Jogging in Georgia while black.

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeMorgue said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is another possibility. In the 21st Century, many homes are equipped with several different forms of video surveillance. It's quite possible they are looking for/at any video footage that may exist in the very moments leading up to the shooting itself. In the missing children thread a Ring Doorbell captured the last time the younger child was seen. There could be footage of the idiots chasing through the neighborhood like loonatics in the truck, while Abrey is still calming jogging along, clearly unaware of the fate that shortly awaits him. There may even be different views of the shooting itself, and I haven't ruled out dad getting a birdseye view from the truck bed.
I'd very much like to hope, that even in 2020 Georgia, the GBI would look for just the evidence and facts as they truly exist, not be all about trying to find a way to frame a dead man, and get a cold blooded killer off the hook, lest the REAL FBI come knocking.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
Well, where is the official line between immediate and non immediate knowledge?
Click to expand...
I'm sure there are some gray areas, but thinking something might have happened at some previous time is not immediate, and remember too that the crime for which pursuit is allowed is a felony.

I would suppose that for someone not intending to obfuscate and make excuses, immediate knowledge might include hearing an altercation in the neighborhood, hearing a person yelling "stop thief," recognizing a stolen object in the hands of a person running away, watching a closed circuit TV, and so forth. Things that a reasonable person would consider immediate knowledge of a crime without actually seeing it committed.

I'm sure that if pressed you can come up with a legalistic transitive construction that proves that ambushing a jogger in the street is the same as confronting him with his hand in your jewel box, but you would do better to send it to the shooter's attorney than here.
 
JoeMorgue said:
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.
Click to expand...

More information is better. A thorough investigation is a good idea. Failure to do a thorough investigation of items that might be relevant can result in convictions being tossed out.
 
bruto said:
I'm sure there are some gray areas, but thinking something might have happened at some previous time is not immediate, and remember too that the crime for which pursuit is allowed is a felony.

I would suppose that for someone not intending to obfuscate and make excuses, immediate knowledge might include hearing an altercation in the neighborhood, hearing a person yelling "stop thief," recognizing a stolen object in the hands of a person running away, watching a closed circuit TV, and so forth. Things that a reasonable person would consider immediate knowledge of a crime without actually seeing it committed.

I'm sure that if pressed you can come up with a legalistic transitive construction that proves that ambushing a jogger in the street is the same as confronting him with his hand in your jewel box, but you would do better to send it to the shooter's attorney than here.
Click to expand...

It seems that this thread would be for the legalistic transitive constructions.

And the felony that will be alleged is likely theft. And this is a good time to remind that reasonable suspicion still allows you to be wrong 70%, of the time.

I would say I'm never going to go poor betting against the legal outcomes you would prefer. What do you think?
 
Ahmaud was not some random black guy out for a jog, Gregory McMichael knew Ahmaud Arbery from a previous investigation. It would have been correct for Gregory to send the police to Ahmaud's home to investigate, but since he was still in cop mode, instead of reporting to the police that there was a suspect they should question, he decided to take the law into his own hands, aka vigilante justice. William "Roddie" Bryan was just part of the posse.

Travis McMichael, on the other hand, had his finger on the trigger. One basic rule of gun ownership, Keep your damn finger off the trigger, until you have a target, and are prepared to shot. (Maybe he did have a target, and was prepared to shoot, that dammed uppity ******!)


I wonder if Gregory thought Ahmaud got off too easy from previous crimes, and this time he was going to catch that criminal in the act, and make sure he gets what's due.


[slightly off topic, but replying to previous comments]
Also, in CA (for a citizen), if you pull a weapon from conceal carry, you must fire, or else your guilty of brandishing. Showing a weapon to stop an attack is not legal. No doubt the military has different ROE's.
 
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 at least a 1/3 chance that he pointed the shotgun first. Hence a dead certainty.
 
JoeMorgue said:
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.
Click to expand...

You might be reading more into it than is there. It could be they are looking at more video so they can fully prove that the justification of him being a burglar is a total fantasy.
 
Even though we have a video of events leading up to the killing of the jogger people are still repeating the bogus narrative put out by the killers.

The released video does not show two white men pursuing the jogger at all.


It would appear the jogger is blocked from retreating since the video taker and/or the driver is behind him so he is trapped.
 
dejudge said:
Even though we have a video of events leading up to the killing of the jogger people are still repeating the bogus narrative put out by the killers.

The released video does not show two white men pursuing the jogger at all.


It would appear the jogger is blocked from retreating since the video taker and/or the driver is behind him so he is trapped.
Click to expand...

That is like saying a cop using spoke strips is not part of a police pursuit, or that cop cars boxing in a fleeing car are not pursuing it.
 
Meadmaker said:
More information is better. A thorough investigation is a good idea. Failure to do a thorough investigation of items that might be relevant can result in convictions being tossed out.
Click to expand...

Mike! said:
There is another possibility. In the 21st Century, many homes are equipped with several different forms of video surveillance. It's quite possible they are looking for/at any video footage that may exist in the very moments leading up to the shooting itself. In the missing children thread a Ring Doorbell captured the last time the younger child was seen. There could be footage of the idiots chasing through the neighborhood like loonatics in the truck, while Abrey is still calming jogging along, clearly unaware of the fate that shortly awaits him. There may even be different views of the shooting itself, and I haven't ruled out dad getting a birdseye view from the truck bed.
I'd very much like to hope, that even in 2020 Georgia, the GBI would look for just the evidence and facts as they truly exist, not be all about trying to find a way to frame a dead man, and get a cold blooded killer off the hook, lest the REAL FBI come knocking.
Click to expand...

No.

