It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New leaked video of black jogger gunned down by a white father and son duo

page: 40
34
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 24 2020 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: continuousThunder

Nothing good ever happened charging someone with a gun. He went to school when Run, Hide, Fight was a thing. Instead, it seems in the video he went bad ass and thought he was John Wick. Wrong move.

I am not defending anyone but I am pointing out this was not cold blooded murder. Not even close.



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: continuousThunder

Well here is what i think. Everything someone says in situations like this is "advice." This is how people learn, it's the same way children learn, they observe behavior from the people around them, watching what they say, how they respond, and noting positive or negative feedback. Then they build their own behavior based upon that.

So while you may not want to defend your opinion's or views or even behavior as advice, people will take it as such. It will ultimately have the same effect as outright direct advice will, then we get into the old saying of "if it talks like a duck..." It's just about being aware of how all the things we do and say affects other people. And when one defends the actions of another person, I dont see how that isnt saying "those actions are correct, and therefore other people should do them too."

And to your final statement, that ties into everything here, you are assuming it wouldnt help, informing people that it doesnt matter what they do in that situation? And then you say you arent giving advice to people?

Look, the problem is what you are saying makes sense if they were 100% desiring to just hunt and kill him, but that isnt the case/not proven. And saying it doesnt matter or won't help, if the people involved(arbery) take the time to possibly figure out if that is the case or not, is what leads to people like arbery doing what he did. And that then creates a situation where even if the McMichaels intended to kill him, the evidence isnt substantial enough to convict them.

The way Arbery acts, ultimately affects the evidence and information available to everyone else.



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 10:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: FellowHuman
The way Arbery acts...


...is directly tied to the behavior of the vigilantes prior to the shooting. If there aren't three men with guns chasing him in their vehicle while impeding his movement there is no confrontation.



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 10:39 AM
link   
The father and son are guilty.

Most of us are familiar of the 4 golden rules of gun safety.

Rule 3 is 'Do not point your gun at anything you do not intend to kill/destroy'

They pointed their guns at Arbery therefore they intended to kill him.



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


Your Obviously Not a Lawyer , and Neither am I . How about we Leave this Incident up to the Professionals to Decide Shall We ?


banned.video...



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I know, you dont think Ahmaud Arbery plays any role in affecting anything. Or at least this is what i constantly see from you.

The McMichaels behavior of following him and trying to get him to stop, was the result of previous behavior from Ahmaud. The behavior of his interaction with them a couple weeks before the incident, and his behavior on the day of, when he never stopped, nor any evidence he ever engaged the McMichaels in a conversation.

I know the narratives trying to be framed here. You dont think the McMichaels were just trying to get to the root of the crime problem in their neighborhood. Or if you do, you dont think people have any right to do anything about it. Or if you do, and they confront someone else about it, and that person acts suspicious/combative/uncooperative and then the situation goes awry, they should get punished with righteous fury.

I really dont know what world and society you are trying to paint here, or asking for. Do you want it so people can never confront one another? They should never attempt to resolve problems amongst themselves? I am pretty good at building personality/character profiles of people. And yeah, some people it is dangerous to confront, because they arent good people, or they are just going to go ballistic. But hindsight is 20/20, and Ahmaud is someone probably no one, including the police, ever want to confront. But thats a problem in and of itself.



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
Your Obviously Not a Lawyer , and Neither am I . How about we Leave this Incident up to the Professionals to Decide Shall We


When I want your opinion on what I should do I'll give it to you.



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: FellowHuman
The McMichaels behavior of following him and trying to get him to stop, was the result of previous behavior from Ahmaud.


I know you have a hard time grasping the facts and like to go on and on and on and on and on about your opinion but they had no legal basis to make a citizen's arrest with Arbery's past behavior or the behavior from that day because they had no knowledge of him committing a felony.



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: frogs453

I find it very disturbing as well frogs453
Not sure what her goal was but it is a shame his family had to see those. I don't buy the true crime angle she gave

My whole position is based on the idea that if they knew who this guy was, I just don't understand why catching him right then and there was so urgent or important to them. Ultimately, burglaries suck but it was an unoccupied dwelling during day light hours. No violence is alleged to be involved. Its not a good thing, but not the crime of the century either. No reason that couldn't be handled through the criminal complaint process which private citizens can absolutely sign and will ultimately lead to an arrest warrant against the subject of the complaint assuming a magistrate saw probable cause in the affirmation made by the citizen (and they usually do)

And you are probably right, a few months old text message may not cut it. I could be very wrong about this, but I would see it as this, if I am at the scene of a fight and have one person down trying to restrain them and the other party takes off, the police officer could instruct one or more bystanders to take the other party into custody. That would constitute a lawful order but certainly wouldn't give those people free reign to start making arrests with the protections afforded to police officers 2 weeks later, 4 months later, etc

Another thing that is important is that while police officers can conduct an investigatory detention without making an arrest, private citizens 99% of the time do not have this privilege (with the narrow exception of a shop keeper or occasionally other legally recognized necessary profession like a ship captain, airline pilot, etc)

The whole situation is very ridiculous, and if someone didn't die as a result of it I think it'd be appropriate for a few knocks to the rear-end and handle it in civil court. But the fact that someone was killed as a result of this stupidity, I do think the felony murder charge fits or at the very minimum manslaughter. I want to believe they didn't intend to murder this man, that their intention was truly to pursue a violation of the law in their own neighborhood. If they had been right, their effort may have even been commendable. But by all accounts they were wrong (no evidence of guilt, presumption of innocence) and it changes everything

If he had been breaking in, they may have even been legally justified in their actions. But just my personal opinion it would've still be unnecessary even if not unlawful. To me, I always considered it a win if everybody went home alive and the the BG lived to have his day in court



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: matafuchs

Agreed


To test this theory, take a rubber band and pull stretch it all the way back. Now aim this at somebody (don't actually do this) and see how they react. I bet they flinch, winch and try to put distance between you and them

Same theory with a firearm, unless the person is completely out of their mind on drugs



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus


I know you have a hard time grasping the facts and like to go on and on and on and on and on about your opinion but they had a legal basis in that state and through LEO contact to make a citizen's arrest with Arbery's past behavior and the behavior from past intrusions because they had prior knowledge of him committing 'felonies'

Again, not saying it is right but it is truth. Stop promoting this like they threw down their PBR's and went hunting for black joggers.

I am looking at both sides with no color.

What is the McMicheals were black? This would not even be a blurb in the media. THAT is the saddest part here.



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: matafuchs
I know you have a hard time grasping the facts and like to go on and on and on and on and on about your opinion but they had a legal basis in that state and through LEO contact to make a citizen's arrest with Arbery's past behavior and the behavior from past intrusions because they had prior knowledge of him committing 'felonies'


'LEO contact'? Maybe you can cite the statute on that right after you reread the one on citizen's arrest and that they had to have knowledge that a felony was being committed. The you can list the felony too.



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

If they are in the presence or get immediate knowledge of a felony, which in this instance i would say they were both in presence to a felony as well as got knowledge indicating such (burglary, but there could be others), they then can arrest a fleeing suspect if they have probable cause that that person was part of the crime.

That person doesnt have to actually be a part of it, they just have to have reasonable grounds of suspicion that the person is a suspect. At least according to how the statute is written.

Likewise i just want to mention, this is why it was so important for Ahmaud to be cooperative. You know, if he was some place else, it may be different. But when you are in someone else's neighborhood, and then on someone else's property, and then in someone else's building/home, you lose any ground to say you dont have to be cooperative. Or if you dont want to, expect what you see happen here. Which is you will be seen as committing a crime/guilty. And then people wont treat you so nice.

Also i dont know why you are so hesitant/averse to moving into waters outside "the law." Where first, the law is not equivalent to morality, and second, the law is constantly updated/interpreted/viewed/enforced/prosecuted in various different ways throughout time.

So you saying they have no legal basis is not even true unless you are the ultimate judge over it, are you? If not that's just your opinion. So i dont know why you think hiding behind "the law," some how means you are wading through the world of facts while other people arent. All you are giving me is your own view of things (while not doing a good job of convincing me to go along with you), not some infallible divine insight that is set in stone for all time and no one can change/question or do anything about.



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: FellowHuman
If they are in the presence or get immediate knowledge of a felony, which in this instance i would say they were both in presence to a felony...


What felony?


Likewise i just want to mention, this is why it was so important for Ahmaud to be cooperative.


No one has to be 'cooperative' with private citizens. What kind of ass kissing nonsense is that?



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: FellowHuman
The way Arbery acts...


...is directly tied to the behavior of the vigilantes prior to the shooting. If there aren't three men with guns chasing him in their vehicle while impeding his movement there is no confrontation.

Ya, no f'ing kidding!

People are being decidedly dense here.



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: matafuchs

Agreed


To test this theory, take a rubber band and pull stretch it all the way back. Now aim this at somebody (don't actually do this) and see how they react. I bet they flinch, winch and try to put distance between you and them

Same theory with a firearm, unless the person is completely out of their mind on drugs

But he wasn't on drugs! and..we are not machines, we react differently, there is no cookie cutter type standard reaction. Why do people fight cops, sometimes our decisions make little sense..but they happen.



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

I know he wasn't Vonclod, just a general statement. Im not disagreeing with you either. I'm only saying that would be the normal (or better word is average) reaction. Definitely no cookie cutter especially to a situation like this. Maybe he felt their vehicle made fleeing on foot unlikely to be successful? Or if he were already jogging a bit, he might have been tired or winded and in no shape to put up an attempt to sprint for possibly a mile or more. Its a crappy situation, because most credible self defense training teaches you to try and control a gun (especially a long gun) and if you genuinely weren't doing anything wrong and two non-LEOs with guns pulled up on you, it would seem exactly like an attack (because it would be).

Of course the natural reaction is to run, but generally that isn't the best answer since firearms have an functionally unlimited distance (in close quarters relative ranges) so your only chance of unarmed vs. armed is to get control of their weapon or somehow get the weapon out of the fight. At close ranges if somebody has a firearm your only real choices are to fight for your life, comply and hope they don't shoot you anyhow or try to run if at all possible.

Bad situation all around. My own feelings toward this are clear, just trying to be as objective and clear headed as possible. I don't doubt these guys made a mistake, and its a damn shame it cost somebody his life. Fortunately these guys are going to get their day in court, and they'll have to answer for every action taken that day. I just know how attorneys are, McMichael's lawyers are going to paint them as heroes and Arbury as a bloodthirsty criminal, while Arbury's lawyers will paint him as an innocent victim and McMichaels' as bloodthirsty killers. What is the truth? It seems there is no evidence he was committing any crime, and is therefore presumably not guilty of anything.

Were these guys genuinely concerned with crime and trying to do the right thing? Their intent will make a big difference here. Or were they trying to play hero or worse?

edit on 5/25/2020 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: vonclod

I know he wasn't Vonclod, just a general statement. Im not disagreeing with you either. Its a crappy situation, because most credible self defense training teaches you to try and control a gun (especially a long gun) and if you genuinely weren't doing anything wrong and two non-LEOs with guns pulled up on you, it would seem exactly like an attack (because it would be).

Of course the natural reaction is to run, but generally that isn't the best answer since firearms have an functionally unlimited distance (in close quarters relative ranges) so your only chance of unarmed vs. armed is to get control of their weapon or somehow get the weapon out of the fight

Bad situation all around. My own feelings toward this are clear, just trying to be as objective and clear headed as possible. I don't doubt these guys made a mistake, and its a damn shame it cost somebody his life. Fortunately these guys are going to get their day in court, and they'll have to answer for every action taken that day. I just know how attorneys are, McMichael's lawyers are going to paint them as heroes and Arbury as a bloodthirsty criminal, while Arbury's lawyers will paint him as an innocent victim and McMichaels' as bloodthirsty killers. What is the truth? It seems there is no evidence he was committing any crime, and is therefore presumably not guilty of anything.

Were these guys genuinely concerned with crime and trying to do the right thing? Their intent will make a big difference here. Or were they trying to play hero or worse?

You are pretty objective in this
, I was just making my points, I think we are pretty much on the same page.

I don't think these guys were bloodthirsty killers. But..bad decision's by them, and Ahmaud, in the case of Ahmaud, I believe he made a stand, out of fear..like you pointed out, you can't outrun a gun.

I think manslaughter may be the best fit, although I'm not super familliar with what other charges may fit.




posted on May, 25 2020 @ 04:31 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Just going round in circles. They witnessed what they saw in their eyes, what they interpreted as a crime/felony, then had reasonable suspicion that Ahmaud was the suspect. You understand you are on the side of the prosecution, your side has to do all the convincing and proofs. So you have to prove that what they saw and what they got knowledge of, that they had no reason to view that as a crime/felony. That somehow they were insane or dishonest.

That's it, your side is making the accusation, and accusing them of things, charging them, so now you have to do all the proving and convincing. Me pretending that i have to prove something (even though i proved a lot) was actually a courtesy to you


And to your final statement...


I see the world you are asking for.



posted on May, 25 2020 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: FellowHuman
They witnessed what they saw in their eyes...


Which wasn't a felony.







 
34
<< 37  38  39    41  42  43 >>

log in

join