Jogging in Georgia while black.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Babbylonian said:
So, they lynched a black man with whom they were familiar instead of a stranger? Exactly what difference would that possibly make?
Click to expand...


Because if they knew him, then there was no reason to confront him. Just tell the police what happened, and let the police go to Arbery's residence and search for stolen property.
 
sir drinks-a-lot said:
Another thing I have been wondering about is if there is any evidence that Ahmaud was jogging before the incident. I know he's running in the video of the incident, and he ran out of the house, but i'm not aware of any evidence that he was out running or jogging before that.
Click to expand...

There have definitely been reports which say that he regularly jogged down that road. Not quite what you're asking, but relevant if true.
 
Shepherd said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=42073&stc=1&d=1589162554[/qimg]

Using my video player "Mplayer," I output cropped 150 by 100 pixel area frames from a 1080P version of the video I downloaded from here (with "youtube-dl"):

"Video shows fatal Brunswick shooting of Ahmaud Arbery"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIve50vSeLQ

...and then with this particular cropped frame I used my "mtPaint" image editor to scale it up to 640 by 480 pixels using one of the available algorithm choices and then tweaked the gamma, contrast and brightness just a little bit and saved it as the .jpg file you see above.

The smaller png version below is just the original 150 by 100 pixel cropped frame output by Mplayer without any modifications.

I have some animated gifs and videos, too, of what is going on here, but they are a bit larger than the allowable file sizes - if those numbers are still valid.
Click to expand...

I think it's fair to say from that that he did indeed point the shotgun at him.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
That's so important to the prosecution of the McMichaels because it really does matter at what point someone committed a crime. In the messed up world of Georgia and much of the rest of America, standing with a loaded shotgun while saying, "I want to talk to you." is legal. However, "brandishing" the weapon, or aiming it at another person, is not legal.
Click to expand...

Do you have a cite for "brandishing" a weapon, or aiming it at another person, being illegal in Georgia? I can't find one.

In fact, there was recent proposed legislation to remove brandishing from Georgia law, but that was only a change to what constituted aggravated assault (as far as I can figure the bill, which didn't pass) would have made a gun not a deadly weapon unless it was pointed at someone. I guess pistol whipping or throwing a gun at someone.)

Of course, there may be other laws or case law that make pointing a gun at someone illegal in some certain circumstances. But I don't see anything in the law directly says so.
 
It's almost as if the citizen's arrest statute includes language about "immediate knowledge" for a good reason.

The McMichaels did not have immediate knowledge of a felony being committed. They had suspicion of a felony. They had vague knowledge about a suspicious person who was, at best, trespassing in a construction site. Perhaps enough to call the police, perhaps enough to spy on him to see if he actually tried to steal anything, perhaps enough to yell at him to go away, but not enough to enact a citizen's arrest. There are a lot of options between "do nothing" and "armed confrontation" that our vigilantes did not choose.

Previous encounters are irrelevant. It's citizen's arrest, not citizen's investigation. The video of the day shows Arbery entering the construction site for about 3 minutes and does not show him committing burglary. Nowhere in the video or in McMichaels own statements do they claim they actually witnessed anything that shows an immediate knowledge of a burglary. They witnessed a trespass, cited previous alleged thefts, and made a conclusion. That's not immediate knowledge of a felony.

The limitations of citizens arrest exist precisely to avoid well-meaning (if you want to be generous) amateurs taking it upon themselves to make an arrest based on vague circumstantial evidence. McMichaels exceeded his authority under the law making the following killing unlawful.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
Once again, a thread goes meta as the tribes take their positions.
Click to expand...

"Racism is a problem" and "LOL dead black guy triggers the race baiting libs so it's a good thing" are not "tribes."

This isn't either a noble debate among intellectual equals with a difference of opinion or a slappy fight between two equally bonkers set of extremists. It a simple question of either meeting or not meeting a simple basic standard of human decency.
 
What recourse in law would the family have against the inaction of the local justice system?
 
The local justice system took action, correct action. What you're seeing now is an embarrassing caving to the mob.
 
sphenisc said:
What recourse in law would the family have against the inaction of the local justice system?
Click to expand...

Theoretically at least there is legal "Chain of Command" so to speak they can go up; State and than Federal.

Practically speaking, none really.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
The local justice system took action, correct action. What you're seeing now is an embarrassing caving to the mob.
Click to expand...

If the grand jury returns an indictment, would you still think the local DA was correct to not bring charges?

If not, what if they are convicted?
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
If the grand jury returns an indictment, would you still think the local DA was correct to not bring charges?

If not, what if they are convicted?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the grand jury has been removed from the equation at this point.

If they're convicted at trial, I will be inclined to chalk that up to the racial makeup of the jury / pressure / attention / emotion.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
If the grand jury returns an indictment, would you still think the local DA was correct to not bring charges?

If not, what if they are convicted?
Click to expand...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/10/opinions/justice-failed-ahmaud-arbery-jackson/index.html

Joey Johnson, a CNN legal analyst and a well respected criminal trial attorney gave a really good and accessible breakdown of the prosecutor's misconduct. He also explains why citizen's arrest defense won't hold water. The defendants should have something to worry about here. Georgia courts have been very harsh on the use of force in citizen's arrest cases in the past and keep to a strict interpretation of the law.

If you read the police reports the defendants claim no direct knowledge of felony. Even if there was trespass, that's not a felony which is required by the Georgia law.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
The local justice system took action, correct action. What you're seeing now is an embarrassing caving to the mob.
Click to expand...

Not according to the people that initially made the decision to not prosecute, they have said they failed to follow the professional requirements of recusing themselves if they have personal ties to the accused.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
Why on earth would Ahmaud keep running toward them if the shotgun had been pointed at him at that point?
Click to expand...

He didn't. It was at that point when Arbery suddenly changes course. He had been in the middle of the street, slightly to the left of the center line. He suddenly increases speed and moves to the right, placing a pickup truck in between him and the guy with the shotgun.



You have posted a lot of information overnight regarding previous video shot at the construction site. I'm sure more about that will be trickling out, so we'll see what it has to say, but it appears that my own narrative of the crime has been shaken. We all take the facts and construct a story around them. My narrative was that Ahmaud Arbery was jogging, and he took a peek inside a construction site. Some local yahoos saw a black man at the site, decided it was the same black man that they had heard rumors about, and went after him with their guns.

That narrative is shaken now. Assuming that the person on the surveillance videos is in fact Arbery, lots of elements of that narrative become different.

I still don't want people picking up shotguns and chasing down people who are suspected of theft. Bad things happen. People end up dead. All sorts of things can go wrong.
 
Craig4 said:
Even if there was trespass, that's not a felony which is required by the Georgia law.
Click to expand...

The apologists will never address this; that the two men were guilty even in their version of the story, because acknowledging it tips their hand that they are just looking for an excuse/justification.

The George Citizen Arrest law only covers felonies in progress, not after the fact misdemeanours.

Which is why the "Well maybe the dead black guy really was sneaking into a construction site?" side topic does not matter. It's just racist apologetics.

Unless he was running down the street with the goddamn Lindberg baby in a sack or a pound of yellowcake Uranium he still didn't need to get "detained" by two random nobodies.
 
Craig4 said:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/10/opinions/justice-failed-ahmaud-arbery-jackson/index.html

Joey Johnson, a CNN legal analyst and a well respected criminal trial attorney gave a really good and accessible breakdown of the prosecutor's misconduct. He also explains why citizen's arrest defense won't hold water. The defendants should have something to worry about here. Georgia courts have been very harsh on the use of force in citizen's arrest cases in the past and keep to a strict interpretation of the law.

If you read the police reports the defendants claim no direct knowledge of felony. Even if there was trespass, that's not a felony which is required by the Georgia law.
Click to expand...

It's pretty clear that the original decision of the DA was clearly motivated to make this seem like an uncontroversial case, when it really isn't.

Even if the McMichaels are cleared, it will be on very narrow, technical decisions that a jury or judge should make. The DA treats the claims of the killers with tremendous credulity while taking a very broad reading of the GA law. As you say, the case law around this does not support such a broad reading of the powers of citizen's arrest. It's hard to imagine the statements of any other suspected murderer being accepted with such credulity by a prosecutor.

The fact that the DA's reasoning collapsed as soon as the case was taken from him is no surprise. It was never a good faith legal interpretation. It was an argument crafted to reach a desired conclusion.
 
Meadmaker said:
That narrative is shaken now. Assuming that the person on the surveillance videos is in fact Arbery, lots of elements of that narrative become different.
Click to expand...

No. Not a single thing changes. The idea is pure racist apologetics.

This is just the "Oh well he's a thug and got what was coming to him" argument with the language cleaned up. Committing a crime doesn't forever remove you from the right to not be murdered.

It literally sickens me how many people are just tip taping their toes in glee at the idea that black guy might have been invovled in a.. minor transgression since that makes everything okay in their heads.

"Well they shot him and took turns peeing on his corpse but he smoked pot once and tore the tag off a mattress, so he maybe he wasn't so innocent after all."

Screw, and I cannot stress this enough since the MA won't let me use the F word, all of that.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom