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

a reply to: FellowHuman

So basically you are trying to say Ahmaud was guilty until proven innocent with the McMichaels duo being the judge, jury, and executioners....but despite the evidence that shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the McMichaels murdered Ahmaud you are trying to say they are presumed innocent? By your reasoning, we should also presume Jack Ruby is innocent.

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: JBurns

If the racial slur is admitted as evidence, I no longer anticipate jurors giving them the benefit of the doubt. I personally believe this will be a win for prosecution at this time

Not to mention the trophy pic's taken by the sister of one of the perps.

www.insider.com...

Well, they say, racism is taught!

That's what I was taught in a Texas poor white trash racist environment. And mostly thought that way until I went to University and fell in love with everyone. Those were some great drugs to open your conscientiousness to the truth.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: JBurns

If the racial slur is admitted as evidence, I no longer anticipate jurors giving them the benefit of the doubt. I personally believe this will be a win for prosecution at this time

Not to mention the trophy pic's taken by the sister of one of the perps.

www.insider.com...

Well, they say, racism is taught!

That's what I was taught in a Texas poor white trash racist environment. And mostly thought that way until I went to University and fell in love with everyone. Those were some great drugs to open your conscientiousness to the truth.

I'm lucky I guess, parents were not like that, grew up around a pretty good mix. I still have my biases, like most.

a reply to: continuousThunder

I dont actually think thats relevant. More than likely after any physical confrontation the people involved will be slinging insults at each other.

Also I'm not trying to be "egalitarian." I also dont care to wield the law like a weapon for ones own personal emotional problems. The purpose is to remove people who are threats to society from society. I just dont think these people are actually threats to society.

Though maybe your society, because i know what ideology you belong to. And it's the ideology that will lead to more of these situations occurring.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Not playing hypothetical game. Its examination of one's own reasoning. To then compare and contrast to see how they judge other events. To observe inconsistencies or not. To actually see what is forming the basis of their conclusions.

What are the facts exactly? The opinion of a biased investigator? I personally would want to see the full length videos of all that happened, as well as know what else that 9-11 caller did that day, before i made a finalized judgment.

Odd since you seem to love facts so much, why you wouldnt want to know more facts before making a judgment. And that is why i was just curious on what basis everyone here is making such confident judgments, cant be "facts." Seems like a lot are missing. At least from my perspective, to be able to piece together the full chain of events.

a reply to: JBurns

Sure. I think i would say it became clear to the McMichaels that Ahmaud was not gong to be compliant in any way shape or form before the final video. And at that point they should have stopped following him, given that he was never going to interact with them in a friendly manner, it was always going to turn badly.

At that point probably in the future they would have had to call the cops whenever they saw him in the area (and never attempted to interact with him), and i do not know how that would play out or how long that would go on. Because i think it was like a pot of boiling water, and it was going to reach the tipping point eventually.

But this leads into what i was trying to get at earlier, which is that i do think the McMichaels had valid justification to feel threatened during that day.

And in regards of all the racial terms, i dont find that much too compelling, and i'm not a fan of determining guilt in that way, and think it's a reason the entire US justice System is already compromised.

Fact of the matter is at least down on the ground, and i actually live in a quite diverse area, people are "racist." And this applies to all races. People observe patterns and they build general knowledge as a result that plays a part in decision making, and i dont see anything wrong with that.

Point here is just that the perception the media paints isnt accurate to the way people actually think. Many people have negative opinions about eachother, but it doesnt mean they actively seek to hurt one another, at least not just on that basis alone.

a reply to: jrod

No, because Ahmaud is not on trial. Though personally if i was investigating, i would look into Ahmaud to get a more accurate picture of what was going on. I dont know how much that has happened in this case, it seems they only looked into the McMichaels property/social media. And dont know how deeply they looked into Ahmaud.

What i think is Ahmaud's actions and behavior did contribute to his death (not that he was undeniably guilty of any crime). Now at that point we then have to determine how much guilt the McMichaels have, in the sense of how culpable, the severity of punishment, and how reasonable their actions and behavior were. Likewise in terms of a society, we should be concerned with possibility of repeat offense, or how much threat the McMichaels are to anyone.

a reply to: FellowHuman

Come on seriously? The McMichaels were justified in feeling threatened? They see a man in the street. They arm themselves, get in a vehicle, chase him down, block him in, possibly hit him. Arbery never pulls a weapon of any kind. Didn't even have a phone on him because he broke it. According to Travis never even had contact with him before he fired that first shot.

And THEY feel threatened? Wow. Maybe that's why things are so bad. The mere existence of a young black male being run down by armed men is still threatening to the armed men.

originally posted by: FellowHuman
What are the facts exactly? The opinion of a biased investigator?

Repeating what a witness reported in an interview is not bias, those are facts.

It's obvious you have an emotionally vested interest in defending these scumbags, either that or you're just incredibly obtuse as anyone with objectivity can look at this and see that what transpired was all from their own misdoings and nothing that Arbery did.

a reply to: olaru12

I remember reading that, feel sorry for the family who had to see this, Just can't believe it took the GBI days to do what local agencies wouldn't do in Months. Sure the covid stuff got in the way of a lot of legal processes, but for a murder you think they'd make an exception seeing as there could well be an ongoing public safety threat while charges were pending

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: FellowHuman

So basically you are trying to say Ahmaud was guilty until proven innocent with the McMichaels duo being the judge, jury, and executioners....but despite the evidence that shows beyond any reasonable doubt that the McMichaels murdered Ahmaud you are trying to say they are presumed innocent? By your reasoning, we should also presume Jack Ruby is innocent.

Detaining or arresting somebody is not a presumption of innocence situation.

There is nothing wrong with detaining on suspicion.

Just don't convict on suspicion. Detaining someone is not a statement of guilt or innocence.

