Jogging in Georgia while black.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Tank said:
Meadmaker,

It is not clear on the video that he points the shotgun at him at that point. How have you reached such certainty that he did?
Click to expand...
It's quite clear that he did.
Slow the video down and watch it in high definition
 
Last edited:
It turns out that the video was leaked by a defense lawyer who had been in contact with the McMichaels . Apparently he thought it would help them.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
For the next few years while this all works itself out, you will understand everything which happens a lot better if you proceed with the following understanding:

The three gentlemen committed no crime, and are being charged or not charged with things entirely based on mob appeasement / outrage suppression.

If they had committed a crime here, you're right - the third man would be charged too. He was not, at least not yet, because they were doing what they felt the outrage mob was demanding - not what the law or actual evidence would indicate to do. If he is ultimately charged, it will be because they felt that too was necessary to appease / placate.
Click to expand...


I would suggest you read the confession of the murderer. Granted confessions are not 100% guaranteed to be true but given the statement I’m pretty certain this confession was true.
 
whoanellie said:
It turns out that the video was leaked by a defense lawyer who had been in contact with the McMichaels . Apparently he thought it would help them.
Click to expand...

As well it should, given that it shows him get attacked by the deceased and that him shooting was a direct response to that.
 
Meadmaker said:
Is it, generally, legal to point a shotgun at another person?
Are there circumstances where pointing a shotgun at another person is legal?
Were any of those circumstances present at the time that Travis McMichael pointed the shotgun at Ahmoud Arbery?


That's really the entirety of the issue. That question is the key to every other question about the fatal shooting of Ahmoud Arbery. So, what do you say about that question? Was it a crime to point the shotgun at Arbery? I, and most of the participants in this thread, would say that it was, in fact, a crime. Assuming you disagree, I would like to understand why you do not think it was a crime.
Click to expand...

I think the answer is obvious, and that the opinion is that it was legal to do what they did because it complied with the citizen's arrest law.

And I'm not sure claims about the meaning of the words in the law are falsifiable claims.i mean if he says they met the standard for immediate knowledge, is there anything to say to that other than no? There probably is little case history.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I think the answer is obvious, and that the opinion is that it was legal to do what they did because it complied with the citizen's arrest law.

And I'm not sure claims about the meaning of the words in the law are falsifiable claims.i mean if he says they met the standard for immediate knowledge, is there anything to say to that other than no? There probably is little case history.
Click to expand...
Why do you say it complied with the standards of the citizen's arrest law? In Georgia that law seems to be pretty specific. If Arbery was not seen committing a felony or reasonably believed to be actually fleeing a felony at the time he was apprehended, it would not comply.

The shooters' own account suggests that those standards were not met.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
Meadmaker,

It is not clear on the video that he points the shotgun at him at that point. How have you reached such certainty that he did?
Click to expand...

It seems to me that we are both acting with certainty, perhaps unwarranted.

However, to answer your question, the video that I have access to is somewhat grainy and difficult to see. However, I believe that there is enough detail to reach a conclusion. The position of Mr. McMichael's elbows and feet are apparent in the film, and are consistent with pointing a long weapon at Mr. Arbery, and are not consistent with any other activity.


Someone with better software and/or more time will have to analyze the frame to be more certain. I am 100% confident that it is possible to perform that analysis in such a way that leaves no doubt as to whether Mr. McMichael was aiming the gun at Mr. Arbery.

Is it critical to answer that question right now? I don't think so, because to understand each of our arguments we can assume the answer one way or another.

You have asserted that the three men committed no crime. It would seem to me that this assertion is contingent on the belief that no one pointed a gun at Mr. Arbery prior to the time at which Mr. Arbery assaulted Travis McMichael. Have I understood your position correctly?

In other words, pointing a gun at Ahmoud Arbery would have been a crime, right? You have asserted that there was no crime committed. Therefore, I conclude that you must believe that Travis McMichael did not in fact point his gun at Mr. Arbery. Have I got that correct?

