- 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: New York Times gems on the Arbery case.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:43 pm to Azkiger
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:43 pm to Azkiger
quote:
There's an unwritten social rule that it's not criminal to go onto a construction site and look around.
Man I've missed that one rule. I've done it...once an ex and I snuck into one late night to knock one out...but I never thought I wouldn't get in trouble if caught. I guess the experience wasn't as risky fun as I thought....bummer. ha.
But yeah...we are on the same page. Problem is to many people don't like and scared of the stigma of certain stereotyping.
0
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:49 pm to Azkiger
quote:
It's a criteria that some people in this thread don't feel was met because of married couples and their Honda vans.
you do realize that even if their CA began as justified (which is highly doubtful that mcmichaels CA attempt was justifiable), it can become illegal?
the use of force must be justifiable. im not sure the mcmichaels aggravated assault was justified while AA was simply fleeing. the aggravated assault occurred prior to AA wrestling for the gun. pointing deadly weapons, hitting him with their vehicle while screaming that you will blow their head off is not justified for suspected break ins that happened weeks prior.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:50 pm to AMS
quote:
Not so sure if 'IDK maybe' covers direct knowledge of a felony...
The police officer asked the father about what he saw that day.
Does the son having seen something two weeks prior change anything?
Possibly. Travis confronted Arbery on that property two weeks prior and told him he wasn't allowed to be there. Travis recognized Arbery. Travis is the one who got out of the truck and blocked Arbery with a shotgun, it seems his behavior is more important than his fathers.
quote:
seems like theres only evidence of trespassing which would not be a felony to detain a citizens arrest escapee.
Entering a residence with the intent to steal is a felony in the state of Georgia, if the courts wanted to push it that far. And considering he had a history of theft and was out on probation, and that Travis had already confronted Arbery and told him that he wasn't allowed to be there, the courts may have pushed it that far.
quote:
seems to suggest violent intent. you realize even if their CA was justifiable, it does not justify the mcmichaels crimes committed in the process of the CA.
Agreed, but what was the "stop" in reference too? When Travis confronted Arbery on Mr English's property two weeks prior, he left the property because he claimed, and a neighbor witnessed (I believe the guy directly across the street who called the cops on the day that Arbery was shot) Arbery reaching into his waistband and threatening Travis.
Was Arbery doing the same thing he did with Travis and reaching around his waistband while being chased?
It's a stretch, and even if it were argued I'd likely believe the "stop" was a command to stop running, but there is at least an argument to be made.
This post was edited on 11/12/21 at 3:51 pm
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:51 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Man, you're confused. This is what happens when you observe with a highly biased mind and pre-determined conclusion instead of just looking at the facts.
Let me guess my highly biased mind is because I'm a racist right??
What facts am I confused about? As I seem to be asking for them.
Seems like you are assuming things and being the highly biased. Going to guess you have the McMichael's as a couple of white supremacists rednecks who wanted to shoot some poor negro out for a nice jog, so they can get a new patch on their white sheet.
This post was edited on 11/12/21 at 3:54 pm
Posted on 11/12/21 at 3:57 pm to TOSOV
quote:
hat did they do that was illegal?
Try to hit him with their vehicles. Threaten to blow his head off. Point a gun at him.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 4:00 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Azkiger
Quick question...how many 911 calls were made that day about AA? Not after the shooting but after he left the house and the McMichael's were chasing after him. The one reporting AA initially
I heard one a long time ago, but can't remember who it was.
This post was edited on 11/12/21 at 4:01 pm
Posted on 11/12/21 at 4:08 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Entering a residence with the intent to steal is a felony in the state of Georgia, if the courts wanted to push it that far. And considering he had a history of theft and was out on probation, and that Travis had already confronted Arbery and told him that he wasn't allowed to be there, the courts may have pushed it that far.
the thing that keeps gumming you up is they had no direct knowledge of by their own admission. you can try to wax poetic about how maybe they could have reasonably suspected something, but the fact remains they had no direct knowledge of a felony which is required.
quote:
Agreed, but what was the "stop" in reference too? When Travis confronted Arbery on Mr English's property two weeks prior, he left the property because he claimed, and a neighbor witnessed (I believe the guy directly across the street who called the cops on the day that Arbery was shot) Arbery reaching into his waistband and threatening Travis.
ah so weeks later AA is still actively 'escaping' the scene of the felony committed as 'being confronted' weeks ago? not sure that qualifies as a legit CA.
quote:
It's a stretch, and even if it were argued I'd likely believe the "stop" was a command to stop running, but there is at least an argument to be made.
sure I believe they meant stop running, but AA has no obligation to stop for them. They then proceed to commit aggravated assault, hitting him with their vehicle and brandishing firearms at him while yelling things like "ill blow your head off". so even if it did somehow begin as a justified CA, the mcmichaels turned it into false imprisonment with their violent crimes.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 4:10 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
I'm sorry, but a single man without a car ....or bag even if he was stealing was not stealing much and it does not warrant the McMichael of trying to deprive him of his liberty.... and brandishing a weapon in a menacing manner.
