Crime Ahmaud Arbery shooting v3

[vengeful]

ha but that is not is not what I meant by that at all, seriously. when I said "wrong" neighborhood, I meant just any neighborhood prowling around multiple times at night. But now that you point that out I guess I could see how someone could interpret that that way. I meant it more in the manner of (take pranksters for example): "One day they gone frick around and try to play a prank on the wrong man and get killed." It wouldn't mean the prankee would have had a right to kill them, you know what I am trying to say. You just don't go prowling around in somebody else's neighborhood (or your own for that matter) at night. That is just not a very safe thing to do.

LOL I didn't mean a particular ethnicity of neighborhood.

[and can we stop pretending that the McMichael's full awareness of a serial night prowler was not a factor in their attempting to detain Arbery. You simply cannot leave that out of their frame of mind]

What's in their frame of mind doesn't help their case at all based on what you're implying. It would make them more likely to use excessive force against the suspect.... I mean that helps against the racism defense but this isn't a hate crime, it doesn't help in getting off for murder. And you would need to be absolutely correct that this guy had committed a felony or was carrying a weapon and it seems they were 0-2 on both of their suspicions.

Edit: In cases like these you don't go by the perpetrators state of mind when forming judgment, instead you go by a rational person's perceived state of mind..... And rational people don't chase suspects for minutes attempting to cut them off while being armed and suspecting that the suspect is also armed.

Rational people call the police, give a description of the suspect, and tell them the direction he was headed.

 

[deltapapha]

Lol @ getting in your feelings cause murderers aren't being treated respectfully. I swear y'all some WEIRDOS.

You are assuming the very thing that has yet to be proven and may never be proven. That is called "begging the question" in formal logic.

 

[vengeful]

You are assuming the very thing that has yet to be proven and may never be proven. That is called "begging the question" in formal logic.

Lol I'm sure you feel the exact same way when OJ gets called a murderer?

Since that was never proven in a court of law, right?

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Time to feed the sharks.

In this article Gregory said "I hunt people for a living." He also spoke of his desire to attend an execution.

People hunter and execution lover Gregory McMichael (The Brunswick News, Aug 8, 2003 article)

'I hunt people for a living' and the sister posted a pic of the victims body on social media.



At this point its like theyre trying to sabotage their own case.

 

[deltapapha]

What's in their frame of mind doesn't help their case at all based on what you're implying. It would make them more likely to use excessive force against the suspect.... I mean that helps against the racism defense but this isn't a hate crime, it doesn't help in getting off for murder. And you would need to be absolutely correct that this guy had committed a felony or was carrying a weapon and it seems they were 0-2 on both of their suspicions.

Edit: In cases like these you don't go by the perpetrators state of mind when forming judgment, instead you go by a rational person's perceived state of mind..... And rational people don't chase suspects for minutes attempting to cut them off while being armed and suspecting that the suspect is also armed.

Rational people call the police, give a description of the suspect, and tell them the direction he was headed.

I think that is a good argument, but I also think that within Georgia law they had reasonable and probable grounds to suspect Arbery of felony burglary. And again I do think the larger context ought to come into play in their defense. I know if I had a wife and kids and I thought this serial prowler was about to get away yet again, I would consider it rational to give chase and attempt to detain. I would assume he could be a very dangerous man to myself and my family.

 

[deltapapha]

What's in their frame of mind doesn't help their case at all based on what you're implying. It would make them more likely to use excessive force against the suspect.... I mean that helps against the racism defense but this isn't a hate crime, it doesn't help in getting off for murder. And you would need to be absolutely correct that this guy had committed a felony or was carrying a weapon and it seems they were 0-2 on both of their suspicions.

Edit: In cases like these you don't go by the perpetrators state of mind when forming judgment, instead you go by a rational person's perceived state of mind..... And rational people don't chase suspects for minutes attempting to cut them off while being armed and suspecting that the suspect is also armed.

Rational people call the police, give a description of the suspect, and tell them the direction he was headed.

You seem to be one of the more rational posters. I have a question. Do you think the defense will claim that they recognized the trespasser as Ahmaud Arbery so they can bring Arbery's past record into it. I am not saying I personally think they did recognized him. I have no idea. I am just wondering if they might attempt to claim that so that Ahmaud's record can be brought into the trial.

 

[vengeful]

I think that is a good argument, but I also think that within Georgia law they had reasonable and probable grounds to suspect Arbery of felony burglary. And again I do think the larger context ought to come into play in their defense. I know if I had a wife and kids and I thought this serial prowler was about to get away yet again, I would consider it rational to give chase and attempt to detain. I would assume he could be a very dangerous man to myself and my family.

Yes, but when you make that assumption you have to be right because you aren't actual law enforcement and don't have the same legal or civil protections that cops do in the same situation. Even cops don't typically engage a suspected armed and dangerous suspect with such few numbers, also I don't think in any of the 911 calls they said they suspected Arbery was armed.

You really would attempt to detain someone you thought was armed and dangerous? You have a wife and child and don't think it's likely this dangerous person could kill you in an attempted detainment? Seems like a stupid decision to me.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

Not sure exactly what you mean about trump as I don’t pay much attention to him, but the media is certainly pushing a specific agenda. You will not see black on white crime sensationalized, and there is a disproportionate amount relative to the other way around. For some reason, it doesn’t sell.

It'd be nice if you guys asked some questions and at least tried to understand what the arguments actually are instead of going straight to the 'media agenda' excuses. (The media is shit, but there is a reason why this story "sells" better than the other way around)
Why don't we see black on white crime sensationalized?

You can't look at these things as just black and white/both sides are the same and equal--that ignores context and the history that made things the way they are.
Stats about 'black on black' crime are stupid because 'black on black' crime isn't racially motivated. It's poor people comitting crimes against other poor people in poor neighborhoods. Do you think black criminals wouldn't rob rich blacks? The crimes that blacks commit on whites are usually not motivated by race, and whites being the majority, and having the most wealth is going to make them more likely to get targeted for crimes by the poor people that commit them.

Cases like Garner, Trayvonn, and Arbery get more attention because of the history of racism of whites against blacks, and that you can find crimes against blacks that are racially motivated, and not just crime for the sake of crime.
Not only do you get individuals that will commit crimes based on race, but you have people in power that will back up the racists...or, like a few people in this thread, will ignore the racial biases that produced the problem. (and I am not saying that blacks have never commited racially motivated crimes)

There is more skeptism and questions of character being asked about a man that was murdered than the people that murdered him. Talking about 'media agendas', why is the dead guy on trial here? Whatever he did in the past has absolutely nothing to do with the McMichael's chasing him down and shooting him.

 

[deadshot138]

Lol how is this still being talked about? Have new facts come to light?

 

[deltapapha]

Yes, but when you make that assumption you have to be right because you aren't actual law enforcement and don't have the same legal or civil protections that cops do in the same situation. Even cops don't typically engage a suspected armed and dangerous suspect with such few numbers, also I don't think in any of the 911 calls they said they suspected Arbery was armed.

You really would attempt to detain someone you thought was armed and dangerous? You have a wife and child and don't think it's likely this dangerous person could kill you in an attempted detainment? Seems like a stupid decision to me.

that is why I would bring my own weapon in the event that I was rushed. And, well, you can kind of make the case that THAT worked, as unfortunate as the outcome was. I think this is a good case of citizen's arrest and stand your ground.

 

[vengeful]

You seem to be one of the more rational posters. I have a question. Do you think the defense will claim that they recognized the trespasser as Ahmaud Arbery so they can bring Arbery's past record into it. I am not saying I personally think they did recognized him. I have no idea. I am just wondering if they might attempt to claim that so that Ahmaud's record can be brought into the trial.

I wouldn't if I was them, the main reason if you recognized him, why not just give his identity to the cops since a positive ID would make it easy for the cops to get him especially since he already has a criminal record. Why didn't they identify him? Arbery's body took a while before he was identified from what I remember.

 

[SmilinDesperado]

What happened to @Lucifer Alpha?

What happened to my last post with a hat tip to @A Lurker?

Took a trip to the sunken place.

 

[vengeful]

that is why I would bring my own weapon in the event that I was rushed. And, well, you can kind of make the case that THAT worked, as unfortunate as the outcome was. I think this is a good case of citizen's arrest and stand your ground.

I think it's a bad case of a citizen's arrest since the person arrested didn't commit a burglary as the DA initially said when clearing the McMichaels. I think stand your ground goes to Arbery in this case, he even would have had it in one of those "duty to retreat" states as he ran away multiple times before he even attempted to engage the McMichaels.

If Arbery was actually armed there's a good chance Travis would have been shot soon as he rounded the truck.... Which is why I think Travis likely had his weapon aimed at Arbery's direction.... Although the video does not show this, but common sense tells me if you believe an armed person just ran out of your line of sight and will emerge in it, to be prepared to fire first.

 

[deltapapha]

I think it's a bad case of a citizen's arrest since the person arrested didn't commit a burglary as the DA initially said when clearing the McMichaels. I think stand your ground goes to Arbery in this case, he even would have had it in one of those "duty to retreat" states as he ran away multiple times before he even attempted to engage the McMichaels.

If Arbery was actually armed there's a good chance Travis would have been shot soon as he rounded the truck.... Which is why I think Travis likely had his weapon aimed at Arbery's direction.... Although the video does not show this, but common sense tells me if you believe an armed person just ran out of your line of sight and will emerge in it, to be prepared to fire first.

Ha I just read your second paragraph but had already typed out (below). But I will go ahead and leave it so you can see my thought process. So you would agree that if Arbery had had a gun he would not have been justified in shooting Travis with it until he saw Travis raise his at him? Note, however, that I am going with the right to citizen's arrest in this case, so obviously we would not agree on that issue, even if we did agree on the other.

[typed before I read your second paragraph] -- So if Arbery would have had a gun on him, let's say a short rifle in a coat (hypothetically) do you think he would have been justified as he was running towards the truck at the intersection, upon seeing Travis with a shotgun at his side, at that moment (40 yards away let's say) taking an aiming knee and fire off a number of shots at Travis?

 

[vengeful]

Ha I just read your second paragraph but had already typed out (below). But I will go ahead and leave it so you can see my thought process. So you would agree that if Arbery had had a gun he would not have been justified in shooting Travis with it until he saw Travis raise his at him? Note, however, that I am going with the right to citizen's arrest in this case, so obviously we would not agree on that issue, even if we did agree on the other.

[typed before I read your second paragraph] -- So if Arbery would have had a gun on him, let's say a short rifle in a coat (hypothetically) do you think he would have been justified as he was running towards the truck at the intersection, upon seeing Travis with a shotgun at his side, at that moment (40 yards away let's say) taking an aiming knee and fire off a number of shots at Travis?

Arbery would have the right to shoot at that point because of the prior attempts by the McMichaels to cut him off with their vehicles. Arbery had a reasonable fear that his life was in danger and a right to defend himself. Now had he actually committed a burglary and was trying to escape he would lose the right to defend himself with deadly force since it would be an murder/attempt in the commission of a felony.

This is why the McMichaels are charged with murder because it was in the commission of an aggravated assault that Arbery was killed even though Travis was defending his life at the time.... It's no longer a legal defense.

 

[deltapapha]

I am not posting this to change minds but b/c I think this document (thought known about) has not yet been released until just now.

The gun was in a holster wedged between the driver and passenger seats of Travis' pickup truck. His father Greg moved the truck and forgot to lock it and gun was stolen.

NEW - incident report re: theft of Travis McMichael's 9mm semi auto handgun on 1/1/20.

 

[deltapapha]

Lol I'm sure you feel the exact same way when OJ gets called a murderer?

Since that was never proven in a court of law, right?

valid point. But oddly enough I actually didn't follow the OJ case. During the height of it I couldn't have told anyone much about it. I don't remember what my thought on it was at the time. I do think I remember assuming that OJ probably got away with murder, but beyond that I didn't really have a strong feeling about it. I was not very 'newsy' in my 20s.

 

[7437]

I think that is a good argument, but I also think that within Georgia law they had reasonable and probable grounds to suspect Arbery of felony burglary. And again I do think the larger context ought to come into play in their defense. I know if I had a wife and kids and I thought this serial prowler was about to get away yet again, I would consider it rational to give chase and attempt to detain. I would assume he could be a very dangerous man to myself and my family.

Under georgia law, suspicion is irrelevant. Do I need to post the citizens arrest statute again?

You think your wife and daughter would be safer after you go to jail, and you are banned from having a gun in the house for the rest of your life?

 

[vengeful]

valid point. But oddly enough I actually didn't follow the OJ case. During the height of it I couldn't have told anyone much about it. I don't remember what my thought on it was at the time. I do think I remember assuming that OJ probably got away with murder, but beyond that I didn't really have a strong feeling about it. I was not very 'newsy' in my 20s.

I was 12/13 for the OJ case in the 7th grade when it started and 8th when it concluded. Lol we had a current events class so we were constantly discussing it in it. Johnnie Cochran made me want to be a lawyer, lol he was the first real life lawyer that looked like a TV show lawyer with how he handled that case.

This was also a big change in how race was viewed in the county.... First time I heard Ni***** referred to as 'the n-word' before that this word would be uncensored on TV shows appearing on national television.

Shows like Donahue and Geraldo had kkk and skinheads on that said the word during daytime hours. Maybe the change occurred before that, but this is when I noticed it.

 

[vengeful]

Under georgia law, suspicion is irrelevant. Do I need to post the citizens arrest statute again?

You think your wife and daughter would be safer after you go to jail, and you are banned from having a gun in the house for the rest of your life?

Suspicion is relevant under Georgia law, I believe for a citizens arrest you need to have reasonable and probable suspicion that a felony occurred in order to give chase.