Ahmaud Arbery murder case

[Dpjacket]

I feel like you're really messing with me now. Siding against @Supersizethatorder-mutt ? Others?

Nobody sides against @Supersizethatorder-mutt . But some seem to object > 80% of the time (you ) which is dangerous.

 

[Supersizethatorder-mutt]

Nobody sides against @Supersizethatorder-mutt . But some seem to object > 80% of the time (you ) which is dangerous.

Well carry on with whatever you think, but I am going to bed.

 

[Dpjacket]

I don't know where you came up with that idea. I have found myself in agreement with @FredJacket most, if not all of the time.

Uh-oh... :’-} Let me review the Political topic threads again then. Perhaps I’m conflating @FredJacket from another.

 

[FredJacket]

Nobody sides against @Supersizethatorder-mutt . But some seem to object > 80% of the time (you ) which is dangerous.

Ok... you made me go back and look more precisely at my Job comment & the surrounding context. FWIW.... as to the substance of your posts. No significant argument from me. I do think your points would stand on their own. No need to diminish another guys' personal experience in the process.

 

[BleedGoldNWhite21]

Me too, I thought you were referring to this board.

Yeah I should have probably made it clearer that I was talking generally and not specifically about our community on the board.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I think the option you’re omitting is how to posit how a person may feel because liberal emotional society *tells the person how to feel* based off of the past history of ancestors. I believe this is the new dynamic of the 21st Century and certainly modern politics.

Or maybe you understand that your preconceived notions are actually incongruent with how others that you can never truly understand feel. Just a thought, but unless you walk two moons in another's moccasins, you can only project your own viewpoint.

 

[forensicbuzz]

As long as we get rid of every gangbanger who hunts down where there’s intent to kill. #SaveChicago

hey, leave Chicago out of this.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I think it’s far more dangerous in NYC, Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, LA, etc and even Atlanta than it is in 99.9999% of the rest of the United States. I’ll bet any amount of money there’s ZERO minorities getting shot at while jogging in my entire county and there’s at least a dozen minorities getting murdered in each of those cities in the next 6 months.

We all know where it’s safer and where it’s less safe. It’s not safer in the big cities & Brunswick I’m sure is still safer than Atlanta, etc on virtually every day.

We need to target the cause of this tragedy & move the needle forward not let the media/politician/lawyer clowns or radical wingnuts on either side of this situation take this over to everybody’s disbenefit except their own.

Don't speak for Chicago. There's about 6 city blocks in Chicago that are dangerous. The rest of the city is safer than 95% of the US (yes that's a made up statistic, sue me!)

 

[Dpjacket]

Ok... you made me go back and look more precisely at my Job comment & the surrounding context. FWIW.... as to the substance of your posts. No significant argument from me. I do think your points would stand on their own. No need to diminish another guys' personal experience in the process.

Thank you. And, look I suspect we’re all more grey/gray than black/white, or this vs that. We’re generally just not that absolute. But neither did I see anyone diminish another guy’s experience.

If this is all about — to be honest I’m not sure at this point — to understand the application of words from an elderly, who was black by context of kg01, from 1988....I cannot rationale that to last week in Brunswick. Frankly, to me it seems an affront to what the grandmother certainly experienced in her past, especially in Jim Crow South. Who among us really understand that? (directly....not anecdotally)

So, in Brunswick there is a young man dead, and two who are in custody from a visceral video. There will be a trial. There will be national coverage. There will be revelations. There will be politicians making statements. There will be partisanship.

At the end of the day what will be the difference?

For most all of us....nothing. Will we all carry on the relationships we have diverse as they may be? Of course. Do we accept reality of extremist or ignorant thinking? We have to .. it is what it is for now and thankfully it’s less the norm and than before. And understanding will evolve. Because life is grey — not white or black—but also somewhat in shambles.

 

[Dpjacket]

Don't speak for Chicago. There's about 6 city blocks in Chicago that are dangerous. The rest of the city is safer than 95% of the US (yes that's a made up statistic, sue me!)

Lol, it’s only the media that can make up statistics

As far as the problematic six city blocks - can we simply expatriate them so we can literally ignore and defund them? Or is that too convenient...hmmm....akin to Somalia that no one gives two ****s about today.... (makes you think)

 

[Dpjacket]

Or maybe you understand that your preconceived notions are actually incongruent with how others that you can never truly understand feel. Just a thought, but unless you walk two moons in another's moccasins, you can only project your own viewpoint.

I just think there’s a difference between feelings and reality. And I happen to think think that social media, and certainly politicians, promotes how one should feel versus a certain a general reality of existence (struggle) that’s been around since the beginning of time.

