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

[SavannahMann]

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.

Ok. The claim was made that it was a legal attempt at a citizens arrest. That assertion was proven false. Next it was shown that the McMichaels committed multiple felonies before the shot was fired.

Those felonies make self defense ineligible. No felon can claim self defense for a death that occurs during the commission of a crime. You keep harping on the video. But there is a lot of information in addition to the video.

No one wants to discuss the actual laws and precedents regarding the case. They want to pretend the video is all. But here is who disagrees with you.

Prosecutors. Grand Jurors, Judges, and Defense Attorneys.

So even the lawyers for the defendants say you are wrong. But you persist screaming liberals won’t learn.

So help me out. How do we unlearn all we know to reduce it to the small minded point of view you maintain. Explain why we are wrong.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

It really is amazing how many of these posters simply have no analytical ability and easily get distracted into concentrating on irrelevant matters in this case.

Much of their confusion comes from watching msm news which has consistently lied about this case trying to make it appear that Ahmaud was some kind of victim aka oh he was just out jogging...like that is somehow relevant.

What is relevant and what is the essential basis of this case is that Ahmaud committed assault.....no excuse for doing that.

Again the video that documents Ahmaud committing assault.

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

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

Ok. The claim was made that it was a legal attempt at a citizens arrest. That assertion was proven false. Next it was shown that the McMichaels committed multiple felonies before the shot was fired.

Those felonies make self defense ineligible. No felon can claim self defense for a death that occurs during the commission of a crime. You keep harping on the video. But there is a lot of information in addition to the video.

No one wants to discuss the actual laws and precedents regarding the case. They want to pretend the video is all. But here is who disagrees with you.

Prosecutors. Grand Jurors, Judges, and Defense Attorneys.

So even the lawyers for the defendants say you are wrong. But you persist screaming liberals won’t learn.

So help me out. How do we unlearn all we know to reduce it to the small minded point of view you maintain. Explain why we are wrong.

Again....lend me your ears.....there was no attempt to make a citizens arrest nada as in......NONE.....got dat????

And then........and then ..............and then you claim the McMichaels committed several felonies.........absolute bullshit......I asked you before.....I ask you again list these alleged felonies......you could not and you still cannot because they only exist in your mind.......are you sane?????? Obviously you have a movie playing in your head that does not conform to reality.

Also you keep refusing to answer the question....did you watch the video that shows Ahmuad attacking the younger McMichaels????

 

[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?

First of all they did not stop him.....he continued to jog until he assaulted the younger McMichaels and got hisself killed.

 

[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.

Exactly....he was never detained in any way....he continued to jog right up to the point where he attacked the younger McMichaels and was killed.

 

[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 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.

I do not who is claiming there was a citizens arrest.....there was no citizens arrest......that never happened.

All the conjecture about him being a burglar and or a tresspasser is not relevant.

That is not what got him killed though it is very likely with his criminal record that he is guilty of all the above.....but that is neither here nor there.....what is relevant and what got him killed was his assault on the younger McMichals trying to take the shotgun away from him.....not a bad plan....in essence a surprise attack....it might have worked If MacMichaels had not been such a strong guy....Ahmaud simply attacked the wrong guy and paid the ultimate price for poor judgement.

 

[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 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.

How do you think he should have resisted??? just curious.....in truth he was never impeded.....and there is no law about being impeded but it might be interesting to see how you think that he should have resisted. Go ahead tell us all about it. hehheh

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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.

How do you think he should have resisted??? just curious.....in truth he was never impeded.....and there is no law about being impeded but it might be interesting to see how you think that he should have resisted. Go ahead tell us all about it. hehheh

Quote the person you are speaking to.

You have a mile long QUOTE chain and you're having a conversation with ONE PERSON

If you dont know how, just axe

 

[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 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.

How do you think he should have resisted??? just curious.....in truth he was never impeded.....and there is no law about being impeded but it might be interesting to see how you think that he should have resisted. Go ahead tell us all about it. hehheh

Quote the person you are speaking to.

You have a mile long QUOTE chain and you're having a conversation with ONE PERSON

If you dont know how, just axe

I hit the reply button as has been requested for posters to do as allegedly hitting the quote button causes a lot of problems.

