Black Jogger Gunned Down In The Street

[Derec]

The homeowner said that nothing was ever taken

English is saying that now, but he might be intimidated by the heavily armed Black Panther thugs. He doesn't want his house getting burned down like a Ferguson QT, or worse.
Look at Ruddy. He merely recorded the video, and he is getting death threats. Imagine what would happen if English said that Arbery stole something!

 

[Arctish]

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.

Did either McMichael see Arbery trespassing? Did Bryan? Because if they didn't, then Arbery trespassing has no bearing on the case. It was not a factor in their decisions that day.

Did Greg McMichael recognize Arbery from their previous interaction during the shoplifting investigation? Did either of the other two men? Because if not, then it has no bearing on the case. It was not a factor in their decisions that day.

 

[Arctish]

The homeowner said that nothing was ever taken

English is saying that now, but he might be intimidated by the heavily armed Black Panther thugs. He doesn't want his house getting burned down like a Ferguson QT, or worse.
Look at Ruddy. He merely recorded the video, and he is getting death threats. Imagine what would happen if English said that Arbery stole something!

Oh, so now the Black Panthers are the reason English told the cop nothing was ever taken when they were discussing trespassing on the property back in December, and why no one reported any burglaries after that except for Travis McMichael reporting his gun was stolen in January? The Black Panthers are the reason the surveillance video shows multiple people wandering around not taking things?

 

[zorq]

The homeowner said that nothing was ever taken

English is saying that now, but he might be intimidated by the heavily armed Black Panther thugs. He doesn't want his house getting burned down like a Ferguson QT, or worse.
Look at Ruddy. He merely recorded the video, and he is getting death threats. Imagine what would happen if English said that Arbery stole something!

The only heavily armed angry thugs proven to live near this tragic event are white. Why aren't you worried about THEM? Nevermind. We all know the answer.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Rich people have money for lawyers

That would be the reason to arrest them more often.

Which is a statement that makes sense something something?

 

[Testy Calibrate]

He WAS a thief.


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.

That is the problem with bringing guns to confront people. Ah well, like I always say, just kill the people who have guns. It makes the world safer.

 

[repoman]

Setting aside reasonable fear of imminent harm, if Arbery let himself be citizen arrested what did he AT THE TIME think would be his fate in the legal system when the real police showed up?

He knew that technically he trespassed, but he also knew he did not steal anything.

 

[repoman]

He WAS a thief.


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.


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".


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.

That is the problem with bringing guns to confront people. Ah well, like I always say, just kill the people who have guns. It makes the world safer.

If you are going to make a citizens arrest without a gun against a superior physical opponent whose weapon status you don't know...

They should never have gotten close enough to Arbery in the first place to allow an altercation. Either trail at a safe distance or stay home.

 

[laughing dog]

Not smearing, just providing context.

In the past, Mr. Arbery was a thief. In the present, there is no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Arbery is a thief. Notice the difference in the tense (was vs is). That is providing context. The context you provide by repeating unsubstantiated claims of fact is a smearing of the victim.

Which is sorely lacking given the predominance of simplistic narratives like "he was just a jogger" [wearing non-athletic shorts no less].

The only evidence is that he was out jogging. As far as I know, there is no law (legal, fashion or sporting) on the mandatory type of pant (short or long) to wear when one jogs. Can you point to one because otherwise that looks pretty desperate in an attempt to smear the victim.

English is saying that now, but he might be intimidated by the heavily armed Black Panther thugs. He doesn't want his house getting burned down like a Ferguson QT, or worse.
Look at Ruddy. He merely recorded the video, and he is getting death threats. Imagine what would happen if English said that Arbery stole something!

Do you have any evidence that Mr. English is changing his story?

And this is the 2nd time in this thread you have referred to the Black Panthers as “thugs” while refraining from calling the actual heavily armed white men who killed a person. Putting that in context, what conclusion do you think most readers will draw?

 

[barbos]

Rich people have money for lawyers

That would be the reason to arrest them more often.

Which is a statement that makes sense something something?

Yes, it does make sense.

 

[repoman]

If police were mistaken in making an arrest (in good faith and not because of incompetence or excessive credulousness of a dicey tip) can an arrested who resisted that arrest have his ROA charge dropped?


Basically almost never, right?

But their is no "resisting citizens arrest" charge even if there is rock solid proof that the arresters know arrestee committed the crime.

So what is the point of citizens arrest except for extreme life ending/threatening criminals? Also at that point the CAers better have a powerful weapon or overwhelming bodily advantage.

You can add in "eluding police". Eluding citizens arrest is not a charge even for a criminal who did the crime the CAers are chasing him for.

 

[Jarhyn]

If police were mistaken in making an arrest (in good faith and not because of incompetence or excessive credulousness of a dicey tip) can an arrested who resisted that arrest have his ROA charge dropped?


Basically almost never, right?

But their is no "resisting citizens arrest" charge even if there is rock solid proof that the arresters know arrestee committed the crime.

So what is the point of citizens arrest except for extreme life ending/threatening criminals? Also at that point the CAers better have a powerful weapon or overwhelming bodily advantage.

You can add in "eluding police". Eluding citizens arrest is not a charge even for a criminal who did the crime the CAers are chasing him for.

This is more a functional criticism of the current vigilante justice laws that we call "citizen's arrest" than anything else.

 

[atrib]

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

Ok. Please explain how Mr Arbery's criminal record (a) influenced, and (b) justified the vigilante homicide perpetrated by the McMichaels. You may also want to explain why you always go hunting for the past misdeeds of black homicide victims but never seem interested in the past misdeeds of the people perpetrating those homicides.

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

If? Which part of my statement is in dispute? Did or did not the McMichaels form a posse, arm themselves, hunt down Mr Arbery and force a confrontation in which Mr Arbery was killed by one of the posse members? Were their actions callous and reckless, easily foreseeable as posing a risk of serious injury or death to the McMichaels themselves and to Mr Arbery? Yet here you are, highlighting Mr Arbery's actions as thievery, but apparently have no similar condemnation of the McMichaels' actions. Why is that?

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.

I don't believe you. In thread after thread, you routinely attack the character and motivation of black people who are the victims of violent attacks and homicide, but never condemn the actions or characters of those perpetrating these attacks. You are one of the most prejudiced people I know on these forums.

 

[Emily Lake]

The homeowner said that nothing was ever taken

English is saying that now, but he might be intimidated by the heavily armed Black Panther thugs. He doesn't want his house getting burned down like a Ferguson QT, or worse.
Look at Ruddy. He merely recorded the video, and he is getting death threats. Imagine what would happen if English said that Arbery stole something!

Oh, so now the Black Panthers are the reason English told the cop nothing was ever taken when they were discussing trespassing on the property back in December, and why no one reported any burglaries after that except for Travis McMichael reporting his gun was stolen in January? The Black Panthers are the reason the surveillance video shows multiple people wandering around not taking things?

Time traveling is a hallmark of the Black Panthers.

 

[Emily Lake]

This is more a functional criticism of the current vigilante justice laws that we call "citizen's arrest" than anything else.

I had always considered Citizen's Arrest to be more akin to "Good Samaritan" protections than state-sponsored vigilantism.

 

[ZiprHead]

Before Ahmaud Arbery's death, multiple people walked through construction site, report says

Homeowner Larry English confirmed to CNN through the release of new videos that several people had entered the construction site over the course of several months. CNN reported that it obtained 11 surveillance clips from Oct. 25, 2019, to Feb. 23, 2020, from attorney J. Elizabeth Graddy, who is representing English.

Among the people seen entering the site on separate occasions: A (white) man and woman, a man and even (white) children.

 

[Jarhyn]

This is more a functional criticism of the current vigilante justice laws that we call "citizen's arrest" than anything else.

I had always considered Citizen's Arrest to be more akin to "Good Samaritan" protections than state-sponsored vigilantism.

Since they allow and as Repo pointed out even encourage people to resist (since doing so is not illegal), combining this with the instance of lethal weapons being in the position whoa re so gung-ho as to operate a citizen's arrest, it makes for a bad situation.

If we removed any of a long list of elements from the situation, it might be remedied, but as we can see, we can't remove the lethal weapons because MAH GUNZ, it is unreasonable to ask people to not resist what may just be civilians kidnapping/murdering them under the auspicies of citizen's arrest, we are left with few good options, one being ending citizen's arrest entirely.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Before Ahmaud Arbery's death, multiple people walked through construction site, report says

Homeowner Larry English confirmed to CNN through the release of new videos that several people had entered the construction site over the course of several months. CNN reported that it obtained 11 surveillance clips from Oct. 25, 2019, to Feb. 23, 2020, from attorney J. Elizabeth Graddy, who is representing English.

Among the people seen entering the site on separate occasions: A (white) man and woman, a man and even (white) children.

We used to always go thru construction sites after work hours. It was cool, watching an empty lot be a construction site for day after day after day after suddenly it's a building.
Also got to see wiring and piping without having to knock your sister halfway thru a wall....

If they ever remodeled that house on Filmore, they might find what i considered to be a bad word in 1974.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

He WAS a thief.
...
You are the one skewing things.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

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.

And for that to be at all relevant it would necessarily have to mean that on February 23rd, Greg McMichael:

1. Knew who Arbery was and what he looked like (i.e, a very dark skinned black man with no dreadlocks and no tattoos covering both of his arms);
2. Knew Arbery took a plea deal three years prior for attempting to shoplift a TV;
3. Positively ID'd Arbery as the man jogging through the neighborhood, and based entirely on 2
4. Made the decision to grab a loaded handgun and instruct his son to grab a loaded shotgun in order to pursue Arbery.

ALL of which proves:

1. Greg McMichael knew Arbery did NOT fit the description of the man who had four times previously committed "burglaries" in the neighborhood;
2. Neither McMichael saw or caught Arbery in the act of committing any crime;
3. Even if Greg McMichael knew Arbery had attempted to shoplift a TV three years ago, that was not in any way justification for armed pursuit of Arbery three years after that event;
4. Travis McMichael had no justification at all for joining his father in armed pursuit.

So, once again, all you've done in your zeal to try to make Arbery appear to be a hardened career criminal is prove the McMichaels to have committed unjustifiable murder. If you're going to disingenuously adhere to a literallist perspective on the events when it comes to Arbery, then you must also apply the same standard to the ones who ACTUALLY committed a crime that day.