Jogger shot in Georgia for being Black

Page 9 of 10 [ 148 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,706

26 May 2020, 8:58 pm

Syd wrote:
Syd wrote:
cyberdad wrote:

What next...black man assaulted for breathing?


"I can't breathe."

— Eric Garner


History repeats itself.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/26/us/minne ... index.html


Yes I suspect kneeling your full weight on a man's skull isn't what a police officer is supposed to do :roll:



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,706

04 Jun 2020, 8:29 pm

Before this story get's archived, there's been an update that's relevant to the George Floyd Story.

A state investigator in the US alleged that a white man was heard saying a racist slur as he stood over Ahmaud Arbery's body, moments after fatally shooting the black man with a pump-action shotgun.

The inflammatory revelation came amid a week of angry nationwide protests over law enforcement biases against black victims that erupted after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

In a hearing to determine whether there is enough evidence to proceed with a murder trial on Thursday, the lead Georgia Bureau of Investigation agent in the case testified that Travis and Greg McMichael and a third man in another pickup, William "Roddie" Bryan, used their trucks to chase down and box in Arbery, who repeatedly reversed directions and ran into a ditch while trying to escape.
Mr. Bryan said that after the shooting took place before police arrival, while Mr. Arbery was on the ground, that he heard Travis McMichael make the statement, 'f - - - ing n - - - er,'" Dial said.

I imagine this will put to rest the pathetic attempts on this forum to defend the shooters as "protectors of the peace"



magz
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 1 Jun 2017
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 8,210
Location: Poland

05 Jun 2020, 2:56 am

cyberdad wrote:
Before this story get's archived, there's been an update that's relevant to the George Floyd Story.

A state investigator in the US alleged that a white man was heard saying a racist slur as he stood over Ahmaud Arbery's body, moments after fatally shooting the black man with a pump-action shotgun.

The inflammatory revelation came amid a week of angry nationwide protests over law enforcement biases against black victims that erupted after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

In a hearing to determine whether there is enough evidence to proceed with a murder trial on Thursday, the lead Georgia Bureau of Investigation agent in the case testified that Travis and Greg McMichael and a third man in another pickup, William "Roddie" Bryan, used their trucks to chase down and box in Arbery, who repeatedly reversed directions and ran into a ditch while trying to escape.
Mr. Bryan said that after the shooting took place before police arrival, while Mr. Arbery was on the ground, that he heard Travis McMichael make the statement, 'f - - - ing n - - - er,'" Dial said.

I imagine this will put to rest the pathetic attempts on this forum to defend the shooters as "protectors of the peace"

Care to share the source? Just for the record, the Internet is full of wild claims.
If it's true, then it would be really hunting human game 8O


_________________
Let's not confuse being normal with being mentally healthy.
***** ***


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,818
Location: Melbourne, Australia

05 Jun 2020, 3:25 am

magz wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Before this story get's archived, there's been an update that's relevant to the George Floyd Story.

A state investigator in the US alleged that a white man was heard saying a racist slur as he stood over Ahmaud Arbery's body, moments after fatally shooting the black man with a pump-action shotgun.

The inflammatory revelation came amid a week of angry nationwide protests over law enforcement biases against black victims that erupted after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

In a hearing to determine whether there is enough evidence to proceed with a murder trial on Thursday, the lead Georgia Bureau of Investigation agent in the case testified that Travis and Greg McMichael and a third man in another pickup, William "Roddie" Bryan, used their trucks to chase down and box in Arbery, who repeatedly reversed directions and ran into a ditch while trying to escape.
Mr. Bryan said that after the shooting took place before police arrival, while Mr. Arbery was on the ground, that he heard Travis McMichael make the statement, 'f - - - ing n - - - er,'" Dial said.

I imagine this will put to rest the pathetic attempts on this forum to defend the shooters as "protectors of the peace"

Care to share the source? Just for the record, the Internet is full of wild claims.
If it's true, then it would be really hunting human game 8O


I would agree there (at least in the case of Travis)...I'm sure, if true, the "tone" used would come up in terms of the defence dring the case (did he sound "happy", "excited", "sad", "angry"? ie: was it said in a way that exhibited "satisfaction" with what happened, or "shock"\"disappointment" with how things ended). Words written down can lead to one opinion, words heard may lead elsewhere (the word "mate", for example, has various "meanings" depending on tone and context, down here).

