Black Jogger Gunned Down In The Street

[barbos]

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.

There is a surveillance video where Arbery is seen entering and leaving the house, and there is the fourth person there who sees him. That's a fact.
McMichaels did not know that is seems. If they had known they would have obviously mentioned it. We can't be sure what Roddie knew, it's unlikely but still possible that he knew that but forgot to tell it McMichaels. Older McMichaels said that they told Arbery that they wanted to talk to him, that's inconsistent with your theory they wanted to kill him, but they could be lying. What can't be lying is the video which is perfectly clear in showing Arbery attacking Travis.

 

[Arctish]

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.

There is a surveillance video where Arbery is seen entering and leaving the house

Which no one saw until after Arbery had been killed.

, and there is the fourth person there who sees him. That's a fact.

What fourth person? Who are you talking about?

McMichaels did not know that is seems. If they had known they would have obviously mentioned it. We can't be sure what Roddie knew, it's unlikely but still possible that he knew that but forgot to tell it McMichaels.

Roddy told the police he saw the McMichaels chasing someone he didn't recognize so he decided to get in his truck and help them get the guy. He did not see anyone trespassing.

Older McMichaels said that they told Arbery that they wanted to talk to him, that's inconsistent with your theory they wanted to kill him, but they could be lying.

I did not say they wanted to kill him. That is not my theory.

What can't be lying is the video which is perfectly clear in showing Arbery attacking Travis.

The video shows Greg and Travis McMichael committing aggravated assault against Arbery by pursuing and harassing him with their truck. It shows Travis brandishing a shotgun which BTW is aggravated assault all by itself. And it shows Arbery going around the truck on the side away from Travis, and Travis moving to intercept him at close range while armed, which is also aggravated assault.

What the video doesn't show is the moment the confrontation turned physical. There is nothing "perfectly clear" about what happened at the front of the truck.

What is perfectly clear is that you are not a reliable source of information on this topic.

 

[barbos]

There is a surveillance video where Arbery is seen entering and leaving the house

Which no one saw until after Arbery had been killed.

So what? fact is, he was seen and he was aware of that and it made him behave in highly suspicious manner.

, and there is the fourth person there who sees him. That's a fact.

What fourth person? Who are you talking about?

In that video.

McMichaels did not know that is seems. If they had known they would have obviously mentioned it. We can't be sure what Roddie knew, it's unlikely but still possible that he knew that but forgot to tell it McMichaels.

Roddy told the police he saw the McMichaels chasing someone he didn't recognize so he decided to get in his truck and help them get the guy. He did not see anyone trespassing.

That will most likely make him walk free.

Older McMichaels said that they told Arbery that they wanted to talk to him, that's inconsistent with your theory they wanted to kill him, but they could be lying.

I did not say they wanted to kill him. That is not my theory.

Well, some here propose this theory.

What can't be lying is the video which is perfectly clear in showing Arbery attacking Travis.

The video shows Greg and Travis McMichael committing aggravated assault against Arbery by pursuing and harassing him with their truck. It shows Travis brandishing a shotgun which BTW is aggravated assault all by itself. And it shows Arbery going around the truck on the side away from Travis, and Travis moving to intercept him at close range while armed, which is also aggravated assault.

What the video doesn't show is the moment the confrontation turned physical. There is nothing "perfectly clear" about what happened at the front of the truck.

It's perfectly clear.

What is perfectly clear is that you are not a reliable source of information on this topic.

Nope, it's you

 

[TV and credit cards]

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.

There is a surveillance video where Arbery is seen entering and leaving the house, and there is the fourth person there who sees him. That's a fact.
McMichaels did not know that is seems. If they had known they would have obviously mentioned it. We can't be sure what Roddie knew, it's unlikely but still possible that he knew that but forgot to tell it McMichaels. Older McMichaels said that they told Arbery that they wanted to talk to him, that's inconsistent with your theory they wanted to kill him, but they could be lying. What can't be lying is the video which is perfectly clear in showing Arbery attacking Travis.

Bold:

In reality we call that fighting for your life.

In this country, no civilian is under any obligation to submit to questioning by another. Arbery acted appropriately by initially trying to avoid confrontation. Arbery acted appropriately and had every reason to believe his life was in danger when McMichaels persisted and approached him with gun in hand, not shouldered, not holstered, but in hand. McMichaels actions were excessive for the situation. He had no business approaching Arbery with gun in hand. That is excessive for the situation. Citizen's arrest laws were largely enacted so merchants could detain shoplifters, bystanders could stop crimes they are witnessing. McMichaels, in attempting a citizen's arrest had the responsibility to ensure excessive force would not be used. With Arbery unarmed, McMichaels brought that excessive force with him, in hand. McMichaels proper course of action was to call police and continue to follow Arbery.

