Jogging in Georgia while black.

[TurkeysGhost]

Also the fact the security footage showed no fewer than 5 different people routinely trespassing at the building site.

But only one of them was run down in the street and shoot to death.

BUT NOBODY BRING THAT UP!

Yes, Arbery trespassing on the site was obviously suspicious and clearly he was a burglar caught in the act.

Pay no attention to the numerous examples of other people trespassing on the site and not stealing anything.

At least this puts the question of "who would enter a construction site just to look around" to bed. Direct video evidence that lots of people are curious about such things and don't commit any serious crimes while poking around.

If the other black man seen on surveillance on previous occasions was Arbery, that only makes the case weaker. Nothing was ever stolen or vandalized. If that was Arbery on the previous night-time footage, he had ample opportunity to steal and chose not to.

Dude was just nosey about a construction site and got murdered for it.

 

[lionking]

I might have missed it, but is there any evidence that police were dispatched as a result of the 911 call?

I’ll bet not. Police forces are normally not resourced to respond to each and every 911 call and wait for collaboration, like from other 911 calls, that an offence has occurred before dispatching the troops. At best it would be something like “if you are in the vicinity of xxx have a look”.

The reason I raise this is that I’ll bet that the McMichaels were not seriously planning to detain Arbery in the event that police turned up but were planning to mete out justice, Georgia style.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

I might have missed it, but is there any evidence that police were dispatched as a result of the 911 call?
I’ll bet not. Police forces are normally not resourced to respond to each and every 911 call and wait for collaboration, like from other 911 calls, that an offence has occurred before dispatching the troops. At best it would be something like “if you are in the vicinity of xxx have a look”.

The reason I raise this is that I’ll bet that the McMichaels were not seriously planning to detain Arbery in the event that police turned up but were planning to mete out justice, Georgia style.

https://vp.nyt.com/video/2020/05/16/86547_1_16-georgia-reconstruct_wg_1080p.mp4

Go to timestamp 6:20

"Police officers arrive within seconds of the shooting"

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Yes, Arbery trespassing on the site was obviously suspicious and clearly he was a burglar caught in the act.

Pay no attention to the numerous examples of other people trespassing on the site and not stealing anything.

At least this puts the question of "who would enter a construction site just to look around" to bed. Direct video evidence that lots of people are curious about such things and don't commit any serious crimes while poking around.

If the other black man seen on surveillance on previous occasions was Arbery, that only makes the case weaker. Nothing was ever stolen or vandalized. If that was Arbery on the previous night-time footage, he had ample opportunity to steal and chose not to.

Dude was just nosey about a construction site and got murdered for it.

Exactly. Which is why the video that set off the firestorm around this case is from Mr. English security camera as we see Ahmaud filling up his water bottle inside the house, then we see the McMichaels enter frame from the garage door, guns already pointed at Ahmaud as he kneels by the faucet.

"Whatchoo doin' in here, boy!?"

"Terribly sorry, gentlemen, just getting a drink. You see, I'm out jogging and I'm quite parched. I meant no offense"

"Well you done offended us, darkie! You're in a white man's house, in a white man's neighborhood! Pa, whatcha think we should do with this here negro?"

"Shoot him, son! Shoot him dead fer absolutely no reason t'all - t'uther than on account of him being black! and be quick about it, Travis. Your mom's famous possum stew is on the oven and you know how she gets when we ain't home in time fer supper!"

"I surely will, pa!"

*BLAM*

 

[lionking]

https://vp.nyt.com/video/2020/05/16/86547_1_16-georgia-reconstruct_wg_1080p.mp4

Go to timestamp 6:20

"Police officers arrive within seconds of the shooting"

Fair enough. Perhaps the only example of proper police behaviour in this entire sordid event.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Exactly. Which is why the video that set off the firestorm around this case is from Mr. English security camera as we see Ahmaud filling up his water bottle inside the house, then we see the McMichaels enter frame from the garage door, guns already pointed at Ahmaud as he kneels by the faucet.

You can try to launder the murder all you like, but Arbery never engaged in unlawful violence during the chase and struggle.

You can keep using tunnel vision to blame Arbery for punching Travis, but it's quite clear in context that Arbery's attempt at self-defense was 100% lawful. Arbery wouldn't have even needed a "stand your ground" defense in this situation, as he had clearly attempted to evade his attackers without success.

The McMichaels instigated violence by attempting to unlawfully detain Arbery. They committed aggravated assault and had no right to defend themselves from their victim.

 

[lionking]

Exactly. Which is why the video that set off the firestorm around this case is from Mr. English security camera as we see Ahmaud filling up his water bottle inside the house, then we see the McMichaels enter frame from the garage door, guns already pointed at Ahmaud as he kneels by the faucet.

And yet the super vigilantes simply ignored the other evil trespassers....

Look, I get your motives in this thread, but what don’t get is your determination to make stupid, imaginary posts.

Er, no I really do actually get that.

 

[whoanellie]

I might have missed it, but is there any evidence that police were dispatched as a result of the 911 call?

I’ll bet not. Police forces are normally not resourced to respond to each and every 911 call and wait for collaboration, like from other 911 calls, that an offence has occurred before dispatching the troops. At best it would be something like “if you are in the vicinity of xxx have a look”.

The reason I raise this is that I’ll bet that the McMichaels were not seriously planning to detain Arbery in the event that police turned up but were planning to mete out justice, Georgia style.

In the surveillance video shot from across the street of the construction site you can see police cars coming to the scene. I don't believe your statement about police not responding to every 911 call is standard procedure anywhere in the USA.

 

[lionking]

In the surveillance video shot from across the street of the construction site you can see police cars coming to the scene. I don't believe your statement about police not responding to every 911 call is standard procedure anywhere in the USA.

Okay, fair enough again. But responding to each and every emergency call without confirmation seems a stupid waste of resources. I’m very familiar with police procedures in Australia, and police aren’t dispatched for every call like “we think a burglar is running in the streets”.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

And yet the super vigilantes simply ignored the other evil trespassers....

Look, I get your motives in this thread, but what don’t get is your determination to make stupid, imaginary posts.

Er, no I really do actually get that.

The imaginary posts are to remind people who say silly things what would need to be true about what happened in order for the silly thing they said to actually be true.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Exactly. Which is why the video that set off the firestorm around this case is from Mr. English security camera as we see Ahmaud filling up his water bottle inside the house, then we see the McMichaels enter frame from the garage door, guns already pointed at Ahmaud as he kneels by the faucet.

You do realize strawmen are supposed to make the other side's argument look worse, right?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Because, racist though I may be, why would I want to see some high IQ, chess playing, Cosby sweater wearing black guy get shot and killed?

A more pertinent question might be why you want to see anybody shot and killed. But we all know the answer, and we can all see how you revel in it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Also the fact the security footage showed no fewer than 5 different people routinely trespassing at the building site.

But only one of them was run down in the street and shoot to death.

BUT NOBODY BRING THAT UP!

Did any of them have a terrifying afro?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Quite the disparity in which ST is parsing the reactions of the deceased Arbery vs the actions of the two killers.

According to ST, Arbery fleeing and ultimately fighting is a clear indication that he is an antagonist to law enforcement and a belligerent menace to society.

The McMichaels wildly disproportionate response to a daylight trespass doesn't elicit the same psychoanalytical speculation. The McMichaels instantaneous response to arm themselves and initiate a high-stakes confrontation is not an action worth examining for motive.

The McMichaels exercised the overwhelming majority of initiative in this murder. Again and again, they made increasingly blunderous and criminal decisions, escalating the situation. But, according to ST, the real culpability lies in the split-second reactions of Arbery.

I guess if you accept "White Fear" as the natural and reasonable state of mind, I suppose it makes sense.

 

[Thermal]

The thing is, if you are allowed to hold a loaded shotgun as Travis did on a public street (incredible, but seems to be compliant with Georgia law), it's going to come down to Travis testifying about whether or not he felt threatened.

