A Miscarriage of Justice

I can understnad what you're saying here. The first thing I would say to that is that I think what the law means by "detainment" is not exactly what they did here, or tried to do here. That seems to be me a very stretched interpretation of the law.
I'm pretty sure the law uses the word "detain" to refer to actually trying to prevent the person from moving, as in putting them under arrest, or putting them inside a room where they cannot leave. Cornering a person on both side of the road is not exactly the same thing. Yes, it is true, Travis and Gregory were both standing on one side of the road with guns, that could have been intimidating, especially since both Gregory and Travis pointed guns towards Arbery when he got to close to each of them. But we have no real evidence about what was on the other side of that, if Arbery had any reason to feel intimidation from Bryan.

And it seems to me, from the video, it is not completely obvious that Travis was attempting to create a roadblock, even if that's what his action sort of ended up doing. As you can see in the video, Gregory was obviously unwilling to shoot when Arbery went around the right side of the truck, with Gregory standing looming right over him. So whatever threat Gregory was making was either an empty threat, or Gregory actually meaning that he would shoot if Arbery got too close to him or tried to get inside the truck.
Let's remember that Arbery was pretty much already on the other side of the roadblock when the incident finally happened that lead to his death.
When Arbery made a run to attack Travis, he was actually running back sort of in the direction of the roadblock he had just passed through. What I mean is that this wasn't just the McMichaels forming a roadblock and then attacking Arbery when Arbery went too close to them trying to go through that roadblock.

 

Ya I get that. Its pretty clear to me that Arbery inititated the physical contact/violence. However, it also appears that the McMichaels created the situation in which Arbery was justified in an immediate fear of his life and health, and thus Arbery was lawfully justified in acting in whatever manner he saw fit as his best likely defense of his life and health. The question then comes down to- were the McMichaels legally justified in creating that situation where Arbery was justified in fearing for -and acting in defense of- his immediate life and health? Given that Arbery was not demonstrably a threat to anyone prior to the McMichaels actions, nor had they witnessed Arbery commit a felony which would have legitimized Arbery's detainment, then no, I don't think it can be demonstrated that the McMichaels were legally justified in creating the situation where Arbery was justified in fearing for -and acting in defense of- his own immedaite life and health, and thus the McMichaels are legally responsible for the results of the situation they created, which includes Arbery's fear for -and acting in defense of- his life and health, and their killing of Arbery, regardless of whether their killing of Arbery was also in self defense of their own life and health (which it appears to me it was).

 

That's just not entirely clear to me. I can see how it might have appeared that way to Arbery.

But in reality, it seems more like Travis was only pointing the gun towards Arbery to protect himself, and Gregory may have just been pointing the gun at Arbery to try to keep him away from getting close to the truck, where Gregory could not keep a line of sight on him, or trying to get into the truck, especially since the driver's side door was open.

I think Arbery should have realized that Gregory could have easily shot him if he wanted to, but Gregory did not. So I think Arbery must have known that the two were not actually going to try to murder him, but maybe he feared they might try to grab him, and arrest him (or do something else bad to him, perhaps).

I can see how this might have appeared to Arbery, but I question how much of this was actually the fault of each of those three other men, and even if it was, how intentional the exact situation that resulted actually was. It seems to me, from watching the video, that situation sort of just naturally developed on its own, in a way that couldn't have been entirely predicted.

And then for Arbery to try to attack Travis, if Arbery had been thinking logically, what did he actually have to gain from that attempt?

 

Thats pretty much the point though. Most people can understand why doing what the McMichaels did would have the same effect on anyone as it did on Arbery, and would thus not do what the McMichaels did.

 

I don't think that's entirely fair.
Is your argument here saying that those three men should not have tried to follow Arbery, and since they did they're entirely to blame here now?
Was there a way for those three men to try to follow Arbery and keep an eye on his location that wouldn't have resulted in this outcome?
Or are you claiming those three men had the right to try to follow Arbery in their vehicles, but made some sort of strategic mistake that they should have foreseen would lead to this tragic situation?

