Black Jogger Gunned Down In The Street

[Loren Pechtel]

Some more police nastiness.

brittany packnett cunningham does not do remixes. on Twitter: "The segment I cried through, because #BreonnaTaylor's name is not trending *everywhere.*
<TW: Police Violence>
Breonna Taylor was shot 8 times. She was killed by @LMPD executing a warrant at the WRONG house. This was 61 days ago, and they have done NOTHING. https://t.co/fIPAxjjAA4" / Twitter
LMPD - Louisville KY Metro Police Department

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "#BreonnaTaylor’s family deserves justice.
It is so dehumanizing that Breonna’s family & many others must launch public campaigns just to have victim’s lives recognized & given the dignity of due process.
She was killed two months ago,& nothing has happened since. #SayHerName " / Twitter

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "Thank you @MsPackyetti for elevating this story and speaking to it so powerfully." / Twitter

brittany packnett cunningham does not do remixes. on Twitter: "@AOC Thank you so much for amplifying it. Praying attention turns into accountability.
Folks can take action at https://t.co/zmqThVrZMg" / Twitter
FIGHT FOR BREONNA.

Breonna Taylor loved to help people.

Breonna Taylor was an award-winning EMT and first responder in Lousiville, KY, who loved helping her patients and her community. “She was an essential worker. She had to go to work,” her mother, Tamika Palmer said of her dedication to standing on the frontlines of this pandemic. “She didn’t have a problem with that.”

Breonna survived the frontlines of a pandemic that disproportionately kills Black people, only to have her life stolen by police.

Breonna should be alive.

On the night of March 13th, the Louisville Metro Police executed a warrant at the wrong home, looking for drugs they never found, and for a person they already had in custody.

They sprayed her home with 20 rounds, shooting Breonna 8 times, killing her in her bed.

Breonna deserves accountability.

Neither the Louisville Metro Police nor Mayor Greg Fischer have given her mother any answers. “Not one person has talked to me. Not one person has explained anything to me,” Tamika Palmer, Taylor’s mother, said in an interview. “I want justice for her. I want them to say her name. There’s no reason Breonna should be dead at all.”

Louisville must meet our demands.

1. Demand the Mayor and City Council address the use of force by LMPD.

2. Fire and revoke the pensions of the officers that murdered Breonna.

3. Provide all necessary information to a local, independent civilian community police accountability council #CPAC.

4. Create policy for transparent investigation process due to law enforcement misconduct.

I think this is in the wrong thread.

 

[laughing dog]

How on earth is he guilty of a felony?

Why on earth are you presuming he was there to steal?

Oh, I forgot: he was black.

Georgia law: Entering a structure for the purposes of stealing is burglary--a felony--even if nothing is stolen.

And his behavior looks to me more like someone looking for stuff to steal than someone looking out of curiosity.

According to their own testimony, neither McMichaels saw him trespassing, so they had no knowledge of an actual felony in progress. Moreover, our analysis of his behavior is evidence of your views not of his motives.


Yet here you are, as usual, literally making shit up to shift the onus off the white killers and onto the black victim.

 

[ZiprHead]

Legally Armed Black Citizens Patrol White Neighborhood Where Ahmaud Arbery Was Killed

The protests in Georgia sparked by the killing of Ahmaud Arbery bore a number of similarities to the others we’ve seen following what seems like a neverending string of controversial shootings of unarmed Black men by white people. But in the rural town of Brunswick — where father and son Gregory and Travis McMichael racially profiled Arbery before getting their guns, hopping in a truck, hunting him down and killing him in the middle of a road in broad daylight — there is one key difference the separates the protests there from others: demonstrators were armed.

And not only were they armed, but they were also legally armed Black citizens who came out to protest in the town’s Satilla Shores neighborhood where the McMicheals are accused of murdering Arbery in February. It’s a neighborhood that is very white and conservative, as seen in images from the protests that show Trump-Pence 2020 signs on homes’ lawns.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is it possible that Arbery never saw any of the active shooter videos you keep banging on about ?

It's possible. It's also possible he did see one. So what?

People have been criticizing Arbery for his decisions. I was pointing out that his decisions are what experts recommend you do in that sort of situation:

Run. Hide. Fight.

Arbery was right to run. He was right to try to evade the McMichaels. He was right to keep the truck between himself and the guy with the shotgun. He was right to fight for his life when his life was directly imperiled by Travis McMichael, who came around to the front of the truck with his shotgun instead of staying on the driver's side behind the open door.

