Black Jogger Gunned Down In The Street

[Jokodo]

And no, witnessing someone who is obviously not a jogger (even if we grant you that) suddenly starting running does not constitute "imeddiate knowledge of a crime". It may be because the person just realised they were spotted doing something suspicious, or it may be because they got a call that their sister has been hospitalised. And even if it was the former, they may have understood that what they were doing looked suspicious because their intent was illegal, or because they suddenly realised what it might look like to others although their actual intent was innocent.

So, assume for the sake of the argument that he wasn't running until he was spotted. That's still no grounds for a citizen's arrest.

Well, maybe not for citizen arrest but I bet if you demonstratively start running at the sight of the police they would tun after you.

And this is relevant how?

 

[barbos]

And no, witnessing someone who is obviously not a jogger (even if we grant you that) suddenly starting running does not constitute "imeddiate knowledge of a crime". It may be because the person just realised they were spotted doing something suspicious, or it may be because they got a call that their sister has been hospitalised. And even if it was the former, they may have understood that what they were doing looked suspicious because their intent was illegal, or because they suddenly realised what it might look like to others although their actual intent was innocent.

So, assume for the sake of the argument that he wasn't running until he was spotted. That's still no grounds for a citizen's arrest.

Well, maybe not for citizen arrest but I bet if you demonstratively start running at the sight of the police they would tun after you.

And this is relevant how?

You were discussing it.

 

[Jokodo]

And this is relevant how?

You were discussing it.

At the sight of police? I'd like you to quite the sentence where I was discussing that.

 

[barbos]

And this is relevant how?

You were discussing it.

At the sight of police? I'd like you to quite the sentence where I was discussing that.

I did already.

 

[Jokodo]

At the sight of police? I'd like you to quite the sentence where I was discussing that.

I did already.

Nope, I the line you bolded expresses my sentiment that seeing someone start running does not constitute evidence of a crime. Police isn't even mentioned in that sentence.

 

[ruby sparks]

At the sight of police? I'd like you to quite the sentence where I was discussing that.

I did already.

I didn't see it.

As far as I can see, you've been repeatedly bringing up some sort of hypothetical alternative situation involving police that just isn't even relevant to the incident.

 

[barbos]

At the sight of police? I'd like you to quite the sentence where I was discussing that.

I did already.

Nope, I the line you bolded expresses my sentiment that seeing someone start running does not constitute evidence of a crime. Police isn't even mentioned in that sentence.

I never claimed it was mentioned.

 

[Arctish]

It doesn't seem really relevant to the case at hand.

Goes to reasonableness of suspicion that led McMichaelses to initiate the pursuit. The prosecution is claiming that Arbery was just a jogger. If he has stolen items in his possession, then that is clearly not true and McMichaelses pursuing him for citizens' arrest looks far more reasonable than if Arbery was "just a jogger". So the prosecution might not want these items to be checked for, but in interest of justice Arbery's domicile should have been searched. Now of course it is moot. His family had ample opportunity to get rid of any incriminating items.

Are you unfamiliar with the need for probable cause and/or a search warrant based on probable cause for a search of that sort to be legal?

Do you not understand that "I heard some fishing tackle was stolen a while ago and I think this guy took it because he ran past my house today" does not constitute probable cause for a search?

Most importantly, do you not understand that even if you can make an airtight case that Arbery had stolen fishing tackle sometime back, that doesn't make what the McMichaels did less criminal?

 

[barbos]

At the sight of police? I'd like you to quite the sentence where I was discussing that.

I did already.

I didn't see it.

Not my problem

As far as I can see, you've been repeatedly bringing up some sort of hypothetical alternative situation involving police that just isn't even relevant to the incident.

Oh you did see it. And yes, it's relevant to the discussion.

 

[ruby sparks]

I didn't see it.

Not my problem

As far as I can see, you've been repeatedly bringing up some sort of hypothetical alternative situation involving police that just isn't even relevant to the incident.

Oh you did see it. And yes, it's relevant to the discussion.

The first 'see it' was supposedly Jokodo, not you.

You are not making any sense whatsoever, either in your replies to me or Jokodo, on this page of the thread.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Most importantly, do you not understand that even if you can make an airtight case that Arbery had stolen fishing tackle sometime back, that doesn't make what the McMichaels did less criminal?

Derec often grants divine discernment to the white prople in such altercations. The ability to know an individual's arrest record on sight, the contents of their pockets, car, apartment, bloodstream, thus vindicating the assailants in advance of mere mortal justice. Saves time that way.

 

[Jarhyn]

Most importantly, do you not understand that even if you can make an airtight case that Arbery had stolen fishing tackle sometime back, that doesn't make what the McMichaels did less criminal?

Derec often grants divine discernment to the white prople in such altercations. The ability to know an individual's arrest record on sight, the contents of their pockets, car, apartment, bloodstream, thus vindicating the assailants in advance of mere mortal justice. Saves time that way.

Yes. I call it the Time Traveling Hitler defense: he was time traveling Hitler. Or the Psychic Cop defense.

 

[laughing dog]

Why would the police search for fishing tackle that has not been reported stolen?

According to that CNN article I cited it was reported.

According to English, it was not reported.

Because he was suspected in those burglaries. That's why he was followed after all.

Not by the police. While I am not lawyer, my understanding is that it is not sufficient for probable cause to search someone's home because a civilian says "I think he did it".

If he DID steal the gun and the tackle, would it not be good for police to know that?

Yes, but "good to know" is not a sufficient reason to get a search warrant.

 

[laughing dog]

Bryan had tried to help them stop Arbery earlier, according to an incident report

Does not make him a murderer.

Apparently not according to Georgia law. Perhaps you should offer to defend him for free.

[
Those who have demanded that Bryan be arrested even though he wasn't involved in the killing at all. Those who sent him death threats too.

First, he was involved in the incident - he helped them chase the victim. Second, you called those who demanded Bryan's arrest "anti-white racists". Perhaps somewhere, but I seriously doubt all or even most of them are "anti-white racists". Just like while some of the defenders of the posse and smearers of the victim are anti-black racists, I seriously doubt all or even most of them are "anti-black" racists.

 

[ruby sparks]

Most importantly, do you not understand that even if you can make an airtight case that Arbery had stolen fishing tackle sometime back, that doesn't make what the McMichaels did less criminal?

Derec often grants divine discernment to the white prople in such altercations. The ability to know an individual's arrest record on sight, the contents of their pockets, car, apartment, bloodstream, thus vindicating the assailants in advance of mere mortal justice. Saves time that way.

What obviously irritates derec, I think, is the mainstream and social media narrative (and the one taken here by some posters) that automatically takes the line 'yet another completely innocent, good, black person killed by bad, racist, white people'. Quite honestly, I think he has a point about that, in some respects. He just overstates it, imo. I think the point could be made in a reasonable, qualified way, and there's probably, imo, an interesting nuanced conversation to be had around it.

I'm sure we all agree here that it was a terrible, awful thing, that the killer should probably get convicted of manslaughter or somesuch crime that falls short of premeditated murder, and that there should be repercussions regarding the ridiculous delay in arresting the suspects. I haven't seen anyone suggest otherwise.

Beyond that, this case is just yet another excuse for an argument between the supposed lefties and supposed righties here in the forum, where it's more fun to disagree than agree, even though most of us probably do agree on the main points. It's a pity this doesn't come to the fore instead of the bickering.

 

[Toni]

Most importantly, do you not understand that even if you can make an airtight case that Arbery had stolen fishing tackle sometime back, that doesn't make what the McMichaels did less criminal?

Derec often grants divine discernment to the white prople in such altercations. The ability to know an individual's arrest record on sight, the contents of their pockets, car, apartment, bloodstream, thus vindicating the assailants in advance of mere mortal justice. Saves time that way.

What obviously irritates derec, I think, is the mainstream and social media narrative (and the one taken here by some posters) that automatically takes the line 'yet another completely innocent, good, black person killed by bad, racist, white people'. Quite honestly, I think he has a point about that, in some respects. He just overstates it, imo. I think the point could be made in a reasonable, qualified way, and there's probably, imo, an interesting nuanced conversation to be had around it.

I'm sure we all agree here that it was a terrible, awful thing, that the killer should probably get convicted of manslaughter or somesuch crime that falls short of premeditated murder, and that there should be repercussions regarding the ridiculous delay in arresting the suspects. I haven't seen anyone suggest otherwise.

