Jogger shot in Georgia for being Black

Post Reply New Topic

A new, 4th prosecutor has been named to take the case.
https://news.yahoo.com/black-republican ... 04021.html

I watched the long version of the video taken from the dashcam of a third person (buddy of the shooters).

It shows 3 shots. The first went through the victim's hand and the second hit him in the body. When the victim attempted to flee the shooter (McHale) shot him while he was running.

It should be an open and shut case of murder based on the video. The decision of Mchale following the jogger is now getting closer to being a race hate crime as I doubt a white jogger would have attracted any attention.

The owner of the dashcam video says he doesn't know the father and son.

The prosecutor report is based on this video.

The prosecutor report says the video shows Mr. Aubrey charged the son and grabbed for the shotgun.

The prosecutor report says this is why the first gun shot is in Mr. Aubrey's hand.

All the shots occur while they're in close proximity, and are struggling over the shotgun.

It should also be noted Mr. Aubrey is throwing head punches during this struggle.

The deceased Aubrey was likely defending himself against a threat made toward him. Lets see how this plays out in court. Aubrey like Trayvon Martin is not around to give testimony which is convenient for McHale's lawyers who will fabricate their own narrative like George Zimmerman's legal team successfully did.

What is the solution to this? It's easy to say this, but people live where they live. They can't just up and move to the projects, offer a black family their home so that the neighborhood is more diverse. Or, reduce the asking price of their home so that someone who ordinarily might not be able to afford it, can. I'm not sure how it is in Australia, but blacks in the US like living in the same neighborhood with each other. And they don't like it when a white family moves in. I know this first hand, because I lived in a black neighborhood for 9 years.

Aboriginal people in Australia and African Americans in the US were both restricted on where they could move up to the 1960s. But today the aboriginals have largely assimilated and (at least in Victoria) into mainstream Australian populations. No longer white spaces here. How did it happen?

A typical aboriginal family is indistinguishable from an average Aussie family because a of a policy of forced assimilation during the 1900s where children were taken from aboriginal families into christian missions and then fostered in white families. Over 3 generations they totally lost their identity as can be seen by this government poster (it was Australian government policy)

In the US, they would arrest you for kidnapping, IF you made it out of the house alive with the kid. You can'y just steal somebody's kid in my country. Of all the suggestions you could make, I never thought it would be this one. I expected you to say something like steal one half of the white's land and money and give it all to the blacks. But, not kidnapping.
So basically what you are after is everyone being a nice shade of beige? What a boring world that would be. I like color.

That's nonsense, your government had an official policy of stealing indigenous children from their homes and sending them to boarding schools, just like his country and my country.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_ ... ng_schools

I think you misunderstand. Aboriginals have been forcibly assimilated already.

In the US Jim crow laws forbid miscegenation between Africans Americans and whites. Even though those laws were revoked in the 1960s there is still a huge stigma against interracial relationships and the symptoms of can still be seen when a African American trespasses into white spaces in the US. The #while being black has become a popular meme. Another one I saw recently (and there seems to be hundreds) includes cutting white peoples lawn while being black. That one is the most preposterous where a black gardener was harassed by police when he was employed to cut grass in a predominately white neighbourhood.

White Americans think blacks complain too much. The invention of the mobile phone means their daily torment can now be filmed and passed on to radio stations/newspapers.

Exactly why I hate this crap hole and really resent the fact that my dad dragged my mom and I down here to retire <,<

They did do this. But, it's frowned upon in modern times.

I know many interracial couples and their children. It's not near as taboo as people claim. It was taboo in the past, but the younger generations are not following in the footsteps of their parents. I know for myself and I've said this here before, I would much rather my kids and grand kids marry a motivated black individual, than a white loser any day.

There will always be people who hold unreasonable hatred in their hearts. I don't know what to do about those people, do you?

Retire? You must be older, then?

Why don't you go back to where it's better? I would. If I hated where I was, I wouldn't spend a minute more there.

I think the appropriate answer is it shouldn't matter whom your children marry so long as they love that person and your future in-law is a good person to them.

Going back to the original premis of this thread, it seems unlikely that this was a case of the jogger having been shot for being black.

From what I have been seen reported, the owner of the house under construction (who lived several hours from the house) had been experiencing issues with items going missing and trespassers from some time, leading to the local police department on Decmeber 20 last year suggesting that the owner call the McMichaels (who lived nearby and was "retired law enforcement"), indicating there had been a number of calls and\or that the police had been unable to reach the property in time to catch the person(s) who were on the property.

Then, on February 11, Mr McMichael actually saw a person running from the house and called "911" to report it. During the call he mentioned that there had been a number of burglaries in the area. He also mentioned the person who ran from the house had been reaching into his pocket as he ran and was concerned that he may have been armed. It also appears that a handgun had been stolen from his truck in the previous 2 weeks (WHY you would leave an unsecured weapon in a vehicle I do not know).

Although there had been no burgalry reports filed for months, it also appears that in the preceeding 6 months, 87 calls from the area had been made to police regarding various activity, including suspicious behavior, trespassing and thefts.

In further background, Mr Arbery had previously been arrested for firearm possesion and later for shoplifting, where Mr McMichael was involved in the related investigation.

On the day of the shooting, it appears that the McMichaels were made aware of someone running from the property and moved to stop them. Not having seen the footage (I'm not really into watching that sort of thing), it seems that they were parked across an intersection, and that Mr Arbery ran around their vehicle, then turned to move towards one of the McMichaels and to wrestle with him for his gun (my understanding is that one of the stots went into Mr Arbery's hand in a way that would have indicated he wa trying to grab the barrel of the gun when it discharged).

Based on this, I fail to see how it can be claimed that this shooting was a case of a couple of "rednecks" going out with the intention to shoot a black person as has been implied in several posts here.

Sources:
https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/sus ... djvXrE6sN/
https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/rec ... FWbKfApmJ/
https://www.sentinelsource.com/mcclatch ... b1dfa.html

I'd be interested to see a copy of this policy, as although I have heard many reports of it existing, no-one has ever been able to produce a copy when I have asked to see it.

I do know that in the late 1800's - mid 1900's, a number of Aboriginal children were removed from their parents in cases of neglect, and were sent to missions to be cared for, as well as a number of parents sending their children away in order that they have better opportunities for their future. In some cases, it is possible that the child welfare officers may have been too zealous in removing children, but all the reports I have seen indicate the children were removed for their welfare rather than their colour as you imply.

It is also interesting to note that those who were removed are generally in a better educational and financial situation than those who still live in tribal settlements. In fact, we had a former Prime Minister who spent a week or more each year out helping at these settlements (and had been doing this prior to entering politics as far as I am aware) who was attacked for not caring about these people. It is also common for money set aside to help these people in the settlements who are extemely disadvantaged being granted to the assimilated aboriginals, further disadvantaging them.

And for a little background: My Grandfather was the manager of an Aboriginal mission. I remember how a number of the people from the mission attended his funeral many years ago, where I had the opportunity to speak to them. Additionally, my mother-in-law's partner is one of the "stolen generation" and he has said that being taken away from his family was the best thing that happened to him. He regularly goes back to his home country and has seen what happened to others he grew up with who were not "stolen". in fact, the most vocal critics of this removal of children comes not from the families in the settlements where the children were removed from, but from those who received the most advantages, yet elect to live away from the families they were "stolen" from (on a side note, it's amazing how many of these people want "compensation" for their removal, yet how few would appear willing to give up their lifestyle and move back to their tribe's land to live were they to receive it).