• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.
  • 2021 Internet Infidels Fundraising Drive
    Greetings! Time for the annual fundraiser.Sorry for the late update, we normally start this early in October. Funds are needed to keep II and IIDB online. I was not able to get an IIDB based donations addon implemented for this year, I will make sure to have that done for next year. You can help support II in several ways, please visit the Support Us page for more info. Or just click:

    I will try to track all donations from IIDB. Many thanks to those that have already donated. The current total is $778. If everyone dontated just $5, we would easily hit our goal.

Black Jogger Gunned Down In The Street

Jarhyn

Contributor
I think you're being an idiot here

You missed the opportunity to explain.
I didn't miss it.
I ignored it.

It's not the first time I've decided against expressing nuanced opinions, when I'm pretty sure what I'll get back is little but insults and strawman arguments.

Of course, sometimes I have a drink or two and say honest things. That's usually when I relearn the lesson, "Don't be too honest in an ideological bubble. It won't end well."

I'm trying.
Very very trying. Just ask the staff.

Tom
Well, suppose your equally gay lover were found murdered and it was discovered that he had been operating a clandestine escort service. Or had embezzled money from his employer or your business or had taken out a second (and third) mortgage on your jointly owned home —and it was going into foreclosure or whatever other ripped from the soap opera circuit crime you care to reference. You’re the suspect and are arrested and brought to trial.

I’m almost certain that whether or not you were guilty, you would want no one on that jury to be hostile to gay men, for any reason.

Would your jury need to be comprised of gay men? No. But you might not want it to be full of Southern Baptist evangelicals, especially if any were either closeted gay men themselves or had been molested by a camp counselor at bible camp. Or women whose husband left them for his 20 year old gay lover in their 45th wedding anniversary. And so on.
I think the idea is to be "impartial" which regardless of legal definition should be "will not be reasonably expected to decide on the basis of irrelevant information".

I would think this should adequately filter the southern baptists who preach that gay people are gnostic sinners.
Of course. Ideally, we would all probably like to believe that we could be completely impartial on any jury we were called to serve upon. On high profile cases or those with especially political, ideological or emotionally charged cases, it would be more difficult. Being a juror if the trial was about a burglary with no one at home would be different than a trial involving the rape/murder of a child, for example
Fuck that. There are juries I would not be impartial on. There are juries I would be partial on.

There are juries I would be the most laser focused piece of analytical machinery imaginable for, for the sole sake of right thing be done by society via the application of law as prescribed by the constitution and applicable legal codes.

There are juries I would nullify.

I'm not going to pretend otherwise except as my ethics demands it.
 

Gospel

Aethiopian
Just like the slaves, I'll be dead long before the "zoinks I killed a black dude because I thought he did something" days are over.
 

Arctish

Contributor
Should we assume that whatever the jury decides is best? or the closest to the truth that we can hope for? because they heard all the facts?

Or is there only one verdict which can be right? -- Guilty? -- and any other verdict is wrong and only further proof that America is racist?
They killed the guy. That isn't remotely debatable. The question is whether they should go to prison for it.

The lawyer for the shooter blamed the Arbery for defending himself when her client aimed a gun at him... which is why her client was totally in the right to shoot Arbery to defend himself. If you are good with that, then you should be good with an acquittal.
She went way beyond that. She said:

"Turning Ahmaud Arbery into a victim after the choices that he made does not reflect the reality of what brought Ahmaud Arbery to Satilla Shores in his khaki shorts with no socks to cover his long, dirty toenails,"

And why did she say that? A former prosecutor thinks it was an appeal to the emotions of this particular jury:

Former prosecutor Mark Eiglarsh said Hogue had the pulse of the jury.
"I did find the defense lawyer's comments, personally, extremely offensive," Eiglarch said. "That said, I'm going to defend her right to make it, because her job is to do everything that she can to get an acquittal, as long as it's within the confines of what the law allows."
"As outrageous and offensive as I found it personally, I know that she wouldn't have made it if she didn't think it would resonate with those particular jurors," Eiglarsh said. "And that's what she did."
<link>

What brought Ahmaud Arbery to Satilla Shores that day was jogging while Black. It appears Greg McMichael's lawyer thinks the jury will agree that warrants a death sentence carried out by vigilantes. Or at least she's willing to take that stance in court.
 