Of course, if this is true then I would expect the "felony murder" charge would be upgraded (in present climate that would likely be headline news), as from what I understand, "felony murder" is only used in cases where a death occurs during/as a result of a felony (such as someone having a heart-attack during a bank robbery).

Where motive/intention are present, the 1st/2nd/3rd degree charges are used instead,as they can be "stand alone" crimes (felony murder would automatically be "not guilty" should the accused be found not guilty of the felony to which it was attached, from my understanding, whereas it would be possible to be found "not guilty" of a felony, but still guilty of murder if a 1st/2nd/3rd degree charge was used instead of "felony".).

The reason that the charges currently made were selected would have been based on evidence, and selected so as not to "over-charge", where a higher burden of proof would be needed for a guilty verdict, leaving more potential space for "reasonable doubt". The fact that "felony" was selected would seem to indicate that (up until now, potentially) nothing had been found to indicate intention or motive behind the death.


_________________
Quote:
"When people express opinions that differ from yours, take it as a chance to grow. Seek to understand over being understood. Be curious, not defensive. The only way to disarm another human being is by listening." - Glennon Doyle Melton

Quote:
“Indeed, you won the elections, but I won the count.” - Anastasio Somoz


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,818
Location: Melbourne, Australia

05 Jun 2020, 10:17 pm

magz wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Before this story get's archived, there's been an update that's relevant to the George Floyd Story.

A state investigator in the US alleged that a white man was heard saying a racist slur as he stood over Ahmaud Arbery's body, moments after fatally shooting the black man with a pump-action shotgun.

The inflammatory revelation came amid a week of angry nationwide protests over law enforcement biases against black victims that erupted after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

In a hearing to determine whether there is enough evidence to proceed with a murder trial on Thursday, the lead Georgia Bureau of Investigation agent in the case testified that Travis and Greg McMichael and a third man in another pickup, William "Roddie" Bryan, used their trucks to chase down and box in Arbery, who repeatedly reversed directions and ran into a ditch while trying to escape.
Mr. Bryan said that after the shooting took place before police arrival, while Mr. Arbery was on the ground, that he heard Travis McMichael make the statement, 'f - - - ing n - - - er,'" Dial said.

I imagine this will put to rest the pathetic attempts on this forum to defend the shooters as "protectors of the peace"

Care to share the source? Just for the record, the Internet is full of wild claims.
If it's true, then it would be really hunting human game 8O


Having watched a video with a couple of lawyers discussing the case (from roughly 6:30 to approx 27:00 of the following)


It seems the son and the person filming it have a "history" on social media, and the son was reported to have said something along these lines during the preminary hearing. It also explains the reason the 3rd person was charged: he wasn't just following, apparently having tried to cut off Mr Arbery during this incident (prior to video), where he clipped him with his vehicle when he tried to cut through some "woods".

It is starting to look like the Father has tried to stop him for legitimate reasons, but the son and 3rd person may have been somewhat more enthusistic in the pursuit than would otherwise have been called for.

I'm always happy to change my views as more information comes to light...I just like to see actual evidence before making up my mind, not jump on one side because it's the "popular" side. It's important to have (and increasingly rare to find someone with) an open mind, rather than be a closed-minded bigot fixedly supporting either side regardless of information available on an issue.

As a side note, I have found that the videos from this youtuber (both live streams and individual ones describing parts of specific cases) are quite interesting\informative regarding the US and Canadian legal systems\laws.


_________________
Quote:
"When people express opinions that differ from yours, take it as a chance to grow. Seek to understand over being understood. Be curious, not defensive. The only way to disarm another human being is by listening." - Glennon Doyle Melton

Quote:
“Indeed, you won the elections, but I won the count.” - Anastasio Somoz


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,367
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

05 Jun 2020, 10:33 pm

Brictoria wrote:
I'm always happy to change my views as more information comes to light...I just like to see actual evidence before making up my mind, not jump on one side because it's the "popular" side. It's important to have (and increasingly rare to find someone with) an open mind, rather than be a closed-minded bigot fixedly supporting either side regardless of information available on an issue.