Beyond that, this case is just yet another excuse for an argument between the supposed lefties and supposed righties here in the forum, where it's more fun to disagree than agree, even though most of us probably do agree on the main points. It's a pity this doesn't come to the fore instead of the bickering.

I think you are missing the overall point:

Black people in the US can be killed for anything, by anyone for any reason or no reason and the initial response from a lot of people, including law enforcement and some posters on this board is: They must have been up to no good---and a desperate search to find something in that person's past that will further the narrative that the person murdered was up to no good and the person who killed them is somehow justified in being judge, jury and executioner.

I can see that you truly do wish to find some middle ground: this was just a terrible mistake and maybe Arbery was really not such a great guy and the men who followed him with loaded weapons didn't mean any harm.


Unfortunately, that simply is not the case here or in far too many other cases. I get it that it's a bit different on your side of the pond. Private citizens do not ordinarily drive around in pick up trucks with loaded firearms, trying to 'help' the police who also are largely unarmed as well. Here, it's an actual problem.

 

[ruby sparks]

What obviously irritates derec, I think, is the mainstream and social media narrative (and the one taken here by some posters) that automatically takes the line 'yet another completely innocent, good, black person killed by bad, racist, white people'. Quite honestly, I think he has a point about that, in some respects. He just overstates it, imo. I think the point could be made in a reasonable, qualified way, and there's probably, imo, an interesting nuanced conversation to be had around it.

I'm sure we all agree here that it was a terrible, awful thing, that the killer should probably get convicted of manslaughter or somesuch crime that falls short of premeditated murder, and that there should be repercussions regarding the ridiculous delay in arresting the suspects. I haven't seen anyone suggest otherwise.

Beyond that, this case is just yet another excuse for an argument between the supposed lefties and supposed righties here in the forum, where it's more fun to disagree than agree, even though most of us probably do agree on the main points. It's a pity this doesn't come to the fore instead of the bickering.

I think you are missing the overall point:

Black people in the US can be killed for anything, by anyone for any reason or no reason and the initial response from a lot of people, including law enforcement and some posters on this board is: They must have been up to no good---and a desperate search to find something in that person's past that will further the narrative that the person murdered was up to no good and the person who killed them is somehow justified in being judge, jury and executioner.

I can see that you truly do wish to find some middle ground: this was just a terrible mistake and maybe Arbery was really not such a great guy and the men who followed him with loaded weapons didn't mean any harm.


Unfortunately, that simply is not the case here or in far too many other cases. I get it that it's a bit different on your side of the pond. Private citizens do not ordinarily drive around in pick up trucks with loaded firearms, trying to 'help' the police who also are largely unarmed as well. Here, it's an actual problem.

I honestly don’t think I’m missing the overall point. I get what you’re saying. I totally accept that as far as I can tell from afar, there are still, despite much progress during my lifetime, significant race problems in the USA and that blacks bear the brunt of it. I’m not blind to that and I did not say that this incident was merely a terrible mistake. And separately from any possible or potential racial aspect to this particular case specifically, there’s also the huge general issue about guns.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Yes, and so do you from when I posted it previously (emphasis mine):

My point is that this is contradictory to the statement that fishing tackle was stolen.

There was no “statement” that I can find. The only time that is mentioned is in the CNN article and it is not a direct quote. Regardless, the actual statement—as read by Larry English’s lawyer—supersedes any previous reportage, not “contradicts” anything.

And as I said, we have racist, Marxist, black militia, heavily armed [protestors], patrolling and intimidating [walking through] that neighborhood [on their way to a protest rally at the courthouse that one time].

Which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything, but fify since that is a constant with your posts.

By the way, was Arbery's domicile ever searched for fishing tackle, McMichael's gun or other potential stolen items?

Why would it be? As has been repeatedly confirmed already by the actual homeowner, nothing was ever stolen from the site. As for McMichael’s gun, no one witnessed Arbery as being the one who stole it. Why haven’t the police searched your home for the missing gun? You are just as likely to be the culprit as anyone else in Georgia.

 

[barbos]

What obviously irritates derec, I think, is the mainstream and social media narrative (and the one taken here by some posters) that automatically takes the line 'yet another completely innocent, good, black person killed by bad, racist, white people'. Quite honestly, I think he has a point about that, in some respects. He just overstates it, imo. I think the point could be made in a reasonable, qualified way, and there's probably, imo, an interesting nuanced conversation to be had around it.

I'm sure we all agree here that it was a terrible, awful thing, that the killer should probably get convicted of manslaughter or somesuch crime that falls short of premeditated murder, and that there should be repercussions regarding the ridiculous delay in arresting the suspects. I haven't seen anyone suggest otherwise.

Beyond that, this case is just yet another excuse for an argument between the supposed lefties and supposed righties here in the forum, where it's more fun to disagree than agree, even though most of us probably do agree on the main points. It's a pity this doesn't come to the fore instead of the bickering.

I think you are missing the overall point:

Black people in the US can be killed for anything, by anyone for any reason or no reason and the initial response from a lot of people, including law enforcement and some posters on this board is: They must have been up to no good---and a desperate search to find something in that person's past that will further the narrative that the person murdered was up to no good and the person who killed them is somehow justified in being judge, jury and executioner.

I can see that you truly do wish to find some middle ground: this was just a terrible mistake and maybe Arbery was really not such a great guy and the men who followed him with loaded weapons didn't mean any harm.


Unfortunately, that simply is not the case here or in far too many other cases. I get it that it's a bit different on your side of the pond. Private citizens do not ordinarily drive around in pick up trucks with loaded firearms, trying to 'help' the police who also are largely unarmed as well. Here, it's an actual problem.

Arbery was killed because he attacked a man with a gun, not because he was black. He could have been white that would not have changed outcome except it would not have been in the news,
You can argue that they pursued him because he was black and paint McMichaels as bloodthirsty racists, but that theory too have problems, because we know that Arbery was spotted trespassing just minutes before the shooting.

 

[Arctish]

What obviously irritates derec, I think, is the mainstream and social media narrative (and the one taken here by some posters) that automatically takes the line 'yet another completely innocent, good, black person killed by bad, racist, white people'. Quite honestly, I think he has a point about that, in some respects. He just overstates it, imo. I think the point could be made in a reasonable, qualified way, and there's probably, imo, an interesting nuanced conversation to be had around it.

I'm sure we all agree here that it was a terrible, awful thing, that the killer should probably get convicted of manslaughter or somesuch crime that falls short of premeditated murder, and that there should be repercussions regarding the ridiculous delay in arresting the suspects. I haven't seen anyone suggest otherwise.

Beyond that, this case is just yet another excuse for an argument between the supposed lefties and supposed righties here in the forum, where it's more fun to disagree than agree, even though most of us probably do agree on the main points. It's a pity this doesn't come to the fore instead of the bickering.

I think you are missing the overall point:

Black people in the US can be killed for anything, by anyone for any reason or no reason and the initial response from a lot of people, including law enforcement and some posters on this board is: They must have been up to no good---and a desperate search to find something in that person's past that will further the narrative that the person murdered was up to no good and the person who killed them is somehow justified in being judge, jury and executioner.

I can see that you truly do wish to find some middle ground: this was just a terrible mistake and maybe Arbery was really not such a great guy and the men who followed him with loaded weapons didn't mean any harm.


Unfortunately, that simply is not the case here or in far too many other cases. I get it that it's a bit different on your side of the pond. Private citizens do not ordinarily drive around in pick up trucks with loaded firearms, trying to 'help' the police who also are largely unarmed as well. Here, it's an actual problem.

Arbery was killed because he attacked a man with a gun, not because he was black. He could have been white that would not have changed outcome except it would not have been in the news,
You can argue that they pursued him because he was black and paint McMichaels as bloodthirsty racists, but that theory too have problems, because we know that Arbery was spotted trespassing just minutes before the shooting.

No, we don't know Arbery was spotted trespassing just minutes before the shooting. The McMichaels didn't see him until he ran past their house. English didn't look at the surveillance video after after Arbery had been killed. We know of no others who might have seen what Arbery was doing before the McMichaels went after him.

Every time you make that claim you are spreading disinformation, either deliberately or unwittingly. And every time you say Arbery assaulted Travis McMichael you get things perfectly backward.