New development in the shooting case of the black georgia jogger

[jc456]

I can't imagine why that wouldn't have been perfectly acceptable. But that's not what Travis McMichael chose to do...

that's all they did.

 

[Godboy]

Wasn’t Aubry already confronted by these two hero’s previously?

Whether he had been or not is of no relevance to the shooting. That's what you're too stupid to understand...

Well then followed him the he attacked him, and got shot

According to the Statement they gave police they armed up and set off to follow him. While armed they called upon him to stop. Of course we know that statement is untrue because they did not pull up alongside but pulled forward to ambush him.

What makes you think the entirety of the encounter is in that video?

 

[jc456]

Again reasonable suspicion, probable cause...

No, they DON'T need to know he was fleeing a crime. They only need to have PROBABLE REASON to believe so, which they had.

Think about what you're saying. Think about how monumentally retarded it is.

What you're saying is, essentially, that anyone running down the street is a suspected criminal.

I hope to God you never breed...

happens everyday in america.

 

[jc456]

What makes you think the entirety of the encounter is in that video?

who confronted who is.

 

[Godboy]

7

What makes you think the entirety of the encounter is in that video?

who confronted who is.

Without question.

 

[Faun]

Can we all agree that these 2 bubbas were stupid to hunt down and confront this guy?

Can we at least reach common ground on that point?

.

Not until we have reached that the common ground that it was stupid and irresponsible for the fake news media to sensationalize the story and spread a bunch of fake news about an unarmed jogger.

LOLOL

By "sensationalized," you mean airing newly discovered shocking video of Travis McMichael killing Ahmaud Arbery? What do you suggest? The media should have sat on that??

Possibly the dumbest post of the entire thread has been delivered.

None of us would have ever even known this happened if it was not for the media taking the complete non-story in an attempt to push it as far as it can go.

Yes or no, do you think the media should have sat on that video?

 

[Faun]

Facts of this case......a father and son associated with law enforcement and never in trouble of any kind, never arrested for anything but are called criminals by the liberals

vs.

The black jogger............who comidtted a felony (brought a gun to school) was convicted placed on 5 yrs probation.

The he engaged in theft thus violating his probation.....but nothing was done...he should have been in jail. If he had been where he belonged he would still be alive.

Yet the liberals want us to believe he is just so innocent...he ranks right up there with Mother Teresa
bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Then just like the the Zimmerman case the media plays games with photos..........show the best possible photo of the black dude they could find......but show the white dudes in their jail outfit.

Keep tuned this case is getting crazier by the second.

Latest development....video emerges of the black dude visiting that same home at night....what is that all about? Did he have some sort of obsession with that house....maybe Satan lured him there...as in the devil made him do it???

Miscarriage of justice,, poor guys are being lynched by democrats

And the Earth is Flat. We faked the moon landing. Artificial Sweeteners are good for you, and Anna Nicole married for Love. Any other insane conspiracy theories you believe in besides these?

They did nothing wrong, if you stop pretending the black did nothing wrong it might dawn on you that this is serious. These men deserve to be treated fairly. Just stop pretending this kid did nothing wrong it insane.

Oh, they'll be treated fairly -- once they're incarcerated. Inmates love cops.

you sound like a terrorist.. you want two innocent men in jail to die for political reasons, to race bait.. you are a terrorist

Well they murdered someone, so why is it unfair for them to face the same consequences?

In self defense? You terrorist

It wasn't in self defense. Georgia law does not protect the aggressor in an altercation with self defense. And Travis McMichael was the aggressor by arming himself with no knowledge of Arbery but with the intent to chase him down and stop him.

We clearly see the black kid darting in front of the truck to attack the son.. standing there with a shotgun is not an active and aggression he saying stop stop we want to talk to you

Liar, McMichael couldn't have just been standing there. Scotty didn't beam him from about 4 feet to the left of the truck to being in front of it.

He was asking him to stop so they could talk..

Which brings me back to ... with Travis block the road with a shotgun, why should Arbery have assumed they only wanted to talk?

Because they had been chasing the person for a good time. There is more info on this in the police report. But it is very inconceivable that at this point, he did not know what the deal was.