I think the McMichaels defense falls apart because under Georgia law Mr. Aubrey is NOT Trespassing.

So, the McMichaels have no grounds to do a citizen's arrest.

So, the McMichaels have no grounds to pursue, and arrest.

So, the McMichaels have no grounds for self-defense.

The McMichaels present an absurd argument that they can go arrest anyone on another person's property based on suspicion, like if they see a ten year old girl scout on their neighbor's property, they can go arrest her.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,721
Location: I'm on the streets like curbs

05 Jun 2020, 10:56 pm

cyberdad wrote:
Syd wrote:
Syd wrote:
cyberdad wrote:

What next...black man assaulted for breathing?


"I can't breathe."

— Eric Garner


History repeats itself.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/26/us/minne ... index.html


Yes I suspect kneeling your full weight on a man's skull isn't what a police officer is supposed to do :roll:


I'm pretty sure it was his neck to pinch the artery shut and make him pass out. It's basically a sleeper with your knee.


_________________
All Praise To Athe, The God of Atheism


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,818
Location: Melbourne, Australia

05 Jun 2020, 10:57 pm

TheRobotLives wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
I'm always happy to change my views as more information comes to light...I just like to see actual evidence before making up my mind, not jump on one side because it's the "popular" side. It's important to have (and increasingly rare to find someone with) an open mind, rather than be a closed-minded bigot fixedly supporting either side regardless of information available on an issue.

I think the McMichaels defense falls apart because under Georgia law Mr. Aubrey is NOT Trespassing.

So, the McMichaels have no grounds to do a citizen's arrest.

So, the McMichaels have no grounds to pursue, and arrest.

So, the McMichaels have no grounds for self-defense.

The McMichaels present an absurd argument that they can go arrest anyone on another person's property based on suspicion, like if they see a ten year old girl scout on their neighbor's property, they can go arrest her.


Under the assumption they were after him for trespass, maybe.

BUT they may have been after him for burglary, which is a felony rather than misdemeanour, meaning the "requirements" are more "flexible" (reasonable belief rather than direct knowledge).

My understanding has always been that they were working under the "burglary" reasoning, not "trespass", which is why I can understand the "citizen's arrest" defence theory, but I can understand those who can't see the distinction not knowing how it could be used as a defence.


_________________
Quote:
"When people express opinions that differ from yours, take it as a chance to grow. Seek to understand over being understood. Be curious, not defensive. The only way to disarm another human being is by listening." - Glennon Doyle Melton

Quote:
“Indeed, you won the elections, but I won the count.” - Anastasio Somoz


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,721
Location: I'm on the streets like curbs

05 Jun 2020, 10:59 pm

Brictoria wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
I'm always happy to change my views as more information comes to light...I just like to see actual evidence before making up my mind, not jump on one side because it's the "popular" side. It's important to have (and increasingly rare to find someone with) an open mind, rather than be a closed-minded bigot fixedly supporting either side regardless of information available on an issue.

I think the McMichaels defense falls apart because under Georgia law Mr. Aubrey is NOT Trespassing.

So, the McMichaels have no grounds to do a citizen's arrest.

So, the McMichaels have no grounds to pursue, and arrest.

So, the McMichaels have no grounds for self-defense.

The McMichaels present an absurd argument that they can go arrest anyone on another person's property based on suspicion, like if they see a ten year old girl scout on their neighbor's property, they can go arrest her.


Under the assumption they were after him for trespass, maybe.

BUT they may have been after him for burglary, which is a felony rather than misdemeanour, meaning the "requirements" are more "flexible" (reasonable belief rather than direct knowledge).

My understanding has always been that they were working under the "burglary" reasoning, not "trespass", which is why I can understand the "citizen's arrest" defence theory, but I can understand those who can't see the distinction not knowing how it could be used as a defence.


You're gonna need to provide something to suggest that they had good reason to assume they were witnessing a burglary otherwise it just amounts to grasping at straws and will not hold up in court. Anyone can make something up after the fact.


