Black Jogger Gunned Down In The Street

[Arctish]

And Arbery was hardly innocent. We know he was a thief and we know he trespassed at that construction site, most likely looking for stuff to steal.

And we know that even if that's true, it's irrelevant.

The McMichaels didn't see him take anything. The homeowner said that nothing was ever taken. The only thing happening at that property was occasional trespassing and we have more than sufficient reason to believe Greg McMichael knew that.

Trespassing is not a felony. We have more than sufficient reason to believe Greg McMichael knew that, too. And McMichael didn't even see Arbery trespassing that day.

It appears the McMichaels would have gone after any black man jogging in their neighborhood on the presumption he was a burglar because he was black, and a black man had been seen trespassing. All the effort you're putting into making Arbery sound like a career criminal won't change the criminality of what the McMichaels did.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Not just accused. He was convicted.

Of attempted theft, not theft.

There is no such a thing as "attempted shoplifting". If you are caught trying to shoplift, you get prosecuted for shoplifting.

Wrong as YOU prove:

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES
CHAPTER 8 - OFFENSES INVOLVING THEFT
ARTICLE 1 - THEFT
§ 16-8-14 - Theft by shoplifting

(a) A person commits the offense of theft by shoplifting when he alone or in concert with another person, with the intent of appropriating merchandise to his own use without paying for the same or to deprive the owner of possession thereof or of the value thereof, in whole or in part, does any of the following:
(1) Conceals or takes possession of the goods or merchandise of any store or retail establishment;

He did not do that.

(2) Alters the price tag or other price marking on goods or merchandise of any store or retail establishment;

He did not do that.

(3) Transfers the goods or merchandise of any store or retail establishment from one container to another;

Nope.

(4) Interchanges the label or price tag from one item of merchandise with a label or price tag for another item of merchandise;

Nope.

or (5) Wrongfully causes the amount paid to be less than the merchant's stated price for the merchandise.

Congrats, you got five for five wrong.

and for that he got five years probation. Imagine what kind of time they threatened him with to plead out like that.

He did not have to do any jail time though.

Missing the point.

In any case, he had a prior from a few years earlier for which he was still on probation. He had brought a gun to a high school basketball game.

Right, so they clearly threatened him with serious jail time in order to get him to plead guilty to the attempted shoplifting. 65" Walmart TVs are all under $500, so even if he had been FOUND guilty in a court of law, it would have been a misdemeanor offense.

You can also clearly see that none of them have the TV.

Difficult to try to escape with a bulky, heavy item.

Especially when you're not stealing it.

Once they got discovered, they obviously jettisoned it.

"Obviously" being the operative term for you.

So not only is your observation completely irrelevant, it's not even accurate.

Bullshit. He got convicted.

Bullshit and you know it, you JUST posted the definition showing the difference between pleading guilty and being FOUND guilty in a court of law. So, no, he didn't "get" convicted. He made a plea agreement that garanteed no jail time in order to avoid risking a much longer sentence from a trial.

Whether the conviction is effected by a guilty plea or a trial is immaterial.

Bullest of bullshit. You're desperately trying to paint him as a thief based on nothing more than a bullshit accusation of being one among four others allegedly attempting to shoplift a TV they did not in fact shoplift. But even if he did try to steal the TV, it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what happened on the 23rd, even if the McMichaels positively identified Arbery on the day, but thanks for inadvertently confirming that Arbery was NOT the man seen inside English's home on the previous occasions that both McMicheals cited previously as their justification for giving Arbery chase.

 

[J842P]

And Arbery was hardly innocent. We know he was a thief and we know he trespassed at that construction site, most likely looking for stuff to steal.

And we know that even if that's true, it's irrelevant.

The McMichaels didn't see him take anything. The homeowner said that nothing was ever taken. The only thing happening at that property was occasional trespassing and we have more than sufficient reason to believe Greg McMichael knew that.

Trespassing is not a felony. We have more than sufficient reason to believe Greg McMichael knew that, too. And McMichael didn't even see Arbery trespassing that day.

It appears the McMichaels would have gone after any black man jogging in their neighborhood on the presumption he was a burglar because he was black, and a black man had been seen trespassing. All the effort you're putting into making Arbery sound like a career criminal won't change the criminality of what the McMichaels did.

This is the crux of the matter.

 

[Derec]

And we know that even if that's true, it's irrelevant.

If it's irrelevant, why are there claims that he wasn't a thief. Why is Koy so invested in claiming he was only "accused" (even though he plead guilty)?

I agree that the McMichaelses can still be guilty even if Arbery was a thief. But we should also set the record straight when people claim he was not a thief.

It appears the McMichaels would have gone after any black man jogging in their neighborhood on the presumption he was a burglar because he was black, and a black man had been seen trespassing.

That may or may not be the case.

 

[Derec]

Of attempted theft, not theft.

No, theft. Attempting to steal something and getting caught is still theft, even if Daily Fail uses the adjective "attempted".

Wrong as YOU prove:

You obviously lack even basic reading comprehension.

He did not do that.

What exactly do you think he did then?

Missing the point.

Not at all.

Right, so they clearly threatened him with serious jail time in order to get him to plead guilty to the attempted shoplifting.

Just because Daily Fail uses that particular adjective doesn't mean shit. As is clear from the Georgia statute, attempt at shoplifting and getting caught IS theft by shoplifting, not imaginary "attempted theft".

65" Walmart TVs are all under $500, so even if he had been FOUND guilty in a court of law,

He plead guilty in a court of law. That is a conviction as surely as if he had taken it to trial and there was a verdict of guilty.

(2) A person convicted of the offense of theft by shoplifting, as provided in subsection (a) of this Code section, when the property which was the subject of the theft exceeds $300.00 in value commits a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than ten years.

Another fail! You're on a roll! Besides, prices were probably somewhat higher 2.5 years ago.

it would have been a misdemeanor offense.

Page not loading for me, but in any case, the felony cutoff for shoplifting is $300 in Georgia, not $500.

Especially when you're not stealing it.

Why do you think he wasn't stealing it? Because he plead guilty to stealing it?

"Obviously" being the operative term for you.

And "oblivious" is the operative term for you.

Bullshit and you know it, you JUST posted the definition showing the difference between pleading guilty and being FOUND guilty in a court of law. So, no, he didn't "get" convicted. He made a plea agreement that garanteed no jail time in order to avoid risking a much longer sentence from a trial.

A guilty plea IS a conviction, as the definition I posted clearly shows.

The terms conviction and convicted refer to the final judgment on a verdict of guilty, a plea of guilty, or a plea of nolo contendere. They do not include a final judgment that has been deleted by a pardon, set aside, reversed, or otherwise rendered inoperative.

I am baffled you fail to comprehend this. A guilty plea results in a conviction.

Bullest of bullshit. You're desperately trying to paint him as a thief based on nothing more than a bullshit accusation of being one among four others allegedly attempting to shoplift a TV they did not in fact shoplift.

How do you know they did not shoplift the TV?
And him pleading guilty means he got convicted for stealing that TV, no matter how vociferously you want to pretend otherwise.

But even if he did try to steal the TV, it has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what happened on the 23rd, even if the McMichaels positively identified Arbery on the day, but thanks for inadvertently confirming that Arbery was NOT the man seen inside English's home on the previous occasions that both McMicheals cited previously as their justification for giving Arbery chase.

It has no direct bearing. But him being a thief means that it is much more likely he was looking for shit to steal than if he wasn't a thief.

P(AA looking for shit to steal|AA is a convicted thief) >> P(AA looking for shit to steal|AA is not a convicted thief)

 

[laughing dog]

It has no direct bearing. But him being a thief means that it is much more likely he was looking for shit to steal than if he wasn't a thief.

He was a thief. There is no evidence that he was a thief at that time. In fact, there is no evidence that the trespasser was a thief. So why do you keep smearing the victim?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

And we know that even if that's true, it's irrelevant.

If it's irrelevant, why are there claims that he wasn't a thief.

Because some profoundly disingenuous people in the world are desperately trying to paint him as a "thief"--iow, a far more nefarious and dangerous career criminal instead of the kid that he actually was--in an effort to imply that his death was justified and/or that the McMichaels' armed pursuit of him was justified. It was not, even if Greg McMichael knew that Arbery had taken a plea agreement three years ago to attempted shoplifting and had thereby positively identified Arbery, so repeatedly saying Arbery was a "thief" is in no way relevant to the present situation, even if it were true.

