Crime Ahmaud Arbery shooting v3

[Limbo Pete]

I like how shoplifting somehow seems to justify killing him.
I hope the people in here are following the law 101% and never even jaywalk.
It seems to justify you getting shot.

The ol "put the victim's character on trial" strategy

 

[deltapapha]

He is clearly placed under arrest in that video, the bodycam date shows December 1st, 2017, and he's even wearing the same damn jacket he wore in the other bodycam video in the park.

Cold weather jogger-wear. New Nike line-up. Or actually he might have been trying to shed weight for the big 10k that was coming up.

 

[Madmick]

Could it be possible he was arrested in Dec 2017 but indicted in 2018 , and when the lawyer for the family said he was arrested in 2018 , he meant to say indicted?
I did some quick googling (looked at search results for first 5 pages) and can't find anything.

All of those MSM sources say "arrested in 2018" or "2018 arrest".

 

[deltapapha]

A sudden chill has fallen upon this thread. But I suspect that jogger-bros will just go into repetitive NPC mode from here on out.

 

[Madmick]

The ol "put the victim's character on trial" strategy

That's way worse than trying the McMichaels by citation of crimes committed by people they don't even known 70 years ago, is it? You've been cheerleading posts mentioning lynchings from the 1950's, or earlier, including photos of hangings, and those mentioning hate crimes that are entirely unrelated to this encounter, or even to the DA's office and this police department troubles from the previous decade.

Meanwhile, we could establish a string of crimes in this neighborhood over the previous several months; we could cite racial statistics pertaining to perpetrators of property crimes, specifically those in Brunswick County, and go the extra mile of adjusting per capita, while noting the generalized demographic makeup of the Satilla Shores neighborhood in contrast to this; we could cite Arbery's criminal history, and establish multiple arrests/convictions for theft in the past three years, and also a past illegal firearm possession when one of the crime's from the neighborhood involved a stolen handgun; we could establish Arbery's predisposition to respond to the well-grounded probing of authority with an excess of hostility; we could establish with video evidence he is seen committing the crime of trespassing (and not jogging) on the day in question, as well as many days in the past; we could cite the fact that other people from the neighborhood who have witnessed him trespassing do not recognize him, also from 911 calls; we could consider we know he isn't from the neighborhood; we could establish the shooter's past 911 call wherein he identifies the man trespassing on that same property, unfamiliar to him, that apparently is the same one he and his father recognize two weeks later on the day of the shooting; we could establish the father in this duo is a police officer with a lifetime career unblemished by unlawful violence or scandal; we could establish using video evidence Arbery was the one who initiated the physical contact in the final violent struggle that resulted in him losing his life.

All of these truths are immediately relevant to this specific encounter.

Furthermore, all of this circumstantial evidence could reasonably be forwarded to demonstrate the state of mind of the McMichaels, including intent, consistent with their actions, and of course this renders their suspicion reasonable, both with and without the hindsight gained from later revelations mentioned here beyond their knowledge at the time, even if it doesn't legally justify their false arrest. Nothing about their conduct or suspicion is hateful, or racist, nor the most cogent inferences we can make to what motivated them. It has a reasonable basis even extending to the visual identification of the victim's race itself.

Yet you whimper about the victim being blamed, and cheer references to the sins of the Ku Klux Klan a century ago. Spare us the hypocrisy of your indignant reaction.

 

[Limbo Pete]

That's way worse than trying the McMichaels by citation of crimes committed by people they don't even known 70 years ago, is it? You've been cheerleading posts mentioning lynchings from the 1950's, or earlier, including photos of hangings, and those mentioning hate crimes that are entirely unrelated to this encounter, or even to the DA's office and this police department troubles from the previous decade.

Meanwhile, we could establish a string of crimes in this neighborhood over the previous several months; we could cite racial statistics pertaining to perpetrators of property crimes, specifically those in Brunswick County, and go the extra mile of adjusting per capita, while noting the generalized demographic makeup of the Satilla Shores neighborhood in contrast to this; we could cite Arbery's criminal history, and establish multiple arrests/convictions for theft in the past three years, and also a past illegal firearm possession when one of the crime's from the neighborhood involved a stolen handgun; we could establish Arbery's predisposition to respond to the well-grounded probing of authority with an excess of hostility; we could establish with video evidence he is seen committing the crime of trespassing (and not jogging) on the day in question, as well as many days in the past; we could cite the fact that other people from the neighborhood who have witnessed him trespassing do not recognize him, also from 911 calls; we could consider we know he isn't from the neighborhood; we could establish the shooter's past 911 call wherein he identifies the man trespassing on that same property, unfamiliar to him, that apparently is the same one he and his father recognize two weeks later on the day of the shooting; we could establish the father in this duo is a police officer with a lifetime career unblemished by unlawful violence or scandal; we could establish using video evidence Arbery was the one who initiated the physical contact in the final violent struggle that resulted in him losing his life.

All of these truths are immediately relevant to this specific encounter.

Furthermore, all of this circumstantial evidence could reasonably be forwarded to demonstrate the state of mind of the McMichaels, including intent, consistent with their actions, and of course this renders their suspicion reasonable, both with and without the hindsight gained from later revelations mentioned here beyond their knowledge at the time, even if it doesn't legally justify their false arrest. Nothing about their conduct or suspicion is hateful, or racist, nor the most cogent inferences we can make to what motivated them. It has a reasonable basis even extending to the visual identification of the victim's race itself.

Yet you whimper about the victim being blamed, and cheer references to the sins of the Ku Klux Klan a century ago. Spare us the hypocrisy of your indignant reaction.

_wat_

 

[jk7707]

That's way worse than trying the McMichaels by citation of crimes committed by people they don't even known 70 years ago, is it? You've been cheerleading posts mentioning lynchings from the 1950's, or earlier, including photos of hangings, and those mentioning hate crimes that are entirely unrelated to this encounter, or even to the DA's office and this police department troubles from the previous decade.

Meanwhile, we could establish a string of crimes in this neighborhood over the previous several months; we could cite racial statistics pertaining to perpetrators of property crimes, specifically those in Brunswick County, and go the extra mile of adjusting per capita, while noting the generalized demographic makeup of the Satilla Shores neighborhood in contrast to this; we could cite Arbery's criminal history, and establish multiple arrests/convictions for theft in the past three years, and also a past illegal firearm possession when one of the crime's from the neighborhood involved a stolen handgun; we could establish Arbery's predisposition to respond to the well-grounded probing of authority with an excess of hostility; we could establish with video evidence he is seen committing the crime of trespassing (and not jogging) on the day in question, as well as many days in the past; we could cite the fact that other people from the neighborhood who have witnessed him trespassing do not recognize him, also from 911 calls; we could consider we know he isn't from the neighborhood; we could establish the shooter's past 911 call wherein he identifies the man trespassing on that same property, unfamiliar to him, that apparently is the same one he and his father recognize two weeks later on the day of the shooting; we could establish the father in this duo is a police officer with a lifetime career unblemished by unlawful violence or scandal; we could establish using video evidence Arbery was the one who initiated the physical contact in the final violent struggle that resulted in him losing his life.

All of these truths are immediately relevant to this specific encounter.

Furthermore, all of this circumstantial evidence could reasonably be forwarded to demonstrate the state of mind of the McMichaels, including intent, consistent with their actions, and of course this renders their suspicion reasonable, both with and without the hindsight gained from later revelations mentioned here beyond their knowledge at the time, even if it doesn't legally justify their false arrest. Nothing about their conduct or suspicion is hateful, or racist, nor the most cogent inferences we can make to what motivated them. It has a reasonable basis even extending to the visual identification of the victim's race itself.

Yet you whimper about the victim being blamed, and cheer references to the sins of the Ku Klux Klan a century ago. Spare us the hypocrisy of your indignant reaction.

As a pretend judge, I have gotten a verdict from the pretend jury from the case you just tried to argue as a pretend lawyer. You're guilty of being a long winded, word salad tossing failure.

 

[aitkenmike]

Arbery apparently has a history of being a thief, so...

What the hell does that have to do with anything NOTHING WAS STOLEN! And even if it was, it doesn't mean he can't attack somebody hunting him with guns.

 

[deltapapha]

One reason why the cop in the park probably let the verbal threat slide is because it was conditional. Ahmaud did not say "I'm gonna fuck you up." He said "Bitch you hit me with that shit you gonna be fucked up" It was a conditional threat. So I am not sure if that counts. All told I think the first officer on the scene managed things rather admirably. But neither did I have a problem with the second cop engaging the taser, although I will save that for a later post.

In any case, I would have wanted to know what was in that car and I would have probably used the verbal threat and physical bravado to arrest him so I could look in the car. Not just for drugs but for illegal weapons. I mean the car was all but screaming out loud "please search me."

 

[Hog-train]

Meanwhile, we could establish a string of crimes in this neighborhood over the previous several months; we could cite racial statistics pertaining to perpetrators of property crimes, specifically those in Brunswick County, and go the extra mile of adjusting per capita, while noting the generalized demographic makeup of the Satilla Shores neighborhood in contrast to this; we could cite Arbery's criminal history, and establish multiple arrests/convictions for theft in the past three years, and also a past illegal firearm possession when one of the crime's from the neighborhood involved a stolen handgun; we could establish Arbery's predisposition to respond to the well-grounded probing of authority with an excess of hostility; we could establish with video evidence he is seen committing the crime of trespassing (and not jogging) on the day in question, as well as many days in the past; we could cite the fact that other people from the neighborhood who have witnessed him trespassing do not recognize him, also from 911 calls; we could consider we know he isn't from the neighborhood; we could establish the shooter's past 911 call wherein he identifies the man trespassing on that same property, unfamiliar to him, that apparently is the same one he and his father recognize two weeks later on the day of the shooting; we could establish the father in this duo is a police officer with a lifetime career unblemished by unlawful violence or scandal; we could establish using video evidence Arbery was the one who initiated the physical contact in the final violent struggle that resulted in him losing his life.

All of these truths are immediately relevant to this specific encounter.

Furthermore, all of this circumstantial evidence could reasonably be forwarded to demonstrate the state of mind of the McMichaels, including intent, consistent with their actions, and of course this renders their suspicion reasonable, both with and without the hindsight gained from later revelations mentioned here beyond their knowledge at the time, even if it doesn't legally justify their false arrest. Nothing about their conduct or suspicion is hateful, or racist, nor the most cogent inferences we can make to what motivated them. It has a reasonable basis even extending to the visual identification of the victim's race itself.

^^^ All of this is completely irrelevant. Arbery's past, the McMichael's state of mind, etc.

We are dealing with this one incident. Why the hell does any of the above matter at all?

In this incident, the McMichael's did not have a legal right to make a citizen's arrest - therefore, they are committing a crime. During the commission of this crime, Arbery was killed. Thus, it's an automatic felony for the McMichaels. It's pretty cut and dry.

 

[Madmick]

^^^ All of this is completely irrelevant. Arbery's past, the McMichael's state of mind, etc.

We are dealing with this one incident. Why the hell does any of the above matter at all?

In this incident, the McMichael's did not have a legal right to make a citizen's arrest - therefore, they are committing a crime. During the commission of this crime, Arbery was killed. Thus, it's an automatic felony for the McMichaels. It's pretty cut and dry.

No. In fact, it's not cut and dry at all:
https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/160296619/

 

[A Lurker]

@computer fogie quick question; can a mod be thread banned?

 

[Jman]

Meanwhile, we could establish a string of crimes in this neighborhood over the previous several months; we could cite racial statistics pertaining to perpetrators of property crimes, specifically those in Brunswick County, and go the extra mile of adjusting per capita, while noting the generalized demographic makeup of the Satilla Shores neighborhood in contrast to this;

In the two months before, Arbery was murdered, there was only one instance of burglary ever reported to police. Lol at string of crimes. Embellish much?

we could cite Arbery's criminal history, and establish multiple arrests/convictions for theft in the past three years,

Multiple arrests for theft? You mean the one arrest for shoplifting in 2018 right? You like to lie dont you?

we could establish with video evidence he is seen committing the crime of trespassing (and not jogging) on the day in question, as well as many days in the past; we could cite the fact that other people from the neighborhood who have witnessed him trespassing do not recognize him, also from 911 calls; we could consider we know he isn't from the neighborhood; we could establish the shooter's past 911 call wherein he identifies the man trespassing on that same property, unfamiliar to him, that apparently is the same one he and his father recognize two weeks later on the day of the shooting;

We could also establish that Arbery was not the only person to trespass the construction site. We could also establish that of all the times he did trespass he didnt steal anything. In McMichael's call to the police on the day he murdered Arbery, he didnt say anything about Arbery being the same guy he saw two weeks earlier. So how can Arbery "apparently be the same one"?

we could establish the father in this duo is a police officer with a lifetime career unblemished by unlawful violence or scandal;

You mean the same police officer who was suspended and lost his police certification for failing to complete mandatory use-of-force and firearms training? The same one who failed to complete his police training five times between 2005 and 2010? The same police officer who was first suspended back in 2006 for an as of yet undisclosed reason? That guy? Hey maybe if he had completed his training he would have known that an armed pursuit of an unarmed black man for running through the neighborhood would be a bad idea and would have never participated in the first place.

we could establish using video evidence Arbery was the one who initiated the physical contact in the final violent struggle that resulted in him losing his life.

We could also establish that for four minutes the father/son duo and their buddy chased him down in their cars for four minutes blocking his path trying to illegally detain him. We could also establish using video evidence that Travis McMichael pointed his shotgun at Arbery. Which is assault.

All of these truths are immediately relevant to this specific encounter.

Furthermore, all of this circumstantial evidence could reasonably be forwarded to demonstrate the state of mind of the McMichaels, including intent, consistent with their actions, and of course this renders their suspicion reasonable, both with and without the hindsight gained from later revelations mentioned here beyond their knowledge at the time, even if it doesn't legally justify their false arrest. Nothing about their conduct or suspicion is hateful, or racist, nor the most cogent inferences we can make to what motivated them. It has a reasonable basis even extending to the visual identification of the victim's race itself.

None of Arbery's past crimes of shoplifting in 2018 or bringing a weapon to school in 2013 will be admissible in court if the McMichaels go to trial for murder because they are completely irrelevant to the case. They didnt chase him down because of anything other than seeing a black man running as per Travis McMichael's own statement to the police.[/quote][/quote]

 

[vengeful]

The continued allegations of white supremacist propaganda in this thread are without basis, and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Until some evidence is availed that substantiates these allegations the forum should temper these.

I just read over the Crimes Against Persons statutes of Georgian Law, and due to the passage of the Senate Bill legalizing the brandishing of weapons in disputes, there is no credible basis to accuse the McMichaels of Aggravated Assault. I'm amazed they were arrested on that charge, but of course, this case is emotionally and politically overcharged.

The legal question should fall to §16-3-21-(b)-(3). McMichael is disqualified from a reasonable claim to self-defense from Arbery's advance and attack on him, including attempted seizure of his weapon, if he is deemed the "aggressor". The video shows that he isn't the aggressor in the final physical altercation resulting in Arbery's death, so I would have expected the prosecution would accuse the McMichaels of Simple Assault, a misdemeanor, resulting in Arbery's "reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury." Subsequently, you might argue one of two things. The first would be that this could then be argued to escalate to the level of an aggravated assault, since the assault involved firearms, but none of the language requiring that escalation in the statute favors this. Everything would depend on proving the McMichaels threatened him with the weapons in an offensive manner, and that isn't surefooted. Rather, it would seem more cogent to argue the second strategy, which is that this Simple Assault immediately disqualifies Travis from the right to self-defense (including lethal self-defense given his reasonable fear Arbery would have used his own gun on him) because guilt of a simple assault would construe him as the first aggressor.

He would be disqualified if he was in the act of committing a felony, but a false arrest, unlike a false imprisonment, even by a citizen, such as a security guard, even one in possession of a potentially deadly weapon (such as cited by the codes for Aggravated Assault), is not a felony. It also doesn't appear to entail an assault if detention is the only transgression. It is a crime, and Arbery could have pursued civil damages against the two. They also could have faced up to 1 year in jail.

After reading this, I'm suddenly convinced the McMichaels have a case for a stand your ground self-defense claim. I previously believed this was off the table, but it shouldn't be.

lol Aggravated assault was met when these idiots attempted to use their vehicles to cut Arbery off. It was met once again when Travis McMichael got out of his truck that was stopped in the middle of the road and used his weapon in a threatening manner. Setting up an impromptu illegal road block after chasing someone and getting out armed is using a weapon in a threatening manner even if you're not pointing that weapon at the person.

 

[Hog-train]

No. In fact, it's not cut and dry at all:
https://forums.sherdog.com/posts/160296619/

The video shows that he isn't the aggressor in the final physical altercation resulting in Arbery's death, so I would have expected the prosecution would accuse the McMichaels of Simple Assault, a misdemeanor, resulting in Arbery's "reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury." Subsequently, you might argue one of two things.

I don't agree with the above at all. The video doesn't show that.

If you go through the video frame by frame, Arbery runs to the right of the car, with McMichael to the left and in front of the car. Then the camera goes off the scene. After it veers back, McMichael is toward the middle of the car as Arbery also goes toward him. That means McMichaels went forward TOWARD Arbery.

