The killing of Ahmaud Arbery (23rd February 2020)

BobbyManc

Full Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
7,750
Location
The Wall
Supports
Man City
@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.
 

Grinner

Not fat gutted. Hirsuteness of shoulders TBD.
Staff
Joined
May 5, 2003
Messages
72,329
Location
I love free dirt and rocks!
Supports
Arsenal
"using". No, he didn't use deadly force. He confronted the guy intimidating him with a gun. If that was done based on "don't escalate this or you will be on the losing end" or "we are looking for an excuse to use these" is an important question, but not a given. He USED deadly force AFTER he got attacked. Now if it is his fault for being attacked is what the court will be all about.
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.
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,774
Location
South Carolina
If that was done based on "don't escalate this or you will be on the losing end" or "we are looking for an excuse to use these" is an important question, but not a given
Considering they went to their house, armed themselves, and then went looking for the man jogging, I'd say it's pretty given.
 

2mufc0

Everything is fair game in capitalism!
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
17,112
Supports
Dragon of Dojima
@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.
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.
 

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
89,774
Location
Centreback
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.
 

Il Prete Rosso

Prete, the Italian Pete
Joined
Feb 11, 2012
Messages
4,524
Location
Ospedale della Pietà
Because everyone here is jumping to conclusions while I simply do not think it is as clear cut and actually - legally speaking - an interesting case that provides a lot of nuances that can swing it one or the other way. And yes, there is a chance that the dude overstepped his boundaries by going in with a gun into the situation (I am not a legal expert on the laws that are in place locally as well as in the US as a whole, that's why it's for experts to decide) - but even if he overstepped his boundaries, it can still be an unfortunate event where both sides overreacted in a panic and thus be considered self-defense.
But yet everyone instantly assumes it must be, because he is black. Ironically while still on this page a security guard got shot by people with non-european names and no one there is taking their pitchforks out. It is hypocritical and it is dangerous for a society as a whole to jump to these conclusions right away. Even if we assume that the two guys went out "N+gga hunting" (and I say it purposefully in this offensive term, because this is what you guys assume these "rednecks" must have thought) - you guys instantly jumping to conclusions and prejudgement are doing the EXACT SAME behaviour as they do. Just that they took it to the logical conclusion of these judgements.




I honestly do not give two shits of the background and judge the situation at hand. Skincolour may have been the motivator for the altercation of confronting him, but that can have many reasons that aren't necessarily racism-related (like profiling or simply statistics considernig the city this happened is like 60% black). Plus it requires a lot of assumption and mindreading on you guys part knowing that this is what the two guys did. Maybe they did, maybe not. But we do not know - only they do.
What we know is that they confronting him while having guns for the reason of being potentially suspicious based on their perception as there have been burglaries around the area. Then black guy attacks guy with shotgun and tries to grab it. In that close range shotgun guy fires.

Everything else is assumptions on your part, because you guys are clearly omniscient.




You really have never been in a physical escalation, have you? Not like you can have your gun be slapped out of your hand or some other unexpected event happening. Guns are midranged (or long range if you go for rifles) tools. They can be a liability in close range. Every expert will tell you that.
The black guy quickly closed in to close range and thus it became a threatening situation for BOTH.

Also you mean that guy with the revolver who had to grab it after the first shot was fired already? Did we watch the same video?

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.
 

Rob

Full Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2009
Messages
3,250
Supports
Liverpool
Well, feck me. George Zimmerman’s lawyer has a Redcafe account
 

Atze-Peng

Dortmund Fan
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
592
@Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær
First post here that actually engages with what I am saying. So thanks for that.


They are easy assumptions because of what we know about this incident. There is no great leap of logic in what we have determined.
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.


You are unable to see this because you wilfully ignore the history of the area and the reality of racism in America. Presumably because its omission supports your position.
Skin colour wasn't the motivation for confronting him, it was the motivation for assuming he had criminal intent just by being in their neighbourhood. This led them to arm themselves, pursue him, ambush him and then kill him. This is two armed men ambushing one unarmed jogger
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.


The armed men have nothing to fear but one clearly has no experience because he let himself get into an altercation. The question is why did he allow that when he had opportunity to take cover like his partner?
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'm an experienced firearms enthusiast. I'm telling you otherwise. Shotguns like the one in the video are close range weapons. It's not a duck hunting shotty with a 28-30" barrel. It's maybe 18" at most. Shotguns of that size are for security detail. When you are wielding a weapon like that with two hands it's unlikely that you will be disarmed as you have control of the more important leverage points and also have the bad end pointing away from you. Any confrontation between an armed individual and an unarmed individual is ALWAYS less threatening for the armed individual. That's the whole purpose of arms, whether they are clubs. blades or guns.
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.


The guy with the revolver (which isn't holstered, it's just not being pointed at the victim until they begin struggling) and his position gives them a tactical advantage. This removes almost any need for the two armed men to be fearful in this situation. Had the guy with the shotgun also taken a defensive position there's a good chance no one would have died. He didn't and his aggressive approach let to the confrontation, which let to Arbery's death. That you would place any blame on an unarmed man who was ambushed like this at all is stupefying
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:

Il Prete Rosso

Prete, the Italian Pete
Joined
Feb 11, 2012
Messages
4,524
Location
Ospedale della Pietà
@Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær
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.

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.
 

Grinner

Not fat gutted. Hirsuteness of shoulders TBD.
Staff
Joined
May 5, 2003
Messages
72,329
Location
I love free dirt and rocks!
Supports
Arsenal
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.
 

Synco

Lucio's #1 Fan
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
6,503
It's just wonderful seeing Americans trying to critically analyze murdering minorities. Wonderful folks you are!
He's German.
Furthermore I don't think shotgun guys position was particulary aggressive.
This doesn't happen when the situation doesn't seem like it is escalating prior.
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.
 

RedPed

Whatabouter.
Joined
Jun 24, 2015
Messages
14,558
@Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær
First post here that actually engages with what I am saying. So thanks for that.
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.
 

GiddyUp

Full Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2015
Messages
4,930
Because everyone here is jumping to conclusions while I simply do not think it is as clear cut and actually - legally speaking - an interesting case that provides a lot of nuances that can swing it one or the other way. And yes, there is a chance that the dude overstepped his boundaries by going in with a gun into the situation (I am not a legal expert on the laws that are in place locally as well as in the US as a whole, that's why it's for experts to decide) - but even if he overstepped his boundaries, it can still be an unfortunate event where both sides overreacted in a panic and thus be considered self-defense.
But yet everyone instantly assumes it must be, because he is black. Ironically while still on this page a security guard got shot by people with non-european names and no one there is taking their pitchforks out. It is hypocritical and it is dangerous for a society as a whole to jump to these conclusions right away. Even if we assume that the two guys went out "N+gga hunting" (and I say it purposefully in this offensive term, because this is what you guys assume these "rednecks" must have thought) - you guys instantly jumping to conclusions and prejudgement are doing the EXACT SAME behaviour as they do. Just that they took it to the logical conclusion of these judgements.




I honestly do not give two shits of the background and judge the situation at hand. Skincolour may have been the motivator for the altercation of confronting him, but that can have many reasons that aren't necessarily racism-related (like profiling or simply statistics considernig the city this happened is like 60% black). Plus it requires a lot of assumption and mindreading on you guys part knowing that this is what the two guys did. Maybe they did, maybe not. But we do not know - only they do.
What we know is that they confronting him while having guns for the reason of being potentially suspicious based on their perception as there have been burglaries around the area. Then black guy attacks guy with shotgun and tries to grab it. In that close range shotgun guy fires.

Everything else is assumptions on your part, because you guys are clearly omniscient.




You really have never been in a physical escalation, have you? Not like you can have your gun be slapped out of your hand or some other unexpected event happening. Guns are midranged (or long range if you go for rifles) tools. They can be a liability in close range. Every expert will tell you that.
The black guy quickly closed in to close range and thus it became a threatening situation for BOTH.

Also you mean that guy with the revolver who had to grab it after the first shot was fired already? Did we watch the same video?
Shame on you. Shame. Its people like you that enable behavior like this.
 

BobbyManc

Full Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2012
Messages
7,750
Location
The Wall
Supports
Man City
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.
 

Adisa

likes to take afvanadva wothowi doubt
Joined
Nov 28, 2014
Messages
50,577
Location
Birmingham
I didn't think there was a way someone would defend that shooting.
 

Dr. Dwayne

Self proclaimed tagline king.
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
98,042
Location
Nearer my Cas, to thee
@Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær
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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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 :lol:
 

Dumbstar

We got another woman hater here.
Joined
Jul 18, 2002
Messages
21,286
Location
Viva Karius!
Supports
Liverpool
I didn't think there was a way someone would defend that shooting.
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.
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,774
Location
South Carolina
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.
Yes, that the man had committed no crime and was chased be people who were committing one.
 

Atze-Peng

Dortmund Fan
Joined
Nov 8, 2011
Messages
592
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.
Generally agree. The difference seems to be that I apparently value the things we do not know higher than you do.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
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.

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.
Agreed.

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.
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.

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.
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)

Sorry for butchering up your post btw :lol:
No worries. That's what a forum is for. To actually engage in a discussion.
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.




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.
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:
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.
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.
 

Gandalf Greyhame

If in doubt, follow your nose!
Scout
Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
7,485
Location
Red Card for Casemiro!
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.
 

Jericholyte2

Full Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
3,656
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.
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.
 

Gandalf Greyhame

If in doubt, follow your nose!
Scout
Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
7,485
Location
Red Card for Casemiro!
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.
 

Carolina Red

Moderator
Staff
Joined
Nov 7, 2015
Messages
36,774
Location
South Carolina
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?
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
 

Dr. Dwayne

Self proclaimed tagline king.
Joined
May 9, 2006
Messages
98,042
Location
Nearer my Cas, to thee
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.
If he runs, he's certain he'll be shot. That's why he chose to fight.
 

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
89,774
Location
Centreback
He was confronted by somebody using deadly force to intimidate him. The law in Georgia says that he can defend himself in that situation. It's actually one of the better ways to defend yourself against a long gun by charging and reducing the distance.
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?
 

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
89,774
Location
Centreback
it was also a threatening situation for the gun-carrier as well.
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.
 

Schneiderman

Full Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2015
Messages
2,301
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.
 

Wibble

In Gadus Speramus
Staff
Joined
Jun 15, 2000
Messages
89,774
Location
Centreback
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.
 

Adam-Utd

Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
39,954
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.
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.
 

Adam-Utd

Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
Joined
Sep 10, 2010
Messages
39,954
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.
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.

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.
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.
 

Damien

Self-Aware RedCafe Database (and Admin)
Staff
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Messages
97,485
Location
Also won Best Gif/Photoshop 2021
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.
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.
 

freeurmind

weak willed
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
5,883
Why not follow from a distance and wait for police? Any proof that he was the one doing the burglaries?
 

balaks

Full Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2014
Messages
15,335
Location
Northern Ireland
Supports
Tottenham Hotspur
Because everyone here is jumping to conclusions while I simply do not think it is as clear cut and actually - legally speaking - an interesting case that provides a lot of nuances that can swing it one or the other way. And yes, there is a chance that the dude overstepped his boundaries by going in with a gun into the situation (I am not a legal expert on the laws that are in place locally as well as in the US as a whole, that's why it's for experts to decide) - but even if he overstepped his boundaries, it can still be an unfortunate event where both sides overreacted in a panic and thus be considered self-defense.
But yet everyone instantly assumes it must be, because he is black. Ironically while still on this page a security guard got shot by people with non-european names and no one there is taking their pitchforks out. It is hypocritical and it is dangerous for a society as a whole to jump to these conclusions right away. Even if we assume that the two guys went out "N+gga hunting" (and I say it purposefully in this offensive term, because this is what you guys assume these "rednecks" must have thought) - you guys instantly jumping to conclusions and prejudgement are doing the EXACT SAME behaviour as they do. Just that they took it to the logical conclusion of these judgements.




I honestly do not give two shits of the background and judge the situation at hand. Skincolour may have been the motivator for the altercation of confronting him, but that can have many reasons that aren't necessarily racism-related (like profiling or simply statistics considernig the city this happened is like 60% black). Plus it requires a lot of assumption and mindreading on you guys part knowing that this is what the two guys did. Maybe they did, maybe not. But we do not know - only they do.
What we know is that they confronting him while having guns for the reason of being potentially suspicious based on their perception as there have been burglaries around the area. Then black guy attacks guy with shotgun and tries to grab it. In that close range shotgun guy fires.

Everything else is assumptions on your part, because you guys are clearly omniscient.




You really have never been in a physical escalation, have you? Not like you can have your gun be slapped out of your hand or some other unexpected event happening. Guns are midranged (or long range if you go for rifles) tools. They can be a liability in close range. Every expert will tell you that.
The black guy quickly closed in to close range and thus it became a threatening situation for BOTH.

Also you mean that guy with the revolver who had to grab it after the first shot was fired already? Did we watch the same video?
Wow.
 

do.ob

Full Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2010
Messages
15,646
Location
Germany
Supports
Borussia Dortmund
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.
 

Foxbatt

New Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
14,297
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.