Jogging in Georgia while black.

[smartcooky]

Again, I am NOT speaking of criminal trespass. I am speaking of the word trespass as defined in the meaning of " entering the owner's land or property without permission"

That isn't trespass, even in the ordinary meaning of the word. Using your meaning, the milkman and the postman and the Fedex Guy are trespassing when they deliver stuff to you. You are trespassing when you walk into a shop or drive into a gas station.

The word trespassing - probably I should have just said he walked onto the property of someone without their permission, OK?

Again, you do not need permission to walk onto a property unless there are signs that say you must not do so. If there are no signs, you must leave if the owner tells you to.

Sorry if it evoked some agenda you might have. My whole post seems to have flown over everyone's head, but there is a low ceiling here for a reason I suppose.

Your comment didn't go over my head, I understood you perfectly, it just that you are, well, wrong.

 

[I Am The Scum]

1) If he was fetching something, it certainly wasn't water.
2) If he was doing anything related to water at the construction site, it wasn't fetching.

Neither of those is an affirmative statement.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Neither of those is an affirmative statement.

They're both affirmative statements and they're both answers to your question.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Simply put, I do not accept the idea that he was there merely to get water. He may have gotten water on one of the occasions but to come back at night in a vehicle - now what?
I was just making light of the idea that he just stopped in for water. Nothing more. I am not saying whatsoever that he should have been shot or even detained.

The vehicle this is a bit strange. But we don't really know that he was there in a vehicle. After the 2/11 incident Perez gave the police a description of a vehicle he thought might be the guy's car. He didn't actually see the guy get in the car and leave. They searched around looking for the guy, so Perez must not have been too confident that the guy had even left. It may have just been a car that was there earlier that now wasn't there so it was simply a possibility that the car belonged to the guy. I think Perez may have been mistaken in that regard.

Also note that in the December 19 surveillance video we see Arbery in the front yard. He takes a few steps and then begins running. TO me it doesn't look like he is spooked and is fleeing the scene. It looks like a person jogging. He runs off to the right, the same direction as 2/23, which leads further into the neighborhood and not back toward the exit point. He is wearing a white T-shirt and white shorts, which would be suitable for jogging at night and not very good for prowling.

 

[Athyrio]

That isn't trespass, even in the ordinary meaning of the word. Using your meaning, the milkman and the postman and the Fedex Guy are trespassing when they deliver stuff to you. You are trespassing when you walk into a shop or drive into a gas station.



Again, you do not need permission to walk onto a property unless there are signs that say you must not do so. If there are no signs, you must leave if the owner tells you to.



Your comment didn't go over my head, I understood you perfectly, it just that you are, well, wrong.

It may have. The net gives different definitions of trespassing.

https://www.google.com/search?q=trespass&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari

See number 1 there.

Much to my chagrin and to my impatience with a lot of people in this thread that I hope never get selected for any kind of jury duty anywhere, I will state, once again, that I did use the word “trespassing” and all I meant by saying that was that Arbery was walking into property that did not belong to him without the owner’s permission.

 

[Athyrio]

You referred to his trespassing as a crime.

How else is someone supposed to interpret that other than criminal trespassing?

I made a mistake in saying crime in the same sentence that I said trespassing and now that others have dragged out the various and conflicting meanings of trespass and I have already explained to the legalistic purists here that I merely meant that he intruded upon some other person's property without their knowledge.

 

[Athyrio]

False Dichotomy. Since others clearly understood, then the fault appears to be with the reader rather than the writer.





Highlighting just to help you with reading and understand.

See post 2025. There's a link there. Again, I used the word trespass. It's an expression. I merely meant it in a casual way to say the guy intruded upon another guy's territory, OK? I never meant it in a legal term and only after I googled that link.

 

[Meadmaker]

Not a single person is able to explain why it matters.

Here, let's try this: For the sake of argument, let's suppose that Arbery was not getting water in that house.

Now, finish this sentence: "Given that Arbery was not fetching water, we can then rationally infer __________________"

I can think of two ways to answer why it matters.

1) I don't know, but the various media outlets that reported the lawyer's speculation that he might be getting water.

2) It has been said that the only reason one would have for visiting a construction site multiple times is to steal something. However, there are other reasons that he may have been on the construction site.

a) He was studying to be an electrcian (that's true, or at least it was said in this thread) and wanted to observe the house wiring.
b) He knew that the house was a source of water to use while running.


So, from a legal perspective, there is no real relevance to the question of what he was doing at the construction site. Nevertheless, public perception, including jury response to arguments, is colored by things which are not strictly relevant. If the public perception is that Arbery was a burglar, it will be harder to obtain a conviction of the McMichaels. I am not saying it should be harder, but it will be. Providing an explanation for his presence on the construction site that does not involve wrongdoing would make it more likely that a jury could be persuaded to convict his killer, and his killer's dad.

To put it in terms of your fill in the blank formulation, we can "logically" infer very little if we could determine that he was not getting water. There's the trivial "he was doing something else", but no other logical inferences. However, not all inferences that people make are logical. Giving an explanation of why he was there that does not involve unlawful activity would be persuasive to a lot of people, even if it wouldn't pass muster in the world of formal logic.

Finally, there's a variant on answer 1 above. It is, "I don't know if or why it matters. I saw a new story about it, so I said something about it,"

ETA: And my point in all this is that sometimes it's painful to participate in forum discussions, especially on controversial topics, because any deviations from the party line story are frequently met with accusations that must be on "the other side". Sometimes people speculate on things like whether it would be logical for Arbery to jog in that neighborhood, or what is the significance of Greg McMichael not giving a street name, or why someone visited a construction site, and whether a possible explanation is a plausible explanation. Just because someone brings up one thing from a news story that they don't think is correct does not mean that they support the side that would benefit if the thing in question were true.

 

[bluesjnr]

Not a single person is able to explain why it matters.

Here, let's try this: For the sake of argument, let's suppose that Arbery was not getting water in that house.

Now, finish this sentence: "Given that Arbery was not fetching water, we can then rationally infer __________________"

Assuming by "fetching" you mean drinking.

1) That his lawyer is mistaken?
2) That his lawyer made it up to put his client in the best possible light?
3) That he was there "casing the joint"?
4) That he was there for some other function - say micturation?
5) That he was curious once and once only?
6) That he was curious multiple time?
7) That Arbery was "cocking a snook" at those who might have ordered him off the property?
8) That Arbery was considering a career in construction?
9) That Arbery hated the wanton display of wealth that self building is and was looking to damage property at some point?
10) That Arbery loved the wanton display of wealth that self building is and was getting motivation for his future dreams?
11) That this was a break point in his run and rather stand in the street getting his breath back ('cos we all know how dangerous that might be) he hid out of sight?
A) That I am a racist because I have not been overly supportive of Arbery in my reply?
B) That I'm not a racist because I have not been overly damning of Arbery?

How am I doing up till now? I could go on.

 

[Darat]

This is what I would expect as well, except for the fact that this case has received so much publicity that a plea bargain of that sort would be politically risky.

I suppose it all depends on exactly who makes the decision to offer the plea bargain, and the demographics of the people who elect that person.

Do you realise what a damning thing you have posted about the USA justice system?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I used to carry my phone all the time (at least in my amphipod). I don't carry it with me on training runs any more, because I can listen to music through my Fitbit watch. However, I do carry my phone in races. Either way, I also track my movements on Strava, as do probably 80% of those I run with.

When I run with the local running club, maybe half carry their phones, and the other half use gps watches.

Phones are convenient in running because they can both provide music and tracking with something like MapMyRun. That is the advantage over the ipod

Same difference for this particular issue - it's not the phone that's important, but the GPS data.

By "important", of course, I mean important to that particular poster's point, not actually important when it comes to this crime.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Has this country become that polarized?

You do know that lionking is Australian, right?

 

[Myriad]

Assuming by "fetching" you mean drinking.

1) That his lawyer is mistaken?
2) That his lawyer made it up to put his client in the best possible light?
3) That he was there "casing the joint"?
4) That he was there for some other function - say micturation?
5) That he was curious once and once only?
6) That he was curious multiple time?
7) That Arbery was "cocking a snook" at those who might have ordered him off the property?
8) That Arbery was considering a career in construction?
9) That Arbery hated the wanton display of wealth that self building is and was looking to damage property at some point?
10) That Arbery loved the wanton display of wealth that self building is and was getting motivation for his future dreams?
11) That this was a break point in his run and rather stand in the street getting his breath back ('cos we all know how dangerous that might be) he hid out of sight?

If there was running water at the construction site, it's possible that there was also a functioning toilet at the construction site. That expands on the fourth option with the following non-exclusive sub-options:

4.1) 1
4.2) 2
4.3) stealing TP (which, keep in mind, was not a felony back in February)

 

[IsThisTheLife]

That lack of self awareness again, along with the usual, contorted "rationalising" - we've got a poster who, in all seriousness, is trying to re-define the meaning of 'trespass", another comparing Arbery to "Amazon drivers" (who have business being on peoples' property, where Arbery had no business being on the build site). And in the same breath telling us that others are "clutching at straws". It's almost embarrassing.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

"‘Black Forgiveness’ Is Absent From Reactions To Ahmaud Arbery’s Killing"

https://newsone.com/3941569/ahmaud-arbery-black-forgiveness/

In contrast to previous killings of unarmed black people, the family of Arbery are not talking in terms of forgiveness and Christian "turning of the cheek".

Abery's mother is has openly called for full prosecution of all involved in the murder and the death penalty.

It's refreshing to not have these "forgiveness" narratives take such prominence this time around.

 

[smartcooky]

You do know that lionking is Australian, right?

Another one who can't bring himself to make his eyes go to the left.

 

[lionking]

You do know that lionking is Australian, right?

Oh don’t tell him that. I‘m barely entitled to an opinion as it is.....

 

[catsmate]

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.

You do know none of this is true, don't you?

 

[catsmate]

No, it really doesn't.

Exactly. Except to those people with preconceived views of course.

 

[catsmate]

I'm not sure I'd characterize what he was wearing as running clothes, but he may have worn that to jog or run. But if I saw someone walking down the road wearing what Arbery(sp?) was wearing I wouldn't take that as evidence he was running or jogging.

Oh good grief...