But he wasn't in an active shooter situation--nobody was shooting at him until he went for the gun. Furthermore, jumping the guy with the gun is only viable when there's only one shooter (or more jumpers than shooters.) Two guns, one jumper, your chance of success is basically zero.

 

[TSwizzle]

You still don't know the layout of the neighborhood

Well I saw on the video there was room on either side of the road to run toward. It looks like a very rural area.

. And you are ignoring what experts say people should do in that kind of situation.

WTF ? I don't need experts. My judgement would have told me not to run directly towards someone that is holding/brandishing a gun. Arbery must have run more than 100ft towards the truck. It wouldn't have been my choice.

But if you can't avoid him, fight like your life depends on it because it does.

I don't think it need have come to that because avoidance was still an option.


Gone round in circles again, I'm tapping out.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Didn’t one of the McMichaels already call the police?

Indeed. Instead of providing adequate information, they decided on an armed pursuit of a black man running through the neighborhood. Apparently their neighborhood that they were too fuckwitted to actually know the names of the streets contained therewithin. At least that's what it sounded like in the recording of the phone call.

So, we have the lie that Arbery was stealing or had any intention of stealing so zero felony. This is demonstrated by the video from the cameras that the construction site managers had mounted.

We have the lie that the construction site had been robbed. Nor had there been a rash of robberies in the neighborhood.

The McMichaels had had a gun stolen from a vehicle at some point in the past so we know that they are not responsible gun owners since the gun was not secured.

The McMichaels had notified the police of a potential problem but failed to give sufficient information because.....someone running might get away?

McMichaels, Sr. had some minor police background, sufficient to inform him of the appropriate action to take if he saw suspicious activity in his neighborhood. Yet he chose to ignore his training. He chose to see an unarmed black man running or jogging through his neighborhood as suspicious and to engage in unauthorized armed pursuit of a man guilty of running while black.

Aside from the McMichaels, there were no gunshots, no reports of someone with guns, no reports or evidence of an active crime in progress.

There was zero justification for following Arbery, zero justification for shooting him and only scant reason for calling the police about Arbery's presence in the neighborhood.

You're showing they are idiots. I don't think anyone is contesting that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As I look at the defenses of the killers of Ahmaud Arbery, I can't help but think of what they might say if the races were reversed. Would they be as eager to defend the killing of an unarmed young white man by two middle-aged black men?

Also, about the Breonna Taylor case, is the right wing still trying to think of some excuse for shooting her?

Maybe I missed something, but who here...or anywhere, is defending his killers? Mostly what I see is discussion regarding the events leading up to it, motivations and speculation as to what charges the killers may face. No one that I can recall is defending the slaying.

I think the confusion is people like me saying that her death is a system problem, not a bad officer problem. I'm not saying there wasn't wrongdoing, it's that I believe the blame should be directed a lot higher up.

 

[blastula]

Georgia law: Entering a structure for the purposes of stealing is burglary

You have no possible way of knowing what his "purpose" was.

And his behavior looks to me

There's your problem. Regardless, the home owner himself confirmed that nothing was stolen, as did the caller on the day he was killed. So we have TWO corroborating witnesses who confirm that his "purpose" was not to steal anything.

No, that's not confirmation of his intent.

ETA: Here is additional surveilance footage (at about the 1:12 minute mark) from the same house showing Arbery (allegedly) doing much the same thing as on the day; just wandering aimlessly around. As can be seen in the upper left sections of the two top screens, there certainly appears to be shit there he could have stolen if that was his "purpose."


It also appears to be from four different occasions (but the top and bottom could be from the same events), so, if that's the case and including the day of his death, that would mean he was passing up shit to steal on at least five occasions, since the home owner confirmed nothing was ever taken (iow, meaning that there was in fact something to take in every instance).

I wouldn't assume those are all Arbery.

 

[Arctish]

Is it possible that Arbery never saw any of the active shooter videos you keep banging on about ?

It's possible. It's also possible he did see one. So what?

People have been criticizing Arbery for his decisions. I was pointing out that his decisions are what experts recommend you do in that sort of situation:

Run. Hide. Fight.

