Jogging in Georgia while black.

[bruto]

This is one I disagree with. When I was in the Navy we (submarine force) were taught to use escalation as a means of keeping the ship safe. Verbal orders, then brandishing, then using actual force.

Brandishing was something that happened prior to actually pulling the trigger. It was a matter of relaxing if the threat went away or escalating further if the threat kept coming towards us.

I would suggest that the rules for military behavior, especially on a naval ship, are not universal. Brandishing a gun in any situation indicates at least the willingness to kill. For a civilian, not necessarily trained in naval procedure, and not under military orders to protect his situation, I think brandishing demonstrates a willingness so unrestrained and unmitigated by explicit procedure that it overlaps considerably with intent, and should be interpreted thus.

Again, I should mention that my civilian gun etiquette was provided long long ago by (ironically enough) the NRA and its participation with the Boy Scouts, wherein it was drilled into us that you should always consider a gun loaded until you've confirmed correctly that it is not, and that you should never point or brandish a weapon unless you intend to fire it.

 

[Darat]

This is one I disagree with. When I was in the Navy we (submarine force) were taught to use escalation as a means of keeping the ship safe. Verbal orders, then brandishing, then using actual force.

Brandishing was something that happened prior to actually pulling the trigger. It was a matter of relaxing if the threat went away or escalating further if the threat kept coming towards us.

If you are pointing a loaded lethal weapon at someone then your intent has to be to kill them. Otherwise there would be no reason for you to be pointing a lethal weapon at them.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This is one I disagree with. When I was in the Navy we (submarine force) were taught to use escalation as a means of keeping the ship safe. Verbal orders, then brandishing, then using actual force.

Well I was in the Navy too and I'm pretty sure if someone tried to board the ship and a day later I saw someone he "looked like that guy" walked down the street while I was just driving around off duty and I got out and shoved a gun in his face and shot him when tried to fight back I'd be in Leavenworth.

And no you were not ever taught to "brandish" a weapon as part of any normal behavior in the military.

 

[Darat]

But the brick wall we hit, we hit hard in the Amber Guyger thread and it pops up a lot in other cases, is that if the two gun happy twits believed the fiction, that somehow makes it okay.

We're going to go through the same routine again. They "honestly" thought he was the burglar so this and that and this and that and oh look another dead black guy.

Which is why for me this is again a very clear cut case. Like in her case these criminals decided to aim a loaded lethal weapon at someone, therefore they had the intent to kill him and they did go on to kill him. It's premeditated murder. Especially when they had conspired to undertake this killing.

 

[bruto]

I would cut them some slack on that one. If they thought it was Arbery, and later it turned out that they were right, I would cut them some slack that they didn't do sufficient analysis to be absolutely certain.

However, in reality, I think the chance that they actually saw Arbery on any videotape committing any crime is about the same as the chance that a dead squirrel was actually a hammer.

Even if they were 100 percent sure Arbery was the right person, unless they saw him commit a felony, or had good reason to believe he was actively fleeing a felony he had just committed, they were criminally wrong. Their own testimony belies that somewhat generous interpretation of citizens' arrest.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

Ultimately, his decision to start throwing punches and grabbing guns is why he was shot. ...snip....

Nope - it was the conspiracy to commit a killing carried out by the 2 (or perhaps it is three) criminals that led to his murder.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Nope - it was the conspiracy to commit a killing carried out by the 2 (or perhaps it is three) criminals that led to his murder.

Serious question, what percentage likelihood do you think these 3 white men thought there was that they'd end up killing Ahmaud as they got into their vehicles?

It sounds like you're saying 100% - or near it?

I'm flabbergasted if you actually believe that. I don't think they considered it likely at all. Near to the point of 0% in fact.

 

[Darat]

And the reason I am using the term "conspired" is from reading the initial police collected statement:

...snip...

McMichae1 stated he was in his front yard and saw the suspect from the break-ins "hauling ass" down Satilla Drive toward Burford Drive. McMichae1 stated he then ran inside his house and called to Travis ( PEMichae1) and said, "Travis the guy is running down the Street lets go". McMichae1 stated he went to his bedroom and grabbed his . 357 Magnum and Travis grabbed his shotgun because they didn' t know if the male was armed or not". 1%Michae1 stated, "the other night" they saw the same male and he stuck his hand down his pants which lead them to believe the male was armed.

...snip...

They made the joint decision to deliberately get their lethal weapons to go after the victim. At every stage of this incidence their intent was to kill the victim.

 

[Darat]

Serious question, what percentage likelihood do you think these 3 white men thought there was that they'd end up killing Ahmaud as they got into their vehicles?

It sounds like you're saying 100% - or near it?

I'm flabbergasted if you actually believe that. I don't think they considered it likely at all. Near to the point of 0% in fact.

Under the law you are responsible for your own actions and are meant to understand that your actions can have consequences. Deciding to take a lethal weapon was showing an intent to use that lethal weapon otherwise there is no reason for them to have taken the weapon. This killing followed as a consequence of their decision to use lethal weapons, that is why they are clearly guilty of murder.

ETA: If you are with someone who commits a murder you can also be charged with murder. The classic example of this is an unarmed getaway driver in an armed bank robbery in which one of the actual robbers killed someone.

