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

Aubrey had an open road in front of him and plenty of open space to his right, he choose to make the left turn and attack Travis who was standing on the other side of the road.

 

It wasn't even Travis who saw the man and initiated the chase, it was Greg. Travis didn't see ****, he simply grabbed a gun and followed Greg's orders.

Yes do post the 911 call with all the reasons they give for chasing Arbery IE he was black and running.

According to the police report its 3 armed men in 2 vehicles.

 

He had been running away. They had been following him. They blocked the road with weapons drawn. At least one appears to have his weapon pointed by the time Aubrey ran on the right side of the vehicle. Travis wasn't on the side of the road. He was standing in the middle, trying to block Aubrey's escape. He had the choice of surrendering himself to the mercy of two armed men who had been pursuing him and trying to block his escape, or attempting to defend himself. They were in a truck. They had been pursuing him. He had attempted to run away already and that hadn't worked. Sorry, but those are the facts.

 

They shouted at him to stop and talk with them from the truck no guns in hand.
There is no evidence he was seized.

You got a LONG way to go to prove a murder, and intentional killing.

I can hold a gun in my hand not pointed at you and ask you to stop and talk to me. If I have a probable cause in Georgia I can go further. If they violated a law it would be unlawful detention, stop with the kidnapping.

And I see you have already prejudged the GJ and any forth coming trial rather than waiting for the full investigation to complete and a trial engaged.

Not point in going further.

 

It does appear that the man in the bed of the truck is holding a gun at Aubrey. The figure besides the truck (Travis) appears to be standing with feet sideways and elbows extended. Can't tell is shotgun is pointed at Aubrey or pointed slightly up or down, but either would be illegal.

The should be able to enhance the video. What was posted online seems to be a video of a phone playing the video. The original should have better resolution.

 

Nope.
No gun was pointed.
They had probable cause Aubery and committed crimes.a

 

If you pursued me and tried to prevent my escape, I can defend myself against your unlawful actions. You would be the criminal here.

 

That's not what it looks like in the video. Plus they had been pursuing him and trying to prevent him from escaping.

They had a suspicion, not probable cause.

 

There are incidents of Interracial violence and murder that happen all the time in the United States with Black on White violence and murder outweighing White on Black murder by a Huge amount, but the reason this story gets so much coverage is because it's good political fodder for Democrats to try and gain political points with the Black community in an Election year, where there is a lot of Hatred towards the United States President by some minorities. If the roles had been reversed and Aubery had been a White Man, a lot of the people voicing their FAKE! OUTRAGE wouldn't have even batted an Eyelash, because it wouldn't support their Racist Bias towards White People. I laugh at how quickly Black people are willing to scream Racism and I counter their BS by calling them Racists, since I know a lot of them truly Hate White People, hense Racism on their part. This shooting in Georgia is NO! worse than the countless other interracial murders, some unsolved that happen every year in the United States.

 

I'm not falsely asserting it, he recused himself because his son had worked with one of the parties CONSTITUTING A CONFLICT OF INTEREST UNDER THE RULES OF ****ING PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. FFS.

So you're saying the McMichaels DIDN"T hunt him through the streets and by their own admission attempt to box him in and hold him at bay, only for him to escape and them to continue pursuit only to try to block his path again? That's odd, because the McMichaels aren't saying that and neither is the recused for bias DA you keep quoting.

I didn't say they'd set out to kill him, I said they hunted the man through the streets and seized him of his liberty because he was black and they thought that gave them cause to suspect him of a felony. They thought "well he's black and the suspect was black" were enough for reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion that arbery committed a felony. That is LITERALLY the only way they can take the actions they did.

They assaulted a man without legal justification, a struggle ensued in which they cannot claim self defense because they were the initial aggressor and there was no cooling off period as already explained (and a counter example cited, Trayvon Martin's case where there was such a period and Martin did become the aggressor) and during the struggle a man was shot 3 times leading directly to his death. The presumption is depraved heart murder, since his recklessness in assaulting the man led to the death.
He would have to assert the affirmative defense of self defense, which he cannot see numerous and sundry discussions over the past 2 days.

If it was unlawful detention then Arbery had the right to resist and the duty to do so if he wanted to maintain a claim against them. Making his resisting Travis legal, barring Travis from claiming self defense, making it assault and murder on Travis' part.

There was not probable cause to suspect that Arbery was the same person Greg had seen on grainy surveillance footage. Greg admits the only similarities are race and gender, THAT'S what he noticed and THAT'S what he claims gave him PC. That's NOT PC.