"Hey here's there's a guy who looks like the guy who committed a string of robberies (that again I need to point out didn't actually seem to happen) does not by any sane standard meet the criteria laid out in the Georgia's Citizen Arrest Law.

The McMicheals did not personally witness Arbery commit a felony and were attempting to hold him for custody. They just somehow "knew" that he was the guy that commuted a bunch of robberies that may or may not have happened. And we can't just pretend like the only qualifying information they provided was "There's a black guy running down the street." You can't just go back and pretend that wasn't the only identifying factor they decided was important. That's not a thing you can say and then pretend like it doesn't matter. We're not going to just skip over that part of the 911 call.

The Georgia Citizens Arrest concept does not justify after the fact vigilantism and it does not apply heere simply because the two men in question claim it does; no more than Castle Doctrine applied in Guyver's shooting of Jean or "Stand your Ground" applied in Zimmerman's shooting of Martin.

You do not get to invoke legal concepts designed to protect citizens rights when they have to protect themselves in certain situations where you are mistaken or otherwise just not in the situation, regardless of what the "Mistake of Fact / In Mens Rea" fetishes argue, lest of not without putting "Don't murder people" on the honor system.

Even by their own admission the McMichaels were not attempting to stop Arbery from committing or fleeing a felony. The entire "Citizens Arrest" side-discussion is invalid. It does not apply here.

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS
ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS
§ 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest
O.C.G.A. 17-4-60 (2010)
17-4-60. Grounds for arrest

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.
Click to expand...

By stretching the definition to mean:

"Offense committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge" to include "looks like a guy."

"Attempting to escape" to mean "jogging down the road in broad daylight"

"Felony" to mean "Any crime at all." (Hey here's a question... even in the McMichaels' version of the story what felony was being committed? Trespassing? Simple burglary? Parole violation?")

And "arrest" to mean "Run down in a pickup brandishing fire arms and gun down when he resists."

Then you're just handing people a blank check to murder.

And sure one can, and many will, play the "Well a jury has to find it reasonable" all that does is basically go "Well it's not a racists murder if you can find enough racist to fill a jury box" which... is still sadly easy to do.

Again every argument apologetic made in this thread would work just as well for every single lynching that ever happened.

People are doing the same thing here they did in the Zimmerman and Guyver thread, going through each step and demanding they be looked at in a vacuum with the absolute most insane level of "benefit of the doubt" and ignoring the full picture it paints.

We can't go back and re-write the narrative after the fact so the authorities weren't playing the "Oh he's a violent black thug" from the beginning and that the two shooters weren't focused on him for being black.
 
Last edited:
dejudge said:
Even though we have a video of events leading up to the killing of the jogger people are still repeating the bogus narrative put out by the killers.

The released video does not show two white men pursuing the jogger at all.


It would appear the jogger is blocked from retreating since the video taker and/or the driver is behind him so he is trapped.
Click to expand...

BobTheCoward said:
That is like saying a cop using spoke strips is not part of a police pursuit, or that cop cars boxing in a fleeing car are not pursuing it.
Click to expand...

I really don't like the "he's trapped" narrative. He's only "trapped" if he confines himself to the motorway, which is unfortunately what he did. He's on foot and at least used to jogging, the rednecks are in a truck and a car, plus at least two of the three are fat. He has a clear advantage if he can keep his distance and cut between houses where truck/car can't easily pursue. Why he continued anywhere near the truck is something he'll take with him, and we'll never know.
None of the above offers any excuse for the rednecks to put him in any position that requires flight. They all three need to be facing jail time, as all three participated in this travisty.
 
Last edited:
We really need someone with the right equipment to do an enhancement of the footage, it's hard to say for sure that a gun is being pointed.
 
Cops (ostensibly) also have to have a level of "reasonable suspicious" beyond "Well a black guy committed a bunch of robberies that nobody actually report and now there's a black guy jogging down the street" before trying to detain/arrest/question someone. Cops don't take their sons along to arrest people.

And also... when a cop shoots a suspect during an arrest, even if it is 100% cut and dried justifies there should at least be an investigation. It should be the kind of thing we only hear about months later because a video leaks out.

Again people are doing the same thing the did for Zimmerman and Guyger, creating two personas for them to slip in and out of at whim; that of scared victim and that of law enforcing citizen / cop so at every step of the process that leads up to the death black guy they get to pick and choose which persona makes them look better.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
Cops (ostensibly) also have to have a level of "reasonable suspicious" beyond "Well a black guy committed a bunch of robberies that nobody actually report and now there's a black guy jogging down the street" before trying to detain/arrest/question someone.
Click to expand...

...I think they can.
 
Meadmaker said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would agree, yes.

If he pointed the gun at him prior to Mr. Arbery's physical assault being launched on him, that would constitute a crime per my understanding of Georgia law.

Though to be totally honest, if these three civic-minded concerned neighbors, including an ex-cop, recognized him and believed him to be someone who was stealing from the neighborhood multiple times recently - and they were correct - and he refused to stop when asked/told to after being caught, then I would want to see these men get off free of any consequence even if the one guy did point the shotgun at him to try to get him to stop.

I don't think he did so, but I can't say I'm positive he didn't. I think there's a decent chance he did. I would want to see him get away with having done so, if he did.

ETA:

Because ultimately, I just do not feel it is remotely right for law-abiding men trying to protect their neighborhood to end up in jail for years on top of already having been made national hate figures, because they tried to stop a robber victimizing their area by confronting him and trying to hold him until police arrived, simply because that robber made the wildly stupid and reckless decision to attack them.

Everything about this situation is due to the deceased's insanely stupid behavior and choices to be a violent criminal. That should not translate into 1, 2, or 3 good men in prison for years, or even days.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom