Ahmund Arbery
- Thread starter tlwwake
- Start date
How is this immaterial? The perp appears to have known the victim. I would say this could be extremely material. Any prosecutor worth his salt would look into this? Same for defense attorney.
Be patient lol. They are working on it unfortunately. Just look at the recent posts on this thread from them.
Last edited:
Have to agree with @07pilt on this one. This really is irrelvant. Unless the defense is going to change their story and claim that the defendant immediately recognized the victim from these past incidents, grabbed his son and their guns, jumped in his truck and chased him down because he knew who he was.
Two questions for you cableok . . . do you think that would be wise for the defense to do? And if so, how would such a change in story help the defendants' defense against felony murder?
Last edited:
Autopsy conforms: Arbery shot three times, twice in the chest.
https://www.tmz.com/2020/05/11/ahmaud-arbery-autopsy-report-shotgun-wounds/
https://www.tmz.com/2020/05/11/ahmaud-arbery-autopsy-report-shotgun-wounds/
Shocked that you view potential prior interaction between a shooter and a victim irrelevant.
You have made it very clear due to your bias you think any negative interaction between a white person and a black person is race related. Most of us, however, don’t think that way. We view people as individuals.
I don’t know if their prior interaction is material, but if I was a prosecutor or a defense attorney I certainly would investigate. Any attorney or either side that wouldn’t look into the matter should be fired for extreme incompetence.
If I was a prosecutor - I would want to know if the prior relationship between the victim and the shooter provided some additional motive. Did the shooter hold a grudge?
If I was a federal prosecutor - I would want to know if the prior relationship between the victim and the shooter provided a reason to charge as a hate crime.
If I was a defense attorney - I want want to know more about weapons charge and what was behind the obstruction of a police officer charge? I would want to know if the victim may have threatened the shooter previously.
I'll tip toe in on this, but beyond the obvious of a young man losing his life for something he shouldn't have, I just wish people could hold off on the over reactions one way or another. My time line on this was about a week or so ago I started seeing thing on twitter about this (hadn't heard about it before). Did a little reading and the first narrative I saw was two racist white guys killed a kid who was just jogging through a neighbor. Of course this is horrible and strikes close to home since I'm from Duncan and sadly a kid was shot and killed while jogging for no reason what so ever. Of course I then pop on here and start seeing the same story repeated over and over again. Then I start doing a little more digging and start seeing the narrative start changing (still doesn't justify the shooting) just not near the racial overtones as at the beginning.
Things I'm curious about are why did it take so long to arrest these guys and what if any laws or procedures weren't followed for not doing so. I would have figured a night in jail and bail would have been in order at the very least. I don't know enough about Georgia Law (I'm going to guess neither does anyone else in this thread), to say that some nefarious was going on in the delay. I don't have any issue with people asking the question as to why they weren't arrested.
The rest of the noise will be settled in court, either criminal or civil. Maybe there was a racial element to the killing but beyond the deceased was black and the killers white so far I haven't seen anything to support that theory. It's not that I'm not willing to have this be a racial issue but I just think you do a disservice when you paint with a broad stroke before facts are revealed. Plus it paints you in a corner if later on the facts don't match your narrative and you lose standing for potential future real racial issues. Honestly its one of the reason when I see Benjamin Crump's name attached it makes me start leaning towards not believing the whole racial angle. The guy is a race profiteer and sadly uses these situations to drum up more publicity for himself.
Things I'm curious about are why did it take so long to arrest these guys and what if any laws or procedures weren't followed for not doing so. I would have figured a night in jail and bail would have been in order at the very least. I don't know enough about Georgia Law (I'm going to guess neither does anyone else in this thread), to say that some nefarious was going on in the delay. I don't have any issue with people asking the question as to why they weren't arrested.
The rest of the noise will be settled in court, either criminal or civil. Maybe there was a racial element to the killing but beyond the deceased was black and the killers white so far I haven't seen anything to support that theory. It's not that I'm not willing to have this be a racial issue but I just think you do a disservice when you paint with a broad stroke before facts are revealed. Plus it paints you in a corner if later on the facts don't match your narrative and you lose standing for potential future real racial issues. Honestly its one of the reason when I see Benjamin Crump's name attached it makes me start leaning towards not believing the whole racial angle. The guy is a race profiteer and sadly uses these situations to drum up more publicity for himself.
I am going to try to have a reasonable conversation with you. Here goes...
I have never once said that I think any negative interaction between a white person and a black person is race related. Not once. I view cases every week of negative interactions between a white person and a black person. The vast majority of them have absolutely nothing to do with race.
However, when I do see an interaction that indicates there are racial factors involved, I say it. I don't try to hide from it, deny it, make excuses, seek other alternatives, create hypos, etc. For some reason this bothers you. Maybe you scramble to look the other way whenever racial factors become apparent, I don't know. But if you do, then that is the difference between you and I.
I am a prosecutor. You are currently having a discussion with a prosecutor.
Show me where I posted that a prosecutor or defense attorney wouldn't investigate the material you referenced. Go ahead.
Let me help you out, I didn't say that. All I argued was that the material you referenced is, at this point, irrelvant to the current charges the defendants are facing. Hence the qualifying statement I gave ("unless the defense"...).
Of course, as a prosecutor, I would investigate such material. Heck, there is a lot more I would also investigate, much of which would never find its way into the courtroom, i.e. because it is not relevant.
How has the narrative changed that lessens the racial overtones?
I know some don't like hearing this, but white privilege was a factor for why they were not arrested immediately. As stated before, had this been two black men who chased down a white jogger with guns and shut him, those two black men would have been arrested on the spot. Even if those two black men "had friends," they still would have been arrested.
As for laws and procedures that were not followed, that would have to come out in an investigation. And there definitely needs to be an investigation. On that note, Georgia's AG has requested a federal investigation.
If you are really a prosecutor then that is scary. Unless you have evidence that hasn’t been released publicly, there is not any evidence this shooting has anything to do with race. I have asked you multiple times to provide just one small amount of backup to support your racial statements. You can’t.
I am not having a discussion with a prosecutor. I am having a discussion with someone with such an extremely strong bias that facts are made-up without any supporting evidence.
You are making progress. You actually responded to a post instead of your normal programmed bot response. You admitted I was correct about the
prior relationship potentially being material. So kudos. Glad you are at least somewhat willing to consider facts instead of bias.
I am not having a discussion with a prosecutor. I am having a discussion with someone with such an extremely strong bias that facts are made-up without any supporting evidence.
You are making progress. You actually responded to a post instead of your normal programmed bot response. You admitted I was correct about the
prior relationship potentially being material. So kudos. Glad you are at least somewhat willing to consider facts instead of bias.
lol, sure there is. Again, a black man jogged by a white man's house. That white man, based on how that black man looked, called out to his white son and they got their guns, got in their truck, chased the black man down, and shot him three times. Twice in the chest.
The racial overtones are right in front of your eyes cable. You just refuse to acknowledge them.
What facts above did I make up?
You are the one with the bias NOT to see the racial factors cable. You don't want to see them. You don't want to acknowledge them. Thus you object every time the men are called white and the victim is called black. You are the one having a problem with the facts, not me.
As I stated, some don't like hearing it. Nevertheless, it is there for all to see who are willing to see it.
Do you not read what you post? Over and over again you state that shooting was racist just because it was a white man that shot a black man.
Think about that. You conclude the shorting was racist ..... “just because”.
Sadly, there are so many low-information voters and potential jury members that the “just because” prosecution probably works for you sometime. No need for facts, personal bias works.
Think about that. You conclude the shorting was racist ..... “just because”.
Sadly, there are so many low-information voters and potential jury members that the “just because” prosecution probably works for you sometime. No need for facts, personal bias works.
Nope, never said that. The facts are more than just a white man shooting a black man. And I gave those facts. There is a context here cable, and I continue to give you the context. I never just say white man shot black man.
