(05-09-2020, 04:38 PM)TJBender Wrote:

(05-09-2020, 03:52 PM)B2hibry Wrote: I've seen the video and will have to reserve whole judgment. I don't condone acting like mercenaries and taking a life like these men did, but I came away with more questions than answers.

-What happens  previous to start of video?
- Why was Ahmaud jogging in the middle of the road? Most folks pick one side or the other.
-Do most people jog in basketball shoes?
- Who was following and filming?
-Why jog towards a perceived threat?
-Why stop to go after the perceived threat? Especially two armed "white guys".
-Did the truck have to pass him on the street to get to its parking spot?
-Where were the cops? There was apparently enough time to round up arms, drive down the road and park. There was also enough time for someone else to get in their car to follow and record.

During social distancing, if I'm jogging on a quiet residential street, I won't be in the middle of the road. I will, however, probably be in the road to stay well clear of others. 
I jog in what would probably amount to worn-down trail shoes, so jogging in basketball shoes is not a big deal to me. 
There's an investigation ongoing into the guy who was following and filming. I have theories, but they're totally unsubstantiated theories right now, and they're not really horrible or full of malicious intent at all. 
The truck may not have been perceived as a threat at that point. Cars stop on residential streets all the time to let someone out, pick someone up, etc. It is entirely possible that this started when the truck had to get around him, and either cut it close to "teach him a lesson", whatever, or stopped purely because the vehicle's occupants saw a black man jogging and decided he was a threat to their kla--I mean, clan.

No idea what happened prior to the video starting, no idea where the cops were. It's incredibly possible that they just hadn't responded yet, and possible that no one had called prior to the shots being fired. In fact, no one calling would be even more incriminating. If I see someone that I think justifies me pulling out a shotgun, I'm probably going to call 911 before engaging him--or just not engage him at all. Unless my goal is simply to teach that uppity jogger a lesson about which neighborhoods he's allowed to jog in, of course, in which case police presence would be wholly unwelcome and problematic.

Here's what it comes down to for me, just seeing the video without any further context: a black man in a white neighborhood in fricking Brunswick-[BLEEP] Georgia was stopped by two white men in a pickup truck, one of whom felt the need to equip himself with a boomstick despite there being nothing menacing about the black man aside from the color of his skin. A fight ensues. One man is in control of a shotgun, one man is unarmed, and the unarmed man ends up with a new vent in his chest. Oh, and there's video evidence of the whole thing going down like that. And did I mention that one of the two murderers (no other label for them given the video) used to work for the DA who was initially in charge of the case?

This is the problem.  We have more context.  The context isn't reported or talked about with the same veracity as the general narrative "two white men kill black man in cold blood."

First, let me state at the outset for those who don't know me, I am in fact a POC.  I am also a property and business owner.  As such let me state unequivocally there has been NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that race had ANYTHING to do with this shooting.  Let me say that again.  There is no evidence that I am aware of that any individual currently charged or to be charged in this incident had any inflammatory racial feelings.  

To the background.

1.) Georgia has an obscure law that allows for private citizens to make a citizens arrest
2.) One of the known associates of the pursuing party had reported to 911 that they saw a man resembling Aubrey's description caught on video tape several times going through an open construction site and identified Aubrey as the potential suspect.  
3.) One of the gentlemen currently charged with his murder was a former police officer and had intimate knowledge of probable cause, the citizens arrest law, and would have carried a greater level of credibility when the death was originally reported.  In addition, he had worked with or for most of the potential prosecutors in the case so it would have been hard to even bring the case locally.  (that's why there was no initial arrest.)

So what you have are most likely over zealous neighbors pursuing someone that had been identified as a prowler in the neighborhood.  I am in favor of the second amendment, I am in favor of stand your ground laws.  I am in favor of empowering people who are a.) victims of a crime b.) witness a crime and defending their community to detain a person and have them wait for authorities AT THE TIME THE CRIME WAS COMMITTED.  However, even I would draw the line and say that a Law that potentially allows citizens to confront a potential suspect outside the context of a crime that they did not personally witness.  That brings up the same problem that mike pointed out.  If confronted by LAW ENFORCEMENT they have the power to stop, question etc. and there is a part of the social compact to obey lawful commands.  If its just some guy in a pickup truck you don't know who that is.  You have a natural right to defend yourself.  I know I would!  So I think that the Georgia law is going to have to be clarified to delineate between victims and witnesses to a crime in progress vs. a posse engaged in vigilantism.  

That aside on to the video and my conclusions.  I think that the video and what we know about the statements made at the time of the incident are condemning, but not for the reasons most people point to.  At the time of the shooting, the suspects alleged that they pulled to the SIDE of Aubrey and he went out of his way to confront the person with the shotgun.  The video demonstrates that is false.  They cut the guy off and impeded his running path.  At that point with no badge or roadblock he was perfectly in his rights to take the kids shotgun and shoot him with it.  

Moreover, part of the Georgia law requires that you have to have witnessed the CRIME or have direct knowledge of the Crime.  This presents two problems for the perpetrators.  1.) As I said before, the person who identified Aubrey as someone caught on camera walking through an open construction site never said that he took anything!  Walking through an open construction site isn't a crime.  It may be weird, it may be creepy if its at 2. am but its not a crime.  2.) The law is written so that if you try to make a citizens arrest you basically have to KNOW that the person you are trying to detain is the person you suspect of a crime.  There has to be a qualifying level of certainty.  It can't just be, "well there was a black guy in a white shirt"  it has to be "that's him i'd bet my life on it"  As such, citizens are permitted to detain the person they believe committed the crime, but they are NOT ALLOWED TO DETAIN FOR QUESTIONING because that conveys that they are unsure about the probable cause to execute a citizens arrest.  In this case the suspects clearly told Aubrey that they "WANTED TO TALK TO HIM."  Based on my interpretation of the law, there is no longer a question of guilt, it's just a question of what degree of murder the suspects should be charged with.  

In this case, I think that it will be impossible to prove that the assailants picked up their weapons and got in their trucks with the premeditated intent to kill Aubrey.  The shots were fired after a confrontation.  I think that It will be impossible to prove a hate crime based on racial bias given the context and circumstance.  What happened?  The Suspects did demonstrably try to detain Aubrey and as i mentioned above, their intent to question fails the CITIZENS ARREST STANDARD.  As such, that attempt to detain becomes a crime.  When someone commits a crime and someone dies during its commission then that becomes FELONY MURDER which is exactly what they have been charged with (In addition to assault with a deadly weapon etc.).

---