Originally posted by Surtur
Nah, this is a lie. Rob created this thread to race bait. He wasn't after rational discourse.And when called out on his shit he flipped out. But again: we need evidence this was racially motivated before we say it was.
It wasn't. It was a response to a burglary that had happened just prior to the confrontation. Literally, Arbery had just gotten done burglarizing a place, was caught, and was quite literally on the run. The polarizing headlines in the news about him just being a jogger are lies.
Race is not involved since the person did the thing that they went after him for.
Arbery burgled a lot, he was caught this last time, they had video evidence, they caught him, they chased after him, confronted him verbally, he got aggressive and approached them, a scuffle ensued, and he died from being shot.
Nothing about this is race related other than the racists who want everything to be about race. Honing in on the race of either party is dishonest.
And this whole time, morons had me believing this had anything to do with race. I took the race-bait, yet again.
Originally posted by dadudemon
It wasn't. It was a response to a burglary that had happened just prior to the confrontation. Literally, Arbery had just gotten done burglarizing a place, was caught, and was quite literally on the run. The polarizing headlines in the news about him just being a jogger are lies.Race is not involved since the person did the thing that they went after him for.
Arbery burgled a lot, he was caught this last time, they had video evidence, they caught him, they chased after him, confronted him verbally, he got aggressive and approached them, a scuffle ensued, and he died from being shot.
Nothing about this is race related other than the racists who want everything to be about race. Honing in on the race of either party is dishonest.
And this whole time, morons had me believing this had anything to do with race. I took the race-bait, yet again.
Wow, it makes every race baiter(including those in this thread) look like a piece of shit.
Be prepared for some moron to come accuse you of defending murderers. It's the "little einstein" approach.
Originally posted by Surtur
Wow, it makes every race baiter(including those in this thread) look like a piece of shit.Be prepared for some moron to come accuse you of defending murderers. It's the "little einstein" approach.
Career criminals like this dude do not deserve this kind of sympathy and public outrage.
It's more stupid distractions.
Nothing about this is race related other than the racists who want everything to be about race. Honing in on the race of either party is dishonest.
Say it's not so......to bad MANY MANY media outlets are utilizing this position for their bottom line and not to inform the public of facts.
Democracy dies in the dark or when the media shits all over the lens it uses to present information🙂
Turns out the video evidence of him trying to steal things has been leaked.
The media isn't putting this video up. But here's a vid of him entering a house under construction on his morning "jog" in some shoes he wasn't wearing about an hour before he was shot:
Apparently, someone thought it was weird that a stranger entered their house and called 911 during this time.
This narrative has completely fallen apart.
This is not something everyone should have focused on and made it another race issue. With how much technology is improving, all this video evidence of him clearly not out on a jog completely ruins any discussion about this having anything to do with race.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Turns out the video evidence of him trying to steal things has been leaked.The media isn't putting this video up. But here's a vid of him entering a house under construction on his morning "jog" in some shoes he wasn't wearing about an hour before he was shot:
Apparently, someone thought it was weird that a stranger entered their house and called 911 during this time.
This narrative has completely fallen apart.
This is not something everyone should have focused on and made it another race issue. With how much technology is improving, all this video evidence of him clearly not out on a jog completely ruins any discussion about this having anything to do with race.
Of course this is an ongoing case, and we are only privy to a limited amount of information, but I don't see how what you says precludes a racial aspect to this shooting.
Originally posted by Artol
Of course this is an ongoing case, and we are only privy to a limited amount of information, but I don't see how what you says precludes a racial aspect to this shooting.
The burden of proof on anyone pushing the racism narrative. I have proven quite soundly that race has nothing to do with this.
What we do have is a series of break ins and video proof that this is clearly not racially motivated and, instead, a reaction to a series of burglaries.
At no point has any evidence come forward with the McMichael's stating anything racist when they decided to pursue the burglar.
The goalposts cannot be allowed to continue to move:
1. At first, it was just a jogger with an unprovoked and "racist" attack by white dues sitting around with guns.
2. Then it became vigilantes out patrolling their neighborhood and these racist white guys stopped a poor young teenager out for a jog.
3. Then it became a 25 year old with an arrest record and felony to his name including bringing a gun to a high school basketball game.
...These goalposts are getting really heavy at this, right?
4. Then it becomes a situation where the prosecutor is racist because he didn't pursue the case. Clearly, a racist prosecutor, right? Nope. The prosecutor knew the McMichael's and had worked with the father in the past. This recusal happened before this case became national news. Ethics were properly used before the microscopes were turned to this case.
5. Then it became a case where the replacement prosecutor's were racist, too. Nope, wrong again. Another work association ethics recusal.
...Now these goalposts are getting super heavy, right? Don't know if they can move any more than this...
