Crime Ahmaud Arbery Shooting v4 (autopsy report)

[deltapapha]

If the McMichaels had been actual active policemen who stopped and questioned Arbery, he wouldn't even have been arrested. Why do you presume he was a thief? Beyond your agenda of course.

LOL you thinking Ahmaud would not have gotten arrested.

 

[deltapapha]

I don't think McMichaels ever intended to initiate a citizen's arrest.

(also this post is not really directed at AA leaners, but more towards McMs leaners. Of course, anyone can respond to it, but if it is regarding the boxed-in argument I won't reply to that, just because we will be talking past each other. The following remarks are working completely with the assumption that there was never an intent to attempt a citizen's arrest in the first place, or detain Arbery in any way. The McMichaels's primary aim was to keep eyes on Arbery until the cops arrived. And some of the following commentary is not new.)

A lot of McMs leaners probably wonder "Why did the McMichaels stop? They should have just kept driving."
The main reason why the McMichaels parked at that stop sign was to make it easier to turn right or left if Arbery tried to cut behind them in either direction. The reason they stopped was to wait to see which direction Arbery would go. Since Arbery was behind them, there was no guarantee that Arbery would not just start running in the opposite direction. So why not just park and wait to see where Arbery would go. The McMichaels really didn't have anywhere meaningful to continue driving at that point until it was clear which way Arbery would decide to go. If Travis would have turned right or left at the stop sign they risked losing sight of Arbery altogether. If their goal was to just to keep eyes on Arbery, then it made perfect sense to NOT keep driving but wait to see where Arbery was going to go and either turn left, right or u-turn in opposite direction.

Pro-McMs-ers may say "fair enough, but why did Travis exit with his gun? Seems like a foolish thing to do." Simple. You got Arbery running straight towards you from behind. So for safety reasons it is best to exit the vehicle armed (NOT really to show Arbery the gun) but just to have it in case Arbery were to try to attack. Also there was no guarantee that Arbery was not armed.

Early on I thought that maybe it was a bad idea for Travis to exit the vehicle with the gun. Now I think it was the right thing to do. And again if it turned out that Arbery was to cut through a yard behind them down the street right or left then all Travis had to do, based his advantageous positioning at the stop sign was to quickly slip into his truck again and slowly resume tracking Arbery. He would not have been able to do that if he had kept driving. The point of stopping was to wait on Arbery's next move.

When you break down everything the McMichael's decided to do at the stop sign, it really makes a lot of sense when you think about it.

I don't think the McMichaels ever intended to initiate a citizen's arrest at all. Neither of them looked to be in any kind of physical shape to follow through on such a thing anyway. It was all about eyes on and all about defending in case Arbery were to try to attack.

 

[machidafan99]

There's the moral argument and then there's the legal argument. Two separate issues.

In court they just need convince jury of reasonable doubt that it wasn't false imprisonment. That's all.

 

[vengeful]

I'm not trying to establish relevance. You are the one complaining.

I didn't complain, you decided to interject yourself into something that had nothing to do with you, because I commented about some white "broad" commenting on a murdered man's penis.

Stop playing captain save-a-hoe cause you think noticing and commenting on a circumcision is somehow remotely normal in a thread discussing a murder.

 

[BEER]

LOL you thinking Ahmaud would not have gotten arrested.

Arrested for what? Trespassing on unoccupied property and not stealing anything?

They didn't even arrest the dude who killed him lmao

 

[deltapapha]

Arrested for what? Trespassing on unoccupied property and not stealing anything?

They didn't even arrest the dude who killed him lmao

Arbery was a prime suspect in a string of felony burglaries. Also they had direct evidence that he had trespassed numerous times in the neighborhood. At the very least they would have hauled him in for questioning. And if they didn't find a reason to charge him with any of the burglaries they would have charged him with misdemeanor trespassing

 

[vengeful]

I don't think McMichaels ever intended to initiate a citizen's arrest.

