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

They got the right guy.

 

OK, so one man is dead and two are in jail awaiting trial as a result of their actions. Another man who recorded the event might be in legal trouble as well. Given that, would you have done anything differently as a participant in this incident?

 

So what does that mean?

 

You mean the guy that never stole anything.

 

You mean at this given time? The police and the neighborhood were on alert for this character.

 

Okay, let's break this down into brass tacks;

1. There had been a series of thefts and burglaries in the area in the months proceeding the shooting, hence why the CCTV was installed in the first place. That these were not formally reported to the police is irrelevant, there is no need to.

2. People are quibbling over the use of the term burglary rather than just trespass. That doesn't hold water, the various people who were seen on CCTV entering the house can reasonably be suspected of burglary, that they entered as trespassers (the house even had a no trespassing sign) with intent to steal. I think everyone agrees Arbery's actions were suspicious, they just disagree if they were enough to justify the McWilliams' actions.

3, It is not necessary for them to actually steal anything, just enter with intent to do so. Those who would say the house was incomplete or uninhabited and therefore burglary was impossible are mistaken, it only needs to be a structure. A citizen's arrest in Georgia can only be made for a felony but there was plenty of that, burglary is a felony.

4. For those who say "Oh you can't be sure of their intent", we'll you're quite right but that's why you only need reasonable grounds, unless you have a mindreading device you can't be certain but you establish that intent through police search and questioning and in order to do that the suspect must be detained.

5. So what was their probable cause? Well, they knew one of the suspects in the previous burglaries fitted the description of Arbery, not just a black man but a tall young black man with short hair wearing sports gear. What's more they see him running away from the scene of the previous burglaries.

6. People are getting hung up on the term 'immediate knowledge', this doesn't mean they have to witness the crime themselves or even be informed about it by a witness otherwise the police could never detain, search and question hardly anyone. 'Immediate knowledge' is 'knowledge that is immediate and not marked by any intervening agency'. In this case that is fulfilled by Arbery running from the scene of the previous burglaries, his physical description matching the previous and attempting to elude them when they tried to speak to him in order to detain him for the police, it's his actions and appearance then and there which constitute their immediate knowledge.

7. Speaking of intent here is where the murder charge really falls down. The fact is the McWilliams were constantly calling the police and on the 911 recording telling Arbery to stop. Their obvious defence in court will be "If we intended to murder this man why would e be calling the police as we did so?". So bang goes any consideration of premeditation and malice aforethought. So therefore we must consider were the reckless to have manslaughter and if so were they criminally so?

8. And here's where the vid comes in, we see McWilliams keeping the shotgun pointed down and at a distance, maintaining his reactive gap. Arbery advances towards HIM and we see them struggle for the gun. Now the only witnesses at this point are the father and son so their own testimony should be enough to exonerate them, there's nothing to contradict them. We also look at Arbery's past record of theft and firearms offences and the vids of his prior aggressive interactions with police and it doesn't exactly portray him in a favourable light to say the least.

9. Both first and second DA decided there was no case to answer, it was only when the video was released that the GBI decided that not only was there a case to answer but actually they were murderers? Murderers who despite their prior lack of criminal record, no flight risk, no threat to anyone are held on remand? What's more why arrest the father? Yes there is the principle of joint enterprise but this doesn't fit the criteria, the McWilliams could have shot Arbery at any time, it was only when they confronted him the shooting took place. This is a clear case of trial by Twitter and prosecutorial misconduct, it is just so incredibly blatant. That the DAs in question might have known McWilliams is hardly suspicious, it's a small town police department where that would be inevitable, that the department had complaints in the past doesn't mean anything, find me one that doesn't?

10. Can they justify carrying their weapons? Absolutely, one of the previous incidents was the theft of a firearm and a previous suspect who was challenged intimated that he had a weapon.

Essentially this boils down to 2 directly conflicting viewpoints. The right wingers here see 2 honest men attempting to detain a suspected burglar and killing him in self-defence when he resisted and tried to seize their gun with race and colour playing no part in the proceedings whatsoever. The left wingers see a racist crime where a man was presumed guilty purely due to the colour of his skin rather than any action on his part, their prejudice betrayed by their use of terms such as 'redneck' and 'good old boys' (and cowards? Men who confronted a possibly armed burglary?) so it is actually they who have a presumption of guilt against people due to stereotyping and the colour of their skin. One side wants to refight battles that are long over to avoid them having to confront the violence within their own community, it's easier for them to believe in a racist criminal justice system than look in the mirror, to argue that they are entitled to a form of exceptionalism due to mistreatment and discrimination in times past. The other side are sick to death of being lampooned and derided for expecting everyone in society to be held to the same standards of behaviour as everyone else and equality under the law.

This case will be absolutely fascinating in court, the legal arguments alone could probably fuel an entire season of L&O.

 

Didn't he try and steal a gun from someone else's hands, while he was holding it?

 

No matter how many facts you cite and no matter how many factual timelines you put together, they will always be distorted by the other side and screams of racism will all that will be left.

I don't think the kid should have died but to make the claim that this "jogger" was hunted down and killed because he was black is just plain nonsense. It's distortion of what happened and frankly, it's just a bunch lies.

 

They have no idea if Arbery was the same person. The only description was black male, and the color of his sweatshirt. It's why they are in jail charged with murder and aggravated assault.

 

But lies are all they have to support their narrative.

 

So he didn’t actually recognize the victim on the incident on Feb 11. But his pops identified him when the victim ran by on the day of the shooting?

Right, completely normal. Nothing off about this at all. Nope!

 

All of this has been refuted. You've been shown the statutes which precluded McMichaels from attempting to detain arbery.

 

Excellent summation

 

yes, he was defending himself against an attempted kidnapping. McMichaels had no authority to detain Arbery, and he was brandishing a weapon. Arbery had the absolute right to defend himself.

 

Yeah. He described a light skinned black male with heavily tattooed arms.

 

except it is entirely factually incorrect.

 

And posted videos

 

fake news

 

This has already been refuted

 

Lies and denial.

 

This has already been refuted

 

And they never did. Read a dictionary and watch the video.

 

This is 100% factually false

 

It's literally on video, and McMichaels admits it to police, lol.

 

nope. The statutes have been posted. McMichaels had zero authority to try and detain Arbery. They were brandishing firearms. this is literally on video, and in his statement to police after the shooting.