Let me restate my understanding, so we can be certain we are on the same page. It is generally illegal for one person to point a shotgun at another person. There are some exceptions, but none of those exceptions existed at the time when Ahmoud Arbery was running toward the truck as Travis McMichael stood at the driver's side door of the truck. It is your belief that no crime was committed by Travis McMichael at that point, because you do not believe that he raised his shotgun and aimed it at Ahmoud Arbery.

Have I got that right? If not, could you please correct me.
 
bruto said:
Why do you say it complied with the standards of the citizen's arrest law? In Georgia that law seems to be pretty specific. If Arbery was not seen committing a felony or reasonably believed to be actually fleeing a felony at the time he was apprehended, it would not comply.

The shooters' own account suggests that those standards were not met.
Click to expand...

The law doesn't say "seen." It says committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.

Which means a person can conduct an arrest for crimes they were not present for.
 
The attorney for the Arbery Family is Lee Merritt who was/is the attorney for the (Botham Shem) Jean Family.
 
GLYNN COUNTY, Ga. — GBI agents in the Ahmaud Arbery murder investigation are reviewing additional video from the Glynn County neighborhood where he was shot to death as they piece together the minutes before the fatal confrontation that has drawn national attention to Georgia and its justice system.

Investigators are reviewing the tape-recorded minutes before the Feb. 23 killing, to gain a better understanding of what transpired before the shooting, according to our investigative partners at Atlanta Journal-Constitution and AJC.com.

“We are using video to put the timeline together to fill in the blanks of what happened that afternoon,” said Scott Dutton, GBI’s Deputy Director of investigations.
Click to expand...

https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/...hmaud-arbery-case/ANVAFZDNUVF63IRKEGDSSJ44SY/


Which is total bullcrap. Even if Arbery was the supposed burglar that doesn't change the actions of the shooters.

I get what they are doing. If they can show that Arbery was involved in some recent crime, they'll treat it as justification for the actions of the shooters.

"Any crime committed by a black man is grounds for their summary, outside the law execution" is the standard they are counting on.
 
Last edited:
What is most troubling is that the released video does not show a "hot pursiut" by the McMichaels.

The McMichaels are armed and waiting for the jogger in vehicle parked in the middle of road.

The hot pursuit appear to a lie from the McMichaels they have ambushed Arbery

If there is a "hot pursuit" then it was the driver of the vehicle and/or video taker behind of Arbery.

It may also be that the McMichaels and the driver and/or video taker have planned to ambush Arbery.

Now, if citizen arrest is legal in Georgia then it was the jogger who had the right to arrest those who were carrying out crimes in.his presence.

The jogger, whether he was black, white or any other color, had all right to attack the perceived criminals and was murdered because he attempted to stop them.
 
From David Wong's: 6 Things that Turn Good People Into Monsters: (Minor language cleanup to comply with the MA)

I think the reason so many racists could pass an "Are you a racist?" polygraph test is that they don't think minorities are inhuman due to their color, but rather their supposed criminality. The officer who shot Philando Castille as he sat in a car with his girlfriend and four-year-old daughter said that he thought he smelled marijuana. In his mind, this single hint of a single minor crime meant absolutely anything done in response was justified.

That he would not have done this if the driver were a whimsical white stoner dude never occurs to him -- prejudice almost always hides behind a supposed zeal for justice. Internet hate mobs never flood a woman's inbox with death threats without a JWD to justify it. ("She wouldn't be getting these calls in the middle of the night if she hadn't made fun of us on Twitter!") And where a crime doesn't exist, we'll extrapolate one. "Of course I thought my family was in mortal danger when that Mexican man approached the car! After all, if a guy will cross the border illegally, he'll rape a woman. He's already proven he doesn't care about the law!"

It's an utterly insane double standard, of course -- our own mistakes are singular instances and in no way should affect others' overall opinion of us. ("Just because I lied doesn't make me a liar!") Yet it's so seductive that virtually every hateful [butthole] you've met in your life has built their fetid nightmare of a personality upon this very foundation. They all think their daily cruelty is in response to some extreme provocation.
Click to expand...

https://www.cracked.com/blog/why-every-terrible-person-thinks-theyE28099re-hero/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom