Jogging in Georgia while black.

[Thermal]

I very much doubt that they feel they did anything wrong even now. They undoubtedly understand their legal jeopardy and probably wish they hadn't done this way purely for practical reasons, but I doubt they think what they did was unjust or immoral.

Meta-note: we are Rorschaching the hell out of the actors here. We know next to nothing about their opinions and thoughts, which is partially why I was considering a different take on what Arbery was thinking (annoyed v terrified).its a little dicey to assume so much about an actor's POV with so little first-hand testimony.

I mean, we are all projecting a ton of narrative here, based on scarce actual words. Hackneyed stereotypes are running rampant. I look forward to this trial, to see how our collective starting assumptions play out.

 

[Thermal]

Agreed in whole, with one minor reservation.

It has been some time, but I thought some of the police on the scene thought that there should be an arrest but that the DA stepped in and stopped any further investigation or arrest. I could be wrong, but I thought that some of the police actually had a spine, but the DA stepped in.

That's my recollection, too. Some Georgia cops, like property owner English and neighbor Perez, don't fall into the stereotypes pushed about Southern good ol' boys

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Agreed in whole, with one minor reservation.

It has been some time, but I thought some of the police on the scene thought that there should be an arrest but that the DA stepped in and stopped any further investigation or arrest. I could be wrong, but I thought that some of the police actually had a spine, but the DA stepped in.

Maybe we'll find out how the Roddy video was released. It's possible that Roddy himself was showing it to his friends and one of them decided to leak it to the media.

A more salacious and interesting speculation is that some cop leaked it. Perhaps they were unhappy with the DA's decision to hand-wave away a murder and took some action as a whistleblower.

If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on Roddy just sharing it out to show off.

 

[Thermal]

Maybe we'll find out how the Roddy video was released. It's possible that Roddy himself was showing it to his friends and one of them decided to leak it to the media.

A more salacious and interesting speculation is that some cop leaked it. Perhaps they were unhappy with the DA's decision to hand-wave away a murder and took some action as a whistleblower.

If I were a betting man, I'd put my money on Roddy just sharing it out to show off.

Wasn't it upthread reported that it was a lawyer Roddy had consulted who released it to local TV? Seems he would need express permission to do so to not violate client confidentiality. And the Rod, if not a complete idiot, would have to realize (and outright advised by councel) that he was putting his balls back up on the chopping block? Makes me think Roddy was coming clean.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Wasn't it upthread reported that it was a lawyer Roddy had consulted who released it to local TV? Seems he would need express permission to do so to not violate client confidentiality. And the Rod, if not a complete idiot, would have to realize (and outright advised by councel) that he was putting his balls back up on the chopping block? Makes me think Roddy was coming clean.

Your comment made me look, and it's even crazier than that:

Channel 2 investigative reporter Mark Winne has confirmed that Greg McMichael leaked the video to a radio station, starting the avalanche of attention that landed him in jail on murder charges with his son.

Brunswick attorney Alan Tucker says Greg McMichael wanted to clear up some rumors circulating in the community and he had no idea the video would spark global outrage.

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/exclusive-man-charged-ahmaud-arbery-murder-leaked-original-video-shooting/KCWVSD4IP5FPRO24I47ZBMPPNE/

The father of the shooter, seen in the pickup truck, released the video in order to try to salvage his reputation. That really shows you how distorted his sense of morality is. He thought the video would exonerate him, not kick off a spiral that resulted in him, his son, and his other accomplice facing a murder charge.

I can't see anything about him consulting with a lawyer prior to releasing it. I would doubt any lawyer would advise such a course of action unless they were incompetent. Legally speaking, there's no benefit and only risk.

 

[Thermal]

Your comment made me look, and it's even crazier than that:



https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/exclusive-man-charged-ahmaud-arbery-murder-leaked-original-video-shooting/KCWVSD4IP5FPRO24I47ZBMPPNE/

The father of the shooter, seen in the pickup truck, released the video in order to try to salvage his reputation. That really shows you how distorted his sense of morality is. He thought the video would exonerate him, not kick off a spiral that resulted in him, his son, and his other accomplice facing a murder charge.

I can't see anything about him consulting with a lawyer prior to releasing it. I would doubt any lawyer would advise such a course of action unless they were incompetent. Legally speaking, there's no benefit and only risk.