J842P

Veteran Member
I think they have them dead to rights on felony murder at least. To me, this sounds pretty damning:


The judge ruled Friday afternoon that under Georgia’s old citizen’s arrest law, the one applied in this case, the arrest would have to occur right after any felony crime was committed, not days or months later.

The defense argued that the ruling guts their case.


“If you are going to instruct the jury as you say, you are directing a verdict for the state,” said Bob Rubin, attorney for Travis McMichael.

Channel 2′s Tony Thomas has been in Brunswick covering the trial since the beginning. He said the defense attorneys were livid over the jury instructions Judge Timothy Walmsley plans to give next week.

“We have built this whole case around the probable cause and you are gutting all of it if you give this particular charge,” Rubin said.

So, this is just bizarre. From what I understand, they should have known this was going to be part of the jury instruction, since it is a plain part of the statute. Was there some agreement beforehand? This just sounds like incompetence or maybe trying to go for a mistrial or something. I think they are toast. They've been flailing about the entire time.

Another article:

Ahead of closing arguments scheduled for Monday, prosecutors and defense attorneys argued Friday what the judge should charge the jury with.

Much of the debate dealt with how the judge will describe the limitations on making a citizen’s arrest. Defense attorneys say Georgia law authorized the McMichaels and Bryan to detain Arbery for police because they had valid reason to suspect he was a burglar. Prosecutors say there’s no evidence that Arbery had committed any crimes in the neighborhood.

Defense attorneys objected when the judge said he would instruct the jury that “a private citizen’s warrantless arrest must occur immediately after the perpetration of the offense, or in the case of a felony during escape.”

Robert Rubin, an attorney for Travis McMichael, said the proposed language would make it virtually impossible for a jury to find the defendants had probable cause to detain Arbery based on suspicion he’d committed prior burglaries in same home under construction he was seen running from before his death.


“We have built this whole case around the probable cause ... that Travis McMichael and Greg McMichael had on Feb. 23 for events that happened previously,” Rubin said. “And you are gutting all of it.”

Travis McMichael testified this week that he had seen security camera videos of Arbery inside the unfinished home and that he spotted Arbery “creeping” outside of it 12 days before the shooting. None of the five videos of Arbery inside the home showed him stealing. The owner said he installed cameras after items were taken from a boat he kept in an open garage.

Walmsley said he would consider changes if attorneys could support them citing other cases.

Apparently, although this is being denied, that Bryan's attorny, the defendant that isn't a McMichael, asked the state for a plea deal:

 

barbos

Contributor
Dirty toenails, how does she know they were dirty?
In any case, no socks jogger, I find that incredibly hard to believe.
I think US have gun laws which are incompatible with idiots. We have 3 white idiots and 1 black idiot who lost. And since you can't get rid of idiots you need to get rid of idiotic gun laws.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Dirty toenails, how does she know they were dirty?
In any case, no socks jogger, I find that incredibly hard to believe.
I think US have gun laws which are incompatible with idiots. We have 3 white idiots and 1 black idiot who lost. And since you can't get rid of idiots you need to get rid of idiotic gun laws.

He wasn’t jogging. He was somewhere he didn’t need to be, just like tens of millions of other people have been at some point when younger. He hadn’t committed a crime and the dad/son wanted to go play police and wrassle up a black guy.

And this barely even went to trial!

The self defense claim doesn’t rest with the law but with how the jury feels about the case.
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Robert Rubin, an attorney for Travis McMichael, said the proposed language would make it virtually impossible for a jury to find the defendants had probable cause
So, the letter of the law is important when it allows you to pack a jury with racists, but it's bad if the letter of the law literally says you broke the law. Funny how that works....
 

Toni

Contributor
Dirty toenails, how does she know they were dirty?
In any case, no socks jogger, I find that incredibly hard to believe.
I think US have gun laws which are incompatible with idiots. We have 3 white idiots and 1 black idiot who lost. And since you can't get rid of idiots you need to get rid of idiotic gun laws.
I almost never wear socks.