 

[Arctish]

So what? fact is, he was seen and he was aware of that and it made him behave in highly suspicious manner.

Who saw him? Be specific.

And how do you know he knew he'd been seen? Please explain.

, and there is the fourth person there who sees him. That's a fact.

What fourth person? Who are you talking about?

In that video.

Do you mean Roddy Bryan?

What can't be lying is the video which is perfectly clear in showing Arbery attacking Travis.

The video shows Greg and Travis McMichael committing aggravated assault against Arbery by pursuing and harassing him with their truck. It shows Travis brandishing a shotgun which BTW is aggravated assault all by itself. And it shows Arbery going around the truck on the side away from Travis, and Travis moving to intercept him at close range while armed, which is also aggravated assault.

What the video doesn't show is the moment the confrontation turned physical. There is nothing "perfectly clear" about what happened at the front of the truck.

It's perfectly clear.

It's perfectly obscured and out of view. It literally cannot be seen.

What is perfectly clear is that you are not a reliable source of information on this topic.

Nope, it's you

Well if we're going to resort to grade school rhetorical arguments, I'm rubber and you're glue.

 

[ruby sparks]

There is a surveillance video where Arbery is seen entering and leaving the house, and there is the fourth person there who sees him. That's a fact.
McMichaels did not know that is seems. If they had known they would have obviously mentioned it. We can't be sure what Roddie knew, it's unlikely but still possible that he knew that but forgot to tell it McMichaels. Older McMichaels said that they told Arbery that they wanted to talk to him, that's inconsistent with your theory they wanted to kill him, but they could be lying. What can't be lying is the video which is perfectly clear in showing Arbery attacking Travis.

Bold:

In reality we call that fighting for your life.

In this country, no civilian is under any obligation to submit to questioning by another. Arbery acted appropriately by initially trying to avoid confrontation. Arbery acted appropriately and had every reason to believe his life was in danger when McMichaels persisted and approached him with gun in hand, not shouldered, not holstered, but in hand. McMichaels actions were excessive for the situation. He had no business approaching Arbery with gun in hand. That is excessive for the situation. Citizen's arrest laws were largely enacted so merchants could detain shoplifters, bystanders could stop crimes they are witnessing. McMichaels, in attempting a citizen's arrest had the responsibility to ensure excessive force would not be used. With Arbery unarmed, McMichaels brought that excessive force with him, in hand. McMichaels proper course of action was to call police and continue to follow Arbery.

Well said, imo.

I think it is an extremely harsh judgement on arbery to criticise him, in all the circumstances, for not behaving differently. Most likely he was very scared and may have tried to avoid being shot (in the back, if he had continued running, or even if he had just stopped). McMichael clearly moves around the truck to intercept him, gun in hand. He probably wasn’t intending to shoot him. I would almost rule that out. But there is no question whatsoever that he initiated the close quarters confrontation.

Arbery may also have noticed younger mcmichael on the back of the truck with a gun and apparently the other car chasing him. How would he not have been scared for his life?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

In this country, no civilian is under any obligation to submit to questioning by another. Arbery acted appropriately by initially trying to avoid confrontation. Arbery acted appropriately and had every reason to believe his life was in danger when McMichaels persisted and approached him with gun in hand, not shouldered, not holstered, but in hand. McMichaels actions were excessive for the situation. He had no business approaching Arbery with gun in hand. That is excessive for the situation. Citizen's arrest laws were largely enacted so merchants could detain shoplifters, bystanders could stop crimes they are witnessing. McMichaels, in attempting a citizen's arrest had the responsibility to ensure excessive force would not be used. With Arbery unarmed, McMichaels brought that excessive force with him, in hand. McMichaels proper course of action was to call police and continue to follow Arbery.

If the caught him they could hold him for the police.

I fully agree they are total idiots, but I'm not convinced they were acting illegally.

 

[Arctish]

In this country, no civilian is under any obligation to submit to questioning by another. Arbery acted appropriately by initially trying to avoid confrontation. Arbery acted appropriately and had every reason to believe his life was in danger when McMichaels persisted and approached him with gun in hand, not shouldered, not holstered, but in hand. McMichaels actions were excessive for the situation. He had no business approaching Arbery with gun in hand. That is excessive for the situation. Citizen's arrest laws were largely enacted so merchants could detain shoplifters, bystanders could stop crimes they are witnessing. McMichaels, in attempting a citizen's arrest had the responsibility to ensure excessive force would not be used. With Arbery unarmed, McMichaels brought that excessive force with him, in hand. McMichaels proper course of action was to call police and continue to follow Arbery.

If the caught him they could hold him for the police.

I fully agree they are total idiots, but I'm not convinced they were acting illegally.

Attempting to 'catch' someone without justification under the law is illegal, even if your plan is to hold them for the police.

ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS
§ 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

The McMichaels did not see Arbery commit a crime and they had no immediate knowledge of one. Being suspicious of Arbery because he kinda sorta resembled a guy Travis saw a few weeks earlier who ran into the house under construction and wandered around with a flashlight isn't good enough. They needed "reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion" that Arbery had committed a felony, not just guesses about him committing a misdemeanor or thinking he was the one who stole Travis' gun back in January because <reasons>.

 

[Rhea]

I fully agree they are total idiots, but I'm not convinced they were acting illegally

Attempting to 'catch' someone without justification under the law is illegal, even if your plan is to hold them for the police.

ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS
§ 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

The McMichaels did not see Arbery commit a crime and they had no immediate knowledge of one. Being suspicious of Arbery because he kinda sorta resembled a guy Travis saw a few weeks earlier who ran into the house under construction and wandered around with a flashlight isn't good enough. They needed "reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion" that Arbery had committed a felony, not just guesses about him committing a misdemeanor or thinking he was the one who stole Travis' gun back in January because <reasons>.

Loren, this should convince you that they were acting illegally.
Why doesn't it?

 

[barbos]

So what is the punishment for "illegal" "catch" of someone? Keep in mind it was a "mistaken" variety of "illegal" which happens all the time during police stops.

You need to change or clarify the law, instead of accusing people of racism. Otherwise this shit would continue.

 

[ruby sparks]

The other way to reduce the risk of such incidents occurring in future would be if somehow the blacks could be persuaded to behave properly.

 

[barbos]

The other way to reduce the risk of such incidents occurring in future would be if somehow the blacks could be persuaded to behave properly.

I see what you did there

 

[TV and credit cards]

So what is the punishment for "illegal" "catch" of someone? Keep in mind it was a "mistaken" variety of "illegal" which happens all the time during police stops.

You need to change or clarify the law, instead of accusing people of racism. Otherwise this shit would continue.

Wrongfully detaining someone can be a misdemeanor or felony depending on the circumstances. Civilians also can be sued for such actions if they are wrong. They do not have the leeway the courts allow law enforcement. This is why immediate knowledge of the crime is necessary for a citizen’s arrest. It keeps the person doing the apprehending out of trouble.

 

[J842P]

So what is the punishment for "illegal" "catch" of someone? Keep in mind it was a "mistaken" variety of "illegal" which happens all the time during police stops.

You need to change or clarify the law, instead of accusing people of racism. Otherwise this shit would continue.

Wrongfully detaining someone can be a misdemeanor or felony depending on the circumstances. Civilians also can be sued for such actions if they are wrong. They do not have the leeway the courts allow law enforcement. This is why immediate knowledge of the crime is necessary for a citizen’s arrest. It keeps the person doing the apprehending out of trouble.

The classic examples of situations where citizen's arrest are appropriate are things like a purse-snatcher being detained or a shopkeeper detaining someone who tried to shoplift from their store.

It will come down to whether or not these men were justified in trying to obtain a citizen's arrest, otherwise, this is clearly aggravated assault. Certainly mens rea will play into this, but typically, this can involve simply being reckless and not necessarily intending to commit a crime. And personally, I think this was clearly reckless. But it will be up to a jury to decide.


I will say this again, the galling aspect of this all is that the McMichaels weren't even charged.

 

[laughing dog]

So what is the punishment for "illegal" "catch" of someone? Keep in mind it was a "mistaken" variety of "illegal" which happens all the time during police stops.

You need to change or clarify the law, instead of accusing people of racism. Otherwise this shit would continue.

That makes no sense. The accusation of racism comes after the fact of the incident. Whatever motivates people like the McMicheals to behave as they did, it did not depend on anyone calling them racists.

 

[barbos]

So what is the punishment for "illegal" "catch" of someone? Keep in mind it was a "mistaken" variety of "illegal" which happens all the time during police stops.

You need to change or clarify the law, instead of accusing people of racism. Otherwise this shit would continue.