Holy. ****.

Ok, I retract my earlier observation about stereotypes. This a a straight up confirmed Deliverance level imbecile.

Eta: I see Greg also leaked the video...to a radio station. Add "effective/appropriate media" to the growing list of concepts that are beyond the McMicheals' grasp.

 

[Meadmaker]

Releasing the vid to the public via his proxy is harder to explain. Attack of conscience? Foolish desire for fame? I can't make sense of it.

Not grasping the concept of "felony murder".

I'm sure that all three of these people were certain that the videotape proved their innocence. "See, it is clear that Travis was acting in self defense!"



"Huh? What the hell is a context?"

People can be incredibly delusional in the way they judge things.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Meta-note: we are Rorschaching the hell out of the actors here. We know next to nothing about their opinions and thoughts, which is partially why I was considering a different take on what Arbery was thinking (annoyed v terrified).its a little dicey to assume so much about an actor's POV with so little first-hand testimony.

I mean, we are all projecting a ton of narrative here, based on scarce actual words. Hackneyed stereotypes are running rampant. I look forward to this trial, to see how our collective starting assumptions play out.

Your comment made me look, and it's even crazier than that:



https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/exclusive-man-charged-ahmaud-arbery-murder-leaked-original-video-shooting/KCWVSD4IP5FPRO24I47ZBMPPNE/

The father of the shooter, seen in the pickup truck, released the video in order to try to salvage his reputation. That really shows you how distorted his sense of morality is. He thought the video would exonerate him, not kick off a spiral that resulted in him, his son, and his other accomplice facing a murder charge.

I can't see anything about him consulting with a lawyer prior to releasing it. I would doubt any lawyer would advise such a course of action unless they were incompetent. Legally speaking, there's no benefit and only risk.

Holy. ****.

Ok, I retract my earlier observation about stereotypes. This a a straight up confirmed Deliverance level imbecile.

Eta: I see Greg also leaked the video...to a radio station. Add "effective/appropriate media" to the growing list of concepts that are beyond the McMicheals' grasp.

Sometimes they are just that transparent.

 

[lobosrul5]

I think it's because of the rampant crime that police would most likely be called in my area. My home state of West Virginia has had a huge drug problem in recent years and people stealing pretty much anything that's not nailed down from anywhere they can to support their drug habits has been a significant local problem. I think anyone observing people at a construction site that they didn't seem to belong at would immediately assume the trespassers were there to be stealing something.

Not a construction site, but we had a local case last summer where a lot of outbuildings and sheds in the area were being broken into and tools disappearing. It turned out to be a homeless man from the area, he was caught when he started pawning the stuff instead of just selling it to people around the area and the police were able to locate his hobo camp in the woods after talking to the pawn shop and found a huge cache of tools and equipment that he hadn't sold yet.

Thats not really the same thing as: you see someone who was jogging by, clearly in jogging clothing, and stops at a residence under construction in the evening. Believe me, I know about "hobos" and drug addicts ripping things off. I live in Albuquerque, I used to think Breaking Bad was kinda accurate but an over-exageration, but lately its more like an under-exageration

 

[Thermal]

Thinking about this construction site surveillance thing a little: I'm a contractor, and never put cameras on my sites. What i damn sure do is secure the thing, either with locked doors or at least a couple sheets of plywood. That effectively stops people from wandering in.

So English springs for cameras and monitoring, saving the recordings for months, but can't spring for a.sheet of ply and a few screws? No, he wanted to catch someone, not stop them.

The footage shown of others on the site shows the same interlopers: two boys on bicycles, who fool around a little by the front door, and a white couple, who peek in and leave. Then a few different nights of Arbery footage. Starting to think English is putting on a halo out of self-preservation.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Thinking about this construction site surveillance thing a little: I'm a contractor, and never put cameras on my sites. What i damn sure do is secure the thing, either with locked doors or at least a couple sheets of plywood. That effectively stops people from wandering in.

So English springs for cameras and monitoring, saving the recordings for months, but can't spring for a.sheet of ply and a few screws? No, he wanted to catch someone, not stop them.

