Jogging in Georgia while black.

[DevilsAdvocate]

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)

I think this is yet another case of bad journalism. When I trace this back it appears to be that after the killing English the picture commonly displayed in the media of Arbery in the tux and he said that didn't look like the person in his video surveillance.

The media picture of Arbery looks nothing like what Arbery looked like on the videos from the day of the killing. I would not identify them as looking like the same person at all.

But the pictures of Arbery from the day of the killing do look a whole lot like the pictures of the person previously caught on English's surveillance.

English saying that the person in the picture in the media doesn't look like the person in the surveillance videos doesn't mean that he doesn't think that the person in the surveillance video on the day of the killing doesn't look like the person in the previous surveillance videos.

But the media just goes with "he said Arbery doesn't look like the person in the surveillance videos." Which is obviously true; and false.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Yes, I know how Wikipedia works, but I think that has little relevance. I watched the video myself and it's certainly not clear. The Wikipedia entry I quoted was heavily footnoted and the lack of consensus by the various media sources linked also suggest it's unclear.

Meh. That shows that there are some different options. Maybe useful a bit on the context of what people are saying.

I don't see anything inaccurate in the quote from Wikipedia. It shows there are differing opinions. But it is an argumentum ad populum if an argument is actually being made or otherwise irrelevant because it just describe a video that is readily available.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

The Wikipedia entry seems as non committal as can be, regardless of how we feel Wikipedia "works."

I think that is pretty much how Wikipedia works. And is intended to work. And for the most part how it should work.

(Please don't turn this into yet another discussion about Wikipedia).

 

[Busta Capp]

Not at all I was replying to "We All Know How Wikipedia Works"

In the fact that anyone can edit it and it turns into edit wars.

The quoted part of SDAL's post was as non committal as can be.

 

[Leftus]

I don't think I understand this hammer business. Contractors don't typically leave their tools lying around open building sites.
.

Even if they did, hammers retail from like 4 bucks to 40. I'm not a hammer aficionado, but if we took a midranged hammer, we are talking something that retails for 20? Used? what, 10? Not exactly the crime of the century.

Also the object on the road looks more like a flat squirrel to me. But that doesn't fit the narrative, so small object, construction site, must be a hammer. Despite the fact the item doesn't make it into the police report, the killers never mention the loot he was tossing before they shot him. It's an invention of yahoos watching bad YouTube videos.

 

[Robin]

When Arbery gets to the front of the truck, he turns left and runs toward Travis. He doesn't just keep running straight down the road. Travis is coming around the left side of the truck moving toward Arbery. When the shot is fired, Arbery is charging into Travis who is on the front left corner of the truck. Arbery clearly turned left at the front of the truck and ran toward Travis. Before the shot was fired. I don't think that is even controversial.

Before Arbery reaches the truck, Travis is about 5 or 6 feet to the left of the truck and Arbery veers to the right to the other side of the truck.

When he is back in shot Travis is in front of the truck, so he must have covered those 5 or 6 feet towards the truck at the same time that Arbery is running the other side of it.

So Travis has started moving towards Arbery while Arbery is still running the other way. It is only after Travis has started to move towards him.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Prediction: there is no other video of the shooting - this is a misunderstanding of someone referencing the other surveillance videos we already know about.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Before Arbery reaches the truck, Travis is about 5 or 6 feet to the left of the truck and Arbery veers to the right to the other side of the truck.

When he is back in shot Travis is in front of the truck, so he must have covered those 5 or 6 feet towards the truck at the same time that Arbery is running the other side of it.

So Travis has started moving towards Arbery while Arbery is still running the other way. It is only after Travis has started to move towards him.

I'm not following this. The issue that I raised was that Travis may have threatened Arbery on 2/11 and that may explain why Arbery turned and ran toward Travis at the front of the truck.

The issue raised in response to that was that Arbery did not run toward Travis at the front of the truck.

So the question is: Did Arbery turn and run toward Travis at the front of the truck?

For this issue, I don't care what Roddy was doing. Or what happened before Arbery was before the front of the truck. Or whether Traivs shot first. Or who was white or black. Or who is legally guilty.

The only question to this whole thread of conversation is: Did Arbery turn left at the front of the truck and run toward Travis? That's what I said. And I think the evidence for that is inconvertible. I don't think that is even questionable.

But DeJudge disputed that with...unrelated issues. I don't care about the unrelated issues to this question. I am not attempting in this line of discussion to discuss any related issues. Just this one simple question.

Did Arbery turn left at the front of the truck and run toward Travis?

Yes. He did. That's it.

 

[Robin]

.Did Arbery turn left at the front of the truck and run toward Travis?



Yes. He did. That's it.

So let me get this clear.

You only care that Arbery turned towards Travis at the last minute.

You don't care that Travis was already running towards Arbery with a shotgun at the time.

Have I got that right?

 

[Robin]

That would be a good defense "My client was innocently running towards the victim with a loaded shotgun when suddenly, out of the blue the victim stops running away and runs towards my client"

 

[Arcade22]

That would be a good defense "My client was innocently running towards the victim with a loaded shotgun when suddenly, out of the blue the victim stops running away and runs towards my client"

Well arguably someone's legal right to defend themselves does not cease to exist even if their own threatening behaviour caused there to be a risk to their life in the first place.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

So let me get this clear.

You only care that Arbery turned towards Travis at the last minute.

You don't care that Travis was already running towards Arbery with a shotgun at the time.

Have I got that right?

In this line of discussion I only care that I said that Arbery turned at the front of the truck and ran toward Travis and DeJudge says that I am wrong about that.

That doesn't mean that I don't care about any other issues related to the case. It just means that to resolve the conflict of opinion about whether or not Arbery turned and ran toward Travis I want to limit the discussion and evidence to proof of whether or not Arbery turned and ran toward Travis because DeJudge dismissed the claim that Arbery turned and ran toward Travis based on discussion and evidence that has nothing to do with whether or not Arbery turned and ran toward Travis.

It's not like such dismissive and irrelevant arguments haven't resulted in multi page endless threads before.

This is very simple. I claim that Arbery turned and ran toward Travis. I have presented evidence. That claim was dismissed with irrelevant arguments.

My only concern, with this line of discussion is: Did Arbery turned and run toward Travis? Because that is the only thing relevant to my original post saying that if Travis had threatened Arbery in 2/11 it would explain why Arbery turned and ran toward Travis (as opposed to stopping or continuing running straight or running away intoa yard).

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Well arguably someone's legal right to defend themselves does not cease to exist even if their own threatening behaviour caused there to be a risk to their life in the first place.

Yeah, it pretty much does. Generally self defense cannot be used as a defense if there is provocation. Or if they were committing a crime.

There are some corner cases where that may not apply, but that's pretty much the general principle.

 

[Arcade22]

Yeah, it pretty much does. Generally self defense cannot be used as a defense if there is provocation. Or if they were committing a crime.

There are some corner cases where that may not apply, but that's pretty much the general principle.

But is a person exercising their 2nd amendment rights a provocation? He may not have intended to threaten anyone but simply have brought the gun along for self-defense.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

But is a person exercising their 2nd amendment rights a provocation? He may not have intended to threaten anyone but simply have brought the gun along for self-defense.

Well, that's a whole different question. You said:

Well arguably someone's legal right to defend themselves does not cease to exist even if their own threatening behaviour caused there to be a risk to their life in the first place.

You are talking about threatening behavior there but not here. This is getting into a general 2nd amendment rights and self defense rights issue that would be better in a thread already dedicated to that topic rather than the topic of this specific case.

 

[lionking]

In this line of discussion I only care that I said that Arbery turned at the front of the truck and ran toward Travis and DeJudge says that I am wrong about that.

That doesn't mean that I don't care about any other issues related to the case. It just means that to resolve the conflict of opinion about whether or not Arbery turned and ran toward Travis I want to limit the discussion and evidence to proof of whether or not Arbery turned and ran toward Travis because DeJudge dismissed the claim that Arbery turned and ran toward Travis based on discussion and evidence that has nothing to do with whether or not Arbery turned and ran toward Travis.

It's not like such dismissive and irrelevant arguments haven't resulted in multi page endless threads before.

This is very simple. I claim that Arbery turned and ran toward Travis. I have presented evidence. That claim was dismissed with irrelevant arguments.

My only concern, with this line of discussion is: Did Arbery turned and run toward Travis? Because that is the only thing relevant to my original post saying that if Travis had threatened Arbery in 2/11 it would explain why Arbery turned and ran toward Travis (as opposed to stopping or continuing running straight or running away intoa yard).

You are seeing what you want to see. Nobody knows the entire sequence of events as there are gaps in the video. Gaps where Travis could have moved towards Arbery, even gestured to move towards him, which could have prompted Arbery to change direction.

But even if what you imagine to be true is true, I can’t for the life of me see the relevance. What do you think the relevance is? Are you suggesting that Travis was justifiably in fear of his life?

And I don’t want to see “so you agree he ran towards Travis?”. At the end of the confrontation he clearly did. But what you don’t know is if he was prompted to do so by an unseen act by Travis.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

You are seeing what you want to see. Nobody knows the entire sequence of events as there are gaps in the video. Gaps where Travis could have moved towards Arbery, even gestured to move towards him, which could have prompted Arbery to change direction.

But even if what you imagine to be true is true, I can’t for the life of me see the relevance. What do you think the relevance is? Are you suggesting that Travis was justifiably in fear of his life?

And I don’t want to see “so you agree he ran towards Travis?”. At the end of the confrontation he clearly did. But what you don’t know is if he was prompted to do so by an unseen act by Travis.

I don't know why this is so hard. I presented a possible scenario that Travis had threated Arbery on 2/11 and that is why Arbery chose to turn and run toward Travis rather than stopping when he was faced with Tavis chasing him down with a gun.

I don't know if it is true that Travis threated him. But I think that it is true that Arbery turned and run toward Travis.

DeJudge says I am wrong that Arbery turned and run toward Travis. I say that I am right that Arbery turned and run toward Travis.

So...that's the discussion. Nothing else. Just: Did Arbery turn and run toward Travis?

I'm just trying to clear up that issue. Only that issue. Nothing else. Not what happened before. Or motivations, Or who attacked whom. Or whythis happened. Just that question.

Did Arbery turn and run toward Travis?

That's it. I say he did. DeJudge says I am wrong. I presented evidence and arguments to defend my position that Arbery did turn and run toward Travis.

That's the whole argument under discussion in this sub thread argument. Did Arbery turn and run toward Travis? Yes or no?

 

[lionking]

I don't know why this is so hard. I presented a possible scenario that Travis had threated Arbery on 2/11 and that is why Arbery chose to turn and run toward Travis rather than stopping when he was faced with Tavis chasing him down with a gun.

I don't know if it is true that Travis threated him. But I think that it is true that Arbery turned and run toward Travis.

DeJudge says I am wrong that Arbery turned and run toward Travis. I say that I am right that Arbery turned and run toward Travis.

So...that's the discussion. Nothing else. Just: Did Arbery turn and run toward Travis?

I'm just trying to clear up that issue. Only that issue. Nothing else. Not what happened before. Or motivations, Or who attacked whom. Or whythis happened. Just that question.

Did Arbery turn and run toward Travis?

That's it. I say he did. DeJudge says I am wrong. I presented evidence and arguments to defend my position that Arbery did turn and run toward Travis.

That's the whole argument under discussion in this sub thread argument. Did Arbery turn and run toward Travis? Yes or no?

See, I’m not interested in yes or no. At the end he clearly did. I’m more interested in the why, and I think it’s entirely open for me to theorise that Travis moved towards Arbery unseen by the video before Arbery confronted him. Don’t you think that a move by Travis towards him with a loaded gun would make Arbery think he had no other options?

And I’m less interested (ie, none at all) in your disagreement with dejudge.

 

[The Common Potato]

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.

This seems quite a reasonable reaction when two blokes try to prevent him from jogging. After all, they might be trying to harm him.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

What do you think the relevance is?

The relevance is back to my post that started this whole line of discussion. I suggested the possibility that on 2/11 Travis may have threated Arbery if he saw him again. And that was why Arbery turned and attacked Travis instead of stopping or just continuing to run down the street or trying to run away through a yard.

There has been a lot of discussion in this thread and on the Internet on why Arbery chose to run toward Travis instead of taking some other actions. I haven't seen anybody but DeJudge who have claimed that Arbery didn't actually turn and run toward Travis. Or even charge toward Travis. Or even that his intent wasn't to attack Travis.

Of course that is what he was doing.

I said I thought maybe Arbery attacked Travis because Travis had previously threated Arbery. DeJudge objected to the characterization that Arbery attacked Travis because Travis shot first. OK. Pedantic. But it doesn't matter for what I said. So I agreed to change "attacked Travis" "ran at Travis". But DeJudge still objected...for illogical reasons.

So now we are somehow caught in a silly debate about whether or not Arbery ran at Travis, even though he obviously did. But we have to get into whether Travis was the first to attack or what Arbery did before he got to the front of the truck and ran toward Travis and whether it excuses the murders and so on and what not.

My only point is that Arbery turned and ran toward Travis. And I think there is the possibility that he may have done that rather than more safer options because maybe Travis had previously threatened him.

Or...we can argue for a few more pages about whether or not Arbery ran toward Travis while raises issues not related to resolving that specific question, which should have been easily resolved and dismissed in the first place.