Why on earth does it matter if he was wearing socks?
 

barbos

Contributor
Dirty toenails, how does she know they were dirty?
In any case, no socks jogger, I find that incredibly hard to believe.
I think US have gun laws which are incompatible with idiots. We have 3 white idiots and 1 black idiot who lost. And since you can't get rid of idiots you need to get rid of idiotic gun laws.
I almost never wear socks.
Even when running/jogging?
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Dirty toenails, how does she know they were dirty?
In any case, no socks jogger, I find that incredibly hard to believe.
I think US have gun laws which are incompatible with idiots. We have 3 white idiots and 1 black idiot who lost. And since you can't get rid of idiots you need to get rid of idiotic gun laws.
I almost never wear socks.

Why on earth does it matter if he was wearing socks?
I never wear socks when I do aerobics except when it's very cold. Aerobics is sort of like jogging or running. But, it was an insane thing to even mention. The defense seems pretty desperate. They asked for a mistrial again this morning and the judge denied it.
 

barbos

Contributor
I never wear socks when I do aerobics except when it's very cold. Aerobics is sort of like jogging or running
You do Aerobics in running shoes?
No socks and running shoes is a sure way to ruin your feet, not to mention shoes themselves. Lets be honest here, he tried to pretend to be a jogger to get away from these three idiots and then tried to wrestle one of the idiots with a gun and lost.
 

TomC

Veteran Member
Defense attorneys often have a gruesome task. Defending ugly people and their ugliest behavior. But that's their job. I fully expect those people to pull out the stops, and do what they're expected to do by any legal means available.

Yuck. But it's sounds like a desperation ploy.
Tom
 

thebeave

Veteran Member
Defense attorneys often have a gruesome task. Defending ugly people and their ugliest behavior. But that's their job. I fully expect those people to pull out the stops, and do what they're expected to do by any legal means available.

Yuck. But it's sounds like a desperation ploy.
Tom
Sounds like the kind of thing that would backfire for a sensible jury. Even mentioning dirty, uncut toenails by the defense would indicate how there really is no "there there" at all in their case. Speaking as someone with a nasty and embarrassing case of toenail fungus on 75% of my toes, I would hope my toe situation never becomes public knowledge...whether I'm dead or alive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jab

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Dirty toenails, how does she know they were dirty?
In any case, no socks jogger, I find that incredibly hard to believe.
I think US have gun laws which are incompatible with idiots. We have 3 white idiots and 1 black idiot who lost. And since you can't get rid of idiots you need to get rid of idiotic gun laws.
I almost never wear socks.

Why on earth does it matter if he was wearing socks?
I never wear socks when I do aerobics except when it's very cold. Aerobics is sort of like jogging or running. But, it was an insane thing to even mention. The defense seems pretty desperate. They asked for a mistrial again this morning and the judge denied it.
No, its not. Running without socks can be quite bad. It might be possible to do if your skin is tough enough. I couldn't run a single run sans socks without getting blisters.

Regardless, he was needlessly killed by idiots that need to go to prison.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
He wasn’t jogging.
Well, then left leaning media should stop calling him a jogger.
Call him "a black man pretending to be a jogger"
It stuck, makes it more dramatic... Man caught harmlessly trespassing on property shot isn't providing the same sort of picture.

The attorneys for the defense have been pressing hard on the racism button the entire trial from jury selection to closing arguments.
 

blastula

Contributor
Before derailing more on socks, the toenail observation came from the autopsy report which said both his fingernails and toenails were dirty.

I watched some of the closings, and I think they do have a decent shot at acquittal, if they do successfully tap into suburbanite fear of encroaching crime. The only witnesses the defense called were neighbors to ask them about how crime has been increasing in their once very safe neighborhood.

The state is saying the defendants were the initial aggressors so had no right to self-defense, while the other side is arguing that they were lawfully trying to make a citizen's arrest. The law says you have to personally witness a crime to do an arrest, unless it's a felony when you can arrest if you have probable cause, a lower standard. The felony would be burglary. Arbery was caught on video trespassing but never burglarizing, but they're arguing that Arbery was likely a burglar because things were stolen at the house where he was caught on video. So when they saw him that day they had probable cause to arrest.

