Trayvon Martin all over again.

[HumblePie]

Isn't this release by a prosecutor who had to recuse from the case because he worked for/with the accused?

The 911 call by the McMichaels said they were witnessing Arbrey leaving a house under construction which wasn't his. The prosecutor says he believes it was protected actions under the Citrizen Arrest law and thus said it was self defense at that point when Arbrey attacked.

There is no breaking and entering that can be done to an open house under construction that I know of. Only trespassing unless Arbrey took something while there. But the McMichaels never said they witnessed a theft. So there is nothing of a felony they witnesses. I think the prosecutor was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt and used his discretion on applying that law as their defense for better or worse. I don't think it was the right application of the law personally, but I am sure that it will come out in trial.

 

[BUTCH1]

The 911 call by the McMichaels said they were witnessing Arbrey leaving a house under construction which wasn't his. The prosecutor says he believes it was protected actions under the Citrizen Arrest law and thus said it was self defense at that point when Arbrey attacked.

There is no breaking and entering that can be done to an open house under construction that I know of. Only trespassing unless Arbrey took something while there. But the McMichaels never said they witnessed a theft. So there is nothing of a felony they witnesses. I think the prosecutor was trying to give them the benefit of the doubt and used his discretion on applying that law as their defense for better or worse. I don't think it was the right application of the law personally, but I am sure that it will come out in trial.

Why do you conclude that Abrey "attacked"?, by jogging around the truck?, he had already seen the son jump out wielding a shotgun and yelling something at him, gee, maybe at this point he made the assumption that these guys who were stalking him via the truck were now going to shoot him and was trying to survive. "Attack" my ass, who but the insane or desperate would "attack" someone with a shotgun while unarmed?.

 

[BUTCH1]

Bond DENIED for both of them, good,
https://wgxa.tv/news/local/bond-denied-for-father-son-accused-of-murdering-georgia-jogger

 

[pauldun170]

The prosecutor says .....

Nope.
Nope
and nope
Seriously. You are forcibly ignoring information and you can't even put in the effort to read the information that is clearly in front of your face.

District Attorney Jackie Johnson (who recused herself) and District Attorney George Barnhill (who recused himself), both acquaintances of Greg McMichael for years made statements based on the original police report.

Guess what happened since the police report that was based completely on McMichael's version of events?

New evidence

Cops at the scene of the Georgia shooting had believed they had probable cause to make arrests, Glynn County Commissioner Peter Murphy told The Atlanta Journal-Constitution — but were told to stand down by the DA’s office.

“They spoke to an assistant, who relayed their request to [Glynn County District Attorney] Jackie Johnson,” Murphy told the paper of the cops at the scene.

“They were told not to make the arrest.”

“She shut them down to protect her friend McMichael,” a second county commissioner, Allen Booker, told the paper.

Lets revisit this wonderful comment

Barnhill wrote. “Arbery initiated the fight. ... At that point, Arbery grabbed the shotgun (that Travis McMichael was holding). Under Georgia law, McMichael was allowed to use deadly force to protect himself.”

 

[BUTCH1]

Nope.
Nope
and nope
Seriously. You are forcibly ignoring information and you can't even put in the effort to read the information that is clearly in front of your face.

District Attorney Jackie Johnson (who recused herself) and District Attorney George Barnhill (who recused himself), both acquaintances of Greg McMichael for years made statements based on the original police report.

Guess what happened since the police report that was based completely on McMichael's version of events?

New evidence




Lets revisit this wonderful comment

Barnhill wrote. “Arbery initiated the fight. ... At that point, Arbery grabbed the shotgun (that Travis McMichael was holding). Under Georgia law, McMichael was allowed to use deadly force to protect himself.”

I hope that sad-sack DA is forced out of any role in law enforcement forever, I'd bet those cops were pissed when they found out.

 

[HumblePie]

Why do you conclude that Abrey "attacked"?, by jogging around the truck?, he had already seen the son jump out wielding a shotgun and yelling something at him, gee, maybe at this point he made the assumption that these guys who were stalking him via the truck were now going to shoot him and was trying to survive. "Attack" my ass, who but the insane or desperate would "attack" someone with a shotgun while unarmed?.

