Black Jogger Gunned Down In The Street

[Arctish]

Not good enough.

What did he know about the McMichael's intentions?

Unless Arbery was somehow mentally impaired he knew that his intention were to arrest/detain him.

And how would he know that?

The police in this country aren't supposed to chase down people in trucks, repeatedly cut them off, and brandish shotguns without identifying themselves as police officers. Maybe they do that where you live, but not here.

Arbery would not have known the McMichaels' and Roddy's intention was to make a citizen's arrest because they never said so, as they are required to do by law. And if Arbery suspected they weren't cops because they didn't follow police procedure, he was correct. So what does that leave?

Three white men in trucks chasing and threatening a black man in Georgia for no known reason, but they're armed and determined to intercept him, so that can't be good.

What did he know about Roddy's intentions?

Same thing.

Neither of the McMichaels is a police officer.

Did not matter to Michael Brown he attacked an uniformed police officer in a car. And since when police is forbidden to work undercover?
There should not be much difference. Police can be off duty and criminals on occasions wore police uniform.

Roddy isn't one, either. And since the McMichaels and Roddy didn't say anything about Arbery talking to the police,

We don't know that, and again, it does not really matter.

your assertion that he didn't want to is utterly groundless.

Yes, they are absolutely grounded in statistics, COPS would have been boring show if it were not true

He may have wanted to talk to the police very much, and hoped to live long enough to do it, so that he could have those three yahoos arrested for assaulting him.

I was not born yesterday, sorry.

And yet you show very little understanding of what brandishing a shotgun means.

Must be a cultural thing.

 

[barbos]

And how would he know that?

The police in this country aren't supposed to chase down people in trucks, repeatedly cut them off, and brandish shotguns without identifying themselves as police officers. Maybe they do that where you live, but not here.

Did not matter to Michael Brown. And I see no evidence of brandishing on the video. Where I live, there is no citizen arrest laws as far as I know. I mean if you manage to "arrest" some criminal alive and without too much beating then fine, good for you.
In reality people are routinely convicted of "excessive" self defense. In one case criminals attacked a guy and his wife in their home, tied, tortured, but he managed to get away and kill them or one of them I don't remember, he was accused of "excessive" self defense

Arbery would not have known the McMichaels' and Roddy's intention was to make a citizen's arrest because they never said so, as they are required to do by law. And if Arbery suspected they weren't cops because they didn't follow police procedure, he was correct. So what does that leave?

Three white men in trucks chasing and threatening a black man in Georgia for no known reason, but they're armed and determined to intercept him, so that can't be good.

What did he know about Roddy's intentions?

Same thing.

Neither of the McMichaels is a police officer.

Did not matter to Michael Brown he attacked an uniformed police officer in a car. And since when police is forbidden to work undercover?
There should not be much difference. Police can be off duty and criminals on occasions wore police uniform.

Roddy isn't one, either. And since the McMichaels and Roddy didn't say anything about Arbery talking to the police,

We don't know that, and again, it does not really matter.

your assertion that he didn't want to is utterly groundless.

Yes, they are absolutely grounded in statistics, COPS would have been boring show if it were not true

He may have wanted to talk to the police very much, and hoped to live long enough to do it, so that he could have those three yahoos arrested for assaulting him.

I was not born yesterday, sorry.

And yet you show very little understanding of what brandishing a shotgun means.

Must be a cultural thing.

Oh I understand Americans take trespassing seriously

 

[ruby sparks]

.. I see no evidence of brandishing on the video.

I suggest you visit an optician.

 

[barbos]

.. I see no evidence of brandishing on the video.

Wtf?

Holding a gun is not brandishing. In any case it's irrelevant. They were armed, that's all.

 

[ruby sparks]

.. I see no evidence of brandishing on the video.

Wtf?

Holding a gun is not brandishing. In any case it's irrelevant. They were armed, that's all.

Yeah. It's totally irrelevant that the guy got out of the truck and stood in the middle of the road holding a fucking shotgun.

 

[barbos]

Holding a gun is not brandishing. In any case it's irrelevant. They were armed, that's all.

Yeah. It's totally irrelevant that the guy got out of the truck and stood in the middle of the road holding a fucking shotgun.

Yes, it does not add anything to "They were armed and they were after him"

 

[ruby sparks]

Holding a gun is not brandishing. In any case it's irrelevant. They were armed, that's all.

Yeah. It's totally irrelevant that the guy got out of the truck and stood in the middle of the road holding a fucking shotgun.

Yes, it does not add anything to "They were armed and they were after him"

Sure. Yeah. Don't let me interrupt. You carry on minimising the killer's actions by nitpicking about descriptors and explaining what the victim should have done better. Tell us again how the killer, who instigated the confrontation wielding a shotgun,"had to defend himself" from an attack by an unarmed man he was clearly already threatening just by blocking his path along a public road holding a shotgun, by shooting him enough times until he was dead.

Victim-blaming and apologetics is clearly your thing.

 

[Arctish]

Holding a gun is not brandishing. In any case it's irrelevant. They were armed, that's all.

