• 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

barbos

Contributor
Was it reasonable to have that expectation?

After attempting to escape from the McMichaels and Bryan for 5 minutes, being repeatedly cut off and cornered, being struck by Bryan's truck, subjected to death threats from Greg McMichael and faced with Travis McMichael armed with a shotgun and moving to cut him off at close range, yes. It was reasonable for him to have that expectation.
No, it was not.
 

Elixir

Content Thief
He was a black guy, who correctly thought that these guys were trying to detain him for trespassing.

He probably knew damn well that he had committed no felony, and that it would required that they witnessed a felony for any attempt to detain him to be legal. The defendants did not even report witnessing a misdemeanor. When they called the cops and were asked what the problem was, they said the problem was a black man running down the street, not someone committing a crime.

I did not know it was legal to attack police folk, good to know.

You still don't know that. There was no attack on police.
By now you know there was no such attack, and my estimation of your integrity is dropping every time you repeat that lie without explaining how you came to believe it.
But if you ever visit the US, rest assured that it is not legal to attack police.
Doing so inevitably results in arrest, injury and/or death depending on the nature of the attack, the color of the perp and other factors.
 

Elixir

Content Thief
Was it reasonable to have that expectation?

After attempting to escape from the McMichaels and Bryan for 5 minutes, being repeatedly cut off and cornered, being struck by Bryan's truck, subjected to death threats from Greg McMichael and faced with Travis McMichael armed with a shotgun and moving to cut him off at close range, yes. It was reasonable for him to have that expectation.
No, it was not.
So convincing.
Why was it not reasonable, after attempting to escape from the McMichaels and Bryan for 5 minutes, being repeatedly cut off and cornered, being struck by Bryan's truck, subjected to death threats from Greg McMichael and faced with Travis McMichael armed with a shotgun and moving to cut him off at close range, for him to expect the same thing that has been visited upon hundreds of thousands of black Americans?
Stupidly repeating "no it's not" doesn't convince anyone - I suspect you can't even convince yourself that way.
 

Elixir

Content Thief
You want me to believe that America today is a country where blacks are routinely hunted down and shot?

You have a lot to learn.

Oh, I definitely know that, there was an attack on a police there.

How do you "know" that? There was no attack on the police brought up at the trial. I think you are misstating, fabricating, being mendacious, deceitful and dissembling. You can't seem to provide any evidence of an attack.
Do you fancy yourself so possessed of credibility that anyone here takes your word for shit you just make up or pull out of TASS's ass?
 

barbos

Contributor
You want me to believe that America today is a country where blacks are routinely hunted down and shot?

You have a lot to learn.

Oh, I definitely know that, there was an attack on a police there.

How do you "know" that? There was no attack on the police brought up at the trial. I think you are misstating, fabricating, being mendacious, deceitful and dissembling. You can't seem to provide any evidence of an attack.
Do you fancy yourself so possessed of credibility that anyone here takes your word for shit you just make up or pull out of TASS's ass?
You are projecting
 

Elixir

Content Thief
What do you mean I made it up?
There is a video of Arbery pissing off police needlessly.

I apologize - you didn't "make it up" (exactly), you're just confused.
THAT WAS IN 2017
It has exactly NOTHING to do with his murder.
Maybe in Russia, an encounter with police is grounds for allowing civilians to murder people. In America - as you can see from those murder convictions - it's not.
 

Elixir

Content Thief
So what?
The murderers were convicted.
This is the USA, barbos. Read up:


(2) Exceptions for a Defendant or Victim in a Criminal Case. The following exceptions apply in a criminal case:

(A) a defendant may offer evidence of the defendant’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may offer evidence to rebut it;

(B) subject to the limitations in Rule 412, a defendant may offer evidence of an alleged victim’s pertinent trait, and if the evidence is admitted, the prosecutor may:

(i) offer evidence to rebut it; and

(ii) offer evidence of the defendant’s same trait; and

(C) in a homicide case, the prosecutor may offer evidence of the alleged victim’s trait of peacefulness to rebut evidence that the victim was the first aggressor.
 

Elixir

Content Thief
So you need to be better prepared for discussion.

Why? I was absolutely correct that no attack on police occurred during the incident resulting in the murder, despite what you said/implied.
And at the end of the day, a scuffle four years prior should not have been allowed, even though it had no effect. You tried to use it in a misguided attempt to justify the murder. (Exactly why it should not have been allowed. But the judge didn't want to provide grounds for appeal.)
 

barbos

Contributor
So you need to be better prepared for discussion.