The footage shown of others on the site shows the same interlopers: two boys on bicycles, who fool around a little by the front door, and a white couple, who peek in and leave. Then a few different nights of Arbery footage. Starting to think English is putting on a halo out of self-preservation.

English never reported any thefts to the cops, nor asked any of these goons to look after his property or cooperated with them in any way. He didn't provide them with any surveillance cam footage, and I don't think anyone was aware of such footage until after the murder.

I don't see any evidence that English was involved in any way, beyond a convenient pretext by the killers to stop and try to arrest someone they felt was responsible for crime.

One of the dimwit McMichaels had a pistol stolen from his unlocked truck, and that seems to be the impetus for this poorly conceived lynch mob. In some states, storing a gun in an unlocked vehicle is a crime. It's dumb as hell and wildly irresponsible in every state, but Georgia doesn't seem to care about that.

Graddy said her client wants to "correct the mistaken impression" that English had shared the video or any other information about what had occurred at the property with the McMichaels before the shooting or at all. English had only briefly met the younger McMichael once in 2019, when he went to the construction site to introduce himself, Graddy said.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/owner-empty-house-ahmaud-arbery-allegedly-entered-shooting-might-not-n1205191

One of the McMichaels claims to have seen someone trespassing on the property previously, and they sent out armed patrols in that instance as well, but never encountered the person. English was never involved in any meaningful way. He never complained about any of the multiple trespassers at his site.

 

[Thermal]

English never reported any thefts to the cops, nor asked any of these goons to look after his property or cooperated with them in any way. He didn't provide them with any surveillance cam footage, and I don't think anyone was aware of such footage until after the murder.

I don't see any evidence that English was involved in any way, beyond a convenient pretext by the killers to stop and try to arrest someone they felt was responsible for crime.

One of the dimwit McMichaels had a pistol stolen from his unlocked truck, and that seems to be the impetus for this poorly conceived lynch mob.

But thats exactly the point: English says he lut up the cameras because he was concerned about public safety and liability, not theft. If you are concerned about liability, you secure the site. If you are trying to catch someone, you set up surveillance cameras and record and store the footage for months.

What was he going to do with the tapes "for public safety"? Use facial recognition to identify the trespassers and send them astrongly worded letter?

Cameras on a wide open accessible site mean one thing: a trap. Otherwise, plywood off the door frame like the rest of us.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I'm not suggesting anyone's lying, by the way. But it's not something I've seen, like, ever. My understanding is that protective equipment is required by law on all construction sites (they call certainly have signs up calling for it) and since the land the construction is on, you could be charged with trespassing for entering.

But Australia is certainly more open to regulation than the US is, where it seems to be a dirty word.

I have only seen it when it's a private house being built in a neighborhood. Not for any kind of commercial construction.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

But thats exactly the point: English says he lut up the cameras because he was concerned about public safety and liability, not theft. If you are concerned about liability, you secure the site. If you are trying to catch someone, you set up surveillance cameras and record and store the footage for months.

What was he going to do with the tapes "for public safety"? Use facial recognition to identify the trespassers and send them astrongly worded letter?

Cameras on a wide open accessible site mean one thing: a trap. Otherwise, plywood off the door frame like the rest of us.

I don't see much point in criticizing English. He never did anything nefarious with this footage. maybe he felt better being able to keep an eye on his unattended property.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Definitely towards the wrong end if you end up suggesting that black people need to change their behaviour to make it harder for white people to murder them; it's getting like advising women not to go out after dark.

Dave

Just FYI, as a female human, I advise other female humans not to go out after dark alone. Always take someone with you, or be armed.

It's all great to acknowledge that the females and the people of color aren't the source of the problem... it's another to suggest that they ignore reasonable precautions and pretend there's no problem at all. Getting martyred for a cause isn't all it's cracked up to be. Neither is getting raped to prove a point.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I find it to be a pointless thought exercise though. He tried running, he tried hiding, he tried fighting back. He may be alive if had done some things differently, but no matter what he had done his fate was really up to the three men in the trucks with the guns. Just as it was the way it actually happened.

I pretty much agree with this. Hypothetically there may be something he could have done differently... but that's coming from armchair quarterbacks, sitting comfortably in front of their computer, who haven't just finished jogging, and who aren't pumped full of adrenaline and fear.

Nothing Arbery actually did was a bad choice. he did all the things that anyone could reasonably expect a person scared for their life to actually do... and probably more than any of us would have done. Seriously, if it had been me, I probably would have panicked and ran right into the speeding truck and died of a head injury. Which would be a shame, because then these vigilantes without ethics would probably go free.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Your comment made me look, and it's even crazier than that:



https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/exclusive-man-charged-ahmaud-arbery-murder-leaked-original-video-shooting/KCWVSD4IP5FPRO24I47ZBMPPNE/

The father of the shooter, seen in the pickup truck, released the video in order to try to salvage his reputation. That really shows you how distorted his sense of morality is. He thought the video would exonerate him, not kick off a spiral that resulted in him, his son, and his other accomplice facing a murder charge.

I can't see anything about him consulting with a lawyer prior to releasing it. I would doubt any lawyer would advise such a course of action unless they were incompetent. Legally speaking, there's no benefit and only risk.

We don't know exactly what happened with the release of the video. Attorney Alan Tucker said he released the video, but initially he didn't say where it came from. Then he said he got the video from Roddy. Then he said Greg came to him for help with releasing the video.

Much of this seems to be the usual sloppy news reporting. It sounds like Greg went to Tucker and they agreed to release the video. They may have gone to Roddy to get the video, but it is not clear if Roddy was involved with Tucker or not.

Greg was not Tucker's client. He was a friend.

Tucker said he released the video to ease racial tensions because he was afraid the neighborhood would turn into riots like Ferguson. He wanted to show that this wasn't just a couple of guys in a pickup truck with a Confederate flag on the back who shot a jogger in the back. But he also says Travis had absolutely no reason to get out of the truck with a shotgun and that Arbery should not have been shot. Tucker has been rather noncommittal about the case just saying he wanted the truth to be out there.

 

[Shepherd]

I don't see much point in criticizing English. He never did anything nefarious with this footage. maybe he felt better being able to keep an eye on his unattended property.

It was reported (quite some time ago now) that Larry English was actually sending videos from his surveillance cameras to the police so that they could investigate trespassers on his property.

I guess that was so that the police could quickly get there to warn the intruders to be careful, then, since it was so dangerous to be there and he was so concerned about their safety and all. ...lol

 

[bruto]

I pretty much agree with this. Hypothetically there may be something he could have done differently... but that's coming from armchair quarterbacks, sitting comfortably in front of their computer, who haven't just finished jogging, and who aren't pumped full of adrenaline and fear.

Nothing Arbery actually did was a bad choice. he did all the things that anyone could reasonably expect a person scared for their life to actually do... and probably more than any of us would have done. Seriously, if it had been me, I probably would have panicked and ran right into the speeding truck and died of a head injury. Which would be a shame, because then these vigilantes without ethics would probably go free.

Agree entirely. When we see a dire outcome like this we can always guess that some alternative would have been better, since obviously it could not have gone worse. Any guess flies. If A got him killed, he should have done B. If it turned out that B got him killed, we could as easily say he should have done A.

 

[smartcooky]

But thats exactly the point: English says he lut up the cameras because he was concerned about public safety and liability, not theft. If you are concerned about liability, you secure the site. If you are trying to catch someone, you set up surveillance cameras and record and store the footage for months.

What was he going to do with the tapes "for public safety"? Use facial recognition to identify the trespassers and send them astrongly worded letter?

"Cameras on a wide open accessible site mean one thing: a trap". Otherwise, plywood off the door frame like the rest of us.

The confirmation bias is strong in this one...

Because you think that the only reason to put in surveillance cameras was what you have stated, you then automatically assume that Mr English's reasons must match your preconceived notion. The idea that others might have a different reason doesn't seem to even enter into your thinking.

There are lots of reasons why people use security surveillance cameras...

- Insurance
- Record keeping
- Catching random intruders
- Catching a specific intruder
- Deterrent for potential intruders
- Monitoring workers

Your claim that "cameras on a wide open accessible site mean one thing: a trap" is nothing but pure, evidence-free speculation on your part.


NOTE: My business insurance company gives me lower premiums for having surveillance cameras at my place of business.... it amounts to a saving of $35 per month. Those cameras paid for themselves in less than a year