Yeah. It's totally irrelevant that the guy got out of the truck and stood in the middle of the road holding a fucking shotgun.

Yes, it does not add anything to "They were armed and they were after him"

You mean aside from having a clearer shot without all those car parts in the way?

 

[ruby sparks]

As for suggesting that the victim should have phoned the police, even if he thought he had time for this, or could reasonably be expected to think that quickly and clearly in that situation, which he probably didn't and couldn't, reaching into his pocket to pull out a phone might have made the episode even shorter than it was.

But hey, it's important that we discuss what the victim did 'wrong'. Otherwise, we're going to miss something crucial.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yes, it does not add anything to "They were armed and they were after him"

You mean aside from having a clearer shot without all those car parts in the way?

When the victim clearly tried to evade a confrontation by running around the other side of the truck, the killer moved around to intercept him. At that point, the victim, in the circumstances, could reasonably have felt his life was actually in danger and decided to try to save his own life by throwing punches at the gunman. As has been said, he unwisely "took on a shotgun and lost". His bad. Barbos needs to go explain this to his mother.

 

[blastula]

There were a few 911 calls in the months before the shooting. This link has the reports.

911 calls, incident reports shed light on previous issues in Glynn County neighborhood

Snippet:

WTOC obtained 10 incident reports and radio communication logs from at least five prior 911 calls in Satilla Shores, the neighborhood where Ahmaud Arbery was killed in February by armed homeowners.

The reports show neighbors and the property owner called 911 previously about someone inside a home under construction several times, but the homeowner alluded to seeing different people inside the home at different times, undercutting the McMichaels’ claim that Arbery matched a description of a burglary suspect.

Of the reports, none are listed as burglaries. The only reported theft happened on Jan. 1 and involved a gun getting stolen from Travis McMichael’s unlocked truck.

So, no burglaries.

No, it doesn't say that. Any of the trespassings could also be burglary. There is not yet evidence to say either way.

The first 911 call came on Oct. 25 and is classified as a trespass. The homeowner, Larry English, called 911 because someone was inside the home, and it activated cameras. The call lasted about 13 minutes and ended when the unidentified man walked off the property without taking anything.

The next call came nearly a month later on Nov. 18. English called again about someone inside and reportedly told dispatch, “he had the same issue with different people last night” indicating it isn’t the same person always inside. This call lasted about 20 minutes and ended with the officer changing it from a trespassing to extra watch, indicating officers would check the property.

The third call is on Jan. 1. Travis McMichael said someone stole a pistol from his unlocked truck; no suspect description is provided in the rather short CAD log and incident report.

The fourth call happened over a month later on Feb. 11 around 7:30 p.m. and shows that Travis McMichael got in his truck to see whoever it was inside the home. McMichael told police he watched the man run across several properties and back into the home under construction. Responding officers searched but found no one. In this report, homeowner Larry English is quoted as saying, “it appears the unknown male is only trespassing and plundering around as he has yet to see where anything has been taken.”

The final call came on Feb. 23, the day Arbery was killed.

The fourth call was made by Travis McMichael. That's the one you refer to here:

One report describes a light skinned black male with lots of tattoos on his arms.

The report is unclear about who gave that description, but it reads like English gave it. It's the same description he gave in the 10/25 report. And Travis said during his 911 call that he could not describe the man he saw other than he was tall, about 6 ft.

So, not Arbery, but, more importantly (from the actual police record):

View attachment 27708

According to English, it was never Arbery. The light skinned man with tattoos all over his arms "appeared to be the same unknown man from all of the previous incidents."

The man (or men) in the prior videos doesn't look like the man in the 2/23 video to me, but the video quality we're getting is not that great.

Also important, that description--light skinned black male with tattoos all over both of his arms--was evidently given by Travis McMichael on February 11th, just twelve days before the fatal day. So, Travis, at least, must have known it wasn't the same guy he saw previously. Arbery is very clearly a dark skinned man and he was wearing a t-shirt on Feb 23 with both arms fully exposed.

For Travis to have described the other guy as being a light skinned black guy with tattoos all over both arms--at 7:30 pm--necessarily must have meant both details were significantly recognizable to him at night (sunset in Georgia on the 11th was 6:17 pm), which would in turn mean, of course, that during the fateful day--afternoon no less--it would have been very easy for Travis to see it wasn't the same guy.

But perhaps MOST importantly, there is also this from the Travis McMichael complaint on Feb 11:

View attachment 27710

The videos and description of the light skinned man with tattoos all over both of his arms was evidently widely distributed. So not only did Travis see the light skinned/tattooed man, and not only did English confirm that was the guy who had trespassed on his construction site several times previously, but the whole neighborhood knew that it was a light skinned black man with tattoos all over his arms!

And considering the fact that the elder McMichaels KNEW ARBERY from the case he worked just two years ago and had evidently seen the surveillance videos and/or knew that Arbery did not fit the description of a light skinned black guy with tattoos all over both of his arms, we're even deeper into the woods now.

BOTH Travis and his dad must have known that Arbery was NOT the light skinned black man with tattoos on his arms seen inside English's home--by Travis in person no less--the whole time they were chasing him.

ETA: So, tl;dr recap: there were never any burglaries and both Travis and his dad knew the man they were chasing in armed pursuit was NOT the man seen previously either by Travis or in the description disseminated throughout the neighborhood from English's surveillance cameras.

Nearly everything you said here is unsubstantiated. We have no idea if Gregory had any memory or thought of his prior contact with Arbery at this later date. And whether Travis got a good enough look at the man on 2/11 to distinguish him on 2/23 is doubtful. Not that it even matters much.

Which means they had absolutely no justification to pursue, let alone be armed, let alone kill him.

I don't believe they had the right to kill Arbery, but that has nothing to do with whether or not Arbery ever trespassed on the property before. He could have been trying to steal stuff even on that same day, but that doesn't mean he deserved to die. You are arguing this as though it does matter. If it's ever proven Arbery was ever there before trying to steal stuff, what will you say then?

 

[blastula]

Seems Arbery was a frequent visitor to the construction site.
Ahmaud Arbery case: Security footage shows visits to construction site

No, that doesn't say it was Arbery in the earlier videos.

 

[barbos]

Which means they had absolutely no justification to pursue, let alone be armed, let alone kill him.

I don't believe they had the right to kill Arbery, but that has nothing to do with whether or not Arbery ever trespassed on the property before. He could have been trying to steal stuff even on that same day, but that doesn't mean he deserved to die. You are arguing this as though it does matter. If it's ever proven Arbery was ever there before trying to steal stuff, what will you say then?

Very good point.

 

[marc]

Holding a gun is not brandishing. In any case it's irrelevant. They were armed, that's all.

Yeah. It's totally irrelevant that the guy got out of the truck and stood in the middle of the road holding a fucking shotgun.

Reminds me of when that video was going around, where it compared a white guy open carrying to a black guy doing the same thing. The white guy got ignored, but the police came to talk to the black guy, making him get on the ground. An excuse the apologists at the time used was that the black guy had the rifle slung lower, where it was much easier to quickly bring it up into shooting position. Of course it wasn't in his hands, just slung over his shoulder a little differently, but that justified being treated as a suspect by the police. Now here two (or three) white guys chasing after a black guy, with guns in his hands is somehow not supposed to be a threat?

 

[Arctish]

Holding a gun is not brandishing. In any case it's irrelevant. They were armed, that's all.

Yeah. It's totally irrelevant that the guy got out of the truck and stood in the middle of the road holding a fucking shotgun.

Reminds me of when that video was going around, where it compared a white guy open carrying to a black guy doing the same thing. The white guy got ignored, but the police came to talk to the black guy, making him get on the ground. An excuse the apologists at the time used was that the black guy had the rifle slung lower, where it was much easier to quickly bring it up into shooting position. Of course it wasn't in his hands, just slung over his shoulder a little differently, but that justified being treated as a suspect by the police. Now here two (or three) white guys chasing after a black guy, with guns in his hands is somehow not supposed to be a threat?

Reminds me of how when white guys in militia outfits were marching around Ferguson, MO carrying assault rifles, we were supposed to be happy they were protecting our 2nd Amendment rights, but now that black guys in militia outfits are marching around Brunswick, GA carrying assault rifles, we're supposed to be clutching our pearls and swooning.

 

[ruby sparks]

Now here two (or three) white guys chasing after a black guy, with guns in his hands is somehow not supposed to be a threat?

It has explicitly been said here that it was not a threat of physical harm.

The mind boggles.

 

[Artemus]

Gregory McMichael's law enforcement certification and service weapon had been suspended. Seems he repeated failed to take required firearms and use-of-force courses. As a result, he agreed that he "will not engage in any activity that would be construed as being law enforcement in nature,"

And yet somehow it was still quite reasonable for him to make a "citizen's arrest".

 

[laughing dog]

Gregory McMichael's law enforcement certification and service weapon had been suspended. Seems he repeated failed to take required firearms and use-of-force courses. As a result, he agreed that he "will not engage in any activity that would be construed as being law enforcement in nature,"

And yet somehow it was still quite reasonable for him to make a "citizen's arrest".

Makes the conclusion that he is a vigilante appear more reasonable.

 

[laughing dog]

Seems Arbery was a frequent visitor to the construction site.
Ahmaud Arbery case: Security footage shows visits to construction site

No, that doesn't say it was Arbery in the earlier videos.

Yeah, it says it "appears" to be the same person or that "believed to be" the same person. Of course, it should not matter to any rational person how many times Mr. Arbery may have visited or actually visited the construction site.

 

[barbos]

Gregory McMichael's law enforcement certification and service weapon had been suspended. Seems he repeated failed to take required firearms and use-of-force courses. As a result, he agreed that he "will not engage in any activity that would be construed as being law enforcement in nature,"

And yet somehow it was still quite reasonable for him to make a "citizen's arrest".

Nobody disputes that McMichaels had no legal right to conduct citizen arrest.
They were 100% wrong. But suppose McMichael was a perfect police officer but they had legal right to conduct citizens arrest. (they saw Arbery tresspassing)
Do you think outcome would have been different? Would it make anyone happier and less dead?