I think it could work, especially with how juries love to let you kill anybody you want so long as you say you were scared, especially if you're a cop or acting like a cop (Rittenhouse, Zimmerman), and they've been playing up how TM was in the Coast Guard.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
I never wear socks when I do aerobics except when it's very cold. Aerobics is sort of like jogging or running
You do Aerobics in running shoes?
No socks and running shoes is a sure way to ruin your feet, not to mention shoes themselves. Lets be honest here, he tried to pretend to be a jogger to get away from these three idiots and then tried to wrestle one of the idiots with a gun and lost.
Not quite what happened. Man was stalked by angry white people in a truck. Then trapped by another white guy in a truck. Then one of the angry white people gets a gun. At what point is the black male supposed to think, "well, let's see how this plays out... might get lynched... they might find out this is just a misunderstanding". The white guy with a gun claims self-defense when man they stalked and point gun at... tries to defend himself from being lynched.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Before derailing more on socks, the toenail observation came from the autopsy report which said both his fingernails and toenails were dirty.

I watched some of the closings, and I think they do have a decent shot at acquittal, if they do successfully tap into suburbanite fear of encroaching crime. The only witnesses the defense called were neighbors to ask them about how crime has been increasing in their once very safe neighborhood.

The state is saying the defendants were the initial aggressors so had no right to self-defense, while the other side is arguing that they we're lawfully trying to make a citizen's arrest. The law says you have to personally witnesses a crime to do an arrest, unless it's a felony when you can arrest if you have probable cause, a lower standard. The felony would be burglary. Arbery was caught on video trespassing but never burglarizing, but they're arguing that Arbery was likely a burglar because things were stolen at the house that he was caught on video. So when they saw him that day they had probable cause to arrest.

I think it could work, especially with how juries love to let you kill anybody you want so long as you say you were scared, especially if you're a cop or acting like a cop (Rittenhouse, Zimmerman).
The jury can find however they want. The law says that the pa and son were guilty of illegally trying to arrest this guy. They had no right to do so. They witnessed no crime. While committing their crime, the guy is shot. Saying it is self defense really requires ending these ridiculous SYG laws, as it effectively says people without guns have no right to self-defense. And if they killed him in "self-defense", they might be lenient on the illegal arrest issue.

They are no less guilty than illegally detaining this man. And in committing that crime, they killed the person they were illegally detaining. But they are white... he is black.

And that is why we have that whole #BLM thing.
 

barbos

Contributor
I never wear socks when I do aerobics except when it's very cold. Aerobics is sort of like jogging or running
You do Aerobics in running shoes?
No socks and running shoes is a sure way to ruin your feet, not to mention shoes themselves. Lets be honest here, he tried to pretend to be a jogger to get away from these three idiots and then tried to wrestle one of the idiots with a gun and lost.
Not quite what happened. Man was stalked by angry white people in a truck. Then trapped by another white guy in a truck. Then one of the angry white people gets a gun. At what point is the black male supposed to think, "well, let's see how this plays out... might get lynched... they might find out this is just a misunderstanding". The white guy with a gun claims self-defense when man they stalked and point gun at... tries to defend himself from being lynched.
If you are self-defending yourself by attacking a guy with a gun, chances are, they will self-defend themselves with you being dead in the end.
 
So people who are up to no good, like armed robberies and gang warfare traditionally do not wear socks?
No, joggers wear socks and he was not.

There is no "No," even if I were half-joking.

The defense is saying joggers typically wear socks. Therefore, he probably wasn't jogging. They want you to conclude he was up to no good. But keep following one idea to the next. Criminals ALSO typically wear socks. Everyone does, but especially criminals who have to run away like what is being implied. So the whole sock thing is a meaningless exercise in inconsistently applying probabilities to impugn the victim, but ultimately is nothing.
 

blastula

Contributor
On the other hand, I just learned that this shooting led Georgia to repeal their citizen's arrest law with strong bipartisan support. Brian Kemp was even prominently calling for repeal, and it passed unanimously in the House and got only one no vote in the Senate. So, perhaps antagonism to this behavior may be too strong to be overcome by the tendency to let anyone carrying a gun get off by claiming self-defense.