 

[bobdroege7]

Amber Guyver was a cop and still nearly got off and had a lot of defenders because she was a cop when it was convenient and not a cop when it was convenient.

The same dance will be danced here. They'll be citizens acting as cops because of "citizens arrest rights" when convenient, citizens just defending themselves from teh big scawwy black guy when not.

I think this case is worse than what Amber Guyger did, and those two guys should get a longer sentence than Amber Guyger.

I think the argument that one has the right to make a citizens arrest is on shaky legal ground. And in this case they clearly did not meet the necessary requirements to make said arrest.

So premeditated murder in my opinion.

 

[Meadmaker]

Serious question, what percentage likelihood do you think these 3 white men thought there was that they'd end up killing Ahmaud as they got into their vehicles?

It sounds like you're saying 100% - or near it?

I'm flabbergasted if you actually believe that. I don't think they considered it likely at all. Near to the point of 0% in fact.

I know this was addressed to Darat, but I'll give my answer.

I think they expected that they would point their weapons at him and he would submit, and the cops would collect him. I think that's what they expected to happen.

I don't think they considered any of the other possible ways this would end, or the probabilities of the various outcomes.


Which was unfortunate for them, because they are responsible for those other endings as well, the ones that involve them going to jail.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

And the reason I am using the term "conspired" is from reading the initial police collected statement:



They made the joint decision to deliberately get their lethal weapons to go after the victim. At every stage of this incidence their intent was to kill the victim.

I believe the thought of killing him barely, if at all, even lightly brushed across their cortexes prior to the 5 seconds or so at the end of the video.

They brought the guns for self defense so they wouldn’t go out and verbally confront a criminal only to then get shot dead by him for their trouble if he proved to be armed and violent.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Skeptic Tank.

If two black guys with guns jumped out of a vehicle and told you that you looked like a guy that had broke into a bunch of houses in their neighborhood, how would you react?

 

[CORed]

When did they call the police.

It may prove impossible to prove the timing, but I would not be a bit surprised if the call to the police to report that they were after the burgar/tresspasser happened after they shot him.

 

[wollery]

I believe the thought of killing him barely, if at all, even lightly brushed across their cortexes prior to the 5 seconds or so at the end of the video.

They brought the guns for self defense so they wouldn’t go out and verbally confront a criminal only to then get shot dead by him for their trouble if he proved to be armed and violent.

So they are initiating contact with a man they believe may be an armed criminal and are taking their own guns to counter the possibility that he is armed.....

....and they didn't consider that they might have to shoot him?

Are you suggesting that they have the collective brain-power of a retarded macaque?

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Skeptic Tank.

If two black guys with guns jumped out of a vehicle and told you that you looked like a guy that had broke into a bunch of houses in their neighborhood, how would you react?

I would halt and get quite nervous and explain that I had not done so, but that we should call the police to settle the matter. If they said they already had called, I would wait there and give them zero reason to perceive me as a threat.

I'd do this with white guys too but I'd probably be even more likely to tread lightly and speak gently if it were a couple of black guys.

 

[pgwenthold]

Okay so, to the apologists, what was the ideal outcome here? What should have happened.

The guy just meekly and politely submits to the two random guys, the real police come, take him in for questioning?

But there is no reason to believe that the murderers would have remained calm.

What would have happened if he meekly surrendered? I mean, got to William Parcher's claim that he should have given them his wallet. What would have happened?

They would have have tackled him, of course. And then, when he struggled, that's when they would have shot him.

 

[Darat]

I believe the thought of killing him barely, if at all, even lightly brushed across their cortexes prior to the 5 seconds or so at the end of the video.

They brought the guns for self defense so they wouldn’t go out and verbally confront a criminal only to then get shot dead by him for their trouble if he proved to be armed and violent.

No they did not, they were not in any danger when they decided to arm themselves with lethal weapons so they can't claim self defence reasons when they killed him as a result of their chosen actions. That is exactly the same as saying a mugger who's victim fights back and then takes his gun out and shoots the victim only brought his lethal weapon for "self defence".

 

[JoeMorgue]

I think this case is worse than what Amber Guyger did, and those two guys should get a longer sentence than Amber Guyger.

I said during the Amber Guyver case that she was 100% guilty and I totally believed her story (mainly because I thought it was too convoluted to bother making up and if she had pre-planned to murder him and lie about it later there was a thousand more believable stories she could have used)

But in this case there is no functional difference to any outside observer between what happened and the two men just running down a random black guy the saw on the street and "No wait we thought he was a burglar" does sound like the kind of story you'd make up after the fact.

Not that at matters since even we take their story at face value they are guilty.

None of the facts that actually matter are in dispute.

 

[pgwenthold]

No they did not, they were not in any danger when they decided to arm themselves with lethal weapons so they can't claim self defence reasons when they killed him as a result of their chosen actions. That is exactly the same as saying a mugger who's victim fights back and then takes his gun out and shoots the victim only brought his lethal weapon for "self defence".

Self-defense against a guy that they are chasing down the road in their pickup?

"'The best defense is a good offense,' you know said that? Mel, the cook on Alice." - Ed Gruberman, Tawe Kwan Leap