The murder of Ahmaud Arbery

[vollygirl]

And yet you chose to comment to me, at the very least, indicating that a question I asked was "ignorant". That's not very polite.

Do you have no answers to anything else? It strikes me that you believe this whole case is nothing but entertainment and a chance for you to vent over... Something.

Are you having a bad day?

 

[jp1]

Obviously, the penalty is Death.

Seriously. I'll say yes, its wrong.

But only if the owner has a problem with it.
If so, post a no trespassing sign.
Lock doors
Don't kill them if you don't need to.

It's not as big of a deal as its being made out to be here by the McMichael defenders/apologists. Seems to be all they have. That and he attacked one of the guys that had a shotgun, that chased him, cornered him and shot him 3 times.

I agree with your overall premise that he should not have been killed. I dont think they should have to post no trespassing or lock the doors. They perhaps should do those things, but shouldn't be expected or needed.

 

[Weezer]

And yet you chose to comment to me, at the very least, indicating that a question I asked was "ignorant". That's not very polite.

Do you have no answers to anything else? It strikes me that you believe this whole case is nothing but entertainment and a chance for you to vent over... Something.

I think this case is both a tragedy and a travesty of justice. The fact these two were going to get away with it scot free until the video emerged is unconscionable.

 

[bamawriter]

I agree with your overall premise that he should not have been killed. I dont think they should have to post no trespassing or lock the doors. They perhaps should do those things, but shouldn't be expected or needed.

Maybe the owner simply didn't care about folks walking thru his property while it was still under construction. Given that he's come out and said as much, I should remove the word "maybe."

 

[Bigun]

Well, they couldn't kill him before they found him obviously. So the statement isn't false. Adding more words doesn't make it less true. (And I already said I didn't think they were setting out with intentions to kill him. But they did, well "he" did. That is a fact and it is undisputed. <- that's the A Few Good Men line I was referencing earlier. So those other words you decided to use, dumb move on your part.)

That bolded part is wrong too.

What part is wrong? Him running from the house in on surveillance video.

Also I was pointing out they were close enough to shoot him if they wanted before the actual shooting occurred. It's obvious they ended up shooting him.....or else this thread wouldn't be here.

 

[jp1]

Maybe the owner simply didn't care about folks walking thru his property while it was still under construction. Given that he's come out and said as much, I should remove the word "maybe."

That's a possibility. I would argue that installment of a camera and calling a neighbor when he was alerted would argue otherwise. I think this ordeal puts the owner in a bad place. I'm not saying he isn't being genuine, but I cant imagine he would ever come out say that he did have a problem with it. It probably wouldn't be well received.

 

[Weezer]

Maybe the owner simply didn't care about folks walking thru his property while it was still under construction. Given that he's come out and said as much, I should remove the word "maybe."

He came out and said that to try and escape from the heat of this case. Let's be honest, if he had no problem with it he wouldn't have installed cameras and asked a neighbor to keep an eye out for him. Truth is truth.

 

[Bigun]

Prior bad acts are only admissible if the defendants could have possibly known about them and that they might have had an effect the defendants' decisions. You can't simply lay out the victim's jacket before the jury for the sake of suggesting that he might have been doing something wrong at the moment in question.

For me I was looking at his demeanor he displayed when he was confronted for obvious wrong doing then. Makes more sense now why he charged McMichaels even though he has a shotgun pointed right at him.

 

[Rickyvol77]

Maybe the owner simply didn't care about folks walking thru his property while it was still under construction. Given that he's come out and said as much, I should remove the word "maybe."

Then why did the owner call and text police about it several times?

 

[ButchPlz]

Are you having a bad day?

No, and that's not a particularly useful comment.

 

[bamawriter]

That's a possibility. I would argue that installment of a camera and calling a neighbor when he was alerted would argue otherwise. I think this ordeal puts the owner in a bad place. I'm not saying he isn't being genuine, but I cant imagine he would ever come out say that he did have a problem with it. It probably wouldn't be well received.

Certainly possible. Do you think a defense attorney would feel good about trying to impeach his statement?

Even if the defense did choose to pursue the truth of the homeowner's security concerns, what really matters (and what is not in debate) is that he never tapped the McMichaels to help him in any security efforts.

 

[bamawriter]

For me I was looking at his demeanor he displayed when he was confronted for obvious wrong doing then. Makes more sense now why he charged McMichaels even though he has a shotgun pointed right at him.

What do you mean by this? By "demeanor" do you mean taking off when he realized the guy across the street had called the cops? I'm not sure how his intentions in the house have f*** all to do with him trying to defend himself against the guy threatening him with a shotgun.

 

[bamawriter]

Then why did the owner call and text police about it several times?

Perhaps he's lying. Still doesn't matter. It's his property, and the McMIchaels didn't have one iota of business trying to secure it on his behalf.

 

[jp1]

Certainly possible. Do you think a defense attorney would feel good about trying to impeach his statement?

Even if the defense did choose to pursue the truth of the homeowner's security concerns, what really matters (and what is not in debate) is that he never tapped the McMichaels to help him in any security efforts.

I'm not really sure. Unless they have more evidence that comes out you probably have a fair point.

I do feel bad for the homeowner in this deal. Not that his loss is anywhere on the scale of the others.

 

[Franklin Pierce]

Newly-released bodycam footage shows Ahmaud Arbery getting Arrested in 2017 for trying to Steal a 65inch TV from a Walmart - which led to five years of probation

Newly released body cam footage shows the December 2017 arrest of Ahmaud Arbery for shoplifting a TV from a Georgia Walmart.

Police released video Tuesday of Arbery's December 1, 2017, arrest outside a Brunswick Walmart store on shoplifting charges.