 

I don't believe they were solely intent on just following him. If they were, Arbery would not have been able to catch them in their truck (unless it broke down, I guess... did it?). At some point, they decided to try to prevent him from getting away by moving their vehicle into his path of travel, and then they decided to engage in a confrontation by getting out of that vehicle instead of driving away from Arbery. Given that they were only following Arbery in the first place because they believed he was a theif, I think its entirely reasonable to conclude these followup actions were taken in attempt to detain him for the police. Its likely they were experiencing a sort of 'mission creep', where they had originally set out to just follow him, but it doesn't sound to me like they stayed on that mission, and they let their emotions and the heat of the chase eventually turn their intentions toward taking the law into their hands and prevent him from moving to escape.

...which I won't say necessarily makes them bad people (nor will I say precisely how I feel about vigilanteism because it could be construed as a 'call to violence'...), but certainly vigilanteism cannot be allowed -or treated with any leniancy- by the law.

 

I tend to stick to basic principals and generalities because in most cases like this the only people with access to all the specific details are the defense and prosecution and unless you are present in court when those details are discussed the only way to access them all is to 'deep dive' into court records after the case is over. When most people talk about 'details' on forums like this usually they only means snippets they've read in news articles or scene in broadcasts. Which is never the 'whole thing'.

Beyond that I would simply note that their stated intention was to perform a citizens arrest. Having formed that intention it doesn't matter how they approached the victim, left, right, front, back on foot or in vehicle, hot air balloon? It makes not difference. They started the interaction with Aubery and did not intend to let him leave the scene in peace.

As I noted above your all your party to is a few snippets of video. And your most certainly not seeing even that from the same angle/perspective that Aubery did. To many 'maybes' and 'could haves' in your interpretation of events.

In the end the jury saw all the evidence available and had the opportunity to have an technical questions they had about what happened answered. They obviously thought there was more than enough.

 

That's true. But we just don't have absolute solid evidence of exactly what happened. All we have is the available video, and some testimony from the three (surviving) men suggesting what may have happened.

It seems like the jury decided all three men were guilty of "murder" based on a perspective for which there was not really adequate evidence for.
Like a "theory" of what might have happened.

I understand what you're saying, and appreciate your candor.

"Stated", but not really proven, I would say (in my opinion).
This is another kind of tricky grey zone.

It's unclear exactly what measures they were actually going to take to try to detain Arbery. They really don't seem very serious about it, from what I can see in the video. Some of the initial statements to police might have just been "tough talk", and should not be taken entirely literally.

 

What led to what is just misdirection and bullshit. Arbery attacked somebody holding a gun and tried to take it from him. So Travis killed him in self defense. Now with the final confrontation as far as the fight for the gun went, there is no question that arbery initiated it. With that being the case, the background of arbery himself should have been allowed in court. By the way, your avatar should have one less K.

 

Of Travis has committed a misdemeanor theft two years prior would that matter?

Why?

Two less I can understand kek is spelled with two ks it's vertical and horizontal.

 

Goodbye

 

Based on what?

How does that have anything to do with him trying to take that shotgun out of Travis's hands? If he was justified in shooting him that alone would be the justification. It wouldn't matter if he was criminally insane or if you just rescued a bus from the school children.

Would it?

 

Stopped reading at 'anti-white'. Show evidense of me being 'anti-white' or ur full of it.

Trying to use 'racist!!!' as an argument was already beat to death by the loony progs. You missed that train by a lot dood.

 

I sort of agree with you. But remember, the other side is saying Travis did not get the right to self defense because he had "provoked" Arbery into it with his prior actions. What exactly were the prior actions of the three, and were they a response to what Arbery did? So this is relevant. Since we don't know exactly what Arbery did, we have to look to his known past behavior for some idea of how he might have been behaving and interacting in that situation.
If Arbery was doing certain things, the response of those three men might be partially justified, or at least understandable. What they did would not be seen so much as a provocation if it was in response to certain actions Arbery did. If Arbery was "playing around" or being an "a(*)(*)hole". If Arbery did some of these things, it would also suggest that he was being more angry and anti-social than "running for his life", as many people contend.

I know you have said before "You can't do that, you're speculating". But that is also what the prosecution did. Much of what the prosecution alleged was also mostly speculation, using bits of evidence to try to paint a picture.
So I disagree with you and think reasonable speculation is fair to use in the defense.

It would be just like if someone shot a man and claimed the other man was being belligerent so he had to shoot him. What would police or a jury probably do at that point? They would check the wounded man's past record and see if he had a history of being belligerent and starting fights, see if his past history was consistent with what the other man claimed he had done.

 

I believe there are possible elements of Arbery's behavior that day that might point to this, besides just the final situation where Arbery ran at a man holding a gun.

I think Arbery may have gone up to Bryan's truck and banged his fists on it. Because he was angry. Maybe made a mean face into the driver's side window.
I don't claim that Arbery had any legal obligation to stop, but it does sound like Arbery may have "been playing" with these men. Going back and forth, reversing direction. And then when he finally came to the "roadblock" (as some describe it) he acted like it was a game of basketball and tried to pysche Travis into thinking he was going one way when he was really going another, with swerving movements back and forth, changing direction.

Then of course I see in the video one point where it appears Arbery might have seen an opportunity and might have been trying to "jump" Travis. (This is right before Travis points his shotgun at Arbery for the first time) Travis's back is partially turned to Arbery, Travis is walking away, moving to the left side of the road, because Arbery tried to make him think he was going to take the path on the other side, on the right side of the truck. Arbery then quickly swerves and runs towards Travis's direction, catching Travis off guard. (It's not entirely clear whether Arbery was going to run at Travis, or saw a viable path opening up in the road as Travis was moving away from the truck and not paying attention.

That would be "insane" if Arbery was trying to jump Travis at that point, I'm sure you'll agree. Since Travis had not actually pointed his gun towards Arbery up to that point.

It's really difficult to catch in the video, since everything is happening so fast and the camera keeps swerving out of view. The camera is also out of focus for that split second.

 

it doesn't matter who provoked too it matters who acted unlawfully. There's no law against provoking people so no it doesn't matter.

Arbery's criminal history wouldn't have anything to do with that. And the McMichaels were not privy to it.

that would matter if this was arbery's trial. It doesn't matter how you interpret what he was doing. It's only the facts and it doesn't matter what he did 2 years ago that changed the facts of this situation. The McMichaels didn't know so you can't judge their actions by knowledge they did not have.

but again we're judging the McMichaels actions at the time not things they couldn't know.

you also disagree with the US legal system because criminal history is often not allowed to be discussed in trials that don't have anything to do with previous criminal history.

It would be just like if someone shot a man and claimed the other man was being belligerent so he had to shoot him. What would police or a jury probably do at that point? They would check the wounded man's past record and see if he had a history of being belligerent and starting fights, see if his past history was consistent with what the other man claimed he had done.[/QUOTE]
History doesn't matter in most cases because the people involved don't know that and you can't judge the actions of somebody based on what they don't know.

I don't know why that is something that's so contentious with you.

 

You're trying to make a black & white legal argument. Which just doesn't exist here. The prosecution tried to tie separate individual things (each of which was not illegal) into one thing, which she argued constituted something illegal. And obviously the prosecution succeeded at this argument.

 

I personally agree with you. (not everyone does) But I still think his behavior in that taser video from three years prior would be relevant.

 

How does this undermine the point that what he did two years before is not relevant?

 

How without going into speculatory character building on somebody who isn't even at trial here

 

I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Can you rephrase that? I don't wish to get into a semantic argument, so what exactly do you mean by "at trial here"?

I just don't see your logic on this one.

 

How is the behavior relevant in the taser video?

 

I've already explained twice and will not be explaining again.

Honestly, just look at that video and think about what that person's behavior would have been in a situation like that.

 

your reason didn't make any sense essentially so you can pretend how that matters to something that it doesn't matter to.

You didn't explain you just insisted that it mattered but don't insist that it matters again because that's not explaining

The taser video? why? I could watch it a million times it won't have anything at all to do with the McMichael's case.

The only thing you've done to say that it would is insist on it.