There was no reason for them to stop Arbery so there was no reason for why Arbery would know why they wanted him to stop.

They suspected him of burglary.

He was reported to 911.

No reason? Please...

How did they know he was suspected of burglary if the call went to 911?

maybe they live across the street or something. why do you think it matters? I can stop anyone and ask them questions. you still haven't answered why you feel that's a crime.

They don't live across the street. Brandishing a gun is illegal dumbass!

If they just wanted to talk to him, why carry a gun?

post the statute then. The guy in the back of the truck an ex police officer I'd think knows his laws and what he can do. Experience they call that. why does it matter if they had a gun? you still didn't answer. In fact you haven't answered or provided any evidence for your position. I have the video for mine. still waiting.

Why should I do that? It has been posted numerous times in the thread. Are you too fucking lazy to do your homework. What are you 12 years old?

well it states pointing a weapon. you still haven't stated when that happened. why not? five times now I've asked you to show us that evidence. Why do you avoid that? so,so far no statute has been posted to describe a crime.

The suspect obviously points the gun at the victim and in the struggle shoots the victim. Watch the video with your eyes open. That might help, dumbass!

obviously when? tell me where in the video that occurs. come on son, I've asked now six times. you still avoid the answer. what you said is inadmissible at this point.

it happens in front of the truck - the first of three shots. As the shooter and victim struggle for control of the shotgun as the fight moves to the left. The man who was shot for jogging while black is the only one acting in self defense because he was attacked.


View attachment 335636

He was attacked while charging... this must be the stupidest thing I read all day.

Once the person charged at a man with shotgun, yeah he was attacked as SELF DEFENSE.

Why are these people so perplexed by something so obvious?

Because they are adult children aka. leftists.

And then a few conservatives who are very content on never EVER conserving anything.

This isn’t self defense when two armed people block the path of an unarmed man for no reason of their own and shoot him in the chest, it’s an execution.

BTW I’m not a leftist, I’m a church going, God praising,Trump Supporting conservative and a 40 year registered Republican. What I’m not is a conservative sheeple who feels like they have to justify stupidity by making it a political issue.

You must not have watched the video....it is clear as day that the jogger had plenty of room to keep on jogging down the road...his path was not blocked.

It is also very clear that the jogger veered to the left and attacked the guy with the shotgun.

I will tell you what you really are ---a politically correct moron that is very confused....let me try and help you....first quit watching the alphabet media news and fox is not much better.....the media are the ones who have made this case a political case....essentially engaging in race baiting to incite hysteria amongst blacks as well as a lot of duped white folk.

Let me ask you this since you think the white guy shot the black guy in cold blood? Since that is what you believe...if it is true he must have had some reason for committing murder. What was his motive?

Also you need to remember the father called the police before they took off in pursuit of the black criminal...vigilantes do not call the police.

Something else ....do you know the criminal history of the black dude....he took a gun to school....a felony. He was placed on 5yrs probation for that and then violated his probation by stealing...at the time of his death he was in violation of his probation....he should have been in jail but because of black privilege aka the double-standard that comes into play when blacks committ crimes.

Also the black guy had a mental history...the former D.A.cited his mental history as one reason they did not put him in jail....someone had sympathy for him because he had mental problems..

Rest assured I saw the video. I saw two armed individuals illegally blocking a jogger.
Arberys past has zero to do with this incident unless you are saying that the McMichaels knew Arbreys wrap sheet before this incident which could be seen as some level of premeditation on the part of the McMichaels. The reality is according to the police Arbery had no stolen property on him nor was he armed. Two against one, guns,not good odds to charge someone. It was straight up bullying of Arbery not protecting the neighborhood and not citizens arrest.

Where do you see this?

On every news station out there.

View attachment 335679

In the video Arbery’s jogging down the road. The truck as you can see is stopped, the truck door is open and to the right there’s one of the McMichaels standing in the road. Arbery’s swerves to the yellow arrow so as not to pass by the door and McMichael in the street waiting for him. After that the camera pans and it’s hard to see until McMichael and Arbery’s are fighting over the gun. They chased, blocked and harassed Arbery. They had no right to do so. They knew they were armed. They killed a 25 year old over nothing. They violated Arbery’s rights. That’s what the jury will see. They will rot in jail now that the feds are investigating and they don’t have the protection of the local police department.

of

First of all he is not standing to the right...he is standing to the left and slightly to the front of the truck. Your first mistake

Now for your second error.....arbery does not swerve to the yellow arrow...instead he goes to the right to get around the truck Then he immediately swerves to the left and attacks the white guy standing there with the shotgun.....if you watch the video again look through the windshield and you will see the black guy crossing
the front of the truck and attacking the white guy trying to take away his gun.

No...they did not chase....they simply followed him in the truck and then went ahead of him and parked....at no time was arbery blocked...he had plenty of room to get around the truck and he did and then instead of jogging on down the road he quickly swerved to the left and attacked the white guy.

When you have a weapon and someone attacks you and tries to get possession of your weapon you are legally entitled to use lethal force in self defense..spelled out by the Georgia law on self defense.

Thus it is easily seen your narrative is full of holes...you have a severe lack of ability to observe and report what is readily seen by most. Why is that? Some kind of cognitive problem?
Watch the video again...I am talking about the complete video.....not the edited one the msm has put out....maybe that is what got you confused...you watched the wrong video???

He went around the truck. Your words. Why? Because McMichael was in the road BLOCKING HIS WAY. If he hadn’t felt threatened, if he hadn’t been blocked by McMichael and the truck door which is wide open, he would have passed to the left of the truck. But clearly he was blocked and went to the right.

Chase was the word the police used, not mine. The police said McMichael CHASED Arbery, not followed. Read the articles I posted it’s there.

you are neglecting to acknowledge they fact that the McMichaels aren’t cops. It’s not their job to follow, chase or confront anyone. It’s not their job to assume somebody they don’t know on a property of someone they don’t know is a thief. Their job it to report it and let the cops handle it not go all Wild West on a stranger gun him down in the middle of the road. You refuse to acknowledge that McMichael had no business being in that road committing a traffic violation. Arbery wouldn’t have been anywhere near McMichael if McMichael hadn’t been acting like a dick and instigated the whole thing. They gave chase, confronted a person and shot him for nothing and now they have to pay the price.

Ridiculous commentary. Anyhow.....again.....the white guys did nothing illegal.

The black guy was a criminal...as in had a criminal record. Took a gun to school....stole stuff...violated his probation ....should have been in jail but nothing was done....thus he roamed the streets day and night apparantly doing some very weird stuff....but the mdeia is doing their best to put him up there on the shelf with mother teresa.

Speaking of mothers ahmuad's mother did love him...must have been a difficult thing to do. but i guess once you give birth there is a bond formed even if the kid is a mental defect.

Why should he have been in jail? His probation was over!

Speaking of mental defects, how are you today?

Because he was a burglar.

You know this how?

He already has a history of stealing, and he was caught on video looking around a house under construction. It seems fairly obvious that he was looking for tools to steal. You can play dumb if you want to, but dont expect the rest of us to join your foolishness.

^^^ A moron who think not stealing is looking to steal.

This was debunked ,, it was self defense what are you taking about the robbery

^^^ A moron who doesn't know we're talking about the purported burglaries.

Wasn’t Aubry already confronted by these two hero’s previously?

What heroes? You mean the thugs who murdered Arbery?

 

[progressive hunter]

 

[NotfooledbyW]

they never detained anyone.

IDIOT. Worse they shot and killed him put him on the pavement for jogging while black.


Dead on the road never able to move again.

If that is not detained I don’t know what is.,


And this is the view on the left side of the truck when the first shot was fired.

View attachment 335915


Do you think the shooter was on the left or to the right?

If to the right he has to be obstructing the jogger’s path with shotgun point it.

That clearly was an attempt to detain when the gun went off within a few feet of the jogger’s intend rout.