(also this post is not really directed at AA leaners, but more towards McMs leaners. Of course, anyone can respond to it, but if it is regarding the boxed-in argument I won't reply to that, just because we will be talking past each other. The following remarks are working completely with the assumption that there was never an intent to attempt a citizen's arrest in the first place, or detain Arbery in any way. The McMichaels's primary aim was to keep eyes on Arbery until the cops arrived. And some of the following commentary is not new.)

A lot of McMs leaners probably wonder "Why did the McMichaels stop? They should have just kept driving."
The main reason why the McMichaels parked at that stop sign was to make it easier to turn right or left if Arbery tried to cut behind them in either direction. The reason they stopped was to wait to see which direction Arbery would go. Since Arbery was behind them, there was no guarantee that Arbery would not just start running in the opposite direction. So why not just park and wait to see where Arbery would go. The McMichaels really didn't have anywhere meaningful to continue driving at that point until it was clear which way Arbery would decide to go. If Travis would have turned right or left at the stop sign they risked losing sight of Arbery altogether. If their goal was to just to keep eyes on Arbery, then it made perfect sense to NOT keep driving but wait to see where Arbery was going to go and either turn left, right or u-turn in opposite direction.

Pro-McMs-ers may say "fair enough, but why did Travis exit with his gun? Seems like a foolish thing to do." Simple. You got Arbery running straight towards you from behind. So for safety reasons it is best to exit the vehicle armed (NOT really to show Arbery the gun) but just to have it in case Arbery were to try to attack. Also there was no guarantee that Arbery was not armed.

Early on I thought that maybe it was a bad idea for Travis to exit the vehicle with the gun. Now I think it was the right thing to do. And again if it turned out that Arbery was to cut through a yard behind them down the street right or left then all Travis had to do, based his advantageous positioning at the stop sign was to quickly slip into his truck again and slowly resume tracking Arbery. He would not have been able to do that if he had kept driving. The point of stopping was to wait on Arbery's next move.

When you break down everything the McMichael's decided to do at the stop sign, it really makes a lot of sense when you think about it.

I don't think the McMichaels ever intended to initiate a citizen's arrest at all. Neither of them looked to be in any kind of physical shape to follow through on such a thing anyway. It was all about eyes on and all about defending in case Arbery were to try to attack.

Lol horrible take when they said "stop, we want to talk to you". They admitted to previously trying to cut him off. And even if they never attempted to perform a citizen's arrest, they still committed felony aggravated assault.

Roddie would be able to get off, the rest wouldn't.

 

[deltapapha]

Lol horrible take when they said "stop, we want to talk to you". They admitted to previously trying to cut him off. And even if they never attempted to perform a citizen's arrest, they still committed felony aggravated assault.

Roddie would be able to get off, the rest wouldn't.

them asking him to talk to him is not inconsistent with anything I wrote. Also "cut him off" can be interpreted loosely. I don't think it meant "detain him." Cutting someone off can actually be a goal in keeping eyes on. So cutting him off is not inconsistent with anything I wrote either. The McMs did not intend to arrest or detain AA.

 

[vengeful]

them asking him to talk to him is not inconsistent with anything I wrote. Also "cut him off" can be interpreted loosely. I don't think it meant "detain him." Cutting someone off can actually be a goal in keeping eyes on. So cutting him off is not inconsistent with anything I wrote either. The McMs did not intend to arrest or detain AA.

Yes, yes it is. You said they just wanted to follow him till the police arrive, saying "stop we want to talk to you" isn't an attempt to follow and wait for the police to arrive. It's an attempt to stop him to question him themselves, which is detainment.

Cutting him off by the loosest interpretation I can think of is still an attempt to get in front of him which is inconsistent with following till police arrive.

 

[BEER]

Arbery was a prime suspect in a string of felony burglaries. Also they had direct evidence that he had trespassed numerous times in the neighborhood. At the very least they would have hauled him in for questioning. And if they didn't find a reason to charge him with any of the burglaries they would have charged him with misdemeanor trespassing

"Prime suspect" according to whom? The neighborhood gossip group?

And he would be hauled in for questioning but, hear me out, the people who MURDERED him weren't?

Do you not see the problem?

 

[deltapapha]

Yes, yes it is. You said they just wanted to follow him till the police arrive, saying "stop we want to talk to you" isn't an attempt to follow and wait for the police to arrive. It's an attempt to stop him to question him themselves, which is detainment.

Cutting him off by the loosest interpretation I can think of is still an attempt to get in front of him which is inconsistent with following till police arrive.

asking to talk is not attempt at detainment LOL

 

[BEER]

asking to talk is not attempt at detainment LOL

Kind of is when you're chasing him through a neighborhood with guns lmao

 

[MicroBrew]

Arbery was a prime suspect in a string of felony burglaries. Also they had direct evidence that he had trespassed numerous times in the neighborhood. At the very least they would have hauled him in for questioning. And if they didn't find a reason to charge him with any of the burglaries they would have charged him with misdemeanor trespassing

If he was the prime suspect the police would have picked him up before this incident occured.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

No, let's say they prove it was self defense. Now let's say the prosecutor proves they committed a felony either by attempted false imprisonment or aggravated assault..... Either of those will nullify the ability to use self-defense as a legal defense and the jurors will be instructed to that.

Now, they still end up convicted of felony murder. The defense's strategy should be to fight those felony charges first as eliminating those will allow them to justify the homicide with a self-defense claim.

I think your argument makes sense. But guaranteeing a conviction is premature. I think the difference in our stances is that I'm not taking it as a given that the jury will be instructed in the way you are saying they will be.

 

[tramendous]

People are such retards taking the law into their own hands. Bunch of hill billy weirdos driving around in pickups and shotguns to play action hero. Fuck em.

 

[vengeful]

asking to talk is not attempt at detainment LOL

How is telling someone to stop we want to talk to you not detaining someone after you've been following them for several minutes and made attempts to restrict their movement?

I'm thinking you're just trying to convince yourself that they're innocent at this point. I don't remember there being a stop sign where they were parked either.... Just doesn't seem like a spot for one.

 

[vengeful]

I think your argument makes sense. But guaranteeing a conviction is premature. I think the difference in our stances is that I'm not taking it as a given that the jury will be instructed in the way you are saying they will be.

Its the way the Georgia law is written in regards to murders in the commission of a felony. I'm not guaranteeing a conviction, I'm just saying the best strategy to implement the self-defense argument would be to fight the felony charges first because those (using plural because I anticipate more felony charges later) are what escalates this into a felony murder charge. Just looking at the video it's clear that McMichaels shot Arbery to defend himself.... It's just that it isn't a legal defense If done during a felony.

 

[BEER]

I think your argument makes sense. But guaranteeing a conviction is premature. I think the difference in our stances is that I'm not taking it as a given that the jury will be instructed in the way you are saying they will be.

Even with the GBI stepping in and seemingly attempting to make an example out of the situation, I highly doubt we'll see murder convictions.

Not because I don't think there is a case. Clearly, I believe that there is a very strong case, but I also think it'll will boil down to plea agreements for "manslaughter".

Which will be an incredible miscarriage of justice, IMO.

 

[deltapapha]

If he was the prime suspect the police would have picked him up before this incident occured.

They didn't know it was Arbery and would not have known until they showed up and verified that wow this is the same dude in all the surveillance, at which point they would have slapped the cuffs.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

Its the way the Georgia law is written in regards to murders in the commission of a felony. I'm not guaranteeing a conviction, I'm just saying the best strategy to implement the self-defense argument would be to fight the felony charges first because those (using plural because I anticipate more felony charges later) are what escalates this into a felony murder charge. Just looking at the video it's clear that McMichaels shot Arbery to defend himself.... It's just that it isn't a legal defense If done during a felony.

Ah, I get it. I think we largely agree.