Jogging in Georgia while black.

[sir drinks-a-lot]

Not only that, but did Ahmaud have any reason to believe the police were coming to the scene? All he could see were white guys with guns continually blocking his path.

Perhaps he might have thought so, with they way he ran out of that construction site.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

I can't recall where, but I've heard it reported several times that there is another video of the shooting. If that is true, it may (or may not) clearly show Travis pointing his gun at Arbery. It seems likely that he does it in the video, but I'm not going to take the time and slow it down and count pixels, etc. I wouldn't be surprised if there is another video. It sounds like the neighborhood was on alert, and I'll be this was a noisy spectacle.

Cite.

You really want to play this game? Sources then, for the "reported several times" claim. There's only the video from the chase car reported anywhere other than your post.

 

[Marcus]

- We know that Travis was to the left side of the front of the pickup truck when he shot Arbury the first time.

- We know that Arbury had just come around from the right side of the pickup truck, and was no closer than 2/3 the width of the pickup truck away from Travis (about 4-5 ft) when he was first shot,

- We know the first shot hit Arbury in the chest.

Its pretty damned difficult to shoot someone in the chest while holding a shotgun, without pointing it at them first.

If he lifted the shotgun in response to being charged, that would normally be self-defense. Except in this case, if they had already committed a felony ( a reasonable person would be in fear of bodily harm) then self-defense wouldn't apply.


The (now moot) point was whether they were pointing a gun at him before he made the charge, like from the guy in the back of the pickup. If they were to have a tape we haven't seen that showed this, it probably wouldn't change the outcome of the trial, just make it more certain.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

It's so ******* obvious to those of us not blinded by racism that Ahmaud had absolutely zero reason to believe that giving up would save his life. ****, even uniformed cops will shoot unarmed black people lying on the ground. Why should any black person trust random armed rednecks not to kill them, especially after being pursued like this?

Yeah, absolutely. At the very least a beating must have seemed likely from the three armed men chasing him.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Are you sure that's the account you want to go with? Because the McMichaels are saying that they were attempting a citizens arrest. You know what a citizens arrest requires? Direct knowledge of a felony. You know what trespassing is not? A felony. You what that makes what the McMichaels did? A felony. And you know what you're guilty of if someone is killed while you're committing a felony? Murder.

So are you sure that's why you want to say they were chasing him?

You've also demonstrated that the "self defence" argument doesn't hold up, too, BTW. You cannot claim self defence while committing a felony.

Nothing you said refutes what I said. To reiterate, I said that skin color wasn't a factor in what happened that day. Or, at least I haven't heard any evidence that skin color had anything to do with what happened that day.

Arbery was chased because he was suspected of committing a crime. He was shot because he charged at Travis. If he had been white and had acted exactly the same way, the same thing would have happened.

Whether or not the McMichael's were justified in doing what they did is a different question.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Nothing you said refutes what I said. To reiterate, I said that skin color wasn't a factor in what happened that day. Or, at least I haven't heard any evidence that skin color had anything to do with what happened that day.

Somebody remind me, was it the same day that the DA told the cops they didn't even have to bother asking why the two white guys shot the unarmed black guy dead, or did that piece of totally-not-racism happen on a different day?

Dave

 

[JoeMorgue]

We're firmly in the "But just wait until the whole story comes out!" defense of racism part of the script. Just like how Trayvon was going to be a thug that attacked Zimmerman when the "whole story comes out" and Jean was... somehow going to be at fault or Officer Ditzy McHorny waltzing into the wrong apartment and opening fire "when the whole story" comes out.

Funny how when black people kill white people we see that as the "whole story" and don't wait for "more of it to come out."

 

[Bob001]

.....
Arbery was chased because he was suspected of committing a crime. He was shot because he charged at Travis. If he had been white and had acted exactly the same way, the same thing would have happened.
.....

Except if he was white he would not have been suspected of a crime.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Except if he was white he would not have been suspected of a crime.

"bUt hOw caN U proVE thAT!?"

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Except if he was white he would not have been suspected of a crime.

You know this because....? White people are never suspected of a crime? There are alot of white people in prison. Surely they must have been suspected of a crime at some point in their lives?

 

[catsmate]

Nothing that happened that day was race related. Arbery wasn't being chased because he was black. He was being chased because he was suspected of trespassing. He wasn't shot because he was black. He was shot because he attacked Travis.