The fact they called the police does not give them the right to hunt arbery through the streets like a dog and attempt to seize him under the 4th amendment. They did not have the right to block his path, to try to use force or threat of force to compel him to stop and await police. I've addressed it, you've simply blithely ignored it.

Its not a phony claim of bias, its a matter of objective fact that his son worked with one of the parties. This constitutes a conflict of interest also known as "bias". Particularly you call it BIAS when instead of immediately recusing himself he writes a self serving letter that violates the rules of evidence in bringing up prior bad acts and stoops so low as to end with the propensity inference another ethical and evidentiary violation that poisons the potential jury pool. He needs his ****ing bar card pulled for that stunt. You clearly don't understand the ethical duties of a prosecutor or of an attorney. Suffice to say he just wiped his ass with the rules of ethics for our profession and his particular specialism and position of authority.


With the evidence on hand it would take maybe an hour for a jury of actually impartial persons to decide. The McMichaels hang themselves in their own statements ffs.

 

After they had already once tried to block him in and hold him at bay.

Have you even read the ****ing police report where Greg McMichael (the sole interviewee which is odd because TRAVIS did the shooting) details all this?

 

Enough of this.

You, as a member of the black community, are being asked to present a precise, round number, of exactly how many white individuals must be killed by black individuals, before it can fairly be claimed that all debts have been repaid. How many white individuals must die at the hands of black individuals, before there is no longer any mention of segregation, Jim Crow, or slavery, and the past is truly left in the past? How many is enough for such to come to pass?

 

Were you somehow under the impression that this was a legitimate argument? Really? Maybe pay attention to historical realities and quit pretending that your race war narrative is an excuse for ignoring history.

 

I can see how it could be considered threatening but does it fit the legal description of a threat?

 

Pursuing someone, trying to prevent their escape, and brandishing weapons to do so is a threat. Anyone claiming not to realize this is lying.

 

So your argument is Aubrey should have ran from the TWO cars that were chasing him? Even though he had tried that once already?

 

This story reminds me of the Jussie Smollett story where the Black community were ready to hang some White people, before they knew all the Facts.
Here at the Two White guys wearing Trump hats that attacked him

 

Brandished, visible, tracking him down and stalking him twice. They had no "probable cause" other than he was black as per their own statements to the cops.

 

History was then, this is now. No black individual currently alive was ever a slave, was ever owned like a piece of property by someone else, so they have no legitimate grounds to continue bringing it up as if it were current events.

 

Video. We have video. Join us back here in reality. Nothing you mentioned here has any bearing on the case at hand. You are just trying to run from the facts with desperate distractions.

 

That story took off immediately before any evidence or video was released. This story, the first time I heard of it was with this video THEN reading the statements, this happened in Feb with plenty of time for information to come out before people formed conclusions.

 

If the black community ignored the past and focused on this one incident, they can get much more outspoken supporters like me on their side for Justice for Ahmuad. Bringing up the past or bringing out the broad strokes of racism or hypotheticals and hyperboles, they will see open support dwindle because those they are maligning would be in their crowd. As much as I loath Stacey Abrams, she has made one of the best statements dealing with this one issue. "I believe that there should be [an] immediate investigation of charges," Abrams said on MSNBC Wednesday. "It looks like murder. It looks like vigilante behavior that should be charged and criminalized. And it looks like the Arbery family has been dealt a very sore hand of injustice."

 

Thanks for the link. I'm still a bit skeptical that the "citizen arrest" claim came from the McMichaels themselves. I looked into it a bit this morning and the NYT reported this:

Your own link included this paragraph a bit farther down:

ISTM that the "citizen arrest" talking point probably came from the former prosecutor and not the McMichaels themselves, and that sloppy reporting led to "Travis McMichael claimed he was acting within the scope of a citizen’s arrest." Anyways, if the McMichaels are actually talking to the police to the extent that they're outlining their legal defense, they're doing it wrong and they should stop.

 

People who use blankets as oyou are not concerned with truth.

Racism is so insignificat that you must dig deep to find it.

Try china.

 

What I'm sayin is that the Black community, because of their Rush to scream Racism anytime Whitey is involved, sometimes comes back with Egg on their face, before they have all the facts. Remember all the Hoopla about Michael Brown, Hands up Don't shoot, he was just a misunderstood Angel that was shot in cold blood in Ferguson by a Cop and then the Video comes out of him robbing that grocery store and intimidating and shoving the small grocery owner, Well! there's a perfect example of the Black Community going Nuts, before they have all the facts. The video proved he was a Thug and the Cop had reasonable suspicion that he might be attacked by this much larger criminal, which is why he was shot.