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.
How will he explain why he didnt tell the PD that it was Arbery on the surveillance videos.
How will he explain the neighbors testimony if given that none of them knew who Arbery was.
Arbery's hair was very different recently than when McMichaels dealt with him. If you look at the high school pic of Arbery his hair was very close cropped. The video from the day he died he has very big hair. Gives him a totally different look imo.
Was Arbery in high school when Greg dealt with him? I don’t remember the details.
No My advise would be to try and escape. That is all they can do. Dead is dead. Shot in the back or shot in the chest. Dead is dead.
If I lived in such a neighborhood I would give advice to get a conceal carry permit and be ready to defend against red necks. Try not to travel alone, always have friends with you.
Oh wait. That makes them a gang right? The deck is stacked against certain people, especially in certain areas.
By the way I wasn't being childish or silly. Why do we need to teach our black children different rules than we do our white or Asian Children? Why do our black children need to be extra respectful when it comes to the police? Now when it comes to white trash acting like heroes?
Had they rolled up on me I would have told them to EFF themselves, call a cop if they have a problem with me. As we know, the redneck twins didn't bother white people who visited the property. I would have been fine.
I can only imagine the insanity that would ensue, and the CD account locks that would be handed out, if someone came on here and said that his advice to his children would be to “get a concealed carry permit and be ready to defend against [pejorative term for black people].”
No, it’s unknown if he was jogging in that neighborhood on the day in question.
Well he was running on the video and the initial report was that he had taken off running after he stopped at the house. His neighbors indicated that he was a frequent jogger.
Well he was running on the video and the initial report was that he had taken off running after he stopped at the house. His neighbors indicated that he was a frequent jogger.
Sorry, I should have added the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
No, it’s unknown if he was jogging in that neighborhood on the day in question, after he was spotted at the house and ran off.
Well when you're jogging its alright to stop and look something over. I don't understand what was the point in going after someone running since he had no stolen equipment.
Oh, I don’t think anyone is going to have any difficulty comprehending what you’ve written. The only difficulty that will arise is when you attempt to provide evidence to support your claims.
Everything above is your personal spin on what we can see in the video. I’ll wait while you post up the actual evidence that supports that spin.
Ha! I love when you guys like to act super duper legit and ask for things like "evidence." We live an imperfect world with imperfect access to facts. It's why most of "evidence" brought to trial is circumstantial, and if circumstantial evidence is good enough for courts, it's good enough for you.
Circumstantial evidence like... A guy is wearing a running outfit, and is running in the neighborhood like people say he does, b/c it's something that people say he likes to do. Anyone who'd ask for more "evidence" that he was actually running for leisure, would be thought of as a clown.
So when video evidence captures an event, unless you believe there's technology that pulls the thoughts of the participants and broadcasts them for the record, all we can do is come up with an interpretation of the most likely or most plausible motives behind said events. So again, someone asking for "evidence" of though patterns during an event, would be thought of as a clown.
Again, if circumstantial evidence that uses the best estimation of motive and actions is good enough to put a man in jail in a court of law, it's good for winning an argument on the internet.
Ha! I love when you guys like to act super duper legit and ask for things like "evidence." We live an imperfect world with imperfect access to facts. It's why most of "evidence" brought to trial is circumstantial, and if circumstantial evidence is good enough for courts, it's good enough for you.
Circumstantial evidence like... A guy is wearing a running outfit, and is running in the neighborhood like people say he does, b/c it's something that people say he likes to do. Anyone who'd ask for more "evidence" that he was actually running for leisure, would be thought of as a clown.
So when video evidence captures an event, unless you believe there's technology that pulls the thoughts of the participants and broadcasts them for the record, all we can do is come up with an interpretation of the most likely or most plausible motives behind said events. So again, someone asking for "evidence" of though patterns during an event, would be thought of as a clown.
Again, if circumstantial evidence that uses the best estimation of motive and actions is good enough to put a man in jail in a court of law, it's good for winning an argument on the internet.
Well if you want to get right down to it there is no evidence for us to discuss.
Nothing has been submitted to the court as evidence yet.
So, even though there's facts reported in the public domain and official documents released as well as video we have no idea with absolute certainty which of this stuff will end up in evidence.
Take something as seemingly benign as the autopsy report. Probably/maybe we could all agree on whats in it or not in it and that information will come before the jury. But, at the rate things are going we could very well hear that the Glynn Co Coroner is corrupt and the autopsy being redone.
When Arbery was running at Travis, would it be reasonable for Travis to move to the front of the truck, thus moving farther away, as well as getting behind cover in case Arbery was in fact armed?
I think some are trying to put forth the narrative that Travis remained where he was next to the drivers side door while Arbery ran to the right side of the truck, and only moved to the front of the truck after Arbery as already there. If that is what they’re claiming, that is absolutely not seen in the video.
I don't know if it's intentional. I've been looking at the video and I thought that is what I was seeing.
The video strays off of the fight in places but I think you may be right to a degree
Arbery running toward Travis. As he gets closer Travis raises the shotgun (probably) and that is why Arbery goes right. He could keep running straight ahead but he decides to hang left and go in the direction of Travis ton disarm or confront him physically in some way.
Travis had not moved much toward the front of the truck. He was basically close to where he already was but had turned around iand maybe was in front of the truck door. Arbery tried to disarm him.
Travis then has a potential self defence argument for the shooting but it also depends on context.
1) what is the percentage chance in your opinion that in court a jury could be convinced that if Travis admits he had raised the shotgun on Travis, Arbery thought Travis is getting ready to shoot him thus Arbery tried to stop him preemptively thus Travis can't argue self defense.
2) what is the percentage chance in your opinion that in court a jury could be convinced that just cause for the McMichaels following Arbery and then driving ahead and stopping on the road perhaps more than once is some kind of crime because probable cause is too weak?
3) Suppose someone is jogging down a street and there are no other circumstances, no reason whatsoever to follow them. A car drives past them and parks intentionally in their path just for kicks, which is something beyond just following and perhaps this happens more than once and the person keeps jogging and moves around the car and continues running but the person is getting scared.
Are the people in the car committing a crime and if so what is it?
Well when you're jogging its alright to stop and look something over. I don't understand what was the point in going after someone running since he had no stolen equipment.
So if I'm out jogging, I can just roll through your house? Something tells me you wouldn't approve despite the BS you are trying to sell right now.
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.