I didn’t know you could put so much dishonesty and untruth in a single post.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 4:20 pm to mouton
quote:
Try to hit him with their vehicles. Threaten to blow his head off. Point a gun at him.
Ok so that's more like it. Thanks for some actual info.
So they chased him in multiple vehicles? I only recall it being one pickup truck. Did they try to hit him or just trying to cut him off?
Pointing the gun at him is illegal if they were trying to CA him?
Hadn't heard about the threat before. Was that caught on tape, one of the McMichael's admitted to it, or what a witness standing in close proximity said they heard?
(Yes...I haven't been as invested in this case as others and trying to catch up. I want to make sure to get the actual facts straight, so I'm not some confused racist redneck with pre-exposed biases)
Posted on 11/12/21 at 4:23 pm to TOSOV
quote:You seem to be confused about how to evaluate what the felons knew about the victim's "intent to steal".
What facts am I confused about?
quote:I have no idea why.
Let me guess my highly biased mind is because I'm a racist right??
quote:What I'm assuming is your ability to assess this case is highly impacted by your presumptions.
Seems like you are assuming things and being the highly biased. Going to guess you have the McMichael's as a couple of white supremacists rednecks who wanted to shoot some poor negro out for a nice jog, so they can get a new patch on their white sheet.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 4:26 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Does the son having seen something two weeks prior change anything?
Probably not
Posted on 11/12/21 at 4:26 pm to KiwiHead
quote:yet their state law clearly states they can do what they did. not saying it's a smart law, but no way I can look at the law and not say they had some legal right to try to detain him
it does not warrant the McMichael of trying to deprive him of his liberty.... and brandishing a weapon in a menacing manner.
quote:apparently, you have not actually read the law. go to their state site and read the law yourself. don't rely on others to provide you with the info. you are forming opinions based on assumption you've made.
Unless I am missing something neither of the McMichael were active law enforcement personnel.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 4:30 pm to AMS
quote:
the thing that keeps gumming you up is they had no direct knowledge of by their own admission.
The father isn't "they", unless he's changed his pronouns.
You quoted the father speaking to police. You didn't quote the person driving the truck and the person who got out with the shotgun, and the person who shot and killed Arbery, Travis.
quote:
ah so weeks later AA is still actively 'escaping' the scene of the felony committed as 'being confronted' weeks ago? not sure that qualifies as a legit CA.
No that would be a new incident. The relevance of the event two weeks prior is that it shows a pattern. Travis may have recognize Arbery as the person he caught on that property two weeks prior.
quote:
sure I believe they meant stop running, but AA has no obligation to stop for them.
Irrelevant/counter to our conversation where you seemed to argue that even if we assume they could carry out a citizen's arrest they couldn't break the law while doing so. If the "stop" was aimed at Arbery reaching into his waist, then it's less likely the father broke the law in issuing that threat since the "threat" would have been merely been a warning not to reach for any potential weapon in his waistband.
Again, I don't think I'd buy that as a juror... But we need to let this case play out. So far everything you've quoted with respect to the police interview post shooting has dealt with the father (not Travis) and a threat that could be argued, however poorly, that was not actually a threat but merely a warning.
It's good stuff, but nothing open and shut.
This post was edited on 11/12/21 at 4:37 pm
Posted on 11/12/21 at 4:33 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
You seem to be confused about how to evaluate what the felons knew about the victim's "intent to steal".
Amazing, you'll bitch about vigilantism but have no problem circumventing the courts and determining that the father and son are guilty.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 4:35 pm to TOSOV
quote:
Pointing the gun at him is illegal if they were trying to CA him?
If it's a justified CA (this likely was not) and done properly stop a threat, no. You can't hit people with your vehicle, brandish firearms at them and shout I'll blow your head off at someone simply fleeing. The force of detainment must be reasonable for the crime/situation. A dude running away from you doesn't justify aggravated assault
quote:
one of the McMichael's admitted to it,
Told to police at the time.probably on video too, but was offered to police as a part of their statement.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 4:49 pm to AMS
quote:
If it's a justified CA (this likely was not) and done properly stop a threat, no.
Eh, it could actually be. Arbery reached into his waistband and threatened Travis two weeks prior to this incident (at least according to Travis and a neighbor). It's reasonable to presume he was armed.
I mean, that should have been the clue to stay home and let the police handle it. But it could be argued that there was reason to assume Arbery was armed and dangerous.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 4:56 pm to Azkiger
quote:
The father isn't "they", unless he's changed his pronouns.
You quoted the father speaking to police. You didn't quote the person driving the truck and the person who got out with the shotgun, and the person who shot and killed Arbery, Travis.
you can erroneosly bitch that this doesnt matter because the statement from the dad.... but the dad was the one who informed and recruited his son for the confrontation. by their own words the son is even less aware of a felony and is further removed from direct knowledge than the father. this fact remains they had no direct knowledge however circularly you want to argue.
quote:
No that would be a new incident. The relevance of the event two weeks prior is that it shows a pattern. Travis may have recognize Arbery as the person he caught on that property two weeks prior.
thank you, so we agree thats unreasonable to effect a CA for some other incident. but it is still a hard fact they gave statements indicating they had no direct knowledge of a felony, which is required.
quote:
Irrelevant/counter to our conversation where you seemed to argue that even if we assume they could carry out a citizen's arrest they couldn't break the law while doing so. If the "stop" was aimed at Arbery reaching into his waist, then it's less likely the father broke the law in issuing that threat since the "threat" would have been merely been a warning not to reach for any potential weapon in his waistband.
what are you babbling about here? AA still has no obligation to stop even if he allegedly reached into his waistband weeks ago. there is no world "ill blow your brains out" is not threatening language.
quote:
It's good stuff, but nothing open and shut.
na its pretty open and shut lmao. they admit to no direct knowledge. videod it themselves. committed multiple violent felonies in the process of an illegal CA. its not self defense if while robbing a bank you kill the teller when they defend themselves
Posted on 11/12/21 at 5:00 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Eh, it could actually be. Arbery reached into his waistband and threatened Travis two weeks prior to this incident (at least according to Travis and a neighbor). It's reasonable to presume he was armed.
...what? then maybe they should have tried to CA him for that instead of an entirely different incident weeks later of which they had no direct knowledge of a felony = non justified CA. you are conflating separate incidents.
Posted on 11/12/21 at 5:04 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Arbery reached into his waistband and threatened
They states something like he reached towards his waistband that made them think he might be armed . Or maybe reached to pull up his sagging britches? How did he threaten?
Posted on 11/12/21 at 5:20 pm to AMS
quote:
you can erroneosly bitch that this doesnt matter because the statement from the dad...
First I was waxing poetically, now I'm erroneously bitching... Cut the purple prose, you're starting to sound very emotional.
quote:
but the dad was the one who informed and recruited his son for the confrontation. by their own words the son is even less aware of a felony and is further removed from direct knowledge than the father. this fact remains they had no direct knowledge however circularly you want to argue.
Neither of us knows Georgia's caselaw, but perhaps Travis' knowledge is brought back closer to this incident because he recognized Arbery from a previous incident.
Also if you want to sound like someone who knows what they're talking about, and that's why you're so confident you can type the things you type, at least use the proper terminology. It's not "direct knowledge", it's immediate knowledge.
quote:
thank you, so we agree thats unreasonable to effect a CA for some other incident.
And if I were arguing that, you could chalk that up as a point scored for you. What I was saying is that the previous incident with Travis and Arbery could be used to strengthen his knowledge and allow him to reasonably believe that Arbery is a thief. I don't know caselaw, so I'll wait for the judge to comment on that.
Or you can save me some time, since you already know, and tell me the caselaw and how the judge will rule ahead of time.
quote:
what are you babbling about here? AA still has no obligation to stop even if he allegedly reached into his waistband weeks ago. there is no world "ill blow your brains out" is not threatening language.
- You argued that even if we agree that the McMichaels met the criteria to begin a citizen's arrest, that in and of itself doesn't mean that they followed the law throughout the entire citizen's arrest process. That deviating from the law could/likely would change them from citizen's attempting a lawful citizen's arrest to criminals committing some form of assault.
- I operated under that assumption, and said that the "Stop or I'll blow your brains out" remark might have been aimed at Arbery reaching into his waistband while running from the McMichaels. In that scenario, however unlikely it might be, it wouldn't be someone threatening Arbery to stop running or he'll be shot, it would be someone warning him not to draw a weapon or he'll be shot.
- You either got confused or didn't like that answer, and said that Arbery didn't have an obligation to stop. The start of that line of conversation was you, for the sake of argument, allowing the McMichaels to start their chase from the position of a lawful citizen's arrest. If we start there, and if Arbery were reaching into his waistband, I don't think that telling Arbery to stop reaching into his waistband would be considered an unlawful threat, it'd be seen as a warning.
quote:
na its pretty open and shut lmao. they admit to no direct knowledge
Considering it's immediate knowledge and not direct knowledge, you'll have to excuse me for not really giving your opinions all that much weight.
This post was edited on 11/12/21 at 5:34 pm
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News