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

[StormAl]

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

Whether or no he was burglarizing has no real importance to this case.

Also.....the McMichaels did not stop arbary.....and yrs ahmaud arbary engaged in a violent assault and was killed.....completely justifiable under the law of self defense in Georgia.

Video Shows Fatal Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, Unarmed Black Man in Georgia

The fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old unarmed black man, was caught on video and has prompted a grand jury investigation.

www.tmz.com

The above is false. The men arbitrarily without justification impeded the victim and then killed him when he lawfully defended himself.

Absolutely false......Ahmaud Arbary the suspect had complete freedom of movemenr at all times.

Auhmad Arbarry in truth and in fact committed assault as the video shows.

"They didn't have him tied up, they just had guns. He was perfectly free to run away at any time; just because he had to wonder if that would get him shot in the back doesn't mean he couldn't leave."

Yeah, okay.

heh heh......again it all comes down to Ahmaud Arbary committing assault.

In a nutshelll that is it....no excuse for committing assault

Not at all. The second he was impeded he had a right to resist.

 

[d0gbreath]

Idiocy expects respect without earning it.

I'll definately be just fine, sans respect from you. Who the fuck are you?

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

You're barking up the wrong tree Kidd. Go on and do what you do.

 

[SavannahMann]

The killers may well walk.

By the law of self defense they should....defending your life with lethal force is lawful.

No the law of self defense doesn’t say that. Idiot.

Would you quote the Georgia law on self defense?

Here it is...https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-3/article-2/16-3-212010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES :: CHAPTER 3 - DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS :: ARTICLE 2 - JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE :: § 16-3-21 - Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution

And you can’t claim self defense when committing a felony. Otherwise every armed robber would claim self defense when they shoot the clerk.

Citizen arrests arent illegal.

They had no grounds for Citizens Arrest. First they had no firsthand knowledge. Second. They had no authority.

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE :: CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS :: ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS :: § 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest

law.justia.com

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

But with this you have to consider the Winn Dixie decision. https://www.gabar.org/forthepublic/forteachersstudents/lre/teacherresources/upload/ch16.pdf

So the McMichaels had no authority. The owner of the property may, but neighbors do not.

So everything from the go was in violation of the law. Arming up. Setting off in pursuit. Attempting to stop Arturo was a crime. It wouldn’t matter if they were sure they Had Jesse James in front of them. They had no firsthand knowledge of a crime, and no authority to arrest him.

So in attempting to arrest him they committed a Felony. Being armed at the time makes it two felonies. Waving their guns around is a third felony. Now no Felon is allowed to claim self defense.

This may not be the law where you are from. It may not be the law you think it should be. But it is the law in Georgia. And has been for decades.

The only one who could claim self defense is Arbury. He was under no legal obligation to run from the attack. Stand your ground.

I would also point out that trespassing is not normally a felony, it’s a misdemeanor. There is nothing in that law that allows anyone to kill a person and there is a huge difference between arrest and killing someone.

Incoherent much? Obviously........of course there is a law that allows the use of lethal force....it is called self-defence.

Ok. Let’s start at the beginning. Explain in light of the Winn Dixie Decision what right the McMichaels had to effect a citizens arrest under Georgia Law.

No citizens arrest was made.....you remain in grave error....you lack the ability to properly analyze this case.

Video Shows Fatal Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, Unarmed Black Man in Georgia

The fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old unarmed black man, was caught on video and has prompted a grand jury investigation.

www.tmz.com

Well make up your mind. Earlier in the thread you argued it was legal for them to perform a citizens arrest. Now you argue that there was no arrest.

You tried arguing law. Now you are trying to rewrite the events. The good news is online the only person you know who will be aware that you were wrong is you.

 

[Godboy]

The killers may well walk.

By the law of self defense they should....defending your life with lethal force is lawful.

No the law of self defense doesn’t say that. Idiot.

Would you quote the Georgia law on self defense?

Here it is...https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-3/article-2/16-3-212010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES :: CHAPTER 3 - DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS :: ARTICLE 2 - JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE :: § 16-3-21 - Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution

And you can’t claim self defense when committing a felony. Otherwise every armed robber would claim self defense when they shoot the clerk.

Citizen arrests arent illegal.

They had no grounds for Citizens Arrest. First they had no firsthand knowledge. Second. They had no authority.

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE :: CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS :: ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS :: § 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest

law.justia.com

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

But with this you have to consider the Winn Dixie decision. https://www.gabar.org/forthepublic/forteachersstudents/lre/teacherresources/upload/ch16.pdf

So the McMichaels had no authority. The owner of the property may, but neighbors do not.

So everything from the go was in violation of the law. Arming up. Setting off in pursuit. Attempting to stop Arturo was a crime. It wouldn’t matter if they were sure they Had Jesse James in front of them. They had no firsthand knowledge of a crime, and no authority to arrest him.

So in attempting to arrest him they committed a Felony. Being armed at the time makes it two felonies. Waving their guns around is a third felony. Now no Felon is allowed to claim self defense.

This may not be the law where you are from. It may not be the law you think it should be. But it is the law in Georgia. And has been for decades.

The only one who could claim self defense is Arbury. He was under no legal obligation to run from the attack. Stand your ground.

I would also point out that trespassing is not normally a felony, it’s a misdemeanor. There is nothing in that law that allows anyone to kill a person and there is a huge difference between arrest and killing someone.

Incoherent much? Obviously........of course there is a law that allows the use of lethal force....it is called self-defence.

Ok. Let’s start at the beginning. Explain in light of the Winn Dixie Decision what right the McMichaels had to effect a citizens arrest under Georgia Law.

No citizens arrest was made.....you remain in grave error....you lack the ability to properly analyze this case.

Video Shows Fatal Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, Unarmed Black Man in Georgia

The fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old unarmed black man, was caught on video and has prompted a grand jury investigation.

www.tmz.com

Well make up your mind. Earlier in the thread you argued it was legal for them to perform a citizens arrest. Now you argue that there was no arrest.

You tried arguing law. Now you are trying to rewrite the events. The good news is online the only person you know who will be aware that you were wrong is you.

Both statements can be true.

 

[Lysistrata]

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 almost certainly Chey had a good reason to stop him. He however didnt have a good reason the violently assault someone.

What is your evidence that this man was "burglarizing the neighborhood"?

 

[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 almost certainly Chey had a good reason to stop him. He however didnt have a good reason the violently assault someone.

What is your evidence that this man was "burglarizing the neighborhood"?

There were reports that he was. Thats why they were called to catch him in the first place. They didnt just randomly try to stop some dude jogging.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

The killers may well walk.

By the law of self defense they should....defending your life with lethal force is lawful.

No the law of self defense doesn’t say that. Idiot.

Would you quote the Georgia law on self defense?

Here it is...https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-3/article-2/16-3-212010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES :: CHAPTER 3 - DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS :: ARTICLE 2 - JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE :: § 16-3-21 - Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution

And you can’t claim self defense when committing a felony. Otherwise every armed robber would claim self defense when they shoot the clerk.

Citizen arrests arent illegal.

They had no grounds for Citizens Arrest. First they had no firsthand knowledge. Second. They had no authority.

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE :: CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS :: ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS :: § 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest

law.justia.com

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

But with this you have to consider the Winn Dixie decision. https://www.gabar.org/forthepublic/forteachersstudents/lre/teacherresources/upload/ch16.pdf

So the McMichaels had no authority. The owner of the property may, but neighbors do not.

So everything from the go was in violation of the law. Arming up. Setting off in pursuit. Attempting to stop Arturo was a crime. It wouldn’t matter if they were sure they Had Jesse James in front of them. They had no firsthand knowledge of a crime, and no authority to arrest him.

So in attempting to arrest him they committed a Felony. Being armed at the time makes it two felonies. Waving their guns around is a third felony. Now no Felon is allowed to claim self defense.

