3 men charged with federal hate crimes in killing of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia

[MarcATL]

TheGreenHornet, tell me, what crime did Ahbery commit?

 

[Cecilie1200]

These bastards need to FRY for this modern-day lynching.

bwaaaaaaaaaa what hatred this Nig Nog exhibits pure prejudice...no truth...no facts just personal racial hatred......all dem white folks need to get killed......Abraham Lincoln was right about da darkies. Send em back to the hell hole they came fronm....they have always been a curse on America.

Okay, I've made as many allowances for your blatant, mouthbreathing racism as I can on the basis that your sanity has clearly been broken by the last year of riots and bullshit, but enough is enough. I've hit my limit of tolerance for the unevolved, three-toothed Neanderthals among us.

Dismissed.

 

[B. Kidd]

The jogging vs. casing question could be easily answered:
1) Was Arberry an avid jogger?
2) If yes to question 1, was this one of Arberry's normal jogging routes?

Real jogger's/runners are creatures of habit.

 

[d0gbreath]

These bastards need to FRY for this modern-day lynching.

This is a Mississippi Still Burning in Georgia case if I've ever seen one. And Roddy, the 3rd perp following and filming? I can't even wrap my head around that. They murdered that young man but the Grand Jury has indited them for hate crimes and attempted kidnapping. They must have glossed over that murder stuff. How can they do that? "We attempted to kidnap him, but we killed him instead?"

 

[Cecilie1200]

I see an unarmed man on foot, being chased by an armed man in a truck.

That's what I saw. I didn't see anyone "out for a jog".

Well, let's see . . . man in shorts and a t-shirt, running down the street . . . what is the essential element that constitutes "out for a jog" that you think is missing?

You think thats why they stopped him? Do you even know why they stopped him?

Did I SAY I thought they stopped him because he was running in shorts and a t-shirt? No, I don't believe I did, but given the utter lack of any logical, reasoned case provided by you so far, I can see where you'd turn in desperation to straw men.

According to their own statements to the police, they chased him and stopped him because they thought he looked like the suspect in a string of burglaries in the area, the last of which happened seven weeks before Arbery was killed. Do YOU want to tell me you know more about why they stopped him than they themselves do?

 

[Cecilie1200]

These bastards need to FRY for this modern-day lynching.

This is a Mississippi Still Burning in Georgia case if I've ever seen one. And Roddy, the 3rd perp following and filming? I can't even wrap my head around that. They murdered that young man but the Grand Jury has indited them for hate crimes and attempted kidnapping. They must have glossed over that murder stuff. How can they do that? We attempted to kidnap him, but we killed him instead?

God, would you shut your flapping headhole for five seconds to learn what you're talking about, rather than just making it up as you babble?

The grand jury which indicted them for hate crimes was a FEDERAL grand jury. Except in very limited instances, murder is not a federal crime. It's a state crime, for which they have been indicted separately by the state. You fucking MORON. I swear to God, you are Exhibit A in why idiocy should be painful.

 

[B. Kidd]

These bastards need to FRY for this modern-day lynching.

This is a Mississippi Still Burning in Georgia case if I've ever seen one. And Roddy, the 3rd perp following and filming? I can't even wrap my head around that. They murdered that young man but the Grand Jury has indited them for hate crimes and attempted kidnapping. They must have glossed over that murder stuff. How can they do that? We attempted to kidnap him, but we killed him instead?

God, would you shut your flapping headhole for five seconds to learn what you're talking about, rather than just making it up as you babble?

The grand jury which indicted them for hate crimes was a FEDERAL grand jury. Except in very limited instances, murder is not a federal crime. It's a state crime, for which they have been indicted separately by the state. You fucking MORON. I swear to God, you are Exhibit A in why idiocy should be painful.

After your tongue lashing, let's hope he stays Hidden!

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't believe he was "jogging." I believe he was trespassing, and fled.

Dont forget the attempted assault too that got him killed by the son.

Yeah, um, I'm also not buying that it's "attempted assault" when he was unarmed and the other men had guns and were illegally detaining him on a street. Not saying I'm not open to more evidence, but so far I haven't heard any that doesn't make me see that as "self-defense".