Arbery was right to run. He was right to try to evade the McMichaels. He was right to keep the truck between himself and the guy with the shotgun. He was right to fight for his life when his life was directly imperiled by Travis McMichael, who came around to the front of the truck with his shotgun instead of staying on the driver's side behind the open door.

But he wasn't in an active shooter situation--nobody was shooting at him until he went for the gun. Furthermore, jumping the guy with the gun is only viable when there's only one shooter (or more jumpers than shooters.) Two guns, one jumper, your chance of success is basically zero.

Arbery didn't 'jump' the guy with the gun. The guy with the gun, Travis McMichael, moved to intercept Arbery at extremely close range, an unmistakably life threatening act for which he is being charged with aggravated assault.

Arbery had the right to defend himself. I know you find that hard to believe, seeing as how he's black and all, but it's true. As much as you like blaming the victim, you could at least try to show a little consistency on that point.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Georgia law: Entering a structure for the purposes of stealing is burglary

You have no possible way of knowing what his "purpose" was.

And his behavior looks to me

There's your problem. Regardless, the home owner himself confirmed that nothing was stolen, as did the caller on the day he was killed. So we have TWO corroborating witnesses who confirm that his "purpose" was not to steal anything.

Error: Moving the goalposts. The fact that he didn't take anything doesn't prove he didn't intend to.

ETA: Here is additional surveilance footage (at about the 1:12 minute mark) from the same house showing Arbery (allegedly) doing much the same thing as on the day; just wandering aimlessly around. As can be seen in the upper left sections of the two top screens, there certainly appears to be shit there he could have stolen if that was his "purpose."

It also appears to be from four different occasions (but the top and bottom could be from the same events), so, if that's the case and including the day of his death, that would mean he was passing up shit to steal on at least five occasions, since the home owner confirmed nothing was ever taken (iow, meaning that there was in fact something to take in every instance).

The homeowner saying nothing was taken doesn't prove there was anything worth taking. It's hard to judge exactly what's there but the only mobile thing I see of value is that lifter--and that probably needs a key. Other than that I see boxes which might contain things like nails (a theft target for other construction people but not for others--I don't know industry practice but we required our installers to provide their own screws and the like, it greatly cut down on waste), construction scrap and some pieces for installation that I can't identify but which are probably tile--again, not something of value to the average person.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So we have TWO corroborating witnesses who confirm that his "purpose" was not to steal anything.

No, that's not confirmation of his intent.

It most certainly is, aside from the fact that he's innocent until proven guilty. If your "purpose"--as Loren put it--is to steal something and that is why you are trespassing allegedly on multiple occasions and the home owner confirms that there was in fact shit to steal, then you steal something.

If you don't, then there is no justification whatsoever to assume your "purpose" is to steal something.

Again, in my youth in particular growing up in the suburbs of St. Louis and then later in Eugene, Oregon, I was always checking out construction sites just out of sheer curiosity and armchair interest in construction sites. I'd do exactly what Arbery is allegedly doing. Just check them out.

If there had been surveillance cameras, you would seen the exact same thing, only with a highly reflective white guy instead wandering aimlessly around. So what would my "purpose" have been?

 

[Arctish]

Well I saw on the video there was room on either side of the road to run toward. It looks like a very rural area.

And you are ignoring what experts say people should do in that kind of situation.

WTF ? I don't need experts. My judgement would have told me not to run directly towards someone that is holding/brandishing a gun. Arbery must have run more than 100ft towards the truck. It wouldn't have been my choice.

And get shot right out there in the open by the guy who came after you with a shotgun?

No, the best option is to keep the truck between you and him and pray he doesn't come around that door until you can escape along an oblique angle.

But if you can't avoid him, fight like your life depends on it because it does.

I don't think it need have come to that because avoidance was still an option.

How?

Seriously, how?

The McMichaels were doing everything they could to make avoidance not an option. They admitted to the police they were were trying to intercept Arbery. What is the problem with admitting they succeeded?

 

[Arctish]

That doesn't look like the same guy to me.

The homeowner said the same thing to his neighbor when he saw the surveillance video.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

You have no possible way of knowing what his "purpose" was.



There's your problem. Regardless, the home owner himself confirmed that nothing was stolen, as did the caller on the day he was killed. So we have TWO corroborating witnesses who confirm that his "purpose" was not to steal anything.

Error: Moving the goalposts. The fact that he didn't take anything doesn't prove he didn't intend to.