So the video is not clear at ALL who is the aggressor in the final confrontation. But we know who was the aggressor during the chase.

But that still doesn't matter - Because we now know Arbery was chased for over 4 minutes before this. He was chased back and forth and then they set up a roadblock. It could easily be argued Arbery was already in self defense mode.

Under Georgia law, lethal force wouldn't be justified under Stand Your Ground or self defense — if the person who used deadly force:

1. Was the aggressor and didn't try to withdraw from the situation. The McMichael's didn't need to chase him for 4 minutes nor set up a roadblock. They could have just called 911. Therefore, they didn't try to withdraw.

2. Initially provoked the other person intending to use force as an excuse to inflict harm. - This could or could not be true. We'll see when more details come out in the trial.

3. Was engaged in criminal activity at the time. The McMichaels were definitely guilty of criminal activity at the time of the shooting.

The key thing here is you cannot have instigated the incident and then say you had to kill the other person because you're defending yourself.

The McMichaels instigated the whole incident from the jump when they started chasing him.

 

[Madmick]

In the two months before, Arbery was murdered, there was only one instance of burglary ever reported to police. Lol at string of crimes. Embellish much?

Wrong. I detailed this history in the previous thread version. There were several robberies and a break-in. That's not counting English's original claim to the Daily Beast that $2,500 in fishing equipment was stolen from his open construction site.

Multiple arrests for theft? You mean the one arrest for shoplifting in 2018 right? You like to lie dont you?

On the previous page of this thread there is a video of him being arrested in December 2017 for shoplifting a 65" television at Wal-Mart.

We could also establish that Arbery was not the only person to trespass the construction site. We could also establish that of all the times he did trespass he didnt steal anything. In McMichael's call to the police on the day he murdered Arbery, he didnt say anything about Arbery being the same guy he saw two weeks earlier. So how can Arbery "apparently be the same one"?

Travis made a 911 call reporting his sighting of Arbery two weeks before the shooting trespassing on the property. He didn't realize it was Arbery at the time, but it matches one of the trespassing videos of Arbery, and that is how he recognized him on the day of the shooting.

You mean the same police officer who was suspended and lost his police certification for failing to complete mandatory use-of-force and firearms training?

Yes. That isn't an example of misconduct or violence. To our knowledge, in his 37 years on the force he never once used force inappropriately.

The same one who failed to complete his police training five times between 2005 and 2010?

Source? Also not an example of misconduct or violence, but I'd like to see your source for this claim.

The same police officer who was first suspended back in 2006 for an as of yet undisclosed reason? That guy? Hey maybe if he had completed his training he would have known that an armed pursuit of an unarmed black man for running through the neighborhood would be a bad idea and would have never participated in the first place.

Arbery was a habitual trespasser, including on that day, and the only video apart from that from the neighborhood doesn't show him jogging.

We could also establish that for four minutes the father/son duo and their buddy chased him down in their cars for four minutes blocking his path trying to illegally detain him. We could also establish using video evidence that Travis McMichael pointed his shotgun at Arbery. Which is assault.

All of these truths are immediately relevant to this specific encounter.

There is no video evidence of Travis pointing the weapon at Arbery. We've been over this in this thread. Ultimately, those arguing this retreated to the assertion that all that is required from the video is "reasonable suspicion" he did this rather than an unambiguous image of the act.

None of Arbery's past crimes of shoplifting in 2018 or bringing a weapon to school in 2013 will be admissible in court if the McMichaels go to trial for murder because they are completely irrelevant to the case. They didnt chase him down because of anything other than seeing a black man running as per Travis McMichael's own statement to the police.

So too is the department's past problems irrelevant to judgment or character of their false arrest. That is a separate concern, and a false arrest is merely a misdemeanor. Their suspicion of Arbery is reasonable, considering all evidence, as I demonstrated, and as I said, without further retroactive consideration of Arbery's criminal history prior to his activities in the neighborhood. It offers insight into their state of mind, and it isn't one accurately depicted as motivated by a racist hatred, or premeditated intent to murder Arbery.

 

[Madmick]

lol Aggravated assault was met when these idiots attempted to use their vehicles to cut Arbery off. It was met once again when Travis McMichael got out of his truck that was stopped in the middle of the road and used his weapon in a threatening manner. Setting up an impromptu illegal road block after chasing someone and getting out armed is using a weapon in a threatening manner even if you're not pointing that weapon at the person.

No, one must use the vehicle offensively in a manner likely to result in serious bodily injury.

I don't agree with the above at all. The video doesn't show that.

If you go through the video frame by frame, Arbery runs to the right of the car, with McMichael to the left and in front of the car. Then the camera goes off the scene. After it veers back, McMichael is toward the middle of the car as Arbery also goes toward him. That means McMichaels went forward TOWARD Arbery.

So the video is not clear at ALL who is the aggressor in the final confrontation. But we know who was the aggressor during the chase.

But that still doesn't matter - Because we now know Arbery was chased for over 4 minutes before this. He was chased back and forth and then they set up a roadblock. It could easily be argued Arbery was already in self defense mode.

Under Georgia law, lethal force wouldn't be justified under Stand Your Ground or self defense — if the person who used deadly force:

1. Was the aggressor and didn't try to withdraw from the situation. The McMIchael's didn't need to chase him for 4 minutes nor set up a roadblock. They could have just called 911. Therefore, they didn't try to withdraw.

2. Initially provoked the other person intending to use force as an excuse to inflict harm. - This could or could not be true. We'll see when more details come out in the trial.

3. Was engaged in criminal activity at the time. The McMichaels were definitely guilty of criminal activity at the time of the shooting.

The key thing here is you cannot have instigated the incident and then say you had to kill the other person because you're defending yourself.

The McMIchaels instigated the whole incident from the jump when they started chasing him.

The video clearly shows it was Arbery who veered across the truck towards McMichael; as soon as McMichaels comes into frame he is backpedaling. The rest of what you wrote there is inaccurate.

1. Under Georgia law you are not required to withdraw or retreat if there is a reasonable fear for your life (not even outside your home or defending your property).
2. This one could be relevant, but there is no evidence to suggest it, and everything we know contradicts it. They did not taunt him. They sought to detain him. Furthermore, this would entail that Arbery was the aggressor in that final confrontation, by provocation, and you have already asserted you do not believe this.
3. The criminal activity must be a felony. A false arrest is a misdemeanor. Brandishing a weapon is also legal in Georgia in a dispute if it isn't aimed offensively, or wielded under threat, and otherwise decriminalized if the person isn't attempting to violently injure the other person, and it's apparent they weren't until Travis was attacked. This was discussed earlier.

The last is the one I said I would have thought would be the prosecutors strategy for attributing felonious conduct to the McMichaels. One would argue they didn't have reasonable grounds to brandish their firearm, but at the trial, I suspect their lawyer will argue these firearms were a precaution on the presumption they may be facing an armed man. This is where my post dug in on the potential escalation of simple assault to aggravated assault, so maybe this is why the prosecutors chose to charge them with aggravated assault, because otherwise, nothing about their conduct fits the definition of that in the "Crime on Person" statutes I read, and I read them all.

This is why I said it's not so cut and dry.

 

[b34stmode]

One reason why the cop in the park probably let the verbal threat slide is because it was conditional. Ahmaud did not say "I'm gonna fuck you up." He said "Bitch you hit me with that shit you gonna be fucked up" It was a conditional threat. So I am not sure if that counts. All told I think the first officer on the scene managed things rather admirably. But neither did I have a problem with the second cop engaging the taser, although I will save that for a later post.

In any case, I would have wanted to know what was in that car and I would have probably used the verbal threat and physical bravado to arrest him so I could look in the car. Not just for drugs but for illegal weapons. I mean the car was all but screaming out loud "please search me."

That is why you aren't a cop and why Ahmaud never went to jail. I can't condone the way he acted, and neither can I condone the second officers. It has no bearing on the topic at all either, and will not be allowed to be shown in trial.

 

[scoopj]

This is the full video of Ahmaud Arbery's encounter with police in November 2017. The Guardian released an edited version today that omits the part where he threatens the police officer, saying:

“Bitch you hit me with that shit you gonna be fucked up”

The Guardian edited out 5 seconds of this in theirs. Those 5 seconds are from 3:05 - 3:10 of this video:

That video looks altered. I don’t see a tux.

 

[jamel]

So now yall want to blame Arbery for the 2nd officers lack of professional decorum? Even tho it has already been established that the city government is corrupt.

I mean.... I get why a lawyer would play the role yall are taking... Them mfers get paid.

Yall? Pro Bono.