When the shot was fired - there is no self defense for the shooter because he fired and possibly wounded his target. That it was clearly initiated the combat.

he is dead due to his own reaction. thanks, the video shows him attacking the man with the gun, holding the gun, struggling to remove the gun from the owner's hands. it's in the video. go look.

he is dead due to his own reaction. thanks, the video shows him attacking the man with the gun, holding the gun, struggling to remove the gun from the owner's hands. it's in the video. go look.

What you are calling the jogger’s attack is after a shot was fired which means the jogger was responding to an attack in the only way he could which was to take the gun away from the madman just shot him.

You failed to see the person lunging at the person with the shotgun?

It's not even clear the shotgun was fired before he touched it. Recall, he was hit in the ARM.

If someone lunges at your gun, of course you can defend yourself.

Watch the video. Listen to when the gun goes off. He definitely attacked the guy long before the first shot.

Wow! maybe 2 seconds is a long time to you, but not to most people.

The first shot wasnt fired until he was attacked, RIGHT?

Yes, after he was attacked. It is uncertain if the first shot happened before or after the man touched the shotgun. I will go with after but it's very hard to see from the clip.

The first shot goes off while both men are on front of the truck out of view. If anyone says they see Arbery grabbing the gun in scenes to the left of the truck and the first shot comes after that - They are lying.

They are counting the second shot as the first. Listen to the audio - while watching and it’s clear that those who see Arbery attack before the first shot - are liars.

 

[Faun]

Having a shotgun on you is NOT threatening anyone with a shotgun.

No, but using it in order to compel someone to obey your orders certainly is threatening...

They were following the black man for a good while, and if they wanted could have shot him at any moment. It's clear they wanted to stop him and arrest him.

As clear as mud.

Having the opportunity to do something and not doing it at that exact opportunity does not necessarily indicate an unwillingness to do something. They could've chosen to wait for any number of reasons...

He lunged at a shotgun and that's that.

There's not an amount of money I wouldn't wager that says you're proven wrong...

Stopping a criminal fleeing a crime is perfectly fine.

Put up the money then.

It is perfectly fine. It's just too bad for the McMichaels that Arbery wasn’t fleeing a crime. Even worse for them, all they saw was a black man running down their street. What's their defense going to be? A black man running means he's fleeing from a crime he just committed? That may pass muster for dumbshit racists like you but that won't fly elsewhere. Not even in Georgia.

 

[Faun]

Having a shotgun on you is NOT threatening anyone with a shotgun.

No, but using it in order to compel someone to obey your orders certainly is threatening...

They were following the black man for a good while, and if they wanted could have shot him at any moment. It's clear they wanted to stop him and arrest him.

As clear as mud.

Having the opportunity to do something and not doing it at that exact opportunity does not necessarily indicate an unwillingness to do something. They could've chosen to wait for any number of reasons...

He lunged at a shotgun and that's that.

There's not an amount of money I wouldn't wager that says you're proven wrong...

Stopping a criminal fleeing a crime is perfectly fine.

Put up the money then.

At the time they stopped him, they had no knowledge of any crime having just been committed. They just saw a black man running.

That matters...

That is false, there had been a string of burglaries in the hood. When someone runs and does not stop... you have a suspicion. The suspicion turned out to be correct.

False, there had been only one burglary, that being McMichael's gun from his car. And there's zero evidence Arbery was involved with that.

 

[Norman]

Again reasonable suspicion, probable cause...

No, they DON'T need to know he was fleeing a crime. They only need to have PROBABLE REASON to believe so, which they had.

Think about what you're saying. Think about how monumentally retarded it is.

What you're saying is, essentially, that anyone running down the street is a suspected criminal.

I hope to God you never breed...

If someone runs like that and does not respond to shouts, yes that's big suspect. Of course they also believed he was carrying a gun or stolen item.

However, what takes it to definitely suspect is the history. Same behavior was witnessed before, there were burglaries etc.

Unfortunately, when visiting a neighborhood, people have the right to arrest you if you are suspicious and there is a history. If you don't like that, get the fuck out of there then.

 

[Faun]

they never detained anyone.

IDIOT. Worse they shot and killed him put him on the pavement for jogging while black.


Dead on the road never able to move again.

If that is not detained I don’t know what is.,


And this is the view on the left side of the truck when the first shot was fired.

