A 25-year-old black man was shot dead in Georgia while jogging, prompting online protests labeling t

It covered what they did but they had called the police to come and possibly effect an arrest. And prove Travis pointed the gun at Arbery, quite frankly if someone standing 12 feet away from me has a shotgun pointed AT ME, I'm not going to charge at them I wouldn't stand a chance. The video shows Arbery ran down the right side of the truck and he was free to stop and say OK what is it you want to ask me, or continue running. I've seen no evidence either of the white guys pointed a gun and said stop or we'll shoot. Instead he started the attack and struggle for the weapon. Well something more turn up I don't know. I hope more evidence can come up either way Even if some charge is brought that they violated some law trying to get him to stop and talk to them, which seems more a guise to allow time for the police to get there, that is separate from the shooting which was a result of Arbery attacking Travis.

Consciousness of guilt.
Did these guys decide they wanted to kill a black guy that day so the call the police first and then go do it? Doesn't seem likely.
Did Arbery fear the police coming because he feared he had just been seen trespassing or had committed the other breakin(s) where Travis's gun had been stolen and was the guy Travis had confront before and with his previous record thought he would go to jail so he was going to do anything to get away?

It's going to be tough for the grand jury but I have no reason to doubt they will pass it on to a full trial for a public airing with ALL the evidence and not all this speculation and conjecture and false narratives that are being posted here.

And have you already prejudged what the justice should be? A conviction requires guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, THAT is justice. People seem to forget that justice in a court of law is not for the victim but for the person whom the government has charged with a crime and is now facing the justice system.

I've been on a murder jury and it was a tough case. You have to totally disregard all the statements and assertions and speculations like have been posted here an deal ONLY with the evidence presented in the courtroom.

 

His past is relevant, because it shows that he has a propensity for theft, since he was arrested for Shoplifting as recent as 2018, the neighborhood he was in had a recent increase in theft and the shooters were suspicious it was him and wanted to find out if he had stolen anything. A persons past is a good indicator or a persons future, so this incident is no different than if a Child molester was in your neighborhood and a kid got molested, he'd be the first suspect. If Ahmaud Arbery was trespassing and the neighborhood was on the lookout for suspicious behavior, it doesn't surprise me that he might get confronted by armed citizens. The facts will come out and maybe you'll get your pound of Flesh, but my argument is Black people murder White people disproportionately to White people murdering Black people every year in the United States, but the only time some people start complaining is when they can make a Racism argument over it.

 

If I were out jogging and two guys cut me off in their truck, one of which was already in the bed of truck with a gun, and when I tried to keep running the other guy got out with a shotgun, my assumption would be that my life is in danger, not that they just want to chat. People who just want to talk don't try to prevent your escape and brandish guns when you try to escape.

 

First of all they chased the guy, so I am pretty damn sure Travis didn't get out his vehicle saying, "excuse me sir can I speak with you". You mean to tell me you wouldn't find someone as hostile getting out of a vehicle holding a freakin shotgun coming at you. Doesn't matter if he was pointing at him. I wo hi old perceive that as a threat. Travis chased him down and got out of his vehicle with a gun, so how do you come this conclusion Aubrey assaulted him. I forgot Stand your Ground laws don't apply to black folks.

 

Unless they knew for 100% certainty that this guy had committed a crime, they had no right to stop him with firearms.

and yes, the jogger had the right to Stand His Ground.

 

Anyone saying that they wouldn't perceive this as a threat is lying. It's as simple as that.

Looks to me from the video that both men began pointing their guns at him the moment he tried running around the vehicle. Also, they are clearly screaming at him, not just saying "Hey, let's sit a spell."

 

Even if they knew he had committed a crime, I think (would have to check the law in Georgia) they would only be able to perform a citizen's arrest if he was fleeing from said crime.

 

The DA who recused himself. You can apply the legal arguments I spent yesterday writing to his arguments. He also had to recuse himself for bias, and he threw out the *********king propensity inference in his letter. He's a quack.

Read the police report Blues. What do they do just before the video? Chase him through the streets and by their own admissions attempt to block his path and box him in. Causing him to flee in fear. That? Was assault. It would make a reasonable person perceive a threat to life and limb were 3 highwaymen to waylay them on a public street. So he fled and when confronted again by an armed man attempting to block his path again, resisted. They didn't have the right to set up a neighborhood checkpoint, they didn't have the right to compel him to stop and talk to them.

You keep quoting the DA who recused himself for bias and is no longer on the case, and whose arguments I've already refuted as they are YOUR arguments. The DA who has been contradicted by the current prosecutor for ****'s sake.

I am going by the evidence at hand, the police report is filled with statements by party opponents that will be admitted against the mcmichaels.

You realize the video picks up AFTER they've pursued him through the streets, tried to block him in by their own admissions etc? Its clear from the report, from the mcmichaels own mouths, who started the attack: the mcmichaels. Hunting a man through the streets is not a neutral or defensive act, it is an offensive act.

It doesn't have to be pre-meditated for days to be murder 1. Pre-meditation can take an instant. But lets say its not: Murder 2 then as the act of a reckless and depraved heart.
They went to force a man to halt, to seize him of his liberty under the 4th amendment: doing so without cause would be assault. I won't repeat the arguments I've already made, ad nausem, as to why they did not have cause. You may scroll up if you don't remember. When someone dies during an assault, that's normally going to be depraved heart murder as assaulting someone can reasonably lead to death and even if you didn't intend a particular persons death by your actions, if its reasonable death might result and you do it anyway that is considered reckless.

 

The white men who did this should be shot at dawn after the trial..

 

Yes TWO DAs recused for bias related to the elder mcmichael and their degree of connection to him in a 6 degrees of separation from kevin bacon style analysis.
1 point of connection for the first, 2 points for the 2nd. That's too close. Your son worked with one of the accused: you don't get to prosecute, sit the jury, sit the bench, or investigate. You may defend the accused, that's it and since you're the DA that's not an option either.

Then Barnhill in his letter closes it with the propensity inference which is so unethical I can hardly believe he did it on paper like that. But there it is like a turd in the punchbowl.

 

These guys didn't know who Ahmuad was. They didn't know his past. If they wanted to take the law into their own hands and be heroes for stopping the black guy.

He was looking in the window of a house under construction. I don't know about you, but when I moved into my last house 3 years ago, my wife and I went into many homes under construction in the neighborhood and many came into ours. Its to get an idea of what else can we put in our house. Its not a "suspicious" activity.

I am usually very skeptical about the media narrative. The first time I knew anything about this case was watching the video. These jack holes are racists, Ahmuad had every right to be scared for his safety and defend himself when 2 guys were harassing him, following him. The person videoing was the brother of the shooter, so there was more than one vehicle chasing him. Ahmuad didn't have a reasonable way to escape and didn't know police had been called. Going around the truck to get to the driver was probably what he thought was the best way to keep a gun off of him. You can hear 2 shots before the driver gets out of the car, so the father shot before Ahmuad even engaged with the son.

The only thing that pisses me off are people who wont focus on this one incident and start making it about themselves, or how "America/south (as a whole) is still racist", or like LeBron trying to say "we are hunted every time we step out of our homes". That nonsense is complete BS and will lose a lot of peoples open support of Justice for Ahmuad.

 

Except for the fact that the vigilantes are not authorized to perform any type of citizens arrest unless they have proof.

 

And 2 gun shots rang out in the video before Ahmuad got to the driver.

 

And they have the nerve to ask why he didn't just try running away . . . which is exactly what he had been trying to do. Given that situation, he had two choices: try to defend himself against nearly impossible odds or surrender and put his life in the hands of the maniacs chasing him down, trying to prevent his escape, and brandishing weapons -- a nearly impossible choice. He was well within his rights to defend himself. They had no right to chase him down and try to detain him.

 

Mother claims police initially told her that her son was shot inside a home during a burglary. If true, this was a blatant cover-up.

 

They wanted to compel him to stop, seizing him under the 4th amendment to await police questioning. In furtherance of this aim, they armed themselves, hunted him through the streets, tried to box him in and hold him at bay, when he escaped they renewed pursuit, got out ahead of him, and leapt in front of him with shotgun in hand to again attempt to bar his path. THATS A CITIZENS ARREST. Or its an attempt at one, it only counts as a citizen's arrest if they can shelter under the statute, which they can't see the post you just quoted. Here, its just an armed gang pursuing a man on naked suspicion, assaulting him, leading to a struggle which ended in his death.

But Travis can't claim self defense and it was reasonable to resist 3 strangers hunting him through the streets and attempting to hold him at bay without legal cause. Travis is the aggressor, he can't claim self defense unless he can shelter under the citizen's arrest statute. He can't, see discussions above.

Travis shoots him 3 ****ing times dude. Once in the hand when he grabbed the barrel the other 2 times as they struggle over the gun. Its not much of a struggle when you've got two hands and aren't bleeding out and he is ffs. That's not an accident. I'd like to see the shotgun too. Is it a semi or a pump? Also watch the video closely you can see travis sweep him with the barrel a bit before they close with one another.

You can resist someone assaulting you with a weapon, and if the weapon goes off in the struggle its still their fault.
When you assault someone and death results you end up with either manslaughter or negligent homicide if its a true accident (or if you couldn't form a specific intent such as when you're intoxicated but did not try to set that up as a defense before hand by intentionally getting drunk then going to do the crime) or depraved heart murder if your recklessness was the cause or intentional murder if you intended the particular death of the particular person at some point in the crime.
This crime is going to be either manslaughter if its pled down, or murder 2 IE depraved heart murder if it stands on its face. Someone dying resisting their assailant? Depraved heart murder on the assailants part unless the victim had the assailant at their mercy, the assault had stopped, and the victim then became the aggressor by renewing it (see Trayvon Martin case for an example of that.)


Pull up to kill a black guy? Nah. But go **** with one? That's pretty obvious.

 

The shots only occurred during the struggle and were consistent with that according to the autopsy. What evidence do you have otherwise? Travis claims he recognized Arbery from a previous encounter. That's probable cause. They had called the police to come and possibly arrest and that may have happened as there had been another 911 call on Arbery just previous and Arbery may have been in fear of that and why he attacked Travis or he had in fact stolen the pistol and still had it and the police would find it.

I hope they can developed more evidence one way or the other.

 

Not Travis, Travis was inside and did not see Arbery run past. He could only have recognized Arbery after the pursuit was already in progress. If you're trying to stand on Travis, Travis doesn't have cause to start the chase. According to the police report, GREG was in the yard and GREG saw Arbery running past and GREG seemed to think he had some common traits with the person that GREG had seen on footage of several days or weeks prior. It was then GREG who seemed to think this gave him reasonable and probable grounds for suspicion that Arbery had committed a felony and it was then GREG who went inside, gathered up Roddy and Travis in 2 vehicles with 3 firearms between them, and then led the pursuit.
When you make mistakes of fact like this it is frustrating.

He wasn't found with a pistol. If he had a stolen pistol, do you think he would've charged a man with a shotgun? If he was found with a stolen pistol do you think Barnhill, who broke the rules of evidence and professional responsibility by using the propensity inference and dumping Arbery's priors as the cause in his letter, wouldn't have mentioned that fact? You inserting facts is rather more frustrating, and borders on insulting.

 

How so, Travis isn't a police officer. What crime did he see Arbery commit? How does Travis's word become law.

Post that 911 call.

Well we know which way.

 

You know what I like to do when I go jogging after committing a robbery where I steal a gun, run with the gun in the same neighborhood where I stole it from in my loosely fitting running shorts. These people targeted a guy who was black for the sake of being the same color as the possible thief. They don't give any description identifiers that matched Ahmuad up to the perp. If Ahmuads rap sheet could have been an identifier for reasonable suspicion, the police would have already been to see him.

 

I feel for the family who lost their son. I also feel for the family of the security guard who was killed outside of Detroit. Given the narratives in both, it seems that entitlement played a large part in what then led to the deaths of two people. And in both cases, a minority male was killed. But for some, it has to be racism, and for others, it's just a regular day in America....

 

Two armed men in a pickup truck chased down a man and shot him.

The evidence on the video is clear.

Your rant in the face of the evidence shows you for what you are.

 

You keep falsely asserting the DA WAS bias'd and why he recused himself, false. As he stated there was no kinship between his son and McMichaels and he only recused himself because the family requested it. Then you totally discount everything in his report to create your own narrative. How self-serving. I'm not going to keep repeating it ad nausem. There was no assault by the McMichaels and Arbery would be alive today had HE not assaulted Travis. He might be in jail but he'd be alive. You have not shown reckless or a depraved heart or that they set out to kill someone, people doing that don't call the police first. If the DA can prove an unlawful detention so be it, that is not murder. The fact remains there is a case of probable cause and the law in Georgia says that yes the acted lawfully in attempting to question the suspicious person and the fact the called the police first will play a roll in that, you have yet to address that.

Quite frankly if you are simply going to dismiss out of had the facts that the previous investigation had developed and the DA's report on your phony claim he was bias'd and therefore the presented a false report this can go no further and a waste of time.

As I have said I hope this DA can come up with more evidence either way to come to a definitive case. Right now I'd hate to be on that grand jury and then as I expect on the trial jury with the evidence at hand.

 

You have atypical supporters for this event, please don't ostracize them by throwing out unfounded race baiting.

 

I think it was more of a perceived bias, good or bad, since the father had once worked for the DA's office. The shoot could face the death penalty and there must be zero flaws in the investigation so they don't get off like Casey Anthony did on technicalities.