Nor does your assertion that he intended to prove that he intended to. No one can know his intent absent any overt action, but the fact that the homeowner confirms there was something to take, but nothing was taken and the fact that he was evidently there on several occasions and never once took anything is a very strong indication that stealing was NOT his intent.

It was very clearly a structure that was open to anyone looking in. We know this not just from the video, but from what one of the caller's said. Arbery must have also noticed this, since he was, you know, inside the structure apparently on several occasions.

If your intent is to steal something, then you risk going into an open structure once to case the joint to see if there is anything worth stealing. You don't case the same joint four more times. You do it once and then the next time you go back is when you steal whatever it was you saw the first time that you thought was worth stealing.

 

[Emily Lake]

The fact that he didn't take anything doesn't prove he didn't intend to.

You have no basis for inferring his intent. None at all. It's pure speculation on your part that he intended to steal something. The only purpose for that speculation that I can see is that it allows you to cast his extremely minor trespass as a felony, thereby retro-actively justifying the McMichaelses chasing him down and threatening him with a gun.

 

[laughing dog]

Error: Moving the goalposts. The fact that he didn't take anything doesn't prove he didn't intend to.

It is up to you to prove he did have intent to steal. Remember, his skin color is not proof of intent.

 

[Arctish]

This deserves it's own thread but I'm putting it here because it describes something at the heart of the Arbery killing:

With armed white men harassing his mother, a black teen had to remember he might be a threat

Armed white men led by a corrections officer from the next county break the law by trying to force their way into a black family's home but so far only a couple of them are being charged with misdemeanors.

 

[Rhea]

Error: Moving the goalposts. The fact that he didn't take anything doesn't prove he didn't intend to.

It is up to you to prove he did have intent to steal. Remember, his skin color is not proof of intent.

Why are we even talking about this? It doesn’t change the guilt of the shooter. Since the shooter did not even know about the visit to the construction site, he can’t use it as a defense for chasing down and shooting the man.

Intent doesn’t even matter. The shooter was unaware of this at the time of his decision to chase and shoot. As told by the owner of the construction site.
Hence the shooter’s motive had NOTHING TO DO with the construction site.

 

[barbos]

Arbery only made a mistake of self defense if you believe McMichaels wouldn't have shot him anyway. Clearly, Arbery did believe that and he certainly had a much better perspective of the situation than all of us arm chair quarter backs.

You can repeat this nonsense over and over again, but the truth is McMichaels were trying to arrest/detain him, and he attacked them and Travis had to defend himself.

Did the McMichaels have the right to detain Mr. Arbery at gunpoint, after chasing Mr. Arbery in a truck, attempting to cut off his escape, and forcing a confrontation with him, based on the mere suspicion that Mr. Arbery may have trespassed on someone else's (not the McMichael's) property?

From what we know so far - no, they had no such right.

Didn't Mr Arbery have the right to attempt to defend himself against the threat posed by armed strangers who had hunted him down and threatened him with guns?

He had, but it was stupid and unwise to do so.

And finally, could the McMichaels have reasonably foreseen the consequences of their actions; that Mr Arbery might feel threatened and act to defend himself when forced into a confrontation with armed strangers, thereby escalating the situation to where someone might get hurt or killed?

Absolutely he could.

The McMichaels are the aggressors here; through their actions, they knowingly and recklessly put themselves and Mr Arbery in harm's way, and they are the primary reason that Mr Arbery died an untimely death. They should be held responsible for their actions and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

McMichaels could have foreseen that happening and it is much harder than for Arbery to foresee that.
McMichaels were dumb, Arbery was dumber.

 

[laughing dog]

Error: Moving the goalposts. The fact that he didn't take anything doesn't prove he didn't intend to.

It is up to you to prove he did have intent to steal. Remember, his skin color is not proof of intent.

Why are we even talking about this? It doesn’t change the guilt of the shooter. Since the shooter did not even know about the visit to the construction site, he can’t use it as a defense for chasing down and shooting the man.

Intent doesn’t even matter. The shooter was unaware of this at the time of his decision to chase and shoot. As told by the owner of the construction site.
Hence the shooter’s motive had NOTHING TO DO with the construction site.

Rhea, you don't understand. Just by looking at Mr. Arbery's movements, LP can tell that Mr Arbery's intended to steal. Which means Mr Arbery committed a felony. Which means that these vigilantes are justified even if they had no clue that a felony was committed.