View attachment 335915


Do you think the shooter was on the left or to the right?

If to the right he has to be obstructing the jogger’s path with shotgun point it.

That clearly was an attempt to detain when the gun went off within a few feet of the jogger’s intend rout.

When the shot was fired - there is no self defense for the shooter because he fired and possibly wounded his target. That it was clearly initiated the combat.

he is dead due to his own reaction. thanks, the video shows him attacking the man with the gun, holding the gun, struggling to remove the gun from the owner's hands. it's in the video. go look.

he is dead due to his own reaction. thanks, the video shows him attacking the man with the gun, holding the gun, struggling to remove the gun from the owner's hands. it's in the video. go look.

What you are calling the jogger’s attack is after a shot was fired which means the jogger was responding to an attack in the only way he could which was to take the gun away from the madman just shot him.

You failed to see the person lunging at the person with the shotgun?

It's not even clear the shotgun was fired before he touched it. Recall, he was hit in the ARM.

If someone lunges at your gun, of course you can defend yourself.

Watch the video. Listen to when the gun goes off. He definitely attacked the guy long before the first shot.

Wow! maybe 2 seconds is a long time to you, but not to most people.

The first shot wasnt fired until he was attacked, RIGHT?

Yes, after he was attacked. It is uncertain if the first shot happened before or after the man touched the shotgun. I will go with after but it's very hard to see from the clip.

I agree, but there is no evidence he was pointing the gun at him either. we know by the video he didn't point it at him as he approached the pick up. I can say because of that, his intentions weren't to point his weapon at the man. never. Why give up an advantage? isn't logical. and it's the logic thing along with the video that clearly clears the two family members.

Arbery was shot in the hand. I would say that's evidence the gun was pointed in his general direction.

When someone charges at you, sure then... it's called self defense.

Or when someone's threatening you with a gun while barking orders at you.

 

[jc456]

they never detained anyone.

IDIOT. Worse they shot and killed him put him on the pavement for jogging while black.


Dead on the road never able to move again.

If that is not detained I don’t know what is.,


And this is the view on the left side of the truck when the first shot was fired.

View attachment 335915


Do you think the shooter was on the left or to the right?

If to the right he has to be obstructing the jogger’s path with shotgun point it.

That clearly was an attempt to detain when the gun went off within a few feet of the jogger’s intend rout.

When the shot was fired - there is no self defense for the shooter because he fired and possibly wounded his target. That it was clearly initiated the combat.

he is dead due to his own reaction. thanks, the video shows him attacking the man with the gun, holding the gun, struggling to remove the gun from the owner's hands. it's in the video. go look.

he is dead due to his own reaction. thanks, the video shows him attacking the man with the gun, holding the gun, struggling to remove the gun from the owner's hands. it's in the video. go look.

What you are calling the jogger’s attack is after a shot was fired which means the jogger was responding to an attack in the only way he could which was to take the gun away from the madman just shot him.

You failed to see the person lunging at the person with the shotgun?

It's not even clear the shotgun was fired before he touched it. Recall, he was hit in the ARM.

If someone lunges at your gun, of course you can defend yourself.

Watch the video. Listen to when the gun goes off. He definitely attacked the guy long before the first shot.

Wow! maybe 2 seconds is a long time to you, but not to most people.

The first shot wasnt fired until he was attacked, RIGHT?

Yes, after he was attacked. It is uncertain if the first shot happened before or after the man touched the shotgun. I will go with after but it's very hard to see from the clip.

The first shot goes off while both men are on front of the truck out of view. If anyone says they see Arbery grabbing the gun in scenes to the left of the truck and the first shot comes after that - They are lying.

They are counting the second shot as the first. Listen to the audio - while watching and it’s clear that those who see Arbery attack before the first shot - are liars.

so you don't know if he pointed it at him. right?

BTW, I can see the black man charge the kid with the gun. at the 22 second mark, the video shows the separation of the two and it is clear the gun was not pointed at the blackman and the audio is heard while the black man is lunging. that can be seen.

 

[jc456]

Again reasonable suspicion, probable cause...