Why? I was absolutely correct that no attack on police occurred during the incident resulting in the murder, despite what you said/implied.
No, you were not correct.
And at the end of the day, a scuffle four years prior should not have been allowed, even though it had no effect. But you tried to use it in a misguided attempt to justify the murder. (Exactly why it should not have been allowed. But the judge didn't want to provide grounds for appeal.)
I am not trying to justify murder. I am trying to explain mechanics of what happened there.
 

Toni

Contributor
That hyperbolic proposition isn't a thing you have to believe in order to agree with what I wrote and so you are just engaging in taking an exaggerated stance to argue.
Well, this is exactly what you suggested. You suggested that Ahmaud Arbery had reasons to believe that these rednecks were about to murder him.... for sure.
You cannot be much familiar with the U.S. if you don't understand this.
A lone black man, at night and on foot, is in grave danger if confronted by white yahoos with trucks and guns. Heck, I'd be scared and I'm a big white dude.
Tom
It was not night but that's not really relevant. So if what you said is true, then why in the love of God any black would be jogging through white neighborhood, or any neighborhood for that matter?

Oh, and I am pretty familiar with US and was warned to lock car doors when driving through South Side Chicago. Have never been in Georgia though. But I do read news and I don't remember ever reading about white lynching blacks on the street. I am talking about modern times.
These days, why lynch when you can just shoot someone in broad daylight and claim you were trying to make a citizen's arrest for whatever crime you choose to make up? The police will offer you a lot of sympathy for your trauma over having murdered a man in broad daylight because that's a rough thing to happen, especially when you were scared for a second that he was fighting back and grabbed the gun you were pointing at him in a threatening manner (there is NO non-threatening manner to point a gun at someone, btw).

Actual lynching with a rope and a crowd and all of that is fairly passe. There are more modern means to 'lynch' someone such as chaining someone to a car and dragging him to death (TX, 1998, James Byrd was so murdered) or if you want to do it nice and legal, plenty of police officers are happy to kneel on the necks of black people until they die. But a small group of racist vigilantes will do, so long as they are armed and in motor vehicles so the victim cannot jog away from them....
 

barbos

Contributor
I am not trying to justify murder. I am trying to explain mechanics of what happened there.
And doing a piss-poor job of it. Mechanics doesn't explain putting thoughts in people's heads.
Again, I am not trying to justify murder. And it is you who is doing piss-poor job.
Arbery was an idiot, shoplifter and unpredictably aggressive individual.
Did not deserve to die but it contributed to his death when he met these 3 idiots.
 

lpetrich

Contributor
How a Prosecutor Addressed a Mostly White Jury and Won a Conviction in the Arbery Case - The New York Times - "Linda Dunikoski, a prosecutor brought in from the Atlanta area, struck a careful tone in a case that many saw as an obvious act of racial violence."
Despite the evidence of racism she had at her disposal, Linda Dunikoski, the prosecutor, stunned some legal observers by largely avoiding race during the trial, choosing instead to hew closely to the details of how the three men had chased the Black man, Ahmaud Arbery, through their neighborhood.

The risks went beyond her career and a single trial. Failure to convict in a case that many saw as an obvious act of racial violence would reverberate well outside Glynn County, Ga. For some, it would be a referendum on a country that appeared to have made tentative steps last summer toward confronting racism, only to devolve into deeper divisions.
But she succeeded with that strategy.
Kevin Gough, the lawyer who represented Mr. Bryan, credited Ms. Dunikoski with threading the most difficult of needles. She mentioned a racial motive just once during the three-week trial, in her closing argument: The men, she said, had attacked Mr. Arbery “because he was a Black man running down the street.”

“She found a clever way of bringing the issue up that wouldn’t be offensive to the right-leaning members of the jury,” he said. “I think you can see from the verdict that Dunikoski made the right call.”
After going into detail about LD's career,
Observers said Ms. Dunikoski had succeeded in the trial over Mr. Arbery’s murder by finessing a difficult case with the right tone.

She presented her case to the jury with a style that was at times matter-of-fact and at times intimate and colloquial, like a strict high school principal who occasionally offers students a flash of her unguarded self. At some moments, she twisted her body into exaggerated, matador-like poses as she described the way she believed Mr. Arbery, in the moment he was shot, had tried to defend himself.

She led the jury through a thicket of detailed legal points as she pushed back against the defense’s argument that the three white men had pursued Mr. Arbery legally, under a state citizen’s arrest law that has since been largely gutted. And she sought to dismantle the idea that the man who pulled the trigger, Travis McMichael, had done so in self-defense.

In her rebuttal to the defense’s closing argument — the last word before jurors were sent off to decide the fate of the three men — Ms. Dunikoski made an appeal to common sense, offering up a general rule of life that she said the defendants had violated: “Don’t go looking for trouble.”
A job well done. What can I say?
 

southernhybrid

Contributor
That hyperbolic proposition isn't a thing you have to believe in order to agree with what I wrote and so you are just engaging in taking an exaggerated stance to argue.
Well, this is exactly what you suggested. You suggested that Ahmaud Arbery had reasons to believe that these rednecks were about to murder him.... for sure.
You cannot be much familiar with the U.S. if you don't understand this.
A lone black man, at night and on foot, is in grave danger if confronted by white yahoos with trucks and guns. Heck, I'd be scared and I'm a big white dude.
Tom
It was not night but that's not really relevant. So if what you said is true, then why in the love of God any black would be jogging through white neighborhood, or any neighborhood for that matter?

Oh, and I am pretty familiar with US and was warned to lock car doors when driving through South Side Chicago. Have never been in Georgia though. But I do read news and I don't remember ever reading about white lynching blacks on the street. I am talking about modern times.
You are correct about Georgia in that it's changed drastically since the 50s and 60s, even more so since the 90s.. Things like what happened to Mr. Arbery are very rare. In fact, I've never heard of anything like this happening in modern times here in Georgia. I live in a mixed race middle class neighborhood in Georgia. None of my Black neighbors, including the Black police sergeant, the Black probation officer, the Black nurse, the Black school teacher, the Black woman who is in charge of our local sanitation department or the Black retired military officer have any fears about running through our neighborhood. We all get along. There is virtually no crime in my neighborhood. I still lock my car doors, as I was taught to do that when I was a child growing up in NJ in the 50s and 60s. :)

But, my view of Georgia has absolutely nothing to do what happened to Mr. Arbery, who was murdered by 3 White men, who I presume thought he had committed a crime based on the fact that he was a Black man who had been checking out the construction of a new home, just like several other people had done, but those people were White. So, yes, just like the rest of the country, we sadly have some dangerous racists in Georgia, but the Georgia that I know has made substantial progress in the nearly 30 years that I've lived here. Georgia is a large state, with over 10 million people, most of them are nothing like the three that killed Mr. Arbery.

Systemic racism is a national problem. To put it the way a former Black coworker of mine did: "I can take a Southern racist over a Northern racist any day because at least I know where I stand with the Southern racist." In other words, we know who the more harmful racists are in the South because they are more open about it. There have been Black folks killed by the police without justification all over the country. Our last president, who was from New York City, was very racist. He even encouraged the police to rough up suspects and we all suspected that this was code for Black suspects, since his racism goes way back to his youth and the influence of his racist father, who was sued for discriminating against Black folks who wanted to rent from him. But, by now, I think you should have gotten the point.

Of course that doesn't mean that all Black folks are harmless either, but nobody should be murdered simply because someone of a different culture or skin shade has suspected that they have committed a crime. The one positive that has come from this is that Georgia has finally updated a very old law regarding making a citizen's arrest.

I'm mostly posting this because I am sick and tired of people in other parts of the US, trying to blame racism on the South. As one who was raised in the Northeast, but has spent most of her life in many different areas of the South, I know that racism is alive and well in just about every part of the US. One hopeful sign that I read recently is that most Americans prefer to live in mixed race neighborhoods. Maybe there is hope.
 

Toni

Contributor
Was it reasonable to have that expectation?

After attempting to escape from the McMichaels and Bryan for 5 minutes, being repeatedly cut off and cornered, being struck by Bryan's truck, subjected to death threats from Greg McMichael and faced with Travis McMichael armed with a shotgun and moving to cut him off at close range, yes. It was reasonable for him to have that expectation.
No, it was not.
Three guys with guns chasing me while I'm taking a casual run or stroll through a neighborhood? I'd certainly figure they intended to use the guns on me. Three guys chasing me in trucks or even without trucks and I'd figure they were intending me significant harm.

And you would, too.
 

atrib

Veteran Member
CNN calls it lynching of a jogger. Nuances my ass.

I repeat, he was not a jogger, it was not a lynching, and Arbery would have been alive today if he decided against attacking a guy with a gun and these 3 idiots would have been in prison on much lesser charges.
It's a case of a 4 idiots and idiotic gun laws.