_________________
All Praise To Athe, The God of Atheism


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,706

05 Jun 2020, 11:07 pm

I think this reminds me of the Amy Cooper case in that these murderers were caught in the act so those bending over backwards trying to defend them are invoking the "what if" and "hypothetically" argument to try and remove the factor of race from the equation.



Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,818
Location: Melbourne, Australia

05 Jun 2020, 11:33 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
I'm always happy to change my views as more information comes to light...I just like to see actual evidence before making up my mind, not jump on one side because it's the "popular" side. It's important to have (and increasingly rare to find someone with) an open mind, rather than be a closed-minded bigot fixedly supporting either side regardless of information available on an issue.

I think the McMichaels defense falls apart because under Georgia law Mr. Aubrey is NOT Trespassing.

So, the McMichaels have no grounds to do a citizen's arrest.

So, the McMichaels have no grounds to pursue, and arrest.

So, the McMichaels have no grounds for self-defense.

The McMichaels present an absurd argument that they can go arrest anyone on another person's property based on suspicion, like if they see a ten year old girl scout on their neighbor's property, they can go arrest her.


Under the assumption they were after him for trespass, maybe.

BUT they may have been after him for burglary, which is a felony rather than misdemeanour, meaning the "requirements" are more "flexible" (reasonable belief rather than direct knowledge).

My understanding has always been that they were working under the "burglary" reasoning, not "trespass", which is why I can understand the "citizen's arrest" defence theory, but I can understand those who can't see the distinction not knowing how it could be used as a defence.


You're gonna need to provide something to suggest that they had good reason to assume they were witnessing a burglary otherwise it just amounts to grasping at straws and will not hold up in court. Anyone can make something up after the fact.


I'm guessing the fact that there had been a large number of burglaries in the past few months in the area, coupled with Mr Arbery having been caught on camera "exploring" the house on multiple occassions (and, from what I understand, the video of which had been shared in the community), could be seen as grounds for the suspicion (I don't know if anything was previously taken from that specific house/property, which would impact on the validity of the defence and which would like come out in court).

I try keep an open mind and try and look at all possibilities that COULD be used. You MAY be correct, but I'd prefer not to close my mind off from other possibilities, as there's less chance of disappointment should any particular theory I "lock in" to prove to be based on mistaken assumptions\incomplete information. At this point, almost all the "evidence" released is from the prosecution side, remember.


_________________
Quote:
"When people express opinions that differ from yours, take it as a chance to grow. Seek to understand over being understood. Be curious, not defensive. The only way to disarm another human being is by listening." - Glennon Doyle Melton

Quote:
“Indeed, you won the elections, but I won the count.” - Anastasio Somoz


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,818
Location: Melbourne, Australia

05 Jun 2020, 11:35 pm

cyberdad wrote:
I think this reminds me of the Amy Cooper case in that these murderers were caught in the act so those bending over backwards trying to defend them are invoking the "what if" and "hypothetically" argument to try and remove the factor of race from the equation.


Alternatively, it could be people who have been the victim of racist attack trying to demonstrate that there are more options than a pavlovian "racism" dog-whistle in any multi-racial interaction...


_________________
Quote:
"When people express opinions that differ from yours, take it as a chance to grow. Seek to understand over being understood. Be curious, not defensive. The only way to disarm another human being is by listening." - Glennon Doyle Melton

Quote:
“Indeed, you won the elections, but I won the count.” - Anastasio Somoz


TheRobotLives
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,367
Location: Quiet, Dark, Comfy Spot

06 Jun 2020, 1:40 am

Brictoria wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
TheRobotLives wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
I'm always happy to change my views as more information comes to light...I just like to see actual evidence before making up my mind, not jump on one side because it's the "popular" side. It's important to have (and increasingly rare to find someone with) an open mind, rather than be a closed-minded bigot fixedly supporting either side regardless of information available on an issue.

I think the McMichaels defense falls apart because under Georgia law Mr. Aubrey is NOT Trespassing.

So, the McMichaels have no grounds to do a citizen's arrest.

So, the McMichaels have no grounds to pursue, and arrest.

So, the McMichaels have no grounds for self-defense.

The McMichaels present an absurd argument that they can go arrest anyone on another person's property based on suspicion, like if they see a ten year old girl scout on their neighbor's property, they can go arrest her.


Under the assumption they were after him for trespass, maybe.

BUT they may have been after him for burglary, which is a felony rather than misdemeanour, meaning the "requirements" are more "flexible" (reasonable belief rather than direct knowledge).

My understanding has always been that they were working under the "burglary" reasoning, not "trespass", which is why I can understand the "citizen's arrest" defence theory, but I can understand those who can't see the distinction not knowing how it could be used as a defence.


You're gonna need to provide something to suggest that they had good reason to assume they were witnessing a burglary otherwise it just amounts to grasping at straws and will not hold up in court. Anyone can make something up after the fact.


I'm guessing the fact that there had been a large number of burglaries in the past few months in the area, coupled with Mr Arbery having been caught on camera "exploring" the house on multiple occassions (and, from what I understand, the video of which had been shared in the community), could be seen as grounds for the suspicion (I don't know if anything was previously taken from that specific house/property, which would impact on the validity of the defence and which would like come out in court).

I try keep an open mind and try and look at all possibilities that COULD be used. You MAY be correct, but I'd prefer not to close my mind off from other possibilities, as there's less chance of disappointment should any particular theory I "lock in" to prove to be based on mistaken assumptions\incomplete information. At this point, almost all the "evidence" released is from the prosecution side, remember.


1. Mr. Aubrey has never been caught on camera "exploring the home".
2. The home owner has said nothing has ever been stolen.
3. The home owner never reported any incidents.

Regardless, the McMichaels are not police.

They cannot just go around arresting anyone they think looks suspicious.


_________________
Then a hero comes along, with the strength to carry on, and you cast your fears aside, and you know you can survive.

Be the hero of your life.


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,721
Location: I'm on the streets like curbs

06 Jun 2020, 2:07 am

Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
I think this reminds me of the Amy Cooper case in that these murderers were caught in the act so those bending over backwards trying to defend them are invoking the "what if" and "hypothetically" argument to try and remove the factor of race from the equation.


Alternatively, it could be people who have been the victim of racist attack trying to demonstrate that there are more options than a pavlovian "racism" dog-whistle in any multi-racial interaction...



Which victim of racist attack are you referring to?


_________________
All Praise To Athe, The God of Atheism


Brictoria
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2013
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,818
Location: Melbourne, Australia

06 Jun 2020, 2:43 am

funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
I think this reminds me of the Amy Cooper case in that these murderers were caught in the act so those bending over backwards trying to defend them are invoking the "what if" and "hypothetically" argument to try and remove the factor of race from the equation.


Alternatively, it could be people who have been the victim of racist attack trying to demonstrate that there are more options than a pavlovian "racism" dog-whistle in any multi-racial interaction...



Which victim of racist attack are you referring to?


That would have been myself - the most recent occurence was on this site, and even when made aware of it, the poster saw nothing wrong in what they had posted.

Thankfully the moderators removed that part of their post (but not the poster, sadly, from what I can tell).


_________________
Quote:
"When people express opinions that differ from yours, take it as a chance to grow. Seek to understand over being understood. Be curious, not defensive. The only way to disarm another human being is by listening." - Glennon Doyle Melton

Quote:
“Indeed, you won the elections, but I won the count.” - Anastasio Somoz


funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,721
Location: I'm on the streets like curbs

06 Jun 2020, 2:58 am

Brictoria wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
I think this reminds me of the Amy Cooper case in that these murderers were caught in the act so those bending over backwards trying to defend them are invoking the "what if" and "hypothetically" argument to try and remove the factor of race from the equation.


Alternatively, it could be people who have been the victim of racist attack trying to demonstrate that there are more options than a pavlovian "racism" dog-whistle in any multi-racial interaction...



Which victim of racist attack are you referring to?


That would have been myself - the most recent occurence was on this site, and even when made aware of it, the poster saw nothing wrong in what they had posted.

Thankfully the moderators removed that part of their post (but not the poster, sadly, from what I can tell).


Would you be willing to give more details? I don't want to put you through it all over again though, so don't if it's upsetting; feel free to pm.


_________________
All Praise To Athe, The God of Atheism