(05-12-2020, 03:26 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ] (05-12-2020, 12:56 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Lol, God help you if you ever find yourself under assault. You better damn well surrender to whoever it is making demands of you lest you be the hypocrite.
You and mike sure like to put others in make-believe situations and then tell them they have to act a certain way based on a forum post you were demonstrably unable to understand.
I admit my reading comprehension is not always perfect, but, I don't take criticism about reading comprehension from people who can't tell the difference between informed opinions and conspiracy theories. I bet flsportsgod feels the same.
(05-12-2020, 01:10 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ] (05-12-2020, 09:02 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Lily, Hispanic, or Florescent though?
I identify with the sourdough cultures.
(05-12-2020, 12:02 PM)EricC85 Wrote: [ -> ]I’m not so sure it’s as clear as I first thought watching he first video. If he was committing a crime, ( I can’t see any other reason he was on a vacant homestead) they where within their rights to stop and detain him. If a struggle results from a legal citizens arrest can you fault or charge either party for using force? What if Arbury has got the shotgun away from them and used it would he be guilty of murder or is it self defense?
Here's a question: why the [BLEEP] are "citizen's arrest" laws still a thing anywhere? If someone on the street randomly stops me and tells me that they're performing a citizen's arrest, I'm walking away. If they escalate, then they're attempting to kidnap me, and I'll respond in kind with appropriate force.
That's a valid question, but that doesnt change the fact that in GA they are, in fact, a thing
(05-12-2020, 03:26 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ] (05-12-2020, 12:56 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Lol, God help you if you ever find yourself under assault. You better damn well surrender to whoever it is making demands of you lest you be the hypocrite.
You and mike sure like to put others in make-believe situations and then tell them they have to act a certain way based on a forum post you were demonstrably unable to understand.
I perfectly understand your position. I also understand that it's absurd.
(05-12-2020, 03:34 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-12-2020, 01:10 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]I identify with the sourdough cultures.
Here's a question: why the [BLEEP] are "citizen's arrest" laws still a thing anywhere? If someone on the street randomly stops me and tells me that they're performing a citizen's arrest, I'm walking away. If they escalate, then they're attempting to kidnap me, and I'll respond in kind with appropriate force.
That's a valid question, but that doesnt change the fact that in GA they are, in fact, a thing
It's also irrelevant to this case. There was no mention of nor the proper circumstances for such an arrest.
I also wondered why the garage video is only 7 seconds long.
It does not show Arbery leaving the garage. Why would the homeowner edit the video?
Also, Arbery exits via the front door, so how did he get in the house?
(05-12-2020, 03:32 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-12-2020, 03:08 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]He was shot three times with the shotgun. The two fatal wounds were to the torso area. My guess is the two fatal wounds were the second and third shots fired. Not that it really matters, but those shots came during the struggle/fight that was taking place.
There is evidence that is not being talked about in the media. It appears that the person filming the incident panned to two different objects on the ground that perhaps the victim had thrown down as he ran toward the truck. What were those objects and where did they come from? Also, does anyone find it odd that he was allegedly in the vacant residence for up to 3 minutes but only 7 seconds of the footage from inside the residence is shown?
As I have said many times before in this thread, I don't condone or justify what happened in any way. My guess is that the charge of murder will probably get reduced to involuntary manslaughter if the prosecutor(s) hope for a conviction. Remember, the burden of proof falls on the prosecution to prove guilt rather than the accused proving innocence to the crime that they are charged with.
My biggest gripe is with the media and now some Georgia lawmakers trying to push the narrative that this was somehow a "hate crime" against an innocent black man out for a jog. The evidence revealed publicly doesn't seem (to me) indicate this.
So what you're saying is that cops on the scene, who wanted to arrest the McMichaels boys a the time but were instructed not to by the DA, overlooked or destroyed evidence that the runner was armed or carrying stolen goods? Is that your position? Because I don't think anyone left alive at the scene had any interest in suppressing exculpatory evidence for the shooter.
Do you consider it odd that the McMichaels pair saw a black guy running down the road and so strongly believed that he was a criminal that they lit out after him to detain him? To the point of trying to block him with their vehicles (It's now "vehicles" since the 3rd guy admitted he also tried to use his truck to impede him)? To the point of pulling guns on him when he refused to stop?
It seems quite clear to me that they had no business chasing him and this whole thing is a result of that stupid decision.
I agree with FSG on this one, JIB. If the dude filming was part of the chasing posse, maybe he thought he saw something get thrown down when in actuality, nothing was. My guess, however, is one of two things happened:
1. He lost his grip because he was driving and filming simultaneously (irresponsible). If you've got a wallet phone case, this is definitely possible.
2. He thought Arbery was about to get mowed down as soon as the truck comes into view and decided to avoid that critical piece of cinematography
(05-12-2020, 03:32 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-12-2020, 03:08 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]He was shot three times with the shotgun. The two fatal wounds were to the torso area. My guess is the two fatal wounds were the second and third shots fired. Not that it really matters, but those shots came during the struggle/fight that was taking place.
There is evidence that is not being talked about in the media. It appears that the person filming the incident panned to two different objects on the ground that perhaps the victim had thrown down as he ran toward the truck. What were those objects and where did they come from? Also, does anyone find it odd that he was allegedly in the vacant residence for up to 3 minutes but only 7 seconds of the footage from inside the residence is shown?
As I have said many times before in this thread, I don't condone or justify what happened in any way. My guess is that the charge of murder will probably get reduced to involuntary manslaughter if the prosecutor(s) hope for a conviction. Remember, the burden of proof falls on the prosecution to prove guilt rather than the accused proving innocence to the crime that they are charged with.
My biggest gripe is with the media and now some Georgia lawmakers trying to push the narrative that this was somehow a "hate crime" against an innocent black man out for a jog. The evidence revealed publicly doesn't seem (to me) indicate this.
So what you're saying is that cops on the scene, who wanted to arrest the McMichaels boys a the time but were instructed not to by the DA, overlooked or destroyed evidence that the runner was armed or carrying stolen goods? Is that your position? Because I don't think anyone left alive at the scene had any interest in suppressing exculpatory evidence for the shooter.
Do you consider it odd that the McMichaels pair saw a black guy running down the road and so strongly believed that he was a criminal that they lit out after him to detain him? To the point of trying to block him with their vehicles (It's now "vehicles" since the 3rd guy admitted he also tried to use his truck to impede him)? To the point of pulling guns on him when he refused to stop?
It seems quite clear to me that they had no business chasing him and this whole thing is a result of that stupid decision.
I'm not saying that at all. I am simply pointing out that there is far more evidence not being reported or publicly available. The narrative in the news is that this is supposedly a "hate crime". A closer look at what evidence that is publicly available seems to show otherwise. By the way, I have seen nothing to suggest that the cops on the scene "wanted to arrest" the father/son duo.
Unlike you and so many others, I refuse to "prosecute" or "convict" these guys in the "media/public court of opinion". I want to see due process. As far as my opinion? I can agree with you that the decision that they made was not the right decision in hindsight. As I have said many times before, I don't condone or justify the decision that they made.
(05-12-2020, 03:55 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ] (05-12-2020, 03:32 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]So what you're saying is that cops on the scene, who wanted to arrest the McMichaels boys a the time but were instructed not to by the DA, overlooked or destroyed evidence that the runner was armed or carrying stolen goods? Is that your position? Because I don't think anyone left alive at the scene had any interest in suppressing exculpatory evidence for the shooter.
Do you consider it odd that the McMichaels pair saw a black guy running down the road and so strongly believed that he was a criminal that they lit out after him to detain him? To the point of trying to block him with their vehicles (It's now "vehicles" since the 3rd guy admitted he also tried to use his truck to impede him)? To the point of pulling guns on him when he refused to stop?
It seems quite clear to me that they had no business chasing him and this whole thing is a result of that stupid decision.
I agree with FSG on this one, JIB. If the dude filming was part of the chasing posse, maybe he thought he saw something get thrown down when in actuality, nothing was. My guess, however, is one of two things happened:
1. He lost his grip because he was driving and filming simultaneously (irresponsible). If you've got a wallet phone case, this is definitely possible.
2. He thought Arbery was about to get mowed down as soon as the truck comes into view and decided to avoid that critical piece of cinematography
So now it's a "chasing posse"? Are you saying that this was a "modern day lynching"? Because the evidence and the facts don't support that claim. Did Arbery get "mowed down"? Was it reported anywhere that the guy that was filming "thought" that a shooting was going to take place?
Again, the media and some Georgia lawmakers are trying to make this about race. The facts that we know and the evidence seems to prove otherwise.
For the record, I am not trying to "defend" the suspects at all. I am simply trying to point out that this incident is/was not what is being "reported". Did the suspects make a bad decision? Absolutely. Did the victim make a bad decision? It sure does look that way.
Where is the proof that he was "just out for a jog"? Where are the witnesses stating that they saw him "out for a jog"?
(05-12-2020, 04:15 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (05-12-2020, 03:32 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]So what you're saying is that cops on the scene, who wanted to arrest the McMichaels boys a the time but were instructed not to by the DA, overlooked or destroyed evidence that the runner was armed or carrying stolen goods? Is that your position? Because I don't think anyone left alive at the scene had any interest in suppressing exculpatory evidence for the shooter.
Do you consider it odd that the McMichaels pair saw a black guy running down the road and so strongly believed that he was a criminal that they lit out after him to detain him? To the point of trying to block him with their vehicles (It's now "vehicles" since the 3rd guy admitted he also tried to use his truck to impede him)? To the point of pulling guns on him when he refused to stop?
It seems quite clear to me that they had no business chasing him and this whole thing is a result of that stupid decision.
I'm not saying that at all. I am simply pointing out that there is far more evidence not being reported or publicly available. The narrative in the news is that this is supposedly a "hate crime". A closer look at what evidence that is publicly available seems to show otherwise. By the way, I have seen nothing to suggest that the cops on the scene "wanted to arrest" the father/son duo.
Unlike you and so many others, I refuse to "prosecute" or "convict" these guys in the "media/public court of opinion". I want to see due process. As far as my opinion? I can agree with you that the decision that they made was not the right decision in hindsight. As I have said many times before, I don't condone or justify the decision that they made.
I don't care if they call it a hate crime or not, but the DA said it was no crime when the cops on scene felt otherwise. Here you go, the County Commissioners who looked into it said the cops were shut down by the DA:
"Commissioner Peter Murphy, who also said he spoke directly to Glynn County police about the incident, said officers at the scene concluded they had probable cause to make arrests and contacted Johnson’s office to inform the prosecutor of their decision.
“They were told not to make the arrest,” Murphy said."
Georgia DA prevented arrest of McMichaels
Pretty hard to get due process when the DA's office is a friend of the killer I guess.
(05-12-2020, 04:30 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (05-12-2020, 03:55 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with FSG on this one, JIB. If the dude filming was part of the chasing posse, maybe he thought he saw something get thrown down when in actuality, nothing was. My guess, however, is one of two things happened:
1. He lost his grip because he was driving and filming simultaneously (irresponsible). If you've got a wallet phone case, this is definitely possible.
2. He thought Arbery was about to get mowed down as soon as the truck comes into view and decided to avoid that critical piece of cinematography
So now it's a "chasing posse"? Are you saying that this was a "modern day lynching"? Because the evidence and the facts don't support that claim. Did Arbery get "mowed down"? Was it reported anywhere that the guy that was filming "thought" that a shooting was going to take place?
Again, the media and some Georgia lawmakers are trying to make this about race. The facts that we know and the evidence seems to prove otherwise.
For the record, I am not trying to "defend" the suspects at all. I am simply trying to point out that this incident is/was not what is being "reported". Did the suspects make a bad decision? Absolutely. Did the victim make a bad decision? It sure does look that way.
Where is the proof that he was "just out for a jog"? Where are the witnesses stating that they saw him "out for a jog"?
Stop. Whether or not he was out for a jog is irrelevant. The shooters DID NOT KNOW HE WAS IN ANY HOUSE BEFORE THEY CHASED HIM DOWN AND SUBSEQUENTLY KILLED HIM. They flat out said "we saw a guy 'hauling [BLEEP]' down the street and thought he looked like a burglar they had heard about so we chased him." They had no cause to chase him other than 1. he was running, and 2. he was black like the reported burglar was. They didn't see him do anything. No one told them he did anything. There was nothing that said they should pursue him at that moment, and absolutely nothing that told them they needed or had the right to detain him. The very act of attempting to detain him was a crime itself and there was nothing about what they did that was right, moral, ethical, or ok. They should've called the cops and left it with them, but Noooooooo, big hoss and little hoss gonna ride out and handle this business. And now the guy is dead and people are doing their damnedest to make it his fault when the only fault lies with the trigger happy yokels who should've been in jail months ago and their buddy the DA.
(05-12-2020, 04:50 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Stop. Whether or not he was out for a jog is irrelevant. The shooters DID NOT KNOW HE WAS IN ANY HOUSE BEFORE THEY CHASED HIM DOWN AND SUBSEQUENTLY KILLED HIM. They flat out said "we saw a guy 'hauling [BLEEP]' down the street and thought he looked like a burglar they had heard about so we chased him." They had no cause to chase him other than 1. he was running, and 2. he was black like the reported burglar was. They didn't see him do anything. No one told them he did anything. There was nothing that said they should pursue him at that moment, and absolutely nothing that told them they needed or had the right to detain him. The very act of attempting to detain him was a crime itself and there was nothing about what they did that was right, moral, ethical, or ok. They should've called the cops and left it with them, but Noooooooo, big hoss and little hoss gonna ride out and handle this business. And now the guy is dead and people are doing their damnedest to make it his fault when the only fault lies with the trigger happy yokels who should've been in jail months ago and their buddy the DA.
The father was outside and the house is right next to theirs. They also heard the neighbor yelling at him because he was in the house. It is reasonable to think they saw him running from the house when the neighbor yelled.
Stop bringing your hate towards rednecks into it, you are invalidating anything you say because you don't care about the facts. You only care that a black person was killed by some racist white rednecks.
(05-12-2020, 11:23 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-12-2020, 11:00 AM)Olive Wrote: [ -> ]Tell me the difference between this shooting, and the Trayvon Martin shooting. Guy with a gun follows person he believes may be committing a crime. Man with a gun follows Trayvon Martin … Martin attacks the guy with a gun that is following him and gets shot. The main difference is a video.
It is not illegal to follow someone. Well, unless a Judge has ruled on such a stalking, or distance requirement.
I could see this ending the same way it did in the George Zimmerman outcome. I hope not, but I can’t recognize how this is wildly different.
Zimmerman did not engage Martin as the McMichaels did, did not repeatedly attempt to interdict him with a vehicle as the McMichaels did, there weren't two of him as there were with the McMichaels, and was on the phone with the police when Martin attacked him unlike the McMichaels.
I'm not sure that will be wildly different enough to change the outcome. No doubt they are going to use some form of excuse that they felt allowed them to follow him, and possibly even confront him. Not sure if stopping your vehicle in the middle of the road will be considered a crime worthy enough to make a huge difference. In the video, I didn't see a gun aimed at him. Once he bolted over in front of the truck to attack the guy holding the shotgun, it was a fight for both of their lives. I think the McMichaels are scum, and should spend the rest of their lives in jail. Along with George Zimmerman, Casey Anthony, and OJ Simpson ... But, it doesn't always go the way I believe it should ... And I can easily see this one going against what I believe.
What was up with Dad in the back of the truck? Did he shoot? I don't see the point of stating there were two (actually three, but it didn't appear that he knew that).
(05-12-2020, 04:41 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]I don't care if they call it a hate crime or not, but the DA said it was no crime when the cops on scene felt otherwise. Here you go, the County Commissioners who looked into it said the cops were shut down by the DA:
"Commissioner Peter Murphy, who also said he spoke directly to Glynn County police about the incident, said officers at the scene concluded they had probable cause to make arrests and contacted Johnson’s office to inform the prosecutor of their decision.
“They were told not to make the arrest,” Murphy said."
Georgia DA prevented arrest of McMichaels
Pretty hard to get due process when the DA's office is a friend of the killer I guess.
There are plenty of reasons not to arrest someone immediately. Just because you arrest someone, doesn't mean they get charged. Once you arrest them, you have to bring it to a grand jury within X amount of time. If you don't have enough evidence, not arresting them helps the prosecution. The video alone does not give enough evidence based on their statements.
Wait until the evidence is presented to the grand jury and we get an idea of the full story.
(05-12-2020, 04:30 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (05-12-2020, 03:55 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]I agree with FSG on this one, JIB. If the dude filming was part of the chasing posse, maybe he thought he saw something get thrown down when in actuality, nothing was. My guess, however, is one of two things happened:
1. He lost his grip because he was driving and filming simultaneously (irresponsible). If you've got a wallet phone case, this is definitely possible.
2. He thought Arbery was about to get mowed down as soon as the truck comes into view and decided to avoid that critical piece of cinematography
So now it's a "chasing posse"? Are you saying that this was a "modern day lynching"? Because the evidence and the facts don't support that claim. Did Arbery get "mowed down"? Was it reported anywhere that the guy that was filming "thought" that a shooting was going to take place?
Again, the media and some Georgia lawmakers are trying to make this about race. The facts that we know and the evidence seems to prove otherwise.
For the record, I am not trying to "defend" the suspects at all. I am simply trying to point out that this incident is/was not what is being "reported". Did the suspects make a bad decision? Absolutely. Did the victim make a bad decision? It sure does look that way.
Where is the proof that he was "just out for a jog"? Where are the witnesses stating that they saw him "out for a jog"?
Yes, it was a chasing posse. A posse that continuously chased Arbery, including, apparently, the guy filming.
Posse (noun) - a body of men, typically armed, summoned by a sheriff to enforce the law. Also, a group of people who have a common characteristic, occupation or purpose. (Replace the sheriff in this instance with duty to the law. The McMichaels felt summoned by their duty to make a citizens arrest).
Lest you forget, JIB, you were the one who started asking questions about these "items" that were thrown down in the first place - was it ever reported the guy chasing w/video stated Arbery threw anything down? No. You posited that possibility based on his actions only. I did the same thing, producing possible alternative reasons why Mr. Film-maker drifted his phone's line of sight to the right. For what it's worth, I don't think it was #2, but there are only three likely reasons: He either lost track of where he was filming as he began turning to the left, thought he saw something get thrown down to the ground, or didn't want to film Arbery getting shot. It's very likely he lost his grip as he turned.
Fact: I never said he got mowed down.
Fact: I never stipulated anything the guy filming said.
Fact: I never insinuated it was a modern-day lynching.
Re-read my assertion and all statements I've made on this topic. You and I are not far apart on this, but you act as if we are.
(05-12-2020, 03:34 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-12-2020, 01:10 PM)TJBender Wrote: [ -> ]I identify with the sourdough cultures.
Here's a question: why the [BLEEP] are "citizen's arrest" laws still a thing anywhere? If someone on the street randomly stops me and tells me that they're performing a citizen's arrest, I'm walking away. If they escalate, then they're attempting to kidnap me, and I'll respond in kind with appropriate force.
That's a valid question, but that doesnt change the fact that in GA they are, in fact, a thing
All valid points I agree a citizens arrest is an outdated concept to me it’s just setting up trouble situations like this one
(05-12-2020, 05:17 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ] (05-12-2020, 04:30 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]So now it's a "chasing posse"? Are you saying that this was a "modern day lynching"? Because the evidence and the facts don't support that claim. Did Arbery get "mowed down"? Was it reported anywhere that the guy that was filming "thought" that a shooting was going to take place?
Again, the media and some Georgia lawmakers are trying to make this about race. The facts that we know and the evidence seems to prove otherwise.
For the record, I am not trying to "defend" the suspects at all. I am simply trying to point out that this incident is/was not what is being "reported". Did the suspects make a bad decision? Absolutely. Did the victim make a bad decision? It sure does look that way.
Where is the proof that he was "just out for a jog"? Where are the witnesses stating that they saw him "out for a jog"?
Yes, it was a chasing posse. A posse that continuously chased Arbery, including, apparently, the guy filming.
Posse (noun) - a body of men, typically armed, summoned by a sheriff to enforce the law. Also, a group of people who have a common characteristic, occupation or purpose. (Replace the sheriff in this instance with duty to the law. The McMichaels felt summoned by their duty to make a citizens arrest).
Lest you forget, JIB, you were the one who started asking questions about these "items" that were thrown down in the first place - was it ever reported the guy chasing w/video stated Arbery threw anything down? No. You posited that possibility based on his actions only. I did the same thing, producing possible alternative reasons why Mr. Film-maker drifted his phone's line of sight to the right. For what it's worth, I don't think it was #2, but there are only three likely reasons: He either lost track of where he was filming as he began turning to the left, thought he saw something get thrown down to the ground, or didn't want to film Arbery getting shot. It's very likely he lost his grip as he turned.
Fact: I never said he got mowed down.
Fact: I never stipulated anything the guy filming said.
Fact: I never insinuated it was a modern-day lynching.
Re-read my assertion and all statements I've made on this topic. You and I are not far apart on this, but you act as if we are.
We may or may not be far apart on this, and it really doesn't matter.
Regarding the objects in the video, we don't know if they are relevant or not. I never said that he "threw them down". I stated that perhaps there was a reason that the person filming appeared to pan to them and asked the question whether or not they were evidence. I don't know if they were thrown down by the victim or if they are even relevant. I just asked the question of what they were and if it was relevant evidence. We can speculate about that minor detail all we want. Could they be items taken from the home where the apparent trespass took place? Could one of the items been a weapon that the victim dropped? He was known to carry weapons in his waistband. One might wonder what the objects were and if they are indeed evidence in the investigation. You presented your theory and I am just asking if it's possible that the camera turned to those objects for a reason.
My biggest complaint is how this is being portrayed in the media (both MSM and social media). Just as an example. Your use of the term "posse" could imply that it was "a bunch of rednecks chasing down a black guy" for no reason. It was two guys that were chasing someone that they suspected of multiple crimes in the area that had been caught on camera prior. Was it the right thing to do? Obviously not. However that doesn't prove an intent to shoot a man for his skin color.
Another example is saying that perhaps the guy filming the video "thought that the victim was about to get mowed down". Why would somebody think that?
I agree that the whole thing was tragic and never should have happened. I agree that the suspects made a poor decision. I fail to see the intent to kill an "innocent" man based on his skin color.
(05-12-2020, 03:53 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-12-2020, 03:34 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]That's a valid question, but that doesnt change the fact that in GA they are, in fact, a thing
It's also irrelevant to this case. There was no mention of nor the proper circumstances for such an arrest.
Reasonable suspicion of a felony.
Again, under GA law entering a dwelling with the intent to burglarize is a felony. So in reality, Arbery didnt have to take anything for it to be a felony. When he went into the house he checked to make sure no one was around. When he exited the property he was confronted by another neighbor. He didnt stay and explain that he was just checking out the crown molding. He ran, fled the scene. That's important because in GA if a suspect is fleeing, then you have a LOWER evidentiary ststandard to execute a citizens arrest.
I think that fundamentally you and I have the same or at least a similar MORAL take on this. I dont think it's right to pursue someone with deadly force as a private citizen for a property crime/ prowling etc. I think these guys are over zealous "whatevers." I'd even be open to amending the law to only include violent crimes for citizens arrest.
That being said. How I feel shouldn't weigh on my interpretation of the GA law as written.
(05-12-2020, 05:06 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ] (05-12-2020, 04:50 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Stop. Whether or not he was out for a jog is irrelevant. The shooters DID NOT KNOW HE WAS IN ANY HOUSE BEFORE THEY CHASED HIM DOWN AND SUBSEQUENTLY KILLED HIM. They flat out said "we saw a guy 'hauling [BLEEP]' down the street and thought he looked like a burglar they had heard about so we chased him." They had no cause to chase him other than 1. he was running, and 2. he was black like the reported burglar was. They didn't see him do anything. No one told them he did anything. There was nothing that said they should pursue him at that moment, and absolutely nothing that told them they needed or had the right to detain him. The very act of attempting to detain him was a crime itself and there was nothing about what they did that was right, moral, ethical, or ok. They should've called the cops and left it with them, but Noooooooo, big hoss and little hoss gonna ride out and handle this business. And now the guy is dead and people are doing their damnedest to make it his fault when the only fault lies with the trigger happy yokels who should've been in jail months ago and their buddy the DA.
The father was outside and the house is right next to theirs. They also heard the neighbor yelling at him because he was in the house. It is reasonable to think they saw him running from the house when the neighbor yelled.
Stop bringing your hate towards rednecks into it, you are invalidating anything you say because you don't care about the facts. You only care that a black person was killed by some racist white rednecks.
Hey. Let's take it down a notch were all friends here.
(05-12-2020, 07:09 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-12-2020, 03:53 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]It's also irrelevant to this case. There was no mention of nor the proper circumstances for such an arrest.
Reasonable suspicion of a felony.
Again, under GA law entering a dwelling with the intent to burglarize is a felony. So in reality, Arbery didnt have to take anything for it to be a felony. When he went into the house he checked to make sure no one was around. When he exited the property he was confronted by another neighbor. He didnt stay and explain that he was just checking out the crown molding. He ran, fled the scene. That's important because in GA if a suspect is fleeing, then you have a LOWER evidentiary ststandard to execute a citizens arrest.
I think that fundamentally you and I have the same or at least a similar MORAL take on this. I dont think it's right to pursue someone with deadly force as a private citizen for a property crime/ prowling etc. I think these guys are over zealous "whatevers." I'd even be open to amending the law to only include violent crimes for citizens arrest.
That being said. How I feel shouldn't weigh on my interpretation of the GA law as written.
It's true, the standard gets lower if they're running.
"
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 shooters didn't see him on anyone's property. The resident who did see him in the home under construction could have had grounds for a citizen's arrest, *if* they saw Mr Arbery take something, or get cutting tools out, or heard Mr Arbery or one of his friends state an intent to steal.
Then he starts running. At this point, the law says anyone can try to arrest him *if* they have reasonable and probable grounds, that is, *if* they heard from the neighbor that someone matching a specific description (not just skin color, also height and clothing) was exploring construction sites in a suspicious manner. But the McMichaels didn't say that. They just had a general idea that robberies had taken place recently, and no description of any suspect, as far as I've read.
(05-12-2020, 06:43 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (05-12-2020, 05:17 PM)Gabe Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, it was a chasing posse. A posse that continuously chased Arbery, including, apparently, the guy filming.
Posse (noun) - a body of men, typically armed, summoned by a sheriff to enforce the law. Also, a group of people who have a common characteristic, occupation or purpose. (Replace the sheriff in this instance with duty to the law. The McMichaels felt summoned by their duty to make a citizens arrest).
Lest you forget, JIB, you were the one who started asking questions about these "items" that were thrown down in the first place - was it ever reported the guy chasing w/video stated Arbery threw anything down? No. You posited that possibility based on his actions only. I did the same thing, producing possible alternative reasons why Mr. Film-maker drifted his phone's line of sight to the right. For what it's worth, I don't think it was #2, but there are only three likely reasons: He either lost track of where he was filming as he began turning to the left, thought he saw something get thrown down to the ground, or didn't want to film Arbery getting shot. It's very likely he lost his grip as he turned.
Fact: I never said he got mowed down.
Fact: I never stipulated anything the guy filming said.
Fact: I never insinuated it was a modern-day lynching.
Re-read my assertion and all statements I've made on this topic. You and I are not far apart on this, but you act as if we are.
We may or may not be far apart on this, and it really doesn't matter.
Regarding the objects in the video, we don't know if they are relevant or not. I never said that he "threw them down". I stated that perhaps there was a reason that the person filming appeared to pan to them and asked the question whether or not they were evidence. I don't know if they were thrown down by the victim or if they are even relevant. I just asked the question of what they were and if it was relevant evidence. We can speculate about that minor detail all we want. Could they be items taken from the home where the apparent trespass took place? Could one of the items been a weapon that the victim dropped? He was known to carry weapons in his waistband. One might wonder what the objects were and if they are indeed evidence in the investigation. You presented your theory and I am just asking if it's possible that the camera turned to those objects for a reason.
My biggest complaint is how this is being portrayed in the media (both MSM and social media). Just as an example. Your use of the term "posse" could imply that it was "a bunch of rednecks chasing down a black guy" for no reason. It was two guys that were chasing someone that they suspected of multiple crimes in the area that had been caught on camera prior. Was it the right thing to do? Obviously not. However that doesn't prove an intent to shoot a man for his skin color.
Another example is saying that perhaps the guy filming the video "thought that the victim was about to get mowed down". Why would somebody think that?
I agree that the whole thing was tragic and never should have happened. I agree that the suspects made a poor decision. I fail to see the intent to kill an "innocent" man based on his skin color.
I'm wrestling with how to respond. I can only assume you think that I think this is race-related. For what it's worth, I don't. It's an unfortunate situation that resulted in a man's death. What is the most frustrating thing I've seen is others and MSM assign guilt to Arbery for his untimely death. Guilt for trespassing? Questionable character? Sure. But not responsible for his death.
The term "posse" apparently has racist connotations for you - I can't control that. I meant it literally: an armed group of people out to impose their will.
I didn't present my "theory" - I provided plausible scenarios in addition to your line of questioning about what was thrown down or fell out of Arbery's shorts as he ran.
I also don't know what world you think we live in, but it is absolutely possible that if the guy filming is a friend and knows tensions are high (they admitted they chased him for a while, trying to cut off his escape in addition to their frustration over local theft)
and knows they're packing, he may move the camera away so as to not have evidence of his friends making a bad mistake he saw coming. I don't see it not being possible, especially given the situation and the type of weapons in possession. If it were me, you would've heard me saying as I recorded: "Jesus, please don't do it"
It ended up not mattering anyways, as he caught the interaction in the end....which is why I said the most likely scenario is that he lost his grip on the phone or misplaced the phone's line of sight as he gradually turned. Regardless, I recognized three separate and very plausible reasons for the cameraman's behavior. Where are we - you and I - at a crossroads? Seems like it's in semantics?