The official (and only) Ahmaud Arbery thread

coyote22 wrote:

You’ve got to admit it sorta kills the narrative that he was just jogging by.

That’s really my only beef with this case, as much as everyone else is trying to make me out to be some racist imbecile.

So, you have never stopped to look at something on a run? Dude is on camera stopping by lots of times, probably on his runs. I do this ALL THE TIME. I look around because it's interesting. I use their port-a-pot and go on my way. If anything it strengthens the narrative that this guy was a regular runner in the neighborhood.

And, by the way, SHOOTING SOMEONE FOR SUPPOSED TRESPASSING is not the acceptable.

I'm sorry, but if you can in any way justify this shooting, then yes, we think you are a racist imbecile.

realist1 wrote:

Hey Aztec...Are you African American? Tell the truth...

I'm a Black for Trump and travel around the country to attend his rallies. Why do you ask?

You're the prosecutor and lawyer; I'm just an academic humanist who trains people to be critical thinkers and do my best to ask the kinds of hard questions that are implicit in your comments. The read you offer of the situation seems fairly reasonable to me. But I don't believe that saying he was "casing the joint" quite reaches the threshold of an objective observation.

He may have been casing the joint. From what we can see on the video, he was looking around. I haven't looked at it closely in a day, so I may be wrong, but I don't believe he picks anything up once he's in that space. I think he just looks. Your claim in saying that he was casing the joint is saying that, based on the sum total of visual evidence you've got on hand, you believe he was inspecting the interior with the intent either of taking something of value if he saw something of value or, alternately, looking for something of value that he could conceivable come back and take later on, perhaps after dark.

Those are all speculations. They may be true. But I'm not sure they're true. And it's important to note what your speculations accomplishes: it is a way of dealing with the important and evident fact that he DOESN'T take anything of value. You're attributing criminal intent to somebody who doesn't actually commit a criminal act. (Unless you're right about the fact that because he enters or exits through a door, he may actually be guilt of something more than mere trespassing. That's a good point and worth following up with a review of Georgia statutes.)

You invoke, as a relevant element, the fact that he walks across the lawn rather than running up to the open garage area. That, to you, is a sign of criminal intent: casing the joint and not wanting to draw suspicion to that fact. I'm not so sure. Seems to me that if I were a jogger through a neighborhood, I might pause after the two miles I've just (presumably) jogged from my own home and do just what he did, strolling across the grass in my final approach. I certainly wouldn't run straight in. Nobody would do that. He may not have wanted to arouse suspicion, for all we know, precisely because he DIDN'T have criminal intent. "Hey, nice white people, I ain't breaking and entering. I'm just strolling. Jusssssssst want to take a little look at whatcha all got going on. Please don't confuse me with a criminal." Etc. Stranger things have happened.

As for the fact that he rapidly exits and runs away: I don't know what to think about that. It's an important point, though. I didn't notice that HE notices a neighbor outside and runs away right after that. I'll have to go back and look at the video. That's a good point, and a relevant one.

Skip to 1:13

Varsity Lu wrote:

coyote22 wrote:

You’ve got to admit it sorta kills the narrative that he was just jogging by.

That’s really my only beef with this case, as much as everyone else is trying to make me out to be some racist imbecile.

So, you have never stopped to look at something on a run? Dude is on camera stopping by lots of times, probably on his runs. I do this ALL THE TIME. I look around because it's interesting. I use their port-a-pot and go on my way. If anything it strengthens the narrative that this guy was a regular runner in the neighborhood.

And, by the way, SHOOTING SOMEONE FOR SUPPOSED TRESPASSING is not the acceptable.

I'm sorry, but if you can in any way justify this shooting, then yes, we think you are a racist imbecile.

He wasn't shot for supposed trespassing, he was shot for attacking a man with a gun.

SDSU Aztec didn't sound "emotional" to me. In fact, your reply to him seems much more emotional in my opinion.

Btw your gender doesn't matter in this discussion, and I don't understand why you felt the need to mention it.

In general, on this thread, I am surprised by how much some posters want to analyse every bit of the victim's life and hypothetical thought process that day, while not doing the same for the two men responsible for his death. Do they have police records? A history of abusing power? Were they dressed appropriately that day ? (jk)

I used "and" and not "to" so I'm not claiming it was first degree. Travis leaving the car holding the shotgun and the father standing in the bed of the truck to be prepared to shoot showed extreme aggression. What could cause that type of behavior?

Again, I have never said the McMichaels are in the right.

As for everyone saying I am victim blaming, here is what you have to understand. As a prosecutor you have to take an angle on the case, and if your victim isn’t a choirboy, we shouldn’t pretend he is. I have successfully prosecuted homicides of people actively engaged in clear criminal activity. I did not hide that. Whatever they were doing (usually the drug trade) does not warrant a death sentence. Nor does trespassing or even burglary. I have never said that it does.

I still don’t have definite answers and I’m still not entirely sure what my overall opinion is, but if I had to present this case today on the videos I’ve seen, I think the “hobbyjogger KKK murder for sport in broad daylight while being videotaped” is going to be less successful than saying to a jury “hey, my victim might have been doing something suspicious or simply weird, but no matter what, the McMichaels misunderstood the citizens arrest law and escalated it way beyond what it should be.”

.truth wrote:

Varsity Lu wrote:

So, you have never stopped to look at something on a run? Dude is on camera stopping by lots of times, probably on his runs. I do this ALL THE TIME. I look around because it's interesting. I use their port-a-pot and go on my way. If anything it strengthens the narrative that this guy was a regular runner in the neighborhood.

And, by the way, SHOOTING SOMEONE FOR SUPPOSED TRESPASSING is not the acceptable.

I'm sorry, but if you can in any way justify this shooting, then yes, we think you are a racist imbecile.

He wasn't shot for supposed trespassing, he was shot for defending himself against a man with a gun.

FTFY

coyote22 wrote:

I still don’t have definite answers and I’m still not entirely sure what my overall opinion is, but if I had to present this case today on the videos I’ve seen, I think the “hobbyjogger KKK murder for sport in broad daylight while being videotaped” is going to be less successful than saying to a jury “hey, my victim might have been doing something suspicious or simply weird, but no matter what, the McMichaels misunderstood the citizens arrest law and escalated it way beyond what it should be.”

And here is the crux of the problem with this whole situation. It is prosecutors like you and the police that attempted to bury the case and excuse everything the gunmen did and blamed the victim, that is fact. What remains to be determined is if the initial prosecutors and police are simply racists or if their motives for attempting to bury the case is because one of the gunmen was a former police officer they worked with.

Yawn. Tired false narrative. Have a blessed evening.

Also, not sure what your babble about police has to do with the angle I’d take on trial.

coyote22 wrote:

Also, not sure what your babble about police has to do with the angle I’d take on trial.

Because there are very strong indications of corruption of the initial prosecutors and the police in this case that attempted to bury the case and blame it all on the victim. And your attempts at falsely accusing the victim of crimes he did not commit falls exactly in line with the corruption behavior that needs to be stamped out and the prosecutor's and police fired.

return to index wrote:

SDSU Aztec didn't sound "emotional" to me. In fact, your reply to him seems much more emotional in my opinion.

Btw your gender doesn't matter in this discussion, and I don't understand why you felt the need to mention it.

In general, on this thread, I am surprised by how much some posters want to analyse every bit of the victim's life and hypothetical thought process that day, while not doing the same for the two men responsible for his death. Do they have police records? A history of abusing power? Were they dressed appropriately that day ? (jk)

I said you guys, I meant more than just him, just happened to click his post. You are entitled to your opinion about me being emotional. I was tired of seeing these guys go after another person they did not agree with, and it seems really hypocritical to me. They don’t want others to judge, yet they judge those that don’t agree with their view. And you’re right, gender doesn’t matter in terms of emotion. Shouldn’t have brought it up. But I live in a house with all boys, and I’m definitely the most emotional one in our house so that’s where I was coming from.

Anyways... back to the topic at hand...

coyote22 wrote:

Skip to 1:13

BTW, coyote 22, I'm glad you've showed up here and I see nothing in your comments suggesting that you're a racist. Your perspective is valuable precisely because it offers us a foretaste of how various sorts of legal analysis will parse the issues. Open and honest debate is good. Spin, stereotype, emotion, and virtue signaling, at this point, are premature. They seek to shut down a conversation before the conversation's been had and, importantly, before the full array of relevant facts has come to light.

I have no interest in blaming the victim, god knows. Nor do I have any desire to hold Arbery up, right now, as a martyr. I understand why people do both things, but I'm also aware of the way in which the latter emotion, human a reflex as it is, can interfere with a full appreciation of the COMPLEX humanity of somebody like Arbrey, a humanity that sometimes contains shadows.

The NY Times profile I linked earlier did a good job of evoking Arbrey's life trajectory. He was a HS football star who made a bad decision back then involving a gun, seemed to have found his way up and out, had a shoplifting violation at some point in the past two years, was working two jobs these days, one for his father's landscaping business. He seems to have had a notably positive spirit; that's what people in his neighborhood talk about. What I know, and what it sounds as though you know, is that guys like that, guys trying hard to get their lives together, sometimes continue to struggle.

Rather than acknowledging this sort of human complexity, many people find it much easier to frame this sort of highly public incident in ways that accord with their ideological predispositions. As a scholar of lynching (among other things), I can appreciate why some people are using that term. A black man died violently at the hands of two white men who clearly look the part and who seem to have had no real legal pretext for taking the law into their own hands. More than that: although Arbery died not "at hands unknown" (the old dodge through which lynch mob participants were allowed to go free with a wink and a nod) but at the hands of two known men, the legal system in this South Georgia town, all-white as it seems to be, just sorta....let 'em go. And they did so with the same video evidence that we're all now parsing very much in hand, not out of an absence of video evidence, and they and the men who brought the guns and took the shots are now justly feeling the disapprobation of the legal community and the wrath of the community.

But that wrath wants a martyr. It doesn't necessarily want the space of mourning and outrage intruded upon by a sincere attempt to understand the issues involved in their full complexity. Speak no ill of the dead: that old saying has force. So I won't do that. But the fullest possible understanding demands, among other things, a willingness to gather evidence and focus as closely as possible on what actually happened--moment by moment, step by step.

"The NY Times profile I linked earlier did a good job of evoking Arbrey's life trajectory. He was a HS football star who made a bad decision back then involving a gun, seemed to have found his way up and out, had a shoplifting violation at some point in the past two years, was working two jobs these days, one for his father's landscaping business. He seems to have had a notably positive spirit; that's what people in his neighborhood talk about. What I know, and what it sounds as though you know, is that guys like that, guys trying hard to get their lives together, sometimes continue to struggle."

Seems like he was a decent fellow.

Here's something relevant:

What do think the result would be if you lunged at, grabbed the business end of a long gun and yanked it towards yourself while someone else was holding it?

I'm a true crime junkie and I'm trying to compile the facts here (at least...as we have them so far). Can someone please tell me where I'm mistaken?:

1. Arbery walks down the street and stops at the driveway of a house under construction. He pauses there, sprints halfway up the driveway, then resumes walking into the garage. The house is vacant and under renovation, but is not an empty frame. While inside, he looks around for almost 3 minutes but does not touch or remove anything. 7 seconds of camera footage have been made available to the public. At some point, he exits the garage and re-enters the house through the side.

2. He exits the house through the front door, is spotted (accosted?) by a neighbor and takes off running down the street.

3. While Arbery is in the house, a 911 call by Gregory McMichael is made. He reports that Arbery was seen on camera in the house several nights before, and this is not the first time. When they see him take off running, they mention it to the operator.

4. At some point, the McMichaels grab firearms and get into their truck. Their acquaintance is following behind them in a truck as well, though it is unclear what his role is.

5. The acquaintance was taking a video at this point. The footage shows the McMichaels well ahead in front of Arbery, who is running down the left side of the two-lane street. The McMichaels' truck is stopped on the right side. Travis McMichaels has exited the drivers' side of the truck with a gun and is standing on the left side of the street. His father is in the bed of the truck with a gun. Arbery runs to the right side of the truck away from Travis McMichaels, then around the front of the truck toward him. Arbery lunges at Travis, and shots are fired.

Questions:

1. Some cop Youtuber said, according to Georgia law, entering a dwelling with the intent to commit a theft is a felony. This means they can be followed and detained as a citizens' arrest. Is this true? Are they within their constitutional right to be open-carrying a gun for this?

2. Anyone have the information about the McMichaels' racist past? I've heard they had a history with the KKK.

Initially I have to admit I was following the narrative told to me and thought he was shot while just jogging near his home (though I did find his choice of jogging attire strange, as I'd never seen any experienced athlete jog in long cargo shorts unless they were into trail running).

With the release of the new footage, I think it's very obvious he was casing the site for a robbery. Robberies of construction sites aren't as uncommon as some here are making it out to be, since there are often expensive tools. Plus I don't see why a jogger would be walking down the street, only sprinting to enter and exit a home that isn't theirs.

But the question remains: what were McMichaels doing? Is it actually true, as they told the 911 operator, that he had been caught on the tape in that home multiple times before? What are Georgia laws regarding citizens' arrests?