And so we have an entitlement society that promotes the logical fallacy that “you can never understand me because you aren’t me“. Well, then I guess that must right and therefore I should or could not ever give a ****...

 

[LibertyTurns]

Don't speak for Chicago. There's about 6 city blocks in Chicago that are dangerous. The rest of the city is safer than 95% of the US (yes that's a made up statistic, sue me!)

I’ve been close enough to gunfire on more than 1 occasion in Chicago to know that parts of it are very unsafe. Sad we allow this in America. OK, that was 30 years ago but have had stops in/around Chicago the last 10 years and somethings have changed, many things have not. When we can’t fix a serious problem in 2+ generations it means the people trying really are not it’s just lip service & the people other people are trying to help really don’t want things to change otherwise they’d take matters into their own hands and demand change.

 

[MWBATL]

What this debate over the last few pages has shown us is that the disproportionate response to such situations merely exacerbates the battle lines and puts everyone deeper into their trenches.

imho, the difference, @Dpjacket , between what you are arguing and what others are saying is this:

1. in other places (like Chicago) the police are actively trying to catch and jail offenders. In this case, the two guys were about to be let off scot free. (that is a HUGE difference)
2. the media and some activists absolutely do harm with their exaggerated responses to situations like this. They make it sound like every black person is being hunted down. This was VERY unhelpful after Ferguson, Trayvon Martin, etc etc...and served to inflame passions and perpetuate stereotypes. That is sad and should be criticized.
3. BUT, having said that, what I hear when I read @kg01's posts and what I hear for literally every black male friend I have is that there is a real issue underlying this. Much more subtle than it used to be, but an issue nevertheless. Too many solid decent black folk get stopped and questioned just because they are black and the criminal being looked for is black. In many cases they understand that crime is higher by blacks, but if you are trying to live a decent life and the American dream, having this kind of headwind just gets f***ing tired. And, every once in a blue moon, it can be dangerous. The fact that there are crazies out there isn't the issue. The fact that the criminal justice system doesn't respond to such craziness is the issue.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I’ve been close enough to gunfire on more than 1 occasion in Chicago to know that parts of it are very unsafe. Sad we allow this in America. OK, that was 30 years ago but have had stops in/around Chicago the last 10 years and somethings have changed, many things have not. When we can’t fix a serious problem in 2+ generations it means the people trying really are not it’s just lip service & the people other people are trying to help really don’t want things to change otherwise they’d take matters into their own hands and demand change.

There are absolutely dangerous parts of town. I'd posit that there are just as many dangerous parts in Atlanta, LA, Washington DC, Houston, Baltimore, Milwaukee, etc. Cities are always going to have hot spots, but they're generally isolated to a few city blocks scattered throughout the City. David Weisburd's research at George Mason University (Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy) shows that not only do areas generally considered "dangerous" usually have low amounts of crime (except small hot spots), but if law enforcement focusses their efforts on these hot spots, the criminal activity does not migrate, but the neighborhoods actually improve. It's very interesting research.

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

I just hope that biased people claiming the McMichaels had a right to assault him with a deadly weapon acted appropriately don't cause another Ferguson. You are just as guilty as the guys on the other side in creating unnecessary hype about the case.

I question your premise bolded above. I don't think that anyone is claiming that the McMichaels had a right to assault anyone. You are putting words in peoples mouth by the way you are defining the term "assault". What you have in the video is (2) stationary men with guns stopped in the road, and a black male runs directly into them causing an altercation with a man legally carrying a shotgun out in the open (not sure about the legality of carrying a weapon on a public road or in the back of a truck). It appears to me in the video that Arbery definitely initiated the contact with the McMichaels and not vice versa.

Say you or I were jogging along minding our own business and you see 2 black dudes with guns just ahead in the road. Are you really going to run right up to them and start an altercation? I know that I'd be running in a different direction if it was me.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

I question your premise bolded above. I don't think that anyone is claiming that the McMichaels had a right to assault anyone. You are putting words in peoples mouth by the way you are defining the term "assault". What you have in the video is (2) stationary men with guns stopped in the road, and a black male runs directly into them causing an altercation with a man legally carrying a shotgun out in the open (not sure about the legality of carrying a weapon on a public road or in the back of a truck). It appears to me in the video that Arbery definitely initiated the contact with the McMichaels and not vice versa.

Say you or I were jogging along minding our own business and you see 2 black dudes with guns just ahead in the road. Are you really going to run right up to them and start an altercation? I know that I'd be running in a different direction if it was me.

Good gracious golly alive. When he got to the truck in the middle of the road, the driver was standing on the left side of the truck as you watch the video. Ahmaud kept on jogging and moved over to pass around the right side. As he came around the front corner of the truck, the driver had moved over there with the gun aimed at him. Less than 1 second after Ahmaud passed the right side of the truck, the driver had fired the first shot. I can't tell what the driver yelled at Ahmaud, but I'm sure that will be part of the evidence. To be clear, the first shot was fired before the two men engaged in the wrestle for the gun. Without knowing what the guy was yelling at Ahmaud as he tried to run by, you can't know what Ahmaud was thinking, and you might never. If all of a sudden 5 feet to your left is a guy aiming a gun at you and yelling something, you might try to wrestle the gun away too. Ahmaud was fighting for the gun. He was fighting for his life. The only punch I ever saw him throw was after he had already been shot twice.

 

[RonJohn]

I question your premise bolded above. I don't think that anyone is claiming that the McMichaels had a right to assault anyone. You are putting words in peoples mouth by the way you are defining the term "assault". What you have in the video is (2) stationary men with guns stopped in the road, and a black male runs directly into them causing an altercation with a man legally carrying a shotgun out in the open (not sure about the legality of carrying a weapon on a public road or in the back of a truck). It appears to me in the video that Arbery definitely initiated the contact with the McMichaels and not vice versa.

Say you or I were jogging along minding our own business and you see 2 black dudes with guns just ahead in the road. Are you really going to run right up to them and start an altercation? I know that I'd be running in a different direction if it was me.

Assault is defined as:

(a) A person commits the offense of simple assault when he or she either:

(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another; or

(2) Commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.

By their own admission, they were trying to stop him. The man in the road had a shotgun in his hands and was trying to stop him. If you were in public and a person with a shotgun in their hands actively tried to get you to stop, would you have a "reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury". If so, then the man in the road with a shotgun did in fact assault him by the legal definition of assault.

You want to use some definition of assault that only takes place if a person throws a punch. The legal definition includes using a gun in a threatening manner. You don't have to point the gun at the person. You don't have to shoot the gun at the person. You only have to lead a reasonable person to believe that you might use that gun to injure them.

There is a reason that there is a term fight-vs-flight. If someone threatens you with a gun is it better to run than to fight? You might get shot either way. I think that is more of an instinctual reaction than a thoughtful one. The same person will even react differently at different times. Some might fight. Some might run. Some might just have their knees buckle and fall on the ground in fear.

No matter how you take what Arbery did before, or what McMichael was doing at the time. McMichael was not out for a leisurely stroll down the road with his shotgun when Arbery launched himself out of the trees and attacked him with no provocation. McMichael from his own statements was using the shotgun to try to apprehend Arbery. That fits the legal definition of assault.

 

[RonJohn]

I question your premise bolded above. I don't think that anyone is claiming that the McMichaels had a right to assault anyone. You are putting words in peoples mouth by the way you are defining the term "assault". What you have in the video is (2) stationary men with guns stopped in the road, and a black male runs directly into them causing an altercation with a man legally carrying a shotgun out in the open (not sure about the legality of carrying a weapon on a public road or in the back of a truck). It appears to me in the video that Arbery definitely initiated the contact with the McMichaels and not vice versa.

Say you or I were jogging along minding our own business and you see 2 black dudes with guns just ahead in the road. Are you really going to run right up to them and start an altercation? I know that I'd be running in a different direction if it was me.

Also, there have been court cases that have basically said that if you threaten someone and they respond to your threat, you cannot use self-defense as a defense. One person cannot pull out a knife and then justify stabbing the other person because that person grabbed their knife hand to try to prevent himself from being stabbed. In this case, McMichael can't threaten Arbery with a gun and then use the fact that Arbery fought back as justification for shooting him. The initial assault(threaten with a gun) was made by McMichael.

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

Also, there have been court cases that have basically said that if you threaten someone and they respond to your threat, you cannot use self-defense as a defense. One person cannot pull out a knife and then justify stabbing the other person because that person grabbed their knife hand to try to prevent himself from being stabbed. In this case, McMichael can't threaten Arbery with a gun and then use the fact that Arbery fought back as justification for shooting him. The initial assault(threaten with a gun) was made by McMichael.

I just don't agree with your presentation at all. IMHO, Arbery initiated the assault by running up to these guys, and he would still be alive today if he would have just stayed away from them. I think that the premise that the McMichaels initiated an assault with guns is just false as seen in the video.

 

[RonJohn]

I just don't agree with your presentation at all. IMHO, Arbery initiated the assault by running up to these guys, and he would still be alive today if he would have just stayed away from them. I think that the premise that the McMichaels initiated an assault with guns is just false as seen in the video.

Are you using your definition of assault or the legal definition of assault in Georgia? Using a gun to threaten someone IS assault under Georgia law. Having a gun in your hand while making threatening commands IS assault under Georgia law.

What definition of assault are you using? I posted the one that I am using.