coyote22 wrote:
https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/gbi-reviewing-new-video-footage-ahmaud-arbery-case/xvSWFTbaD0k9cr80R7CTnL/This seems to say they were outside, perhaps close enough to actually be in the video. I did say in my post that it’s unclear exactly how they knew he was there, so I’m not sure what you mean by your comment.
By stating that it's unclear exactly how they knew he was there you are falsely asserting that they did indeed know he was there.
coyote22 wrote:
Yeah, I never said points 1 and 2 apply to the legality of their actions, just my interpretation of what the videos show. And I did say in point 3 that I’m not sure of the legality of a citizens arrest here. That’s for a jury to decide and many smaller decisions and points of law go into that.
Let’s be clear. I am not defending what they did. I am giving an objective observation. The only thing I feel personally passionate about is that he is not a jogger-martyr. That is not the same thing as agreeing with their actions.
+1
I appreciate you providing a rational response not inflated by emotion, but rather supported by your actual legal experience and knowledge. I also respect your opinions. It's nice to have someone comment on here that actually knows something that they didn't just find on Google. Myself included.
Monkeys typing wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I don't think this sort of rhetoric is helpful or accurate either. Most likely those guys saw themselves as responsible citizens doing their civic duty apprehending a criminal. They gave no consideration that from the perspective of the jogger that they were indistinguishable from a couple of yahoos intent on a "lynching". The involvement of firearms turned a stupid confrontation into a tragedy.[/quote
"Most likely those guys saw themselves as responsible citizens doing their civic duty apprehending a criminal".
They went beyond "apprehending a criminal" - if you think that is what they saw themselves as doing. They became judge, jury and executioner. And without any evidence of him being a criminal. When white men do that to black men, which has been part of the history of the South, it has become known by the description the Mayor has used. She is black (or a person of color, as we say now). She knows what that term means to her people.
You might ask yourself the question, if Arberry were white, would any of this happened?
Nuance is hard, but give it a try.
I'm speaking to their intent. I believe justice is served when and if they are convicted of manslaughter (or whatever is the Georgia equivalent), that is, they acted recklessly and provoked an attack resulting in the death of the victim and their provocation is unlawful under the "citizen's arrest" statute.
I don't think they hopped in the truck and gave chase with the intent of executing the victim, that is, I'd be really surprised if a DA brought them up on first degree murder charges unless there is a lot more back story than has been made public.
I think race almost certainly played a role in their poorly founded presumption of the victim's guilt, but it's also the case that white morons with guns have killed white victims through acts of recklessness.
Without having heard the Atlanta mayor's words in context I'd think the community outrage is better directed at the local police and prosecutors who seemed willing to let this slide rather than characterizing the perpetrators who now look like they will be brought to justice. People will do stupid things but a system which allows them to get away with it should not be tolerated.
I certainly get your nuance. Officials who failed to act to bring the perpetrators to justice are more culpable than those who pulled the trigger, who were "reckless" and "stupid" rather than homicidal. Nice work. They should hire you as counsel.
However, the problem you have is that repeatedly discharging a firearm into a human being is murder not manslaughter.
He was a runner.
We know this since his coach + his mother + a close friend + a neighbor said this. How many more people do you need to accept that fact?
Here's what a local resident, Nancy, told the local newspaper:
Nancy said she often saw Arbery jogging through the neighborhood. She just wanted to show her support.
“It’s my neighborhood,” Nancy said. “I had seen him jogging. It scares me that something was this reckless. I know the McMichaels, but this just wasn’t right.”
coyote22 wrote:
Totality of the circumstances.
B.S. You are accusing him of intent of burglary on circumstancial evidence? You even say you have video of him at that site at multiple times and yet none of the videos show him stealing anything. What they show is exploring an urban area which any number of people do as a hobby. You have an extreme bias accusing him of being a thief when you have zero evidence that would support that.
Wait. I have done everything he allegedly did at the “dwelling” before when on a runs desperate for somewhere to poop. My entire high school team used to stop at construction sites to use the porto pottys mid run. Everyone knows construction sites usually have porto pottys. Everyone knows runners poop a lot.
Even if he was casing let’s all recognize that many white runners have wandered into construction sites to poop, and i’ve never heard of any getting chased down by some fat losers with shotguns for being accused of casing...
This is from the police report:
"McMichael was in his front yard and saw the suspect from the break - ins " hauling ass" down Satilla Drive toward Burford Drive. McMichael stated he then ran inside his house and
called to Travis ( ) and said " Travis the guy is running down the street lets go " . McMichael stated he went to his bedroom and grabbed his .
Magnum and Travis grabbed his shotgun because they " didn ' t know if the male was
armed or not " . Michael stated " the other night" they saw the same male and he
stuck his hand down his pants which lead them to believe the male was armed."