6. Then we find out there were multiple 911 calls about Arbery breaking into a home. But there is no evidence backing it up, that we knew of. Now people are starting to question the case.
7. Then we find out there is a video of Arbery entering the home, clearly not out on a jog. Then we find out the media is not posting the video. I found it just researching this case.
8. Then we find out that there was video evidence from inside the home that Arbery decided to case. And he's not wearing the shoes he wore when shot less than an hour later.
9. This video of him inside the house under construction lasts for 3 minutes. Odd for a jog, right?
It doesn't stop there, though. Point 10 is where it should end:
10. The McMichaels got involved only after a commotion was raised in the neighborhood (by Larry English) about the burglar so they drove to find the suspect. Arbery is seen running up on the vehicle. Out for a jog in baggy cargo shorts? Odd attire for a jog.
And now to breakdown the narrative we were fed:
Arbery's family held the narrative that Abery was "just out for a Sunday jog" when he clearly wasn't. new video evidence proves that. When his parents were confronted with the new evidence that their son clearly trespassed and was casing the home under construction, they amended their story about Arbery being out for a jog. They then said that Arbery was inquisitive and just wanted to see the "bones of a home." Arbery's parents are also clearly getting some exercise because they are definitely backpedaling.
And, in fact, we know exactly what the McMichael's think. They tacitly denied that race had anything to do with the pursuit. It turns out there was a handgun stolen from a car outside their home in January. They assumed that this was the same person caught red-handed, burglarizing the neighborhood again. And he likely has the handgun that was stolen based on how he had his hands in his shorts (lol, don't know what this means but I guess some people conceal a gun not-so-subtly). Part of why they did not pursue until they had guns with them.
Still looking for the racism from the McMichael's. It's nowhere in the corrected narrative. Also, good on the news outlets who are correcting their stories. I saw several make corrections as new evidence came forward. We are still missing the 3 minutes of video of Arbery casing the house: we only got a 3 second loop from the local news station. A video that the local news had in their possession days after the shooting - they got it from the home owners. A video that the local news station kept under wraps until very recently. No doubt, they have a very smart producer at that news station.
However, it's odd and embarrassing for all the people who went jogging for Arbery. Lots of people uploaded videos of themselves to social media to express solidarity to Arbery for just wanting to go out for a jog.
I agree with your sentiment regarding overzealous reporting on sparse information. Ideally we would all be able to let processes play out and only if they for sure have gone awry were able to mobilize our attention and outrage to correct them. This has in many ways deteriorated, news has to be instantaneous, and stories have to fit very specific narratives that consumers of the main political stripes can easily understand and latch on to.
However, while I understand your frustration, all of this does not preclude that racist sentiment has played a part in what has transpired.
A more interesting discussion from my POV is whether something like this, an armed citizens arrest, shouldn't be discouraged or even forbidden. It certainly comes with a lot of issues. I can see the other sides arguments as well of course, but it seems like a sensible discussion.
Originally posted by ArtolDMB?
I agree with your sentiment regarding overzealous reporting on sparse information. Ideally we would all be able to let processes play out and only if they for sure have gone awry were able to mobilize our attention and outrage to correct them. This has in many ways deteriorated, news has to be instantaneous, and stories have to fit very specific narratives that consumers of the main political stripes can easily understand and latch on to.However, while I understand your frustration, all of this does not preclude that racist sentiment has played a part in what has transpired.
A more interesting discussion from my POV is whether something like this, an armed citizens arrest, shouldn't be discouraged or even forbidden. It certainly comes with a lot of issues. I can see the other sides arguments as well of course, but it seems like a sensible discussion.
Originally posted by meep-meep
I'm not clear on the details.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The burden of proof on anyone pushing the racism narrative. I have proven quite soundly that race has nothing to do with this.What we do have is a series of break ins and video proof that this is clearly not racially motivated and, instead, a reaction to a series of burglaries.
At no point has any evidence come forward with the McMichael's stating anything racist when they decided to pursue the burglar.
The goalposts cannot be allowed to continue to move:
1. At first, it was just a jogger with an unprovoked and "racist" attack by white dues sitting around with guns.
2. Then it became vigilantes out patrolling their neighborhood and these racist white guys stopped a poor young teenager out for a jog.
3. Then it became a 25 year old with an arrest record and felony to his name including bringing a gun to a high school basketball game.
...These goalposts are getting really heavy at this, right?
4. Then it becomes a situation where the prosecutor is racist because he didn't pursue the case. Clearly, a racist prosecutor, right? Nope. The prosecutor knew the McMichael's and had worked with the father in the past. This recusal happened before this case became national news. Ethics were properly used before the microscopes were turned to this case.
5. Then it became a case where the replacement prosecutor's were racist, too. Nope, wrong again. Another work association ethics recusal.
...Now these goalposts are getting super heavy, right? Don't know if they can move any more than this...