Attack is the action he made. He didn't run away. He ran at Travis and went for the gun. That is just a statement of fact. That isn't a statement of guilt or anything else. Stop reading much more into this that what is the definition of the word.

 

[pauldun170]

Attack is the action he made. He didn't run away. He ran at Travis and went for the gun. That is just a statement of fact. That isn't a statement of guilt or anything else. Stop reading much more into this that what is the definition of the word.

For those trying to figure out whats the deal with this poster. Keep in mind she is the type of person to have posted this at the start of thread.

Looks like 2 guys thought they were doing the right thing in trying to help the police catch who they thought just committed a robbery. They fucked up in their decision making in confronting the person they assumed to be the robber. Video shows there was a struggle over the shotgun which went off accidentally to kill Arbery. Sad tragedy and the 2 men are definitely NOT guilt free here at all. Manslaughter or negligent homicide is definitely a real good argument to be made here. I believe these two guys should be in jail for at least negligent homicide.

This is FAR different than George Zimmerman. The media is spewing so much bullshit on this story lately that it brings out all the crazies foaming at the mouth. These two guys will serve time and justice will be served. This isn't an incident of a mob of white people stalking and hunting down a random black man to kill. That seems to be what half the media lately is trying to spew and people are eating it up.

With the George Zimmerman case, there was almost no facts initially released to the public over the investigation and the speculation on this board was horrible. Once facts came out, it was pretty obvious George Zimmerman, based on the facts of the case, was innocent and a trial born that out. We have far more facts at this point earlier in the process and the facts do not make these guys innocent at all in my eyes so far. Maybe there was something else Arbery did or said leading up to the struggle for the shotgun which changes the situation as we know it. If it does it could change the determination on if these guys are innocent or not. Right now, I'm leaning towards not, but still I know not all the facts are released yet so not jumping to a hard conclusion.

But wow, the racist bigotry I see these days against white people is insane. Despite all the claims and all the people that "want" it to be true, white people just don't commit violent hate crimes as often nor on the same scale as other races in the US. The FBI, CDC, DoJ, and all other agencies that record this data every year bear out these numbers. That isn't to say it doesn't happen, but it is so rare that there are more powerball winners more often than white on another race violent hate crime being committed in the US. Now as for other races on white violent hate crimes, that is a different story. There are far more of those. The media never reports those though.

Speaking logically and with facts on these boards is like farting in the wind with all the crazy justice warriors around here these days. They don't want to know what I just typed and will attack me directly for it. Funny thing is, most won't realize that I am on the side of the black guy so far in this case being wronged and the white guys as far as I know now should be in prison for a crime. But that won't stop some people around here.

 

[HumblePie]

For those trying to figure out whats the deal with this poster. Keep in mind she is the type of person to have posted this at the start of thread.

Yes, I posted that. Which is to say that people going crazy with the race bait and jumping to conclusions of "white assassins" and believing in the narrative of "cold-blooded murder" is complete crap. It is. If the McMichaels wanted to cold blooded murder some random black man, the didn't need to call the cops, chase him down, and ask him to stop for some questions.

You do realize Tim Cast is a leftist and who just has his own crusade about the bad narratives of media outlets. That is his schtick. You have a problem with people wanting to keep sane and level-headed reasoning?

 

[ecogen]

Yes, I posted that. Which is to say that people going crazy with the race bait and jumping to conclusions of "white assassins" and believing in the narrative of "cold-blooded murder" is complete crap. It is. If the McMichaels wanted to cold blooded murder some random black man, the didn't need to call the cops, chase him down, and ask him to stop for some questions.

You do realize Tim Cast is a leftist and who just has his own crusade about the bad narratives of media outlets. That is his schtick. You have a problem with people wanting to keep sane and level-headed reasoning?

When pcgeek and greenman appear to be more reasonable than you, it's time to stop posting.
Do yourself, and the rest of us, a favor and just drop it.

 

[HumblePie]

When pcgeek and greenman appear to be more reasonable than you, it's time to stop posting.
Do yourself, and the rest of us, a favor and just drop it.

Wait, unreasonable in what way? By asking people to use their heads and logic and not think with their reptilian brain part to scream out "RACIST MURDERERS" the moment they get a whiff of any story like this? Because that is all I did. I then also stepped through the facts as been shown to the public thus far and give my opinion, which I labeled as opinion, on the situation as I see it. That opinion being I don't think it was a racist cold-blooded murder but instead some idiots making stupid mistakes with potentially good intentions. Of which those mistakes led to a tragedy and they should be held accountable to those mistakes under the law. I am for them being arrested, tried, and if the evidence as presented so far is what we know to all be true, then they should end up in jail for negligent homicide.

So how is that unreasonable again? Where I have made personal or ad hominen attacks? Where have I not calmly and with great detail explained everything and my positions?

 

[woolfe9998]

Wait, unreasonable in what way? By asking people to use their heads and logic and not think with their reptilian brain part to scream out "RACIST MURDERERS" the moment they get a whiff of any story like this? Because that is all I did. I then also stepped through the facts as been shown to the public thus far and give my opinion, which I labeled as opinion, on the situation as I see it. That opinion being I don't think it was a racist cold-blooded murder but instead some idiots making stupid mistakes with potentially good intentions. Of which those mistakes led to a tragedy and they should be held accountable to those mistakes under the law. I am for them being arrested, tried, and if the evidence as presented so far is what we know to all be true, then they should end up in jail for negligent homicide.

So how is that unreasonable again? Where I have made personal or ad hominen attacks? Where have I not calmly and with great detail explained everything and my positions?

If they created a dangerous situation through their own consciously made decisions, and that then resulted in a circumstance where they felt they had to shoot the guy, that is more likely a species of murder than a species of manslaughter.

It's instructive to compare and contrast this with the Amber Guyger/Botham Jean case. In that case, she went to the wrong apartment and shot the guy thinking he was in her apartment. I thought that was manslaughter, but she got convicted under a Texas murder statute which is broad enough to encompass what is typically manslaughter in other states, and got a manslaughter-like sentence of 10 years.

This situation is worse by degrees. Guyger went to that apartment thinking it was hers. It couldn't have occurred to her initially that she was creating any risk. By contrast, these men weren't mistaken about what they were doing. They consciously created a serious risk of death or great bodily injury when they initiated an armed confrontation with a man they didn't know. This is more like a reckless homicide than a negligent one, and is akin to "2nd degree murder" rather than manslaughter. And that is true even if it doesn't qualify as felony murder.

 

[ecogen]

Wait, unreasonable in what way? By asking people to use their heads and logic and not think with their reptilian brain part to scream out "RACIST MURDERERS" the moment they get a whiff of any story like this? Because that is all I did. I then also stepped through the facts as been shown to the public thus far and give my opinion, which I labeled as opinion, on the situation as I see it. That opinion being I don't think it was a racist cold-blooded murder but instead some idiots making stupid mistakes with potentially good intentions. Of which those mistakes led to a tragedy and they should be held accountable to those mistakes under the law. I am for them being arrested, tried, and if the evidence as presented so far is what we know to all be true, then they should end up in jail for negligent homicide.

So how is that unreasonable again? Where I have made personal or ad hominen attacks? Where have I not calmly and with great detail explained everything and my positions?

Yeah, I'm sure the guy that called 911 to report that "“Uh, I’m out here at Satilla Shores. There’s a black male running down the street,” and then literally formed an armed posse to chase down a dude that was jogging had great intentions. They chased down a man that was not a threat, forced a confrontation and killed him. This was a lynching pure and simple.

If you were "reasonable" you wouldn't be writing essays full of mental gymnastics to try to turn this incident into something that it isn't. Again, do yourself a favor and just drop it.

 

[soundforbjt]

Don't know if this was posted before, but the cops had this video on day one.

 

[HumblePie]

Yeah, I'm sure the guy that called 911 to report that "“Uh, I’m out here at Satilla Shores. There’s a black male running down the street,” and then literally formed an armed posse to chase down a dude that was jogging had great intentions. They chased down a man that was not a threat, forced a confrontation and killed him. This was a lynching pure and simple.

If you were "reasonable" you wouldn't be writing essays full of mental gymnastics to try to turn this incident into something that it isn't. Again, do yourself a favor and just drop it.

I am not at all trying to assign motives based on the scant evidence so far provided to such. That is what you and many others are doing here. I was listing out the facts of the case and not jumping to racist conclusions.

 

[HumblePie]

If they created a dangerous situation through their own consciously made decisions, and that then resulted in a circumstance where they felt they had to shoot the guy, that is more likely a species of murder than a species of manslaughter.

It's instructive to compare and contrast this with the Amber Guyger/Botham Jean case. In that case, she went to the wrong apartment and shot the guy thinking he was in her apartment. I thought that was manslaughter, but she got convicted under a Texas murder statute which is broad enough to encompass what is typically manslaughter in other states, and got a manslaughter-like sentence of 10 years.

This situation is worse by degrees. Guyger went to that apartment thinking it was hers. It couldn't have occurred to her initially that she was creating any risk. By contrast, these men weren't mistaken about what they were doing. They consciously created a serious risk of death or great bodily injury when they initiated an armed confrontation with a man they didn't know. This is more like a reckless homicide than a negligent one, and is akin to "2nd degree murder" rather than manslaughter. And that is true even if it doesn't qualify as felony murder.

Because the difference is in intent. The weapons were out but not drawn with a bead. The first shot was not fired until Arbrey had his hand on the gun. His hand was the first thing shot as it was grabbing the gun. There is a STARK difference between Amber Guyger case and this one. Amber drew the gun, aimed, and fired knowing full well what she was doing with such actions. There is a vast difference into why that would be a murder charge and this is not. One is intentional, and the other is not. Amber intentionally used deadly force up front. Travis didn't here. The shots were not fired until after the scuffle started. That doesn't absolve him of criminal prosecution at all. That only makes the difference between a murder charge sticking or not. I don't think a murder charge will be the end result after the trial. That is my opinion. You are welcome to your own.

 

[HumblePie]

Don't know if this was posted before, but the cops had this video on day one.

I am going to throw out my conjecture here. I can be wrong on this. Take it for what you will. Assuming race wasn't the major factor here, I think the father as an ex-cop thought he was doing the right thing. As an ex-cop he had some familiarity with the law and probably remembers a bit about the Citizen's Arrest laws. Not enough apparently. Still he, his son, and the third guy Bryan went to affect a citizens arrest under a mistaken sense of doing the right thing. The people that worked with him gave him the benefit of the doubt and went lenient on him. It's not unheard of for cops to protect their own and prosecutors as well. They were hoping it would go away and things would smooth over to be forgotten. They fucked up thinking that in this day in age. This is just an alternative narrative of what may have happened. Of course it could have been the case of two good ol' boys hunting down a darkie they wanted to provoke so bad they could see his guts. I am just erroring on the side of incompetence over malfeasance and Occam's razor here. Believe what you will at this point as to motives. For us for now it is all speculation. I haven't ruled out that race was a major factor in this case either.

 

[BUTCH1]

I am not at all trying to assign motives based on the scant evidence so far provided to such. That is what you and many others are doing here. I was listing out the facts of the case and not jumping to racist conclusions.

Are you going to insult us by claiming that if these two guys saw a WHITE jogger in Trump-land they'd be grabbing guns and jumping in the truck to track him down?. Kinda easy to jump to a conclusion given what we've seen so far, do you REALLY think a speck of new evidence will arise to make this less horrible?.

 

[HumblePie]

Are you going to insult us by claiming that if these two guys saw a WHITE jogger in Trump-land they'd be grabbing guns and jumping in the truck to track him down?. Kinda easy to jump to a conclusion given what we've seen so far, do you REALLY think a speck of new evidence will arise to make this less horrible?.

If they saw a WHITE jogger exiting a house they know doesn't belong to them I'd say they probably would. I can play the speculation game, but why are you trying to make the race baiting assumption here first? If I saw anyone doing something illegal I certainly would do the right thing regardless of the colors of the skins of the people involved. But the title of this thread is becoming appropriate. Many people posting here are all wanting to jump on the race baiting band wagon right from the get go. Originally I was just as aghast when the major news broke out on the Trayvon story because the only thing in the media was that of pictures of a 12 year old boy that the lie Benjamin Crump put out. We all know how that turned out and still to this day people think Trayvon was a cherub little 12 year boy stalked and gunned down by a white nazi maniac.

Can you have a little prudence in judgements? Conjecture, speculation, and honest opinions are one thing. The condemnation, vitrol, and pure outrage without knowing the whole story is just sad. I can understand it if solely directed at the two guys involved to a degree, but when other posters on this forum are just asking people to tone it down and get the same vitriol spewed at them it's more than a little sad at that point.

 

[forrestroche]

I am not at all trying to assign motives based on the scant evidence so far provided to such. That is what you and many others are doing here. I was listing out the facts of the case and not jumping to racist conclusions.

Georgia, black man, unarmed, jogging in shorts, gets ambushed by two armed white men, ends up dead in the middle of the street.

Yeah, why would ANYONE think racism might be involved?

 

[darkswordsman17]

For those trying to figure out whats the deal with this poster. Keep in mind she is the type of person to have posted this at the start of thread.

Aren't they also the person that sued Dick's for "emotional distress" when they didn't want to sell assault rifles after Sandy Hook, bug goddamnit a refund wasn't enough they really wanted an assault rifle (it "ruined their x-mas"!).

Don't know if this was posted before, but the cops had this video on day one.

Seems that even before the video and just based on what they saw/heard at the scene the cops felt the guys should have been arrested.

 

[HurleyBird]

Because the difference is in intent. The weapons were out but not drawn with a bead. The first shot was not fired until Arbrey had his hand on the gun. His hand was the first thing shot as it was grabbing the gun. There is a STARK difference between Amber Guyger case and this one. Amber drew the gun, aimed, and fired knowing full well what she was doing with such actions. There is a vast difference into why that would be a murder charge and this is not. One is intentional, and the other is not. Amber intentionally used deadly force up front. Travis didn't here. The shots were not fired until after the scuffle started. That doesn't absolve him of criminal prosecution at all. That only makes the difference between a murder charge sticking or not. I don't think a murder charge will be the end result after the trial. That is my opinion. You are welcome to your own.

I would agree with you, and probably even go a bit further towards the McMichael side if Arbrey did indeed grab the gun... except I'm highly skeptical of that assertion.

In the video, both people are pretty much fully occluded by the truck when the first shot is fired. It doesn't show Arbrey grabbing the gun, but it's possible to imagine that he has. Or that he hasn't. That uncertainty defacto helps the defendants, who (theoretically, if the jury is following instructions) just need to establish reasonable doubt.

I'm assuming you're referencing the Feb 23rd report, where it is stated:

"The shot is through Arbery's right hand palm which is consistent with him grabbing and pulling the shotgun at the barrel tip."

Ignoring the fact that the McMichaels are chummy with law enforcement, I don't think this follows. Who grabs a long gun so that their palm is over the end of the barrel? Besides putting a part of your body in harms way, that doesn't sound very effective at gaining leverage. No, you would want to, and instinctively try to, grab the barrel like you would a pull-up bar--wrapping your hand around the barrel. If your hand ends up over the barrel tip, then some kind of movement occurred that you didn't expect.

On the other hand, what do you do if you round a corner and see a gun pointing your way? If you're like most people, you throw your hands up, palms facing the assailant. And when you have a gun and are hopped up on adrenaline and you see a sudden movement, such as hands going up? You just might reflexively take aim at that movement and pull the trigger.