Wrongfully detaining someone can be a misdemeanor or felony depending on the circumstances. Civilians also can be sued for such actions if they are wrong. They do not have the leeway the courts allow law enforcement. This is why immediate knowledge of the crime is necessary for a citizen’s arrest. It keeps the person doing the apprehending out of trouble.

The classic examples of situations where citizen's arrest are appropriate are things like a purse-snatcher being detained or a shopkeeper detaining someone who tried to shoplift from their store.

It will come down to whether or not these men were justified in trying to obtain a citizen's arrest, otherwise, this is clearly aggravated assault.

So their intent is irrelevant? In one case robbery goes badly and in another "arrest" goes badly and it's all the same?

I will say this again, the galling aspect of this all is that the McMichaels weren't even charged.

Yes, it's remarkable how easily dead person can be discounted.

 

[Rhea]

So what is the punishment for "illegal" "catch" of someone? Keep in mind it was a "mistaken" variety of "illegal" which happens all the time during police stops.

You need to change or clarify the law, instead of accusing people of racism. Otherwise this shit would continue.

Well, if it were a false claim of rape, folks in this discussion would want them charged with whatever punishment they were trying to inflict on their "catch," right?

So put the McMichaels in jail for "felony larceny and resisting arrest." Plus murder, since the McMichaels were accusing him of "assault" by grabbing the gun.


So yeah, basically charge the McDaniels with everything that Loren and Derec and Co say that Arbery did wrong.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Attempting to 'catch' someone without justification under the law is illegal, even if your plan is to hold them for the police.



The McMichaels did not see Arbery commit a crime and they had no immediate knowledge of one. Being suspicious of Arbery because he kinda sorta resembled a guy Travis saw a few weeks earlier who ran into the house under construction and wandered around with a flashlight isn't good enough. They needed "reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion" that Arbery had committed a felony, not just guesses about him committing a misdemeanor or thinking he was the one who stole Travis' gun back in January because <reasons>.

Loren, this should convince you that they were acting illegally.
Why doesn't it?

It looks likely that he did commit a felony--burglary. The lack of anything stolen doesn't rebut this--construction sites usually have nothing worth stealing because theft is such a problem that companies do what they can to prevent it.

I find it quite a coincidence that despite supposedly having no knowledge of what went down they managed to go after a probable burglar. More likely they knew and thus were acting legally, albeit extremely stupidly.

 

[laughing dog]

Attempting to 'catch' someone without justification under the law is illegal, even if your plan is to hold them for the police.



The McMichaels did not see Arbery commit a crime and they had no immediate knowledge of one. Being suspicious of Arbery because he kinda sorta resembled a guy Travis saw a few weeks earlier who ran into the house under construction and wandered around with a flashlight isn't good enough. They needed "reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion" that Arbery had committed a felony, not just guesses about him committing a misdemeanor or thinking he was the one who stole Travis' gun back in January because <reasons>.

Loren, this should convince you that they were acting illegally.
Why doesn't it?

It looks likely that he did commit a felony--burglary. The lack of anything stolen doesn't rebut this--construction sites usually have nothing worth stealing because theft is such a problem that companies do what they can to prevent it.

Your 2nd sentence rebuts the first, because why would anyone go to a site with the intent to steal if there is nothing worth stealing?

There is no evidence of intent. All you have is trespassing and that he was black. that is it.

 

[Rhea]

Attempting to 'catch' someone without justification under the law is illegal, even if your plan is to hold them for the police.



The McMichaels did not see Arbery commit a crime and they had no immediate knowledge of one. Being suspicious of Arbery because he kinda sorta resembled a guy Travis saw a few weeks earlier who ran into the house under construction and wandered around with a flashlight isn't good enough. They needed "reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion" that Arbery had committed a felony, not just guesses about him committing a misdemeanor or thinking he was the one who stole Travis' gun back in January because <reasons>.

Loren, this should convince you that they were acting illegally.
Why doesn't it?

It looks likely that he did commit a felony--burglary. The lack of anything stolen doesn't rebut this--construction sites usually have nothing worth stealing because theft is such a problem that companies do what they can to prevent it.

I find it quite a coincidence that despite supposedly having no knowledge of what went down they managed to go after a probable burglar. More likely they knew and thus were acting legally, albeit extremely stupidly.

No.

No no no.

They HAD TO KNOW.
It was NOT LEGAL for them to go after a "probable" burglar. They can only go after a DEFINITE burglar. And they did not have that.

It's NOT FUCKING LEGAL, Loren.