Reade in the Biden thread (mind you, I don't believe her anyway or many other prominent #metoo accusers) but I suspect that accusation analysis dynamic would be a bit different if she were black. I guess we may never know.
Click to expand...

I think you are mistaken in your assumptions. Even if Arbery had been a big jerk and his neighbors were happy he was dead doesn't make it any less a murder. Furthermore, any speculation as to whether or not he may have been a petty criminal has no bearing on the events in question, nor do they have any bearing on whether or not the actions of the McMichaelses constitute murder. Both of those elements - whether he was liked, and whether he might have been a petty criminal - are irrelevant to the case.

In comparison, the accusations made by Reade are in part dependent on her credibility. Many people might find it distasteful to question her truthfulness, but given that the vast majority of information we have is a verbal claim, it is at least reasonable to evaluate whether she is believable. If more and more evidence continues to come to light supporting her accusation, refusal to budge from an initial presumption of her being untrustworthy will seem less and less justifiable.
 
Scopedog said:
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.
Click to expand...

While I generally agree with your suggestion that complying with a mugger is the most appropriate course of action... I don't think that's relevant in this case. I have a difficult time finding an angle where Arbery should have been expected to assume that the McMichealses only wanted to rob him and would have left him alive if he complied. I'm personally inclined to think that if a couple of trucks chased me down in broad daylight, and continued to chase me and cut me off when I tried to run a different way, then one of them got out of the truck and aimed a shotgun at me... I'm probably not going to assume they want my wallet.
 
Emily's Cat said:
What I'm NOT going to do, however, is grab a gun, jump in a car, and chase them down.
Click to expand...

This. (Good posts, this one and the one after).

Regardless of whether Arbery was a good guy or a bad guy, and regardless of what they knew about his past actions, it doesn't matter a whole lot. I really don't want non-police people running around with guns and chasing down people that they think might be criminals. The citizens' arrest laws have limitations for a very good reason.

If I were a judge, I would take into account whatever mitigating factors might come into play, and maybe some of the things discussed might make me more likely to adjust the sentence toward the minimum or maximum levels, but that doesn't change the fact that people grabbing guns and chasing people through the streets is just a very, very, bad idea.
 
Q: Who are the shooting suspects?
A: Travis McMichael and his father, Gregory, who made the tragic mistake of retiring from the police force beforehand.

The Onion is something else.
 
GBI determines that oddly phrased note left at Ahmaud Arbery memorial site was a misguided attempt at condolences.

Investigators looked into the note; which read "Ahmaud - I am so sorry. I should have stopped them. I am so sorry" at the request of S. Lee Merritt, the attorney for the Arbery family.

The unnamed person was determined to have not been involved in or have any information on the shooting and was just "expressing their condolences for Arbery's death," the agency said.

CNN: https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/14/us/ahmaud-arbery-memorial-note-id-trnd/index.html
 
TheL8Elvis said:
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)_/¯
Click to expand...


We went from "murdering unarmed black men for refusing to explain why they are jogging on white roads is not a crime" in the OP to learning that the "jogger" was not out for a jog, but rather, was a trespasser recognized from previous trespassing. We also learned that he was shot after darting across the road and trying to remove a gun from someone else's hands.

And, in typical ISF fashion, there are a whole lot of skeptics on here who know for certain the motivation of the two white men is racism based solely on the skin color of all involved. I'm not sure if you're one of them, I haven't had the time to read every post.
 
Emily's Cat said:
While I generally agree with your suggestion that complying with a mugger is the most appropriate course of action... I don't think that's relevant in this case. I have a difficult time finding an angle where Arbery should have been expected to assume that the McMichealses only wanted to rob him and would have left him alive if he complied. I'm personally inclined to think that if a couple of trucks chased me down in broad daylight, and continued to chase me and cut me off when I tried to run a different way, then one of them got out of the truck and aimed a shotgun at me... I'm probably not going to assume they want my wallet.
Click to expand...

"wait, we just want to talk" *racks shotgun* Mixed messaging a bit.
 
Bogative said:
We went from "murdering unarmed black men for refusing to explain why they are jogging on white roads is not a crime" in the OP to learning that the "jogger" was not out for a jog, but rather, was a trespasser recognized from previous trespassing. We also learned that he was shot after darting across the road and trying to remove a gun from someone else's hands.
Click to expand...
There's stretching the truth and then there's bald-faced lying. I'd rate this description as about 9/10 the latter.
 
Shepherd said:
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:



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.
Click to expand...

The sign is on a docbox that appears to have not been there on the day of the killing. It is seen in this video but not the surveillance video from the day of the killing. Not that it really matters much.
 
Babbylonian said:
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.
Click to expand...

From the news report I saw, if I remember correctly, the police showed up after the 911 call by Travis McMichaels (on February 11) and Mr. English was being appraised of the situation by one of the neighbors.

You might want to look for this more recent news. I'll try to get back to you if I find I misremembered that.

If you missed other news before, Mr. English had contacted the police on two occasions himself about trespassers on the property.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom