These two should fry, this is looking more and more like it was intentional.

Show me facts or actual evidence.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

That article pretty much kills your "escalation" argument on Arbery's part, especially with continued armed pursuit and attempts to cut off another unarmed citizen.

How so? I still see escalation on both parties.

---

That's your problem. You fail to see the obvious line where Arbery cannot escalate, only defend. 

If the article you linked is true, then there cannot be any escalation on Arbery's part, ESPECIALLY AFTER CONTINUED, ARMED PURSUIT.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

How so? I still see escalation on both parties.

---

That's your problem. You fail to see the obvious line where Arbery cannot escalate, only defend. 

If the article you linked is true, then there cannot be any escalation on Arbery's part, ESPECIALLY AFTER CONTINUED, ARMED PURSUIT.

Lets just chase this guy down with shotguns.... surely this won’t escalate!

---

How so? I still see escalation on both parties.

---

That's your problem. You fail to see the obvious line where Arbery cannot escalate, only defend. 

If the article you linked is true, then there cannot be any escalation on Arbery's part, ESPECIALLY AFTER CONTINUED, ARMED PURSUIT.

Not a problem for me at all. I've got no skin in the game. But running at a guy and grabbing a shotgun is not deemed escalatory? Why did he run from the neighbors in the first place? Why did he continue to run?

---

The intent is clear the second a freaking shotgun is pulled out for absolutely no defensible reason. Was Arbery pointing a gun at anyone? Was he running wild with a machete? Did he have a suicide bomb strapped to his chest? If I were to pull out a shotgun and walk towards you, would you consider that intent to harm you or not?

So because the guy was openly holding a shotgun that makes the intent to kill clear?  Based on what they knew about Arbery's criminal history did they know without a doubt that he was unarmed?  Were they not allowed to arm themselves for their own protection?

Regarding your last question, I encounter people all the time holding weapons and walking towards me.  I don't consider that a threat unless the weapon is pointed in my direction.  Go back and look at the video again.  Was the younger McMichael walking towards him in a threatening manner (pointing the shotgun at him)?

In order for the charge of murder to apply it must be proven with evidence that they armed themselves with the intent to go and shoot the man.

Bold point 1: So the new standard is, "I get to shoot you because I don't know for sure that you're unarmed"?

Bold point 2: How many times has someone pulled up in front of you and gotten out with a shotgun, facing towards you? Do you consider having your path blocked by someone with a shotgun to be threatening? And if the person who gets out with a shotgun ends up using it on you, wouldn't there have to be some intent involved on the part of the person who pulled a shotgun in the first place?

The extent to which some of you are bending over backwards to defend the murder of an unarmed man because he was on someone else's unoccupied property, or because blocking someone's path and brandishing a shotgun at them isn't a threat, or because no one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was not armed...I mean, what the [BLEEP]? Am I allowed to go around shooting people because I don't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're not armed?

Screw privilege. Some of you need to check your brain cells and make sure the neurons are still doing their thing. I block your path with a truck. I get out with a shotgun. I brandish said shotgun at you. I shoot you. You die. Somehow there's no intent on my part, even though I'm the one who blocked your path, hopped out with a shotgun and opened up a new putting green in your chest. But no, it's your fault because you didn't run screaming like a baby in your basketball shoes.

If it's a white guy doing what Arbery was doing, whatever that was, we never hear about this because no one gets shot. Because it was a black guy in a white neighborhood, the Stormfront brigade showed up and decided that petty theft of an unoccupied structure warranted blockading someone with a shotgun. I'd also like to point out that there were two 911 calls. In the first, the caller reported a black man inside a house under construction, and the caller could not articulate for the 911 operator what the man had done wrong, just that he had "taken off down the street". A second 911 call came in from someone else saying--literally--that there was "a black man running down the street".

So, again, explain how there's not intent to kill on the part of someone who blocks someone else's path, brandishes a shotgun, then puts a hole in that person's chest. Explain how there's no racial motivation when the two 911 calls made prior to the shooting are mostly to entirely focused on "a black man running down the street" without articulating any crime or threat. There was apparently enough perceived threat to stop the man with a shotgun, but not enough of one to explain the situation to a 911 operator as anything other than "a black man running down the street."

You want to say it's not racially motivated? Ok. No one showed up wearing bedsheets and burning a cross before shooting him, but as I've said over and over, all anyone was able to speak to on 911 was "a black man running down the street". And then they shot him. Because he was a black man running down the street. Their own words. Not mine.

---

So because the guy was openly holding a shotgun that makes the intent to kill clear?  Based on what they knew about Arbery's criminal history did they know without a doubt that he was unarmed?  Were they not allowed to arm themselves for their own protection?

Regarding your last question, I encounter people all the time holding weapons and walking towards me.  I don't consider that a threat unless the weapon is pointed in my direction.  Go back and look at the video again.  Was the younger McMichael walking towards him in a threatening manner (pointing the shotgun at him)?

In order for the charge of murder to apply it must be proven with evidence that they armed themselves with the intent to go and shoot the man.

Bold point 1: So the new standard is, "I get to shoot you because I don't know for sure that you're unarmed"?

Bold point 2: How many times has someone pulled up in front of you and gotten out with a shotgun, facing towards you? Do you consider having your path blocked by someone with a shotgun to be threatening? And if the person who gets out with a shotgun ends up using it on you, wouldn't there have to be some intent involved on the part of the person who pulled a shotgun in the first place?

The extent to which some of you are bending over backwards to defend the murder of an unarmed man because he was on someone else's unoccupied property, or because blocking someone's path and brandishing a shotgun at them isn't a threat, or because no one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was not armed...I mean, what the [BLEEP]? Am I allowed to go around shooting people because I don't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're not armed?

Screw privilege. Some of you need to check your brain cells and make sure the neurons are still doing their thing. I block your path with a truck. I get out with a shotgun. I brandish said shotgun at you. I shoot you. You die. Somehow there's no intent on my part, even though I'm the one who blocked your path, hopped out with a shotgun and opened up a new putting green in your chest. But no, it's your fault because you didn't run screaming like a baby in your basketball shoes.

If it's a white guy doing what Arbery was doing, whatever that was, we never hear about this because no one gets shot. Because it was a black guy in a white neighborhood, the Stormfront brigade showed up and decided that petty theft of an unoccupied structure warranted blockading someone with a shotgun. I'd also like to point out that there were two 911 calls. In the first, the caller reported a black man inside a house under construction, and the caller could not articulate for the 911 operator what the man had done wrong, just that he had "taken off down the street". A second 911 call came in from someone else saying--literally--that there was "a black man running down the street".

So, again, explain how there's not intent to kill on the part of someone who blocks someone else's path, brandishes a shotgun, then puts a hole in that person's chest. Explain how there's no racial motivation when the two 911 calls made prior to the shooting are mostly to entirely focused on "a black man running down the street" without articulating any crime or threat. There was apparently enough perceived threat to stop the man with a shotgun, but not enough of one to explain the situation to a 911 operator as anything other than "a black man running down the street."

You want to say it's not racially motivated? Ok. No one showed up wearing bedsheets and burning a cross before shooting him, but as I've said over and over, all anyone was able to speak to on 911 was "a black man running down the street". And then they shot him. Because he was a black man running down the street. Their own words. Not mine.

/thread

---

That's your problem. You fail to see the obvious line where Arbery cannot escalate, only defend. 

If the article you linked is true, then there cannot be any escalation on Arbery's part, ESPECIALLY AFTER CONTINUED, ARMED PURSUIT.

Lets just chase this guy down with shotguns.... surely this won’t escalate!

Let's just burglarize houses in a neighborhood that isn't mine. Let me just run from the neighbor that witnessed me perusing households... surely this won't escalate!

This can go round and round. There are folks that made up their minds day one and folks going with the flow of information. In the end, neither is going to be convinced to agree on anything it seems. Even the fact that HE WAS NOT OUT FOR A JOG!

---

That's your problem. You fail to see the obvious line where Arbery cannot escalate, only defend. 

If the article you linked is true, then there cannot be any escalation on Arbery's part, ESPECIALLY AFTER CONTINUED, ARMED PURSUIT.

Lets just chase this guy down with shotguns.... surely this won’t escalate!

I could see something equally crazy like this happening in Jacksonville. 

During the quarantine, I like to ride my bike throughout Riverside (not my neighborhood). If two armed guys in a pickup truck continuously/aggressively tried to stop me, I'd also turn around and go the other way (no way am I stopping to find out what two armed guys I don't know want, even if they nicely said all they wanted to do was just talk to me - doubtful it happened like that in Brunswick). After chasing me and unsuccessfully trying to cut off my "escape" - my fight or flight options have been reduced to a singular choice. When I eventually stop and confront these two guys, is that escalation?

*Narrator: it isn't.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

It's apparent some people in this thread want to get more facts and some people have already made up their mind.
Here's something to contemplate...was Arbery trying to steal copper pipe? 
There's a video history of Arbery trespassing in the house and a history of copper pipe stolen from the property.
This is from the day of the incident.

---

So because the guy was openly holding a shotgun that makes the intent to kill clear?  Based on what they knew about Arbery's criminal history did they know without a doubt that he was unarmed?  Were they not allowed to arm themselves for their own protection?

Regarding your last question, I encounter people all the time holding weapons and walking towards me.  I don't consider that a threat unless the weapon is pointed in my direction.  Go back and look at the video again.  Was the younger McMichael walking towards him in a threatening manner (pointing the shotgun at him)?

In order for the charge of murder to apply it must be proven with evidence that they armed themselves with the intent to go and shoot the man.

Bold point 1: So the new standard is, "I get to shoot you because I don't know for sure that you're unarmed"?

Bold point 2: How many times has someone pulled up in front of you and gotten out with a shotgun, facing towards you? Do you consider having your path blocked by someone with a shotgun to be threatening? And if the person who gets out with a shotgun ends up using it on you, wouldn't there have to be some intent involved on the part of the person who pulled a shotgun in the first place?

The extent to which some of you are bending over backwards to defend the murder of an unarmed man because he was on someone else's unoccupied property, or because blocking someone's path and brandishing a shotgun at them isn't a threat, or because no one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was not armed...I mean, what the [BLEEP]? Am I allowed to go around shooting people because I don't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're not armed?

Screw privilege. Some of you need to check your brain cells and make sure the neurons are still doing their thing. I block your path with a truck. I get out with a shotgun. I brandish said shotgun at you. I shoot you. You die. Somehow there's no intent on my part, even though I'm the one who blocked your path, hopped out with a shotgun and opened up a new putting green in your chest. But no, it's your fault because you didn't run screaming like a baby in your basketball shoes.

If it's a white guy doing what Arbery was doing, whatever that was, we never hear about this because no one gets shot. Because it was a black guy in a white neighborhood, the Stormfront brigade showed up and decided that petty theft of an unoccupied structure warranted blockading someone with a shotgun. I'd also like to point out that there were two 911 calls. In the first, the caller reported a black man inside a house under construction, and the caller could not articulate for the 911 operator what the man had done wrong, just that he had "taken off down the street". A second 911 call came in from someone else saying--literally--that there was "a black man running down the street".

So, again, explain how there's not intent to kill on the part of someone who blocks someone else's path, brandishes a shotgun, then puts a hole in that person's chest. Explain how there's no racial motivation when the two 911 calls made prior to the shooting are mostly to entirely focused on "a black man running down the street" without articulating any crime or threat. There was apparently enough perceived threat to stop the man with a shotgun, but not enough of one to explain the situation to a 911 operator as anything other than "a black man running down the street."

You want to say it's not racially motivated? Ok. No one showed up wearing bedsheets and burning a cross before shooting him, but as I've said over and over, all anyone was able to speak to on 911 was "a black man running down the street". And then they shot him. Because he was a black man running down the street. Their own words. Not mine.

Regarding bold point #1.  Nobody said that they could "shoot somebody".  All I said is that they were justified to be armed for their own protection.

Regarding your ridiculous point #2.  I've had people get out of vehicles in front of me with weapons (shotguns, AR-15's, etc.), and I have never perceived it as a threat.  I have never had them point the weapon at me.  Show me in the video or any evidence where any firearms were pointed at Arbery.  It doesn't get pointed at him until he (allegedly) initiated the physical struggle.

You miss my point that to charge and convict for murder it has to be proven that it was pre-meditated (intent).  The fact that the white guys armed themselves (for whatever reason) doesn't prove intent to kill Arbery.  They are innocent until proven guilty.  That's how the law works.  It's the burden of prosecutors to prove that they actually intended to kill the man.  From the evidence that I have seen.... aint gonna happen.

My point is that people (including the media) are trying to turn this into a racial issue.  No wonder the country is so divided right now.  I have seen no evidence that would suggest that race had anything to do with it.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

The same DA who told the cops not to arrest him even though they had PC? Man, the good ol' boy network is in full force out there in Brunswick.

PC to what?  What exactly were the local police investigating?  Stand your ground when a person is attacked by another believed to be involved in a crime (and past crimes in the area)?  Or maybe "two rednecks running down a black man simply "jogging down the street"?

People have made their minds up over this already without looking at the facts of the case based on what is in the media.

I somewhat agree with you that the two McMichael's did the wrong thing, but as I have said before, there is no evidence that I have seen that makes this a racial or "hate crime".  I also don't believe that Arbery was "just out for a jog".  If I see actual evidence that convinces me otherwise I might change my tune.

Im not saying its a hate crime, its a simple crime. And they should get 25 to Life  for it.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

So because the guy was openly holding a shotgun that makes the intent to kill clear?  Based on what they knew about Arbery's criminal history did they know without a doubt that he was unarmed?  Were they not allowed to arm themselves for their own protection?

Regarding your last question, I encounter people all the time holding weapons and walking towards me.  I don't consider that a threat unless the weapon is pointed in my direction.  Go back and look at the video again.  Was the younger McMichael walking towards him in a threatening manner (pointing the shotgun at him)?

In order for the charge of murder to apply it must be proven with evidence that they armed themselves with the intent to go and shoot the man.

Bold point 1: So the new standard is, "I get to shoot you because I don't know for sure that you're unarmed"?

Bold point 2: How many times has someone pulled up in front of you and gotten out with a shotgun, facing towards you? Do you consider having your path blocked by someone with a shotgun to be threatening? And if the person who gets out with a shotgun ends up using it on you, wouldn't there have to be some intent involved on the part of the person who pulled a shotgun in the first place?

The extent to which some of you are bending over backwards to defend the murder of an unarmed man because he was on someone else's unoccupied property, or because blocking someone's path and brandishing a shotgun at them isn't a threat, or because no one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was not armed...I mean, what the [BLEEP]? Am I allowed to go around shooting people because I don't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're not armed?

Screw privilege. Some of you need to check your brain cells and make sure the neurons are still doing their thing. I block your path with a truck. I get out with a shotgun. I brandish said shotgun at you. I shoot you. You die. Somehow there's no intent on my part, even though I'm the one who blocked your path, hopped out with a shotgun and opened up a new putting green in your chest. But no, it's your fault because you didn't run screaming like a baby in your basketball shoes.

If it's a white guy doing what Arbery was doing, whatever that was, we never hear about this because no one gets shot. Because it was a black guy in a white neighborhood, the Stormfront brigade showed up and decided that petty theft of an unoccupied structure warranted blockading someone with a shotgun. I'd also like to point out that there were two 911 calls. In the first, the caller reported a black man inside a house under construction, and the caller could not articulate for the 911 operator what the man had done wrong, just that he had "taken off down the street". A second 911 call came in from someone else saying--literally--that there was "a black man running down the street".

So, again, explain how there's not intent to kill on the part of someone who blocks someone else's path, brandishes a shotgun, then puts a hole in that person's chest. Explain how there's no racial motivation when the two 911 calls made prior to the shooting are mostly to entirely focused on "a black man running down the street" without articulating any crime or threat. There was apparently enough perceived threat to stop the man with a shotgun, but not enough of one to explain the situation to a 911 operator as anything other than "a black man running down the street."

You want to say it's not racially motivated? Ok. No one showed up wearing bedsheets and burning a cross before shooting him, but as I've said over and over, all anyone was able to speak to on 911 was "a black man running down the street". And then they shot him. Because he was a black man running down the street. Their own words. Not mine.

Point 1: There was no intent to shoot based on public information. This was also not premeditated. And by law, a weapon can be carried as an equalizer. False belief is that the other individual must be armed.

Point 2: I have had a weapon pointed at me an untold number of times in uniform and out, to include false imprisonment. In this case, there is currently no information that shows the shotgun was pointed at the guy. Simply carrying it is not a threat or proof of intent to kill.

The rest of your rant comes off frustrated and irrational. Of course, you can't just walk around shooting people. Shots weren't fired in this case until the gun was grabbed. It was not pointed at anyone according to the video we have. Yes, you can question someone and even detain someone based on a B&E or what Georgia considers felony burglary. I know you think its cute, but basketball shoes don't matter at this point because he wasn't jogging for health reasons anyway.

White, Black, no matter. It happens and more often than you are aware because it doesn't get media reads. Any idea who called 911? Was it the full call you heard? Can I get a link to the transcript or call if you got it? Everything I've seen shows "someone" told dispatch, "a man was on property under construction and had been caught on camera a bunch before at night." The rest is in the moment gibberish but really doesn't matter as the patrol was on the way during the second call.

FYI, Georgia does not have a specific brandishing law. Having a gun out while questioning could be considered disorderly conduct at most and escalates if actually aimed at someone (typical brandishing definition) without legal justification.

Could it have been racial, sure, it's possible but nothing yet says that is the case. Just because there are skin color differences does not instantly mean this is a hate crime. Some of you are getting twisted around the axle because you think it is an either-or situation. Both parties can be in the wrong without race even being a factor. One party can be wrong without race being a factor. And so on. Time and time again folks have said this situation was unnecessary and don't believe someone should have died, yet you don't want to hear it. But boy, if there aren't some of ya'll beating the war drums for a racial lynching without all the info.

---

Lets just chase this guy down with shotguns.... surely this won’t escalate!

I could see something equally crazy like this happening in Jacksonville. 

During the quarantine, I like to ride my bike throughout Riverside (not my neighborhood). If two armed guys in a pickup truck continuously/aggressively tried to stop me, I'd also turn around and go the other way (no way am I stopping to find out what two armed guys I don't know want, even if they nicely said all they wanted to do was just talk to me - doubtful it happened like that in Brunswick). After chasing me and unsuccessfully trying to cut off my "escape" - my fight or flight options have been reduced to a singular choice. When I eventually stop and confront these two guys, is that escalation?

*Narrator: it isn't.

False equivalency, unless you were biking throughout riverside so you could walk through random houses.

---

Is this why they scrubbed his social media?  

---

B2hibry

Bold point 1: So the new standard is, "I get to shoot you because I don't know for sure that you're unarmed"?

Bold point 2: How many times has someone pulled up in front of you and gotten out with a shotgun, facing towards you? Do you consider having your path blocked by someone with a shotgun to be threatening? And if the person who gets out with a shotgun ends up using it on you, wouldn't there have to be some intent involved on the part of the person who pulled a shotgun in the first place?

The extent to which some of you are bending over backwards to defend the murder of an unarmed man because he was on someone else's unoccupied property, or because blocking someone's path and brandishing a shotgun at them isn't a threat, or because no one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was not armed...I mean, what the [BLEEP]? Am I allowed to go around shooting people because I don't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're not armed?

Screw privilege. Some of you need to check your brain cells and make sure the neurons are still doing their thing. I block your path with a truck. I get out with a shotgun. I brandish said shotgun at you. I shoot you. You die. Somehow there's no intent on my part, even though I'm the one who blocked your path, hopped out with a shotgun and opened up a new putting green in your chest. But no, it's your fault because you didn't run screaming like a baby in your basketball shoes.

If it's a white guy doing what Arbery was doing, whatever that was, we never hear about this because no one gets shot. Because it was a black guy in a white neighborhood, the Stormfront brigade showed up and decided that petty theft of an unoccupied structure warranted blockading someone with a shotgun. I'd also like to point out that there were two 911 calls. In the first, the caller reported a black man inside a house under construction, and the caller could not articulate for the 911 operator what the man had done wrong, just that he had "taken off down the street". A second 911 call came in from someone else saying--literally--that there was "a black man running down the street".

So, again, explain how there's not intent to kill on the part of someone who blocks someone else's path, brandishes a shotgun, then puts a hole in that person's chest. Explain how there's no racial motivation when the two 911 calls made prior to the shooting are mostly to entirely focused on "a black man running down the street" without articulating any crime or threat. There was apparently enough perceived threat to stop the man with a shotgun, but not enough of one to explain the situation to a 911 operator as anything other than "a black man running down the street."

You want to say it's not racially motivated? Ok. No one showed up wearing bedsheets and burning a cross before shooting him, but as I've said over and over, all anyone was able to speak to on 911 was "a black man running down the street". And then they shot him. Because he was a black man running down the street. Their own words. Not mine.

Point 1: There was no intent to shoot based on public information. This was also not premeditated. And by law, a weapon can be carried as an equalizer. False belief is that the other individual must be armed.

Point 2: I have had a weapon pointed at me an untold number of times in uniform and out, to include false imprisonment.  In this case, there is currently no information that shows the shotgun was pointed at the guy. Simply carrying it is not a threat or proof of intent to kill.

The rest of your rant comes off frustrated and irrational. Of course, you can't just walk around shooting people. Shots weren't fired in this case until the gun was grabbed. It was not pointed at anyone according to the video we have. Yes, you can question someone and even detain someone based on a B&E or what Georgia considers felony burglary. I know you think its cute, but basketball shoes don't matter at this point because he wasn't jogging for health reasons anyway.

White, Black, no matter. It happens and more often than you are aware because it doesn't get media reads. Any idea who called 911? Was it the full call you heard? Can I get a link to the transcript or call if you got it? Everything I've seen shows "someone" told dispatch, "a man was on property under construction and had been caught on camera a bunch before at night." The rest is in the moment gibberish but really doesn't matter as the patrol was on the way during the second call.

FYI, Georgia does not have a specific brandishing law. Having a gun out while questioning could be considered disorderly conduct at most and escalates if actually aimed at someone (typical brandishing definition) without legal justification.

Could it have been racial, sure, it's possible but nothing yet says that is the case. Just because there are skin color differences does not instantly mean this is a hate crime. Some of you are getting twisted around the axle because you think it is an either-or situation. Both parties can be in the wrong without race even being a factor. One party can be wrong without race being a factor. And so on. Time and time again folks have said this situation was unnecessary and don't believe someone should have died, yet you don't want to hear it. But boy, if there aren't some of ya'll beating the war drums for a racial lynching without all the info.

---

I could see something equally crazy like this happening in Jacksonville. 

During the quarantine, I like to ride my bike throughout Riverside (not my neighborhood). If two armed guys in a pickup truck continuously/aggressively tried to stop me, I'd also turn around and go the other way (no way am I stopping to find out what two armed guys I don't know want, even if they nicely said all they wanted to do was just talk to me - doubtful it happened like that in Brunswick). After chasing me and unsuccessfully trying to cut off my "escape" - my fight or flight options have been reduced to a singular choice. When I eventually stop and confront these two guys, is that escalation?

*Narrator: it isn't.

False equivalency, unless you were biking throughout riverside so you could walk through random houses.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, for the purposes of this scenario, I trespassed onto a construction property. 

Any reaction I have after consistent chasing, cutting off, etc. etc. etc. with guns is self defense. Trespassing onto a different person's property doesn't equate to escalation after the aforementioned aggression.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

Bold point 1: So the new standard is, "I get to shoot you because I don't know for sure that you're unarmed"?

Bold point 2: How many times has someone pulled up in front of you and gotten out with a shotgun, facing towards you? Do you consider having your path blocked by someone with a shotgun to be threatening? And if the person who gets out with a shotgun ends up using it on you, wouldn't there have to be some intent involved on the part of the person who pulled a shotgun in the first place?

The extent to which some of you are bending over backwards to defend the murder of an unarmed man because he was on someone else's unoccupied property, or because blocking someone's path and brandishing a shotgun at them isn't a threat, or because no one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was not armed...I mean, what the [BLEEP]? Am I allowed to go around shooting people because I don't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're not armed?

Screw privilege. Some of you need to check your brain cells and make sure the neurons are still doing their thing. I block your path with a truck. I get out with a shotgun. I brandish said shotgun at you. I shoot you. You die. Somehow there's no intent on my part, even though I'm the one who blocked your path, hopped out with a shotgun and opened up a new putting green in your chest. But no, it's your fault because you didn't run screaming like a baby in your basketball shoes.

If it's a white guy doing what Arbery was doing, whatever that was, we never hear about this because no one gets shot. Because it was a black guy in a white neighborhood, the Stormfront brigade showed up and decided that petty theft of an unoccupied structure warranted blockading someone with a shotgun. I'd also like to point out that there were two 911 calls. In the first, the caller reported a black man inside a house under construction, and the caller could not articulate for the 911 operator what the man had done wrong, just that he had "taken off down the street". A second 911 call came in from someone else saying--literally--that there was "a black man running down the street".

So, again, explain how there's not intent to kill on the part of someone who blocks someone else's path, brandishes a shotgun, then puts a hole in that person's chest. Explain how there's no racial motivation when the two 911 calls made prior to the shooting are mostly to entirely focused on "a black man running down the street" without articulating any crime or threat. There was apparently enough perceived threat to stop the man with a shotgun, but not enough of one to explain the situation to a 911 operator as anything other than "a black man running down the street."

You want to say it's not racially motivated? Ok. No one showed up wearing bedsheets and burning a cross before shooting him, but as I've said over and over, all anyone was able to speak to on 911 was "a black man running down the street". And then they shot him. Because he was a black man running down the street. Their own words. Not mine.

Point 1: There was no intent to shoot based on public information. This was also not premeditated. And by law, a weapon can be carried as an equalizer. False belief is that the other individual must be armed.

Point 2: I have had a weapon pointed at me an untold number of times in uniform and out, to include false imprisonment.  In this case, there is currently no information that shows the shotgun was pointed at the guy. Simply carrying it is not a threat or proof of intent to kill.

The rest of your rant comes off frustrated and irrational. Of course, you can't just walk around shooting people. Shots weren't fired in this case until the gun was grabbed. It was not pointed at anyone according to the video we have. Yes, you can question someone and even detain someone based on a B&E or what Georgia considers felony burglary. I know you think its cute, but basketball shoes don't matter at this point because he wasn't jogging for health reasons anyway.

White, Black, no matter. It happens and more often than you are aware because it doesn't get media reads. Any idea who called 911? Was it the full call you heard? Can I get a link to the transcript or call if you got it? Everything I've seen shows "someone" told dispatch, "a man was on property under construction and had been caught on camera a bunch before at night." The rest is in the moment gibberish but really doesn't matter as the patrol was on the way during the second call.

FYI, Georgia does not have a specific brandishing law. Having a gun out while questioning could be considered disorderly conduct at most and escalates if actually aimed at someone (typical brandishing definition) without legal justification.

Could it have been racial, sure, it's possible but nothing yet says that is the case. Just because there are skin color differences does not instantly mean this is a hate crime. Some of you are getting twisted around the axle because you think it is an either-or situation. Both parties can be in the wrong without race even being a factor. One party can be wrong without race being a factor. And so on. Time and time again folks have said this situation was unnecessary and don't believe someone should have died, yet you don't want to hear it. But boy, if there aren't some of ya'll beating the war drums for a racial lynching without all the info.

---

I could see something equally crazy like this happening in Jacksonville. 

During the quarantine, I like to ride my bike throughout Riverside (not my neighborhood). If two armed guys in a pickup truck continuously/aggressively tried to stop me, I'd also turn around and go the other way (no way am I stopping to find out what two armed guys I don't know want, even if they nicely said all they wanted to do was just talk to me - doubtful it happened like that in Brunswick). After chasing me and unsuccessfully trying to cut off my "escape" - my fight or flight options have been reduced to a singular choice. When I eventually stop and confront these two guys, is that escalation?

*Narrator: it isn't.

False equivalency, unless you were biking throughout riverside so you could walk through random houses.

Is this why they scrubbed his social media?  

Pulled this from 4chan, Moe (politically incorrect) or 4plebs?

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

I guess Gabe has video the rest of us have not seen. He seems to know what happened before the neighbor started filming.

---

All the usual race hustlers are in on this one, so you know the MSM got their marching orders.
The mythical tale is already being spun. 
He was unarmed.  He was out jogging.  He was killed in cold blood.  It was racially-motivated.
None of this is true.  The video shows clearly enough.
Arbery attacked the man holding the shotgun, punched him several times, and tried to take the shotgun away.
Arbery had both hands on the shotgun when the first round went off.  Abrery was not unarmed. 
It is likely that Arbery shot himself by trying to wrench the shotgun away from a man who had his finger inside the trigger guard.

I guess Gabe has video the rest of us have not seen.  He seems to know what happened before the neighbor started filming.

This is your first post in the thread.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

All the usual race hustlers are in on this one, so you know the MSM got their marching orders.
The mythical tale is already being spun. 
He was unarmed.  He was out jogging.  He was killed in cold blood.  It was racially-motivated.
None of this is true.  The video shows clearly enough.
Arbery attacked the man holding the shotgun, punched him several times, and tried to take the shotgun away.
Arbery had both hands on the shotgun when the first round went off.  Abrery was not unarmed. 
It is likely that Arbery shot himself by trying to wrench the shotgun away from a man who had his finger inside the trigger guard.

I guess Gabe has video the rest of us have not seen.  He seems to know what happened before the neighbor started filming.

This is your first post in the thread.

First thing you've gotten correct.  That is my first post.  Do you have a reason to reference it?
In the video I saw a man chasing a truck.  You seem to have seen a truck chasing a man.

The gang-banger photo was found on an investing forum.  I've heard of 4chan/8chan but never been there.  Never heard of the other ones you listed.

---

I’ve watched the videos to me it looks like a open and shut case. Two guys assumed they where going to apprehend what they thought was a criminal and approached him, he obviously resisted, they killed him. It’s murder maybe it wasn’t intentional but it’s murder. The fact that it took the DA that long to file charges is ridiculous

---

So because the guy was openly holding a shotgun that makes the intent to kill clear?  Based on what they knew about Arbery's criminal history did they know without a doubt that he was unarmed?  Were they not allowed to arm themselves for their own protection?

Regarding your last question, I encounter people all the time holding weapons and walking towards me.  I don't consider that a threat unless the weapon is pointed in my direction.  Go back and look at the video again.  Was the younger McMichael walking towards him in a threatening manner (pointing the shotgun at him)?

In order for the charge of murder to apply it must be proven with evidence that they armed themselves with the intent to go and shoot the man.

Bold point 1: So the new standard is, "I get to shoot you because I don't know for sure that you're unarmed"?

Bold point 2: How many times has someone pulled up in front of you and gotten out with a shotgun, facing towards you? Do you consider having your path blocked by someone with a shotgun to be threatening? And if the person who gets out with a shotgun ends up using it on you, wouldn't there have to be some intent involved on the part of the person who pulled a shotgun in the first place?

The extent to which some of you are bending over backwards to defend the murder of an unarmed man because he was on someone else's unoccupied property, or because blocking someone's path and brandishing a shotgun at them isn't a threat, or because no one can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he was not armed...I mean, what the [BLEEP]? Am I allowed to go around shooting people because I don't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that they're not armed?

Screw privilege. Some of you need to check your brain cells and make sure the neurons are still doing their thing. I block your path with a truck. I get out with a shotgun. I brandish said shotgun at you. I shoot you. You die. Somehow there's no intent on my part, even though I'm the one who blocked your path, hopped out with a shotgun and opened up a new putting green in your chest. But no, it's your fault because you didn't run screaming like a baby in your basketball shoes.

If it's a white guy doing what Arbery was doing, whatever that was, we never hear about this because no one gets shot. Because it was a black guy in a white neighborhood, the Stormfront brigade showed up and decided that petty theft of an unoccupied structure warranted blockading someone with a shotgun. I'd also like to point out that there were two 911 calls. In the first, the caller reported a black man inside a house under construction, and the caller could not articulate for the 911 operator what the man had done wrong, just that he had "taken off down the street". A second 911 call came in from someone else saying--literally--that there was "a black man running down the street".

So, again, explain how there's not intent to kill on the part of someone who blocks someone else's path, brandishes a shotgun, then puts a hole in that person's chest. Explain how there's no racial motivation when the two 911 calls made prior to the shooting are mostly to entirely focused on "a black man running down the street" without articulating any crime or threat. There was apparently enough perceived threat to stop the man with a shotgun, but not enough of one to explain the situation to a 911 operator as anything other than "a black man running down the street."

You want to say it's not racially motivated? Ok. No one showed up wearing bedsheets and burning a cross before shooting him, but as I've said over and over, all anyone was able to speak to on 911 was "a black man running down the street". And then they shot him. Because he was a black man running down the street. Their own words. Not mine.

Bull.  Just out and out SJW bull.  Argue the facts, argue the law.  Theres no proof that these guys factored race into their decisions, but most people have judged them guilty just because they're white.  

We have video of the guy chasing the residence, and then fleeing when confronted by a neighbor.  Just because they mentioned his race in a physical description doesnt mean that they went out to fulfill their caverns quota of dead black boys.  

Morally, I wouldn't pursue someone with lethal force for a property crime.  That's me.  Personally I wouldn't write a law empowering citizens to pursue and arrest a citizen once they left the scene of a crime.  

Those personal preferences have zero bearing on the fact that if Mcmichaels believed Ahmad committed a felony then he has the legal authority to arrest him.  Arrest by definition is against someone's will.  This case hinges on whether they had reasonable immediate knowledge of a felony and if saying "we want to talk to you" fails the citizens arrest standard.  That's it!

---

I’ve watched the videos to me it looks like a open and shut case. Two guys assumed they where going to apprehend what they thought was a criminal and approached him, he obviously resisted, they killed him. It’s murder maybe it wasn’t intentional but it’s murder. The fact that it took the DA that long to file charges is ridiculous

It's a loser.

---