Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.

[Ronson]

More evil whites:


Whites; behave yourselves.

Should white men be allowed to be police officers? Not as long as they keep killing blacks. Police forces would do well to team up black male officers with white female officers.

I did want to note this George Floyd murder.

https://www.facebook.com/darnellarea...TYxX3pHDnvrf0d

The cop involved here was fired (actually, all of them were) but he has yet to be prosecuted for murder, from what I gather.

(Floyd was detained for allegedly passing a counterfeit bill at a store)

[rogue06]

More evil whites:


Whites; behave yourselves.

Should white men be allowed to be police officers? Not as long as they keep killing blacks. Police forces would do well to team up black male officers with white female officers.

As has been noted in previous threads here, several studies reveal that in a confrontation with police a white person has a better chance of being shot and killed than does a black person. This has been demonstrated often enough that they have now moved on to studying why this is the case.

[Cow Poke]

DO -- are you aware that the victim had a past history with this police department? The he was AWARE that they were racist and abusive?
I've brought that up several times, but it keeps getting ignored because it doesn't fit the narrative.

So, here's Fox23 News' report of that incident.


Bodycam footage shows Georgia police tried to use Taser on unarmed Ahmaud Arbery in 2017

It's the only version I've found so far that's not filled with F bombs. This version, however, doesn't portray the police as "racist and abusive" as several other versions do.

First of all, I still maintain that I see ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for how this turned out. So, let's not play that stupid game.

[Charles]

As has been noted in previous threads here, several studies reveal that in a confrontation with police a white person has a better chance of being shot and killed than does a black person. This has been demonstrated often enough that they are now moved on to studying why this is the case.

I hope you note that this in no way demonstrates that black persons are treated more fairly but I have a feeling you don't.

Hint: Why are the confronted in the first place, on what base and the like... No conclusion is given (not the one you aim for either).

[shunyadragon]

The video is DIRECT EVIDENCE of a crime.


The notion that Arbery was there "to get a drink" has only week CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence, along with supposition and speculation.

I'm beginning to think Shuny knows even less about the law than JimL.

What is the evidence for any substantial crime other than walking through the construction cit just like others did?

[Cow Poke]

What is the evidence for any substantial crime other than walking through the construction cit just like others did?

Oh, slippery, slippery!!! I never claimed it was a "substantial crime", oh slippery one. The video is DIRECT EVIDENCE that trespassing took place. There is ZERO DIRECT EVIDENCE that it was "to drink water".

The fact that the homeowner did not file charges does not change the fact that trespassing took place, nor does it remove his right to have people removed.

MANY times, in a situation like this, a homeowner will decline to press charges for fear of retaliation.

The fact that the homeowner had SECURITY cameras installed shows that he was, indeed, concerned.

[rogue06]

Oh, slippery, slippery!!! I never claimed it was a "substantial crime", oh slippery one. The video is DIRECT EVIDENCE that trespassing took place. There is ZERO DIRECT EVIDENCE that it was "to drink water".

The fact that the homeowner did not file charges does not change the fact that trespassing took place, nor does it remove his right to have people removed.

MANY times, in a situation like this, a homeowner will decline to press charges for fear of retaliation.

The fact that the homeowner had SECURITY cameras installed shows that he was, indeed, concerned.

And had contacted the police about his concern as their text back to him clearly demonstrates.

[Cow Poke]

And had contacted the police about his concern as their text back to him clearly demonstrates.

It appears that he was just waiting for something (things coming up missing?) to decide to take further action, OR, as is so often the case, that the house had been "dried in" enough that doors and windows will soon be installed, then it would be another level of crime - breaking and entering.

For those unfamiliar with the home building process -- entry doors are often omitted, or a temporary non-locking door installed, to allow easy ingress and egress for contractors. The selection and installation of a main entry door is often very late in the construction process. Once a locking door is installed and routinely locked, trespassing changes to breaking and entering, or "illegal entry".

ETA: In Texas, and I'd imagine in Georgia as well, the point at which a "real" front door is installed is when air conditioning has been installed and begins to operate.

[Mountain Man]

The video is DIRECT EVIDENCE of a crime.
The notion that Arbery was there "to get a drink" has only week CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence, along with supposition and speculation.

I'm beginning to think Shuny knows even less about the law than JimL.

And even if he was just getting a drink, it's still trespassing (and technically theft if we want to be picky). But again, the point is that every indication is that it was Arbery's actions and not "jogging while black" that attracted the attention of the McMichaels.

[Leonhard]

The video is DIRECT EVIDENCE of a crime.
The notion that Arbery was there "to get a drink" has only week CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence, along with supposition and speculation.

I'm beginning to think Shuny knows even less about the law than JimL.

I do wonder why he was there. I'm not sure I buy the he was there to steal anything. It might be just one of those "just cuz" reasons we humans have. But it might also be something else.

[Mountain Man]

I do wonder why he was there. I'm not sure I buy the he was there to steal anything. It might be just one of those "just cuz" reasons we humans have. But it might also be something else.

It also wasn't his first time. He had visited the site previously, several times at night.

[Cow Poke]

I do wonder why he was there. I'm not sure I buy the he was there to steal anything. It might be just one of those "just cuz" reasons we humans have. But it might also be something else.

The complicating factor is that he was there on at least one other occasion at night, and possibly more, and that didn't appear to be in connection with jogging.

[Leonhard]

It also wasn't his first time. He had visited the site previously, several times at night.

True, but he also didn't take anything from it, or do any vandalism. He walks around, looking around. If it turns out that power tools and copper wire was located at the site, then there's not much justification for the idea that he's a burglar.

[JimL]

I do wonder why he was there. I'm not sure I buy the he was there to steal anything. It might be just one of those "just cuz" reasons we humans have. But it might also be something else.

Some of the McMichael defenders here, and yes they are defending them, have admitted to visiting home sites under construction themselves and yet they continue to point to the fact that Abery commited a crime in doing so in their attemp to justify the actions of the McMichaels.

[JimL]

It also wasn't his first time. He had visited the site previously, several times at night.

You and CP keep saying this, but I've yet to see you prove it. Perhaps I missed it?