Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.

[oxmixmudd]

It's my understanding that entering a property with intent to steal (i.e. then or at a later time) is a felony, which would then give legal grounds for a citizen's arrest.... i.e. detaining a person until law enforcement arrives. So it's possible that there were legal grounds for the McMichaels to arrest Arbery

It appears that Arbery hit or was hit by the side of the truck of the person who filmed the incident. Not by tye McMichaels. Because it was the side of the vehicle it seems unlikely that the driver hit Arbery, unless he turned close in front of him, trying to cut him off...? We don't seem to have any footage of that...

There is not stopping this train is there. A fellow is in a neighborhood for a jog, stops at a house under construction, and it's now ok to pursue him, violently, with guns, get in his way, hit him, subject him to mortal danger.

Horse poo.

The ONLY reason you guys are entertaining this is because that 'fellow' was black. And you would not be carrying on like this if the fellow was white. And that is what reality is. Deny it all you want, but that is what the reality is.

[JimL]

It's my understanding that entering a property with intent to steal (i.e. then or at a later time) is a felony, which would then give legal grounds for a citizen's arrest.... i.e. detaining a person until law enforcement arrives. So it's possible that there were legal grounds for the McMichaels to arrest Arbery

It appears that Arbery hit or was hit by the side of the truck of the person who filmed the incident. Not by tye McMichaels. Because it was the side of the vehicle it seems unlikely that the driver hit Arbery, unless he turned close in front of him, trying to cut him off...? We don't seem to have any footage of that...

Where do you even get the idea that Arbery had the intent to steal? He never stole a thing nor did the McMichaels have any ideea if he had stole anything. They may have assumed it, but that doesn't cut it. The McMichaels had no legitimate reason for chasing him down and detaining him whatsoever. I don't know why you guys keep looking for ways that don't exist in order to excuse the actions of the McMichaels.

[MaxVel]

The ONLY reason you guys are entertaining this is because that 'fellow' was black. And you would not be carrying on like this if the fellow was white. And that is what reality is. Deny it all you want, but that is what the reality is.

Stop lying about me, oxmixmudd.

[Watermelon]

Likely because that history is not relevant to the case being tried. In this instance, however, that Arbery was witnessed trespassing on the day in question, and the fact that there is video evidence of him trespassing on the property in the recent past, is relevant because it explains but does not necessarily justify the actions of the McMichaels. I suppose you could call it a mitigating circumstance that at least gets them off the hook for first degree murder, and possibly even second degree murder.

Let's put it this way: if the prosecution tries to run with the "jogging while black" narrative, the defense is going to come back and say, "Actually, it was Mr. Arbery's actions and not the color of his skin that attracted the attention of the defendants." And if it's shown that the property owner had asked the McMichaels to keep an eye out for someone matching Arbery's description based on the video of him trespassing on previous occasions (and I don't know if the owner did, so this is speculative), then that would be another mitigating circumstance in favor of the defendants.

It doesn't make sense to ignore relevant facts on the basis that you think they reflect badly on the deceased, because you can be certain the defense attorneys won't ignore them.

[Watermelon]

It's my understanding that entering a property with intent to steal (i.e. then or at a later time) is a felony, which would then give legal grounds for a citizen's arrest.... i.e. detaining a person until law enforcement arrives. So it's possible that there were legal grounds for the McMichaels to arrest Arbery

It appears that Arbery hit or was hit by the side of the truck of the person who filmed the incident. Not by tye McMichaels. Because it was the side of the vehicle it seems unlikely that the driver hit Arbery, unless he turned close in front of him, trying to cut him off...? We don't seem to have any footage of that...

[Mountain Man]

So, wait, if the McMichaels were asked, "Why did you pursue Mr. Arbery?" they wouldn't be able to answer, "Because we saw him trespass on a piece of property that we were asked to keep an eye on, and he fit the description of a guy who had been seen on video trespassing on that same property in the past" because that would be unfairly prejudicial?

[Watermelon]

So, wait, if the McMichaels were asked, "Why did you pursue Mr. Arbery?" they wouldn't be able to answer, "Because we saw him trespass on a piece of property that we were asked to keep an eye on, and he fit the description of a guy who had been seen on video trespassing on that same property in the past" because that would be unfairly prejudicial?

Objection due to speculation. Victim was seen leaving a neighbours property that is all.

[Mountain Man]

Objection due to speculation. Victim was seen leaving a neighbours property that is all.

Isn't that trespassing by definition?

[JimL]

So, wait, if the McMichaels were asked, "Why did you pursue Mr. Arbery?" they wouldn't be able to answer, "Because we saw him trespass on a piece of property that we were asked to keep an eye on, and he fit the description of a guy who had been seen on video trespassing on that same property in the past" because that would be unfairly prejudicial?

Still trying I see, eh MM?

[DivineOb]

Isn't that trespassing by definition?

Stick to bird law.

[oxmixmudd]

Stop lying about me, oxmixmudd.

I'm telling the absolute truth as best I can tell. I can think of little else that could so blind men to the evil of what these men have done and steal all compassion for the victim as has been on display on these pages.

[MaxVel]

I'm telling the absolute truth as best I can tell. I can think of little else that could so blind men to the evil of what these men have done and steal all compassion for the victim as has been on display on these pages.

This was your claim. You quoted my post, so this is a direct claim about me. Now prove it.

The ONLY reason you guys are entertaining this is because that 'fellow' was black. And you would not be carrying on like this if the fellow was white. And that is what reality is. Deny it all you want, but that is what the reality is.

You above claim to know my reasoning and motivations. You claim that I would not do what I have been doing - which is attempt to discuss the facts of the case - if the person was white. Prove that. No speculations about what my motives might be, no arguments from what I did not post. Prove it.

You've made a very serious accusation about me. Either you back that up, with actual evidence, or you withdraw it.



I'll pass over your blatant double standard and hypocrisy in ignoring and waving away any facts that might threaten your pet narrative - that Arbery did absolutely nothing wrong, and was in no way at fault, and that this is a clear incidence of racist violence by the McMichaels - and in making
personal attacks on people for trying to discuss all the facts of the case. That's all I want to do - discuss exactly what happened, so that we might understand it better. I've never said or implied that anyone else cannot raise any facts they wish to. That's your approach.


Facts aren't racist, Ox.

[oxmixmudd]

This was your claim. You quoted my post, so this is a direct claim about me. Now prove it.




You above claim to know my reasoning and motivations. You claim that I would not do what I have been doing - which is attempt to discuss the facts of the case - if the person was white. Prove that. No speculations about what my motives might be, no arguments from what I did not post. Prove it.

You've made a very serious accusation about me. Either you back that up, with actual evidence, or you withdraw it.



I'll pass over your blatant double standard and hypocrisy in ignoring and waving away any facts that might threaten your pet narrative - that Arbery did absolutely nothing wrong, and was in no way at fault, and that this is a clear incidence of racist violence by the McMichaels - and in making
personal attacks on people for trying to discuss all the facts of the case. That's all I want to do - discuss exactly what happened, so that we might understand it better. I've never said or implied that anyone else cannot raise any facts they wish to. That's your approach.


Facts aren't racist, Ox.

How that are used can be, and are as they are being used here.

[MaxVel]

How that are used can be, and are as they are being used here.

You didn't back up your claim. I expect you to cease spreading lies about me from here on.

[Charles]

As I said, and as I have repeatedly said throughout this discussion, none of the facts stated necessarily justify any of the actions taken against Arbery.

Well let's see:

[...]Third, he was shot as a direct result of his own aggressive actions. If he had quietly waited for the police to arrive then he would still be alive.[...]

But you still claim...:

I never said it, I never implied it, and I don't believe it.

See right above....

Good try but you can't have all the dirt go under the radar just because you once in a while say you are not trying to justify anything when you obvioulsy are. You are just dishonest so you want to throw all the dirt you can and still pretend you are not trying to put him in a bad light. It is dishonest and disgusting.

That is the conclusion YOU have reached, and you are dishonestly attempting to project YOUR conclusion onto me.

I would like to say I know you're better than this, but that would be a lie.

You are simply being held accountable for what you have said and for your racist bais throughtout this post. Most of the time one can simply just quote some of your previous posts to show that what you are saying is dishones.