A detainment can be justified even if the person has not been proven guilty of anything.

a reply to: FellowHuman

what? you don't thinkthe facts that prove you're cherry picking are relevant? colour me shocked!

and yes, i can see exactly how my ideology of "you know what maybe people shouldn't hunt and shoot other people" is the ideology that will lead to more of these situations occurring, yeeeaaah. get outta here with this disingenuous tripe.

tHe LaW sHoUlD bE uSeD tO rEmOvE tHrEaTs FrOm SoCiEtY but the dudes going round hunting others aren't the threat, the threat is black guys who, as you've stated earlier in the thread, should "stay with their own kind"

you're literally not fooling anyone and it's pathetic. just own it, man.

a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Citizens have no right to detain anyone for walking or running in the street. In the preliminary trial it was stated the McMichaels had no knowledge of any crime being committed.

So you are saying when you leave your house and are walking to your car. Some random men may see you, load up the shotguns and chase and block you in to detain you on suspicion?

originally posted by: FellowHuman
Okay one last thing. The way this will actually play out in trial, is the prosecution side will have their case and arguments, one part of that will be the crimes Ahmaud committed. They then have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, to the people making the final judgments, that no felony occurred/Ahamud was doing nothing wrong/the McMichaels had no justification to determine what they viewed and saw as a felony.

.....

You previously wrote this....essentially presuming Ahmaud was guilty of a felony...until proven innocent by the prosecution.

Now you are saying he is not on trial....make up your mind.

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Citizens have no right to detain anyone for walking or running in the street. In the preliminary trial it was stated the McMichaels had no knowledge of any crime being committed.

They had communicated with local police, so it's at least half way legit.

Although.... I suspect there was some miscommunication when it came to whether they would be confronting him armed or unarmed.

This would be a whole different story if they had not been brandishing weapons.

So you are saying when you leave your house and are walking to your car. Some random men may see you, load up the shotguns and chase and block you in to detain you on suspicion?

Yes. If they have good reason to believe I am guilty of something.

Although: to be clear: being near your home would make it a whole different question. When you're near your home you have different expectations of privacy, etc. Arbury was not near his home.

a reply to: FellowHuman

But this leads into what i was trying to get at earlier, which is that i do think the McMichaels had valid justification to feel threatened during that day.

Some "expert" level mental gymnastics going on to achieve that reasoning..LMFAO

originally posted by: frogs453
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

Citizens have no right to detain anyone for walking or running in the street. In the preliminary trial it was stated the McMichaels had no knowledge of any crime being committed.

So you are saying when you leave your house and are walking to your car. Some random men may see you, load up the shotguns and chase and block you in to detain you on suspicion?

Well I'm certainly not going to try and fight with someone pointing a shotgun at me or grab it out of their hands. I would probably stop, show the person that I'm not a threat and say WTF are you doing pointing a shotgun at me for?

a reply to: jrod

That is in context to the McMichaels guilt, so it doesnt really have anything to do with Ahmaud. In the sense that whatever gets determined at the trial doesnt make Ahmaud innocent or guilty, because he isnt the one on trial. It had to do with giving benefit of the doubt to the person being accused/on trial.

The problem of course is that the two are inextricably linked here, but one can not say Ahmaud is proven guilty or innocent because he cant be put on trial, so it's a tricky situation. So what i wrote was about whether the McMichaels had reasonable cause or not. That was the point I was making. Not that what happened at the trial would prove Ahmaud guilty or innocent.

Also, i wrote that when i thought it was Travis who was the one who made the 9-11 call. So it was written with that in mind, which turned out not to be the case.

So hopefully that clears that up
It wasnt about a declarative statement that Ahmaud was guilty, the problem is that in order to start with the default that the McMichaels are innocent, we have to assume they had reasonable cause to think that Ahmaud was up to no good or doing something wrong. That the behavior or actions of Ahmaud gave justification to the McMichaels. The prosecution would have to dispel that, from my understanding of how it should work.

a reply to: vonclod

Why exactly? Ahmaud ended up continuing to run towards him even when he saw he had a gun. While Greg was telling him to stop. I'm sorry to say but i suspect they were witnessing behavior that was not considered normal to them. And that ended up getting them on edge.

Plus you have to factor in their previous interactions on Feb 11th.

And that really is what has me perplexed about this whole thing. It just seems like something that should have been so easy to clear up. And what is highly important to me, is who is the one/s that failed to invoke that communication. And that is really what is heavily factoring into my judgment.

I really dont see why Ahmaud, if he was doing nothing wrong, couldnt have just communicated that with the people living in that community. But for whatever reason he seemed completely averse to initiating that dialogue/relationship. And again this wasnt just the McMichaels who were having problems with suspicious things going on.

The guy on that day, who was behind the tree, could have entered into the building while Ahmaud was there, but i suspect he didnt because he was afraid of confronting Ahmaud, or thought that it could have ended badly, instead i think he was the one who called 9-11. So i just think there is a lot that went on here that people arent actually factoring in properly.

Its an unfortunate situation, specifically if Ahmaud wasnt intending to do anything wrong, and that is just why I dont know why he ended up doing everything that he did, and didnt go about it in a way that would have alleviated the concerns of the people living there.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I dont think i should have to state this, because it should be obvious. But here we go, you are correct, but only to a degree. It can become biased depending on how it is presented, or how much of it is presented, what is left out etc... Also it depends on what questions were asked to the witness, and how they were asked. This is propaganda 101. The way facts are presented affects perception.

Point is i was referring to him just giving his rundown of the videos, when i think it would be best if people saw it themselves. Likewise I would want to see the transcript of the whole interview, not just being given snippets. So i can confirm whether anything else was being said, and in what context the answer was being given. What the exact question that was asked and so on.