 

barbos

Contributor
So people who are up to no good, like armed robberies and gang warfare traditionally do not wear socks?
No, joggers wear socks and he was not.

There is no "No," even if I were half-joking.

The defense is saying joggers typically wear socks. Therefore, he probably wasn't jogging. They want you to conclude he was up to no good. But keep following one idea to the next. Criminals ALSO typically wear socks. Everyone does, but especially criminals who have to run away like what is being implied. So the whole sock thing is a meaningless exercise in inconsistently applying probabilities to impugn the victim, but ultimately is nothing.
Smart criminals (which is a rare breed ) are typically prepared, so they wear socks, running shoes and running shorts and they really run when they have to, they don't pretend when it becomes clear that they are being chased.
Ahmad was not smart criminal. He was a dumb idiot who thought that if he pretends to be a jogger he could jog away from 3 armed guys on a truck.
 

Elixir

Content Thief
On the other hand, I just learned that this shooting led Georgia to repeal their citizen's arrest law with strong bipartisan support. Brian Kemp was even prominently calling for repeal, and it passed unanimously in the House and got only one no vote in the Senate. So, perhaps antagonism to this behavior may be too strong to be overcome by the tendency to let anyone carrying a gun get off by claiming self-defense.




I don't think there is genuine antagonism toward racist killings or vigilantism.
The Republicans want to excuse this murder, just like all the others.
Challenging, repealing or even just criticizing the law gives cover.
"Yeah, it's turrble, jes turrble. We gotta let 'em go. Such injustice!"
 
So people who are up to no good, like armed robberies and gang warfare traditionally do not wear socks?
No, joggers wear socks and he was not.

There is no "No," even if I were half-joking.

The defense is saying joggers typically wear socks. Therefore, he probably wasn't jogging. They want you to conclude he was up to no good. But keep following one idea to the next. Criminals ALSO typically wear socks. Everyone does, but especially criminals who have to run away like what is being implied. So the whole sock thing is a meaningless exercise in inconsistently applying probabilities to impugn the victim, but ultimately is nothing.
Smart criminals (which is a rare breed ) are typically prepared, so they wear socks, running shoes and running shorts and they really run when they have to, they don't pretend when it becomes clear that they are being chased.
Ahmad was not smart criminal. He was a dumb idiot who thought that if he pretends to be a jogger he could jog away from 3 armed guys on a truck.

Assuming he's dumb works both ways. Perhaps he's a dumb jogger with no socks. This tangent is meaningless, especially because it does not justify cornering him, running him down, as if you are going to lynch him.
 

Toni

Contributor
So people who are up to no good, like armed robberies and gang warfare traditionally do not wear socks?
No, joggers wear socks and he was not.

There is no "No," even if I were half-joking.

The defense is saying joggers typically wear socks. Therefore, he probably wasn't jogging. They want you to conclude he was up to no good. But keep following one idea to the next. Criminals ALSO typically wear socks. Everyone does, but especially criminals who have to run away like what is being implied. So the whole sock thing is a meaningless exercise in inconsistently applying probabilities to impugn the victim, but ultimately is nothing.
Smart criminals (which is a rare breed ) are typically prepared, so they wear socks, running shoes and running shorts and they really run when they have to, they don't pretend when it becomes clear that they are being chased.
Ahmad was not smart criminal. He was a dumb idiot who thought that if he pretends to be a jogger he could jog away from 3 armed guys on a truck.
Or he thought that he was a free man in America and had the absolute right to walk, jog, dash, saunter, or roller skate down any street he so desired to. Wearing (gasp!) khaki shorts and no socks! Imagine how they would have freaked out if he’d been wearing a Colin Kaepernick t-shirt and an AK-15….
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
I never wear socks when I do aerobics except when it's very cold. Aerobics is sort of like jogging or running
You do Aerobics in running shoes?
No socks and running shoes is a sure way to ruin your feet, not to mention shoes themselves. Lets be honest here, he tried to pretend to be a jogger to get away from these three idiots and then tried to wrestle one of the idiots with a gun and lost.
Not quite what happened. Man was stalked by angry white people in a truck. Then trapped by another white guy in a truck. Then one of the angry white people gets a gun. At what point is the black male supposed to think, "well, let's see how this plays out... might get lynched... they might find out this is just a misunderstanding". The white guy with a gun claims self-defense when man they stalked and point gun at... tries to defend himself from being lynched.
If you are self-defending yourself by attacking a guy with a gun, chances are, they will self-defend themselves with you being dead in the end.
Suppose he should have just let himself get lynched.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
So people who are up to no good, like armed robberies and gang warfare traditionally do not wear socks?
No, joggers wear socks and he was not.