Let’s look at some of the facts “prosecutor”.
The older shooter worked in the law enforcement group. He did investigations with several in the current DA department. He used to report to the DA.
The shooter probably did have a bias. The shooter had previously investigated the victim. The shooter knew the victim carried a gun previously. The shooter knew the victim was recently arrested for stealing.
The shooter had a break in at his home this year. There was at least one other reported breakin this year on that same street.
Another caller not related to the shooter called 911 about a suspicious person entering a house under construction.
Do you think maybe, just maybe, those facts may have been a reason why the shooter was potentially over involved and why the DA may have not been stronger charging the shooter?
Or is your “just because” reason still making more sense to you?
Actually every time I conduct voir dire, I stress to prospective jurors the importance of laying aside their personal biases and I try to keep individuals off the jury who I believe won't be able to set their personal biases aside.
Ok, but this means you need to stick to the facts. For example, do you claim this is a fact?....
If this is true and a fact, then this means the father immediately recognized the jogger and knew who he was. The son too, since he was the shooter.
I have not seen any evidence that states definitively that the father and son knew who the jogger was at the time. Indeed, that seems to contradict what they told the police afterwards. Can you provide some evidence that states otherwise?
Sounds to me like you think race is the main motivation.
Personally, I think the death penalty is appropriate for both of them. Nothing to do with race. 2 armed men on a public street tried to stop a citizen minding his own business and was shot trying to defend himself.
Why does race even need to be mentioned?
I think racal factors were defintely involved. Nailing down a main motivation though in instances like this can often be elusive.
I would disagree due to my opposition to the death penalty. But they could be sentenced to the death penalty for felony murder in GA.
Because many people can see the racial factors at play in this murder. Others can't or don't want to see them.
Well when the story first came out the narrative was just some kid jogging through a neighborhood and was shot by two white guys. No other backstory, all indications in that narrative are they shot the kid because he was black and running in a white neighborhood. As more details comes out it sounds less and less like just some random shooting because the kid was black. Doesn't quite fit the killing was racially motivated narrative, you could say they were profiling but then he was seen going in and out of houses it kind of ends that narrative too. Bottom line is the two guys are complete idiots and should have never confronted him. The situation escalated well beyond what I imagine they all intended. I can't think of really any good defense as to why they shouldn't go to jail, the question will be what do they think they can charge them with and make stick.
I do think privilege played a role in why they weren't immediately arrested but I don't think it's because they were white. Probably has more to do with the elder accused having worked in law enforcement and then two DA's recusing themselves (one at the request of the victims families). I would think you wouldn't want to rush this process and make sure you get it right. I believe there's a racial factor in every murder, the question for me is does it rise to be one of the main factors as to why someone was killed. I just don't believe this scenario rises to that level. If the murder in Duncan didn't rise to the level of a hate crime then this crime doesn't either in my opinion.
I do think privilege played a role in why they weren't immediately arrested but I don't think it's because they were white. Probably has more to do with the elder accused having worked in law enforcement and then two DA's recusing themselves (one at the request of the victims families). I would think you wouldn't want to rush this process and make sure you get it right. I believe there's a racial factor in every murder, the question for me is does it rise to be one of the main factors as to why someone was killed. I just don't believe this scenario rises to that level. If the murder in Duncan didn't rise to the level of a hate crime then this crime doesn't either in my opinion.
What are those details that make it sound less and less likely?
But there is no evidence that these two men knew (at the time) about the victim going into one house under construction and looking around right before the shooting.
Felony murder, what they have been charged with.
That can be part of white privilege too though.
Look, it is ok for people, especially white people, to admit that there is white privilege. It is ok for a white person to awaken to how the system is often slanted in the favor of white Americans. Actually, this is what needs to happen with most Americans, especially white Americans.
There is a reason you are shocked by this incident. There is a reason this incident is hard for you to understand and explain. Comprehending those reasons, admitting them, and not seeking to make excuses or find an easy way out is what we need here in America, especially from white America.
The only thing controversial about this story is the racist narrative the MSM is pushing. I haven't seen or heard anyone who said the two white guys were in the right. What I have seen is people that have seen the MSM reaction to the Travon Martin, Michael Brown and cases like the Duke Lacrosse fiasco have said lets see more facts and let the judicial system work. Unfortunately our judicial system can be very frustrating with the amount of time it takes.
As far as I'm concerned with the information available the two white guys committed murder and should be charged. Next.
As far as I'm concerned with the information available the two white guys committed murder and should be charged. Next.
Look you are looking for reasons to support your need to make this a racial incident. Who knows, maybe some kind of evidence or information will be uncovered in the future that supports your bias.
But logic, facts, or more information is not going to sway you. Anyone believing white privilege is a pervasive thing is not going to change their bias. @Inky29 provided you the most probable answer about privilege. Most likely the reason they were not initially arrested was due to his relationship with law enforcement and the DA.
Well this was fun, but arguing with him is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how well you play, the bird is going to $hit on the board and then strut around like he won.
Actually, it is a good thing that our judicial system does take time. When people's lives and liberties are at stake, we shouldn't rush it.
Last edited:
No I am not. You are the one flailing about trying to find anything to throw up to distract from the racial factors at play in this incident. And I am sure you will continue to do so. For some reason, you just can't bring yourself to admit what is clear for many to see.
But getting back to your desire to talk about the "facts," again, do you really claim this is a fact...
If so, please provide the evidence. If not, can you admit you included something that wasn't a fact but an assumption on your part?
The Atlanta Journal Constitution quoted District Attorney George Barnhill when he was talking about how Gregory McMichael knew Ahmaud Arbery. Barnhill said “(McMichael) helped with the previous prosecution of Arbery”.
Also in the article, Barnhill says that “Ahmaud’s older brother has gone to prison in the past and is currently in the Glynn jail, without bond, awaiting new felony prosecution. It also appears a cousin has been prosecuted by DA Johnson's office”.
In a small town like that, I think it is fair to assume that a person like McMichael that was connected to law enforcement and close to both DA’s ...that he knew about Arbery’s shoplifting charge.
So, since your claim on racism is based in fact, when did you interview the 2 suspects and they turned in their KKK cards?
There are no facts that race was involved, yet you are assuming it is because it's 2 white guys and a black victim.
Race may be a motivating factor, but there have yet to be any facts presented that say race was the primary motivation.
I would not be surprised if race was a factor, but not many facts have been presented except for the few videos and the prior history of both parties, which neither seem to be unblemished.
Key word there. Assume.
You assumed. You made an assumption into a fact, didn't you?
And yet you attack me over making up facts? Claim I am turning my assumptions into facts?
I am operating in facts cable, not assumptions like you now are. And if you want to talk about facts, I am all ears. But I won't talk about assumptions as if they are facts.
First of all, I never said these two men were "racists." I simply said there are racial factors at play in this incident. I don't know enough about these two men to call them racists.
Secondly, racial factors can be at play without anyone being a part of the KKK. And there are also many racists who are not members of the KKK.
Sure there are. And they have been listed throughout this thread.
At least you can admit this, which is a start. I will give you credit for that. More than some have been able to do on this thread.
Lol
Seriously, did you type that while laughing uncontrollably?
He typed that while claiming to be a "prosecutor," as if that claim somehow transforms his blithering gibberish into intelligible and coherent arguments.
Rinse. Repeat. This is the reality of my_Tooncents.
"Prosecutor."lol, I salute toon. Whoever he is, he definitely lives rent free in Meds' head.
Carry on, lol.
Everyone on here likes to make bets. So let's make a bet.
You willing to bet that I am this toon poster? I am willing to make such a bet, and the stakes is a one year ban from posting on the board.
You game?
Last edited:
Nah. Toon is actually much smarter than you. He was the dumbest member to grace this board before you, so the comparison was as close to accurate as I could get.
I really should stop insulting Toon by putting him at your level of dumbassery though. You have an unmatched level of stupidity not previously seen here, Toon included.
