Ahmaud Arbery murder case

[BleedGoldNWhite21]

Like I said earlier, who among us has never visited a house or other building under construction just to see what it all looks like? I sure have many times.

Yeah, it’s honestly baffling that people are actually using that as a justifiable reason to KILL a man.

 

[Milwaukee]

 

[GT_EE78]

good rationale for reserving judgement.
Interesting that this is exactly what DA Barnhill has said about the case.
So maybe DA Barnhill and the McMichaels aren't trashy white redneck vigilantes as the media (including AJC) would lead us to believe?

 

[GT_EE78]

Like I said earlier, who among us has never visited a house or other building under construction just to see what it all looks like? I sure have many times.

but did you look both ways to make sure the "coast is clear" -like Arbery did?
or then sprint quickly inside to avoid detection - like Arbery did?
or flee the scene after being shouted at - like Arbery did?

 

[Milwaukee]

good rationale for reserving judgement.
Interesting that this is exactly what DA Barnhill has said about the case.
So maybe DA Barnhill and the McMichaels aren't trashy white redneck vigilantes as the media (including AJC) would lead us to believe?

I agree, but I still think they’re trashy white rednecks lol. Just my opinion though.

 

[armeck]

but did you look both ways to make sure the "coast is clear" -like Arbery did?
or then sprint quickly inside to avoid detection - like Arbery did?
or flee the scene after being shouted at - like Arbery did?

Even with the possibility of all of that being true - you cannot create an armed posse and chase someone down.

 

[RonJohn]

good rationale for reserving judgement.
Interesting that this is exactly what DA Barnhill has said about the case.
So maybe DA Barnhill and the McMichaels aren't trashy white redneck vigilantes as the media (including AJC) would lead us to believe?

What "exactly" did Barnhill say about the case, and how does this video "exactly" say the same thing?

This video contains things such as "constitutional right to open carry". If there was a constitutional right to open carry, then it wouldn't be illegal in any state or city to do so. He also says that it is OK to open carry in Georgia, which it is. However, if you threaten someone with a gun that is not legal. You might say that he didn't "threaten" him, but if you were in public and someone with a gun in their hands yelled at you to stop, would you feel threatened? I certainly would, and if I was carrying a firearm at the time there is a decent chance that I would shoot that person.

 

[kg01]

Yeah, it’s honestly baffling that people are actually using that as a justifiable reason to KILL a man.

But he looked shifty so I guess it's ok for some.

Even if he'd had two tv's under each arm, there was no reason to kill the guy. Yet folks are still trying to justify.

It's amazing ..... but also not.

 

[armeck]

What "exactly" did Barnhill say about the case, and how does this video "exactly" say the same thing?

This video contains things such as "constitutional right to open carry". If there was a constitutional right to open carry, then it wouldn't be illegal in any state or city to do so. He also says that it is OK to open carry in Georgia, which it is. However, if you threaten someone with a gun that is not legal. You might say that he didn't "threaten" him, but if you were in public and someone with a gun in their hands yelled at you to stop, would you feel threatened? I certainly would, and if I was carrying a firearm at the time there is a decent chance that I would shoot that person.

We are under zero obligation to obey the orders of a non-law enforcement citizen. Some random dude, armed or not, has zero authority to detain you.

 

[Milwaukee]

Yeah, it’s honestly baffling that people are actually using that as a justifiable reason to KILL a man.

Who? Not disagreeing just honestly curious.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

The judge presiding over the case has demanded that the lawyer for the girls refer to those biological males as "female," because it's more "consistent with science."
OMG, what "science" is he talking about? He definitely must not know that biology is a pure science, and there is no room for transgenderism in biology.

This anti-science garbage is going to kill women's sports.

As an adult, various sports bodies have set rules that a biological man could compete against women provided they do a few things, such as taking testosterone blockers to get their numbers down below certain limits and for a certain amount of time. Certainly we can debate the merits of that. I'd argue that men have a larger biological advantage than just their testosterone - muscle and bone mass and training and everything else over the course of their lives still provides them an advantage, which is borne out in the results. However, this stuff is obnoxious in high school. These are biological males who have had no sex change operations, have taken no testosterone blockers - nothing. They are biological males. There is literally zero scientific reason to let them compete against females.

 

[GT_EE78]

I agree, but I still think they’re trashy white rednecks lol. Just my opinion though.

I know that's your opinion,we'll learn more assuming this gets to trial.The video was good,i prefer "reserving judgement" for now.
We know how honest and accurate media was during the ‘Tawana Brawley / Rodney King / Duke Lacrosse / Trayvon Martin / Michael Brown/ Covington Catholic School / Jussie Smollett’ cases. We’re not hearing all the facts, or even both sides of the story, from a biased propaganda based news media, who’s agenda is to promote and maintain the official victim status of blacks and other minorities, and whites as evil murdering racist antagonists.

 

[RonJohn]

But he looked shifty so I guess it's ok for some.

Even if he'd had two tv's under each arm, there was no reason to kill the guy. Yet folks are still trying to justify.

It's amazing ..... but also not.

I think it is mostly the polarization of political discussion. If one side stretches the truth to say that the McMichaels were in fear for their lives, the other side will stretch the truth to say Arbery was only jogging. When "only jogging" is introduced, the first side starts stretching even further, then the second side stretches further. Before long, the truth of what happened isn't important to the people who are arguing, only winning the argument against the other side.

I don't care about "showing those rednecks", and I don't care about proving to a local "rabble rouser" that he wasn't just jogging. Was he up to no good? I don't know. His actions in the video look a little shady, but I don't see anything that would convict him. Even if he was intending to commit burglary, does that justify assault with a deadly weapon? No. If it permissible to defend yourself if assaulted with a deadly weapon? Yes. Can a person who commits assault with a deadly weapon use the victim's response as a reason to kill them? No.

I try not to play in to the spin and fluff that accompanies news stories and side-vs-side arguments about those stories. Even if one "side" or the other in an argument overstates information, it doesn't mean that their are completely wrong about everything.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Sorry, ain't buying that. He is merely projecting his thoughts into an opinion, even though he SAYS he is impartial. There are as many holes in what he said as there are in what everybody else from either side has said.

 

[MWBATL]

Even if he'd had two tv's under each arm, there was no reason to kill the guy.

That should be the "mic drop" end of discussion......let the police do their job. Take his picture if you think he's a criminal and turn him in.

I live in a rural area where the justice system is....rather impotent. I get defending your home and property against criminal activity with a firearm. But this person was NOT on your property, he was NOT threatening anyone and he should not have been killed.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

I think it is mostly the polarization of political discussion. If one side stretches the truth to say that the McMichaels were in fear for their lives, the other side will stretch the truth to say Arbery was only jogging. When "only jogging" is introduced, the first side starts stretching even further, then the second side stretches further. Before long, the truth of what happened isn't important to the people who are arguing, only winning the argument against the other side.

I don't care about "showing those rednecks", and I don't care about proving to a local "rabble rouser" that he wasn't just jogging. Was he up to no good? I don't know. His actions in the video look a little shady, but I don't see anything that would convict him. Even if he was intending to commit burglary, does that justify assault with a deadly weapon? No. If it permissible to defend yourself if assaulted with a deadly weapon? Yes. Can a person who commits assault with a deadly weapon use the victim's response as a reason to kill them? No.

I try not to play in to the spin and fluff that accompanies news stories and side-vs-side arguments about those stories. Even if one "side" or the other in an argument overstates information, it doesn't mean that their are completely wrong about everything.

I find it interesting that the guy doing that video kept referring to the McMichael's having been "attacked" and then acting in self defense against the attack. What about the kid acting in self defense when he saw men waiting for him with guns drawn? It may be their right, through open carry laws, to have those guns; it's not their right to point the guns at someone else, unless that someone else poses an obvious threat to the gun carrier(s). Whether the kid was jogging or running is immaterial. Look at the video, and the McMichaels were lying in wait for him with guns already drawn.

 

[kg01]

I think it is mostly the polarization of political discussion. If one side stretches the truth to say that the McMichaels were in fear for their lives, the other side will stretch the truth to say Arbery was only jogging. When "only jogging" is introduced, the first side starts stretching even further, then the second side stretches further. Before long, the truth of what happened isn't important to the people who are arguing, only winning the argument against the other side.

I don't care about "showing those rednecks", and I don't care about proving to a local "rabble rouser" that he wasn't just jogging. Was he up to no good? I don't know. His actions in the video look a little shady, but I don't see anything that would convict him. Even if he was intending to commit burglary, does that justify assault with a deadly weapon? No. If it permissible to defend yourself if assaulted with a deadly weapon? Yes. Can a person who commits assault with a deadly weapon use the victim's response as a reason to kill them? No.

I try not to play in to the spin and fluff that accompanies news stories and side-vs-side arguments about those stories. Even if one "side" or the other in an argument overstates information, it doesn't mean that their are completely wrong about everything.

Can you repeat all this for the folks that are still knee-deep in the stretching phase?

 

[GT_EE78]

I find it interesting that the guy doing that video kept referring to the McMichael's having been "attacked" and then acting in self defense against the attack. What about the kid acting in self defense when he saw men waiting for him with guns drawn? It may be their right, through open carry laws, to have those guns; it's not their right to point the guns at someone else, unless that someone else poses an obvious threat to the gun carrier(s). Whether the kid was jogging or running is immaterial. Look at the video, and the McMichaels were lying in wait for him with guns already drawn.

Sure, if Arbery thought that he was being illegally detained, then he has a right to fight back.. but is that reasonable to assume?
Why didn't this innocent jogger just "continue the jog" in one of the three directions that were readily available?
Why did he abruptly turn 90 degree, then run over 12 feet to violently attack Travis McMichael as is shown in the video.
Maybe it's even more reasonable to think that since he was fleeing the scene of a crime and likely was aware that police were enroute, that he just wanted to get away from police. What if that burgling just minutes before this was the parole violation that would have sent him back to jail?

 

[kg01]

Wow

 

[Milwaukee]

This doesn’t change the fact or validate that he was murdered by 2 men, but more info nonetheless: