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

They did have a legal excuse, they carried weapons because they reasonably expected he was armed due to prior events, Arbery got himself killed by attacking them. We are both saying the same facts, we just interpret them radically differently. I can't sympathise with Arbey because he was a criminal and his actions were inexplicable to me. You can't empathise with the McMichaels because they look like they've just walked off Duck Dynasty and it spoils the African American victim culture.

 

1. Hell no, everyone is equal under the law, Arbery didn't stand his ground, he attacked them. Probably because he knew with his criminal record he was heading to prison.

2. Ditto

3. True, this is 2020 and the law treats everyone equally, except cops and rednecks who must be persecuted to appease the mob,

 

they did not have time to call police because they were in hot pursuit of a thug jogging on their 40 acres

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty_acres_and_a_mule

 

1. He assaulted Travis and tried to shoot him with his own gun against these three innocent men

2. Not trespassed, explained myself to the neighbour when spotted, not attacked a man who said who wished to speak to me about it and tried to murder him with his own gun. Oh and not brought a gun to school and stolen a TV from a store.

 

The phone issue is nebulous, I believe the evidence suggests they did;

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/05/28/us/ahmaud-arbery-911-call-mcmichaels-phone/index.html

 

1) Except that's not what he told cops at the scene and after questioning. He was after Arbery because of the conduct depicted in the night tapes. He intended to detain him for police questioning regarding that conduct.
2) No, it was not. Additionally, here is the point you keep trying to bury: b) He would indeed need to see him coming out of the house since he needs to suspect a CURRENT crime. Without seeing him at the property all he sees is a man running down a public street who he thinks he recognized from tapes depicting conduct weeks and months old. < That conduct is not authorized to chase on if you're using citizen's arrest.
3) The house is marked with a no trespassing sign NOW. You've offered no proof that it was marked at the time and in fact the ajc article seems to indicate the sign was posted after Arbery was killed to fend off lookie lous.
4) They caused the apprehension of a harmful or offensive contact with his person. Their stated purpose in chasing him was to attempt to detain him. He fled them more than once and they turned him around by obstructing his path with vehicles to the point of actually striking him with a vehicle. Travis admits to police to pointing the gun at arbery and telling him to get on the ground prior to the conduct we see in the tape. That's all agg assault and false imprisonment without citizen's arrest, see discussion above. He defended himself from felonious assault against his person by the admission of the defendants, and had no duty to comply with their unlawful demands or to retreat.
5) Decent or not doesn't enter into the calculus: Against the Peace and Dignity of the State They did set out to detain a man without forming the proper predicates for a citizen's arrest by their own admission, armed, and did use said weapons in their assault leading to a man's death. It doesn't matter if they had good intentions, their conduct was not authorized by law and a man is now dead because of that.

 

Carrying weapons is not what they need an excuse for Learned Hand. They need an excuse to chase a man down, block his path multiple times, strike him with a vehicle, point a firearm at him and demand he get on the ground, chase him some more, block his path again, and struggle with him shooting him 3 times. They need an excuse to "go detain him for police questioning" because to do so is to seize him of his liberty under the 4th amendment and a person does not generally have the right to do so. Instead to do so they must act under situations outlined with predicates in the statute. Here they're missing reasonable and probable suspicion of a CURRENT crime. Instead they have admitted to suspecting what they believe to be a PRIOR crime and wished to seize Arbery of his liberty for the purpose of police questioning on THAT PRIOR incident not a current incident.

We are not in fact saying the same facts. Where we differ: 1) the McMichaels admitted they were only chasing prior conduct. You are continuously incorrect on this point. 2) You continuously state the McMichaels had knowledge of Arbery being on the construction site the day of the shooting, when they admit they did not; 3) You continuously question whether or not they struck him with a vehicle when its a matter of objective fact and physical evidence that they did indeed do so.
I could go on.

News Flash Robby: I'm white and from rural Texas. Most of the men in my family look like these two dudes. Most of the men I know look like these two dudes. In a few years I'm going to get fatter than I am now and I'm going to look like these two dudes. It is not a race thing from my perspective.
Its about use of force laws and how idiots like these 3 do not help us normal people retain our rights when they're chasing people down and murdering them in the streets outside of statutory authorization and then get the good ole boys club to try to cover it up.

 

No we are not equal under the law. He didn't attack Travis, you are in denial. No matter how much you are shown, you just refuse to believe your lying eyes.

Your right cops are allowed to brutalize, maim and kill and don't have to worry about the law. The racist rednecks were going to get away with murder until the State stepped in.

 

So the GBI is lying.

 

My God man you do realize these 3 racist chased this man, one hit him with his truck and pretty much cornered him in. What exactly was Arbery to do and no he didn't assault Travis, he was standing his ground which he is allowed to do under the law. I keep giving you the GBI testimony and you just choose to ignore it completely because you want these 3 good ole boys to get away with murder.

Did he have a gun the day he was murdered?

I have never jumped out of my vehicle with a gun when I wanted to talk to someone.

None of the 3 men involved were LE officers and had NO authority to detain, question or nothing else for that matter when it came to Ahmaud Arbery. I guess you believe that if a white man approaches a black man he is automatically suppose to become submissive to the white man.

 

in the state of Georgia you cannot steal, trespass, nor 'stand your ground' on another man's 40 acres.

this guy 'ahmaud' must not have been familiar with American laws, what was he a nigerian muslim?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty_acres_and_a_mule

 

1. We shall see, the statements have changed over time. Let's imagine the scene in court;
Prosecutor; "Mr McMichael, are you aware your actions were illegal as you intended to detain Arbery for the police for prior and not current crimes?"
McMichael; "Yes but I meant I suspected him off carrying out another burglary at the time based on his appearance and the prior crimes"
PR; "But you never said that in your statement?"
McMichael; "No, I thought it was implicit"
PR; "Huh?"

2. But ask why he was running? As it happens Mc was entirely correct, Arbery had been in the house again and fled when spotted in the act.

3. The second sign yes, the first was existing;
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...hmaud-Arbery-says-suspicious-saggy-pants.html

4. But this was separate from the shooting, Travis feared he was armed due to the theft of the pistol and the prior testimony of reaching into his shorts as if going for a weapon.

5. They didn't assault him, he assaulted them and tried to take the gun off Travis to shoot him.

 

See my above post. I agree with you it is not a race thing but people (notably Superbadbrutha) are trying to turn it into just that. No one murdered anyone and there was nothing to cover up, this prosecution is trial by public opinion and that opinion is biased and misinformed.

 

1. Of course he did, didn't you watch the video?
2. No they're not
3. There was no murder, this is railroading this guy due to public opinion.

 

No one is lying, we're all looking at the same facts and coming to wildly different conclusions.

 

1. Yes, of course they chased him
2. They tried to cut him off with their truck and he slammed against it
3. No one was murdered
4. No, after attacking Travis Arbery tried to shoot him with his own gun
5. Have you ever pursued a possibly armed burglar?
6. They had the right of citizen's arrest.
7. Not at all, if this had been three black men and a white criminal I would consider it no different

 

Unbelievable.

 

All of which was against the law.

Arbery was.

Read that and see how silly it sounds.

They were no pursing an armed burglar.

My God man how many times do you need the statute explained to you.

That's BS, if 3 armed men were chasing you what would you do?

 

1) Is that how you think cross examination works?
2) From McMichael's perspective, and by his own admission both at the scene and later under questioning with counsel present, there was no current crime he was investigating. He saw a man running down the street, thought he recognized him from tapes depicting prior conduct weeks or months earlier and chased him because of that. He's admitted to it ffs. And as previously stated: Assuming he was "right" being "right" doesn't authorize a fishing expedition. Post facto justifications are not allowed, you must have justification when you START. McMichael's admits he did not have justification to start with because justification in this case is about CURRENT crime not PRIOR crime and he admitted more than once already that he didn't suspect a CURRENT crime.
3) That's not what your article says. It says it has a sign NOW it does not certify there was a sign THEN.
4) Travis hadn't seen Arbery when he set out and none of them had seen who stole the pistol. He set out on Greg's say so only. That right there puts him outside the Citizen's arrest statute, all by itself, to say nothing of the remainder of his conduct.
5) Chasing him down to detain him for police questioning without legal excuse (as here), hitting him with a car, turning him from his path 3 times, and pointing a firearm at him and demanding he be seized, is agg assault and false imprisonment. When a man dies because of it, that's felony murder. What Arbery did is known as "self defense".

 

No, you don't agree with me. FFS you literally accuse me in that post of making it a race thing. Spare us your crocodile tears.

There was indeed a cover up. 2 da's were part of it, both of whom violated their ethical duties against conflicts of interest.
The original DA had employed the defendant, her only choice in the matter was recusal but she didn't do that instead she did a whole bunch of ****, made a whole bunch of decisions, THEN recused herself. Number 2 was conflicted out as well, they had worked together. His only option was likewise: Recusal only. But he likewise didn't do that.
When prosecutorial misconduct occurs to keep a defendant they have personal connections to off of the horns people tend to call that concept "a cover up".
This isn't trial by public opinion. They were far, FAR outside the citizen's arrest statute with their actions making their actions illegal.

 

This dude just refuses to hear the truth.

 

the truth is those racists got their 40 acres and this jogger was fixing to steal their mule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forty_acres_and_a_mule

 

No, Reality is a much better debater than you, he/she doesn't spout nonsense about Slave Patrols etc.

 

Like what?