The video shows Arbery being stopped with three friends and being ordered to sit on the ground.

Arbery goes to stand up whilst being quizzed by police and is then ordered to lie face-down and is handcuffed and arrested.
https://www.volnation.com/forum/javascript:void(0)

In the newly released footage, the officer can be heard asking the group about a 65-inch TV.

'TV? What? We don't have any TV,' Arbery states.

'What about the 65-inch TV?' the cop says.

'Sixty-five-inch TV?' Arbery says.

After getting the age of the group, the officer asks them to all sit down.

'Take a seat for what?' Arbery responds. 'I don't know nothing about no TV. … I don't steal no TV.'

A man then approaches the group and suggest that Arbery attempted to wheel the large television out of the store.

'What TV?' Arbery asks, before motioning toward the store. 'The TV is in there.'

Arbery attempts to get up, telling the officer that he has a receipt for the purchases he made. But officers instead detain Arbery and place him in a squad car.

The group are then taken back to the Walmart as the clip comes to a close.

Court records show Arbery pleaded guilty to trying to steal a television and was sentenced to five years on probation.

Three years before Arbery, 25, was shot dead by a white former cop and his son while jogging in February, he had a tense encounter with police officers in Glynn County, Georgia.

In November 2017, Officer Micheal Kanago reportedly approached Arbery after he suspected him of using marijuana and questioned why he was sitting alone in his car.

Footage obtained by The Guardian and released Monday shows Kanago questioning Arbery, who explained that he was relaxing inside his vehicle and rapping over instrumental beats.

Arbery adds that it's his day off from working at Blue Beacon Truck Wash.

'You want to know why I'm f****** with you?' Kanago asks, before instructing Arbery to remove his hands from his pocket.

Bodycam footage shows Ahmaud Arbery getting arrested in 2017 for shoplifting | Daily Mail Online

 

[Rickyvol77]

Perhaps he's lying. Still doesn't matter. It's his property, and the McMIchaels didn't have one iota of business trying to secure it on his behalf.

Just asked the question. Like with Arbery. The facts go to show intent and other evidence that is being said differently in the “media”

 

[vollygirl]

What part is wrong? Him running from the house in on surveillance video.

They didn't chase him because he had been at the house. They said that themselves.

That's a possibility. I would argue that installment of a camera and calling a neighbor when he was alerted would argue otherwise. I think this ordeal puts the owner in a bad place. I'm not saying he isn't being genuine, but I cant imagine he would ever come out say that he did have a problem with it. It probably wouldn't be well received.

Where did it come out he called a neighbor?

 

[jp1]

They didn't chase him because he had been at the house. They said that themselves.

Where did it come out he called a neighbor?

Here is a portion of an article.....

On February 11, English, who lives 90 miles away from his property, was alerted by his surveillance system of an intruder, now identified as Arbery, and asked a neighbor, Diego Perez, if he recognized the person. Perez later that evening armed himself and walked up the road, where he encountered Travis McMichael already on the scene in his pickup truck. Neither Perez nor English have made it clear how Travis was alerted to this incident.

 

[bamawriter]

Just asked the question. Like with Arbery. The facts go to show intent and other evidence that is being said differently in the “media”

Throughout this thread you've argued potential justification and/or mitigation for the McMichaels' actions up until the point that you can no longer do so, then you switch to arguing against the "media narrative." Then you start over on a different point, argue justification/mitigation, then fall back on "media narrative". Rinse and repeat. It's a really dishonest argument on your part.

 

[vollygirl]

Here is a portion of an article.....

On February 11, English, who lives 90 miles away from his property, was alerted by his surveillance system of an intruder, now identified as Arbery, and asked a neighbor, Diego Perez, if he recognized the person. Perez later that evening armed himself and walked up the road, where he encountered Travis McMichael already on the scene in his pickup truck. Neither Perez nor English have made it clear how Travis was alerted to this incident.

I thought you were saying that day. Gotcha.

 

[jp1]

I thought you were saying that day. Gotcha.

No, on a previous occasion. To me it just shows he did have some concerns.

 

[vollygirl]

No, on a previous occasion. To me it just shows he did have some concerns.

It would make sense to be conerned about vandalism. Doesn't appear that ever happened, from what I've read.

 

[jp1]

It would make sense to be conerned about vandalism. Doesn't appear that ever happened, from what I've read.

Again, I dont think you will hear the owner say that, especially now.

Let me ask you a question, and I'm not trying to be snarky. If it would be logical for the owner to be concerned about vandalism in your mind, would it be a place that anyone would want to find themselves without permission of the owner?

 

[Bigun]

What do you mean by this? By "demeanor" do you mean taking off when he realized the guy across the street had called the cops? I'm not sure how his intentions in the house have f*** all to do with him trying to defend himself against the guy threatening him with a shotgun.

No I was referring to how went at the cop who was much less threatening than McMichael and was questioning him fairly routinely. That would tend to explain why he ran at McMichael even when he had the gun. This doesn't absolve McMichael and has nothing to do with the case. Just I saw people talking earlier about why would he attack a guy pointing a gun at him.

 

[Bigun]

It would make sense to be conerned about vandalism. Doesn't appear that ever happened, from what I've read.

With what we have read about the coverup, or incompetence, of the PD down there, you can bet that pretty much any and everything Arbery has ever done that is on record with them will be released to try and help the defense...and themselves. Although from a one of the first articles I read, it appears the police who were called to the scene were ok with arresting the McMichaels at that point but were told not to. I've read so many articles I can't remember where I saw that. The DA is the one that is going to be under a spotlight and rightly so.