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

How so?

 

1. How so?
2. No, he was killed in self defence when he viciously attacked Travis.
3. How so?
4. They had reasonable grounds to suspect he was
5. None, I just interpret it differently.
6. Not have burgled the house in the first place and stopped and explained myself when challenged.

 

1. I've been cross examined dozens of times. Whilst you... have watched a lot of TV?
2. Basically it all falls down to how you interpret the law. To me the main thing is their genuine intention, the spirit of the law whilst to you it is the letter. This wasn't a fishing expedition, they purely wanted to detain the suspect for the police. It'll be interesting when we get to trial over the legal argument.
3. No, check again.
4. Travis was backing his dad up, he could hardly say "No dad, I can't accompany you to confront a possibly armed burglary suspect because I didn't see him myself yet".
5. They did have an excuse aka justification, we're just arguing over whether it was reasonable or not. We'll see about being hit by the car rather than them trying to cut him off so he is forced to wait for the arrival of the police and he vandalises the car in frustration. If you watch the footage Travis actually has his shotgun pointed to the ground when he goes to speak to Arbery, all they're doing is trying to detain him for the police, this wasn't vigilantism of any description. Arbery died because he wouldn't wait for the police, because he knew with his record he would probably go to jail. How is Arbery punching Travis in the face and then trying to snatch his gun off him 'self defence'?

 

1. Do you regard it as a racial incident?
2. What cover up? Did these DA's suppress exculpatory evidence or something? Then they recused themselves when their independence was questioned? What misconduct? They looked at the facts and came to a logical conclusion. It was only when the video was released and the misinformed and hysterical public opinion pressured the GBI into prosecuting these poor guys as sacrificial lambs to appease the black rioters.

 

......and yet you still don't listen, you keep coming back with BS to try and defend these 3 racists murderers.

 

How after everything you have been shown that pretty much proves that these 3 racist murdered this young man.

 

They chased the young man down and murdered him, why is that so hard for you to understand?

Self defense, that's a joke. How do you chase a young man in your vehicle for and extended period, hit him with your vehicle, jump out of your vehicle approaching him with a shotgun and then claim self defense. Please explain that for all to hear.

No they didn't, if you see a black man running down the street that is not reasonable grounds to chase him down and kill him.

That is the sad part.

Maybe the home owner if he asked me and it is odd that they didn't challenge any of the white burglars that were in the home.

 

Because there was no racist murder, you had three men trying to detain a suspected burglar who then attacked one of them, you agree with that, yes?

 

Because you haven't shown me anything to support that presumption, all the evidence suggests the opposite. That these men genuinely suspected this was a burglar whom they were trying to detain for the police and he got himself killed when he attacked one of them. The real argument is whether their actions were reasonable which is what court will decide.

 

1. Because they didn't, they simply tried to detain a suspected burglar for the police.
2. See above. We'll see about whether they hit him with the car or whether he smashed it in frustration at his escape being blocked. He attacked them, he struck Travis and tried to take his shotgun off him. They carried their weapons because of the prior theft of Travis's pistol and that the suspect when previously challenged had reached into his shorts as if grabbing a weapon.
3. They didn't see a black man, they saw someone who resembled the suspect for suspected burglaries in their street fleeing from the scene of the past crimes and thought he'd done it again. And as we now know they were right.
4. No, that's called having an open mind. You're trying to make this into the murder of James Byrd when it is nothing of the sort.
5. I would explain it to anyone who asked me because I would be aware I was in the wrong. And they didn't see of the white burglars.

 

he was not a gainfully employed white woman out on her morning jog.

it was a black man on the democrat plantation who stole something, trespassed on the white man's private property, and finally resisted citizen's arrest.

 

I agree with you in part. But you seem to think that all white Americans are racists who go around murdering black Americans. In fact, whites kill more whites yearly than blacks kill blacks. The number is between 2500 and 3500 yearly. Furthermore, blacks kill two and a half times more whites yearly than blacks killed by whites. Consequently, with whites numbering about five times as many as blacks, were whites racist, the reverse would be true. At any rate, I don't think they set out to kill Arbery, and I don't think it was racist. I think it was foolish and wrongheaded. The bottom line is that they brought guns, and forced the issue. Now Arbery is dead when he shouldn't be. And that's on them. I think it's unintentional manslaughter. Either way, a trial and Jury will have to parse that out to a just end.

 

No I don't agree with that at all. Arbery didn't attack anyone, the young man was in fear of his life and therefore he was trying to defend himself.

 

This is a prime example of having your head in the sand. Greg McMichael DID NOT SEE HIM COMMITTING ANY CRIME, he didn't see any of the videos with this young man in it, so for the thousandth time tell us how he was justified in his actions.

There was nothing reasonable about their actions, therein lies the problem.

 

you don't fight two armed men with shot guns

he didn't even have body armor, helmet, and AR-15 like a soldier does.

they will not overturn the law of citizens arrest because he couldn't wait for police like anyone else would

 

There was nothing about Arbery that day that made him a suspected burglar.

 

Other than video footage of him being a burglar.

 

jogging in boots is probable cause.

 

BS, I have repeatedly said these 3 racist.

You don't need to tell me that, tell that to some of the folks who don't care about whites killing whites.

When did that change? 3yrs ago.

It was for well over 400yrs in this country.

I don't know what they set out to do, but I do know what they did. So do you think calling him a "F'ing NWord" wasn't racist.

Did they intentionally or unintentionally chase him? Did they intentionally or unintentionally bring their guns? I see Murder 2, no less than 30yrs.

 

the jury of his peers would not steal, jog on private property with boots, and resist citizens arrest from 2 armed men.

they will not convict him if they are judging him how they would judge themselves.

 

The same video footage that showed that there were white burglars, funny how none of them were chased down and murdered. Also Greg McMichael never saw him burglarize anything.

 

1) None of us here believe that Gecko45.
2) To me the main thing is the predicates required by the citizen's arrest statute and the admissions made by the McMichaels. The predicates require a current crime to pursue, and the McMichaels admit they only suspected prior incidents. That means no matter their intent, they broke the law.
3) Quote the section then bud.
4) Yes he can and according to the citizen's arrest statute he indeed should've. You can't bootstrap a CA claim on someone else's suspicions.
5) In starting out? No, they did not. To have that they would need to be chasing a CURRENT crime and they have admitted more than once, with and without counsel, at the scene under excitement and at peace after contemplation, that they were chasing PRIOR activity.
Arbery wasn't required to wait and be detained illegally, he didn't have to put up with being hit by a car and having a gun pointed at him which did indeed occur see the preliminary hearing and Travis' admissions. I'm tired of going over these basic facts with you. He didn't have to put up with being chased through the streets like a dog. He had no duty to retreat or comply with assault, and in fact can 'stand his ground'. Which is what you see. That is LITERALLY by definition self defense under the law.

 

1) I regard it as a pack of dumb *********kers murdering a man. At least one of said dumb *********kers literally stands over the dying man and says "****ing NIG**R" which tends to reveal to me HIS state of mind at the very least on the subject. Seeing as how he seems to be still living with daddy and follows him slavishly in all things it seems, it tends to color my view of his daddy's likely POV as well. I'll wait for more evidence (likely only coming out at trial) to pronounce on that (daddy's POV) in finality though, as none of the other suspects has outright admitted it as a motivation unlike their admission of only chasing suspected prior activity and only Travis has 'given away the game' as it were.

2) Well it took 3 months to bring charges when he should've caught it at the scene and anyone who didn't know the DA would've. The first DA was in charge of that clusterfuck and the fact that her first action was not recusal PER SE means she committed misconduct. We tend to refer to that as a "cover up". What was covered up? Nothing ultimately, but not for the first DA's lack of trying. They're supposed to recuse themselves when the name of the suspect is a person they knew and who worked in the ****ing DA's office in the county. No asking required. Its an affirmative ethical duty all attorneys in every jurisdiction share.
The 2nd one did worse than the 1st even, publishing a letter using the ****ing propensity inference for God's sake. Disgusting. Unethical.
As to only video: No dude, the McMichaels and "roddy" ran their mouths at the scene more than enough to let the cops know they weren't chasing anything current. Its in the ****ing police report for God's sake. This is LITERALLY the point we STARTED THIS THREAD talking about. MONTHS AGO.

 

He was fleeing because he knew he'd been spotted inside the house, they repeatedly tried to get him to stop and talk with them, when Travis goes to speak to him it's Arbery who attacks him because if he did wait for the cops he'd probably be going to prison this time with his prior record.

 

1. No, he knew the description which had been circulated, he saw a suspect matching the description fleeing the scene and quite correctly thought he'd been in the house again.
2, There's nothing reasonable in Arbery's actions, the McMichaels correctly thought they were pursuing suspected burglar,