No, they DON'T need to know he was fleeing a crime. They only need to have PROBABLE REASON to believe so, which they had.

Think about what you're saying. Think about how monumentally retarded it is.

What you're saying is, essentially, that anyone running down the street is a suspected criminal.

I hope to God you never breed...

If someone runs like that and does not respond to shouts, yes that's big suspect. Of course they also believed he was carrying a gun or stolen item.

However, what takes it to definitely suspect is the history. Same behavior was witnessed before, there were burglaries etc.

Unfortunately, when visiting a neighborhood, people have the right to arrest you if you are suspicious and there is a history. If you don't like that, get the fuck out of there then.

people are picked up at home daily for something someone said they did and the arresting officer didn't witness. I'm curious as to why someone thinks they do. I know the cops didn't see the shooting. so how do the cops know who to arrest?

 

[Faun]

Having a shotgun on you is NOT threatening anyone with a shotgun.

No, but using it in order to compel someone to obey your orders certainly is threatening...

They were following the black man for a good while, and if they wanted could have shot him at any moment. It's clear they wanted to stop him and arrest him.

As clear as mud.

Having the opportunity to do something and not doing it at that exact opportunity does not necessarily indicate an unwillingness to do something. They could've chosen to wait for any number of reasons...

He lunged at a shotgun and that's that.

There's not an amount of money I wouldn't wager that says you're proven wrong...

Stopping a criminal fleeing a crime is perfectly fine.

Put up the money then.

At the time they stopped him, they had no knowledge of any crime having just been committed. They just saw a black man running.

That matters...

That is false, there had been a string of burglaries in the hood. When someone runs and does not stop... you have a suspicion. The suspicion turned out to be correct.

In order for them to be acting legally, Arbery not only had to be fleeing the scene of a crime, but Travis McMichael had to know that Arbery was fleeing the scene of a crime. He didn't.

If you're running down the street and some random guy with a shot gun tells you to stop and you do, you're stupid.

To McMichael's knowledge, Arbery was running, and that was all. Whether he was running from having committed a crime was unknown to McMichael, and that matters.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand that?

Reasonable suspicion. There have been cases like this before.

If someone keeps running not stopping when asked and there have been burglaries and he matches the characteristics. Well...

There was no reason for Arbery to stop running just because they yelled at him to stop. They're nobody. They had no authority to stop Arbery. That obviously frustrated them to the point Travis felt the need to brandish his shut gun to make Arbery submit to their demands.

That mistake might send Travis to the gallows.

 

[Norman]

Having a shotgun on you is NOT threatening anyone with a shotgun.

No, but using it in order to compel someone to obey your orders certainly is threatening...

They were following the black man for a good while, and if they wanted could have shot him at any moment. It's clear they wanted to stop him and arrest him.

As clear as mud.

Having the opportunity to do something and not doing it at that exact opportunity does not necessarily indicate an unwillingness to do something. They could've chosen to wait for any number of reasons...

He lunged at a shotgun and that's that.

There's not an amount of money I wouldn't wager that says you're proven wrong...

Stopping a criminal fleeing a crime is perfectly fine.

Put up the money then.

At the time they stopped him, they had no knowledge of any crime having just been committed. They just saw a black man running.

That matters...

That is false, there had been a string of burglaries in the hood. When someone runs and does not stop... you have a suspicion. The suspicion turned out to be correct.

In order for them to be acting legally, Arbery not only had to be fleeing the scene of a crime, but Travis McMichael had to know that Arbery was fleeing the scene of a crime. He didn't.

If you're running down the street and some random guy with a shot gun tells you to stop and you do, you're stupid.

To McMichael's knowledge, Arbery was running, and that was all. Whether he was running from having committed a crime was unknown to McMichael, and that matters.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand that?

Reasonable suspicion. There have been cases like this before.

If someone keeps running not stopping when asked and there have been burglaries and he matches the characteristics. Well...

There was no reason for Arbery to stop running just because they yelled at him to stop. They're nobody. They had no authority to stop Arbery. That obviously frustrated them to the point Travis felt the need to brandish his shut gun to make Arbery submit to their demands.

That mistake might send Travis to the gallows.

