Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
kestrel

Ahmaud Arbery Case: Propaganda, §1983, and Police Body Cam Video

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

kestrel
2 hours ago, Ladybird said:

An empty, open construction project is not "going into someone's house".

And yes, I did it on walks and with friends plenty of times.

Did you mean the privately owned under construction buildings that don't belong to you, or your friends became, in your mind at least, an opportunity to trespass and search  for whatever you were looking for because it was inadequately secured so that access did not require you or your friends kicking down a door or breaking a window to get in? I bet you feel different if it was your garage or front door..Right?

Kestrel 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg
42 minutes ago, kestrel said:

I'm fairly certain that I read that the Younger McMichale had a confrontation with Mr Arbery several days prior and claimed that Arbery was acting like he had "something" under his coat No proof of that but there you are. Just another little tidbit in this fustercluck..The only question in my mind is WHY did the kid go back there to that Neighborhood to jog if it was full of crackers with guns and no liking for the home-boyz?..Why did he continue toward the truck that the Two white guys were in..why not simply turn and go another way?...

Kestrel...

Yes, I remember that now too. I should have added that to my list of "Not sure if..."

Part of my point was to make what MR referred to more explicit. All the things we may THINK we know, but being a complete bystander and reading the stories, really have no real idea whether the statements are true or false. We all need to make up our own minds - which is where personal bias comes in as a desire for something to be true. When this article was first posted, it seemed like a slam dunk, but it's turning out not to be quite that way, not even a layup, maybe a contested 2-point jumper.

Ladybird most definitely is no less biased that anyone else, and same with Dutch, but they surely believe they're being impartial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg
39 minutes ago, Dean Adam Smithee said:

It's PRECISELY these two points that tip it for me.

  • White guys recognizes the black guy as (possibly) the same one they'd pursued a couple weeks earlier for the same offense. 
  • White guys have seen the security video passed around.   McMichaels-the-former-LEO had previously dealt with Trayvon II for carrying a gun to school , knew he was (potentially) armed, so doesn't surprise me they went out "loaded for Bear".

Bear in mind, we're talking small-town Georgia. Brunswick GA = pop. 16,000-ish. Doesn't take much for a small-town  LEO (or ex-LEO) to know who the (few) local bad actors are and recognize them.

For plausibility, that's one possible story. But it's also possible that the white guys had become over-zealous and screwed up royale in this case because they didn't think he was going to put up a fight. I mean, who in their right mind fights two guys with guns when unarmed? I'd wager the McMichaelses planned for a clean armed stop. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
6 minutes ago, zurg said:

For plausibility, that's one possible story. But it's also possible that the white guys had become over-zealous and screwed up royale in this case because they didn't think he was going to put up a fight. I mean, who in their right mind fights two guys with guns when unarmed? I'd wager the McMichaelses planned for a clean armed stop. 

That's EQUALLY plausible too.

I DO think that, Given what I know of the case (From the media, same as anyone), in a context of a plain-reading of GA law, I believe the McMichaels were "legal".

I'm not saying they were "right", I'm just saying they were "legal"; within the bounds of GA law. The two aren't always necessarily the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
3 hours ago, Magic Rat said:

Like I said, it appears the prosectors have bowed to the mob so, when they are found not guilty of murder, like I predict, we get the rioting that the left wants.   They would have a chance with manslaughter.  Too bad for everyone but the media and the malcontents.

In the end, justice won't be served and the mob are the only ones who are going to be satisfied.

Isn't there a way to charge that an accused can be acquitted of the most serious charge but "found guilty of a lesser charge?"  I have heard post trial analysis that blames prosecutors for only going for murder and not including the possibility of a lesser charge.  Disclaimer:  I am not a lawyer and that is definitely a question and not a statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Magic Rat
6 minutes ago, JerryL said:

Isn't there a way to charge that an accused can be acquitted of the most serious charge but "found guilty of a lesser charge?"  I have heard post trial analysis that blames prosecutors for only going for murder and not including the possibility of a lesser charge.  Disclaimer:  I am not a lawyer and that is definitely a question and not a statement.

The way I understand it, some states may allow this.  I don't know if Georgia does or not.  I know Florida doesn't and that is one of the reasons why the Zimmerman prosecutor made such an ass out of herself with her charging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Magic Rat

Oh!  And of course, I'm not a lawyer either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
2 minutes ago, Magic Rat said:

The way I understand it, some states may allow this.  I don't know if Georgia does or not.  I know Florida doesn't and that is one of the reasons why the Zimmerman prosecutor made such an ass out of herself with her charging.

If they don't then I agree that the prosecutors are out to lunch.  I don't think it is murder.  

But I do think it is absolutely appropriate for the McMichaels to be charged with a crime.  Arbery didn't need to die and it was their actions that caused the death, not his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
1 minute ago, JerryL said:

If they don't then I agree that the prosecutors are out to lunch.  I don't think it is murder.  

But I do think it is absolutely appropriate for the McMichaels to be charged with a crime.  Arbery didn't need to die and it was their actions that caused the death, not his.

 I agree with this..I'm not smart enough law wise to render any kind of legal dictum but just maybe a sense of fairness..however I want to see this played out in front of a jury because we still don't know all the details of the incident.

Kestrel...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Magic Rat
31 minutes ago, JerryL said:

If they don't then I agree that the prosecutors are out to lunch.  I don't think it is murder.  

But I do think it is absolutely appropriate for the McMichaels to be charged with a crime.  Arbery didn't need to die and it was their actions that caused the death, not his.

Of what I have seen, I think so too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee
54 minutes ago, JerryL said:

Isn't there a way to charge that an accused can be acquitted of the most serious charge but "found guilty of a lesser charge?"  I have heard post trial analysis that blames prosecutors for only going for murder and not including the possibility of a lesser charge.  Disclaimer:  I am not a lawyer and that is definitely a question and not a statement.

In GA, Generally speaking , NO. 

It's not right to put a "laundry list" of possible charges to a jury and expect them to sort it out. That's the prosecutor's job. The jury's job is to give a  simple "thumbs up" or "thumbs down"  as to the crime "as charged".

There are times when it SEEMS like there's a laundry list, but that's usually when there are multiple 'counts' and each count is charged differently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dutch13
14 hours ago, kestrel said:

"lied to by the police while learning her son has been shot and killed is entirely subjective" How do you KNOW that the police lied to her?..isn't that "Subjective" Whats not subjective is the legal trouble this man has been in, off and on, for years..And what do you think will be on the juries mind while deliberating...The several records (vid and other) that propose to show a, shall we say, less than a model citizen on one hand and the cherubic high school kid of the past?..The correct answer is they shouldn't be affected by either!..The jury should be concerned with the facts of the case and the Constitutionality of the law...period!...Considerable difference outside the courtroom and down in the hood.

Kestrel...

P.S. BTW just wondering if you had a chance to decipher what Arbery was saying to the cop when he was so pissed off? It really bothers me that I can't understand what he is saying.

If they told her something that wasn't true, then they lied.   Why wouldn't she believe the police were telling her the truth?  Dean keeps tossing out the statement "she was unfazed" by hearing about the "circumstances" of he son's death.  That is subjective as well, because it is someone's opinion......and we have already seen evidence that the people (The Glynn County Police and the District Attorney) telling us she was "unfazed"  have told other lies as well.

In fact, the Glynn County Police and the DA are both accusing the other of lying.......the Glynn County Police are saying that they wanted to make the arrests, but were told not to by Brunswick Judicial Circuit District Attorney Jackie Johnson.  She is saying that she never spoke with the police on the day in question.

What is not subjective is that he died because two guys thought he must have broken a law because he was running.  What is not subjective is the legal trouble they are now in because of their possible criminal actions.

  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dutch13
11 hours ago, kestrel said:

I'm fairly certain that I read that the Younger McMichale had a confrontation with Mr Arbery several days prior and claimed that Arbery was acting like he had "something" under his coat No proof of that but there you are. Just another little tidbit in this fustercluck..The only question in my mind is WHY did the kid go back there to that Neighborhood to jog if it was full of crackers with guns and no liking for the home-boyz?..Why did he continue toward the truck that the Two white guys were in..why not simply turn and go another way?...

Kestrel...

There was another car following him.  He made an effort to avoid the two guys ahead of him by going to the opposite side of the car.  

I think the  real question that needs to be asked is, why did it bother the white guys that a black man wanted to run in that neighborhood?  Were black people not allowed to be there?  Are black people not allowed to buy houses, rent houses, or visit that neighborhood?  If a white person has a black friend over to visit, is it  a requirement that he notifies everyone so they know not to leave guns in unlocked cars?

Shouldn't everybody be locking their cars when they have guns in them, anyway?   Is it Ahmaud Arbery's fault that the McMichael's were still so mad about Travis's mistake that they blamed it on any black man they saw?

So, in answer to your question about WHY he went there to run:  We live in a free country.  He had every right to be running on that street. 

  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Severian
12 hours ago, kestrel said:

Did you mean the privately owned under construction buildings that don't belong to you, or your friends became, in your mind at least, an opportunity to trespass and search  for whatever you were looking for because it was inadequately secured so that access did not require you or your friends kicking down a door or breaking a window to get in? I bet you feel different if it was your garage or front door..Right?

Kestrel 

I'm not going to give her a hard time over this, it was common back in the day before all the construction theft and posting of no trespass signs on construction sites. Hell, back 30 or more years ago I used to go for walks with my mom when visiting my folks, and we'd walk thru the site of new home construction and wander in and looky see, to see how the houses were laid out and try and imagine what they'd be like when finished.

Fast forward to today, and it's obviously not a good idea and even illegal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
2 hours ago, Dutch13 said:

If they told her something that wasn't true, then they lied.   Why wouldn't she believe the police were telling her the truth?  Dean keeps tossing out the statement "she was unfazed" by hearing about the "circumstances" of he son's death.  That is subjective as well, because it is someone's opinion......and we have already seen evidence that the people (The Glynn County Police and the District Attorney) telling us she was "unfazed"  have told other lies as well.

In fact, the Glynn County Police and the DA are both accusing the other of lying.......the Glynn County Police are saying that they wanted to make the arrests, but were told not to by Brunswick Judicial Circuit District Attorney Jackie Johnson.  She is saying that she never spoke with the police on the day in question.

What is not subjective is that he died because two guys thought he must have broken a law because he was running.  What is not subjective is the legal trouble they are now in because of their possible criminal actions.

and what you think "two guys" thought is subjective also. But you know what?..this was not about what actually happened in the incident (because we have NO WAY OF KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED YET )..It was supposed to be about the media and the different standards they use when they report things..you might have heard of it?..Media Bias?..Black guy is portrayed as angelic and white guy (yes even a White Hispanic) is portrayed as somewhat less than...angelic. I feel obligated to help Lady Bird get beyond her automatic assumption that all crackers are out to kill as many Black Folks as possible but you are another story..or are you of African Descent also? If so then I guess I'll try but this falsely promulgated racial divide has to stop. 

That said...I get it that your Totally Outraged by this horrendous event and the luminescence of your personal virtue is almost blinding but give it a break will ya?...if you can't participate in a useful fashion that you might enjoy maybe the mods could set you up a Trump Sux section that you can just go to town on.

Kestrel...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
1 hour ago, Severian said:

I'm not going to give her a hard time over this, it was common back in the day before all the construction theft and posting of no trespass signs on construction sites. Hell, back 30 or more years ago I used to go for walks with my mom when visiting my folks, and we'd walk thru the site of new home construction and wander in and looky see, to see how the houses were laid out and try and imagine what they'd be like when finished.

