@Atze-Peng just admit you have no problem with the murder of a black-man and have done with it. No need to try and dress it up, it's painfully obvious what your thoughts are on the matter. You were already defending the murder prior to the footage and it's abundantly clear that no amount of evidence will compel you to change your opinion, because your opinion does not derive from the evidence but from a fundamental prejudice you hold.
The killing of Ahmaud Arbery (23rd February 2020)
- Thread starter BobbyManc
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
If somebody is confronting you with a drawn gun then that meets the legal definition of being threatened with deadly force and you have the right to defend yourself.
Considering they went to their house, armed themselves, and then went looking for the man jogging, I'd say it's pretty given.
This.
These feckers had no business chasing him down with shotguns in the first place, call the fecking police if you think a crime has been committed.
And in this case the guys with guns seemed to think that jogging while being black was a crime.
You should have been a pro-slavery historian. While you're at it, why not see how many more rational excuses you can come up with for :
1. Trayvon Martin
2. Charleston church shooting
3. Minority voter suppression
4. Charlotesville
I always ask myself if people with reasoning like you, provide value to the human race. I seriously do ask myself that question.
He didn't have to jog. Just being born black was reason enough for him to not exist.
Well, feck me. George Zimmerman’s lawyer has a Redcafe account
@Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær
First post here that actually engages with what I am saying. So thanks for that.
The thing is that race does not matter anymore after a certain point of escalation in this. Even if racism was involved in this - it may created the situation, but the escalation can very well be seperate.
Also that's again assuming you know they are basing their actions off of racial profiling. For all we know the jogger might actually be the guy who was doing robberies there since he does have a criminal record of shoplifting. Or maybe the two guys really went out and went full KKK. But I simply do not see any argument here given that supports absolute certainity in this.
Again, there is no certainity for one way or another.
And towards the question: The one useful thing Carolina Red contributed is the dispatcher note. Which funnily enough confirms one of the things I said could be the case. That something happened before the video. If the man with the call towards the dispatcher is to be believed, they have been chasing him beforehand. Thus before this video was taking they must have overtaken to confront him. Did they ask him to stop prior and he didn't listen? Or was this the first confrontation? What was said to the dispatcher might have been a complete lie. Or maybe it is perfectly correct. Again, we do NOT know.
Additionally you answer this later yourself. The guy may have just been inexperienced.
Another alternative possibility is that it was plain and simple logistic with him being the designated driver and didn't have enough time to get into a better position, because driving too far up ahead could have resulted in the jogger (=in their eyes the suspect) moving elsewhere.
But to say that there is no chance this can backfire is ridiculous. There is a reason why only the third shot is actually a clean hit with the struggle taking full 9 seconds before the clean hit happens. And as you said, the shotgun guy didn't let go of the gun was indeed an advantage. Imagine a situation where he is weaker than the jogger, though. Or where the first thrown punch is a haymaker. The moment this alteration goes into this close of a range (arguably 3-4 meters is also short range where the gun obviously has the advantage, if we want to discuss semantics of what constitutes close / medium range), it also poses a risk to the gun-carrier. Not to mention that the other guy is hesitant to shoot in that situation, because it could turn into friendly fire.
I also agree that his upper position gives him a tactical advantage. Why the other guy didn't get into a better position I mentioned above in this comment. But assuming this was a misjudgement of shotgun guy - just because action 1 was a misjudgement doesn't necessarily means action 2 is as well. Which is why I said this is legally speaking quite an interesting case as it provides a lot of potential nuances.
Furthermore I don't think shotgun guys position was particulary aggressive. He confronted him in a rather neutral position originally. Just that it only took a few seconds for this entire situation to quickly escalate.
As I said. We simply do NOT know why he choose to confront him that way. As mentioned earlier, there are different reasons plus there seems to have something already happened beforehand - which is probably why the guy who filmed it eventually decided to film the situation. This doesn't happen when the situation doesn't seem like it is escalating prior. And it's not an internal car-cam, either, but clearly moving around so it is most likely a phone recording.
First post here that actually engages with what I am saying. So thanks for that.
And what we know is always limited to the things we do not know. And I personally see plenty of small questions that can swing this case one way or another. Questions we do NOT have answers to.
It's always a double-standard. If you dislike my point of view it must be, because I am not involved. If you like it, then it is clearly, because I have the necessary distance to it.
The thing is that race does not matter anymore after a certain point of escalation in this. Even if racism was involved in this - it may created the situation, but the escalation can very well be seperate.
Also that's again assuming you know they are basing their actions off of racial profiling. For all we know the jogger might actually be the guy who was doing robberies there since he does have a criminal record of shoplifting. Or maybe the two guys really went out and went full KKK. But I simply do not see any argument here given that supports absolute certainity in this.
There are two main reasons for arming yourself. a) To avoid exactly such kind of confrontations by intimidating the other person. And b) you are out for blood.
Again, there is no certainity for one way or another.
And towards the question: The one useful thing Carolina Red contributed is the dispatcher note. Which funnily enough confirms one of the things I said could be the case. That something happened before the video. If the man with the call towards the dispatcher is to be believed, they have been chasing him beforehand. Thus before this video was taking they must have overtaken to confront him. Did they ask him to stop prior and he didn't listen? Or was this the first confrontation? What was said to the dispatcher might have been a complete lie. Or maybe it is perfectly correct. Again, we do NOT know.
Additionally you answer this later yourself. The guy may have just been inexperienced.
Another alternative possibility is that it was plain and simple logistic with him being the designated driver and didn't have enough time to get into a better position, because driving too far up ahead could have resulted in the jogger (=in their eyes the suspect) moving elsewhere.
I do not disagree with the shotgun being difficult to disarm. Nor do I disagree that it is less threatening for the armed individual. Obviously it is. That's why you take the gun into your own hands.
But to say that there is no chance this can backfire is ridiculous. There is a reason why only the third shot is actually a clean hit with the struggle taking full 9 seconds before the clean hit happens. And as you said, the shotgun guy didn't let go of the gun was indeed an advantage. Imagine a situation where he is weaker than the jogger, though. Or where the first thrown punch is a haymaker. The moment this alteration goes into this close of a range (arguably 3-4 meters is also short range where the gun obviously has the advantage, if we want to discuss semantics of what constitutes close / medium range), it also poses a risk to the gun-carrier. Not to mention that the other guy is hesitant to shoot in that situation, because it could turn into friendly fire.
Doesn't matter, if it was holstered. He simply wasn't ready to use the gun when the alteration started. Took about 7-8 seconds until he was.
I also agree that his upper position gives him a tactical advantage. Why the other guy didn't get into a better position I mentioned above in this comment. But assuming this was a misjudgement of shotgun guy - just because action 1 was a misjudgement doesn't necessarily means action 2 is as well. Which is why I said this is legally speaking quite an interesting case as it provides a lot of potential nuances.
Furthermore I don't think shotgun guys position was particulary aggressive. He confronted him in a rather neutral position originally. Just that it only took a few seconds for this entire situation to quickly escalate.
As I said. We simply do NOT know why he choose to confront him that way. As mentioned earlier, there are different reasons plus there seems to have something already happened beforehand - which is probably why the guy who filmed it eventually decided to film the situation. This doesn't happen when the situation doesn't seem like it is escalating prior. And it's not an internal car-cam, either, but clearly moving around so it is most likely a phone recording.
Last edited:
It's just wonderful seeing Americans trying to critically analyze murdering minorities. Wonderful folks you are!
I think you should send a tweet to Trump recommending these two guys receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Racist white men seem to be on the receiving end of those now.
People....I know he has what seems to be an extreme viewpoint but please can we agree to disagree agreeably. I don't need to see name-calling and suchlike. Just argue the points and state your case.
@Atze-Peng I expect you to respond to arguments and not just ignore those which you can't refute. That way I'll know you aren't just trolling.
@Atze-Peng I expect you to respond to arguments and not just ignore those which you can't refute. That way I'll know you aren't just trolling.
He's German.
You simply refuse to see that the main escalation has already happened at that point: a vigilante militia hunting down a black jogger with drawn guns. In a social environment where this must be seen as a potentially lethal threat by an Afro-American. Who is totally unprepared btw, and has to suddenly decide in just seconds, and probably under shock.
It's reasoning like that when applied by the US judicial system that gives rednecks, dirty cops and other low-lifes the confidence to carry out such brazen acts of disproportionate violence with relative impunity.
Great work, you should be very proud.
They need to do a further investigations into missing minorities as I'm sure this black guy wasn't the only one they targeted and murdered.
Shame on you. Shame. Its people like you that enable behavior like this.
Imagine watching that video and reading the report and you write walls of text attempting to exculpate the murderers by making bizarre illogical claims like ‘the guy with the shotgun was not in an aggressive position’ (hint: pursuing someone with a shotgun is in itself an aggressive act regardless of how favourably you want to interpret their demeanour), and you strip the incident down to ‘an interesting legal case’. No one who is not racist would waste so much energy doing that. Simple as that.
I didn't think there was a way someone would defend that shooting.
In this case what we do not know can mostly be classified as known unknowns (i.e. we know why they assumed this guy had criminal intent [because he was black and they had observed a balck guy doing something they considered suspicious due to recent burglaries in the area]). There are some unknown unknowns (why they decided to arm themselves and chase him down) but they are few.
They are fair points; however, past criminal behaviour is typically irrelevant in court. I served on a jury once and it was not admissible. The judge told us about it after we convicted because it wasn't an open and shut case (presumably to make us feel better about convicting the guy). In this case, the vigilantes will not have had any knowledge of his past record. That's a media plant by their lawyer designed to influence public opinion. Past criminal behaviour does not always predict future criminal behaviour.
True; however, in America, Castle Doctrine is relied on heavily for cases like this. Being that they armed themselves and left their own property most legal precedent will rule they were out for blood as they were no longer defending life or property. It will be hard to argue that your life is in danger from an unarmed man when you have a shotgun and the video shows you are never in a compromised position.
If they were going to use intimidation to apprehend him, then both men would need to be in defensive positions. From the video it appears they would have had ample time to achieve this, i.e. by blocking the road entirely with their truck and taking up positions behind it. If the jogger flees, so be it.
The call to the dispatcher doesn't fully support their actions. Indeed, the dispatcher advises them to take it easy, so to speak. What it does do successfully is show these two men as vigilantes, determined to put an end to the burglaries.
Additionally, wasn't the call from someone else not involved in the chase but who'd witnessed the suspect around the construction site? I may be wrong here but don't want to go looking as this post is fecking intricate.
Addressed some of the position stuff above.
I didn't say there was no chance, just that it was unlikely. Successfully landing a haymaker when someone is pointing a weapon with an overall length of 40" (the OAL for a Mossberg 500, a popular pump action 12 gauge) is more unlikely in this scenario. I'm just about 6 feet tall and I'd be lucky to land that kind of punch from 30" away.
The guy on the truck appears to be more experienced as he seems to want to avoid friendly fire as you say. He actually seems to want to avoid a violent confrontation judging from his obviously defensive position.
The guy with the shotgun is either aggressive or defensive, there is no in between. Since he wasn't in a defensive position he is in an aggressive one. A poor position but still aggressive. His poor positioning could also cause trouble for him if it can be shown to be reckless.
Sorry for butchering up your post btw
Welcome to Trumpland and it's inhabitants. Best to leave leave Dwazza to reply. The more we all fall for the bait the more the troll wins.
Yes, that the man had committed no crime and was chased be people who were committing one.
Generally agree. The difference seems to be that I apparently value the things we do not know higher than you do.
Agreed about past criminal behaviour. And rightfully so. My point was just to show that there is some reasonable argument to make that he could indeed be the suspect. Keyword here is could.
That being said, the jogger may or may not have done suspect behaviour beforehand.
As I said earlier. I am no legal expert and especially not in the US. I don't know the exact aspects of US law. Again, this is a matter of courts to decide.
I still can see plenty of reasonable motivations. From living in a "cop-desert" to the burglaries being armed to simple idiocy there are many reasons which could motivate this behaviour. Some are more, some are less understandable. And yes, there is also the possibility of racial motivation. But again, we are no mindreaders so for now that's all it is: a possibility.
I went over this in my previous post. There are reasons for why that could or could not be - including that things happened before which we simply do not know about.
And yes, if they went fully defensive, the jogger might flee. Seemingly they deemed this an inacceptable outcome. Who knows why that is. They may or may not have rational reasons for that. The older guy was an ex-cop, so I defintiely wouldn't ignore that possibility, though. Plus currently we can assume - based on the dispatcher call - that something happened prior.
As said above. There are reasons why they could have chosen to take this route. Some more, some less acceptable. We simply do not know that. Thus I am saying to wait for further information.
If it was, I may have missed it. Doesn't make that much a difference. If the caller is truthful, there was some sort of suspicious behaviour before the video. If that warrants their actions or not is yet to be seen. We simply do not know that.
Agreed.
Which does give it one of these nuances that I was talking about. He seems to be experienced, an ex-cop and to not want to escalate the situation. So again, did something happen before? What was their motivation to confront the jogger in a bit of a haste? We simply do not know as of now. Thus I do not like getting the pitchforks out and jumping to conclusions. Assumptions? Sure, we can assume and discuss how things have played out. But let's face it - most commentators here didn't just assume things.
I disagree. I don't think there isn't just absolute aggressiveness and defensiveness. There are also grey areas inbetween those. Did he make the correct choice? Possibly not. But hindsight is always easy. Was he particular aggressive? I don't think so. If you want to stop someone, you step your body into the way. That's by nature an aggressive move, but aggression here doesn't necessarily mean going for an escalation. Especially since he did it from quite a few meters away (judging by the car, I would assume around 6-7 meters which is quite the distance imo)
No worries. That's what a forum is for. To actually engage in a discussion.Sorry for butchering up your post btw
But when people are so eager to take out their pitchforks without having all the knowledge and being unwilling to engage in any even slightly opposite view (im not even in favour of those two guys, I am simply an innocent-until-proven-guilty-absolutist), then that rustles my jimmies as I consider this pitchfork mob mentality as incredibly dangerous.
Well, it is still my choice to decide which posts I engage with - which I mainly did based on users who also engaged in what I said. I allow myself that amount of egoism.
If I were to troll, I would instead react to the users who are especially emotional in their responses.Plus I assume you are refering to the following post of yours that I simply missed:
You said he used deadly force. I said he was threatening to use deadly force in case of escalation. Now you also said threatened with deadly force, so I would assume it was mere semantics.
I'm going to get butchered for this post, but I have to ask this.
After the shock of how an unarmed man was so brutally ambushed and murdered - my next immediate thought was - why did the victim engage in combat in what would certainly be a fatal outcome for him? Why didn't he stop and show that he's unarmed, and tell them that he goes not intend to escalate? Is it just shock? Is it just a moment of panic?
I am not American, I am certainly not a black man in South Georgia. I believe I'm not racist, but that's a useless statement. Perhaps the answer is obvious and I don't get it.
Also, I want to clarify that I think that it is absolutely crazy that random civilians can pick up lethal weapons and decide, with no authority or evidence, to chase another random person, put him in a flight or fight situation with fecking shotguns pointed at him and then get away clean after killing him claiming self defence. They weren't defending jack shit, they were playing reckless vigilantes. I believe that they should be held accountable for their actions and can't understand a system in which they weren't.
All that said, I'm still lost. Why did the black man decide to engage in combat? Wasn't there a chance that if he didn't engage, they wouldn't have killed him? Would he have been shot nonetheless, and he knew it and everyone here other than me knows it and he just wanted to go down swinging? I just don't get it.
After the shock of how an unarmed man was so brutally ambushed and murdered - my next immediate thought was - why did the victim engage in combat in what would certainly be a fatal outcome for him? Why didn't he stop and show that he's unarmed, and tell them that he goes not intend to escalate? Is it just shock? Is it just a moment of panic?
I am not American, I am certainly not a black man in South Georgia. I believe I'm not racist, but that's a useless statement. Perhaps the answer is obvious and I don't get it.
Also, I want to clarify that I think that it is absolutely crazy that random civilians can pick up lethal weapons and decide, with no authority or evidence, to chase another random person, put him in a flight or fight situation with fecking shotguns pointed at him and then get away clean after killing him claiming self defence. They weren't defending jack shit, they were playing reckless vigilantes. I believe that they should be held accountable for their actions and can't understand a system in which they weren't.
All that said, I'm still lost. Why did the black man decide to engage in combat? Wasn't there a chance that if he didn't engage, they wouldn't have killed him? Would he have been shot nonetheless, and he knew it and everyone here other than me knows it and he just wanted to go down swinging? I just don't get it.
The “fight or flight” response is an incredible thing, any reasonable person would suggest to run but when the adrenaline is pumping to the heavens then instinct takes over. Being outside of the situation you could judge it as a stupid decision but I don’t believe the victim would have been any close to being rational at that point.
Simple split second instinct. That makes some sense, yes. Thanks.
Fight or flight kicked in and he attempted to defend himself against a dangerous aggressor. It’s instinctual.
Edit: sorry, responded before I scrolled down to see @Jericholyte2 had posted the same
If he runs, he's certain he'll be shot. That's why he chose to fight.
That looks like it is exactly what he did in fear for his life.
Chased down because he was a black man out jogging. Clear case of murder surely?
Are you nuts? He hunted an unarmed black man down for daring to jog past his house armed with a shotgun. Any threat to his person was his choice and fault. You can't hunt a random person down, threaten them with a shotgun, kill them when they try to defend themselves and then claim self defense.
From a purely legal standpoint Atze has a point, in that it will be very difficult to prove murder here on the current evidence.
The problem is, you have to prove the killer intended to kill or cause GBH (in English law) beyond a reasonable doubt. For all the reasons Atze has mentioned there's a doubt there and that's enough not to convict. It's plausible that he just wanted to stop him and it escalated.
Do I think this was a racially motivated cold blooded murder? Absolutely, but that small doubt as to the intentions is enough not to convict and you can be sure at least one jury member in Georgia is going to take Atze's view.
You will argue back with the presumptions, with the shooters seemingly being racists and going back to fetch their weapons, but you can't just make those presumptions like that in a court of law without clear evidence. Doing so is prejudiced in itself to the rednecks of Georgia (albeit probably rightly so).
Realistically, manslaughter is the most likely best outcome. However, I suspect the backwards American laws will say they hadn't committed a crime at any point in the lead up. I very much hope running up to an unarmed jogger with a shotgun constitutes an offence, but Merica.
*In full support of them going down for life, completely against guns and not sure why this is being critically analysed in the first place. But since it has been, feel the pitchforks for Atze are unfair.
The problem is, you have to prove the killer intended to kill or cause GBH (in English law) beyond a reasonable doubt. For all the reasons Atze has mentioned there's a doubt there and that's enough not to convict. It's plausible that he just wanted to stop him and it escalated.
Do I think this was a racially motivated cold blooded murder? Absolutely, but that small doubt as to the intentions is enough not to convict and you can be sure at least one jury member in Georgia is going to take Atze's view.
You will argue back with the presumptions, with the shooters seemingly being racists and going back to fetch their weapons, but you can't just make those presumptions like that in a court of law without clear evidence. Doing so is prejudiced in itself to the rednecks of Georgia (albeit probably rightly so).
Realistically, manslaughter is the most likely best outcome. However, I suspect the backwards American laws will say they hadn't committed a crime at any point in the lead up. I very much hope running up to an unarmed jogger with a shotgun constitutes an offence, but Merica.
*In full support of them going down for life, completely against guns and not sure why this is being critically analysed in the first place. But since it has been, feel the pitchforks for Atze are unfair.
If he were arguing a point of law I doubt he would have got much flack. He is basically arguing that the shooter didn't do anything wrong and shot the unarmed jogger in self defense. Which is bullshit of the highest order (or odor?) irrespective of what the legal outcome is.
We aren't close enough to hear their conversation, but I suspect it started along the lines of " you're dead n*****" hence why he got spooked.
The guy in the back of the truck actually tries to shoot him as he runs around the truck and misses, so that's probably the time he thought I better get close to one of his friends so they won't shoot again. It happens so fast the poor guy probably can't think straight anyway.
What absolute rubbish.
4 men with weapons, 1 group waiting and the other following the alone UNARMED jogger. They clearly fire first before any physical confrontation occurs also.
Just jogging towards somebody parked up isn't enough to warrant shooting them ffs.
We aren't close enough to hear their conversation, but I suspect it started along the lines of " you're dead n*****" hence why he got spooked.
The guy in the back of the truck actually tries to shoot him as he runs around the truck and misses, so that's probably the time he thought I better get close to one of his friends so they won't shoot again. It happens so fast the poor guy probably can't think straight anyway.
The first DA letter says that the autopsy showed one of the shots was through Ahmaud's palm and that the video supports that shot happened right at the beginning of the tussle.
Adrenaline would have been up then and he'd already be losing blood before the bulk of the confrontation happened. Not sure where you got four men with weapons from. There are three from what I can see.
Why not follow from a distance and wait for police? Any proof that he was the one doing the burglaries?
Wow.
It seems very "unintuitive" that you can pull a gun on a random stranger that has not done anything of aggressive nature and then claim self defense when they react. It all seems so surreal from an European point of view.
It seemed surreal in any point of view apart from the American point of view.