The official (and only) Ahmaud Arbery thread

Replies above in bold

replies in bold above.

Stop it...you already know that there is no evidence that they actually saw him 'breaking in' directly nor on video that day

None...they had no reason to even harass him

You keep asking the same questions for which you have already assumed the answers, it is sealioning.

Whatever the term is, I prefer to get my facts from reputable sources, not some internet troll.

Three guys have been arrested already, indication that the 'facts' are not you you make of it.

If you know more about what happened go and be a witness for the prosecution

Armstronglivs wrote:

I am Sam wrote:

73 pages on and a black guy is still dead after being shot by two white vigilantes, on the premise that they tried to arrest him for something they did not see.

Stop feigning neutrality and naivety about what happened in order create confusion over it. The perfect example of sealioning, as if the term was coined just for you.

When I see "replies in bold" it reads as "more gaslighting coming".

Who has read more posts from someone claiming "not to have all the facts" and "all the answers" while asserting again and again what the facts say and giving all the answers? And the answer is never subject to change. It is that a black man caused his own death at the hands of vigilantes, who had every reason to pursue him. Prejudice presented as "open-mindedness".

Race has nothing to do with the facts in this case...PLEASE stop pretending that it does.

Ward Cleaver wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

When I see "replies in bold" it reads as "more gaslighting coming".

Who has read more posts from someone claiming "not to have all the facts" and "all the answers" while asserting again and again what the facts say and giving all the answers? And the answer is never subject to change. It is that a black man caused his own death at the hands of vigilantes, who had every reason to pursue him. Prejudice presented as "open-mindedness".

Race has nothing to do with the facts in this case...PLEASE stop pretending that it does.

From someone who often says we don't have all the facts you nevertheless say the "facts" have nothing to do with race. Being partially informed never deters you from being sure about what the facts tell us.

The case has had a powerful and disturbing effect on many in the black community. Yet race has nothing to do with it, you say. Being white somehow enables you to know what it is like to be black better than they.

Go back and look at the last couple of pages. See anything missing? It tells a bigger picture and should tell you all you need to know...

Pay very close attention to what is at play here...unless I am mistaking and you were never a part of this discussion the last few pages?!?

Reflection_ wrote:

Pay very close attention to what is at play here...unless I am mistaking and you were never a part of this discussion the last few pages?!?

No, I see which posts were deleted, and which remain.

Armstronglivs wrote:

[quote]KudzuRunner wrote:

[quote]Ward Cleaver wrote:

[quote]KudzuRunner wrote:

Lynchings involved vigilantes who pursued and apprehended black suspects and killed them. They believed they were justified in doing so. And the difference here is?

Lynching involved vigilantes who pursued and apprehended black suspects, intent on killing them. I see no evidence that the McMichaels set off on this particular chase intent on killing Arbery. They certainly intended on stopping him and questioning him, brandishing weapons to effect that purpose. As has been discussed and I believe agreed here, that particular use of force was illegal, a felony, and since Arbery died at their hands in the commission of that felony, it is considered felony murder.

Lynching was also intended to terrorize the larger black community, to "teach them a lesson," and in that manner to enforce racial subordination. This is why Bryan Stevenson's Equal Justice Initiative ups the ante on lynching and calls it "racial terror lynching":

What the McMichaels did doesn't align particularly well with this tradition.

Where is DOES arguably align with the lynching tradition is in the response of local law enforcement, which clearly gave the benefit of the doubt to the McMichaels, because Gregory McMichael was one of their own, as it were. That was outrageous. I'm glad that other sectors of Georgia law enforcement and the justice system have entered the process, intent on not allowing the McMichaels to get the friends & family exemption.

Armstronglivs wrote:

[quote]Ward Cleaver wrote:

[quote]KudzuRunner wrote:

[quote]Ward Cleaver wrote:

[quote]KudzuRunner wrote:

Travis got in way over his head, though, and there is, as far as I know, zero evidence that Arbery 1) stole anything from the site;

Apparently there is footage of him removing items from his pocket and dropping them while running away from the construction site.