They werent detaining him for no reason. Also, when you are facing a potential criminal and you are holding a gun, if he charges at you and attacks you, its a pretty fucking good sign that he is not just some friendly "jogger". People have a right to defend themselves against violent attackers.

Okay, give me a good and legal reason for non-police civilians to detain anyone on the street with guns. Give me sufficient and legal reasons they were justified as treating him as a "potential criminal". Tell me what legal grounds they had for doing what they did that made his behavior "assault" and not self-defense. I can assure you that if a group of men with guns detained ME on the street, and I thought hitting one of them and taking his gun would allow me to escape, I'd do exactly that, and I would think you would, as well. And that doesn't automatically make either of us a criminal. People DO have a right to defend themselves against violent attackers . . . so tell me how that's not what Arberry was doing.

If my facts are correct, they thought he was a burglar. You can make citizen arrests.

I know that if someone was yelling at you to stop, you would. If they were wearing masks and yelling "get on your knees motherfucker", it might be a different story, but in this case he evaded them, they told him to stop, he keeps going, they tell him to stop, he keeps going and after quite some time of not shooting him, they cut him off. He had no reason to believe they were truly dangerous at that point. These clearly werent highway robbers. In fact, he was so certain that the guy wasnt going to shoot him that he veered from his path and assaulted a man with a shotgun.

If MY facts are correct, they thought he was a burglar, but didn't have any actual evidence beyond their personal suspicions.

I know that if someone was yelling at me to stop, I'd pause long enough to determine if they had a right to yell at me to stop. If not, I'd continue on my fucking way, and you're damned right I'd evade them if I could. I'm still waiting for you to tell me how that would make me a criminal who deserved to be shot, or how it would make THEM "acting in self-defense" for shooting me.

What do you mean, "he had no reason to believe they were truly dangerous"? They were total strangers holding guns and detaining him with no actual authority to do so. Would YOU feel safe and in no danger in his place? "These clearly weren't highway robbers"? Clear in what way? And don't even start on that "They were THIS PARTICULAR THREAT, therefore they weren't any threat at all" crap. I don't buy that sort of cherrypicked debate parameter from anyone.

"In fact, he was so certain the guy wasn't going to shoot him that he veered from his path". Yeah, or maybe he wasn't certain at all that they weren't going to shoot him, and THAT'S why he thought he needed to disarm one of them.

Why are you brushing over his attack on the son? They yelled at him to stop a bunch of times, and they had guns and clearly suspected him of a crime, but they never got physical with him, so why did he attack the son? Why shouldnt the son be able to claim self defense when he clearly was defending himself from an attacker?

I'm brushing over nothing. I'm saying he was completely justified in attacking the son, because the son fucking started it. Why are YOU brushing over THAT?

Oh, "they yelled at him to stop a bunch of times", did they? And that's supposed to mean what? He's obligated to do what they say? Who the fuck are they to tell anyone to do anything? And please explain to me how it was "clear" to Arbery what they wanted, aside from the fact that they were strangers chasing him in trucks with guns. I don't recall anyone telling us that Ahmaud Arbery was a psychic.

"They never got physical with him." THEY WERE CHASING HIM WITH GUNS. The son got out of the truck and came toward him WITH A GUN. Is your position that Arbery was required to wait and see if he was going to do anything with the gun, or if maybe he just thought it went well with his shitkicker outfit? Shockingly, I don't wait for people to "get physical" with me when they're holding guns in their hands, either. I assume that gun means something. Go figure.

The son shouldn't be able to claim self-defense because HE STARTED IT. He instigated the confrontation; Arbery didn't.

Im not sure why you think its ok to attack someone who hasnt attacked you. You definitely shouldnt attack someone who is carrying a shotgun. That will get you killed.

I'm not sure why you want to ignore the inherent menace of chasing a stranger on foot with trucks, and then approaching him with a gun in your hands. Personally, I'd figure at that point I didn't have much to lose, because my life was in danger either way.

He was burglarizing the neighborhood. They had a good reason to stop him. He however didnt have a good reason the violently assault someone.

Can you prove that he was burglarizing the neighborhood? Show me the evidence, do NOT just assert that it's so. And then you can show me their authority to stop him.

