[Illusion]

Originally Posted by JamesdBond007 ↗

The guy who took the video is being looked into also

Without that video.............none of this happens. It would be two guys against a dead black guy who apparently has a history of breaking and entering.

It’s also worth noting that Greg McMichael is a former police detective and investigator for the Brunswick district attorney’s office. According to the New York Times.

[GoreisGreat]

Running while black. Dangerous activity.

[JamesdBond007]

Originally Posted by Illusion ↗

Without that video.............none of this happens. It would be two guys against a dead black guy who apparently has a history of breaking and entering.

It’s also worth noting that Greg McMichael is a former police detective and investigator for the Brunswick district attorney’s office. According to the New York Times.

Also heard on the news that the guy that was killed may not be the burglary suspect but a totally innocent person

[Tyrantus]

Originally Posted by JamesdBond007 ↗

Also heard on the news that the guy that was killed may not be the burglary suspect but a totally innocent person

If that turns out to be true, that just makes this ordeal even more tragic...

I do look forward to seeing how some of the racist idiots on this board will backpedal their claims of the "non-jogger, jogger" being in the "wrong" neighborhood though.

[Illusion]

Originally Posted by JamesdBond007 ↗

Also heard on the news that the guy that was killed may not be the burglary suspect but a totally innocent person

Well, whether he was a burglary suspect or not, the shooting was not justified according to state law which states that a civilian can not legally stop and question someone unless they're involved in a fresh pursuit of a crime. They only saw him running down the street that day and assumed he was a burglary suspect. They were trying to stop him to talk to him and they used force to do that which is unlawful according to Georgia state law. It will be interesting how this all plays out in court but I think Cleetus and Jethro are gonna be made examples of, as they should.

[SkinnyFella]

Originally Posted by JamesdBond007 ↗

The guy who took the video is being looked into also

Wouldn't surprise me. You can hear him cocking a gun as he drives up. He probably came because he got called to the turkey shoot.

https://www.documentingreality.com/f...ogging-212400/

[niknik]

Originally Posted by Illusion ↗

Well, whether he was a burglary suspect or not, the shooting was not justified according to state law which states that a civilian can not legally stop and question someone unless they're involved in a fresh pursuit of a crime. They only saw him running down the street that day and assumed he was a burglary suspect. They were trying to stop him to talk to him and they used force to do that which is unlawful according to Georgia state law. It will be interesting how this all plays out in court but I think Cleetus and Jethro are gonna be made examples of, as they should.

Thats not true. There's no law saying you can't stop and ask someone questions.

And according the video, they weren't trying to detain him, they hadn't detained him. The video only shows that they stopped in the road, and the victim was many yards away, and ran up to them.

If the video showed them drive up to him, jump out and try and grab him, I'd say that's illegal, and the victim had every right to fight.

But the video clearly shows the victim was running down the middle of the road, and the changes direction to run around to the passenger side where the son was. So the victim at that moment wasn't trying to avoid them, he was going after them.

A normal person who is jogging. Has two people drive up and ask "what are you doing here?" "We called the police, we need you to wait". Would either say, ok, let's wait for the cops.

Or, screw you, and just kept jogging. And after they follow you, a normal person would think, i can't wait for the cops to arrive. Especially when you know they have guns.

A very stupid person would decide, I'm going to run up to this guy and take his gun away.

I hate that this shit has to turn into, "white men shoot down unarmed black man". They have to make it into race. When the truth probably is, it likely wouldn't have mattered what race the victim was, if everything else was exactly the same, the end result would be the same.

Now maybe the two men with guns were wrong, and this victim wasn't doing anything wrong.

But just because they are white, and he is black. That shouldn't matter at all. And I'm afraid that that's what this is all about now.

I also believe whether the victim was committing a crime or not. His actions also played into his own death. He wasn't ambushed, or lynched.

Because any reasonable person can conclude from the video that the victim would almost certainly be alive today if he didn't decide to run directly to the man holding a gun, and start punching him with one hand, and trying to take away the gun with the other.

[jsmlove]

One of the things that stuck out to me about the video of the "jogger" looking around a home under construction was that his clothing seemed unusual for jogging.
In particular, did anyone else notice that he wasn't wearing socks in the video? Why would that be an issue, you might ask? I don't know about you, but not wearing socks while jogging would not only be a hygienic issue but would probably cause some terrible chafing.

NOT only that, but in the shooting video, the "jogger" was wearing a white shirt. What do you typically expect of a person who went out jogging with a white shirt? Well, shouldn't we see sweat stains or some discoloration of the shirt due to sweat? I know the video is not the best quality, but you should see darker areas on his white shirt that indicate sweating. That "jogger" didn't appear to have any.
So, it makes me think he really wasn't jogging.

[niknik]

Originally Posted by jsmlove ↗

One of the things that stuck out to me about the video of the "jogger" looking around a home under construction was that his clothing seemed unusual for jogging.
In particular, did anyone else notice that he wasn't wearing socks in the video? Why would that be an issue, you might ask? I don't know about you, but not wearing socks while jogging would not only be a hygienic issue but would probably cause some terrible chafing.

NOT only that, but in the shooting video, the "jogger" was wearing a white shirt. What do you typically expect of a person who went out jogging with a white shirt? Well, shouldn't we see sweat stains or some discoloration of the shirt due to sweat? I know the video is not the best quality, but you should see darker areas on his white shirt that indicate sweating. That "jogger" didn't appear to have any.
So, it makes me think he really wasn't jogging.

I wondered about that too. And when someone is out jogging, stopping to enter a home that i understand to be under construction is odd too.

The more I think about this case, the more it wreaks of lies.

If the family attorney, and family of the victim came out and said. We think these guys should be in jail, they shouldn't have put the victim in this position, they aren't police, they did this or that wrong, and they should be punished. I would understand that, and possibly even agree.

But instead they came out saying they hunted him like an animal. This was a modern day lynching. These guys are obviously kkk members.

That's where it becomes pretty clear that this isn't about the facts of what happened. There are people trying to push an agenda, and people taking advantage of the situation for personal gains and notoriety.

Its so strange how the media always seem to make racial cases where the victim was at least partially, if not entirely in the wrong.

Travon Martin. A witness said he saw Travon straddled on top of George Zimmerman, pounding his head into the sidewalk. Throwing blows at his face. And he was shot, and a jury decided it was justified. But the media and race hustlers made it about unarmed little black boy just out to buy some skittles.

Micheal Brown. Was at a gas station, stole some items. When the clerk approached him about his theft, he physically assaulted the clerk. Gets spotted a short time later by a cop. The cop pulls up next to him and Brown reaches his entire upper body into the police car, begins punching the officer, and grabbing for the officers weapon. Somehow this breaks up, and the officer then has Brown at gun point ordering him onto the ground. Brown then charges the officer and is killed.

The media and race hustlers said Brown put his hands in the air, and ran away because the cop started shooting at him.

But Brown was shot 6 times. All bullets hit Brown in front. And all evidence points to the officer telling the truth.

So there is definitely a pattern here.

[Illusion]

Originally Posted by niknik ↗

Thats not true. There's no law saying you can't stop and ask someone questions.

And according the video, they weren't trying to detain him, they hadn't detained him. The video only shows that they stopped in the road, and the victim was many yards away, and ran up to them.

If the video showed them drive up to him, jump out and try and grab him, I'd say that's illegal, and the victim had every right to fight.

But the video clearly shows the victim was running down the middle of the road, and the changes direction to run around to the passenger side where the son was. So the victim at that moment wasn't trying to avoid them, he was going after them.

A normal person who is jogging. Has two people drive up and ask "what are you doing here?" "We called the police, we need you to wait". Would either say, ok, let's wait for the cops.

Or, screw you, and just kept jogging. And after they follow you, a normal person would think, i can't wait for the cops to arrive. Especially when you know they have guns.

A very stupid person would decide, I'm going to run up to this guy and take his gun away.

I hate that this shit has to turn into, "white men shoot down unarmed black man". They have to make it into race. When the truth probably is, it likely wouldn't have mattered what race the victim was, if everything else was exactly the same, the end result would be the same.

Now maybe the two men with guns were wrong, and this victim wasn't doing anything wrong.

But just because they are white, and he is black. That shouldn't matter at all. And I'm afraid that that's what this is all about now.

I also believe whether the victim was committing a crime or not. His actions also played into his own death. He wasn't ambushed, or lynched.

Because any reasonable person can conclude from the video that the victim would almost certainly be alive today if he didn't decide to run directly to the man holding a gun, and start punching him with one hand, and trying to take away the gun with the other.

Details are still emerging but one inescapable fact is that your troll game is weak. The father and son had stated they had "solid first-hand probable cause" as civilians to detain Arbery.

According to them, they apparently sought only to "stop and hold this criminal suspect until law enforcement arrived".

TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS
A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

(b) Any person who is not prohibited by law from possessing a handgun or long gun may have or carry on his or her person a long gun without a valid weapons carry license, provided that if the long gun is loaded, it shall only be carried in an open and fully exposed manner.

The suspect was filmed entering a construction site which is trespassing, yet, trespassing is not a felony and therefore, the McMichaels had no grounds to "stop and hold this criminal suspect until law enforcement arrived".

It will be interesting to see what happens in court as the McMichaels' defense will rely on the citizen arrest statute and self-defense, as the dad alleged Arbery "viciously attacked" his shotgun-wielding son as he stood in the road.

Again, state laws dictate that a private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge if the offense is a felony" and no felony was committed.