I'm unfamiliar with this claim, Ward. Please offer a link to a story that evidences this and/or a time cue in a video or video commentary that invokes this "fact." This is the first I've heard of it, but it seems relevant--although it may NOT be relevant, even if true, if it can't be proved that the McMichaels personally witnessed that (claimed) action by Arbery. I'm skeptical but willing to listen.

KudzuRunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

[quote]Ward Cleaver wrote:

[quote]KudzuRunner wrote:

[quote]Ward Cleaver wrote:

[quote]KudzuRunner wrote:

Travis got in way over his head, though, and there is, as far as I know, zero evidence that Arbery 1) stole anything from the site;

Apparently there is footage of him removing items from his pocket and dropping them while running away from the construction site.

I'm unfamiliar with this claim, Ward. Please offer a link to a story that evidences this and/or a time cue in a video or video commentary that invokes this "fact." This is the first I've heard of it, but it seems relevant--although it may NOT be relevant, even if true, if it can't be proved that the McMichaels personally witnessed that (claimed) action by Arbery. I'm skeptical but willing to listen.

There is no such footage and if there was, we would have seen it already.

Ward Cleaver wrote:

fasciz wrote:Guilty verdict, everyone moves on.

I hope our court system isn't that messed up.

Reminder.

You aren't quite correct with your description of the charge against the McMichaels and Bryan. In Georgia the charge of murder includes killing with malice aforethought, express or implied, through which the killing can be deemed a deliberate act, or, alternatively, as the result of felony in which the killing is unintended but is the result of an unlawful act like a robbery - which is murder of the kind you describe. The charge against the 3 accused allows the possibility the killing was intentional. We see that their actions were planned and coordinated.

We don't know whether the accused set out with the intention of killing Arbery; that will be made clearer at the trial, but as they were armed it suggests a preparedness to exercise deadly force if they considered it necessary. That such force was used can lead to the inference that in the totality of their actions there was sufficient intent to support a charge of murder.

I make the point because you would differentiate what they did from a lynching; you believe there wasn't a prior intent to kill Arbery. That will remain to be proven. However, you make the point that a lynching was typically intended to "teach blacks a lesson" and enforce racial subordination. I might suggest that although the killing of Ahmaud Arbery was not necessarily conducted with that explicit purpose, it demonstrated the same power dynamic, where white men exercised their perceived superiority and authority over a black man, with fatal consequences. That is why Arbery's father and also the Mayor of Atlanta have described the killing as a "lynching". For them and other members of the black community it has evoked that symbol of a brutal and traumatic past.

I believe that they didn't intend to kill Arbery and they are not going to be indicted for 1st degree murder.

A couple of posters keep saying we need to wait for all the facts to come in, but the reasons Gregory McMichael gave for chasing Arbery in the police report are not supported by any evidence and there is no possible new evidence that will change that. That is why the McMichaels have been arrested for felony murder and the prosecutors that didn't take any actions are being investigated.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

KudzuRunner wrote:

I'm unfamiliar with this claim, Ward. Please offer a link to a story that evidences this and/or a time cue in a video or video commentary that invokes this "fact." This is the first I've heard of it, but it seems relevant--although it may NOT be relevant, even if true, if it can't be proved that the McMichaels personally witnessed that (claimed) action by Arbery. I'm skeptical but willing to listen.

There is no such footage and if there was, we would have seen it already.

Never say never, but the footage that was released was released by Bryant in the belief that it strengthened the McMichaels "self-defense" claim. That makes it unlikely that there's anything in the unreleased 4 minutes that improves their case and makes it more likely that it generally hurts their case.

Monkeys typing wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

There is no such footage and if there was, we would have seen it already.

Never say never, but the footage that was released was released by Bryant in the belief that it strengthened the McMichaels "self-defense" claim. That makes it unlikely that there's anything in the unreleased 4 minutes that improves their case and makes it more likely that it generally hurts their case.

The video has nothing to do with the knowledge the McMichaels had when they decided to chase after Arbery. Bryan shared the video with the police at the scene and oddly enough, an attorney, at the urging of the senior McMichael, released it to the public. However, it would have leaked out sooner or later, anyway.

Even if there had been a legitimate citizens arrest, they would probably be looking at a murder 2 charge. They had no training, no visible authority and no tasers. They believed Arbery had a gun, so they were even prepared for a firefight.

Armstronglivs wrote:

[quote]KudzuRunner wrote:

[quote]Armstronglivs wrote:

[quote]KudzuRunner wrote:

[quote]Ward Cleaver wrote:

[quote]KudzuRunner wrote:

I make the point because you would differentiate what they did from a lynching; you believe there wasn't a prior intent to kill Arbery. That will remain to be proven. However, you make the point that a lynching was typically intended to "teach blacks a lesson" and enforce racial subordination. I might suggest that although the killing of Ahmaud Arbery was not necessarily conducted with that explicit purpose, it demonstrated the same power dynamic, where white men exercised their perceived superiority and authority over a black man, with fatal consequences. That is why Arbery's father and also the Mayor of Atlanta have described the killing as a "lynching". For them and other members of the black community it has evoked that symbol of a brutal and traumatic past.

The word "lynching" was woefully misused by many people, including black people, to characterize the George Zimmerman / Trayvon Martin encounter.

Just because some people use a familiar term to characterize a particular situation doesn't mean that I'm required to agree with their usage. I'm not especially a fan of Candace Owens, but it would be fair to say that not every black commentator on the Ahmaud Arbery killing thinks that the word lylynching aptly characterizes it.

I agree with your highlighting of the power dynamic that motivated the McMichaels, and particularly the elder McMichael, by virtue of his long career in local law enforcement. As a former peace officer, Gregory McMichael clearly felt something, legitimately or no, that I suspect will be characterized at the trial as a first-responder's duty, and right, to oversee the neighborhood. By the same token, I don't believe that evidence of outright racial animus on his part has yet come to light--something that would sustain a DOJ hate crime charge. According to a story at insider.com, "Dwayne Pollock, Assistant Human Resources Director for Glynn County, told Insider that the office 'located no record of discipline or complaints' associated with McMichael's career."

Viewpoint diversity is a good thing, not a bad thing. Sometimes, Armstronglivs, I get the sense that you view your goal here as the principled extinguishing of any viewpoint that deviates in the slightest from your own high dudgeon. I view my goal here somewhat differently.

As a barrister, I presume you're familiar with the informal legal term "bad facts"? I'm a fan of bad facts: the facts or factoids that don't quite fit the pattern one is determined to impose on events.

In my response to your previous post, I highlighted one such fact: something that did, in fact, make the killing of Arbery congruent with lynching, conventionally defined. Most people, as you know, don't do that. Few people in this thread, including you, seem interested in entertaining a fact or an idea that might lead them to modify their view--or complicate their view--of the situation.

I've made it clear, in virtually every post I've contributed to this thread, that I view what the McMichaels did as at once understandable and abominable, which is to say legally unforgiveable. I wanted to dwell a little longer on the emergent fact pattern than some others before coming to that conclusion, because I'm one of the cooler heads, not a hothead, and an extended investigation into the Zimmerman / Martin affair told me that it's best to give the facts time to emerge.

I challenge you, and Ward Cleaver, and others who have contributed heavily here to tell me, if you can, what bad fact concerns you--a fact or set of facts that don't quite fit the explanatory web you've been holding fast to.

Needless to say, bad facts are NOT something that either the prosecution or the defense want to deal with in an intellectually honest way, although the trial process almost invariably forces them to muddle through.

By "understandable," I mean "comprehensible," and without resorting to a term like lynching.

Great post! KudzuRunner!

My main problem with this case is what I initially heard on the radio and continue to hear on tv and in the news is way different from what I actually see when I watch the video.

Words/phrases like "chased down" or "chased to his death" or "gunned down" or "hunted down like an animal" or "hunted like a deer" or "shot like a dog" or "unable to evade" or "fatally shot while jogging" or "shot to death while jogging" or "no evidence of any wrong doing by Arbery" or "a white pick up truck blocks his path." or "a third man blocks him in, there was no escape" or "two armed assailants" or "The video is very clear that they were on their truck with guns hunting him down." are all examples of language that I don't agree with, just like only posting the part of the first 911 call on 2/23 where it keeps getting posted that the reason for the call was because a black guy was running down the street,and they don't mention the actual reason for the call and what was reported before AA fled from the home under construction.