6. Then we find out there were multiple 911 calls about Arbery breaking into a home. But there is no evidence backing it up, that we knew of. Now people are starting to question the case.
7. Then we find out there is a video of Arbery entering the home, clearly not out on a jog. Then we find out the media is not posting the video. I found it just researching this case.
8. Then we find out that there was video evidence from inside the home that Arbery decided to case. And he's not wearing the shoes he wore when shot less than an hour later.
9. This video of him inside the house under construction lasts for 3 minutes. Odd for a jog, right?
It doesn't stop there, though. Point 10 is where it should end:
10. The McMichaels got involved only after a commotion was raised in the neighborhood (by Larry English) about the burglar so they drove to find the suspect. Arbery is seen running up on the vehicle. Out for a jog in baggy cargo shorts? Odd attire for a jog.
And now to breakdown the narrative we were fed:
Arbery's family held the narrative that Abery was "just out for a Sunday jog" when he clearly wasn't. new video evidence proves that. When his parents were confronted with the new evidence that their son clearly trespassed and was casing the home under construction, they amended their story about Arbery being out for a jog. They then said that Arbery was inquisitive and just wanted to see the "bones of a home." Arbery's parents are also clearly getting some exercise because they are definitely backpedaling.
And, in fact, we know exactly what the McMichael's think. They tacitly denied that race had anything to do with the pursuit. It turns out there was a handgun stolen from a car outside their home in January. They assumed that this was the same person caught red-handed, burglarizing the neighborhood again. And he likely has the handgun that was stolen based on how he had his hands in his shorts (lol, don't know what this means but I guess some people conceal a gun not-so-subtly). Part of why they did not pursue until they had guns with them.
Still looking for the racism from the McMichael's. It's nowhere in the corrected narrative. Also, good on the news outlets who are correcting their stories. I saw several make corrections as new evidence came forward. We are still missing the 3 minutes of video of Arbery casing the house: we only got a 3 second loop from the local news station. A video that the local news had in their possession days after the shooting - they got it from the home owners. A video that the local news station kept under wraps until very recently. No doubt, they have a very smart producer at that news station.
However, it's odd and embarrassing for all the people who went jogging for Arbery. Lots of people uploaded videos of themselves to social media to express solidarity to Arbery for just wanting to go out for a jog.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Turns out the video evidence of him trying to steal things has been leaked.The media isn't putting this video up. But here's a vid of him entering a house under construction on his morning "jog" in some shoes he wasn't wearing about an hour before he was shot:
Apparently, someone thought it was weird that a stranger entered their house and called 911 during this time.
This narrative has completely fallen apart.
This is not something everyone should have focused on and made it another race issue. With how much technology is improving, all this video evidence of him clearly not out on a jog completely ruins any discussion about this having anything to do with race.
Lol so basically when they say he was "jogging" they mean "fleeing from the scene of a crime".
I laughed.
Originally posted by Surtur
Lol so basically when they say he was "jogging" they mean "fleeing from the scene of a crime".I laughed.
That's literally what happened and why he was running.
He wasn't out for a jog as we were told by everyone including his parents. And his parents' story changed after they were confront with video evidence showing him clearly not out for a jog but instead trying to burglarize and/or case potential targets.*
However, he was running to avoid the people trying to detain him until the police arrived: he already had a record and I'm sure he would rather GTFO than deal with the police and a possible arrest.
*His mistake was doing this in broad-daylight, not wearing the correct clothing to make it seem like he was a jogger**. He was such an amateur burglar. He's rumored to have stolen thousands of dollars of fishing gear and a handgun from that same neighborhood - if he sold it, he could afford to get a jogger's outfit (or just steal it). But to complete the outfit, you need a smart phone and/or smart watch. Take notes while casing in a coded way (that way, if you're stopped and your electronics taken, you have plausible deniability - code your casing notes).
Also, doing it during the day is stupid: much more likely to be seen by people. And wearing heavy/baggy cargo shorts like that makes it quite obvious you're not out for a jog to any person who sees a stranger walking through a neighborhood quite tucked away from the major roads. Running or jogging in this shorts for any length of time is going to chafe the utter-living-shit out of your skin and that doesn't feel good. Just walking around in them, you'll chafe. Honestly, he was probably not feeling too great based on how much supposed walking around he did while casing.
**Also, I've been told you can't refer to them as "joggers" anymore because it is hate speech. You have to avoid the hard-r and also get a J-card. You think I'm joking but that's what's been happening - now they are pretending like "jogger" is a racist epithet. But, since this incident, racist people probably have been calling black people "joggers", though (to indicate they are criminals pretending to jog). hmm
So I guess this who argument is correct.