In a word, bollocks.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Since you are making statements of facts, where is your evidence for all this?

Where is the evidence that it was race related? Or is every interaction between people with different skin color assumed to be racial in nature to you? That seems like a rather racist view of the world.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Questions about "why" people do things rarely have simple, concise, answers.

I think it would be more accurate to say that in the absence of further evidence we cannot be certain race played a role in the incident. Legally, it is not an issue.

You said it better than I did. Thank you.

However, legally, it would be an issue if there was a hate crime enhancement added to the charges

 

[JoeMorgue]

You know this because....? White people are never suspected of a crime? There are alot of white people in prison. Surely they must have been suspected of a crime at some point in their lives?

Because a bunch of white people were trespassing at the same construction site and they weren't run down and murdered.

Do please try and keep up.

 

[Meadmaker]

You said it better than I did. Thank you.

However, legally, it would be an issue if there was a hate crime enhancement added to the charges

True.

To be honest, I'm not a big fan of "hate crime" legislation. The big thing is that the person is dead, not because he was killed for his race. I don't much care if the people chasing Arbery that day were or were not racists.

I think "hate crimes" came up for a couple of reasons. One is that it was a way of getting a federal charge in situations where state juries wouldn't convict a white man charged with killing a black man. It was a loophole to get a case into federal court in a situation where state courts were obviously not going to do justice. Another reason is that some crimes are a lot more serious than they might appear on the surface. Burning a cross in someone's yard is just petty vandalism, right? It's like TPing their trees. Well, obviously, no, but without some sort of "hate speech" or "hate crime" law, it couldn't be prosecuted as anything more than petty vandalism, and once again if the jury is biased against the victim, it might be impossible to get a conviction at all.

I would hope we are past that. I would hope that if the case is presented to a jury they will be willing to convict white men charged with killing a black men. Realistically, though, a hung jury may be a possibility.

Oh....and...of course, we have to wait until trial to see all the evidence.

 

[CaptainHowdy]

Because a bunch of white people were trespassing at the same construction site and they weren't run down and murdered.

Do please try and keep up.

Did witnesses see these white people walking into the house, then run away and decided to not call the police?

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

To be honest, I'm not a big fan of "hate crime" legislation. The big thing is that the person is dead, not because he was killed for his race. I don't much care if the people chasing Arbery that day were or were not racists.

I tend to agree, and not just in cases of murder, but all hate crimes where the motivation is taken into account. Does it really matter if person A did X to person B because person B belonged to a certain demographic? They still did X no matter what.

I think "hate crimes" came up for a couple of reasons. One is that it was a way of getting a federal charge in situations where state juries wouldn't convict a white man charged with killing a black man. It was a loophole to get a case into federal court in a situation where state courts were obviously not going to do justice. Another reason is that some crimes are a lot more serious than they might appear on the surface. Burning a cross in someone's yard is just petty vandalism, right? It's like TPing their trees. Well, obviously, no, but without some sort of "hate speech" or "hate crime" law, it couldn't be prosecuted as anything more than petty vandalism, and once again if the jury is biased against the victim, it might be impossible to get a conviction at all.

I hadn't considered your second point. It may make sense in these cases, but I'm wondering if there's still a better way to discern those kinds of cases. For example, it can probably be shown that during the cross has a sort of intimidation aspect that the TP does not, for contextual reasons. But the more I start trying to flesh that idea out, the more it starts sounding like a hate crime.

I would hope we are past that. I would hope that if the case is presented to a jury they will be willing to convict white men charged with killing a black men. Realistically, though, a hung jury may be a possibility.

It would be nice to base that off of more than hope.

Oh....and...of course, we have to wait until trial to see all the evidence.

Something almost no-one is saying.

 

[PhantomWolf]

No, felony murder is when someone is killed by someone else during a violent crime in which the defendant was a participant

This is not entirely correct under Georgia Law. The requirement for a felony murder is that the person charged with Felony Murder was partaking in an "inherently dangerous felony" at the time of the Homicide. The person themselves does not have to be the killer, correct, but even if the person themselves committed the Homicide, then if there was no "malicious forethought" in the Homicide then it is classed as a Felony Murder.