Fast forward to today, and it's obviously not a good idea and even illegal.

as you said "fast forward to today" things are different probably cuz people do steal more than they used to..But come to think of it I worked for a company in L.A. that put guard dogs in construction sites and that was in 1970..and Honestly I have no memory of going on anyone else's property and not thinking I wasn't supposed to be doing that.

Kestrel...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Dutch13 said:

There was another car following him.  He made an effort to avoid the two guys ahead of him by going to the opposite side of the car.  

I think the  real question that needs to be asked is, why did it bother the white guys that a black man wanted to run in that neighborhood?  Were black people not allowed to be there?  Are black people not allowed to buy houses, rent houses, or visit that neighborhood?  If a white person has a black friend over to visit, is it  a requirement that he notifies everyone so they know not to leave guns in unlocked cars?

Shouldn't everybody be locking their cars when they have guns in them, anyway?   Is it Ahmaud Arbery's fault that the McMichael's were still so mad about Travis's mistake that they blamed it on any black man they saw?

So, in answer to your question about WHY he went there to run:  We live in a free country.  He had every right to be running on that street. 

That is not the FIRST set of real questions to be asked. They may or may not become questions to be asked at all. 
 

Like I tried to carefully lay out, based on what is PUBLIC knowledge, the FIRST questions have to do with whether this particular black man had been burglarizing places, or seen around places that were burglarized. (And don’t give me this “we know because no one reported burglaries” - that is unverified. A newspaper article saying so does not qualify.) Did the two white guys have any past reasons to suspect this black guy? Did they react to a believed sighting of the suspect? Or was their reaction simply racist?
 

If it’s the racism angle, then your questions apply. Not before, because the questions ASSUME racism and a reason before they’re established. No good.  

Edited by zurg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Novaprime
15 minutes ago, kestrel said:

as you said "fast forward to today" things are different probably cuz people do steal more than they used to..But come to think of it I worked for a company in L.A. that put guard dogs in construction sites and that was in 1970..and Honestly I have no memory of going on anyone else's property and not thinking I wasn't supposed to be doing that.

Kestrel...

There's also a big difference between LA and "small town America", most smaller towns and there are a lot of towns smaller than LA, didn't need that much security 20+ years ago but now do because people have lost the basic tenants of personal responsibility and respecting other people and their property.

That being said, the only construction sites I ever visited were the 2 houses my dad built, one literally and that was a pain in the rear. Did learn a little about running electrical wires, plumbing, shingling, installing insulation and putting up sheet rock but overall I prefer someone else doing most of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
2 minutes ago, Novaprime said:

There's also a big difference between LA and "small town America", most smaller towns and there are a lot of towns smaller than LA, didn't need that much security 20+ years ago but now do because people have lost the basic tenants of personal responsibility and respecting other people and their property.

That being said, the only construction sites I ever visited were the 2 houses my dad built, one literally and that was a pain in the rear. Did learn a little about running electrical wires, plumbing, shingling, installing insulation and putting up sheet rock but overall I prefer someone else doing most of that.

I believe I was responding to what Lady Bird was talking about her and her friends innocently meandering around on other peoples property and it being totally fine (I believe she grew up in NYC or some such I seem to remember her saying she lived in a big city) and I was curious if she would be ok with other people wandering in and out of say her car or house that was unoccupied..And I completely agree with you re drywall construction I got a bug up my butt to do my own drywall in our house rather than pay someone else...Won't do that again...specially the taping and mudding..I'll pay the pro's!

Kestrel...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird
6 minutes ago, kestrel said:

I believe I was responding to what Lady Bird was talking about her and her friends innocently meandering around on other peoples property and it being totally fine (I believe she grew up in NYC or some such I seem to remember her saying she lived in a big city) and I was curious if she would be ok with other people wandering in and out of say her car or house that was unoccupied..And I completely agree with you re drywall construction I got a bug up my butt to do my own drywall in our house rather than pay someone else...Won't do that again...specially the taping and mudding..I'll pay the pro's!

Kestrel...

A wide open construction site is not the same as walking into someone's unoccupied home, while they're at work, or getting in an unlocked car.

This is the house.

b8306be1-1f80-4569-81ff-f92e5f0a20e8_192

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dutch13
1 hour ago, kestrel said:

and what you think "two guys" thought is subjective also. But you know what?..this was not about what actually happened in the incident (because we have NO WAY OF KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED YET )..It was supposed to be about the media and the different standards they use when they report things..you might have heard of it?..Media Bias?..Black guy is portrayed as angelic and white guy (yes even a White Hispanic) is portrayed as somewhat less than...angelic. I feel obligated to help Lady Bird get beyond her automatic assumption that all crackers are out to kill as many Black Folks as possible but you are another story..or are you of African Descent also? If so then I guess I'll try but this falsely promulgated racial divide has to stop. 

That said...I get it that your Totally Outraged by this horrendous event and the luminescence of your personal virtue is almost blinding but give it a break will ya?...if you can't participate in a useful fashion that you might enjoy maybe the mods could set you up a Trump Sux section that you can just go to town on.

Kestrel...

The story is not about race, it is about a good ole boys network that was trying to protect one of their own.  Had someone not shared that video publicly, we probably still would not have heard of this story.

That said......If the story is about race to you, then that says more about you and your thought process.

 

  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kestrel
29 minutes ago, Ladybird said:

A wide open construction site is not the same as walking into someone's unoccupied home, while they're at work, or getting in an unlocked car.

This is the house.

b8306be1-1f80-4569-81ff-f92e5f0a20e8_192

why is that different Lady Bird?...it does not belong to you..You have no intrinsic "Right" to enter into someone else's property for whatever purpose...I don't understand why you feel that you're entitled to do what I'm relatively certain you would find unacceptable if it was your house Please explain what makes you different?

Kestrel...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ladybird
7 minutes ago, kestrel said:

why is that different Lady Bird?...it does not belong to you..You have no intrinsic "Right" to enter into someone else's property for whatever purpose...I don't understand why you feel that you're entitled to do what I'm relatively certain you would find unacceptable if it was your house Please explain what makes you different?

Kestrel...

Didn't say I or anyone else was "entitled" to walk through an open house with no walls. Don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying you're making an apples to orange comparison.  

Walking through a wide open construction site does not merit being shot to death, especially since the McMichaels are not the owners of the property and no one has stated they saw Arbery stealing anything from there. .

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dutch13
1 hour ago, zurg said:

That is not the FIRST set of real questions to be asked. They may or may not become questions to be asked at all. 
 

Like I tried to carefully lay out, based on what is PUBLIC knowledge, the FIRST questions have to do with whether this particular black man had been burglarizing places, or seen around places that were burglarized. (And don’t give me this “we know because no one reported burglaries” - that is unverified. A newspaper article saying so does not qualify.) Did the two white guys have any past reasons to suspect this black guy? Did they react to a believed sighting of the suspect? Or was their reaction simply racist?
 

If it’s the racism angle, then your questions apply. Not before, because the questions ASSUME racism and a reason before they’re established. No good.  

Gregory McMichael had no knowledge that Arbery had just come from that yard.  All Gregory McMichael knew was that a man that he had negative feelings about was running down the road.  Had he left well enough alone, his son would not have killed anyone and be facing time in prison.

Because of the cameras in the house, IF Arbery had really committed a crime, the police could have arrested him at any time they wanted. 

  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dutch13
15 minutes ago, kestrel said:

why is that different Lady Bird?...it does not belong to you..You have no intrinsic "Right" to enter into someone else's property for whatever purpose...I don't understand why you feel that you're entitled to do what I'm relatively certain you would find unacceptable if it was your house Please explain what makes you different?

Kestrel...

The owner didn't press charges, did he?  He knew that nothing had been stolen so he wasn't worried. 

The McMichael's stuck their noses in someone else's business and a man died.  They will now have to face justice for their actions.

Did I mention that the owner had video and he didn't press charges?

  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...