This may not be the law where you are from. It may not be the law you think it should be. But it is the law in Georgia. And has been for decades.

The only one who could claim self defense is Arbury. He was under no legal obligation to run from the attack. Stand your ground.

I would also point out that trespassing is not normally a felony, it’s a misdemeanor. There is nothing in that law that allows anyone to kill a person and there is a huge difference between arrest and killing someone.

Incoherent much? Obviously........of course there is a law that allows the use of lethal force....it is called self-defence.

Ok. Let’s start at the beginning. Explain in light of the Winn Dixie Decision what right the McMichaels had to effect a citizens arrest under Georgia Law.

No citizens arrest was made.....you remain in grave error....you lack the ability to properly analyze this case.

Video Shows Fatal Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, Unarmed Black Man in Georgia

The fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old unarmed black man, was caught on video and has prompted a grand jury investigation.

www.tmz.com

Well make up your mind. Earlier in the thread you argued it was legal for them to perform a citizens arrest. Now you argue that there was no arrest.

You tried arguing law. Now you are trying to rewrite the events. The good news is online the only person you know who will be aware that you were wrong is you.

Both statements can be true.

Selective quoting please.

I havent been in this conversation for a long time, but I have many messages saying "**** quoted your post"

 

[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?

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.

And now I will spell it out for YOU, Captain Kneejerk.

It really doesn't matter if he was out for a jog or not. Whatever you want to call it, it's not illegal to run down a street in the state of Georgia. Without evidence that there was something criminal involved in it - which you, despite ample opportunity, have not provided - it most certainly is not legal in the state of Georgia for private citizens to jump in their trucks with their guns and chase him simply because he was running through the neighborhood and they thought he looked like the suspect in a string of burglaries that happened weeks earlier (which is from their own statements).

There really doesn't need to be any evidence that he was jogging. The United States, last time I checked, does not require people to prove their innocence. What needs evidence is that he was doing something criminal, and as I've pointed out, you haven't provided that. You've just maundered on with aimless obsession on, "Well, we have no proof he was jogging." He was running on the street. Call it jogging or call it flying on purple gossamer wings, whatever grabs you. Just don't try to call it justification for chasing him with guns unless you have proof of something criminal.

"There's no video of him getting from his neighborhood to Satilla, and . . . and . . . he was WALKING, not jogging, when he went up to the empty house." Yeah, and?

I really don't give a fuck what some other person did or didn't say on here. Unless it was me or you who said it, it has no place in a post addressed to me, and you're cordially invited to stop wasting screen space and my time arguing at me against someone else's words because you don't have anything to offer in regards to MY post. FOCUS!

The whole point is that YOU have no argument and no evidence. YOU have led yourself to believe a certain way about Ahmaud Arbery because of the last year of bullshit and riots over "unarmed black men being shot" to the point where you automatically want to believe any story of that nature MUST be the black man's fault, and anyone who disagrees with your snap, partisan judgement must only be doing so because they're a leftist/they're blindly believing the mainstream media; any thought that YOU have, however emotional and illogical, is obviously THE conservative position, and agreeing with it is the litmus test. Fuck that. Unless you think The Daily Wire is a left-wing media outlet complicitly using special language to drill the left's narrative into my head - and by the way, as I've mentioned before, the mainstream media has largely memory-holed this whole story, which is the best proof that Arbery really was a victim - I do not wish to hear your ASSumptions about what I have and haven't noticed, and how I'm being "led" because you want to think that.

I've looked at the same evidence you have, but I parked MY emotions at the door and evaluated it strictly on the basis of THIS case and what was actually there. Whenever you'd like to stop asserting your opinions as fact and actually provide some real exculpatory evidence, you are welcome to do so. God knows, I've asked multiple times.

 

[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?

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

No, they weren't asked by anyone to do so. Also, you are incorrect that "he was free the entire time".

Police report sheds more light on Satilla Shores shooting

When retired district attorney investigator Greg McMichael saw a man he suspected of burglary sprinting down Satilla Drive on the afternoon of Feb. 23, he alerted his adult son and

thebrunswicknews.com

Sometime around 1 p.m., McMichael was in his son’s front yard at 230 Satilla Drive when he saw Arbery running down the street, the report said. McMichael dashed inside the house and called to his son. “’Travis, the guy is running down the street, lets go,’” he told police. McMichael grabbed a .357 magnum handgun and Travis grabbed his shotgun, “not knowing if the male was armed or not,” the report said. Then they ran back outside and hopped in a truck, the report said.
Travis McMichael drove down Satilla Drive toward the intersection of Buford Road, the report said. They spotted Arbery running down Buford Road. Travis drove down Burford Road and tried unsuccessfully to cut off Arbery’s escape with the truck, the report said.
The Brunswick man then turned and started “running back in the direction from which he came,” the report said. Travis McMichael again tried without success to cut Arbery off with the truck.

Greg McMichael jumped into the truck’s bed at this point and the pursuit resumed. At one point in the pursuit, the two McMichaels hailed, “’Stop, stop, we want to talk to you,’” the report said.
Travis McMichael pulled up beside Arbery and again made it known they wanted to talk, the report said. At this point, Travis McMichael exited the vehicle, shotgun in hand.

“McMichael stated he saw (Arbery) begin to “violently attack Travis and the two men then started fighting over the shotgun, at which point Travis fired a shot and then a second later there was a second shot,” the report stated. “McMichael stated the male fell face down on the pavement with his hand under his body.”

The initial police report, you should know, was drawn almost entirely from interviews with the McMichaels. So even according to the assailants themselves, this was all based on Daddy McMichael seeing Arbery running down the street, and thinking that he looked like someone he saw in a surveillance video weeks earlier. That's it. Arbery's whole crime was running while looking like someone else.

And I doubt either you or I would feel "free the entire time" with armed people chasing us in trucks, trying to cut us off and yelling at us.

 

[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 almost certainly Chey had a good reason to stop him. He however didnt have a good reason the violently assault someone.

What is your evidence that this man was "burglarizing the neighborhood"?

There were reports that he was. Thats why they were called to catch him in the first place. They didnt just randomly try to stop some dude jogging.

Oh, there were reports that Ahmaud Arbery was burglarizing the neighborhood? Really? And now you're going to link us to those reports, or to articles referencing the reports, right?

WHO was called to catch him in the first place? Their own statements said they DID just randomly try to stop some dude jogging, on the basis of nothing more than thinking he looked like someone they saw in a surveillance video. No one at all has claimed that they saw Ahmaud Arbery himself, that day, do anything illegal, nor has anyone claimed that they can prove that Ahmaud Arbery himself did anything criminal in that area previously. If you have evidence to the contrary, now's the time to show it, instead of just telling us it exists.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

TheGreenHornet, tell me, what crime did Ahbery commit?

Assault

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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 almost certainly Chey had a good reason to stop him. He however didnt have a good reason the violently assault someone.

What is your evidence that this man was "burglarizing the neighborhood"?

There were reports that he was. Thats why they were called to catch him in the first place. They didnt just randomly try to stop some dude jogging.

Oh, there were reports that Ahmaud Arbery was burglarizing the neighborhood? Really? And now you're going to link us to those reports, or to articles referencing the reports, right?

WHO was called to catch him in the first place? Their own statements said they DID just randomly try to stop some dude jogging, on the basis of nothing more than thinking he looked like someone they saw in a surveillance video. No one at all has claimed that they saw Ahmaud Arbery himself, that day, do anything illegal, nor has anyone claimed that they can prove that Ahmaud Arbery himself did anything criminal in that area previously. If you have evidence to the contrary, now's the time to show it, instead of just telling us it exists.

None of that matters as in it is not relevant.....as in it has nothing to do with Ahmaud Arberry getting shot......Arberry committed assault on a armed man and that is what got him killed....he tried to take away the mans shotgun....and there is some speculation he himself may have caused the weapon to discharge by pulling on the barrel and if that did happen and with the guys finger on the trigger the weapon could have fired as a result of the barrel being pullled.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

No, they weren't asked by anyone to do so. Also, you are incorrect that "he was free the entire time".

Police report sheds more light on Satilla Shores shooting

When retired district attorney investigator Greg McMichael saw a man he suspected of burglary sprinting down Satilla Drive on the afternoon of Feb. 23, he alerted his adult son and

thebrunswicknews.com

Sometime around 1 p.m., McMichael was in his son’s front yard at 230 Satilla Drive when he saw Arbery running down the street, the report said. McMichael dashed inside the house and called to his son. “’Travis, the guy is running down the street, lets go,’” he told police. McMichael grabbed a .357 magnum handgun and Travis grabbed his shotgun, “not knowing if the male was armed or not,” the report said. Then they ran back outside and hopped in a truck, the report said.
Travis McMichael drove down Satilla Drive toward the intersection of Buford Road, the report said. They spotted Arbery running down Buford Road. Travis drove down Burford Road and tried unsuccessfully to cut off Arbery’s escape with the truck, the report said.
The Brunswick man then turned and started “running back in the direction from which he came,” the report said. Travis McMichael again tried without success to cut Arbery off with the truck.

Greg McMichael jumped into the truck’s bed at this point and the pursuit resumed. At one point in the pursuit, the two McMichaels hailed, “’Stop, stop, we want to talk to you,’” the report said.
Travis McMichael pulled up beside Arbery and again made it known they wanted to talk, the report said. At this point, Travis McMichael exited the vehicle, shotgun in hand.

“McMichael stated he saw (Arbery) begin to “violently attack Travis and the two men then started fighting over the shotgun, at which point Travis fired a shot and then a second later there was a second shot,” the report stated. “McMichael stated the male fell face down on the pavement with his hand under his body.”

The initial police report, you should know, was drawn almost entirely from interviews with the McMichaels. So even according to the assailants themselves, this was all based on Daddy McMichael seeing Arbery running down the street, and thinking that he looked like someone he saw in a surveillance video weeks earlier. That's it. Arbery's whole crime was running while looking like someone else.

And I doubt either you or I would feel "free the entire time" with armed people chasing us in trucks, trying to cut us off and yelling at us.

All one has to do is watch the video to disprove the above story....the video has been posted many times yet some still refused to watch it obviously.....could it be they do not want to know the truth? aka preferring to avoid actual evidence of what happened in order to cling to their biased liberal bull shit of black victimhood?

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

No, they weren't asked by anyone to do so. Also, you are incorrect that "he was free the entire time".

Police report sheds more light on Satilla Shores shooting

When retired district attorney investigator Greg McMichael saw a man he suspected of burglary sprinting down Satilla Drive on the afternoon of Feb. 23, he alerted his adult son and

thebrunswicknews.com

Sometime around 1 p.m., McMichael was in his son’s front yard at 230 Satilla Drive when he saw Arbery running down the street, the report said. McMichael dashed inside the house and called to his son. “’Travis, the guy is running down the street, lets go,’” he told police. McMichael grabbed a .357 magnum handgun and Travis grabbed his shotgun, “not knowing if the male was armed or not,” the report said. Then they ran back outside and hopped in a truck, the report said.
Travis McMichael drove down Satilla Drive toward the intersection of Buford Road, the report said. They spotted Arbery running down Buford Road. Travis drove down Burford Road and tried unsuccessfully to cut off Arbery’s escape with the truck, the report said.
The Brunswick man then turned and started “running back in the direction from which he came,” the report said. Travis McMichael again tried without success to cut Arbery off with the truck.

Greg McMichael jumped into the truck’s bed at this point and the pursuit resumed. At one point in the pursuit, the two McMichaels hailed, “’Stop, stop, we want to talk to you,’” the report said.
Travis McMichael pulled up beside Arbery and again made it known they wanted to talk, the report said. At this point, Travis McMichael exited the vehicle, shotgun in hand.

“McMichael stated he saw (Arbery) begin to “violently attack Travis and the two men then started fighting over the shotgun, at which point Travis fired a shot and then a second later there was a second shot,” the report stated. “McMichael stated the male fell face down on the pavement with his hand under his body.”

The initial police report, you should know, was drawn almost entirely from interviews with the McMichaels. So even according to the assailants themselves, this was all based on Daddy McMichael seeing Arbery running down the street, and thinking that he looked like someone he saw in a surveillance video weeks earlier. That's it. Arbery's whole crime was running while looking like someone else.

And I doubt either you or I would feel "free the entire time" with armed people chasing us in trucks, trying to cut us off and yelling at us.

Matters not how you "feel" the fact of the matter is that at no time was Ahmaud Arberry detained or arrested....all one has to do is watch the video....why do you refuse to do that?

 

[Turtlesoup]

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 almost certainly Chey had a good reason to stop him. He however didnt have a good reason the violently assault someone.

What is your evidence that this man was "burglarizing the neighborhood"?

No Job, but had money to get his nails done and do drugs.
Criminal record...
Oh and his behavior as walked the neighbor hood--
But then trespassed and then pretended to jogging
His attack of those trying to stop him
His criminal record...
Oh being a neighborhood that he didn't live in "jogging" aka casing the new house being built
Snagged at previous crimes of thief hence why they were looking for him specifically.

 

[MarcATL]

Assault

Good luck w/that. lol.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

And now I will spell it out for YOU, Captain Kneejerk.

It really doesn't matter if he was out for a jog or not. Whatever you want to call it, it's not illegal to run down a street in the state of Georgia. Without evidence that there was something criminal involved in it - which you, despite ample opportunity, have not provided - it most certainly is not legal in the state of Georgia for private citizens to jump in their trucks with their guns and chase him simply because he was running through the neighborhood and they thought he looked like the suspect in a string of burglaries that happened weeks earlier (which is from their own statements).

There really doesn't need to be any evidence that he was jogging. The United States, last time I checked, does not require people to prove their innocence. What needs evidence is that he was doing something criminal, and as I've pointed out, you haven't provided that. You've just maundered on with aimless obsession on, "Well, we have no proof he was jogging." He was running on the street. Call it jogging or call it flying on purple gossamer wings, whatever grabs you. Just don't try to call it justification for chasing him with guns unless you have proof of something criminal.

"There's no video of him getting from his neighborhood to Satilla, and . . . and . . . he was WALKING, not jogging, when he went up to the empty house." Yeah, and?

I really don't give a fuck what some other person did or didn't say on here. Unless it was me or you who said it, it has no place in a post addressed to me, and you're cordially invited to stop wasting screen space and my time arguing at me against someone else's words because you don't have anything to offer in regards to MY post. FOCUS!

The whole point is that YOU have no argument and no evidence. YOU have led yourself to believe a certain way about Ahmaud Arbery because of the last year of bullshit and riots over "unarmed black men being shot" to the point where you automatically want to believe any story of that nature MUST be the black man's fault, and anyone who disagrees with your snap, partisan judgement must only be doing so because they're a leftist/they're blindly believing the mainstream media; any thought that YOU have, however emotional and illogical, is obviously THE conservative position, and agreeing with it is the litmus test. Fuck that. Unless you think The Daily Wire is a left-wing media outlet complicitly using special language to drill the left's narrative into my head - and by the way, as I've mentioned before, the mainstream media has largely memory-holed this whole story, which is the best proof that Arbery really was a victim - I do not wish to hear your ASSumptions about what I have and haven't noticed, and how I'm being "led" because you want to think that.

I've looked at the same evidence you have, but I parked MY emotions at the door and evaluated it strictly on the basis of THIS case and what was actually there. Whenever you'd like to stop asserting your opinions as fact and actually provide some real exculpatory evidence, you are welcome to do so. God knows, I've asked multiple times.

You are a fukin moron and obviously have no analytical ability.....did you even watch the video?....it is not illegal in Georgia or any other state I know of to chase a suspected criminal......also the whole time the chase was going on the father was on the phone to the police telling them where they were and what was going on....all they were doing was trying to slow the guy down and keep in sight until the police arrived on the scene.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Assault

Good luck w/that. lol.

