They were following him. I think an important fact will be regarding when they called police. From the video, Arbery charged and struck the shooter prior to getting shot.
Look, I'll consent that Arbery may have been scouting for future thieving following previous theft. The fact that he attacked people trying to hold him at gunpoint as they got in his way as he tried to run through them is not an "attack". I remember the video he was trying to get through them as the guy with the video (dummy!) followed him. He was trying to get through that "roadblock" that they had set up. Put him in jail, not the morgue.
Alan Dershowitz just said in an interview, the liberal left does not believe in the presumption of innocence. I think it is a true statement. Prove me wrong.
The liberal left - especially the media - assumed guilt in all of the high profile cases over the last 5 years at least. In some cases, there is no way the defendant can get a truly fair trial. The current two cases are no exception.
So what does that say of you, making the pronouncements of what he is guilty of without apparently paying attention to offense reports and, perhaps more importantly, the actual evidence in the trial?
Quote me. What pronouncements did I make other than restating the observation of the owner of the property and that the perpetrators of the killing were "local yocals". You know, the ones that testified yesterday that they never actually saw Arbery commit theft (McMichael).
He could have easily run around them and lost them. There was plenty of grass on both sides of the road and not many fenced yards in the neighborhood. It was a bad decision to go after him with guns but an even worse decision to attack someone with a gun.
It's Arbery's fault for not simply running away from the threat of death. Vigilante shows up with the gun, threatens the victim and now the victim is accountable for de-escalation too? More evidence that some want accountability only for the "other" side.
Option A - Run left or right to safety Option B - Attack two people with shotguns Seems like an obvious decision.
What? De-escalation only applies to certain colors of people who are where some claim they are not supposed to be? Simple rule...you don't charge towards someone who has a gun. Bad things generally happen when someone does that. This holds true no matter WHAT legal right the gun-holder might have at that moment in time.
Let's untie that a bit. The effective range of a shotgun is ~45M. Unless Arbery could get beyond that distance before they got a shot off he's dead. Where as if he can get to 1 gun then other guy is presented with the challenge of shooting and hitting his son. He confirmed as much in body cam footage from the officer at the scene when Greg McMichael (the father) said this: So, by approaching one of the gun holders he effectively neutralized both. Of course, he didn't win the battle for the gun from Travis McMichael, the son. Again, local yocals chasing Arbery with their cars screaming at him to "stop" then ultimately heading him off. Who knows whether he had any more energy to run away.
BUT...we've been told that he was out on a jog, part of his 'training' as a track athlete. NOW you want us to believe he suddenly ran out of energy mere moments after getting caught on property he had no authorization to be on?
To be the most pragmatic and cynical of all. The real idiot was the one with the camera. Had it not been on video there would still be lynchings taking place with no accountability.
I have no idea. You know who we should ask? Ahmad. Doh...can't because he's dead. Greg McMichael did admit that they did not see Arbery stealing anything nor were any stolen items found on his body.
The crawfishing that follows blowing holes in the 'he was just a kid out for a run' narrative never ceases to amaze me...
Does it matter what he was doing? We know he didn't steal anything nor was he seen stealing anything. Trespassing does not equal a death sentence by vigilantes, especially when it wasn't even their property.
Whether he stole something or not is not germane...he had no right to be there, then once made the subject of an effort to effect a Citizen's Arrest, it appears he was stupid enough to charge/lunge/insert other term of choice at an individual with a gun. The gun then discharged. If you believe that they were looking to kill someone, then you are delusional. And while delusional seems to be part and parcel of many of the posts you have advanced on a variety of topics, where you ignore the facts to insert your own version of events even though fantasy-land is not the land of the real people, you keep moving the goalposts. Too many on the left seem to quickly buy the popular media narrative of 'he was a good boy who wouldn't do nothing wrong,' just as they did with Trayvon and just as they did with St. George of Fentanyl. Even with evidence to the contrary, they STILL ignore that these are NOT good people who wound up dead. We see it in the Kenosha trial and we see the denials with the poor jogger who was just getting his jog on, but somehow is NOW claimed by you to possibly just not have had the energy to have run for his life. Meanwhile, he STILL had the energy to lunge at people with a gun. You must have stock in SherwinWilliams or Behr for the way you keep painting yourself into corners.
A. He was unarmed. B. He didn't steal anything. C. They were armed - intent is irrelevant. D. Wrong thread.
You are the QUEEN of strawman arguments. I can only imagine the quality of your legal arguments. Let's break this down. Citizen's arrest was nowhere mentioned during the initial interaction with the officer on scene. We don't KNOW what they intended in the moment but rather the story they are telling now. If I see some person walking out of a neighbors house do I have the legal authority to chase them in my car then stop them at gunpoint? Should I have that legal authority? I didn't say that, Greg McMichael said that in court. Take up your delusional claims with him. You know, I might agree with you that he's delusional. LOL! I have confidence that you can fit a few more sloganeered insult terms that are non-sequiturs into that paragraph. Want to give it another college try? You don't have to be a "good" person to deserve to live. You simply need not to have committed an act that warrants death. Trespassing doesn't warrant death by vigilantes. Trayvon didn't deserve to die simply because he wore a hoody on his way home to his Dad's house in a gate community at the hands of an overzealous block captain. He had been running...being chased by the McMichael's in their cars. I don't personally know how far he ran to get to the house in which he trespassed. It's possible he was tired...possible for those claiming the appropriate response was for him to run some more. You know...outrace a shell of bee bees.[/quote] Nah, your strawman arguments are easy enough to point out. Fortunately for me, your painting skills are amateurish.
What odd wording (unless you believe people don't kill people, but guns do). You might be right that he picked the worse option for his own health and safety. However, this is irrelevant to the case. If you threaten someone's with a gun, and they have to pick in the moment how to react to this threat, and they make the wrong choice, and then you shoot them, then you don't really get to defend yourself with "Well it was his fault for making a poor choice after I threatened his life". If you go after someone with a gun, you are communicating intent to kill. This is just part of responsible gun ownership 101. Never point a weapon at a person unless you are willing to kill them. Then you have agreed that we all have an affirmative duty to place ourselves under the authority of any random dude who loads up with deadly weapons, follows us around, and demands we account for our past whereabouts and future plans. It's about as reasonable an argument as claiming that the USA attacked Japan first in WW2, since we took the first shot when our destroyer fired on a Japanese sub that was trying to enter the harbor and launch torpedoes. This quote, in this thread, out of the same crowd that refuses to entertain the presumption of innocence for Aubery. . . .
I just caught up with this thread. A lot of good discussion. Will be interesting to see which way things go. Rednecks shoot black kid running in neighborhood | Page 12 | Hornfans I also found this article which shows a map of the neighborhood and how events unfolded. Good info and view of the neighborhood although the author goes on a social justice rant at the end. Ahmad apparently did try to run away but was cut off. Not a lot of detail but that changes things. Still stupid to charge someone with a shotgun unless you believe you are about to be shot. I would have run between the houses to try to lose them. Ahmaud Arbery (arcgis.com) McMichael also apparently has racist text and social media posts. 'Racial' texts, social media posts read at hearing for suspects in Ahmaud Arbery killing - ABC News (go.com) My initial impressions now are that the young McMichael will get jail time. Not sure on the others. Bad situation all the way around.
His brother has been in and out of jail as well. He is currently locked up awaiting trial. Ahmaud Arbery Case: Seven Facts the Jury Will (Probably) Never Hear (legalinsurrection.com)
Your words not mine. I'm just trying to get facts to understand the situation. His mental condition would explain why he would charge someone with a shotgun.
Travis McMichael testifies he misspoke to police after killing Ahmaud Arbery | Reuters The younger McMichael said he tried to be calm when calling out to Arbery during the chase and used polite language including "please." Dunikoski contrasted this with the threatening language McMichael's father used, according to his accounts to police. Quoting from one of the police interviews, Dunikoski asked the younger McMichael if he heard his father shout at Arbery: "'Stop or I'll blow your ******* head off?'" McMichael said he did not recall hearing that.
