A 25-year-old black man was shot dead in Georgia while jogging, prompting online protests labeling t

Discussion in 'United States' started by superbadbrutha, Apr 29, 2020.

  1. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,970
    Likes Received:
    3,918
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1. He fitted the description of the suspect, was fleeing the scene of the prior burglaries and refused to stop and explain himself.

    2. No, watch the vid, the shotgun is pointed at the ground. Arbery could have smashed against the truck in frustration that they were attempting to detain him for the police but we shall see. If they suspected Arbery of theft/burglary in the neighbourhood then it was reasonable to suspect him of stealing the pistol.

    3. And I'm sure if the circumstances were reversed it would have been Arbery standing over Travis calling him a "F*cking cracker/honky" for forcing him to kill him over such a trivial incident.

    4. If they didn't see them they didn't see them, that's not 'convenient', that's just the facts.
     
  2. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,970
    Likes Received:
    3,918
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1. Eh?
    2. And to me their intent is more important, the argument is whether it was reasonable is what we're working out. That Arbery resembled the suspect and was fleeing the scene is reasonable to me, you disagree but that's what the court will work out.
    3. Read the article, it's not that long, it clearly says there had been previous trespassers prompting the owner to put in cameras and the signs.
    4. That's ridiculous, what sort of person would he have been if he hadn't accompanied his father for safety?
    5. And we shall see their testimony in court, we know they were right about Arbery so the their suspicious do seem reasonable.
    6. I'm tired of asking you to have empathy with these poor guys, Arbery should never have done what he did and should have stopped and accounted for himself , he was chased through the streets like a criminal which he was. There's standing your ground and there's punching a man who tries to speak to you about a suspected crime repeatedly in the face and trying to wrestle his gun off him.

    How can you claim Arbery had the right of self defence and Travis didn't? And before you say "Oh Travis created the situation" no he didn't, Arbery did.
     
  3. superbadbrutha

    superbadbrutha Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Messages:
    52,269
    Likes Received:
    6,446
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    All of that is HS. Greg McMichael NEVER saw him in any house, so your statement is false, they had NO AUTHORITY to stop him to talk or do anything else for that matter. How many times are you going to have to be told that. Travis jumps out of his vehicle charging at him with a shotgun and that is when Arbery tries to stand his ground or defend himself. He was not going to jail for nothing that is straight garbage.
     
  4. superbadbrutha

    superbadbrutha Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Messages:
    52,269
    Likes Received:
    6,446
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    BS at best.
    Well the GBI disagrees and pretty much everyone else who has looked at this case.
     
  5. superbadbrutha

    superbadbrutha Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Messages:
    52,269
    Likes Received:
    6,446
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    He was black, this isn't 1920 were a white man can stop any black man and question him. Arbery didn't have to explain anything to those racist clowns.
    The shotgun is coming up as he turns the corner.

    Yea that makes alot of sense, smh. Unbelievable.

    Why didn't they suspect any of the white burglars that was entering the house, please explain that for us.

    If the roles were reversed all 3 of them would have been sitting in jail an hour after it took place.

    They didn't see him either, the neighbor was shown the video of ALL the so called burglars. He was black so that is what they focused on and you know it.
     
  6. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,970
    Likes Received:
    3,918
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1. Of course he did, if the situation were reversed Arbey would be saying 'F*cking cracker/honky' and you wouldn't consider it a race crime. As for the rest, way to jump to a conclusion! What prejudice! Who did Arbery live with when he wasn't out committing crime?

    2. No, the DA's had a different opinion which I and many other people share as you can see from . Not recusing yourself immediately is not a cover up, they thought they could act independently, when it became clear people disagreed they did recuse themselves, in a small jurisdiction like this they could hardly not know them if only in passing. The second one cited Arbery's mental health problems and criminal record which was quite true and showed he was violent thug, explaining his actions.

    Yes it is but you're missing the key point here, their suspicion that he had been involved prior burglaries gave them RGTS when they saw someone fleeing from the scene of the previous offences and resembling the description that he had committed another. And of course they were RIGHT in their suspicions. Let me ask, if the McMichaels had seen him in the house themselves would that change things for you?
     
  7. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,970
    Likes Received:
    3,918
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1. The facts
    2. And GBI is bowing to the mob.
     