Its a moot point. It has nothing to do with the shooting.

It's really not a moot point, since people are trying to claim this as a "citizen's arrest", and the citizen's arrest law - as I have cited earlier - requires that they actually see him committing a crime, or have immediate knowledge of him committing a crime.

But I'll take this answer as, "Well, no, I can't prove it, I just wanted to assert it as true and hope you'd let it stand."

 

[d0gbreath]

God, would you shut your flapping headhole for five seconds to learn what you're talking about, rather than just making it up as you babble?

The grand jury which indicted them for hate crimes was a FEDERAL grand jury. Except in very limited instances, murder is not a federal crime. It's a state crime, for which they have been indicted separately by the state. You fucking MORON. I swear to God, you are Exhibit A in why idiocy should be painful.

Thanks for the lesson. I know what's going on now. The insults were a little much, but trash talks like trash.

 

[PatriotJohn888]

I see an unarmed man on foot, being chased by an armed man in a truck.

That's what I saw. I didn't see anyone "out for a jog".

Well, let's see . . . man in shorts and a t-shirt, running down the street . . . what is the essential element that constitutes "out for a jog" that you think is missing?

Wait, I thought you said he was "being chased by an armed man in a truck". That's different from "out for a jog".

The missing element is "being chased by an armed man in a truck".

There appears to be no evidence that Arbery was "out for a jog".

Is the argument you're going with, "He wasn't jogging, because they were chasing him, so that means it was okay for them to chase him"? Really, you want that to be your final answer?

No. I will spell it out for you and the other simpletons.

His mom and the media are the only ones who said he was "out for a jog". Both his family and the media have something to gain by having you believe that he was just a good boy, not doing anything wrong and bothering no one. Just like George Floyd's case, those lawyers were there in a heartbeat promising his folks millions in civil settlement money.

There is no evidence to support that Arbery was taking a jog from his house on Boykin Ridge Drive. He would have had to go across US 17 and down Santilla Drive. No ring doorbell videos, no garage cameras, nothing that we have seen that shows a guy go "jogging" by. When we first see Arbery in the neighbors surveillance video, he is not jogging. He is clearly walking towards the empty house. When we see him in the house, he appears to be wearing cargo shorts. How many people do you see jogging in cargo shorts? Whatever kind of shorts they were, they don't look like athletic shorts to me

Some fool on here said he was jogging in the video where he got shot. How stupid. He has already been confronted by the rednecks at that point, so he was running away and not "out for a jog".

The whole point is that YOU are being led to feel a certain way about Arbery. You havent taken time to notice that the language being used over and over again by the media is being purposely drilled into your head to "help" you reach your conclusion.

I'm not saying Arbery was doing anything wrong and I'm not saying he wasnt. But its weird that the jogging thing is being beat over our heads over and over without any evidence. If Arbery was not out jogging like everyone in the media has said, then why are we being told he was? That is what I want you all to consider. The power of the media is strong.

 

[Cecilie1200]

These bastards need to FRY for this modern-day lynching.

This is a Mississippi Still Burning in Georgia case if I've ever seen one. And Roddy, the 3rd perp following and filming? I can't even wrap my head around that. They murdered that young man but the Grand Jury has indited them for hate crimes and attempted kidnapping. They must have glossed over that murder stuff. How can they do that? We attempted to kidnap him, but we killed him instead?

God, would you shut your flapping headhole for five seconds to learn what you're talking about, rather than just making it up as you babble?

The grand jury which indicted them for hate crimes was a FEDERAL grand jury. Except in very limited instances, murder is not a federal crime. It's a state crime, for which they have been indicted separately by the state. You fucking MORON. I swear to God, you are Exhibit A in why idiocy should be painful.

After your tongue lashing, let's hope he stays Hidden!

One can wish, but probably not seriously hope.

I feel like I'm caught in a crossfire of reactionary stupid here.

 

[d0gbreath]

One can wish, but probably not seriously hope.

I feel like I'm caught in a crossfire of reactionary stupid here.

Bless your heart.

 

[B. Kidd]

God, would you shut your flapping headhole for five seconds to learn what you're talking about, rather than just making it up as you babble?

The grand jury which indicted them for hate crimes was a FEDERAL grand jury. Except in very limited instances, murder is not a federal crime. It's a state crime, for which they have been indicted separately by the state. You fucking MORON. I swear to God, you are Exhibit A in why idiocy should be painful.

Thanks for the lesson. I know what's going on now. The insults were a little much, but trash talks like trash.

You got lashed, son. .

Take it like a man!

 

[Godboy]

I see an unarmed man on foot, being chased by an armed man in a truck.

That's what I saw. I didn't see anyone "out for a jog".

Well, let's see . . . man in shorts and a t-shirt, running down the street . . . what is the essential element that constitutes "out for a jog" that you think is missing?

You think thats why they stopped him? Do you even know why they stopped him?

Did I SAY I thought they stopped him because he was running in shorts and a t-shirt? No, I don't believe I did, but given the utter lack of any logical, reasoned case provided by you so far, I can see where you'd turn in desperation to straw men.

According to their own statements to the police, they chased him and stopped him because they thought he looked like the suspect in a string of burglaries in the area, the last of which happened seven weeks before Arbery was killed. Do YOU want to tell me you know more about why they stopped him than they themselves do?

Werent they asked by the sherrif to do so? Also, they never stopped him at any point. He was free the entire time.

 

[d0gbreath]

You got lashed, son. .

Take it like a man!

I didn't feel a thing, cheerleader.

 

[Godboy]

I don't believe he was "jogging." I believe he was trespassing, and fled.

Dont forget the attempted assault too that got him killed by the son.

Yeah, um, I'm also not buying that it's "attempted assault" when he was unarmed and the other men had guns and were illegally detaining him on a street. Not saying I'm not open to more evidence, but so far I haven't heard any that doesn't make me see that as "self-defense".

They werent detaining him for no reason. Also, when you are facing a potential criminal and you are holding a gun, if he charges at you and attacks you, its a pretty fucking good sign that he is not just some friendly "jogger". People have a right to defend themselves against violent attackers.

Okay, give me a good and legal reason for non-police civilians to detain anyone on the street with guns. Give me sufficient and legal reasons they were justified as treating him as a "potential criminal". Tell me what legal grounds they had for doing what they did that made his behavior "assault" and not self-defense. I can assure you that if a group of men with guns detained ME on the street, and I thought hitting one of them and taking his gun would allow me to escape, I'd do exactly that, and I would think you would, as well. And that doesn't automatically make either of us a criminal. People DO have a right to defend themselves against violent attackers . . . so tell me how that's not what Arberry was doing.

If my facts are correct, they thought he was a burglar. You can make citizen arrests.

I know that if someone was yelling at you to stop, you would. If they were wearing masks and yelling "get on your knees motherfucker", it might be a different story, but in this case he evaded them, they told him to stop, he keeps going, they tell him to stop, he keeps going and after quite some time of not shooting him, they cut him off. He had no reason to believe they were truly dangerous at that point. These clearly werent highway robbers. In fact, he was so certain that the guy wasnt going to shoot him that he veered from his path and assaulted a man with a shotgun.

If MY facts are correct, they thought he was a burglar, but didn't have any actual evidence beyond their personal suspicions.

I know that if someone was yelling at me to stop, I'd pause long enough to determine if they had a right to yell at me to stop. If not, I'd continue on my fucking way, and you're damned right I'd evade them if I could. I'm still waiting for you to tell me how that would make me a criminal who deserved to be shot, or how it would make THEM "acting in self-defense" for shooting me.

What do you mean, "he had no reason to believe they were truly dangerous"? They were total strangers holding guns and detaining him with no actual authority to do so. Would YOU feel safe and in no danger in his place? "These clearly weren't highway robbers"? Clear in what way? And don't even start on that "They were THIS PARTICULAR THREAT, therefore they weren't any threat at all" crap. I don't buy that sort of cherrypicked debate parameter from anyone.

"In fact, he was so certain the guy wasn't going to shoot him that he veered from his path". Yeah, or maybe he wasn't certain at all that they weren't going to shoot him, and THAT'S why he thought he needed to disarm one of them.