And, further, if Greg M had positively identified Arbery on Feb 23rd and knew he had pleaded guilty to attempted shoplifting three years ago and THAT is why he and his son decided to grab their guns and illegally pursue him, Arbery did not fit the description given to Greg McMichael by Officer Rash of the man who had repeatedly trespassed on English's property.

Which means the ONLY justification Greg McMichael could possibly provide for his (and his son's fatal) actions on Feb 23 was that, he knew Arbery, recognized him as the man running and knew Arbery had once allegedly tried to steal a TV from a Walmart three years ago and therefore assumed he had been trying to steal from English just on that day and no other, so off he and his son went with weapons loaded. Full stop.

So, again, congratulations. You've just established that Greg McMichael did NOT witness Arbery committing a crime on Feb 23rd, knew that Arbery did not fit the description of the man who had trespassed repeatedly on English's property and the only crime McMichael could possibly connect him to happened three fucking years ago.

So, absolute confirmation that the McMichaels had zero justification for armed pursuit, let alone murder. Nicely done

But we should also set the record straight when people claim he was not a thief.

Which is precisely what I was doing; setting the record straight as opposed to skewed in a demonstrably unjustifiable--and deeply ironic--manner.

 

[Arctish]

And we know that even if that's true, it's irrelevant.

If it's irrelevant, why are there claims that he wasn't a thief. Why is Koy so invested in claiming he was only "accused" (even though he plead guilty)?

Perhaps they want to keep the discussion focused on the shooting, not irrelevancies you find somewhere on the internet.

Perhaps they are attempting to highlight and correct the fallacious thinking behind the effort to paint Arbery as a burglar.

Perhaps they want to be very precise in order to minimize opportunities for others to play fast and loose with the facts.

Perhaps they took the bait being dangled so temptingly in this thread.

It doesn't matter why. That's irrelevant, too.

I agree that the McMichaelses can still be guilty even if Arbery was a thief. But we should also set the record straight when people claim he was not a thief.

It appears the McMichaels would have gone after any black man jogging in their neighborhood on the presumption he was a burglar because he was black, and a black man had been seen trespassing.

That may or may not be the case.

Agreed.

It looks that way, though.

 

[Arctish]

f Greg M had positively identified Arbery on Feb 23rd and knew he had pleaded guilty to attempted shoplifting three years ago and THAT is why he and his son decided to grab their guns and illegally pursue him, Arbery did not fit the description given to Greg McMichael by Officer Rash of the man who had repeatedly trespassed on English's property.

Which means the ONLY justification Greg McMichael could possibly provide for his (and his son's fatal) actions on Feb 23 was that, he knew Arbery, recognized him as the man running and knew Arbery had once allegedly tried to steal a TV from a Walmart three years ago and therefore assumed he had been trying to steal from English just on that day and no other, so off he and his son went with weapons loaded. Full stop.

So, again, congratulations. You've just established that Greg McMichael did NOT witness Arbery committing a crime on Feb 23rd, knew that Arbery did not fit the description of the man who had trespassed repeatedly on English's property and the only crime McMichael could possibly connect him to happened three fucking years ago.

Which would make Arbery's death a lynching.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[atrib]

So what does the shoplifting charge have to do with the McMichaels and Roddy chasing after Arbery in their trucks and Travis killing him?

I was just correcting the claim that he wasn't a thief. He took something that wasn't his. That's a thief.

Are you implying that Greg McMichael recognized Arbery from that case, judged him guilty of being a burglar despite the absence of burglaries, and hunted him down?

I wasn't implying anything, I was merely setting the record straight.
That said, I think it is conceivable, albeit unlikely, that he was recognized from that previous case.
However, the mere fact that he was a thief makes it more likely he was looking for stuff to steal (rather than "looking around" or "looking for water") compared to a random person.

What does Mr Arbery's criminal record have to do with the fact that the McMichaels formed a posse, armed themselves, hunted down and ultimately killed Mr Arbery? I know, nothing. You are throwing up Mr Arbery's past actions as a smokescreen to divert attention from the illegal vigilante killing perpetrated by the McMichaels. The McMichaels killed a human being through their callous and reckless actions, which is FAR, FAR worse than any crime Mr Arbery has ever been accused of. I understand that you hold a low opinion of black people and appear to place little value on their lives, but Mr Arbery is the victim here, and if you cannot bring yourself to criticize the McMichaels for what they did, you should at least hold your tongue and not flaunt your racial prejudice so flagrantly.

 

[Jarhyn]

I was just correcting the claim that he wasn't a thief. He took something that wasn't his. That's a thief.


I wasn't implying anything, I was merely setting the record straight.
That said, I think it is conceivable, albeit unlikely, that he was recognized from that previous case.
However, the mere fact that he was a thief makes it more likely he was looking for stuff to steal (rather than "looking around" or "looking for water") compared to a random person.

What does Mr Arbery's criminal record have to do with the fact that the McMichaels formed a posse, armed themselves, hunted down and ultimately killed Mr Arbery? I know, nothing. You are throwing up Mr Arbery's past actions as a smokescreen to divert attention from the illegal vigilante killing perpetrated by the McMichaels. The McMichaels killed a human being through their callous and reckless actions, which is FAR, FAR worse than any crime Mr Arbery has ever been accused of. I understand that you hold a low opinion of black people and appear to place little value on their lives, but Mr Arbery is the victim here, and if you cannot bring yourself to criticize the McMichaels for what they did, you should at least hold your tongue and not flaunt your racial prejudice so flagrantly.

It has everything to do with it. Obviously, McMichaels saw a Hitler stache on Arbery and knew instantly that it was a Time Traveling Hitler! It's clearly justified after the fact because he was TTH!

They will never stop making TTH claims, no matter how often you explain that the ethics of it demand knowledge before, not after the fact.

Assumptions of TTH based on shitty mustaches are not enough to run someone over in the street.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

But it begs the question as to why the police make most of their drug arrests in low-income minority neighborhoods in the first place when whites do more drugs than people of color. Is that driven by "implicit bias" or racism?

Actually, there are two reasons for this:

1) It's much easier to bust poor people for drugs than to bust rich people for drugs. Rich people drug activity is usually behind closed doors, it's much harder to catch them.

2) Cops often are after the secondary crimes that stem from drugs. Rich people have the money for drugs, there are far fewer secondary crimes. Remember the big ruckus about sentencing disparity for crack vs cocaine? That was because crack users do far more harm to society than cocaine users, not about race.

Rich people have money for lawyers

 

[barbos]

But it begs the question as to why the police make most of their drug arrests in low-income minority neighborhoods in the first place when whites do more drugs than people of color. Is that driven by "implicit bias" or racism?

Actually, there are two reasons for this:

1) It's much easier to bust poor people for drugs than to bust rich people for drugs. Rich people drug activity is usually behind closed doors, it's much harder to catch them.

2) Cops often are after the secondary crimes that stem from drugs. Rich people have the money for drugs, there are far fewer secondary crimes. Remember the big ruckus about sentencing disparity for crack vs cocaine? That was because crack users do far more harm to society than cocaine users, not about race.

Rich people have money for lawyers

That would be the reason to arrest them more often.

 

[Derec]

What does Mr Arbery's criminal record have to do with the fact that the McMichaels formed a posse, armed themselves, hunted down and ultimately killed Mr Arbery?

Maybe something, maybe nothing. But to insist that he wasn't a thief like Koy is trying to do is just disingenuous.

You are throwing up Mr Arbery's past actions as a smokescreen to divert attention from the illegal vigilante killing perpetrated by the McMichaels. The McMichaels killed a human being through their callous and reckless actions, which is FAR, FAR worse than any crime Mr Arbery has ever been accused of.

If they are guilty, then yes, they are guilty of a crime far worse than Arbery's thievery and gun offense.

I understand that you hold a low opinion of black people

Not true! I just have a low opinion of simplistic narratives like "Dying for Skittles", "Getting killed for jaywalking" or "Lynched while jogging" that are a staple of #BLM mythmaking.

 

[Derec]

Perhaps they want to keep the discussion focused on the shooting, not irrelevancies you find somewhere on the internet.

In that case they would acknowledge that he was a thief and not needlessly prolong that part of discussion with abject nonsense like "he was only accused and not convicted because he plead guilty".

Perhaps they are attempting to highlight and correct the fallacious thinking behind the effort to paint Arbery as a burglar.

It is not proven that he is a burglar, but neither is it an outlandish notion given his criminal record.

Perhaps they want to be very precise in order to minimize opportunities for others to play fast and loose with the facts.

Koy is not "precise". He thinks a guilty plea is not a conviction. He thinks somebody who gets caught trying to steal a 65" TV is not a thief.

 

[Derec]

Because some profoundly disingenuous people in the world are desperately trying to paint him as a "thief"--

He WAS a thief.

iow, a far more nefarious and dangerous career criminal instead of the kid that he actually was--

He was 25. Not a "kid" by any stretch of the imagination. And nobody is claiming he was necessarily a career criminal. But he was a thief.

in an effort to imply that his death was justified and/or that the McMichaels' armed pursuit of him was justified.

I think McMichaelses probably overreacted. I think they did not intend to shoot him until he grabbed that gun.
On the other hand, I think it's likely he wasn't "just jogging".

It was not, even if Greg McMichael knew that Arbery had taken a plea agreement three years ago to attempted shoplifting and had thereby positively identified Arbery, so repeatedly saying Arbery was a "thief" is in no way relevant to the present situation, even if it were true.

Whether it is relevant or not, he was a thief. Why is it so hard for you to admit that?

And, further, if Greg M had positively identified Arbery on Feb 23rd and knew he had pleaded guilty to attempted shoplifting three years ago and THAT is why he and his son decided to grab their guns and illegally pursue him, Arbery did not fit the description given to Greg McMichael by Officer Rash of the man who had repeatedly trespassed on English's property.

So maybe he thought the description was inaccurate. Or that there was a second burglar. When Arbery stole that TV, he was part of a four man crew. Why not here too?

Which means the ONLY justification Greg McMichael could possibly provide for his (and his son's fatal) actions on Feb 23 was that, he knew Arbery, recognized him as the man running and knew Arbery had once allegedly tried to steal a TV from a Walmart

Not alleged. Why do you keep trying to minimize his behavior?

So, absolute confirmation that the McMichaels had zero justification for armed pursuit, let alone murder. Nicely done

If they genuinely believed that McMichaels was a burglar, they probably had justification to pursue. One doesn't, by definition, have justification to murder somebody, but again, I do not think they intended to shoot him.

Which is precisely what I was doing; setting the record straight as opposed to skewed in a demonstrably unjustifiable--and deeply ironic--manner.

You are the one skewing things.

 

[Arctish]

In that case they would acknowledge that he was a thief and not needlessly prolong that part of discussion with abject nonsense like "he was only accused and not convicted because he plead guilty".



It is not proven that he is a burglar, but neither is it an outlandish notion given his criminal record.

Perhaps they want to be very precise in order to minimize opportunities for others to play fast and loose with the facts.

Koy is not "precise". He thinks a guilty plea is not a conviction. He thinks somebody who gets caught trying to steal a 65" TV is not a thief.

You skipped this part of my post:

It doesn't matter why. That's irrelevant, too.

Why some posters are objecting your characterization of the shoplifting charge is irrelevant.

Whether Arbery was guilty of attempting to shoplift from Wal Mart is also irrelevant unless you have evidence that it influenced Travis and Greg McMichael's actions or was a factor in William "Roddy" Bryan's involvement.

 

[Derec]

He was a thief.

Now try getting that through Koy's thick skull!

There is no evidence that he was a thief at that time. In fact, there is no evidence that the trespasser was a thief. So why do you keep smearing the victim?

Not smearing, just providing context. Which is sorely lacking given the predominance of simplistic narratives like "he was just a jogger" [wearing non-athletic shorts no less].

 

[Derec]

Why some posters are objecting your characterization of the shoplifting charge is irrelevant to the discussion of a black jogger having been gunned down in the street.

It's ok to discuss relevance. It's not ok to pretend that he was only "accused" of being a shoplifter when he pled guilty to it.

Whether Arbery was guilty of attempting to shoplift from Wal Mart is irrelevant unless you can provide evidence that it influenced Travis and Greg McMichael's actions or was a factor in William "Roddy" Bryan 's involvement.

I am not arguing that it necessarily did affect them. I was mainly arguing that him being a thief makes it much more likely he was looking for stuff to steal when he trespassed at the construction site than otherwise.