  8. superbadbrutha

    superbadbrutha Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Messages:
    52,269
    Likes Received:
    6,446
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No you are wanting the GBI to bow down to racist like the McMichaels. The facts are they chased down Arbery and murdered him.
     
  9. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,970
    Likes Received:
    3,918
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1. You're correct, this isn't the 1920s and Arbery should have explained himself after trespassing and waited for the police.
    2. It's pointed at the ground, come on?
    3. Arbery was not the sort of person who did sensible things.
    4. They didn't see them.
    5. How so? They'd have had no case to answer.
    6. They knew the description of the suspect and wished to detain for the police a man who matched that description and was fleeing the scene. They didn't care what colour he was and you know it, you just want to believe this was a hate crime to perpetuate your prejudice.
     
  10. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,970
    Likes Received:
    3,918
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What racism? They chased down Arbey because he was a suspected burglar and he got himself killed when he attacked them. You know it's true.
     
  11. superbadbrutha

    superbadbrutha Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Messages:
    52,269
    Likes Received:
    6,446
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Greg McMichael didn't see him trespassing anywhere, so why would he need to wait for the police? Your argument makes no sense.
    Irrelevant he jumped out of his vehicle with it and it is coming up as he comes around the front of the vehicle.
    Irrelevant.
    You know that how?
    They have alot to answer now.
    Where did they get the description from? They had NO AUTHORITY to detain him, you think white men can just pull guns on a black man at their leisure. Of course they cared what color he was or they would have confronted the white burglars and this wasn't even there property.
     
  12. superbadbrutha

    superbadbrutha Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Messages:
    52,269
    Likes Received:
    6,446
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I know they murdered him and so does the GBI.
     
  13. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,693
    Likes Received:
    7,745
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1: Don't play coy. You protected the Mall of America from Russian mobsters after the anal virginity of a politician's son.
    2: And to the law that's not how it works.
    3: Quote it.
    4: A person on the correct side of the citizen's arrest statute. The statute does not make allowances for bootstrapping onto someone else's claim.
    5: We have already seen and heard their own words from their own mouths.
    6: And I'm tired of telling you that I have the same amount of empathy for them as I have for other human beings because I am not a sociopath. That doesn't translate to them magically not having violated the law committing violent felonies that led to a man's death. Travis admits to pointing the gun at Arbery and ordering him down to the ground. The evidence is unquestioned that they struck Arbery with a vehicle. Arbery had the right to defend himself and did.

    Yes Travis did. See point 4.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2020
    superbadbrutha likes this.
  14. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,693
    Likes Received:
    7,745
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) If the races of all parties were reversed and Arbery killed a man while committing a violent felony against that person and against the peace and dignity of the state, then dropped a racial slur over him as he died, I would indeed hold the opinion that at least on the shooter's part there was some racial animosity. If I then was shown private papers and communications by the shooter with friends where he expresses such racial animosity (as with Travis) I'd feel my suspicions fairly well confirmed.
    2) No, the DA's violated their ethical duties by ruling on a case they had a conflict of interest on. Not recusing yourself immediately from a case where you've worked with the defendant, given them an award etc is indeed a violation of a lawyer's ethical duties in all 50 states. That's not a difference of opinion, that's a conflict of interest.
    As to the 2nd one: Yes, that's what's known as the Propensity Inference and using it is strictly verboten.

    Except they expressed no current suspicion and instead expressed they were only after prior activity. Multiple times.

    If Greg had actually seen Arbery commit a crime that day it would indeed allow Greg to pursue him. Not Travis though, because Travis didn't see ****. Not Roddy either because he doesn't see a crime. And Greg allowing Travis and Roddie to join him would make him an accomplice to their felonies since they can't shelter under CA, which would lead to the same result.
     
    superbadbrutha likes this.
  15. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,970
    Likes Received:
    3,918
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1. But he had been seen by the other neighbour, hence why he fled and he would have known that's why they wished to speak with with him.

    2. Watch again, it is only raised when Arbery attacks him, Travis has it pointed to the ground.

    3. Hell no, it explains why Arbery acted as he did.

    4. Because they would have chased them if they had?

    5. Because they're being railroaded to appease the mob.

    6. The description had been circulated in the neighbourhood following the prior incidents. No one cared about his colour, you just want that to be true. As I've said if the races were reversed I would say exactly the same, would you?
     
  16. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,970
    Likes Received:
    3,918
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1. Eh?
    2. I doubt you'd understand it, again, you've watched a lot of TV?
    3. I did.
    4. So he let his father get killed whilst confronting a possibly armed suspect? He's only human, once again, you're obsessed with the letter whilst I concentrate on the spirit.
    5. Yes, we've seen a portion of it, let's see what they say in entirety on the stand.
    6. Arbey had no right to commit crimes and no right to viciously attacked Travis and try to shoot him with his own gun, the blame lies with Arbery and he alone.
     
  17. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,970
    Likes Received:
    3,918
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1. You have to consider that Arbery had just tried to kill Travis with his own gun, if the positions were reversed and Arbery called Travis a 'Cracker/Honky' what would you think?
    2. Again, it would be impossible in such a small jurisdiction for them not to have at least a passing acquaintance, they were happy with their independence in the matter but correctly recused himself when questioned.

    Actually it is allowable in certain circumstances;

    https://www.ucmjdefense.com/resourc...vidence/permissible-propensity-inference.html

    3. Again, we'll see what they say on the stand, they may have considered the fact they suspected him of a contemporaneous burglary self evident.

    4. Again, Travis could hardly be expected to let his dad go alone? That would be like saying if a police officer witnessed a crime but another officer hadn't he could ask that person for assistance. Was Roddie actually working the McMichaels or acting independently?
     
  18. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,693
    Likes Received:
    7,745
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1: Its obviously a pop culture reference..
    2: I have a license to practise law actually. As you've been informed.
    3: You did not quote any section stating that there were signs up when Arbery was at the property.
    4: Or maybe he tells dad to take a breath and they just call the cops and let the cops handle it since Greg didn't see a crime in progress so he didn't have the right to chase with or without Travis.
    5: Obviously they haven't been convicted yet, but so far they've painted a fairly full picture of just what they were doing and what they thought about it. I'm more apt to take their statements at the scene as true than anything that comes out at trial after they've had months to come up with a story. Fair warning: Juries tend to act that way too. Said it? Stuck with it.
    6: Its not been shown he had committed any crime. Certainly Travis had witnessed no current crime that day and such fact is in no way in question even with your "interesting" theories which go against established facts. Roddie didn't witness a crime either. Which means the two of them going after Arbery is a felony, and Greg helping them do it counts as a felony on his part. Any way you cut the pie here, since Greg didn't see anything current and he admits that freely at the scene, and since he brought people with him who couldn't shelter under CA either even if Greg could (which as established by his own mouth, he cannot) they're guilty.
    Technically speaking, since Travis attempted to use deadly force against arbery without legal excuse, and Arbery was faced with 3 assailants attempting deadly force against him not just 1, Arbery could indeed take that gun away from him and if Travis got shot in the struggle that would be self defense. As the initial aggressor, Travis is unable to claim self defense with these facts.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2020
  19. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,693
    Likes Received:
    7,745
    Trophy Points:
    113
    1) I literally just told you that if the races were reversed and the circumstances otherwise the same, I would still find the shooter to have been at least partially motivated by racial animus. Try reading what I write, it helps.
    2) No it would not be impossible. They could get a DA from a neighboring county well within the 48 hour window he'd need a PC hearing within. If they couldn't get one from a neighboring county, the state has officers for just such an occasion.

    You have cited a) MILITARY TRIBUNAL CASES b) and an article BY A DEFENSE FIRM describing c) a situation where it is acceptable to use the propensity inference AS THE DEFENSE which allows the prosecutor to rebut in kind. You have to OPEN THE DOOR FOR THAT ****, the prosecutor can't simply toss that **** out there in a letter like a ****ing turd in a punch bowl. You want to know why no one listens to your opinion? Look no further than this performance right here.