There is no mention of the vacant house so can we stop analyzing Arbery's visit?
JumboMom wrote:
Wait. I have done everything he allegedly did at the “dwelling” before when on a runs desperate for somewhere to poop. My entire high school team used to stop at construction sites to use the porto pottys mid run. Everyone knows construction sites usually have porto pottys. Everyone knows runners poop a lot.
Even if he was casing let’s all recognize that many white runners have wandered into construction sites to poop, and i’ve never heard of any getting chased down by some fat losers with shotguns for being accused of casing...
lol! Thank-you for bringing some humor. When you gotta go, you gotta go, no matter your skin color. But you shouldn't poop at a construction site. There are laws that prohibit us from entering a construction site for safety reasons. Find a bush or something next time. ;)
scam_watcheroo wrote:
coyote22 wrote:
Totality of the circumstances.
B.S. You are accusing him of intent of burglary on circumstancial evidence? You even say you have video of him at that site at multiple times and yet none of the videos show him stealing anything. What they show is exploring an urban area which any number of people do as a hobby. You have an extreme bias accusing him of being a thief when you have zero evidence that would support that.
It's the job of a prosecutor to exaggerate and throw crap at a wall until it sticks. They are basically trained to interpret all normal human behaviors as crimes or evidence thereof.
SDSU Aztec wrote:
This is from the police report:
"McMichael was in his front yard and saw the suspect from the break - ins " hauling ass" down Satilla Drive toward Burford Drive. McMichael stated he then ran inside his house and
called to Travis ( ) and said " Travis the guy is running down the street lets go " . McMichael stated he went to his bedroom and grabbed his .
Magnum and Travis grabbed his shotgun because they " didn ' t know if the male was
armed or not " . Michael stated " the other night" they saw the same male and he
stuck his hand down his pants which lead them to believe the male was armed."
There is no mention of the vacant house so can we stop analyzing Arbery's visit?
There is a reason for all this speculating about what Arbery was doing on the construction site. It is to try to fit him into the typical profile of a black offender. That would then make his killing - how shall we say? - a little less bad and almost understandable. That's one way of avoiding a truth we don't want to see .
Harambe wrote:
scam_watcheroo wrote:
B.S. You are accusing him of intent of burglary on circumstancial evidence? You even say you have video of him at that site at multiple times and yet none of the videos show him stealing anything. What they show is exploring an urban area which any number of people do as a hobby. You have an extreme bias accusing him of being a thief when you have zero evidence that would support that.
It's the job of a prosecutor to exaggerate and throw crap at a wall until it sticks. They are basically trained to interpret all normal human behaviors as crimes or evidence thereof.
Even the behaviour of victims, it seems.
.truth wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjCzJyFKoqo&feature=emb_logo
+1
Good video. Thank-you for sharing. I appreciate how he presented all of the information and I agree with what he said about looking at the facts. I also like what he said about how there is no need to pick a side right now.
There was a porta potty in the front yard of the home.
I’ve also fought for justice for many that were killed or harmed by violence. Most of it gang related. Everyone is someone’s son, brother, father, friend no matter what they’re involved in.
I’m sorry you don’t like my take on the facts but I have nothing against the victim. I mean, I’m a prosecutor, I fight for the victim constantly. I just don’t think the story is what the media has presented.
You are probably not going to like this but juries are instructed at every trial that they may convict a defendant on circumstantial evidence alone.
That will go for the McMichaels as well, of course.
coyote22 wrote:
There was a porta potty in the front yard of the home.
There sure was -- he obviously did not really have to poop! ;) The camera had a great shot of the red port-a-potty. Unless it's in the un-aired 2 min 40 sec + part of the video that is not being circulated, pooping (or peeing) wasn't why he stopped.
You can say what you want about me, I call it as I see it. Disparage me because I don’t agree with your narrative - that’s fine, I can take it.
coyote22 wrote:
https://youtu.be/Q7N6bC5cnVUMonkeys typing wrote:
Do you have a credible link for this?
It's an interesting twist that Arbery may have stopped at the construction site previously. On the other hand, if he's been there multiple times, not noticed that surveillance camera, and never been observed taking anything, it weakens the "casing the site" argument, no? If he had previously been on video taking something, then why no previous incident report?
coyote22 wrote:
You are probably not going to like this but juries are instructed at every trial that they may convict a defendant on circumstantial evidence alone.
And yet your own "circumstancial" video evidence of the victim at that site at multiple times shows him not stealing anything. This is in fact evidence directly contradicting your seriously biased and false logic. I hope you don't use this same false logic in your real court cases or we will need to seriously question everyone you tried.