• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DOJ: 3 Georgia men indicted in connection with death of Ahmaud Arbery

Lursa said:
No I'm not. I dont believe that the Chauvin case was based on race, for ex. And I havent brought up race once in this thread. So...you're still wrong and I still completely accept your previous statement re: your feelings.

But it's cute that you decided to try and invent something as a personal attack 🤷
Click to expand...
You've been bringing up race in this thread. I sure didn't.
 
maxparrish said:
Of course it was Travis that moved to the drivers side front and who stopped in a defense posture. That is NOT moving to physically engage. It is establishing and standing ground preparing in case Abrey charged him.

Unless Travis pointed his gun aimed at Arbery while standing in his new position it's self defense. And because Arbery undeniably had not stopped moving and looped back to attack Travis then Travis's self-defense claim hold.

Do you need a diagram?

View attachment 67331457


Abrey made a choice to start a fight.
Click to expand...
The choice was precipitated by the aggravated assault. He might have formed a plan to fight Travis because he saw the gun pointed at himself. So what? It wasn't an unprovoked assault on Travis out of the blue, was it? It was legally justifiable, unlike the chasing and running off the road and pointing of the shotgun at Arbery, and ultimately shooting him, all precipitated by the unlawful actions of Travis, Gregory and William.
 
ASHES said:
The choice was precipitated by the aggravated assault. He might have formed a plan to fight Travis because he saw the gun pointed at himself. So what? It wasn't an unprovoked assault on Travis out of the blue, was it? It was legally justifiable, unlike the chasing and running off the road and pointing of the shotgun at Arbery, and ultimately shooting him, all precipitated by the unlawful actions of Travis, Gregory and William.
Click to expand...

This is what I think too. This is one of the reasons I do not agree with the video analysis that was posted before. I do not think that one can make within a fraction of a second a decision to change course and engage a person who just shot him. It is more likely that the decision was already made and the car was used as a cover to approach the armed guy.
 
Master Debator said:
Why are you all going back and forth with this fool like he's an honest actor and not a racist who's trolling yall? He knows those boys are going to jail. Just laugh and point at him and move on.
Click to expand...

At this point I'd have agree. A day or so ago I thought he was honestly wanting to discuss the case, he was just missing key facts, like T McMichael's pointing his weapon. Or Roddies hitting him with the truck. However last night showed me that regardless of what the three idiots did, it was always going to be Arbery's fault for existing that day. It's Arbery's fault for getting hit with Roddie's truck. It's Arbery's fault Travis got out with his shotgun. It's Arbery's fault Travis pointed the shotgun. It Arbery's fault Travis resituated himself at the front of the truck still pointing his weapon.

And it's Arbery's fault he bled in those fine men's roadway.

So yes I agree he's not here to discuss. Although the time used could show people who aren't up on the case and do want to legitimately discuss it, many of the key points.
 
SkyFox76 said:
So yes I agree he's not here to discuss. Although the time used could show people who aren't up on the case and do want to legitimately discuss it, many of the key points.
Click to expand...
They chased him down and killed him for sport.

Had Arbery been Caucasian he'd be jogging the same streets and the 3 murderers would wave hello as he passed.

Those are the key points. They're obvious to everyone not blinded by white privilege.
 
Loulit01 said:
They chased him down and killed him for sport.

Had Arbery been Caucasian he'd be jogging the same streets and the 3 murderers would wave hello as he passed.

Those are the key points. They're obvious to everyone not blinded by white privilege.
Click to expand...

Yesterday I watched G McMichael's statement to police that day and it was almost comical how many times he brought up he was ex LE.

And while Roddie kept denying he knew the McMichael's, G McMichael's starts right out calling Roddie by name.

The greatest statement though was G McMichael's pointing toward Roddie's truck and telling the cop---he's got the whole thing recorded.

Yup, he sure did have it on video, and the dumbass G McMichael's actually thought that video would clear them.
 
Questerr said:
The fight was started by the three men who chose to chase him for 4 minutes.

Do criminals engaged in a felony have Stand Your Ground Rights? Can they kill someone they are attempting to commit a felony on if that person fights back?
Click to expand...

No proof that their actions constitute a felony.
 
Loulit01 said:
They chased him down and killed him for sport.

Had Arbery been Caucasian he'd be jogging the same streets and the 3 murderers would wave hello as he passed.

Those are the key points. They're obvious to everyone not blinded by white privilege.
Click to expand...

I doubt the "hello" part. More likely if the Caucasian had not been up to no good he would have stopped and responded to their questions of why he was seen inside the house, more than once?

I'm blinded by the law, not the canard of white privilege. Apparently your the one tainted by racialist taxonomies.
 
Questerr said:
McMichael and his fellow Klansmen had no idea that Arbery had went into that construction site under after they killed him.
Click to expand...
Not that day, but they had on previous days...not only the tape but also because one of them had run into Arbry at the construction site.
 
maxparrish said:
Not that day, but they had on previous days...not only the tape but also because one of them had run into Arbry at the construction site.
Click to expand...
All irrelevant to what happened on that day.
 
lemmiwinx said:
Jog wherever you want it's your right. Just don't jog into houses under construction in strange neighborhoods on your jog and you'll probably be okay. That's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...
No, this is what you said:
lemmiwinx said:
This tragedy could've been avoided if he'd just been "jogging" in his own neighborhood. Sad situation however you look at it I feel bad for all involved.
Click to expand...
Plenty of other people are on those videos, checking out the construction. Why didnt the neanderthals chase and hunt down those people?
 
wolfsgirl said:
And yet some still claim that Travis was the one that felt threatened by a man jogging to the point that he had to point his gun at him.
Click to expand...
As he sat inside a lethal weapon, holding a lethal weapon, and was free to leave the area at any time. :rolleyes: Why did he get out when Arbery was so many yards behind them?
 
JasperL said:
Your diagram leaves out the part where Arbery changes direction because some asshole is pointing a loaded shotgun at him after Travis placed himself and his truck in Arberys path that he has a right to continue on without harassment from the posse. And which right they had repeatedly violated before that final deadly encounter.
Click to expand...

Actually my diagram leaves to the several times he changes direction to make a beeline for Travis. Let us recount the ways>

1) Changed direction from left far side of street, merging to the right and proceeding to a beeline to Travis.
2) Changed direction from raised gun to his right, seemingly veering the the opposite side of the vehicle from the drivers side.
3) Change direction again, veering back to the left heading on a beeline for Travis.
4) Finally decided to not test Travis further and changed direction again to the right, looping on to the far right grass and then executing a curving charge to attack Travis, around the front, to the left front side.

So your correct, I didn't included Arbrey's attempts to get at Travis more than once.
 
roguenuke said:
Arbery is not at all guilty of burglary from that day. You cannot show he had intent to steal anything. None of his actions prove a burglary. But intercepting someone and hitting them with your vehicle, running them off the road is an act of aggression and someone has a right to defend themselves from that, whether a felony or not. The McMichaels and Roddy had no right to be doing those things to him.

It is not "far different" to use your vehicles as a weapon rather than other things or becoming verbal or physical. They were being physical with their vehicles.
Click to expand...

I don't have to show intent, those claiming a citizens arrest as a defense (although to date that has not been claimed by the suspects) have to show at least a reasonable subjective and objective reason to assume so. It is likely that they would allude to several tapes, and their own prior experience with Arbrey as evidence of less than virtuous intentions by Arbrey.
 
ASHES said:
He was wearing baggy clothes and pulling up his pants, and a gun had been stolen months before, so he was probably armed.

That is the argument.
Click to expand...
Ah...so maybe drive away to be safe?

And call 911 if you genuinely think he's a threat?
 
maxparrish said:
I don't have to show intent, those claiming a citizens arrest as a defense (although to date that has not been claimed by the suspects) have to show at least a reasonable subjective and objective reason to assume so. It is likely that they would allude to several tapes, and their own prior experience with Arbrey as evidence of less than virtuous intentions by Arbrey.
Click to expand...
They don't have legal authority to enforce trespassing laws on other people's property without the property owners authorization, and even then, as an agent of the property owner, all they are authorized to do is tell people to get off the property, and call police if they don't. Doesn't matter if they saw him on the property on previous occasions.
 
Lursa said:
No, this is what you said:

Plenty of other people are on those videos, checking out the construction. Why didnt the neanderthals chase and hunt down those people?
Click to expand...

Joggers gonna jog I get it. Just don't jog onto private property where housing construction is going on and you'll be okay. That's all I'm saying.
 
lemmiwinx said:
Joggers gonna jog I get it. Just don't jog onto private property where housing construction is going on and you'll be okay. That's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...
They have no authority to enforce trespassing on someone else's property. Full stop.
 
JasperL said:
You're inventing facts. When did they SEE him perhaps burglarizing anything? When did Arbery previously "bolt"? Never. So, yeah, if you invent facts, you can make this seem reasonable. If you ignore facts you can make it seem reasonable. You're doing BOTH.

And my 'emotional' content is just a paraphrase of the KNOWN FACTS. If you wish to 'read' those facts another way, stick to the facts, tell me what I got wrong.

Don't forget about the running him off the road, hitting him with the truck and pulling a shotgun on him. Those facts seem relevant but you're absolutely determined to pretend they do not exist. Amazing.


Again, sure, if you want to misstate the facts that is fine. Arbery "charging" Travis was in reality Arbery running on a public road, and after Travis deliberately put himself in Arbery's path, Arbery running on that same path.

Well, if they'd only been "tracking" him, fine. But they didn't just "track" him so you are again misstating the facts. It's not "tracking" someone to run them off the ****ing road, hit them with your truck and repeatedly try to block him on his legal path, and then on the third attempt pulling a shotgun on them.

He was jogging on a public road and had every legal right to continue on his path, unimpeded by those goons. Travis put himself on that path. If there's a problem anywhere it's Travis putting himself on that path, armed with a shotgun, not with Arbery continuing his jog.

Implicit in all that above are two assumptions:
1) Greg and Gomer and Barney had a legal right to detain and question Arbery, by force if necessary.
2) And, therefore, Arbery had a legal obligation to comply with their orders.

What is your legal theory for those assumptions? You ARE making them, but you won't state them out loud, and it's because I think you know they're absurd.
Click to expand...
For God's sake what a facile, silly comment (that you had to respond to)! 👇
maxparrish said:
The only question under the law is did both parties have a reasonable fear and did either party give up their right of self defense. I'd say no. Had Travis died, Arbery would have been not guilty as well.
Click to expand...
There were multiple grown men, sitting in 2 lethal weapons that they could have used for leaving an unsafe place or as defensive weapons if needed. They're lying about Arbery having a weapon...they really have no choice but to invent that tho...but who's stupid enough to believe it? Esp. after the stills from the video?

The killers had no reasonable fear for their lives. If they had, they could have left at any time. And if they chose to stand their ground, then they had no business harassing a pedestrian, running him into a ditch, pointing firearms at him, and hitting him. Why did they do those things if they had any fear?

And of course the accumulation of ALL circumstances and escalation matter...it's not a split for SD for one or the other...it's a matter of putting ALL the actions in context to understand how ALL of them influenced the people involved. And the killers never had any reasonable fear until the last second when they chose to point a gun at an unarmed man (an imminent lethal threat) and he tried to save his own life, knowing he couldnt outrun a bullet or even the trucks at that point.
 
lemmiwinx said:
Joggers gonna jog I get it. Just don't jog onto private property where housing construction is going on and you'll be okay. That's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...

And civilian shooters who kill joggers who trespass properties that do not even belong to the shooter gonna go to jail. Just don't shoot joggers for trespassing properties that do not even belong to you. That's all we're saying...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom