Video shows Ahmaud Arbery at construction site before shooting

pinqy · May 29, 2020

Excon said:
Wrong.
You pointed to no lie, nor could you.

And?

Wrong. He clearly could have chose any side of the road and even turned around.
While he definitely chose to go to the right of the truck he chose to attack the son. That is all on him.

iLOL No.
The son remained on the left side while Arbery chose to move to the right to attack causing the son to back up.

While being wrong as usual, you fail to understand that the son still remained on the left side of the truck, while Arbery moved from the far right side to the left side in his attack.

Georgia has a stand your ground law. Arbery had no legal obligation to retreat before defending himself. And yes, blocking someone’s path and unlawfully trying to detain him while armed is aggravated assault.

JasperL · May 29, 2020

Here's a series of shots. First the thug son (TS) is standing with the truck with the door open.

Screen Shot 2020-05-29 at 5.12.57 PM.jpg

Arbery appears to change directions to the left, and TS moves to the center of the lane, blocking that side of the road with his fat ass and shotgun.

Screen Shot 2020-05-29 at 5.14.39 PM.jpg

Arbery changes direction, to go to the right of the truck. Notice where TS is standing - middle of the road, entirely clear of the truck and door, facing to our left, blocking that lane, so no wonder Arbery goes to his right.

Screen Shot 2020-05-29 at 5.16.48 PM.jpg

And here's where we see the encounter for the first time. This is essentially when the first shot rang out, with TS going to our right to intercept Arbery.

Screen Shot 2020-05-29 at 5.20.03 PM.jpg

Weird how he got from the middle of the left hand land to in front of the truck.... They just wanted to talk to Arbery and weren't in any way attempting to detain Arbery. They just blocked his path with a truck and a fat ass redneck with a shotgun, then when Arbery tried to avoid them, they moved to block his path again, armed with a shotgun. Totally innocent.

Nickyjo · May 29, 2020

Excon said:
What the lawyers representing the Arbery family say is irrelevant.
Especially as we can see he was not out jogging.
He walks up to where the home is being constructed, stops and looks around as if to see if anyone is watching him and then goes up to it and enters, after which he runs from it.

Stop the hyperbole. There was no ambush.

Well, Kemo Sabe, the cowboys came after running boy, blocked his path and, how you say?, "trained" guns on him. Sound like ambush to Tonto.

Excon · May 29, 2020

Citizen said:
The few seconds is all there is. That is the full video, dimwit

Stop with the dimwitted personal attacks.
1. The person claimed they saw a video of all Arbery's movements inside the house.
They did not and are thus wrong.
2. You also might want to find out what was actually reported about those few seconds published before you continue with your irrational postings.

Nickyjo · May 29, 2020

Metric Mouse said:
They were attempting to effect a citizen's arrest after observing him trespassing in a construction site.

Hopefully their actions are illegal. If they were not, the law needs to be changed

Funny, same thing happened to me when I was about his age, maybe younger. Me and a pal trespassed in a Brooklyn construction site. Two grown-ups grabbed us by the collar and started to drag us towards a police station. After putting a scare into us, they let us go. Everybody white, no guns involved.

If the two morons weren't such, they could have left guns behind, followed the guy to his home or other destination, informing the police. When the police arrived, they would have said, "Get serious," and things would have ended peacefully.

Excon · May 29, 2020

pinqy said:
Georgia has a stand your ground law. Arbery had no legal obligation to retreat before defending himself. And yes, blocking someone’s path and unlawfully trying to detain him while armed is aggravated assault.

There was no blocking or detainment. As attempt was made to stop an individual and talk to him. So stop making things up.

Nickyjo said:
Well, Kemo Sabe, the cowboys came after running boy, blocked his path and, how you say?, "trained" guns on him. Sound like ambush to Tonto.

Wrong as usual.

SkyFox76 · May 29, 2020

Excon said:
Wrong.
You pointed to no lie, nor could you.

And?

Wrong. He clearly could have chose any side of the road and even turned around.
While he definitely chose to go to the right of the truck he chose to attack the son. That is all on him.

iLOL No.
The son remained on the left side while Arbery chose to move to the right to attack causing the son to back up.

While being wrong as usual, you fail to understand that the son still remained on the left side of the truck, while Arbery moved from the far right side to the left side in his attack.

How many times was he supposed to turn around to avoid these clowns? He'd been followed and blocked multiple times and he reversed his course. Anyone with 1 working brain cell could figure out he wasn't interested in talking to them.

pinqy · May 29, 2020

Excon said:
What the lawyers representing the Arbery family say is irrelevant.
Especially as we can see he was not out jogging.
He walks up to where the home is being constructed, stops and looks around as if to see if anyone is watching him and then goes up to it and enters, after which he runs from it.

Which is not a crime. And also not the reason the McMichaels gave for trying to detain him.

SkyFox76 · May 29, 2020

Excon said:
Apparently you are not paying attention to what is actually being argued.

Try following this time.

Understand now, or do you still need the obvious explained to you?

Excon said:
What a stupid reply.
You did not see the whole video.
Only a few seconds of his movement inside the house was provided.

How long was the whole video?

Excon · May 29, 2020

ClaraD said:
oh bull****.

Yes, that is what you are providing.

ClaraD said:
They did not suspect he was armed...

They suspected he was the one who stole the gun from the vehicle.

ClaraD said:
he was jogging in jogging shorts....

iLOL No he wasn't. He clearly wasn't jogging or in jogging shorts.

ClaraD said:
There are laws agains thow they were pointing their weapons and the way they continued to persue him when he tried to get away from them several times....if you hold someone at gun point or chase them down, that is a crime...you really clearly do not know the law.

iLOL
It is you who does not know the law and are making things up to believe.

ClaraD said:
You cannot persue someone and then claim you were in fear of your life if they react in defense of their own....you cannot shoot them.

Wrong.

ClaraD said:
His duty was to call 911 and stay in his home.

Wrong.

ClaraD said:
He wasn't in danger,

Yes Arbery was not in danger and had no valid reason to attack the son.

ClaraD said:
he had no duty to persue anyone...

You are clearly being emotional, so much so that you are making up arguments that no one made.

ClaraD said:
there was no danger to him or anyone else.

Yes, there was no actual danger to anyone until Arbery attacked.

ClaraD said:
pointing a shotgun at someone is not ever legal except if you are defending yourself because the other person has intent to harm you. They were pointing guns at him.

You clearly believe in things that did not happen and ar making things up as you go along. There was no pointing of the shotgun, intentional or otherwise, until after Arbery attacked.

Objective Voice · May 29, 2020

Excon said:
Your position is nonsense all in effort to place blame on those who were acting with good intent.
They took steps to protect themselves from someone who may be armed.

I call :bs on that portion in bold. They had no way of knowing Arbery would have been armed and to assume such against a man who was suspected of being out burglarizing construction sites is absurd! People who commit petty theft DON'T carry guns on them. Now, IF Arbery was known to have committed armed or strong-armed robbery before, then sure....be strapped to the 9's. BUT that would presume that the McMichaels had some fore-knowledge of their victim now, wouldn't it?

So, I'm not buying your argument that they took their guns and riffles "just in case" Arbery was armed. It's a weak argument especially when the claim by them - asserted by yourself and others - is "all they wanted to do was talk to him". Again, you DON'T pursue someone continuously on foot or in your vehicle if all you want to do is talk. And you certainly don't bring guns to do it, forcibly or otherwise.

That is not premeditation to wrongly use force or reckless behavior on their part, but is actually prudent.

No, it's not. But it most certainly would mean they committed a wrongful death, i.e., manslaughter. Your argument for prudence, however, presupposes Arbery represented a threat. How so? No burglary was committed. No robbery was committed. There was no report by law enforcement stipulating that Arbery was a suspicious or violent man seen or known to have been carrying a gun. So, where was the threat? What aside from your "just in case argument" justified two men bringing their guns with them if all they wanted to do was talk?

The law allows for arrest merely on the knowledge of. And as previously provided, becoming aware of such a crime is treated, under the law, as if it is direct knowledge.

But again, sir, what crime was committed? Answer: NONE!

The 911 call didn't speak of a break-in. It merely spoke of a man looking around a vacant residential construction site. There was no report of stolen property. There was no indication of a man, violent or otherwise, carrying a weapon from the scene. So, what crime was committed that warranted not only the McMichaels bringing their weapons but also using them against an unarmed man?

JasperL · May 29, 2020

Excon said:
There was no blocking or detainment. As attempt was made to stop an individual and talk to him. So stop making things up.

Right, they just "attempted" to "stop" him, by blocking the road with a truck and an armed thug with a shotgun. But there was no blocking!! other than the truck in one lane with an armed guy in the bed of the truck, and another armed thug with a shotgun in the middle of the other lane.

Excon · May 29, 2020

SkyFox76 said:
How many times was he supposed to turn around to avoid these clowns? He'd been followed and blocked multiple times and he reversed his course. Anyone with 1 working brain cell could figure out he wasn't interested in talking to them.

He had clear paths of egress. That is not being blocked.
Still not illegal.

Excon · May 29, 2020

SkyFox76 said:
How long was the whole video?

So you still are not paying attention?
Again.

No you did not see any full length video of all his movement inside the dwelling.

In addition, you also might want to find out what was actually reported about those few seconds published before you continue with your irrational postings.

Objective Voice · May 29, 2020

Excon said:
He had clear paths of egress. That is not being blocked.
Still not illegal.

But harassment and stalking are!...just saying. One could possibly even argue the McMichaels' actions were predatory.

JasperL · May 29, 2020

Excon said:
He had clear paths of egress. That is not being blocked.
Still not illegal.

Bull****. He was heading down a road, and they blocked that road. What you're calling "clear points of egress" is for him to run off road, I guess, as if a free person in America is obligated to choose his path by what two armed thugs want him to do.

And remember behind him was another car, another member of the redneck gang, so turning around isn't an option either, as if that should be expected.

Citizen · May 29, 2020

Excon said:
Stop with the dimwitted personal attacks.
1. The person claimed they saw a video of all Arbery's movements inside the house.
They did not and are thus wrong.
2. You also might want to find out what was actually reported about those few seconds published before you continue with your irrational postings.

He was only in the construction for a few seconds. You saw him go in and you saw him go out. That is all there is

Excon · May 29, 2020

JasperL said:
Well, no, it's not legal to try to detain someone with force, and blocking one lane with your truck and blocking the other lane with a guy armed with a shotgun, and then when he tries to avoid both, moving to intercept him is an attempt to detain him.

Wrong.
It is an attempt to stop the person to speak with them.
They already made that clear before.

JasperL said:
If they wanted to yell at him as he ran by, OK. If they said, "hey, mind if we talk" and that was it, OK, but they blocked his travel with a truck and an armed guy which simply is not under any interpretation an innocent attempt to "speak to" someone. The use of force is arming yourself with a shotgun while blocking his only route of travel.

You are making things up here.
He had clear avenues of egress and thus was not blocked and there was no use of force to stop him. Simply holding his shotgun does not establish any such thing. Pointing it at him and telling him to stop would be an inappropriate use of force, but that did not happen. Simply holding it does not satisfy an unlawful use of force claim.

And you do not get to decide how things should have gone. How it proceeded was not illegal.

JasperL said:
It's rational to view that as a mortal threat.

Wrong.

JasperL said:
What you're asking is for Arbery to assume, for some reason, an armed guy has peaceful motives when him and his buddy block your route, and move to intercept you as you're jogging. It's absurd.

iLOL He wasn't out jogging. So you can stop with that bs.
He was told they wanted to talk to him. There is no reason to suspect anything nefarious from that regardless if they were armed.

JasperL said:
The truck was in the right hand lane blocking it entirely,

What an entirely stupid argument.
The truck is stop in it's lane. Yes it is stop. That does not impede, let alone block, foot traffic.

JasperL said:
and that asshole with a shotgun was standing in the middle of the other lane.He didn't have a choice of lanes, because those two white armed thugs had both lanes blocked.

Another entirely stupid argument. Doh!
Again. He clearly could have chose any side of the road and even turned around.

JasperL said:
That's a lie.

He says as he provides an image of the son on the left side of the truck showing that what he claimns is a lie is the actual lie.

Thanks for proving yourself wrong as usual.

JasperL said:
The first encounter happened in front of the truck.

While the attack did indeed happen in front of the truck it was becasue Arbery moved from the right hand side to attack the son on the left hand side. Duh!

JasperL said:
How does that happen if the son doesn't move out of the middle of the left hand lane, quickly to the front of the truck, several steps to our right as looking at the video?

No one said the son did not move. What was said is that he was on the left side of the truck which he was. At no point did th esone travel from the left side of the truck to it's right.
He remained on the left side the entire time.
It was Arbery in his attack that moved from the right side all the way to the left side causing the son to back up.

JasperL said:
If Arbery wanted to attack the son, he'd have proceeded up the left hand lane where that thug was standing with his shotgun.

:doh If? iLOL
Arbery clearly wanted to attack. That is shown from his actual choice to attack.
How he chose to go about it isn't up to you.

JasperL said:
I can believe you or what the video shows.

The video shows exactly what I told you it shows.

JasperL said:
That's the son moving to his right,

Wrong. That is the son still on the left side of the truck being attacked and forced backwards by Arbery.

JasperL said:
and he's already moved from the center of the left hand lane, in front of the truck and towards Arbery who's trying to avoid those thugs.

Oy vey! He is still on the left side of the truck regardless if it is the front left side. It is still the left side.

JasperL · May 29, 2020

Citizen said:
He was only in the construction for a few seconds. You saw him go in and you saw him go out. That is all there is

It doesn't matter actually. What the video does NOT show is him committing or attempting to commit or even any suspicious moves that might look like he was committing a crime other than trespassing. There was never any theft from this work site.

He did what happens 10s of thousands of times every day which is people being nosy and going into houses under construction. The Barney Fife/Gomer Pyle wannabes simply aren't justified in then assuming this guy is a criminal who they need to detain. There's a way to report suspicious behavior - a phone, call 911, let those WITH authority to detain someone for questioning do that.

SkyFox76 · May 29, 2020

Excon said:
So you still are not paying attention?
Again.

No you did not see any full length video of all his movement inside the dwelling.

In addition, you also might want to find out what was actually reported about those few seconds published before you continue with your irrational postings.

What a stupid reply.
You did not see the whole video.
Only a few seconds of his movement inside the house was provided.

You can either show evidence there is more to the video or you can keep trying to deflect. Your choice.

Citizen · May 29, 2020

SkyFox76 said:
You can either show evidence there is more to the video or you can keep trying to deflect. Your choice.

I think you have a compression problem. I never said that there is more to the video. You said that. I said that the few seconds was the entire video. Can you comprehend that?

JasperL · May 29, 2020

Excon said:
Wrong.
It is an attempt to stop the person to speak with them.
They already made that clear before.

They have no right or authority to try to stop anyone. They're not cops. And to Arbery, there's no difference at all between "stop" by two guys armed with guns, and "detain" him. He clearly did not want to be "stopped" and the two thugs tried to force him with guns to "stop." It's splitting a very stupid hair to distinguish stop and detain in this case.

You are making things up here.
He had clear avenues of egress and thus was not blocked and there was no use of force to stop him. Simply holding his shotgun does not establish any such thing. Pointing it at him and telling him to stop would be an inappropriate use of force, but that did not happen. Simply holding it does not satisfy an unlawful use of force claim.

What clear avenue of 'egress' was open to him? Not the road on which he was traveling. Does he have an obligation to pick another route offroad just because two armed assholes don't like him running down that road?

iLOL He wasn't out jogging. So you can stop with that bs.
He was told they wanted to talk to him. There is no reason to suspect anything nefarious from that regardless if they were armed.

Right, no reason to be concerned, just a black man in the south with a truck, a car, and three armed assholes following you and blocking your path. Anyone who didn't see that was obviously harmless is an idiot....or something.

What an entirely stupid argument.
The truck is stop in it's lane. Yes it is stop. That does not impede, let alone block, foot traffic.

A truck doesn't block foot traffic? ILOL!!!

Another entirely stupid argument. Doh!
Again. He clearly could have chose any side of the road and even turned around.

Sure, but for the truck in one lane, and a thug with a shotgun in the other. And he has no obligation to turn around - he's a free man, and these assholes had NO authority to impede his route.

He says as he provides an image of the son on the left side of the truck showing that what he claimns is a lie is the actual lie.

Thanks for proving yourself wrong as usual.

He's moved from the center of the left lane to in front of the truck and was moving further right in that picture.

While the attack did indeed happen in front of the truck it was becasue Arbery moved from the right hand side to attack the son on the left hand side. Duh!

If the thug son had stayed in the left hand lane, there's no problem. What would you do if some thug with a shotgun starts running toward you as you're passing the truck? Say, OK, I don't see this as a threat. have a nice day boys?

Bottom line is these dumb rednecks had no authority to block his route, or detain him, or stop him for questioning. Arbery was at that time a free man and didn't have ANY obligation to listen to these guys. He tried to avoid them - they tried to block him. It's on them. If you want to defend this, that's fine, but if the two Gomer Pyle's want to play cop, they need to pass the tests, and get hired and get a badge.

Excon · May 29, 2020

Objective Voice said:
I call :bs on that portion in bold. They had no way of knowing Arbery would have been armed and to assume such against a man who was suspected of being out burglarizing construction sites is absurd!

Knowing is not relevant here.
Nor was it illegal to arm their selves in case, or even assume a burglar may be armed.

Objective Voice said:
People who commit petty theft DON'T carry guns on them.

Wut? Stop making things up.
You realize that if I find just one example of such a person, not only are you wrong but in this day and age some would claim that you lied.

Objective Voice said:
Now, IF Arbery was known to have committed armed or strong-armed robbery before, then sure....be strapped to the 9's. BUT that would presume that the McMichaels had some fore-knowledge of their victim now, wouldn't it?

Irrelevant to their actually arming their selves.

Objective Voice said:
So, I'm not buying your argument that they took their guns and riffles "just in case" Arbery was armed. It's a weak argument especially when the claim by them - asserted by yourself and others - is "all they wanted to do was talk to him". Again, you DON'T pursue someone continuously on foot or in your vehicle if all you want to do is talk. And you certainly don't bring guns to do it, forcibly or otherwise.

Your argumentation is absurd.
It isn't illegal to arm your self, especially if you believe the person is a burglar.

Objective Voice said:
No, it's not. But it most certainly would mean they committed a wrongful death, i.e., manslaughter.

Wrong.

Objective Voice said:
Your argument for prudence, however, presupposes Arbery represented a threat. How so? No burglary was committed. No robbery was committed. There was no report by law enforcement stipulating that Arbery was a suspicious or violent man seen or known to have been carrying a gun. So, where was the threat? What aside from your "just in case argument" justified two men bringing their guns with them if all they wanted to do was talk?

Except for the fact that a gun was stolen out of their vehicle. And that it was believed Arbery was the one who had been burglarizing. Their beliefs are reasonable regardless if they could eventually be proven incorrect.

Objective Voice said:
But again, sir, what crime was committed? Answer: NONE!

Not something you apparently have any knowledge of and definitely not a relevant point that can rebut reasonable belief.

Objective Voice said:
The 911 call didn't speak of a break-in. It merely spoke of a man looking around a vacant residential construction site. There was no report of stolen property. There was no indication of a man, violent or otherwise, carrying a weapon from the scene. So, what crime was committed that warranted not only the McMichaels bringing their weapons but also using them against an unarmed man?

Are you really this confused?
They did not predicate their actions on this current entry, did they?

Objective Voice said:
But harassment and stalking are!...just saying. One could possibly even argue the McMichaels' actions were predatory.

You are making irrelevant comments. They are not charged with any such offense.

SkyFox76 · May 29, 2020

Excon said:
Wrong.
It is an attempt to stop the person to speak with them.
They already made that clear before.

You are making things up here.
He had clear avenues of egress and thus was not blocked and there was no use of force to stop him. Simply holding his shotgun does not establish any such thing. Pointing it at him and telling him to stop would be an inappropriate use of force, but that did not happen. Simply holding it does not satisfy an unlawful use of force claim.

Looks like you just sunk your argument on your own. In an enhanced video Travis can be seen raising the shotgun and aiming it at Arbery.

SkyFox76 · May 29, 2020

Citizen said:
I think you have a compression problem. I never said that there is more to the video. You said that. I said that the few seconds was the entire video. Can you comprehend that?

Maybe reread who you're replying to, I'm asking excon to prove that there is more to the video.