The video documents it you dumbass.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

The killers may well walk.

By the law of self defense they should....defending your life with lethal force is lawful.

No the law of self defense doesn’t say that. Idiot.

Would you quote the Georgia law on self defense?

Here it is...https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-3/article-2/16-3-212010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES :: CHAPTER 3 - DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS :: ARTICLE 2 - JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE :: § 16-3-21 - Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution

And you can’t claim self defense when committing a felony. Otherwise every armed robber would claim self defense when they shoot the clerk.

Citizen arrests arent illegal.

They had no grounds for Citizens Arrest. First they had no firsthand knowledge. Second. They had no authority.

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE :: CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS :: ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS :: § 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest

law.justia.com

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

But with this you have to consider the Winn Dixie decision. https://www.gabar.org/forthepublic/forteachersstudents/lre/teacherresources/upload/ch16.pdf

So the McMichaels had no authority. The owner of the property may, but neighbors do not.

So everything from the go was in violation of the law. Arming up. Setting off in pursuit. Attempting to stop Arturo was a crime. It wouldn’t matter if they were sure they Had Jesse James in front of them. They had no firsthand knowledge of a crime, and no authority to arrest him.

So in attempting to arrest him they committed a Felony. Being armed at the time makes it two felonies. Waving their guns around is a third felony. Now no Felon is allowed to claim self defense.

This may not be the law where you are from. It may not be the law you think it should be. But it is the law in Georgia. And has been for decades.

The only one who could claim self defense is Arbury. He was under no legal obligation to run from the attack. Stand your ground.

I would also point out that trespassing is not normally a felony, it’s a misdemeanor. There is nothing in that law that allows anyone to kill a person and there is a huge difference between arrest and killing someone.

Incoherent much? Obviously........of course there is a law that allows the use of lethal force....it is called self-defence.

Ok. Let’s start at the beginning. Explain in light of the Winn Dixie Decision what right the McMichaels had to effect a citizens arrest under Georgia Law.

No citizens arrest was made.....you remain in grave error....you lack the ability to properly analyze this case.

Video Shows Fatal Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, Unarmed Black Man in Georgia

The fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old unarmed black man, was caught on video and has prompted a grand jury investigation.

www.tmz.com

Well make up your mind. Earlier in the thread you argued it was legal for them to perform a citizens arrest. Now you argue that there was no arrest.

If you are referring to me.......I never said it was legal for them to perform a citizens arrest......though I am not saying it was not legal.

What I am saying is there was no citizens arrest so all the bullshit you are posting about cigtizens arrest is not relevant.....again no citizens arrest was made and no effort to actually detain the suspect was made....you seem to have great difficulty with the actual facts of the case.

You tried arguing law. Now you are trying to rewrite the events. The good news is online the only person you know who will be aware that you were wrong is you.

Both statements can be true.

Selective quoting please.

I havent been in this conversation for a long time, but I have many messages saying "**** quoted your post"

I see a lot of incoherent bullshit in the above posts.....why is that?....obviously some do not want to accept the truth or actual facts of the case as that would negate their liberal narrative of black victimhood.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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 almost certainly Chey had a good reason to stop him. He however didnt have a good reason the violently assault someone.

What is your evidence that this man was "burglarizing the neighborhood"?

No Job, but had money to get his nails done and do drugs.
Criminal record...
Oh and his behavior as walked the neighbor hood--
But then trespassed and then pretended to jogging
His attack of those trying to stop him
His criminal record...
Oh being a neighborhood that he didn't live in "jogging" aka casing the new house being built
Snagged at previous crimes of thief hence why they were looking for him specifically.

Exactly......yet the stupid liberals on here refuse to let the facts get in the way of their fictional narrative....they make up b.s. in their minds out of thin air and post it like it is truthful.....even refusing to look at the video that documents the assault by ahmaud on the McMichals son.