He was a suspected burglar.

Of course, what truly makes your post comical is the fact that he actually HAD trespassed. So their instinct was correct. The suspicion was certainly reasonable.

 

[Norman]

Having a shotgun on you is NOT threatening anyone with a shotgun.

No, but using it in order to compel someone to obey your orders certainly is threatening...

They were following the black man for a good while, and if they wanted could have shot him at any moment. It's clear they wanted to stop him and arrest him.

As clear as mud.

Having the opportunity to do something and not doing it at that exact opportunity does not necessarily indicate an unwillingness to do something. They could've chosen to wait for any number of reasons...

He lunged at a shotgun and that's that.

There's not an amount of money I wouldn't wager that says you're proven wrong...

Stopping a criminal fleeing a crime is perfectly fine.

Put up the money then.

At the time they stopped him, they had no knowledge of any crime having just been committed. They just saw a black man running.

That matters...

That is false, there had been a string of burglaries in the hood. When someone runs and does not stop... you have a suspicion. The suspicion turned out to be correct.

In order for them to be acting legally, Arbery not only had to be fleeing the scene of a crime, but Travis McMichael had to know that Arbery was fleeing the scene of a crime. He didn't.

If you're running down the street and some random guy with a shot gun tells you to stop and you do, you're stupid.

To McMichael's knowledge, Arbery was running, and that was all. Whether he was running from having committed a crime was unknown to McMichael, and that matters.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand that?

Reasonable suspicion. There have been cases like this before.

If someone keeps running not stopping when asked and there have been burglaries and he matches the characteristics. Well...

There was no reason for Arbery to stop running just because they yelled at him to stop. They're nobody. They had no authority to stop Arbery. That obviously frustrated them to the point Travis felt the need to brandish his shut gun to make Arbery submit to their demands.

That mistake might send Travis to the gallows.

He was a suspect in a burglary. How many times must we go over it?

 

[Faun]

Having a shotgun on you is NOT threatening anyone with a shotgun.

No, but using it in order to compel someone to obey your orders certainly is threatening...

They were following the black man for a good while, and if they wanted could have shot him at any moment. It's clear they wanted to stop him and arrest him.

As clear as mud.

Having the opportunity to do something and not doing it at that exact opportunity does not necessarily indicate an unwillingness to do something. They could've chosen to wait for any number of reasons...

He lunged at a shotgun and that's that.

There's not an amount of money I wouldn't wager that says you're proven wrong...

Stopping a criminal fleeing a crime is perfectly fine.

Put up the money then.

At the time they stopped him, they had no knowledge of any crime having just been committed. They just saw a black man running.

That matters...

That is false, there had been a string of burglaries in the hood. When someone runs and does not stop... you have a suspicion. The suspicion turned out to be correct.

In order for them to be acting legally, Arbery not only had to be fleeing the scene of a crime, but Travis McMichael had to know that Arbery was fleeing the scene of a crime. He didn't.

If you're running down the street and some random guy with a shot gun tells you to stop and you do, you're stupid.

To McMichael's knowledge, Arbery was running, and that was all. Whether he was running from having committed a crime was unknown to McMichael, and that matters.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand that?

Reasonable suspicion. There have been cases like this before.

If someone keeps running not stopping when asked and there have been burglaries and he matches the characteristics. Well...

"Wll", what?

Not only does he has to be fleeing the scene of a crime, Travis McMichael needs to know he was fleeing the scene of a crime, and he didn't. Previous burglaries do not justify McMichael's actions or mitigate the illegality of them...

Again reasonable suspicion, probable cause...

No, they DON'T need to know he was fleeing a crime. They only need to have PROBABLE REASON to believe so, which they had.

He would have had to commit a felony -- which he didn't.

 

[Faun]

Wasn’t Aubry already confronted by these two hero’s previously?

Whether he had been or not is of no relevance to the shooting. That's what you're too stupid to understand...

Well then followed him the he attacked him, and got shot

You're the most stupid fucking dipshit on the internet. Go away. You've nothing of value to add here...

Why can’t we follow criminals until the police come??

Who said you can't. What you can't do is pull out a gun to make them stop.