If he wasn't a jogger what was he? And whatever it is you think he was did he deserve to die for that?

The rest of your point of view is based on hypotheticals. As if you can predict the outcome if he would have stopped.
He was a black guy, who correctly thought that these guys were trying to detain him for trespassing.
Trying to run away from a situation where several angry people are trying to run you over with trucks, pointing guns at you, and shouting "I'm going to blow your fucking head off" is the reasonable thing thing to do. I have a concealed weapons permit and often carry a firearm on my person, and I would have tried to avoid a confrontation with an armed aggressor in a similar situation if it was at all possible. Mr Arbery was not armed, and he had no legal, ethical or sensible reason to stop; his killers were not police officers, nor did they tell him that they were. Mr Arbery was trying to run away likely because he feared for his life. Mr Arbery died because of the callous, reckless, and malicious actions of his assailants, as was clearly demonstrated by the prosecution during the trial. Did you even watch the trial or are you just making up stuff for shits and giggles?
 

atrib

Veteran Member
I think it backfired--the dog whistle was perhaps too loud.
I think so too, everyone on a jury quietly thought - we can't even remotely acquit, we would be painted as fucking racists after these lawyers performance.
You need to watch the trial and educate yourself on the facts of the case and the laws that were used to convict the three accused men. The prosecutor crucified them during the closing, using the facts and the laws, and it is the best closing argument I have ever seen.
 

barbos

Contributor
Mr Arbery was not armed, and he had no legal, ethical or reasonable reason to stop;
And he is dead now.
Actually as I said he had more than enough reasonable reasons to stop. He was stupid but not not that stupid to not figure out why these 3 guys were after him - he knew they were after him because he just trespassed that construction sight.
 

barbos

Contributor
I think it backfired--the dog whistle was perhaps too loud.
I think so too, everyone on a jury quietly thought - we can't even remotely acquit, we would be painted as fucking racists after these lawyers performance.
You need to watch the trial and educate yourself on the facts of the case and the laws that were used to convict the three accused men. The prosecutor crucified them during the closing, using the facts and the laws, and it is the best closing argument I have ever seen.
I am sorry, but you need to watch CNN. Even they called defense actions malpractice. The Defense buried these 3 idiots.
 

atrib

Veteran Member
Mr Arbery was not armed, and he had no legal, ethical or reasonable reason to stop;
And he is dead now.
Actually as I said he had more than enough reasonable reasons to stop. He was stupid but not not that stupid to figure out why these 3 guys were after him - he knew they were after him because he just trespassed that construction sight.
Wrong again - the assailants did not know he had done anything of that sort that day. Go back and watch the testimony. Like I explained, and you conveniently ignored, it is reasonable for people to try to run away from situations where their lives are threatened. Mr Arbery's behavior was not aberrant in any way. Mr Arbery is dead because he was murdered by a posse of racist thugs, not because of something he did wrong. The testimony in the courtroom demonstrated that clearly, and the jury agreed. Your ill-informed and nonsensical opinion notwithstanding.
 

atrib

Veteran Member
I think it backfired--the dog whistle was perhaps too loud.
I think so too, everyone on a jury quietly thought - we can't even remotely acquit, we would be painted as fucking racists after these lawyers performance.
You need to watch the trial and educate yourself on the facts of the case and the laws that were used to convict the three accused men. The prosecutor crucified them during the closing, using the facts and the laws, and it is the best closing argument I have ever seen.
I am sorry, but you need to watch CNN. Even they called defense actions malpractice. The Defense buried these 3 idiots.
I trust my own judgement of the facts and arguments presented at trial. No matter what some idiot on TV or on the internet might believe.
 

Jarhyn

Contributor
And you would, too.
Actually I was once chased by one guy with a gun. As you can see I am still alive (and he is too)
Yes, you ran. And he did not kill you. Which is a good thing.
Who said I ran? I did not.
You said. "Chased" in English either means a particular form of shaping things, or for someone or something to be in pursuit of something else which is moving away from the first party. For you and someone else to be the parties of a "chase" you would be "running away".

I will be the first to admit language is mutable in many situations. This, however, is not so ambiguous, and the meaning of the word was not previously under contention in it's use.
 

Toni

Contributor
And you would, too.
Actually I was once chased by one guy with a gun. As you can see I am still alive (and he is too)
Yes, you ran. And he did not kill you. Which is a good thing.
Who said I ran? I did not.
You said. "Chased" in English either means a particular form of shaping things, or for someone to be running after you, specifically as you run away.

