Also In The News

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you on this.  When I saw the notification I figured it would just be more disingenuous alt-right talking points and gave myself the afternoon off. I think this might be my new thing, every time somebody defends blatant racism I'll just let them have a day thinking they've won the argument with facts and logic.

 

It's not like there's any point in taking the effort of replying any sooner to point out where the racism is, however many times a person like you is proved wrong there's always another 'reasonable suspicion' and it's always dog-whistle politics.  Your way of thinking is so stupidly warped that you claim not to see the problem with assuming a person fits the profile of a burglar because black, or why any law abiding individual might not look upon 2 rednecks chasing them down with guns as safe situation to be in.  You apparently don't see that racism is integral to this case, I say apparently because we both know you're doing the tired alt right thing of feigning shock at racism being brought up.  "I didn't mention racism, you must be the racist one for seeing it in the first place", right? 

 

But I will humour you.

 

So let's just assume for a second that there's nothing racist about 2 rednecks chasing down and murdering a black man because they assume he's a criminal and have no evidence, after all there had been a string of burglaries in the area, that's something black men do, right?  That's all the evidence you need, right?

 

Let's just assume that this burglary defence isn't compromised by the fact that the local bobbies' most recent call-out for a burglary was Jan 1st, about 7 weeks before the murder.  This string of burglaries they're defending neighbours from had probably just been kept secret from the police, right?  After all it's their legal right and duty to perform neighbourhood detentions apparently, who needs to get the police involved at that point, right?

 

Let's just assume that there's nothing telling about this most recent burglary call being to the McMichael home itself after one of their guns was taken from an unlocked truck.  Let's just ignore that, it's inconvenient to the story. It portrays these upstanding citizens as having a character for being irresponsible gun owners which we know can't be true because we've all seen the video of them being very responsible with their guns.

 

Let's just assume that there's nothing at all dodgy about them not being immediately detained or about the case being kept quiet for months before the McMichaels' lawyer leaked the footage, hilariously thinking it would help his clients in court.  Yep let's just assume there's nothing concerning about how this wouldn't even be something we knew about if it wasn't for that woeful error of judgement.  This is all perfectly normal, right?

 

Now that we're done making those assumptions I can't remember what my point was anymore but I'm sure the black guy did it and that seems reasonable now.

I find it disingenuous to assume that I belong to the "alt-right" or that I am using "alt-right talking points", as I'm neither active on that side of the political spectrum, nor do I have any ties to people over there. Why is it not appropriate to talk about the McMichaels' guilt whilst simultaneously discuss about what Arbury could've done differently in order to defuse the situation? That's only fair.

 

Has it been proven that Arbury was shot down because of the color of his skin or because he was the suspect in a reported burglary? This is a fair question. Georgia law allows civilians to chase after suspects and detain them until the police arrive.

Latest reports indicate that there is surveillance video showing Arbury entering a property in the area, a house under construction, with supplies aplenty.

https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/gbi-reviewing-new-video-footage-ahmaud-arbery-case/xvSWFTbaD0k9cr80R7CTnL/

https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/2020/05/10/additional-video-footage-in-ahmaud-arbery-case-draws-different-opinions/

What was Arbury doing "jogging" 14 miles from his home, in board shorts and boots?

The police report also states that Arbury struck Travis McMichael first.

 

You do know that many burglaries in the US (or Canada, for that matter) go unreported, because the victims know the police won't or can't do nothing about the incidents? I've experienced such a case myself in Vancouver. It's not very uplifting when the police tell you they don't care about your case because they have more important things to take care of.

 

Have I been "proven wrong" here? I'm simply raising the question why this is supposed to be a racist act.

As far as we know right now (based on the video footage available), Arbury was shot down based on the struggle over a shotgun. Who would let a stranger grab your shotgun, trying to take it away from you and risk being shot in the process? It makes no sense.

Let me stress again, it is unquestionable that the loss of a life under these circumstances is tragic and unnecessary. The use of force excessive. Yes, this is not justice. They should've left it to the police instead.

 

The rest of your own argumentation is somewhat warped. In no way have I insinuated that one is racist when bringing up alleged racism. What kind of logic is that? Where does that come from? 

What I don't get is why so many people jump to conclusions so quickly because of initial one-sided media coverage and sudden public outcry of an incident that took place two months ago. They see a man who happens to be black tragically shot down and the first thing they do is shout "racism". It's like Twitter 2.0, a self-serving, ego-friendly echo chamber.

I think we should all calm down a bit here and wait for further evidence to emerge.

Edited 11 May 2020 by MC Prussian

[StanSP]

6 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Georgia law allows civilians to chase after criminals and detain them until the police arrive.

But not shoot down/kill? 

 

Have you asked why Arbery would try and grab the shotgun? For fear of being killed himself anyway?! 

 

7 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

What I don't get is why so many people jump to conclusions so quickly because of initial one-sided media coverage and sudden public outcry of an incident that took place two months ago

Because without the footage being released this would have carried on as something unknown. So it's only sudden because literally so few people would have known about it before the video. 

 

Even the Georgia police only decided to arrest them based on the footage. What were they doing between the incident and now? 

 

What is frustrating is that it's 2 ex-police officers that have killed this man. Their judgement should be better and it should not have come to this. 

[MC Prussian]

2 minutes ago, StanSP said:

But not shoot down/kill? 

 

Have you asked why Arbery would try and grab the shotgun? For fear of being killed himself anyway?! 

 

Because without the footage being released this would have carried on as something unknown. So it's only sudden because literally so few people would have known about it before the video. 

 

Even the Georgia police only decided to arrest them based on the footage. What were they doing between the incident and now? 

 

What is frustrating is that it's 2 ex-police officers that have killed this man. Their judgement should be better and it should not have come to this. 

Well, yeah - I agree, I think this is a tragic loss of a life.

But sadly they had every right to shoot under Georgia Law once Arbury grabbed the shotgun, which was a very stupid and irresponsible move on his behalf. Why do that? Makes things just worse.

And as I said, the police report states Arbury went after T McMichael first, a notion supported by the video footage.

 

Fully agree with the second part, but that's easy to say now and from a distance. That's why I wonder how other people would react when confronted with such a situation where you see a struggle over a shotgun and fear that you could be shot with that weapon yourself.

Then again, this is America. Many things over there just don't make sense to a European.

[Carl the Llama]

22 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Well, yeah - I agree, I think this is a tragic loss of a life.

But sadly they had every right to shoot under Georgia Law once Arbury grabbed the shotgun, which was a very stupid and irresponsible move on his behalf. Why do that? Makes things just worse.

And as I said, the police report states Arbury went after T McMichael first, a notion supported by the video footage.

 

Fully agree with the second part, but that's easy to say now and from a distance. That's why I wonder how other people would react when confronted with such a situation where you see a struggle over a shotgun and fear that you could be shot with that weapon yourself.

Then again, this is America. Many things over there just don't make sense to a European.

Fvcking unreal.

[MC Prussian]

10 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Fvcking unreal.

Quote

Essentially, two elements that must be present before the use of deadly force is justified:

• The danger to either himself or a third person must be imminent; and
• He must reasonably believe that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to self or a third person.

https://www.georgiacriminallawyer.com/self-defense

[StanSP]

1 minute ago, MC Prussian said:

https://www.georgiacriminallawyer.com/self-defense

Do you not think Arbury thought this as well though? Being chased by people wielding shotguns. In imminent danger. To himself. 

 

[Carl the Llama]

38 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

I find it disingenuous to assume that I belong to the "alt-right" or that I am using "alt-right talking points", as I'm neither active on that side of the political spectrum, nor do I have any ties to people over there. Why is it not appropriate to talk about the McMichaels' guilt whilst simultaneously discuss about what Arbury could've done differently in order to defuse the situation? That's only fair.

 

Has it been proven that Arbury was shot down because of the color of his skin or because he was the suspect in a reported burglary? This is a fair question. Georgia law allows civilians to chase after suspects and detain them until the police arrive.

Latest reports indicate that there is surveillance video showing Arbury entering a property in the area, a house under construction, with supplies aplenty.

https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/gbi-reviewing-new-video-footage-ahmaud-arbery-case/xvSWFTbaD0k9cr80R7CTnL/

https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/2020/05/10/additional-video-footage-in-ahmaud-arbery-case-draws-different-opinions/

What was Arbury doing "jogging" 14 miles from his home, in board shorts and boots?

The police report also states that Arbury struck Travis McMichael first.

 

You do know that many burglaries in the US (or Canada, for that matter) go unreported, because the victims know the police won't or can't do nothing about the incidents? I've experienced such a case myself in Vancouver. It's not very uplifting when the police tell you they don't care about your case because they have more important things to take care of.

 

Have I been "proven wrong" here? I'm simply raising the question why this is supposed to be a racist act.

As far as we know right now (based on the video footage available), Arbury was shot down based on the struggle over a shotgun. Who would let a stranger grab your shotgun, trying to take it away from you and risk being shot in the process? It makes no sense.

Let me stress again, it is unquestionable that the loss of a life under these circumstances is tragic and unnecessary. The use of force excessive. Yes, this is not justice. They should've left it to the police instead.

 

The rest of your own argumentation is somewhat warped. In no way have I insinuated that one is racist when bringing up alleged racism. What kind of logic is that? Where does that come from? 

What I don't get is why so many people jump to conclusions so quickly because of initial one-sided media coverage and sudden public outcry of an incident that took place two months ago. They see a man who happens to be black tragically shot down and the first thing they do is shout "racism". It's like Twitter 2.0, a self-serving, ego-friendly echo chamber.

I think we should all calm down a bit here and wait for further evidence to emerge.

Yeah I've seen the construction site footage too, guy goes in for a looky loo, probably just taking a few minutes to catch his breath.   Bit weird but according to that article even if it could be argued a criminal offence, which it probably isn't, it's certainly not serious enough to warrant a citizen's arrest, which is the crux of your whole argument about the McMichaels' right to detain a stranger on a totally not racist hunch.  Did you even read it?

Quote

 

The security video shows a person, who appears to be Arbery, continuing down Satilla Drive. Former Fulton prosecutor Manny Arora, who reviewed the video, said entry of a construction site is not necessarily a crime. At most, it may be a misdemeanor, unless anything was taken, he said.

Georgia law allows for a citizen’s arrest in a felony crime committed in one’s presence, said Arora, who is currently a criminal defense attorney in Atlanta. But a citizen can only use reasonable force to detain a person and deadly force cannot be used unless it’s to prevent a forcible felony or for self-defense.

Since the McMichaels initiated the confrontation with the weapons it will be difficult for them to claim self-defense and what appears on the security video doesn’t justify their actions, he said. The footage also demonstrates that police were not far from the neighborhood when the incident occurred, he said.

“If you initiate an assault you don’t get then claim self-defense if the other person reacts to them being assaulted,” Arora said. “From the information we have right now, this video doesn’t change the basis for the arrest.”

At the distant periphery of the video, two people can be seen around a parked pickup truck in a driveway a a few houses down from the construction site. The driveway is at or near Travis McMichael’s house.

Gregory McMichael told police that he was in the front yard when he saw “the suspect from the break-ins ‘hauling ass’ down Satilla Drive.”

Gregory McMichael ran in the house to alert his son, Travis McMichael. The men armed themselves and went after Arbery, according to Gregory McMichael’s police statement.

The McMichaels told police that they had decided to arm themselves and pursue Arbery because they suspected him of committing burglaries in the Satilla Shores neighborhood. They also told police they had seen Arbery on earlier surveillance tapes and were concerned that he could be armed because they said they saw him on another occasion sticking “his hand down his pants.”

Glynn County police records include no recent reports of house burglaries in Satilla Shores. The only report of that kind was a Jan. 1 theft of a handgun stolen from an unlocked truck parked at McMichael’s house.

On the video, the truck, which resembles the one driven by the McMichaels, can be seen driving off in the same direction Arbery had run. The man in the overalls walks down the street and appears to motion toward the truck.

Four minutes after the truck drives off, a police cruiser is seen on the video driving in same direction. Minutes later another cruiser drives by, followed by an EMT truck, a fire truck with lights flashing and more police cruisers speeding by.

A block away, out of view of the home surveillance video, the confrontation with the McMichaels had left Arbery dead on the pavement.

A video made public Tuesday, which has gone viral worldwide, shows Arbery running at a jogger’s pace on a road in the neighborhood. He slows as he approaches Travis McMichael’s truck, which blocked the street in front of him.

A struggle ensues as the McMichaels confront Arbery and three shots are fired. Arbery moves a few feet and collapses onto the asphalt.

After the case stalled for two-and-a-half months as two prosecutors recused themselves because of conflicts of interests, the GBI arrested the father and son Thursday afternoon after reviewing the case for less than two days.

GBI Director Vic Reynolds said Friday that his agency received the case Tuesday night and began investigating Wednesday. By Thursday afternoon agents had concluded they had sufficient evidence to charge the two men.

“I can tell you there was more than sufficient probable cause in this case,” he said. Both men are in the Glynn County jail after a judge refused to free them on bond Friday afternoon.

Disregarding that the legal expert interviewed here and the GBI Director both seem to contradict your own expert opinion, have you stopped to think about the argument the murderers are making here?

 

They see a black man who 'fits the description' of the 'suspect from the break ins' (because he's black - that's the racist bit) jogging down the street.  They haven't seen a crime or anything, the guy's not carrying expensive gear, but because he's moving at more than a walking pace while black the assumption is he's guilty of something. Wearing jogging gear at the time is just an irrelevant coincidence. They believe this argument gives them sufficient cause after this to go out in 2 pick up trucks (don't forget the camera car was helping them intimidate this suspicious stranger) and threaten an unarmed man with their guns. And you think that makes sense. 

 

You also think it makes sense to instigate an armed confrontation with an unarmed individual, then gun that individual down in self defence when they try to protect themselves.  You think that 

 

But you have a problem with people believing that a lone unarmed individual, who's done nothing wrong and finds himself confronted by 2 gun wielding rednecks with their buddy's truck blocking the rear, has the right to protect himself.

 

You're stuck in the mindset that Ahmaud instigated the violence and the McMichaels were defending themselves. That's a view that completely ignores the entire scenario leading up to the altercation. You completely ignore that the McMichaels creating the situation on the back of a racist assumption in the first place.  And they instigated the violence by blocking his path and getting out of their trucks to confront him and stop him jogging.

 

49 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

https://www.georgiacriminallawyer.com/self-defense

Still fvcking unreal.

 

Which case of "imminent danger" came first?:

 

a.) 2 gunmen parking in the path of an unarmed man.

b.) The man with the pickup truck driving up the rear of the unarmed man so he has to carry on towards the first vehicle with 2 gunmen getting out of it.

c.) The man pointing the shotgun at the unarmed man.

b.) The unarmed man trying to disarm the man pointing a shotgun at him.

 

Answer: I put them all in order for you anyway.  It's not self defence if your 'imminent danger' is a person defending themselves from you and your friends.

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

Do you not think Arbury thought this as well though? Being chased by people wielding shotguns. In imminent danger. To himself. 

How is he supposed to use "deadly" force when he is unarmed?

Was he "chased"? Do we know he saw them "wielding shotguns"? You seem to read a lot into it with this.

The video footage shows the one pickup truck waiting for Arbury in the middle of the road, he then runs towards them, makes a right, then decides to have a go at the younger McMichael.

 

The question remains: Who attacked whom first?

[MC Prussian]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

Yeah I've seen the construction site footage too, guy goes in for a looky loo, probably just taking a few minutes to catch his breath.   Bit weird but according to that article even if it could be argued a criminal offence, which it probably isn't, it's certainly not serious enough to warrant a citizen's arrest, which is the crux of your whole argument about the McMichaels' right to detain a stranger on a totally not racist hunch.  Did you even read it?

Disregarding that the legal expert interviewed here and the GBI Director both seem to contradict your own expert opinion, have you stopped to think about the argument the murderers are making here?

 

They see a black man who 'fits the description' of the 'suspect from the break ins' (because he's black - that's the racist bit) jogging down the street.  They haven't seen a crime or anything, the guy's not carrying expensive gear, but because he's moving at more than a walking pace while black the assumption is he's guilty of something. Wearing jogging gear at the time is just an irrelevant coincidence. They believe this argument gives them sufficient cause after this to go out in 2 pick up trucks (don't forget the camera car was helping them intimidate this suspicious stranger) and threaten an unarmed man with their guns. And you think that makes sense. 

 

You also think it makes sense to instigate an armed confrontation with an unarmed individual, then gun that individual down in self defence when they try to protect themselves.  You think that 

 

But you have a problem with people believing that a lone unarmed individual, who's done nothing wrong and finds himself confronted by 2 gun wielding rednecks with their buddy's truck blocking the rear, has the right to protect himself.

 

You're stuck in the mindset that Ahmaud instigated the violence and the McMichaels were defending themselves. That's a view that completely ignores the entire scenario leading up to the altercation. You completely ignore that the McMichaels creating the situation on the back of a racist assumption in the first place.  And they instigated the violence by blocking his path and getting out of their trucks to confront him and stop him jogging.

 

Still fvcking unreal.

 

Which case of "imminent danger" came first?:

 

a.) 2 gunmen parking in the path of an unarmed man.

b.) The man with the pickup truck driving up the rear of the unarmed man so he has to carry on towards the first vehicle with 2 gunmen getting out of it.

c.) The man pointing the shotgun at the unarmed man.

b.) The unarmed man trying to disarm the man pointing a shotgun at him.

 

Answer: I put them all in order for you anyway.  It's not self defence if your 'imminent danger' is a person defending themselves from you and your friends.

Quote

"Since the McMichaels initiated the confrontation with the weapons it will be difficult for them to claim self-defense and what appears on the security video doesn’t justify their actions, he said."

It has to be proven in court that shooting a man who is about to snatch a shotgun out of your hands is/was self-defense or manslaughter. It's rather far-fetched to call this a "lynching" or a murder, as some media outlets suggest.

At no point do you see the two dumbbells shooting at Arbury as he approaches the truck (which would be "cold-blooded murder", of course), it's out of the tragic melee that the two/three shots are fired.

 

Quote

but because he's moving at more than a walking pace while black the assumption is he's guilty of something

No, the assumption is because he as a burglary suspect is not stopping, then proceeds to attack one of the two vigilantes.

 

Quote

They believe this argument gives them sufficient cause after this to go out in 2 pick up trucks (don't forget the camera car was helping them intimidate this suspicious stranger) and threaten an unarmed man with their guns

How could they know he was unarmed?

We also don't know how "intimidating" the second car was, or simply following at a distance.

 

Even if he had survived and hadn't been found guilty of a crime, but only a misdemeanour, the McMichaels would've probably gotten their fair share of a sentence, too, for excessive use of force and whatnot.

 

It's not racist to chase after a burglary suspect. Even if he happens to be black. You're still insinuating that the McMichaels are racist and that they shot him because of the color of his skin, nothing of which has yet been proven.

 

I'm not excusing what the McMichaels did by shooting Arbury, they'll try to stand their ground and argue self-defense. I don't think it was a smart move and I think Arbury could and should still be alive, if it wasn't for a chain of (yuck) unfortunate events.

 

But let's equally not excuse Arbury's actions, which do raise suspicion. What was he doing so far away from his own neighborhood, inside a building under construction? Just "taking a few minutes to catch his breath"? Really? How much further do you want to go in order to defend this man in this case? Fact is you don't enter other buildings just like that. Given all the tools and machinery on site and the general amount of thefts on construction sites, he was rightfully reported by another person who saw him inside.

Arbury only started "jogging" once he was spotted.

He made it all the worse himself also.

 

You're stuck in this mindset that the McMichaels are all evil and Arbury was completely innocent. The truth is much more complicated. And sadly, one side will never be able to speak the truth because they are no more.

If Arbury had done "nothing wrong", as you suggest, then he wouldn't have had a problem handing himself in just like that.

Edited 11 May 2020 by MC Prussian

[Carl the Llama]

4 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

saving space

He was on his daily jog according to the family. They insist he was a keen runner. Why would they make that up?  If he's travelled a few miles it makes sense he'd probably stop for a breather at some point.

 

And I keep telling you, the racist bit is the fact they suspect him in the first place.  I've not seen any quotes from the killers mentioning the construction site, so I don't get the assumption that it has anything to do with their motive. I stand to be corrected on that but from what I can tell they've just seen him jogging and the construction site stop is coincidental.  Even if it's not, by the laws you're defending them with they're still not witnessing any crime that gives them any kind of authority to detain the guy.

 

Here's footage from across the street.  We see him walking past the house before he stops to take a look at it which is consistent with the idea he was catching his breath.  We see a neighbour looking over while possibly on the phone, which according to that video is consistent with a 911 call which fails to specify any wrongdoing.  I've found a transcript of sorts from that call here:

Quote

 

Arbery had been seen recently on surveillance video in the neighborhood, according to the first caller. Neither call specifies a crime Arbery might have committed.

“There’s a guy in the house right now; it’s under construction,” the man told the dispatcher.

The man then gave her an address.

“And you said someone’s breaking into it right now?” the dispatcher asked.

“No,” the man replied, “it’s all open. It’s under construction … “

The man interrupted to say Arbery was leaving. “And there he goes right now.”

“Ok,” the dispatcher said, “What is he doing?”

“He’s running down the street,” the man said. The next sentence is garbled.

“That’s fine,” the dispatcher said. “I’ll get (police) out there. I just need to know what he was doing wrong. Was he just on the premises and not supposed to be?”

The next sentence is garbled. “And he’s been caught on camera a bunch at night. It’s kind of an ongoing thing. The man building the house has got heart issues. I think he’s not going to finish it.”

“Ok, that’s fine,” the dispatcher said. “And you said he was a male in a black T-shirt?”

“White T-shirt,” the man said. “Black guy, white T-shirt. He’s done run into the neighborhood again.”

The next 911 call from Satilla Shores came in at 1:14 p.m.

“I’m out here at Satilla Shores,” the man said. “There’s a black male running down the street.”

“Where at Satilla Shores?” the dispatcher asked.

“I don’t know what street we’re on,” the man replied.

“Stop!” he can be heard shouting. “Watch that. Stop, damn it! Stop!”

That call went blank for several minutes, with the dispatcher trying several times to reach the caller. The call eventually hangs up.

 

 We then see Ahmaud jog off.  Shortly later he is accosted for having suspicious looking skin, then murdered.

 

Note how they say he's "run into the neighbourhood again".  It's almost like jogging is a regular activity that he reportedly engages in and he follows a regular route.  What about that is so bizarre to you?

[MC Prussian]

18 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

He was on his daily jog according to the family. They insist he was a keen runner. Why would they make that up?  If he's travelled a few miles it makes sense he'd probably stop for a breather at some point.

 

And I keep telling you, the racist bit is the fact they suspect him in the first place.  I've not seen any quotes from the killers mentioning the construction site, so I don't get the assumption that it has anything to do with their motive. I stand to be corrected on that but from what I can tell they've just seen him jogging and the construction site stop is coincidental.  Even if it's not, by the laws you're defending them with they're still not witnessing any crime that gives them any kind of authority to detain the guy.

 

Here's footage from across the street.  We see him walking past the house before he stops to take a look at it which is consistent with the idea he was catching his breath.  We see a neighbour looking over while possibly on the phone, which according to that video is consistent with a 911 call which fails to specify any wrongdoing.  I've found a transcript of sorts from that call here:

 We then see Ahmaud jog off.  Shortly later he is accosted for having suspicious looking skin, then murdered.

 

Note how they say he's "run into the neighbourhood again".  It's almost like jogging is a regular activity that he reportedly engages in and he follows a regular route.  What about that is so bizarre to you?

"Jogging" 14 miles from home, in that outfit? Does Arbery look like sweating to you at all or out of breath, judging from the videos?

In what twisted way does "jogging" include trespassing/entering other people's property/houses?

He only started "jogging" that day once another person saw him come out of the building.

 

Of course his family will try to protect his name and his image, that's what families do most of the time. Would you expect for them openly admit that their son could've done something wrong and that he (allegedly) had a criminal history?

 

Seeing that you've noticed the initial surveillance video, I'm sure you're aware of the fact that Arbery was spotted in the same building multiple times, and that even at night (Source: WSAV-3 news).

 

Just because the 911 calls fail to mention any wrongdoing doesn't mean he did nothing wrong (trespassing is at least a misdemeanor).

And the McMichaels were in the right to detain him under Georgia law, according to this report:

Quote

It has to be a misdemeanor or a felony that you witness or you have immediate information about

https://www.wabe.org/atlanta-judge-examines-georgias-citizens-arrest-law-state-bureau-of-investigation-gives-updates-on-arbery-investigation/

 

Listen, I've got to admit I've made a mistake, and I'm here to set it straight.

I initially claimed the person who made the video should be charged, as well. Turns out he was a neighbor, a witness who followed the McMichaels out of curiosity. According to latest reports and his testimony, he had nothing to do with the shooting directly.

But thanks to the initial media reports, he's now receiving death threats aplenty.

https://newschannel9.com/news/local/man-who-shot-video-in-ahmaud-arbery-killing-gets-death-threats-attorney-says

 

There's also the case of an African-American setting up a fake Facebook profile, pretending to be in support of the McMichaels. Way to alienate a population and stir more trouble than necessary.

https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/crime-and-law/ahmaud-arbery-gbi-aware-facebook-post-containing-threat-future-protests/EEDVA6LAYFFDVIRBTH5HUIXURM/

Oh, America.

 

When does the Black community in the US start to take (collective) responsibility for their own misguided actions?

Arbery shouldn't have died.

Arbery should also never have tried to grab that shotgun, though.

 

I'm fed up with this one-sided US (and UK) media frenzy and selective outrage, made even worse by social media. Where's the outrage over the deaths of or attacks on Korean or Hispanic people in the US, for example? Where were you when Andy Ngo was attacked, for instance?

 

This is consistent with a smeary, sensationalist media coverage. Always remember Jussie Smollett.

 

The more you cry "racist" when racism isn't warranted, the more the term loses its meaning. Then real racism comes along, and no one bats an eyelid.

Edited 12 May 2020 by MC Prussian

[Carl the Llama]

19 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

"Jogging" 14 miles from home, in that outfit? Does Arbery look like sweating to you at all or out of breath, judging from the videos?

In what twisted way does "jogging" include trespassing/entering other people's property/houses?

He only started "jogging" that day once another person saw him come out of the building.

 

Of course his family will try to protect his name and his image, that's what families do most of the time. Would you expect for them openly admit that their son could've done something wrong and that he (allegedly) had a criminal history?

 

Seeing that you've noticed the initial surveillance video, I'm sure you're aware of the fact that Arbery was spotted in the same building multiple times, and that even at night (Source: WSAV-3 news).

 

Just because the 911 calls fail to mention any wrongdoing doesn't mean he did nothing wrong (trespassing is at least a misdemeanor).

And the McMichaels were in the right to detain him under Georgia law, according to this report:

https://www.wabe.org/atlanta-judge-examines-georgias-citizens-arrest-law-state-bureau-of-investigation-gives-updates-on-arbery-investigation/

 

Listen, I've got to admit I've made a mistake, and I'm here to set it straight.

I initially claimed the person who made the video should be charged, as well. Turns out he was a neighbor, a witness who followed the McMichaels out of curiosity. According to latest reports and his testimony, he had nothing to do with the shooting directly.

But thanks to the initial media reports, he's now receiving death threats aplenty.

https://newschannel9.com/news/local/man-who-shot-video-in-ahmaud-arbery-killing-gets-death-threats-attorney-says

 

There's also the case of an African-American setting up a fake Facebook profile, pretending to be in support of the McMichaels. Way to alienate a population and stir more trouble than necessary.

https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/crime-and-law/ahmaud-arbery-gbi-aware-facebook-post-containing-threat-future-protests/EEDVA6LAYFFDVIRBTH5HUIXURM/

Oh, America.

 

When does the Black community in the US start to take (collective) responsibility for their own misguided actions?

Arbery shouldn't have died.

Arbery should also never have tried to grab that shotgun, though.

 

I'm fed up with this one-sided US (and UK) media frenzy and selective outrage, made even worse by social media. Where's the outrage over the deaths of or attacks on Korean or Hispanic people in the US, for example? Where were you when Andy Ngo was attacked, for instance?

 

This is consistent with a smeary, sensationalist media coverage. Always remember Jussie Smollett.

 

The more you cry "racist" when racism isn't warranted, the more the term loses its meaning. Then real racism comes along, and no one bats an eyelid.

Or people get outraged while others go to great lengths to defend it and call it a media conspiracy.

[Carl the Llama]

@MC PrussianFwiw, not that you'll be bothered, his mum's house is apparently only a few miles from there which is more than reasonable for a regular runner so I wouldn't get hung up on the distance.  I haven't seen any other footage, only read hearsay about it. 

 

The key word there is "read".  You should do more of it, here's the rest of that quote you carefully selected to prove they had the right to detain him:

Quote

Hatchett said the Arbery case is similar, and there were too many red flags, such as the citizen’s arrest scenario described in a Glynn County police report. She said the citizen’s arrest law does not apply to this case.

“It has to be a misdemeanor or a felony that you witness or you have immediate information about,” Hatchett said.

“And the other important part under Georgia law is that if you do detain someone under citizen’s arrest, it has to be reasonable force. They came loaded with guns.”

I thought you didn't like false narratives?  You must be fvcking with me here  

 

And now it's the black community's fault he went for the guns that should in no way have been used to threaten him in the first place?  Yeah you are fvcking with me.

 

But thank you for setting the record straight on the guy who recorded, I stand corrected there.

 

Edited 12 May 2020 by Carl the Llama

[MC Prussian]

59 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

@MC PrussianFwiw, not that you'll be bothered, his mum's house is apparently only a few miles from there which is more than reasonable for a regular runner so I wouldn't get hung up on the distance.  I haven't seen any other footage, only read hearsay about it. 

 

The key word there is "read".  You should do more of it, here's the rest of that quote you carefully selected to prove they had the right to detain him:

I thought you didn't like false narratives?  You must be fvcking with me here  

 

And now it's the black community's fault he went for the guns that should in no way have been used to threaten him in the first place?  Yeah you are fvcking with me.

 

But thank you for setting the record straight on the guy who recorded, I stand corrected there.

Who said anything about Hatchett being entirely neutral or not biased? Her own opinion plays into the statement, as well.

 

If you read her last sentence correctly, you'll notice the word "detain" in it. They would've loved to detain the guy, sadly he opted to grab the shotgun before that could happen, a scuffle ensued and he was shot dead. There goes detention.

 

And trespassing is at least a misdemeanor (if you don't steal anything). The question remains whether they saw the incident directly or heard about it immediately.

 

People should hold back with terms such as "hate crime", "lynching" or "racism" until the investigation comes to a closure.

It's pathetic to rush to such rash and subjective conclusions, usually just serves self-promotion, especially on Social Media.

 

Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say it's the black community's fault he went for the shotgun, that's silly. When I refer to the black community taking responsibility, I'd love for them play less of the victim card when the circumstances aren't clear or at least not at first sight, as is the case here. You can't just go around and blame others all the time, at some point, oppression, racism, prejudice are terms that wear out quickly. I'd like to think they'd be able to achieve more if they were able to deal with that complex in a better, more positive way.

Today's society is as progressive as never before. Just because racism exists, doesn't mean it's everywhere or applies that easily.

 

If Arbury was indeed trespassing (with the intent to steal - based on his numerous visits to the same house), then there's no defending of his actions or character.

It was a mental move to grab somebody else's loaded shotgun and not expect any sort of reaction (up to this point, there hadn't been any shots fired as far as we know).

[Carl the Llama]

31 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

 

You've submitted your evidence that they had right to detain but now I've pointed out that your evidence specified the exact opposite it's because of the Judge's biases, not because you're misinformed. Sure.  There was no crime that they were witness to (it would be a big part of the case already if they actually had) and it's clear that in the Judge's opinion a shotgun and magnum do not constitute reasonable force. 

Didn't see a crime. Shouldn't be playing vigilante. Guns shouldn't be there. That should be the end of it.

 

Stop blaming a man for defending himself from an unnecessary, illegal situation.

 

But congratulations for taking a conversation about racial profiling gone wrong and trying to make it a discussion about what's wrong with the black community.  You've really proved something there.

 

Lastly the reason people still need to keep calling out racism even if it's boring to some, is because we still live in a world where a man can see a news story about an unarmed man in jogging gear being murdered and ask questions like "why wouldn't he submit", "why would he go for the shotgun", "what if he intended to steal" (of a person who had already left the empty construction site without taking anything and had apparently done so many times before).

 

[fuchsntf]

7 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

You've submitted your evidence that they had right to detain but now I've pointed out that your evidence specified the exact opposite it's because of the Judge's biases, not because you're misinformed. Sure.  There was no crime that they were witness to (it would be a big part of the case already if they actually had) and it's clear that in the Judge's opinion a shotgun and magnum do not constitute reasonable force. 

Didn't see a crime. Shouldn't be playing vigilante. Guns shouldn't be there. That should be the end of it.

 

Stop blaming a man for defending himself from an unnecessary, illegal situation.

 

But congratulations for taking a conversation about racial profiling gone wrong and trying to make it a discussion about what's wrong with the black community.  You've really proved something there.

 

Lastly the reason people still need to keep calling out racism even if it's boring to some, is because we still live in a world where a man can see a news story about an unarmed man in jogging gear being murdered and ask questions like "why wouldn't he submit", "why would he go for the shotgun", "what if he intended to steal" (of a person who had already left the empty construction site without taking anything and had apparently done so many times before).

 

I used to go on a construction site,just for a pee,and a turn in the bulldozers cockpit...

If I was so pissed,Play with the Guard dogs..!!

Edited 12 May 2020 by fuchsntf

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, fuchsntf said:

I used to go on a construction site,just for a pee,and a turn in the bulldozers cockpit...

If I was so pissed,Play with the Guard dogs..!!

Handy places when you need somewhere to light up out of the rain.

[fuchsntf]

3 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Handy places when you need somewhere to light up out of the rain.

Or quick fumble and grope,before dropping of your girl backhome....Sack of concrete or hay,who cared..upmarket from the gasswork-walls.

Mind you,cemetaries were softer and more forgiving,Plus it was nice laying under the Stars though during Full moon,One always had the feeling One was being watched..

Edited 12 May 2020 by fuchsntf

[StanSP]

28 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Handy places when you need somewhere to light up out of the rain.

Or have your last thoughts before you get gunned down... 

[Carl the Llama]

4 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Or have your last thoughts before you get gunned down... 

If YoU'vE dOnE nOtHiNg WrOnG yOu'Ve GoT nOtHiNg To FeAr.

[Jattdogg]

8 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Or have your last thoughts before you get gunned down... 

It's murder 100%

 

[leicsmac]

6 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

If YoU'vE dOnE nOtHiNg WrOnG yOu'Ve GoT nOtHiNg To FeAr.

"The news that they have nothing to fear is almost guaranteed to strike terror into the hearts of innocents everywhere." - Terry Pratchett.

[Carl the Llama]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

"The news that they have nothing to fear is almost guaranteed to strike terror into the hearts of innocents everywhere." - Terry Pratchett.

Has Terry tried saying it while holding a shotgun though?

[MC Prussian]

3 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

You've submitted your evidence that they had right to detain but now I've pointed out that your evidence specified the exact opposite it's because of the Judge's biases, not because you're misinformed. Sure.  There was no crime that they were witness to (it would be a big part of the case already if they actually had) and it's clear that in the Judge's opinion a shotgun and magnum do not constitute reasonable force. 

Didn't see a crime. Shouldn't be playing vigilante. Guns shouldn't be there. That should be the end of it.

 

Stop blaming a man for defending himself from an unnecessary, illegal situation.

 

But congratulations for taking a conversation about racial profiling gone wrong and trying to make it a discussion about what's wrong with the black community.  You've really proved something there.

 

Lastly the reason people still need to keep calling out racism even if it's boring to some, is because we still live in a world where a man can see a news story about an unarmed man in jogging gear being murdered and ask questions like "why wouldn't he submit", "why would he go for the shotgun", "what if he intended to steal" (of a person who had already left the empty construction site without taking anything and had apparently done so many times before).

They have/had the right to detain, it just never got to that point. I think there's nuance, and we should also be wary when we quote "experts" or lawmakers. There's room for interpretation, and it'll be interesting to see what the final verdict is against the McMichaels.

They don't necessarily need to be actual witnesses, the right to detain is also based on another factor, as specified above.

They made a mess of it and for that they deserve their rightful punishment.

 

You continue to promote the "racism" line and "he was only jogging" theory, when there is no actual/factual evidence right now that this is a case of racial profiling or that Arbery was an "innocent" jogger, "hunted down" by two "rednecks/racists".

If Arbery had been white - you think they wouldn't have chased him down? It's not his race that defines this case or the outcome, it's his actions. What a fool for trying to pry that shotgun out of McMichael's hands. He wanted the confrontation (as seen in the video), when he could've made it all so much easier, especially for himself.

 

Theft or no theft is irrelevant here, he was (seen) trespassing in the same area multiple times. Misdemeanor at least. Cause enough to try to stop and question him in the absence of police.

The questions I raised are reasonable and justified. Just as much as is calling out racism where racism is actually due. We have no proof of that here, just opinions and bias.

[Mike Oxlong]

8 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

They have/had the right to detain, it just never got to that point. I think there's nuance, and we should also be wary when we quote "experts" or lawmakers. There's room for interpretation, and it'll be interesting to see what the final verdict is against the McMichaels.

They don't necessarily need to be actual witnesses, the right to detain is also based on another factor, as specified above.

They made a mess of it and for that they deserve their rightful punishment.

 

You continue to promote the "racism" line and "he was only jogging" theory, when there is no actual/factual evidence right now that this is a case of racial profiling or that Arbery was an "innocent" jogger, "hunted down" by two "rednecks/racists".

If Arbery had been white - you think they wouldn't have chased him down? It's not his race that defines this case or the outcome, it's his actions. What a fool for trying to pry that shotgun out of McMichael's hands. He wanted the confrontation (as seen in the video), when he could've made it all so much easier, especially for himself.

 

Theft or no theft is irrelevant here, he was (seen) trespassing in the same area multiple times. Misdemeanor at least. Cause enough to try to stop and question him in the absence of police.

The questions I raised are reasonable and justified. Just as much as is calling out racism where racism is actually due. We have no proof of that here, just opinions and bias.

 

6 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

"Jogging" 14 miles from home, in that outfit? Does Arbery look like sweating to you at all or out of breath, judging from the videos?

In what twisted way does "jogging" include trespassing/entering other people's property/houses?

He only started "jogging" that day once another person saw him come out of the building.

 

Of course his family will try to protect his name and his image, that's what families do most of the time. Would you expect for them openly admit that their son could've done something wrong and that he (allegedly) had a criminal history?

 

Seeing that you've noticed the initial surveillance video, I'm sure you're aware of the fact that Arbery was spotted in the same building multiple times, and that even at night (Source: WSAV-3 news).

 

Just because the 911 calls fail to mention any wrongdoing doesn't mean he did nothing wrong (trespassing is at least a misdemeanor).

And the McMichaels were in the right to detain him under Georgia law, according to this report:

https://www.wabe.org/atlanta-judge-examines-georgias-citizens-arrest-law-state-bureau-of-investigation-gives-updates-on-arbery-investigation/

 

Listen, I've got to admit I've made a mistake, and I'm here to set it straight.

I initially claimed the person who made the video should be charged, as well. Turns out he was a neighbor, a witness who followed the McMichaels out of curiosity. According to latest reports and his testimony, he had nothing to do with the shooting directly.

But thanks to the initial media reports, he's now receiving death threats aplenty.

https://newschannel9.com/news/local/man-who-shot-video-in-ahmaud-arbery-killing-gets-death-threats-attorney-says

 

There's also the case of an African-American setting up a fake Facebook profile, pretending to be in support of the McMichaels. Way to alienate a population and stir more trouble than necessary.

https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/crime-and-law/ahmaud-arbery-gbi-aware-facebook-post-containing-threat-future-protests/EEDVA6LAYFFDVIRBTH5HUIXURM/

Oh, America.

 

When does the Black community in the US start to take (collective) responsibility for their own misguided actions?

Arbery shouldn't have died.

Arbery should also never have tried to grab that shotgun, though.

 

I'm fed up with this one-sided US (and UK) media frenzy and selective outrage, made even worse by social media. Where's the outrage over the deaths of or attacks on Korean or Hispanic people in the US, for example? Where were you when Andy Ngo was attacked, for instance?

 

This is consistent with a smeary, sensationalist media coverage. Always remember Jussie Smollett.

 

The more you cry "racist" when racism isn't warranted, the more the term loses its meaning. Then real racism comes along, and no one bats an eyelid.

 

 

Edited 12 May 2020 by Mike Oxlong