    3) Except that's not what they actually said, more than once, and juries tend to judge you based on what you said before you had time to get your stories straight.
    4) That's LITERALLY exactly what the law expects of him. Cops are cops, they have differing duties and protections than an average citizen, even one claiming they can CA. CA does not authorize the rounding up of a posse to help you. Claiming under CA doesn't make you magically a bonded law enforcement officer in the jurisdiction.
    Roddie: Saw a public disturbance in which he had no way to judge who had done what. He chose a side, joined in, hit a man with his ****ing car, etc. He's i) not protected by CA and ii) independent or not at the start, he picked a side and acted in concert.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2020
  20. superbadbrutha

    superbadbrutha Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Messages:
    52,269
    Likes Received:
    6,446
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    He hadn't been see by Greg McMichael and the neighbor who saw the camera was not on the scene.

    Smh. He is raising the gun as he turns at the front of the truck.

    The man was out jogging and all of a sudden 3 rednecks roll up on you with guns, how are you suppose to act?

    How do you know they would have done that? They were on the same tape that Arbery was on and the McMichaels never mentioned that.

    Lame excuse.

    You need to get your information correct.

    https://www.wtoc.com/2020/05/13/cal...ht-previous-issues-glynn-county-neighborhood/

    Please enlighten us on where you are getting your information from and post some to refute what I just posted.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2020
  21. liberalminority

    liberalminority Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2010
    Messages:
    25,273
    Likes Received:
    1,633
    Trophy Points:
    113
    he was jogging in boots on private property after stealing something, then fought 3 armed rednecks

    this was not taylor swift jogging in a public park and being confronted by 3 armed criminals.
     
  22. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,970
    Likes Received:
    3,918
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1. One lost on me I'm afraid.
    2. This surprises me given your assertions. Criminal law?
    3. Just read the article it's not that long, come on, it just says CCTV and signs were put up due to people trespassing.
    4. Just let the suspect go? They were trying to be good neighbours, catch the criminal.
    5. Not necessarily, you can elaborate on what you initially said, your best testimony is actually from statements a couple of days later, you should read Elizabeth Loftus.
    6. No, certainly not PBARD but enough for RGTS. As I've asked was Roddie eve in communication with the others? No jury in the world is going to say Travis should have refused to help his dad, anyone would in that situation. When did Travis attempt to use deadly force against Arbery, he only wanted to detain him for the police, Arbery was the one who attacked, he is the initial aggressor. .
     
  23. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,970
    Likes Received:
    3,918
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1. I do and it doesn't help that much.
    2. But at the time it didn't seem necessary, it was an open and shut case, it was only the racial element which queered things, you can compare it with OJ, the prosecution thought this was just an ordinary domestic murder, they didn't see the other aspects that people brought to it.
    3. No, read further down. And you seem to care a great deal for my opinion.
    4. Not necessarily, you can still be in shock after the incident and elaborate on the stand, it's very common.
    5. This is not rounding up a posse, this is helping your father confront a possibly armed criminal. Of course Roddie helped his neighbours, who wouldn't? But that is hardly joint enterprise?
     
  24. Reasonablerob

    Reasonablerob Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2018
    Messages:
    9,970
    Likes Received:
    3,918
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    1. He hadn't been 'seen'. But they had the relayed description which Arbery fitted.
    2. He does? At what point? You see in the still image that when he faces Arbery it's pointed at the ground. SMHAYSYDN
    3. He wasn't jogging, he'd been caught in the house, remember?
    4. How do you know the opposite? The burden of proof is on you.
    5. It's not lame it's outrageous and you know it's true.
    6. I have the same facts as you do, I'm just interpreting them in a different manner. Your post is interesting in that Travis had previously seen the suspect (Arbery?) and doubtless shared the description with his father?
     
  25. superbadbrutha

    superbadbrutha Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2006
    Messages:
    52,269
    Likes Received:
    6,446
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What description was that? There were different folks in that house, so how did they have a description on him?
    You are in denial, plain and simple.
    That is exactly what he was doing, Greg McMichaels didn't catch him in the house and Travis didn't either.
    Actually it isn't for the simple fact there had been multiple folks in that house, but the focus was only on Arbery. Why is that? We know why.
    I know it's lame and so doesn't anyone else who reads that garabge.
    Travis saw someone, we don't know who he saw. I gave you the facts and you come back with this weak garbage of interpretation. You have no facts that is why you won't post anything to dispute what I posted.
     

Share This Page