Originally posted by Artol
I agree with your sentiment regarding overzealous reporting on sparse information. Ideally we would all be able to let processes play out and only if they for sure have gone awry were able to mobilize our attention and outrage to correct them. This has in many ways deteriorated, news has to be instantaneous, and stories have to fit very specific narratives that consumers of the main political stripes can easily understand and latch on to.However, while I understand your frustration, all of this does not preclude that racist sentiment has played a part in what has transpired.
Hey, that's all I need. We can agree to disagree without getting angry at each other and arguing for page after page (that's a dig at the others who really made this discussion far more heated and longer than it needed to be).
At this point, I see the "racist" arguments as having completely fallen apart. At no point was it reported or heard that the McMichael's used a racist term before during, and after they pursued Arbery. In fact, they referred to him as "black." In a heated moment like this, if they were racist, the would have used the n-word with a hard r: I'm in Oklahoma and I've heard it used rather loosely when racist white people get frustrated or upset by black people. Racist people use it freely and loosely especially in situations where they think they finally caught the thief stealing their shit. It's how racist people do.
The only way we can make this about racism is if the McMichael's posted anti-Black or communicated anti-Black stuff about this incident when they were getting robbed in the previous month. Or they have similar stuff on their social media profiles (if they have them).
Originally posted by Artol
A more interesting discussion from my POV is whether something like this, an armed citizens arrest, shouldn't be discouraged or even forbidden. It certainly comes with a lot of issues. I can see the other sides arguments as well of course, but it seems like a sensible discussion.
According to the legal arguments I've seen already (by people involved in the case), it's going to be a tough case. They were fine to do everything they did up to the point of the shooting. Literally all the actions they took are protected actions under Georgia law up to the point of the shooting. But using a gun to stop the attack against the elder McMichael may have been the moment it went too far. The police are usually the ones that are the target of an "unreasonable use of force" and I know in other countries they have laws about meeting force with force (escalating it gets you in trouble: i.e. using a gun to shoot and kill someone during a fight in response to being punched).
Originally posted by meep-meep
Was the guy committing a crime?
According to Georgia law, even if you do not steal anything, it is considered burglary to enter a home, without permission, with intent to steal.
It gets much worse for home invasion burglaries in Georgia law.
Georgia also has criminal trespass laws.
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/burglary-and-home-invasions-georgia.htm
Also, some people are stating he took a hammer and the work boots from somehwere because, in the video where we see him casing that home, he is wearing shoes. When he confronts the McMichael's in the video where he is shot, he is wearing boots. Others have done a frame by frame analysis and state that Arbery had a hammer. I haven't seen that analysis.
But it would indicate that Arbery acquired at least the work boots at some point. He died in them. It kind of ruins the plausible deniability angle from his family, at this point. When they review this case and it goes to trial, all of these things will come out.
The McMichael's were legitmately trying to stop a burglar who was running away after getting caught. The case will focus on whether or not the use of deadly force was justifiable under Georgia law. If the hammer argument is legit, this is an easy case. If it is not, you have to prove WTF happened out of view in front of that truck: 1 second of time. Crazy. This case might be studied by future lawyers.
Originally posted by dadudemonin my opinion the first hurdle the defense will have to cross is the burglry part. One of the main parts is intent. As far as i know he didnt steal or vandalize anything and he left of his own accord. Proving (not assuming) his intent will be hard enough but proving the witnesses had proof (not assuming) to his intent at the time seems near impossible.
According to the legal arguments I've seen already (by people involved in the case), it's going to be a tough case. They were fine to do everything they did up to the point of the shooting. Literally all the actions they took are protected actions under Georgia law up to the point of the shooting. But using a gun to stop the attack against the elder McMichael may have been the moment it went too far. The police are usually the ones that are the target of an "unreasonable use of force" and I know in other countries they have laws about meeting force with force (escalating it gets you in trouble: i.e. using a gun to shoot and kill someone during a fight in response to being punched).
Why is this important?
From what ive read for a Georgia citizen arrest to be legal a felony had to have occured.
https://codes.findlaw.com/ga/title-17-criminal-procedure/ga-code-sect-17-4-60.html
Georgia Code Title 17. Criminal Procedure § 17-4-60
"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"
The next will be the "in the presence of or within his immediate knowledge" part.
Im unsure of the exact timeline of events. I dont know how long the time span is between events such as when the witness saw Ahmaud enter/exit and called the police, how long after that others were alerted, what they were told and anything in between.
But even without knowing the exact times and such, i think its a pretty safe bet that they will be large factors in the trial.
So first the defense will have to prove a felony occured, to do that they have to prove burglry, to do that they have to prove intent, then they will have to prove it happened in the presence of or within the immediate knowledge of the witness who had proof/knowledge of intent, then they have to prove the immediate knowledge extends to the father and son and the time between the burglry and the hunt.
In my opinion they're going to have quite a few bridges to cross before we get to the actual shooting.