That seems like a more likely explanation to me. Although admittedly, the time period between Arbery rounding the front of the truck and the first shot is a bit long to make it totally compelling. I just hope there's enough forensic evidence to reduce the uncertainty to something more palatable.

 

[ch33zw1z]

How the perps have been treated in this case is indicative of the systemic racial disparity in our criminal justice system, and our country.

Pretty fuckin sad, but won't be changing anytime soon.

 

[interchange]

Citizens arrest argument kinda goes out the window when "The citizen" takes the time to call police yet does not report a crime. Simply reports a black man is running down the street.
The citizen enlists additional people to join the hunt..yet no one calls police to report a crime. Not the citizen who called to report black man running.
Not the son who would shoot the man.
Not the friend who recorded the incident.

Just 2 calls reporting a black man running in the neighborhood.

Great way to use 911.

My assumption is that the Murder charge is for publicity only and the DA expects that only Travis will potentially face jail time on the aggravated assault charge.

The game plan will be keeping that Jury as white as possible and focusing on 2 avenues to seed doubt.

One is to bombard the jury with character assassination.
Start off with his physical appearance as a former football player keep talking about the gun charge to plant the dangerous black man narrative. "My clients feared for their safety and were attacked by the black man"

Build off the narrative that he was involved with the unreported burglaries. Talk about the shoplifting charge and convince the jury that the "community" had reasonable reasons to fear Arbery's presence in the neighborhood.

Edit: the legal information below is reflective of Georgia code. Different states have different legal structures on this stuff.

The charge is felony murder. If they find them guilty of aggravated assault (a felony), then felony murder is a given because Arbery died in the process of the commission of that felony.

Any time you intentionally shoot a gun at someone, you've met the statutory requirements for aggravated assault.

So their possible ways to beat the charges under the law (juries do that they want, but if they apply the law as written):
1. Reasonable doubt existing that they intended to discharge the firearm at him (e.g. the gun went off by accident during the struggle)
2. An affirmative defense, of which 2 possibilities have been up for discussion
A. Self-defense -- this seems unlikely since they created the dangerous circumstances with actions which indicated awareness of the dangerousness. Could they demonstrate that doing so was necessary because Arbery was sufficiently dangerous? Sounds like a hard sell
B. Valid citizen's arrest. Perhaps possible. Someone on another site posted the case law on this. It's a rarely attempted defense. But truly the case law demonstrates the expectations of civil behavior under this law are from a different era. Still, this case seems to be in very iffy territory on whether it could be applied.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Georgia, black man, unarmed, jogging in shorts, gets ambushed by two armed white men, ends up dead in the middle of the street.

Yeah, why would ANYONE think racism might be involved?

It's so innate in many parts of our country and world that people don't even wanna to address it.

White perps? Let's not jump to conclusions!!!

Minority perps? Obviously guilty!! it's just how they behave!!

 

[pauldun170]

Edit: the legal information below is reflective of Georgia code. Different states have different legal structures on this stuff.

The charge is felony murder. If they find them guilty of aggravated assault (a felony), then felony murder is a given because Arbery died in the process of the commission of that felony.

Any time you intentionally shoot a gun at someone, you've met the statutory requirements for aggravated assault.

So their possible ways to beat the charges under the law (juries do that they want, but if they apply the law as written):
1. Reasonable doubt existing that they intended to discharge the firearm at him (e.g. the gun went off by accident during the struggle)
2. An affirmative defense, of which 2 possibilities have been up for discussion
A. Self-defense -- this seems unlikely since they created the dangerous circumstances with actions which indicated awareness of the dangerousness. Could they demonstrate that doing so was necessary because Arbery was sufficiently dangerous? Sounds like a hard sell
B. Valid citizen's arrest. Perhaps possible. Someone on another site posted the case law on this. It's a rarely attempted defense. But truly the case law demonstrates the expectations of civil behavior under this law are from a different era. Still, this case seems to be in very iffy territory on whether it could be applied.

Interesting...
Now the question is this.
How much of my weekend is now going to spent on Georgia case law?
lol

You and your tempting rabbit holes