Why are you brushing over his attack on the son? They yelled at him to stop a bunch of times, and they had guns and clearly suspected him of a crime, but they never got physical with him, so why did he attack the son? Why shouldnt the son be able to claim self defense when he clearly was defending himself from an attacker?

I'm brushing over nothing. I'm saying he was completely justified in attacking the son, because the son fucking started it. Why are YOU brushing over THAT?

Oh, "they yelled at him to stop a bunch of times", did they? And that's supposed to mean what? He's obligated to do what they say? Who the fuck are they to tell anyone to do anything? And please explain to me how it was "clear" to Arbery what they wanted, aside from the fact that they were strangers chasing him in trucks with guns. I don't recall anyone telling us that Ahmaud Arbery was a psychic.

"They never got physical with him." THEY WERE CHASING HIM WITH GUNS. The son got out of the truck and came toward him WITH A GUN. Is your position that Arbery was required to wait and see if he was going to do anything with the gun, or if maybe he just thought it went well with his shitkicker outfit? Shockingly, I don't wait for people to "get physical" with me when they're holding guns in their hands, either. I assume that gun means something. Go figure.

The son shouldn't be able to claim self-defense because HE STARTED IT. He instigated the confrontation; Arbery didn't.

Im not sure why you think its ok to attack someone who hasnt attacked you. You definitely shouldnt attack someone who is carrying a shotgun. That will get you killed.

I'm not sure why you want to ignore the inherent menace of chasing a stranger on foot with trucks, and then approaching him with a gun in your hands. Personally, I'd figure at that point I didn't have much to lose, because my life was in danger either way.

He was burglarizing the neighborhood. They had a good reason to stop him. He however didnt have a good reason the violently assault someone.

Can you prove that he was burglarizing the neighborhood? Show me the evidence, do NOT just assert that it's so. And then you can show me their authority to stop him.

Its a moot point. It has nothing to do with the shooting.

It's really not a moot point, since people are trying to claim this as a "citizen's arrest", and the citizen's arrest law - as I have cited earlier - requires that they actually see him committing a crime, or have immediate knowledge of him committing a crime.

But I'll take this answer as, "Well, no, I can't prove it, I just wanted to assert it as true and hope you'd let it stand."

Unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise, it seems apparent that he was a burglar.

 

[Cecilie1200]

God, would you shut your flapping headhole for five seconds to learn what you're talking about, rather than just making it up as you babble?

The grand jury which indicted them for hate crimes was a FEDERAL grand jury. Except in very limited instances, murder is not a federal crime. It's a state crime, for which they have been indicted separately by the state. You fucking MORON. I swear to God, you are Exhibit A in why idiocy should be painful.

Thanks for the lesson. I know what's going on now. The insults were a little much, but trash talks like trash.

Idiocy expects respect without earning it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You got lashed, son. .

Take it like a man!

I didn't feel a thing, cheerleader.

I'd imagine you're used to being called out for sounding retarded at this point.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't believe he was "jogging." I believe he was trespassing, and fled.

Dont forget the attempted assault too that got him killed by the son.

Yeah, um, I'm also not buying that it's "attempted assault" when he was unarmed and the other men had guns and were illegally detaining him on a street. Not saying I'm not open to more evidence, but so far I haven't heard any that doesn't make me see that as "self-defense".

They werent detaining him for no reason. Also, when you are facing a potential criminal and you are holding a gun, if he charges at you and attacks you, its a pretty fucking good sign that he is not just some friendly "jogger". People have a right to defend themselves against violent attackers.

Okay, give me a good and legal reason for non-police civilians to detain anyone on the street with guns. Give me sufficient and legal reasons they were justified as treating him as a "potential criminal". Tell me what legal grounds they had for doing what they did that made his behavior "assault" and not self-defense. I can assure you that if a group of men with guns detained ME on the street, and I thought hitting one of them and taking his gun would allow me to escape, I'd do exactly that, and I would think you would, as well. And that doesn't automatically make either of us a criminal. People DO have a right to defend themselves against violent attackers . . . so tell me how that's not what Arberry was doing.

If my facts are correct, they thought he was a burglar. You can make citizen arrests.

I know that if someone was yelling at you to stop, you would. If they were wearing masks and yelling "get on your knees motherfucker", it might be a different story, but in this case he evaded them, they told him to stop, he keeps going, they tell him to stop, he keeps going and after quite some time of not shooting him, they cut him off. He had no reason to believe they were truly dangerous at that point. These clearly werent highway robbers. In fact, he was so certain that the guy wasnt going to shoot him that he veered from his path and assaulted a man with a shotgun.

If MY facts are correct, they thought he was a burglar, but didn't have any actual evidence beyond their personal suspicions.

I know that if someone was yelling at me to stop, I'd pause long enough to determine if they had a right to yell at me to stop. If not, I'd continue on my fucking way, and you're damned right I'd evade them if I could. I'm still waiting for you to tell me how that would make me a criminal who deserved to be shot, or how it would make THEM "acting in self-defense" for shooting me.

What do you mean, "he had no reason to believe they were truly dangerous"? They were total strangers holding guns and detaining him with no actual authority to do so. Would YOU feel safe and in no danger in his place? "These clearly weren't highway robbers"? Clear in what way? And don't even start on that "They were THIS PARTICULAR THREAT, therefore they weren't any threat at all" crap. I don't buy that sort of cherrypicked debate parameter from anyone.

"In fact, he was so certain the guy wasn't going to shoot him that he veered from his path". Yeah, or maybe he wasn't certain at all that they weren't going to shoot him, and THAT'S why he thought he needed to disarm one of them.

Why are you brushing over his attack on the son? They yelled at him to stop a bunch of times, and they had guns and clearly suspected him of a crime, but they never got physical with him, so why did he attack the son? Why shouldnt the son be able to claim self defense when he clearly was defending himself from an attacker?

I'm brushing over nothing. I'm saying he was completely justified in attacking the son, because the son fucking started it. Why are YOU brushing over THAT?

Oh, "they yelled at him to stop a bunch of times", did they? And that's supposed to mean what? He's obligated to do what they say? Who the fuck are they to tell anyone to do anything? And please explain to me how it was "clear" to Arbery what they wanted, aside from the fact that they were strangers chasing him in trucks with guns. I don't recall anyone telling us that Ahmaud Arbery was a psychic.

"They never got physical with him." THEY WERE CHASING HIM WITH GUNS. The son got out of the truck and came toward him WITH A GUN. Is your position that Arbery was required to wait and see if he was going to do anything with the gun, or if maybe he just thought it went well with his shitkicker outfit? Shockingly, I don't wait for people to "get physical" with me when they're holding guns in their hands, either. I assume that gun means something. Go figure.

The son shouldn't be able to claim self-defense because HE STARTED IT. He instigated the confrontation; Arbery didn't.

Im not sure why you think its ok to attack someone who hasnt attacked you. You definitely shouldnt attack someone who is carrying a shotgun. That will get you killed.

I'm not sure why you want to ignore the inherent menace of chasing a stranger on foot with trucks, and then approaching him with a gun in your hands. Personally, I'd figure at that point I didn't have much to lose, because my life was in danger either way.

He was burglarizing the neighborhood. They had a good reason to stop him. He however didnt have a good reason the violently assault someone.

Can you prove that he was burglarizing the neighborhood? Show me the evidence, do NOT just assert that it's so. And then you can show me their authority to stop him.

Its a moot point. It has nothing to do with the shooting.

It's really not a moot point, since people are trying to claim this as a "citizen's arrest", and the citizen's arrest law - as I have cited earlier - requires that they actually see him committing a crime, or have immediate knowledge of him committing a crime.

But I'll take this answer as, "Well, no, I can't prove it, I just wanted to assert it as true and hope you'd let it stand."

Unless you have evidence to suggest otherwise, it seems apparent that he was a burglar.

Oh, is that how it works in the United States now? You're guilty unless you can prove you aren't? Huh. Was there a memo when that changed, because I think my copy got lost in the mail.

 

[B. Kidd]

You got lashed, son. .

Take it like a man!

I didn't feel a thing, cheerleader.

That's what a punk would say.
Be a man.