- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Body cam footage of police interactions with Ahmaud Aubrey
Posted on 5/20/20 at 11:36 am to JDPndahizzy
Posted on 5/20/20 at 11:36 am to JDPndahizzy
quote:
Do you think they go to trial with these guys together or separately.
Not a crim attorney, so I have no clue about these things
1
Posted on 5/20/20 at 11:36 am to Pettifogger
FWIW, I haven't seen much of the "jogging" narrative in media reports in more recent articles. I believe that narrative was started by his mother or some other family member, or possibly their attorney. It's brought up way more in current discussions by those engaging in character assassination of the deceased.
Posted on 5/20/20 at 11:37 am to Ingeniero
quote:
However, that's a loooong shot from the 2 or 3 guys on the Poli board who "don't give a frick how many blacks die until white people kill black people at the same rate that blacks kill whites"
yeah. i don't understand defending them. they're idiots at best. idiots who racially profiled most likely. possibly racist who committed a murder.
none of those are particularly defendable.
Posted on 5/20/20 at 11:37 am to The Spleen
quote:
So no, I don't think they set out to kill him. I do think they were comfortable enough with the prospect of having to kill him(why else would they pursue him with loaded weapons?), but their presumed guilty mindset and the fact that they did shoot and kill him makes it a lynching in my eyes.
These are incompatible statements and irresponsible.
Without justifying their actions, can you not see that there is a possibility the two white guys brought weapons for defensive purposes, and only used them when there was a struggle over the weapon?
This post was edited on 5/20/20 at 1:58 pm
Posted on 5/20/20 at 11:38 am to Pettifogger
quote:
Are you arguing that they couldn't have been legitimately trying to undertake a (illegitimate) citizen's arrest, and thus this was a racial/targeted killing? Because otherwise I don't really understand the rebuttal.
Arguing regarding the intent of whether they went out and engaged with the intention to harm or to simply detain. I tend to go with the notion that multiple armed men chasing one guy for over 4 minutes, then stopping and laying in wait for him armed is a bit more than just heading out without any intent of harming him.
If he wasn't committing a felony, technically they can't even chase him but why not just chase him out of the neighborhood at that point? That would've likely been deterrent enough for him to not return if he was casing it (I don't know that he was, so lets just hypothesize that for the sake of argument).
Posted on 5/20/20 at 11:39 am to The Spleen
quote:
So no, I don't think they set out to kill him. I do think they were comfortable enough with the prospect of having to kill him(why else would they pursue him with loaded weapons?), but their presumed guilty mindset and the fact that they did shoot and kill him makes it a lynching in my eyes.
It's your take and I don't see where there there is a definite line. That said, I don't think this bears more than passing resemblance to lynchings of old and I don't think it's at all constructive to deem it such. Constructive racial dialogue in this country is non-existent because of layer and layers of emotional reactions and false narratives, and I think this only contributes to the problem.
Posted on 5/20/20 at 11:40 am to Jimbeaux
quote:
I think the guys who chased Aubrey down and ended up shooting and killing him were wrong for what they did. They need to be held accountable criminally and/or civilly.
However, it seems inaccurate and inappropriate to simply describe the situation as them “gunning someone down for stealing nails”. I’m not just calling you out, kengel2. Your response is just indicative of the normative response.
I’m sure the father and son were spurred into action by their desire to protect the neighborhood, not to shoot some black guy. As people with law enforcement backgrounds, carrying weapons for protection in such circumstances is just common sense.
They should have understood that their appearance with guns and their actions would be perceived as aggressive and threatening and not an authorized legal action. That was a huge mistake.
I’m sure it was a complete surprise to them, as it was to us who watched the video in horror, as the young man chose to engage in a fight for the gun instead of stopping or running the other way. I don’t think they wanted to shoot Aubrey until there was a direct confrontation over the weapon, but it was a confrontation that THEY caused.
Good take. This may be the most balanced and fair characterization of the event I've read.
Posted on 5/20/20 at 11:40 am to The Spleen
quote:
FWIW, I haven't seen much of the "jogging" narrative in media reports in more recent articles. I believe that narrative was started by his mother or some other family member, or possibly their attorney. It's brought up way more in current discussions by those engaging in character assassination of the deceased.
I live in Atlanta and it's very common here. We could both be correct, but the jogger narrative is alive and well around here and you'd be hard pressed to find a media report (which are frequent here) where it isn't mentioned, and often, featured.
Posted on 5/20/20 at 11:41 am to 3nOut
quote:
they're idiots at best. idiots who racially profiled most likely. possibly racist who committed a murder.
succinct and accurate IMO
Posted on 5/20/20 at 11:47 am to Pettifogger
quote:
The entirety of American media?
This may be the case as I don’t watch a whole lot of cable news and don’t do much social media-ing, but I have literally only seen that referred to on here by people defending the McMichaels. Regardless, it’s not relevant to this case whatsoever.
I do appreciate your stance—that you’ve consistently and quite eloquently opined—that we need to to let everything out in the open to be able to have a bigger-picture, civil conversation. Perhaps my cynicism on the possibility of that has been unfairly reached due to too much time on the Poli Board here, but I have tried to stick to the facts of this case and this case only in these discussions. I agree there is a bigger conversation to be had, I just think most efforts would be wasted in this particular forum, as it doesn’t allow for much—if any—persuasion. Heels are almost instantly dug in on one side of the other and with little room for budging, no matter how strong and reasonable the alternative argument.
Posted on 5/20/20 at 11:48 am to BluegrassBelle
quote:
Arguing regarding the intent of whether they went out and engaged with the intention to harm or to simply detain. I tend to go with the notion that multiple armed men chasing one guy for over 4 minutes, then stopping and laying in wait for him armed is a bit more than just heading out without any intent of harming him.
If he wasn't committing a felony, technically they can't even chase him but why not just chase him out of the neighborhood at that point? That would've likely been deterrent enough for him to not return if he was casing it (I don't know that he was, so lets just hypothesize that for the sake of argument).
Guess I just disagree. IMO:
75% likelihood "this guy may be armed so we should be too, might not be able to get him cornered without weapons"
20% likelihood "need to bring guns and by God we're ready to use them, sick of this shite around here."
5% "we're going to kill this black guy"
I think you have to factor in the Zimmerman complex here. You've got one wannabe hero and another guy who wants to show off that he's a former LEO, which emboldens their behavior past a point most of us would go.
I think all of the above is magnitudes more likely than a planned or even contingency-planned killing. Not to mention that you and I are applying a level analysis to these decisions that the perpetrators didn't - and more than likely - couldn't.
Posted on 5/20/20 at 11:58 am to Pettifogger
quote:
75% likelihood "this guy may be armed so we should be too, might not be able to get him cornered without weapons"
20% likelihood "need to bring guns and by God we're ready to use them, sick of this shite around here."
5% "we're going to kill this black guy"
That’s a decent breakdown, but the first category should be broken down further.
There’s a good chance that a former law enforcement officer and a family member are very familiar and comfortable with weapons, and carrying them for protection while planning to confront someone is just what you do. There’s no need to include the extra thought about plans to corral the suspect. I really don’t think they thought it out properly or had a plan at all.
Posted on 5/20/20 at 12:02 pm to oleheat
quote:
It may not be related, but it doesn't come as a total shock that someone who behaves this way would somehow manage to meet an unfortunate end.
It also doesn't come as a shock that two backwoods losers like the McMichaels would kill a man for no justifiable reason while trying to play Billy Badass.
Posted on 5/20/20 at 12:03 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
Do you think they go to trial with these guys together or separately.
Not a crim attorney, so I have no clue about these things
This is one of the 1st things I asked, as it would seem they have conflicting interests. Slo said they’d likely try them together, but they could use separate defenses.
Posted on 5/20/20 at 12:11 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
In other words, I think this is less about the 4 rules and more about the decision to pursue Arbery and pursue him with firearms.
I agree the pursuit decision is important. I do think the younger McMichael's handling of the shotgun underlines the point that he had it with him because he was ready to use it.
I'm not an expert in GA law either, but in most places, citizen's arrest allows the citizen to do what an officer could.
What's striking to me is that this is beyond what a LEO could do. You have a suspect in a non-violent offense (a misdemeanor where you can't even make a citizen's arrest) with no appearance the suspect is armed, and you have officers en route.
Absent a specific threat to the public, LEO should track and contain Arbery and wait for backup so the situation is controlled. Instead, Travis circles around front of the pickup with the shotgun out.
That's when it escalates to deadly force entering the equation.
Posted on 5/20/20 at 12:20 pm to Jimbeaux
quote:
I’m sure it was a complete surprise to them, as it was to us who watched the video in horror, as the young man chose to engage in a fight for the gun instead of stopping or running the other way. I don’t think they wanted to shoot Aubrey until there was a direct confrontation over the weapon, but it was a confrontation that THEY caused
This is it in a nutshell. They thought he’d run, he chose to fight. Once he got the jump on that guy with shotgun, someone was about to have a bad day. I’d imagine that’s what the defense will argue as well.
Posted on 5/20/20 at 12:25 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
75% likelihood "this guy may be armed so we should be too, might not be able to get him cornered without weapons"
Eh, I'd disagree a bit here.
First, when interviewed, Gregory McMichael's only statement about it was that he saw a black guy he thought was Arbery stick his hand down his pants on another night...thus he assumed Arbery might be armed on a completely separate day.
Next, this only really excuses taking guns with them. The longer video shows a 4 minute period the McMichaels are interacting with Arbery. That's a large enough sample size for them to know Arbery isn't armed or at least that Arbery isn't behaving like he is.
For the type of use of force you see in the shorter video, you need something specific to think he's armed and poses an immediate threat to someone. Otherwise, with cops on the way, just keep tracking and only engage if he poses a threat (like running towards a house or business).
Posted on 5/20/20 at 12:30 pm to Rep520
I'm really referring to the decision to have weapons in the first place.
I then think they decided they'd have to use a show of force to stop him. Hence "might not be able to get him cornered". My best guess/personal belief is that these guys were playing cop, got frustrated at their ineptitude in stopping Arbery, and resorted to a show of force as a result.
I then think they decided they'd have to use a show of force to stop him. Hence "might not be able to get him cornered". My best guess/personal belief is that these guys were playing cop, got frustrated at their ineptitude in stopping Arbery, and resorted to a show of force as a result.
Posted on 5/20/20 at 12:31 pm to Kujo
Thug POS gonna thug POS. Where is the person that claimed Ms. Arbery is wealthy? Why can she not afford to buy her son a shirt?
Posted on 5/20/20 at 12:33 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
75% likelihood "this guy may be armed so we should be too, might not be able to get him cornered without weapons"
If that’s the case, why fricking follow him and block his path armed instead of waiting for leo?
If you think you need multiple guns to “corner” someone who does not appear to be a threat to anyone, maybe you should let the actual police handle it.
Page 5 of 13
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News