There is no "No," even if I were half-joking.

The defense is saying joggers typically wear socks. Therefore, he probably wasn't jogging. They want you to conclude he was up to no good. But keep following one idea to the next. Criminals ALSO typically wear socks. Everyone does, but especially criminals who have to run away like what is being implied. So the whole sock thing is a meaningless exercise in inconsistently applying probabilities to impugn the victim, but ultimately is nothing.
Smart criminals (which is a rare breed ) are typically prepared, so they wear socks, running shoes and running shorts and they really run when they have to, they don't pretend when it becomes clear that they are being chased.
Ahmad was not smart criminal. He was a dumb idiot who thought that if he pretends to be a jogger he could jog away from 3 armed guys on a truck.
He didn't steal anything when they saw him. There is no evidence he stole anything from that property ever.
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
I never wear socks when I do aerobics except when it's very cold. Aerobics is sort of like jogging or running
You do Aerobics in running shoes?
No socks and running shoes is a sure way to ruin your feet, not to mention shoes themselves. Lets be honest here, he tried to pretend to be a jogger to get away from these three idiots and then tried to wrestle one of the idiots with a gun and lost.
Not that it's any of your business, but the reason I don't wear socks is because I have chronic pain from arthritis in my feet and socks with shoes makes the pain much worse. I go barefoot when I'm in the house. I used to wear socks prior to having this problem. My feet are super sensitive. Of course, this has nothing to do with the case we are discussing, but there are reasons why people don't wear socks or certain types of shoes. I've been doing this for over 20 years. The shoes that I wear when I exercise are over 10 years old and they are still in decent condition. I have not been able to find any other shoes that are comfortable. So, it's pretty silly to remark about whether or not the victim in this case was wearing socks. It has nothing to do with what happened on that day, and we have no idea why Mr. Arbery was or wasn't wearing socks. It's just a desperate attempt by the defense attorney to demonize the victim, imo.

I would assume that the victim in this case was simply running to get away from what appeared to be a dangerous threat, which was apparently true, since he was shot and killed by the assholes that chased him down. One doesn't need an excuse to run through a neighborhood. People jog or run through my neighborhood all the time, and nobody cares if they are Black or White, or if they live on my street. There are no rules in the. US that say that one can't run through a neighborhood where they don't live.

Anyway.....The judge just finished giving instructions to the jury and they will begin to consider the verdict. I had to laugh when the judge said that they must be totally objective. I don't think it's possible for anyone to be totally objective when considering something as complicated as this case. Most of us have already made up our minds so none of us would be good jurors, assuming there is such a thing.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Suppose he should have just let himself get lynched.
No, he should have stopped fooling anybody by pretending to be a jogger and really tried to escape or better did what people with guns told him to do.
They were chasing him in a truck. He wasn't jogging, he was running away... but Usain Bolt can't outrun a truck. I'm surprised no one asked whether he was wearing underwear. This is bullshit victim blaming. In the victim's eyes, he is being surrounded and trapped like an animal and then one of the trappers gets a gun. What in the fuck was he supposed to be thinking, supposed to do?

And justice is so fucked up down there, that I hope he was out while bleeding to death when the cop came and consoled the motherfucker that killed the guy.
 

barbos

Contributor
but there are reasons why people don't wear socks or certain types of shoes
There are all kind of convoluted reasons for all kind of weird stuff.
Some people like pointing toy guns at the police.
Does not really make you less dead when you get shot as a result of you behaving weird.
 

barbos

Contributor
Suppose he should have just let himself get lynched.
No, he should have stopped fooling anybody by pretending to be a jogger and really tried to escape or better did what people with guns told him to do.
They were chasing him in a truck. He wasn't jogging, he was running away... but Usain Bolt can't outrun a truck. I'm surprised no one asked whether he was wearing underwear. This is bullshit victim blaming. In the victim's eyes, he is being surrounded and trapped like an animal and then one of the trappers gets a gun. What in the fuck was he supposed to be thinking, supposed to do?