Dont blame me for this screwed up format.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

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.

What was his criminal recored Turtle Shit?

If he was trespassing why didn't they chase down and murder the whites that were trepassing?

Where was he snagged at Turtle Shit? Please for once in your miserable, racist life post where all this took place.

 

[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.

What was his criminal recored Turtle Shit?

If he was trespassing why didn't they chase down and murder the whites that were trepassing?

Where was he snagged at Turtle Shit? Please for once in your miserable, racist life post where all this took place.

Here is what Ahmaud was really like....a good example of why some blacks get shot.....

Also you will note he does not look like that glorified picture the media presented.

Exclusive: police fail in attempt to tase Ahmaud Arbery in 2017 incident â video

Footage shows police attempting to tase Ahmaud Arbery before Taser malfunctions during an interaction in 2017

www.theguardian.com

 

[SavannahMann]

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.

Ok. The claim was made that it was a legal attempt at a citizens arrest. That assertion was proven false. Next it was shown that the McMichaels committed multiple felonies before the shot was fired.

Those felonies make self defense ineligible. No felon can claim self defense for a death that occurs during the commission of a crime. You keep harping on the video. But there is a lot of information in addition to the video.

No one wants to discuss the actual laws and precedents regarding the case. They want to pretend the video is all. But here is who disagrees with you.

Prosecutors. Grand Jurors, Judges, and Defense Attorneys.

So even the lawyers for the defendants say you are wrong. But you persist screaming liberals won’t learn.

So help me out. How do we unlearn all we know to reduce it to the small minded point of view you maintain. Explain why we are wrong.

Again....lend me your ears.....there was no attempt to make a citizens arrest nada as in......NONE.....got dat????

And then........and then ..............and then you claim the McMichaels committed several felonies.........absolute bullshit......I asked you before.....I ask you again list these alleged felonies......you could not and you still cannot because they only exist in your mind.......are you sane?????? Obviously you have a movie playing in your head that does not conform to reality.

Also you keep refusing to answer the question....did you watch the video that shows Ahmuad attacking the younger McMichaels????

Ive watched the video. Many times. And I’ve answered your question. Many times.

Ok. You like videos. Good.



Here the evidence against the McMichaels is explained and listed. I don’t expect you have watched it. It is longer than a minute.

Each charge is explained and evidence for it is listed. For me the funniest part is not the cops listing the evidence. It isn’t the prosecutor discussing the law. It isn’t even the judge. It is the defense attorneys. All three have a different explanation why their clients should not be charged.

Roddy’s attorney says yes the McMichaels committed the crimes. But Roddy was just trying to be a good neighbor and help out. He did not realize the pursuit was criminal. Daddy’s lawyer says that his client was on the phone with police and he was trying to keep the suspect in view when Junior committed the murder.

So watch the video and let me know what crimes the McMichaels didn’t commit. You think the videos are vital. Watch them.

 

[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.

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 must have manure for your brains. It does matter if he was out for a jog.

The whole foundation that this incident rested on is the supposed fact that Arbery was just out jogging.....minding his own business. You understand? We have been told that the reason that Arbery was on Santilla Ct. was because he was just trying to stay in shape.

You and I both know that he was not in that neighborhood because he was trying to stay physically fit. He was not fucking jogging. So since that surely appears to be false, we have to ask, why was he in that neighborhood? From there, you guys can debate all you want about whether he assaulted them or they hunted him. I dont really give a shit.

I just dont like being fucking lied to by the media in order to try to make me feel sorry for this fucking guy.

 

[Lysistrata]

Arbery was followed and then ambushed. The right-wingers can try to spin it anyway they want, but it won't work.

 

[MarcATL]

Arbery was followed and then ambushed. The right-wingers can try to spin it anyway they want, but it won't work.

Period.

 

[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 must have manure for your brains. It does matter if he was out for a jog.

The whole foundation that this incident rested on is the supposed fact that Arbery was just out jogging.....minding his own business. You understand? We have been told that the reason that Arbery was on Santilla Ct. was because he was just trying to stay in shape.

You and I both know that he was not in that neighborhood because he was trying to stay physically fit. He was not fucking jogging. So since that surely appears to be false, we have to ask, why was he in that neighborhood? From there, you guys can debate all you want about whether he assaulted them or they hunted him. I dont really give a shit.

I just dont like being fucking lied to by the media in order to try to make me feel sorry for this fucking guy.

The truth is no one knows what ahmaud arbary's intent was for being in that neighborhood....and it really is not important.

However, I do agree with you that the media has spun it to make arbary appear to be completely innocent...now whether or not arbary had any evil or illegal motive to be in that neighborhood aka casing it out for a burglary is unknown...yet the media spins it to the effect that it is absolutely true he was just out jogging for fun or whatever....the problem with that spin is that Arbary whilst in the house under construction sees the neighbor come out and hears him call the police to tell them about a stranger or intruder being in the house under construction and when he hears that Arbary takes off running...guilty people usually run...I am not saying he was guilty of anything at this point as in I do not know nor do I think anyone knows for sure and certainly the media does not know for sure that he was innocent....as they portray him and they also ignore his criminal history and his mental history. It is known he had mental problems.

Yet it is also absolutely clear he was trespassing in a construction site....however I do not know the Georgia law on that.

In conclusion on this particular matter of him being in the house under construction (which is a felony in some states aka to tresspass onto a construction site) the only real relevance it has is that is what motivated the McMichaels to begin their chase as in they had been notified that someone was in the house....then in addition to that the elder McMichael sees arbary running down the road past the front of his house and as he is out in the front of his house
he recognizes Arbary from a previous security cam video that captures arbary tresspassing in the house under construction --- thus when you add the two factors together.....getting a phone call about a trespasser and then seeing and recognizing Arbary he was motivated to give chase....and justifiably so

 

[candycorn]

I sincerely hope that they are able to get a conviction and that people's eyes are finally open to what's been happening all around them, even if they were unable of it.​

​

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

April 28, 2021, 2:32 PM PDT / Updated April 28, 2021, 4:08 PM PDT​

By Tim Fitzsimons​

​

Three Georgia men previously charged in the killing of Ahmaud Arbery were indicted Wednesday by a federal grand jury and charged with hate crimes and attempted kidnapping.​

Ahmaud Arbery. Courtesy of Family

​

Arbery was jogging in Brunswick, Georgia, when Travis McMichael, 35, and his father, Gregory McMichael, 65, pursued him in their truck and shot him dead on Feb. 23, 2020.​

​

William "Roddie" Bryan, 51, who was driving behind them in a separate truck, filmed the shooting.​

​

Later, Gregory McMichael, a retired police officer, leaked the video because he wanted "the public to know the truth," his attorney said in 2020.​

The Department of Justice alleged on Wednesday that the men confronted Arbery "because of his race."​

​

The incident sparked outrage and spurred an international movement to draw attention to racism against Black runners, NBC News reported.​

​

Travis and Gregory were also each charged with "carrying, and brandishing—and in Travis’s case, discharging—a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence," the DOJ said in a press release.​

​

Gregory and Travis, father and son, were previously each charged with murder in May 2020 for the death of Arbery.​

​

The right wing string of bad luck continues....

Of course nobody is forcing them to take these bizarre stances...only the fact that it was white dudes that murdered a black dude....they feel somehow obligated to stand with Dale, his brother Dale, and his other brother Dale.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

Arbery was followed and then ambushed. The right-wingers can try to spin it anyway they want, but it won't work.

Period.

Nonsense and the video proves it.

Obviously you do not know what the term 'ambushed; means.


Ambush

am·bush | \ ˈam-ˌbu̇sh \
ambushed; ambushing; ambushes
Definition of ambush
1: to attack by surprise from a hidden place

The McMichaels were not hidden....they were parked in the middle of the road in plain sight.

They did not attack anyone.....the younger Mcmichaels was attacked by Arbary....and it is plainly visible in the video

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

Ok. The claim was made that it was a legal attempt at a citizens arrest. That assertion was proven false. Next it was shown that the McMichaels committed multiple felonies before the shot was fired.

Those felonies make self defense ineligible. No felon can claim self defense for a death that occurs during the commission of a crime. You keep harping on the video. But there is a lot of information in addition to the video.

No one wants to discuss the actual laws and precedents regarding the case. They want to pretend the video is all. But here is who disagrees with you.

Prosecutors. Grand Jurors, Judges, and Defense Attorneys.

So even the lawyers for the defendants say you are wrong. But you persist screaming liberals won’t learn.

So help me out. How do we unlearn all we know to reduce it to the small minded point of view you maintain. Explain why we are wrong.

Again....lend me your ears.....there was no attempt to make a citizens arrest nada as in......NONE.....got dat????

And then........and then ..............and then you claim the McMichaels committed several felonies.........absolute bullshit......I asked you before.....I ask you again list these alleged felonies......you could not and you still cannot because they only exist in your mind.......are you sane?????? Obviously you have a movie playing in your head that does not conform to reality.

Also you keep refusing to answer the question....did you watch the video that shows Ahmuad attacking the younger McMichaels????

Ive watched the video. Many times. And I’ve answered your question. Many times.

Ok. You like videos. Good.



Here the evidence against the McMichaels is explained and listed. I don’t expect you have watched it. It is longer than a minute.

Each charge is explained and evidence for it is listed. For me the funniest part is not the cops listing the evidence. It isn’t the prosecutor discussing the law. It isn’t even the judge. It is the defense attorneys. All three have a different explanation why their clients should not be charged.

Roddy’s attorney says yes the McMichaels committed the crimes. But Roddy was just trying to be a good neighbor and help out. He did not realize the pursuit was criminal. Daddy’s lawyer says that his client was on the phone with police and he was trying to keep the suspect in view when Junior committed the murder.

So watch the video and let me know what crimes the McMichaels didn’t commit. You think the videos are vital. Watch them.

The state admits in that video that Ahmaud Arbary attacked the younger McMichaels....CASE CLOSED

There is no legal excuse for that assault....once the jury hears that....I see no way they can vote to convict.

 

[Lysistrata]

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 must have manure for your brains. It does matter if he was out for a jog.

The whole foundation that this incident rested on is the supposed fact that Arbery was just out jogging.....minding his own business. You understand? We have been told that the reason that Arbery was on Santilla Ct. was because he was just trying to stay in shape.

You and I both know that he was not in that neighborhood because he was trying to stay physically fit. He was not fucking jogging. So since that surely appears to be false, we have to ask, why was he in that neighborhood? From there, you guys can debate all you want about whether he assaulted them or they hunted him. I dont really give a shit.

I just dont like being fucking lied to by the media in order to try to make me feel sorry for this fucking guy.

The truth is no one knows what ahmaud arbary's intent was for being in that neighborhood....and it really is not important.

However, I do agree with you that the media has spun it to make arbary appear to be completely innocent...now whether or not arbary had any evil or illegal motive to be in that neighborhood aka casing it out for a burglary is unknown...yet the media spins it to the effect that it is absolutely true he was just out jogging for fun or whatever....the problem with that spin is that Arbary whilst in the house under construction sees the neighbor come out and hears him call the police to tell them about a stranger or intruder being in the house under construction and when he hears that Arbary takes off running...guilty people usually run...I am not saying he was guilty of anything at this point as in I do not know nor do I think anyone knows for sure and certainly the media does not know for sure that he was innocent....as they portray him and they also ignore his criminal history and his mental history. It is known he had mental problems.

Yet it is also absolutely clear he was trespassing in a construction site....however I do not know the Georgia law on that.

In conclusion on this particular matter of him being in the house under construction (which is a felony in some states aka to tresspass onto a construction site) the only real relevance it has is that is what motivated the McMichaels to begin their chase as in they had been notified that someone was in the house....then in addition to that the elder McMichael sees arbary running down the road past the front of his house and as he is out in the front of his house
he recognizes Arbary from a previous security cam video that captures arbary tresspassing in the house under construction --- thus when you add the two factors together.....getting a phone call about a trespasser and then seeing and recognizing Arbary he was motivated to give chase....and justifiably so

Why are you trying so hard to spin this? If the McMichaels thought that there was a criminal around, they should have called the police. 911 calls are recorded. We will listen to their calls to 911 dispatchers. Right now, we are looking at a guy who drove behind Arbery and recording him jogging. And then two guys parked in the middle of the street heavily armed. Arbery was not carrying a gun.