You wait outside in the getaway car when your partner does the robbery, you're grabbing the money when your partner shoots the clerk, etc. A criminal can even be charged with felony murder if his partner is killed by a victim defending himself during a crime. The reason that some people have reservations about it is that the defendant didn't directly cause the death or necessarily intend it.

https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/homicide/felony-murder/

This is only part of the situation. You need to make sure that you are looking at Georgia Law, and not a generalised version. Not all States have the same laws.

In this case one could argue that Greg M. didn't intend to kill Arbery, but he actively participated in the crimes that resulted in his death.

Which under Georgia Law means that as a participant he shares in all crimes committed by any other participants. Since Travis was also committing a felony at the point of the homicide, Travis committed Felony Murder (under Georgia Statutes) and all those participating are enjoined to that crime, thus themselves are guilty of Felony Murder as well.

Classic forum "logic". Take one statement out of context, make up the absolute worst possible thing that could be meant by it. Invent an argument around it.

In those cases, those are all just plain murder. No felony murder statute required.

Under Georgia Law the Murder provision of the Homicide Laws requires that the killer acted with "Malicious forethought." In other words that the killing was deliberate and premeditated. Homicides during crimes rarely are such and so would not fall under the provision for Murder. Instead they fall under the Felony Murder clause in which a person commits murder if they are committing an "inherently dangerous felony" at the time, i.e. one in which death is a foreseeable outcome.

Georgia is a bit different in the way it does Felony Murder as it does not have a independent Felony Murder statute, but rather has it as part of its murder statute. Under Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-2-20 "Every person concerned in the commission of a crime is a party thereto and may be charged with and convicted of commission of the crime."

Since this means that if you are party to the crime, then you can be charged with the crime, even if you didn't actually do it yourself. In the same way that if you are the get away driver you can be charged with the robbery even though you didn't enter the bank, you can be charged with any Homicide that occurs as a result of that robbery.

So yes it's the same result, just coming at it from a slightly different angle, and it does mean that they don't really have an individual Felony Murder statute, but rather a Felony Murder clause within their Murder statute.

 

[Reactor drone]

Arbury was shot in the chest, not the side or the back. So you admit that Arbury coming towards Travis McMichael.

You say he was at least five feet away when the first shot was fired. I don't think that's accurate but I'll go with that. So you're saying he was approximately two, maybe three, steps away from Travis when the first shot was fired. If Arbery was casually walking, he'd be about two seconds from being able to physically attack Travis. Since Arbery was running towards him, Travis had even less time to react. Travis showed remarkable restraint--perhaps too much considering the struggle for the shotgun that ensued,

Are you sure the first shot was frontal? Early reports said Arbery was injured in the hand and side as well as the kill shot to the upper left chest. Without knowing the autopsy details you can't tell whether the shot was into his hand and side from the side or a shot from the front that was directed to the left or right.

Travis had range advantage when he was on the road, he could have even backed off a couple of paces to maintain a defensive gap. Instead he ran towards the right side of the truck and Arbery to get Arbery back into his gunsights.

 

[smartcooky]

Are you sure the first shot was frontal? Early reports said Arbery was injured in the hand and side as well as the kill shot to the upper left chest. Without knowing the autopsy details you can't tell whether the shot was into his hand and side from the side or a shot from the front that was directed to the left or right.

Travis had range advantage when he was on the road, he could have even backed off a couple of paces to maintain a defensive gap. Instead he ran towards the right side of the truck and Arbery to get Arbery back into his gunsights.

Yes, we are 100% sure the first shot was frontal. There were three shots in all. The autopsy said he was shot in the torso, the wrist and the shoulder. We know it was in that order from the video timeline reconstruction by NYT, , which I will now post for the FOURTH time!!

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000007142853/ahmaud-arbery-video-911-georgia.html?smid=pl-share

The clues are

- Arbury is already heavily bleeding (you can see that before he is shot for the last time time)

- We see the shot that grazes him in the hand

- We see the shot that hits him in the shoulder

This leaves one shot which we don't see (because its obscured by the truck) but by process of elimination, it must be the torso shot.


But none of this makes any difference. Captain Howdy's "it was the ******'s fault" narrative is pure BS because the McMichaels were committing a felony in attempting to stop Arbury, so self-defence, castle doctrine, stand your ground etc, are all ruled out as legal defenses under GA Law. e.g. if you walk into a convenience store with a shotgun, and shoot the shelf-stacker clerk if he runs towards you, you are not going to be able to claim self-defence or stand your ground because, you were committing a felony at the time.