Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As Blondy has said, words have meanings. Arbery was never at any point "boxed in", nor anything approaching being boxed in by the dictionary definition, or real world usage.
I understand why people are attempting this additional false narrative, it would support the inexplicable decision made by Arbery.
For the record, I never said words have meanings.
That is the hue and cry of the literalists on this forum who are supporting the McMichaels actions.
While I would agree words have meanings, they often have multiple meanings and common usage of words is frequently different than the technical dictionary definition of meaings.
I believe that Arbery did indeed believe that the McMichaels and their neighbor/friend Roddy were attempting to box him in on the roadway and that that is in no way a false narrative as he was boxed in on the roadway.
Could he have run off the roadway? Yes sure into swamp/marsh land that was clearly visible in the video we saw. Probably not the first choice of most people.
When Travis goes around the open drivers door and moves to the front of the vehicle, he placed the vehicle between himself and Arbery until such time as Arbery makes a hard left in front of the vehicle.
Arbery is coming towards the back of the vehicle, so Travis moves to the front of the vehicle, and the vehicle is between them. It is a basic defensive tactic against a person who may be armed.
It makes perfect sense.
Travis had been in the street side of the truck with the door open. Arbery is running alongside the opposite, right side. Why would Travis have reason to believe that Arbery was going to make a left and not keep running forward? Why would Travis get closer to where Arbery would emerge which would be more dangerous then to go further left in the opposite direction but with the shotgun pointed in Arbery's direction. Instead of some quick encounter where he couldn't see Arbery until the last minute there would be some distance in case Arbery decided to come after him. Arbery would have extra time to see the shotgun pointed and not attack, not be close enough for such opportunity to do a quick move on Travis
Is this not accurate > Arbery is running alongside the truck when he get to the front, still on the right but just beyond the truck Travis had already moved directly in front of the truck. Sudden they are very close.
we can't see things at this point so either:
1) Travis had been waiting with the shotgun pointed to the right waiting for Arbery to emerge and it was so close that when Arbery saw it in a split second he felt like he couldn't go forward he had to deal with that gun pointed at him immediately and push it away or grab it and move it away and take it away
or
2) Arbery as soon as he was on the right of the truck he was planning on going left to surprise attack Travis and he did that but Travis was already closer than he expected so he plan failed and instead led to a hard struggle for the shotgun which he lost
OK..........but how do you justify the totality of the McMichaels actions towards Arbery.
What right did they have to confront him in any way?
Oh, I agree with you there. They had no business being there, which is what I said in earlier post.
I didn't see the video where McMichaels were more or less stalking Arbery on the road - but gleaned that is what happened based on jonbenson's post?
That road stalking is totally wrong, they had no probable cause whatsoever for a citizen's arrest, they witnessed no theft, and their actions were clear evidence they were out that night to "catch" him.
Arbery apparently got fed up with it, approached Travis in a 'threatening' way - and Travis shot him.
Both McMichaels are in some deep doo doo. If this was white on white crime, it would be bad enough - and still justify involuntary manslaughter/self defense for Travis, with a lesser charge for Greg. That said, the stalking makes their claim of self defense suspect. There might be some harassment charges that would fit, as well.
Because this was white on black, a lot of people won't be happy with less than murder for both. It's going to be a mess.
Oh, I agree with you there. They had no business being there, which is what I said in earlier post.
I didn't see the video where McMichaels were more or less stalking Arbery on the road - but gleaned that is what happened based on jonbenson's post?
That road stalking is totally wrong, they had no probable cause whatsoever for a citizen's arrest, they witnessed no theft, and their actions were clear evidence they were out that night to "catch" him.
Arbery apparently got fed up with it, approached Travis in a 'threatening' way - and Travis shot him.
Both McMichaels are in some deep doo doo. If this was white on white crime, it would be bad enough - and still justify manslaughter for Travis, with a lesser charge for Greg. There might be some harassment charges that would fit, as well.
Because this was white on black, a lot people won't be happy with one of them getting off. It's going to be a mess.
OK we basically agree.
For the record, I dont think race matters. They were wrong, and as a result at least Travis is guilty of murder. What Pops is guilty of I will leave to a jury.
That is the hue and cry of the literalists on this forum who are supporting the McMichaels actions.
While I would agree words have meanings, they often have multiple meanings and common usage of words is frequently different than the technical dictionary definition of meaings.
I believe that Arbery did indeed believe that the McMichaels and their neighbor/friend Roddy were attempting to box him in on the roadway and that that is in no way a false narrative as he was boxed in on the roadway.
Could he have run off the roadway? Yes sure into swamp/marsh land that was clearly visible in the video we saw. Probably not the first choice of most people.
In the 360 degrees available to him to evade them, he had perhaps 350 degrees remaining open.
It is a an extreme false narrative to suggest he was boxed in.
It's interesting that you suggest running off into the bush not being the first choice for most people. I think for most it is much more attractive than purposely running into the barrel of a shotgun.
And as always for the record, I don't believe he should have even been in the position to make those calls. The lunatics shouldn't have been chasing him in the first place.
But the string of false narratives; jogger, owner didn't care about the trespass, hunted, boxed in etc etc are not the course to justice.
In the 360 degrees available to him to evade them, he had perhaps 350 degrees remaining open.
It is a an extreme false narrative to suggest he was boxed in.
It's interesting that you suggest running off into the bush not being the first choice for most people. I think for most it is much more attractive than purposely running into the barrel of a shotgun.
And as always for the record, I don't believe he should have even been in the position to make those calls. The lunatics shouldn't have been chasing him in the first place.
But the string of false narratives; jogger, owner didn't care about the trespass, hunted, boxed in etc etc are not the course to justice.
Jogger...........we dont know ..........there may very well be video/witness evidence that he routinely jogged through this neighborhood.
Owner didnt care about trespass............not really relevant imo.
Hunted..........yes he clearly was chased down over 3 different streets back and forth.
Boxed in........matter of opinion. His choice was to run off into swamp land or to run ahead to some house and call for help. There werent that many houses in the vicinity from what I see on the map and how many of them would have had anyone at home in mid afternoon? I guess he could have run off to the side and swam the waterway behind the houses. A lot of those choices are either dangerous or extreme depending on his thought process.
You guys are really into repeating and rephrasing the same stuff, yeah?
I checked here after not for days, to see if any new info. More of the same statements rephrased and repeated. I dunno what you guys get out of doing that.
I'll say, it's a satisfying feeling to think of what the two McMichaels' lives shall be like in prison; they'll be a racial minority in there, and being law abiders until now, amongst career criminals and lowlifes, their lives will royally suck. This makes me happy to think about.
I think we know a lot about the case and that anything new we find out about the case will not matter unless there is evidence of Arbery being in places on dates where things were actually stolen and there is a rogue juror who fails to apply the law.
I think there is zero chance the McMichaels can prove under the law that they were conducting a legal citizens arrest which is basically their only defense. But, like I said above given enough evidence Arbery was engaged in criminal activity that did not support a citizens arrest there could be a rouge juror who doesnt apply the law.
I believe the prosecutor will get a murder conviction at least with Travis. Not sure what will happen with Pops, but I believe he will be convicted of something.
What in your mind would constitute reasonable doubt that they were making a lawful citizens arrest and entitled to engage in all the things they engaged in prior to shooting Arbery.
Even if they have video of Arbery stealing something from the site a few weeks earlier, I dont think that qualifies under GA law for a lawful citizens arrest.
I don’t know. I’ve never suggested that “citizens arrest” was the appropriate defensive strategy for them.
There are plenty of places in the south where the concept “snitches get stitches” is generally pervasive, and doesn’t require a specific incident to trigger it. I don’t know if that was at play here. But I do think that there are reasonable explanations as to why someone wouldn’t make a report. This is just one of those.
Or, it could be what home owner said and he didn't report any thefts because nothing had been stolen from the house, he said he didn't know when or where the fishing equipment was stolen because it was stored in the boat which had been moved.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
