Ahmaud Arbery

[wufan]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjfv...nFHV8S7jeXpVc0

long, but worth the watch

That was a fair take.

[wufan]

It didn't help because it showed Avery was not the attacker. While running/jogging, he had moved over to go around the truck on the opposite side from where the son was standing to avoid a confrontation. The son then went around the front of the truck with his gun and that's where the scuffle started. No hold your ground, no self defense.

need to watch that again. Avery comes across the vehicle from the other side at a full run at the son. Avery could have gone in any other direction.

[wufan]

By the way, what was the evidence they had that allowed them to make a "citizen's arrest"? Was he holding something he stole? Did any of the videos show him taking something from the building site?

That’s kind of the issue. Their “direct knowledge of a felony”, as required by state law, seems pretty flimsy. It appears to me that they are acting more on probable cause, and there’s no evidence that there was any offense beyond trespassing. Probable cause and/or misdemeanor trespass doesn’t give you the right in any state to detain someone.

Not directed at you, but notice that racism is not required to make this a life in prison minimum sentence.

[ShockTalk]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjfv...nFHV8S7jeXpVc0

long, but worth the watch

That was a fair take.

Except for his first take which was that Avery was the attacker. From what I saw:

While running/jogging, he had moved over to go around the truck on the opposite side from where the son was standing to avoid a confrontation. The son then went around the front of the truck with his gun and that's where the scuffle started. No hold your ground, no self defense.

[wufan]

Except for his first take which was that Avery was the attacker. From what I saw:

We are going to disagree on that. It is obvious to me that Avery ran at the son,and even his defenders are saying that he had the right to protect himself by running at the son.

[ShockTalk]

We are going to disagree on that. It is obvious to me that Avery ran at the son,and even his defenders are saying that he had the right to protect himself by running at the son.

Guess we will agree to disagree.

The video had Arbery running basically down the center of the street, in a straight line. At that time, the son was directly in front of Arbery in front of the driver's side door. As Arbery approached the truck he veered as to be able to run along the passenger side of the pickup, which he did. When the son saw Arbery move to the left, he went around the front of the pickup which put him in a perpendicular line to intercept Arbery. Even if the son beat Arbery to the point of interception on the left side of the truck, the son was being the aggressor. Had the son not moved around the front of the truck, the two would not have come in contact with each other.

[ShockingButTrue]

It didn't help because it showed Avery was not the attacker. While running/jogging, he had moved over to go around the truck on the opposite side from where the son was standing to avoid a confrontation. The son then went around the front of the truck with his gun and that's where the scuffle started. No hold your ground, no self defense.

By the way, what was the evidence they had that allowed them to make a "citizen's arrest"? Was he holding something he stole? Did any of the videos show him taking something from the building site?

I'm not saying that Avery didn't have ill intent, but if there was no proof, then, there was no crime or reason to make a citizen's arrest. The McMichaels were the aggressors.

Who said it did help? Someone on Shockernet? I saw a slo mo and up close video that shows he was clearly throwing punches and trying to take the gun away. I'm sure you'll catch up it to soon. That's how he got shot. I didn't presume why. I'm sure you've got your own thoughts on that.

There are a few videos of him snooping around the same place in the am. There's another video of him running, er jogging, when he sees the neighbor across the street calling apparently the police? Have you not seen that video? That's not suspicious in light of the recent spate of robberies in the neighborhood?

Are you implying that the people making the citizen's arrest had no knowledge of the prior trespassing videos, along with the thefts, or that they did? Are you also implying they were looking to kill a black man in broad daylight for no reason other than he was black? What is your contention?

There's more than one side to this story 'Talk.

[ShockTalk]

Who said it did help? Someone on Shockernet? I saw a slo mo and up close video that shows he was clearly throwing punches and trying to take the gun away. I'm sure you'll catch up it to soon. That's how he got shot. I didn't say why. I'm sure you've got your own thoughts on that.

There are a few videos of him snooping around the same place in the am. There's another video of him running, er jogging, when he sees the neighbor across the street calling apparently the police? Have you not seen that video?

Are you implying that the people making the citizen's arrest had no knowledge of the prior trespassing videos, along with the thefts, or that they did? Are you also implying they were looking to kill a black man in broad daylight for no reason other than he was black? What is your contention?

Please read my above post to wufan . It will answer the reason the 2 came in contact with each other. Once contact was made (by the son's doing), yes, there was a struggle and punches thrown. They continued to struggle in front of the truck until they were on the righthand side of the truck where shots were fired. HAD THE SON NOT COME AROUND THE FRONT OF THE PICKUP, THE TWO WOULD NOT HAVE COME IN CONTACT WITH EACH OTHER. No?

I don't particularly care about the videos of him "snooping" around. He was in open site. There was no breaking and entering. No windows needed to be peeped through. Lastly, there was no time in the videos that he took anything. Minimal trespass at best which was by the words of a former AG of Georgia as NOT sufficient reason for a citizen's arrest. (Let me try this again) No?

I am not implying anywhere whether or not the people knew or did not know of the prior videos. I can make a guess that Mr. McMichael felt he had reason to stop him due to prior knowledge of incident(s), which were not materially relevant to this particular incident as Arbery did not have anything stolen on him, visible or otherwise.

Lastly, I have no idea what was in the mind of the McMichaels. I have a pretty good guess of what Arbery may have had in his mind, however, and there is definitely precedence for that thinking. (One more time) No? What is your contention?

Add: I'm not trying to take a "side", but merely trying to look at the facts in the order that they happened. While I may not like it, I should not let any past history of Arbery's get in the way of what I see as actually happening.

[Kung Wu]

The video had Arbery running basically down the center of the street, in a straight line. ... Even if the son beat Arbery to the point of interception on the left side of the truck, the son was being the aggressor.

It is obvious to me that Avery ran at the son,and even his defenders are saying that he had the right to protect himself by running at the son.

But were McMichael's feet set when contact occurred, and did Avery have a clear lane to the basket?

[RoyalShock]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjfv...nFHV8S7jeXpVc0

long, but worth the watch

Officer Tatum has an updated video after more info has come out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjCzJyFKoqo

[WuDrWu]

I have only learned a little about this case.

Something interesting I heard this morning....the victim's mother was being interviewed and she was asked if when told her son had been shot while he was committing a robbery, she answered "yes I did believe that".

Seriously? You believed your son was stealing? WHY? That alone stinks.

That being said....my biggest issue with this incident right now is the police/detectives/whomever sat on this for 2-3 months. That stinks to high heaven no matter what happens in my opinion. I don't know who is responsible, but they better have some good lawyers and damned good reasons for sitting on this for 2 months. And if the mother is telling the truth (no reason to think she isn't) about being told by the police what her son was doing (and it appears that's not the truth) then somebody is in seriously deep water. And should be.

On a separate note, this nonsense about him being a jogger, and the media's CONTINUED effort to call him that (remember the St Louis guy who was a student) and completely mislead and lie about the circumstances, is almost as troubling.

I say almost because I respect the police infinitely more than the press.

[wufan]

I have only learned a little about this case.

Something interesting I heard this morning....the victim's mother was being interviewed and she was asked if when told her son had been shot while he was committing a robbery, she answered "yes I did believe that".

Seriously? You believed your son was stealing? WHY? That alone stinks.

That being said....my biggest issue with this incident right now is the police/detectives/whomever sat on this for 2-3 months. That stinks to high heaven no matter what happens in my opinion. I don't know who is responsible, but they better have some good lawyers and damned good reasons for sitting on this for 2 months. And if the mother is telling the truth (no reason to think she isn't) about being told by the police what her son was doing (and it appears that's not the truth) then somebody is in seriously deep water. And should be.

On a separate note, this nonsense about him being a jogger, and the media's CONTINUED effort to call him that (remember the St Louis guy who was a student) and completely mislead and lie about the circumstances, is almost as troubling.

I say almost because I respect the police infinitely more than the press.

As to the delay in the arrest, there are a few reasons:

Once an arrest is made, the prosecution has a timeline that starts. You need to have your case fully made before making that arrest. When this was first investigated, the first prosecutor determined that it was self-defense. He then decided to recuse himself so as to eliminate the view that he could be biased. The second prosecutor then began investigating, and recused himself before a determination was made. A third prosecutor was appointed under heavy public outcry and made an arrest in 48 hours.

Remember that there is quite a bit of video surveillance and at least 5 additional witnesses other than those in the video. Hope these last prosecutors locked everything down between their appointment on Friday and the arrest on Monday.

[Shockm]

Who knows all of the details for sure but some dumb decisions made here at best. If they truly feel that an unarmed person in broad light is doing bad things, why wouldn't they just call the authorities, and follow him in the truck as far as they can. Citizens arrests, while legal in many states, are not a smart thing to do imo unless you are protecting your own house.

Not enough information to make any conclusions here but it would appear to me that worst case scenario, they murdered him without any provocation, and best case scenario, they have a manslaughter case. I imagine they will try to say it was self defense, but I don't see that at all.

[wufan]

Who knows all of the details for sure but some dumb decisions made here at best. If they truly feel that an unarmed person in broad light is doing bad things, why wouldn't they just call the authorities, and follow him in the truck as far as they can. Citizens arrests, while legal in many states, are not a smart thing to do imo unless you are protecting your own house.

Not enough information to make any conclusions here but it would appear to me that worst case scenario, they murdered him without any provocation, and best case scenario, they have a manslaughter case of murder. I imagine they will try to say it was self defense, but I don't see that at all.

The self-defense claim is there, but it is full of legal hurdles that they will have to jump. Not sure they can make it end to end without tripping on one or more.

If the knowledge that the McMichaels had is considered sufficient to believe Arbery was committing a felony, then they were within their right to attempt a citizens arrest. Although they were within their rights to open carry, they have to demonstrate that they didn’t escalate the arrest to an illegal apprehension by their pursuing/blocking/displaying. They then have to demonstrate that they thought their life was in danger.

The hurdles get easier as you go, but the early ones are awfully high.

[Shockm]

The self-defense claim is there, but it is full of legal hurdles that they will have to jump. Not sure they can make it end to end without tripping on one or more.

If the knowledge that the McMichaels had is considered sufficient to believe Arbery was committing a felony, then they were within their right to attempt a citizens arrest. Although they were within their rights to open carry, they have to demonstrate that they didn’t escalate the arrest to an illegal apprehension by their pursuing/blocking/displaying. They then have to demonstrate that they thought their life was in danger.

The hurdles get easier as you go, but the early ones are awfully high.

Proving that Arbery was committing a felony, is a high bar in this case and imo, a stupid risk to take to arrest another person. I'm not sure I like citizens arresting each other except in obvious and extreme circumstances. Taking a video of what is happening with a phone, calling the police, and following him as far as they can until police arrive is as far as I think they should go. It would have looked better if the father, who was a former policemen was the aggressor instead of what appears to me to be a "hothead" son. Appearances do tend to show a possible "redneck" son in this case.