RugbyRebels

Sandydragon wrote:

gransoporro wrote:

Digby wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52585505

Fine people no doubt

Even the Georgia governor condemned the killing. Now, TGPT can still pipe in, but hopefully he has been told to sit this one out.

Nothing like a bit of racist vigilantism. And the local police seemed to have gone out of their way not to follow up on this.

I suspect the police and the GBI will be asked a number of questions about their utter failure to act until publicly shamed to the point avoidance was no longer viable

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

gransoporro wrote:
Even the Georgia governor condemned the killing. Now, TGPT can still pipe in, but hopefully he has been told to sit this one out.

Nothing like a bit of racist vigilantism. And the local police seemed to have gone out of their way not to follow up on this.

I suspect the police and the GBI will be asked a number of questions about their utter failure to act until publicly shamed to the point avoidance was no longer viable

Police definitely, was the FBI involved, it was a local case after all?

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Nothing like a bit of racist vigilantism. And the local police seemed to have gone out of their way not to follow up on this.

I suspect the police and the GBI will be asked a number of questions about their utter failure to act until publicly shamed to the point avoidance was no longer viable

Police definitely, was the FBI involved, it was a local case after all?

No, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation was. Since the suspect was a local police officer, there was a series of recusations until it went up to State for policing and some neighbor county DA that decided to act.

Still, if there is no video, no arrests.

My wife lived in Brunswick for over a decade: I get all the news...

Sandydragon wrote:

gransoporro wrote:

Digby wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52585505

Fine people no doubt

Even the Georgia governor condemned the killing. Now, TGPT can still pipe in, but hopefully he has been told to sit this one out.

Nothing like a bit of racist vigilantism. And the local police seemed to have gone out of their way not to follow up on this.

https://www.wbtv.com/2020/05/07/gbi-men ... ud-arbery/

Sad and unwarranted. There is more info coming out that he was fingered by several people as being the suspect in a string of burglaries/robberies in the area. Even so... innocent til proven guilty. Those 2 yahoos need to be in jail.

Continues a fine tradition of smearing the victim, always good to establish blame early in proceedings

Coco wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

gransoporro wrote:
Even the Georgia governor condemned the killing. Now, TGPT can still pipe in, but hopefully he has been told to sit this one out.

Nothing like a bit of racist vigilantism. And the local police seemed to have gone out of their way not to follow up on this.

https://www.wbtv.com/2020/05/07/gbi-men ... ud-arbery/

Sad and unwarranted. There is more info coming out that he was fingered by several people as being the suspect in a string of burglaries/robberies in the area. Even so... innocent til proven guilty. Those 2 yahoos need to be in jail.

And whether innocent or guilty makes no difference to whether this is potentially murder.

gransoporro wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:
I suspect the police and the GBI will be asked a number of questions about their utter failure to act until publicly shamed to the point avoidance was no longer viable

Police definitely, was the FBI involved, it was a local case after all?

No, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation was. Since the suspect was a local police officer, there was a series of recusations until it went up to State for policing and some neighbor county DA that decided to act.

Still, if there is no video, no arrests.

My wife lived in Brunswick for over a decade: I get all the news...

We've seen scientific proof that unless you're getting your news in Turkish it's invalid

Coco wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

gransoporro wrote:
Even the Georgia governor condemned the killing. Now, TGPT can still pipe in, but hopefully he has been told to sit this one out.

Nothing like a bit of racist vigilantism. And the local police seemed to have gone out of their way not to follow up on this.

https://www.wbtv.com/2020/05/07/gbi-men ... ud-arbery/

Sad and unwarranted. There is more info coming out that he was fingered by several people as being the suspect in a string of burglaries/robberies in the area. Even so... innocent til proven guilty. Those 2 yahoos need to be in jail.

There's no info that he was anything to do with the burglaries/robberies in the area. There's quite a bit of posthumous implying, speculation, and ostentatious mentioning that he had a previous criminal record (notably no-one has brought up that his record involves violence or theft, which suggests that it probably doesn't), but no-one has mentioned him being involved in robberies or burglaries, apart from the murderers deciding that a running black man was probably that robber that they'd heard about.

And it's entirely beside the point anyway - even if he was parading around with the crown jewels round his neck, singing about how he'd beaten the guards silly and pissed in their faces, he shouldn't have been chased down by two members of the public and then shot. Because vigilantism isn't legal and neither robbery nor burglary carry a death penalty.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Coco wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Nothing like a bit of racist vigilantism. And the local police seemed to have gone out of their way not to follow up on this.

https://www.wbtv.com/2020/05/07/gbi-men ... ud-arbery/

Sad and unwarranted. There is more info coming out that he was fingered by several people as being the suspect in a string of burglaries/robberies in the area. Even so... innocent til proven guilty. Those 2 yahoos need to be in jail.

There's no info that he was anything to do with the burglaries/robberies in the area. There's quite a bit of posthumous implying, speculation, and ostentatious mentioning that he had a previous criminal record (notably no-one has brought up that his record involves violence or theft, which suggests that it probably doesn't), but no-one has mentioned him being involved in robberies or burglaries, apart from the murderers deciding that a running black man was probably that robber that they'd heard about.

And it's entirely beside the point anyway - even if he was parading around with the crown jewels round his neck, singing about how he'd beaten the guards silly and pissed in their faces, he shouldn't have been chased down by two members of the public and then shot. Because vigilantism isn't legal and neither robbery nor burglary carry a death penalty.

Puja

Ever the diplomat. It's quite sad that one would be compelled to point these things out, isn't it?

Puja wrote:

Coco wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Nothing like a bit of racist vigilantism. And the local police seemed to have gone out of their way not to follow up on this.

https://www.wbtv.com/2020/05/07/gbi-men ... ud-arbery/

Sad and unwarranted. There is more info coming out that he was fingered by several people as being the suspect in a string of burglaries/robberies in the area. Even so... innocent til proven guilty. Those 2 yahoos need to be in jail.

There's no info that he was anything to do with the burglaries/robberies in the area. There's quite a bit of posthumous implying, speculation, and ostentatious mentioning that he had a previous criminal record (notably no-one has brought up that his record involves violence or theft, which suggests that it probably doesn't), but no-one has mentioned him being involved in robberies or burglaries, apart from the murderers deciding that a running black man was probably that robber that they'd heard about.

And it's entirely beside the point anyway - even if he was parading around with the crown jewels round his neck, singing about how he'd beaten the guards silly and pissed in their faces, he shouldn't have been chased down by two members of the public and then shot. Because vigilantism isn't legal and neither robbery nor burglary carry a death penalty.

Puja

Agree... its insane.

Coco wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

gransoporro wrote:
Even the Georgia governor condemned the killing. Now, TGPT can still pipe in, but hopefully he has been told to sit this one out.

Nothing like a bit of racist vigilantism. And the local police seemed to have gone out of their way not to follow up on this.

https://www.wbtv.com/2020/05/07/gbi-men ... ud-arbery/

Sad and unwarranted. There is more info coming out that he was fingered by several people as being the suspect in a string of burglaries/robberies in the area. Even so... innocent til proven guilty. Those 2 yahoos need to be in jail.

Indeed. Quite sad. 26 yo? That's nothing.

Legally, this is a tricky one. I think that McMichaels will claim that he was acting in self defence. It'll be interesting to hear what the court says, but imagine for a moment that you suspected me of committing a felony and you decided to detain me. Then, I suddenly lunged at you to grab your automatic weapon. How would you respond? Would you flee? Discharge a shot? Relinquish your weapon?

BTW, according to Georgian law, you'd be perfectly entitled to make a citizens arrest if reasonable and probable grounds exist:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... ng-Jp.html

A tragedy nonetheless.

There is also a statute for doing a citizen arrest under false pretense.

The victim is shown trespassing in a house under construction: that is a misdemeanor not a felony. He did not steal nor damage the property.

Also, from the victim’s point of view, he is assaulted by 3 people, one in front of him with a shotgun. That is kidnapping and he has the right to protect himself.

There are no burglaries reported to the police in the last month or 2 in that are. One guy said they stole over $1000 in fishing equipment from him but never reported to the police. That is clearly a dubious claim. Lots of people there live on less than $40k a year. $1000 is a huge sum!

Post 1 from a bot or some bollix paid to spam by the nra don't even dignify that shit with a response

gransoporro wrote:There is also a statute for doing a citizen arrest under false pretense.

The victim is shown trespassing in a house under construction: that is a misdemeanor not a felony. He did not steal nor damage the property.

TBF, we do not know whether he did or not. It hasn't been confirmed but he may have visited the site on multiple occasions, so the claim that he was "just out for a jog" as the MSM are reporting is at the least, questionable.

Also, from the victim’s point of view, he is assaulted by 3 people, one in front of him with a shotgun. That is kidnapping and he has the right to protect himself.

There are no burglaries reported to the police in the last month or 2 in that are. One guy said they stole over $1000 in fishing equipment from him but never reported to the police. That is clearly a dubious claim. Lots of people there live on less than $40k a year. $1000 is a huge sum!

Highly speculative on your part IMO. To have committed assault, McMichaels would have at the very least threatened to inflict physical harm. So far there is no evidence that he did nor is there any evidence that they were attempting to kidnap him. Of course Arbery may have thought that they were. Lunging for the gun like he does implies that Arbery was trying to disarm McMichaels - but what for? Did McMichaels threaten to kill him? Did Arbery panic? We do not know.

The fishing equipment story is strange. Originally it was reported that $2,500 of fishing kit had been stolen from the owner's house. Larry English the owner of the site subsequently reported that nothing had been stolen.

It is a basic principle of the rule of law that the executive doesn't interfere in prosecutions. Without the rule of law you have no state or at least no democracy. It would appear that America has abandoned democracy.

despotism for the win

There is a video, shot by the third man in the chase, the one behind the victim.

I watched it.

My opinion: the victim fought an armed assailant that tried to stop him with a shotgun in hand. Just the action to stop him with a pointed weapon is kidnapping. At no time the white men said it was a citizen arrest.

unless we speculate that such action of pointing weapons in your direction to stop you is legal...

And in Brunswick, GA if 2 armed white men stop a black one, the black one will make wild assumptions that his life is at risk. And defend himself.
The black man is likely to be right. I spent significant time there, that’s how I formed my opinion.

A charge of aggravated assault would require that the prosecution demonstrate that McMichael's brandished his gun. The video's available online do not show McMichael's brandishing (i.e. threatening to use) his weapon.

gransoporro wrote:There is a video, shot by the third man in the chase, the one behind the victim.

I watched it.

My opinion: the victim fought an armed assailant that tried to stop him with a shotgun in hand. Just the action to stop him with a pointed weapon is kidnapping. At no time the white men said it was a citizen arrest.

unless we speculate that such action of pointing weapons in your direction to stop you is legal...

And in Brunswick, GA if 2 armed white men stop a black one, the black one will make wild assumptions that his life is at risk. And defend himself.
The black man is likely to be right. I spent significant time there, that’s how I formed my opinion.

Got a link for that?

gransoporro wrote:.

And in Brunswick, GA if 2 armed white men stop a black one, the black one will make wild assumptions that his life is at risk. And defend himself.
The black man is likely to be right. I spent significant time there, that’s how I formed my opinion.

You could also argue that if two armed black men stopped a white man, the white man would make wild assumptions that his life was at risk etc. etc.

Anecdotal evidence can and should be dismissed by a jury. What matters are the facts of this case, not opinions formed from living in GA - which are very often formed underpinned by prejudice.

Maximillian wrote:

gransoporro wrote:.

And in Brunswick, GA if 2 armed white men stop a black one, the black one will make wild assumptions that his life is at risk. And defend himself.
The black man is likely to be right. I spent significant time there, that’s how I formed my opinion.

You could also argue that if two armed black men stopped a white man, the white man would make wild assumptions that his life was at risk etc. etc.

Anecdotal evidence can and should be dismissed by a jury. What matters are the facts of this case, not opinions formed from living in GA - which are very often formed underpinned by prejudice.

Actually what you are describing there is the basis of self-defence. What do I perceive to be the threat to me? And then, are my subsequent actions consistent with that when reviewed by a reasonable group of people? 2 blokes of any colour jumping out in front of me with firearms will get an unhelpful response. If they are identifying themselves as Police Officers then I will of course cooperate; if they do not then I will assume I am about to get mugged or worse and react accordingly.

In a reasonable society, the actions of a person armed with a firearm in attempting to undertake a citizens arrest of a person with no weapon evident would be questioned, and thoroughly. Clearly the law can be used to cover actions which are not motivated by any sense of the reasonable application of justice.

Maximillian wrote:A charge of aggravated assault would require that the prosecution demonstrate that McMichael's brandished his gun. The video's available online do not show McMichael's brandishing (i.e. threatening to use) his weapon.

{InigoMontoyaThatWordDoesNotMeanWhatYouThinkItMeans.gif}

To brandish, both in English and in law, means to wave something in the air (usually in an excited or threatening manner). In law, you are generally taken to be brandishing a weapon if it is being held in the hands in a manner no congruent with transporting it from point A to point B.

The man is clearly not holding his gun just to transport it.

Puja

Sandydragon wrote: Actually what you are describing there is the basis of self-defence. What do I perceive to be the threat to me? And then, are my subsequent actions consistent with that when reviewed by a reasonable group of people? 2 blokes of any colour jumping out in front of me with firearms will get an unhelpful response. If they are identifying themselves as Police Officers then I will of course cooperate; if they do not then I will assume I am about to get mugged or worse and react accordingly.

McMichaels didn't jump out in front of Arbery. If you look at the footage, Arbery runs towards the PU truck. He then goes left and then turns right, runs along the PU truck and suddenly turns left, charging at McMichaels. If he perceived McMichaels as a threat, why did he run towards the PU truck?

In a reasonable society, the actions of a person armed with a firearm in attempting to undertake a citizens arrest of a person with no weapon evident would be questioned, and thoroughly. Clearly the law can be used to cover actions which are not motivated by any sense of the reasonable application of justice.

Absolutely.

Puja wrote:

Maximillian wrote:
{InigoMontoyaThatWordDoesNotMeanWhatYouThinkItMeans.gif}

To brandish, both in English and in law, means to wave something in the air (usually in an excited or threatening manner). In law, you are generally taken to be brandishing a weapon if it is being held in the hands in a manner no congruent with transporting it from point A to point B.

The man is clearly not holding his gun just to transport it.

Puja

No, unfortunately it's not as simple as that. Let me try and explain it to you:

In the context of the law regarding gun ownership in GA, "Brandish" means to use the weapon in a threatening manner i.e. to point it at someone who isn't threatening you.

So, what a jury will be instructed to look at is if McMichaels brandished the weapon i.e. threatened someone who was not a threat to him, or if he held the weapon in a defensive display.

McMichaels senior was a law enforcement officer and would have been familiar with the distinction.

Maximillian wrote:

Sandydragon wrote: Actually what you are describing there is the basis of self-defence. What do I perceive to be the threat to me? And then, are my subsequent actions consistent with that when reviewed by a reasonable group of people? 2 blokes of any colour jumping out in front of me with firearms will get an unhelpful response. If they are identifying themselves as Police Officers then I will of course cooperate; if they do not then I will assume I am about to get mugged or worse and react accordingly.

McMichaels didn't jump out in front of Arbery. If you look at the footage, Arbery runs towards the PU truck. He then goes left and then turns right, runs along the PU truck and suddenly turns left, charging at McMichaels. If he perceived McMichaels as a threat, why did he run towards the PU truck?

In a reasonable society, the actions of a person armed with a firearm in attempting to undertake a citizens arrest of a person with no weapon evident would be questioned, and thoroughly. Clearly the law can be used to cover actions which are not motivated by any sense of the reasonable application of justice.[/quote
Absolutely.

The truck is on his jogging route, not sure that indicative of anything. We lose footage for a moment which is a shame (why was that video shot?)