And justice is so fucked up down there, that I hope he was out while bleeding to death when the cop came and consoled the motherfucker that killed the guy.
Nope, it was not running away. It was a very good imitation of jogging.
 
I was walking with my son the other day. He jogged part of the way in sweatpants and no socks. Sweatpants and no socks while jogging!!!! Imagine if we were Black and lived in Georgia.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Suppose he should have just let himself get lynched.
No, he should have stopped fooling anybody by pretending to be a jogger and really tried to escape or better did what people with guns told him to do.
They were chasing him in a truck. He wasn't jogging, he was running away... but Usain Bolt can't outrun a truck. I'm surprised no one asked whether he was wearing underwear. This is bullshit victim blaming. In the victim's eyes, he is being surrounded and trapped like an animal and then one of the trappers gets a gun. What in the fuck was he supposed to be thinking, supposed to do?

And justice is so fucked up down there, that I hope he was out while bleeding to death when the cop came and consoled the motherfucker that killed the guy.
Nope, it was not running away. It was a very good imitation of jogging.
How do you imitate jogging without, you know, jogging?
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
So people who are up to no good, like armed robberies and gang warfare traditionally do not wear socks?
No, joggers wear socks and he was not.

There is no "No," even if I were half-joking.

The defense is saying joggers typically wear socks. Therefore, he probably wasn't jogging. They want you to conclude he was up to no good. But keep following one idea to the next. Criminals ALSO typically wear socks. Everyone does, but especially criminals who have to run away like what is being implied. So the whole sock thing is a meaningless exercise in inconsistently applying probabilities to impugn the victim, but ultimately is nothing.
Smart criminals (which is a rare breed ) are typically prepared, so they wear socks, running shoes and running shorts and they really run when they have to, they don't pretend when it becomes clear that they are being chased.
Ahmad was not smart criminal. He was a dumb idiot who thought that if he pretends to be a jogger he could jog away from 3 armed guys on a truck.

Assuming he's dumb works both ways. Perhaps he's a dumb jogger with no socks. This tangent is meaningless, especially because it does not justify cornering him, running him down, as if you are going to lynch him.
I wonder about the footwear and stockings the vigilantes wore. ???
 
So people who are up to no good, like armed robberies and gang warfare traditionally do not wear socks?
No, joggers wear socks and he was not.

There is no "No," even if I were half-joking.

The defense is saying joggers typically wear socks. Therefore, he probably wasn't jogging. They want you to conclude he was up to no good. But keep following one idea to the next. Criminals ALSO typically wear socks. Everyone does, but especially criminals who have to run away like what is being implied. So the whole sock thing is a meaningless exercise in inconsistently applying probabilities to impugn the victim, but ultimately is nothing.
Smart criminals (which is a rare breed ) are typically prepared, so they wear socks, running shoes and running shorts and they really run when they have to, they don't pretend when it becomes clear that they are being chased.
Ahmad was not smart criminal. He was a dumb idiot who thought that if he pretends to be a jogger he could jog away from 3 armed guys on a truck.

Assuming he's dumb works both ways. Perhaps he's a dumb jogger with no socks. This tangent is meaningless, especially because it does not justify cornering him, running him down, as if you are going to lynch him.
I wonder about the footwear and stockings the vigilantes wore. ???
croc nuts.
 

Arctish

Contributor
What makes you think Arbery wasn't a jogger?

And what's that got to do with the decision to wear socks or go without?
 

Arctish

Contributor
There are reasons to forego wearing socks while running. Cooler feet and better fitting shoes are pretty good ones.
Your link does not really help you.
The guy was not a jogger. Insisting on jogger theory does nothing but annoy people who on a fence about this whole thing.
Also, what do you mean by "people who are on the fence about this whole thing"?

On the fence about what? Whether or not the McMichaels and Bryan pursued a guy in their trucks, blocked his attempts to escape, verbally threatened him with bodily harm, and ultimately killed him?
 
Top Bottom