re: Ahmaud Arbery Timbaliers and Hammer

quote:

---

This doesn’t seem smart. Why would you drive to a random neighborhood, park, and then proceed to jog through it?

I don’t understand the motivation.

---

Where did the car come from? Do ya'll just make shite up as you go?

This neighborhood is close to his home and he jogged there regularly according to witness reports

quote:

---

Where did the car come from? Do ya'll just make shite up as you go?

This neighborhood is close to his home and he jogged there regularly according to witness reports

---

It is exactly what they do.

More than 1 neighbor has came forward stating they have seen him jog in the area before. The chance that multiple witnesses have all gotten together to vouch for a fake narrative is highly unlikely.

quote:

---

Maybe he stole the hammer from the construction site?

---

It’s Schrödinger’s hammer.

quote:

---

Maybe he stole the hammer from the construction site?

---

Definitely a legit cause for execution

A good hammer might cost 25 dollars

quote:

---

Since this new video has come out the media got quiet..

---

“new video” was already known about just never publically released.

From the very beginning it was stated a security video that shows a man thought to be Arbery going into a house under construction. He stays for about 3 mins before leaving without taking or damaging any property.

The video changes nothing about the rest of the events.

quote:

---

Definitely a legit cause for execution

---

Do most executions allow for the person being executed to almost get a gun and get a couple of haymakers in?

quote:

---

A charge in fricking high school makes you a fricking career criminal?

---

Actually this "charge in fricking high school" was not Arbery's first rodeo. He (including his family) have a history of criminal activity. Apparently they are well known to local law enforcement. Arbery was a career criminal. Facts are stubborn things. Okay bring on the that has nothing to do with this incident.

Excuse me I'm looking at the same video you're looking at and I don't see where Travis McMichael "raised" that weapon at Arbery. But I do see Arbery charging Travis McMichael and the force of that violent charge pushes McMichael back. So if your assumption that Travis McMichael had that weapon "raised" at Arbery........he certainly had the chance to discharge that weapon the moment Arbery's assault hits him. But McMichael DID NOT shoot. I believe Travis showed restraint, because all they (father and son) intended to do was detain Arbery until the police arrived. Arbery on his part was attempting to flee.

On the video we see a Travis scuffle with Arbery, at which point Arbery grabs the barrel of that shotgun and strikes McMichael at least twice. In the scuffle the weapon discharges and kills Arbery. Clear case of self-defense in response to a violent assault by Arbery.

.....and one more thing, stop with the "you'd better be the best lawyer in jurisprudence" bullshite. Are you a criminal lawyer? The jury will decide based on evidence. Fortunately that third man filmed the incident. Incidently the civil rights lawyer hired by Arbery's father is demanding that the guy filming this confrontation be arrested. I can understand, those videos just blew his chance for a quicky conviction.

Those videos don't lie.

quote:

---

Actually this "charge in fricking high school" was not Arbery's first rodeo.

---

What else was he charged with?

I can understand that, but I doubt you stop to admire the local construction projects.

At the very least, Ahmaud was trespassing and displaying suspicious behavior.

It stands to reason that, given the rather straightforward and unequivocal language used in the first part of the law ("committed in his presence"), that the subsequent part ("or within his immediate knowledge") likely doesn't deviate much from the first part, in other words it isn't going to take a huge leap down from "in his presence".

Think of a situation wherein a perp snatches a lady's purse around the corner, you don't witness it yourself, but it's reasonable to believe a purse snatching occurred when you observe the perp running away with a purse in hand, and the lady left screaming that she'd been robbed. You didn't personally observe the crime, but based on the surrounding circumstances it was fully reasonable to believe a probable felony crime occurred "within your immediate knowledge," thus citizens arrest likely justified. I.e. a "bam bam bam" string of events, as opposed to intervening time wherein you had to discuss it with the lady first AND THEN decide that you should pursue the purse snatcher.