I will be the first to admit language is mutable in many situations. This, however, is not so ambiguous, and the meaning of the word was not previously under contention in it's use.
That's how I took it, too. If one is chased, it implies that at least initially, one ran. Which is sensible in the face of danger.
 

barbos

Contributor
You said. "Chased" in English either means a particular form of shaping things, or for someone or something to be in pursuit of something else which is moving away from the first party. For you and someone else to be the parties of a "chase" you would be "running away".
I was walking (away) and did not know I was being chased. I was wearing headphones and could not hear. So when the guy with a gun finally stopped me I did not try to run or take his gun.
 

Jarhyn

Contributor
You said. "Chased" in English either means a particular form of shaping things, or for someone or something to be in pursuit of something else which is moving away from the first party. For you and someone else to be the parties of a "chase" you would be "running away".
I was walking (away) and did not know I was being chased. I was wearing headphones and could not hear. So when the guy with a gun finally stopped me I did not try to run or take his gun.
This is not "chased" this is "stalked", "ambushed", "confronted", "assaulted", "approached", or "followed" depending on context and intent of use. Possibly even "chased after" which implies everything of a chase but to say that you merely left, and their approach was after the fact of a normal leaving.
 

barbos

Contributor
You said. "Chased" in English either means a particular form of shaping things, or for someone or something to be in pursuit of something else which is moving away from the first party. For you and someone else to be the parties of a "chase" you would be "running away".
I was walking (away) and did not know I was being chased. I was wearing headphones and could not hear. So when the guy with a gun finally stopped me I did not try to run or take his gun.
This is not "chased" this is "stalked", "ambushed", "confronted", "assaulted", "approached", or "followed" depending on context and intent of use. Possibly even "chased after" which implies everything of a chase but to say that you merely left, and their approach was after the fact of a normal leaving.
Not according to him, he had to run 500 meters to get to me.
Anyway, that's not the point, the point is that I did not try to get his gun or run away.
 

Arctish

Contributor
You said. "Chased" in English either means a particular form of shaping things, or for someone or something to be in pursuit of something else which is moving away from the first party. For you and someone else to be the parties of a "chase" you would be "running away".
I was walking (away) and did not know I was being chased. I was wearing headphones and could not hear. So when the guy with a gun finally stopped me I did not try to run or take his gun.
This is not "chased" this is "stalked", "ambushed", "confronted", "assaulted", "approached", or "followed" depending on context and intent of use. Possibly even "chased after" which implies everything of a chase but to say that you merely left, and their approach was after the fact of a normal leaving.
Or it was a random encounter between 2 people. It certainly wasn't anything like being hunted down and "trapped like a rat".
 

barbos

Contributor
You said. "Chased" in English either means a particular form of shaping things, or for someone or something to be in pursuit of something else which is moving away from the first party. For you and someone else to be the parties of a "chase" you would be "running away".
I was walking (away) and did not know I was being chased. I was wearing headphones and could not hear. So when the guy with a gun finally stopped me I did not try to run or take his gun.
This is not "chased" this is "stalked", "ambushed", "confronted", "assaulted", "approached", or "followed" depending on context and intent of use. Possibly even "chased after" which implies everything of a chase but to say that you merely left, and their approach was after the fact of a normal leaving.
Or it was a random encounter between 2 people. It certainly wasn't anything like being hunted down and "trapped like a rat".
Well, I was arrested handcuffed and after 3 moths of explaining myself fined, the fact that I spent time in US did not help me at all.
 

Arctish

Contributor
You said. "Chased" in English either means a particular form of shaping things, or for someone or something to be in pursuit of something else which is moving away from the first party. For you and someone else to be the parties of a "chase" you would be "running away".
I was walking (away) and did not know I was being chased. I was wearing headphones and could not hear. So when the guy with a gun finally stopped me I did not try to run or take his gun.
This is not "chased" this is "stalked", "ambushed", "confronted", "assaulted", "approached", or "followed" depending on context and intent of use. Possibly even "chased after" which implies everything of a chase but to say that you merely left, and their approach was after the fact of a normal leaving.
Or it was a random encounter between 2 people. It certainly wasn't anything like being hunted down and "trapped like a rat".
Well, I was arrested handcuffed and after 3 moths of explaining myself fined, the fact that I spent time in US did not help me at all.
So the guy with the gun was the cop. And you are comparing that with being chased, assaulted, struck, and threatened by vigilantes.
 

barbos

Contributor
So the guy with the gun was the cop. And you are comparing that with being chased, assaulted, struck, and threatened by vigilantes.
No, he was a border control guy and I knew why he would chase me, cause .... border :)
Yes, I am comparing. Like I, Arbery knew who they were and why were they after him.
 

Arctish

Contributor
So the guy with the gun was the cop. And you are comparing that with being chased, assaulted, struck, and threatened by vigilantes.
No, he was a border control guy and I knew why he would chase me, cause .... border :)
Yes, I am comparing. Like I, Arbery knew who they were and why were they after him.
How did he know that?

I'll be honest here. You appear to be bullshitting. You are making assertions that go beyond being unsupported - they are contrary to the known facts. But if you actually have evidence that Arbery knew who the McMichales and Bryan were and mistakenly believed they had the legal authority to detain him, I'd like to hear it.

But if all you're going to do is post more bullshit, don't bother.
 

Toni

Contributor
You said. "Chased" in English either means a particular form of shaping things, or for someone or something to be in pursuit of something else which is moving away from the first party. For you and someone else to be the parties of a "chase" you would be "running away".
I was walking (away) and did not know I was being chased. I was wearing headphones and could not hear. So when the guy with a gun finally stopped me I did not try to run or take his gun.
That was sensible of you.
 

Elixir

Content Thief
... he just trespassed construction site.

... which would have been misdemeanor trespassing, not a felony as required by the citizens arrest laws. And it would have had to have been witnessed by the murderers. It was never mentioned to the police when McMichael called. So ...
What was the reason that the murderers hunted him down and killed him? McMichael explained it to the dispatcher:

"There's a black man running down the street".

No mention of any crime witnessed or committed, not even misdemeanor trespassing.
Just running while black.
Fuck those racist jackasses. They should all die in prison.
 

Elixir

Content Thief
Fuck those racist jackasses. They should all die in prison.
Arbery died because he went for their gun.
He died because three racist jackasses hunted him down and murdered him.
Your cocksure assertion to the contrary is without basis in fact or reason.
There is no evidence that any different outcome would have occurred had he not tried to save his own life.
We can be quite certain that had those three racist jackasses not hunted him down and shot him, he would be alive today.
 
Fuck those racist jackasses. They should all die in prison.
Arbery died because he went for their gun.

Wrong, he went for the gun because they falsely imprisoned him, endangered his life, demonstrated recklessness and refused to act civilly with him.

If they had said, "Excuse me, sir. We have called the police [which they didn't call the police--wonder why?] and we are making a citizen's arrest to detain you. If you try to flee the scene, we are armed and will shoot, so don't," it would be a different scenario than 3 people chasing him with guns screaming and swearing at him and endangering his life also with the vehicles. But even moreso...

They were not even legally entitled to do that because they were not witnesses to any crime at all. They needed to call police and wait while they could probably legal follow him and wait for police to catch up.

Why wouldn't the criminals treat him civilly and legally...how did they perceive him?

You can tell by the words Travis McMichael uttered over Arbery's shot-up body.
 

Toni

Contributor
So the guy with the gun was the cop. And you are comparing that with being chased, assaulted, struck, and threatened by vigilantes.
No, he was a border control guy and I knew why he would chase me, cause .... border :)
Yes, I am comparing. Like I, Arbery knew who they were and why were they after him.
Border patrol was acting under some authority, I assume. I assume that you were crossing the border illegally or the border patrol had reason to believe that you were or had just done so. But I wouldn't bet my life on it. Border patrol and any law enforcement personnel and any human being can be wrong --or in the wrong.

The white supremacists who murdered Aubrey had no authority. Arbery may have been trespassing but he was hardly the only person who had trespassed on that construction site. The owner of the construction site did not report break ins and said that Arbery had not committed any crimes (at his site).https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/us/ahmaud-arbery-wednesday-surveillance-video/index.html

Arbery was being chased by 3 armed men in a pick up truck. He knew he was in danger from the men. When cornered, he tried to defend himself from the obvious threat of imminent death.
Wrong again - the assailants did not know he had done anything of that sort that day.
Nope, what assailants knew or did not know is irrelevant here, I am talking about Arbery.
So it is you who is wrong again and I am right again.
I am impressed with your magical powers of knowing what a dead man did or did not know or think or believe in the moments before he was murdered by 3 men who chased him down in a truck, while armed.
 
Top Bottom