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

originally posted by: Grenade
Sure, I don’t know the law well enough over there. When someone charges you and attempts to grab your weapon tho does it not then constitute self defence?

Chasing people in your vehicle while armed and impeding their movement doesn't put you into a self defense scenario, it makes you the aggressor.

Don't you love how articles have titles that ignore the reality of the subject they are about. "Gunned down" " Murder" do not apply to acts of self-defense. Arbery was not jogging unless criminal trespass and running from the scene qualifies as a workout. Of course lets drag race in to this, maybe this story was what pushed the shooter over the edge who decided to shoot an elderly White couple in a cemetary?

Trayvon?
How quickly we forget.
Bring on the riots just make sure to burn down the newspapers first.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: KnoxMSP

There is only one way into and out of that neighborhood...

All they had to do was cut him off which they did.

I see plenty of outs...

a reply to: KnoxMSP

Besides the four way intersection of Satilla which ones?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

One way out by car. On foot there’s multiple ways out. As another poster just said if you get ambushed by armed men while out jogging you jump yards, run for the trees literally.

They shouldn’t have went full vigilante justice but I’m guessing as ex law enforcement it was a natural instinct.

For anyone looking to take some advice from this thread, do not charge toward loaded guns!

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

He can skip gardens and run through peoples property, also looks like a wooded area which would have been an ideal escape and offered cover. Didn’t seem to bother him entering other people’s property earlier in the incident.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: KnoxMSP

Besides the four way intersection of Satilla which ones?

He was on foot... I am confused.

a reply to: Grenade

They could easily follow him, there's one street in and one out. With two vehicles it's fairly easy to get ahead of him and cut him off regardless of where he goes unless it's in the river.

originally posted by: KnoxMSP
He was on foot... I am confused.

Obviously since my question was simple. Where else should he have gone to get around two cars with only one street into the area?

Do people still think he was "jogging"?

LOL

Jumping in, I can say it's a complicated case. I didn't read up yet, but I saw the video. The accused was way out of line to go out armed, hunting a B&E perp. However, the victim grabbing the gun is a big complication.

I'll place a wild bet that no conviction will happen.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The trees surrounding the area. Anywhere apart from directly at the barrel of a gun.

originally posted by: Grenade
The trees surrounding the area. Anywhere apart from directly at the barrel of a gun.

He's still completely cut off from escape, it's an isthmus.

Again, the debate really shouldn't be 'why did he run at that man', it's, 'why did that man and two other men chase him in their vehicles with guns to force him into that scenario'.

No felony was committed, they had zero right to do what they did.

Prediction- not guilty, riots, a call on the feds to prosecute which they will decline and the media calls trump racist.

originally posted by: SKEPTEK
Do people still think he was "jogging"?

LOL

I'm still waiting for your proof he was not jogging. The witness in the neighborhood states they were familiar with seeing him jogging in the neighborhood. The construction site owner states nothing was stolen and they believe he was getting water. There is video of other people going into this site at various times as well. He only had shorts and a t-shirt on. No bag of tools or stolen items or Timberlands on his feet as claimed by a white nationalist meme. He lived a few blocks away so was not far from home.

Please enlighten me as to what you know beyond the video and witnesses to support this statement. It would benefit the conversation to see the proof that he was not jogging.

a reply to: continuousThunder

It looks like we just have different definitions of freedom and morality. Which is why you can't separate any of these things when you talk about law and order in a society. Because it is all informed/decided by the perceptions/views/beliefs of the people living there.

What i said is common sense decency, at least it is in places other than clown world. I think respect for other people's things is very important, that includes places and land. This doesnt just apply between different countries, it's something that should have been learned growing up with a family and you not just constantly going into your brother or sister's room messing with their things. It's their place. Or if you do, no doubt they would expect an explanation. It's personal boundaries and personal space.

So yes, when you are in a place where people dont know you very well, you should have different behavior than when you are in a place where people do know you. This should be obvious. Because more than likely, if they know you, they will know you arent up to no good.

So when you are going to places where people dont know you, it's best to be more friendly and cordial and cooperative, so that you can actually then build a relationship to where you can act more casual. But until then, if you act rude, and mean, and dismissive, expect trouble, because the people who dont know you are justified now in making certain assumptions.

And It's interesting you ignored i added other people's property and home. And only focused on neighborhood, that was added for effect, to show he wasnt just casually strolling through the neighborhood. Though yes, if you start doing things in a place where people dont know you, expect them to come up to you to ask: Hey what are you doing? And then you should be able to figure how things can spiral out of control.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Im sure he knew how to swim.

a reply to: frogs453

Look, i just want to add, that we have to be careful with going with any information currently. Because there are a lot of shenanigans going on. The owner in the past mentioned things were stolen, and he called the police and set up camera's. There is going to be proof brought in court indicating this. The fact he is saying different things to the media now is very suspicious, and doesnt bode well for the integrity of the trial.

So i dont know why he said what he did, but something isnt right with all thats going on here. So i just think that is good to keep in mind, that what the owner said in the past, as well as his past actions, contradict what he is saying now.

And again, from my understanding, i think the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was just "jogging." Other people dont have to prove that he wasnt jogging. All they technically need to do is create that doubt.

originally posted by: SKEPTEK
Do people still think he was "jogging"?

LOL

What was he doing? I'm not saying he was jogging, but can you tell me what was he doing otherwise? The narrative that there was a lot of thief in the area was false. The owner of the house that was being built said he never had anything stolen, ever and has totally disagreed with what the father and son did or were attempting to do... This all happened in the middle of the afternoon too, you know the perfect time for robbery...geez

The only real thing in all this was that the father had a gun stolen out of his UNLOCKED vehicle a month or more prior, and I'm sure that was the only thing burning in his head at the time.

As I predicted now the feds are looking into this case as a federal hate crime.
I have a feeling that when they arrested Bill Bryan, he spilled his guts about the father and son and a conspiracy to commit murder.

www.rawstory.com...