Most of us agree that Travis was the aggressor, because running around on the streets with loaded shotguns seems utterly foreign. If it's actually legal (still have my doubts here), then a Georgia jury might find that running at them and lunging for the gun was self defense.

Again, in my State, no way in hell. But in a banjos and boomstick State, maybe.

Eta: Oh, and none of the previous trespasses matter. If nothing was vandalized or stolen, it actually works in Arbery's favor that he had a history of not comitting crimes, and so even less reason to think he was commiting one at the time.

 

[pgwenthold]

Quite the disparity in which ST is parsing the reactions of the deceased Arbery vs the actions of the two killers.

According to ST, Arbery fleeing and ultimately fighting is a clear indication that he is an antagonist to law enforcement and a belligerent menace to society.

The McMichaels wildly disproportionate response to a daylight trespass doesn't elicit the same psychoanalytical speculation. The McMichaels instantaneous response to arm themselves and initiate a high-stakes confrontation is not an action worth examining for motive.

The McMichaels exercised the overwhelming majority of initiative in this murder. Again and again, they made increasingly blunderous and criminal decisions, escalating the situation. But, according to ST, the real culpability lies in the split-second reactions of Arbery.

I guess if you accept "White Fear" as the natural and reasonable state of mind, I suppose it makes sense.

I am surprised that any regular does not have that member on ignore. He was one of my first, and has been on ignore for many years. I make it a policy of not engaging unapologetic, admitted racists. There is no rational discussion that can be had.

 

[pgwenthold]

The thing is, if you are allowed to hold a loaded shotgun as Travis did on a public street (incredible, but seems to be compliant with Georgia law), it's going to come down to Travis testifying about whether or not he felt threatened.

If he felt threatened, he should not have followed the victim around town.

You cannot provoke a fight and then claim self-defense.

 

[Myriad]

Quite the disparity in which ST is parsing the reactions of the deceased Arbery vs the actions of the two killers.

According to ST, Arbery fleeing and ultimately fighting is a clear indication that he is an antagonist to law enforcement and a belligerent menace to society.

The McMichaels wildly disproportionate response to a daylight trespass doesn't elicit the same psychoanalytical speculation. The McMichaels instantaneous response to arm themselves and initiate a high-stakes confrontation is not an action worth examining for motive.

The McMichaels exercised the overwhelming majority of initiative in this murder. Again and again, they made increasingly blunderous and criminal decisions, escalating the situation. But, according to ST, the real culpability lies in the split-second reactions of Arbery.

One could point out that the actions of the McMichaels in arming themselves to drive away or eliminate intruders is consistent with the behavior one would expect of human traffickers protecting their cellar full of chained up underage girls from discovery.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The McMichaels instantaneous response to arm themselves and initiate a high-stakes confrontation is not an action worth examining for motive.

Sure it is - the motive is that they're fine, upstanding citizens looking to protect their neighbourhood from people with scary haircuts.

 

[Meadmaker]

The thing is, if you are allowed to hold a loaded shotgun as Travis did on a public street (incredible, but seems to be compliant with Georgia law), it's going to come down to Travis testifying about whether or not he felt threatened.

Hopefully not, because that isn't the law.

The fact that a given person feels threatened is not a legal justification for taking self defense actions. The question is whether a reasonable person would feel threatened.

On the other hand, it's a distinction that juries don't always grasp, even after being instructed on the difference. In the end, it comes down to their impression of him.

A related aspect is exactly when he felt threatened. By the time Arbery's hands were reaching for Travis' shotgun, any reasonable person would feel threatened. That's the defense case. If you start the tape after Arbery turns to run toward Travis McMichael, McMichael's actions are reasonable. However, the jury will see the entire tape, and they will know that Arbery's decision to attack Travis was only made after a group of armed men had been chasing him for four minutes.

Like most people in the thread, I think it's a pretty clear case where Arbery was acting in self defense, whether or not his last decision was a wise one. Travis McMichael was the aggressor, and he committed a crime (aggravated assault), and that crime resulted in death. It seems fairly clear cut to me, but juries do some strange things.