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.
Still waiting for you to quote me where I’ve lied.
The only item in your list that isn’t in question is that at one point, the truck was between Travis and Arbery. Everything else is your interpretation and spin, but entirely unsupported by the video.
The football example is quite apropos. It’s pretty clear why you won’t address it.
It's in the quote, but I'll post it again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
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.
You said Travis was trying to get in front of the car to put distance between him and Arbery. The stills I posted show that's clearly not what happened. That's a lie and you know it.
The football example is immaterial b/c this didn't happen on a football field under football rules where things have a contextual meaning. It would be like talking about jobs, and I mention someone got sacked, and you try to comeback with "they were tackled behind the line of scrimmage?"
I provided stills that show the moment Arbery started to run away from Travis. And you're still claiming you're not a liar?
You even admitted that the Travis had to move himself to get to the front of the truck, now you're backtracking and saying that's what happened? In case you need a reminder:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd
Um, he moved there. Are you suggesting some other way?
I’m not sure if you’re being deliberately obtuse, or if you really don’t understand it. That’s ok, it doesn’t look like this is going anywhere.
I was being sincere. I understand a bit more what you are trying to convey after reading post 5676 above.
Doesnt mean I agree with you.
You seem to believe there is some rule here that we must have solid evidence to discuss anything about this case. But, like I said before there is currently NO evidence in this case until it is presented in a courtroom.
What you call spin may be being used to promote a certain narrative or it may be the reasoned conclusions of people based on the things they think they know.
Mother said he was out for daily run. Others in the neighborhood had seen him jogging in the neighborhood.
Different people may have seen him moving on foot at many different paces from a walk to a sprint. It would not change a thing in this case. People may have seen him stop to do push ups and that would not change a thing in regards to this case.
Are you sure about that?
Do you remember where you saw that? Because I have been waiting to see if anyone said that and I dont recall seeing it.
In what way does a gun change what is illustrated by the example?
I'm not even following the example.
All I can see is that after Travis appears to have pointed the gun at Ahmuad once, he then ends up in front of the truck in a good position to counter a couple of different direction choices that Ahmaud could make.
When you say "Arbery ran at Travis" do you mean when he was running behind the truck on the left side and Travis was at the door or when he ran in front of the truck towards Travis?
I dont see it the way you do.
When Arbery ran towards Travis the first time we see I think he was just trying to keep going and then either saw the gun or Travis pointed the gun, so Arberry cut to the right to get past the truck.
What I saw is that Travis moves to the front of the truck and that he and Arberry reach the front of the truck at about the same time. What Travis is doing with the gun I dont know. But, I dont think this constitutes Travis stopping his aggression. He is still following Avery imo by tracking his movement up the side of the truck. I dont see it as a defensive move on Travis' part.
Further, I dont agree that anyone will have to prove Arbery had the right to self defense/stand your ground because he's not on trial. All that has to be proved is that Travis was still the aggressor at the time he shot Arbery.
That’s right, neither walking nor jogging will change a thing.
But there is a reason why the jogging narrative has been pushed. It’s to try to establish that Arbery WASN’T in the neighborhood for nefarious reasons. Pushing that narrative is just as inappropriate as trying to establish that Arbery is a “Bad guy” and WAS in the neighborhood for nefarious reasons based on incidents from his past.
Both positions are nothing more than “spin” on the current situation and have no place in a discussion about what actually happened.
Except for one thing. The jogging narrative is supported by facts. And the nefarious narrative is not supported by facts.
We KNOW that Arbery was several miles from his home. We KNOW that Arbery didn't have a vehicle. We KNOW that Arbery was an athlete and regular jogger. We KNOW that Arbery was wearing t-shirt, shorts and atheletic shoes, normal wear for a jogger. We KNOW that McMichaels saw Arbery actually running down the street.
The nefarious narrative is not supported by facts. There is nothing to tie him to any thefts. The homeowner of the house under construction that he was seen in says nothing was stolen. He didn't have any stolen items on him or any burglary tools on him.
He has a conviction for carrying a weapon into school during a basketball game, and was given probation. He was apparently arrested for shoplifting, but was he even charged with that crime? I can't find any such record. A police officer questioned him about being parked in a park? Nothing criminal there.
Right. Arbery went to the right and Travis was not going to just let him go. He stepped to the front. he didn't get back in the truck to follow some more, he stepped to the front of the truck. CONFRONTATION.
At that point Arbery probably decided there was no getting away from these maniacs.
I don't care if he was trespassing and the McMichaels saw it, it doesn't give rise to a legal citizens arrest so one is left with maniacs trying to capture the man.
If Arbery had kept running, Travis would have gotten back into the truck to give chase some more.
They should have just kept him in sight while relaying to police where he was. McMichaels didn't even call them until the confrontation, which casts doubt to me that is the result they even were after.
In fact in their statement to police they said they wanted to 'talk to' Arbery. So they wanted to scare him? Don't come around here no more, boy?
I agree. If they chased him to that point, there's nothing suggesting that they were going to back off if he ignored them.
Yet had they been caught, they'd have likely ended up with a criminal trespass warning, it wouldn't have been an excuse to attack someone.....and if they did decide to attack someone, there is a decent chance they'd have been shot for it.
I dont believe if they caught that white couple coming out of the house they would have chased them down or even confronted them or called the police. Ditto with the young kids.
You said Travis was trying to get in front of the car to put distance between him and Arbery. The stills I posted show that's clearly not what happened. That's a lie and you know it.
Here’s my quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
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.
The first part of the first sentence is true - Arbery was running at Travis. The second part is clearly speculative, is put forth as a possible explanation, and the phrase “would it be reasonable” makes that abundantly clear.
If you’re having trouble understanding what I’ve written, by all means ask, and I will do my best to help you understand. But to completely mischaracterize what is clear and plain language, all to further your narrative, is unacceptable.
Quote:
The football example is immaterial b/c this didn't happen on a football field under football rules where things have a contextual meaning. It would be like talking about jobs, and I mention someone got sacked, and you try to comeback with "they were tackled behind the line of scrimmage?"
Um, no. It perfectly illustrates that “running at” someone or something doesn’t require one to follow a straight line nor the shortest path.
Quote:
I provided stills that show the moment Arbery started to run away from Travis. And you're still claiming you're not a liar?
The stills show the moment that Arbery started back to the right, across the double yellows, and that has never been in dispute. What do you think those stills show that I’m lying about?
Quote:
You even admitted that the Travis had to move himself to get to the front of the truck, now you're backtracking and saying that's what happened? In case you need a reminder:
You asked how he got from the left side of the truck to the front of the truck. It’s pretty clear that he moved there. What do you think I’m lying about with this?
Quote:
And you're still claiming you're not a liar?
I haven’t lied about anything, and you haven’t show anything that would support your claim that I’m lying.
You’re like a banty rooster that gets the stew stomped out of him by some other bigger, tougher barnyard critter, and then spends the day clucking about how he won the fight.
If you’re willing to show what I’ve actually “lied” about, I’d be happy to continue the discussion. But if not, this whole thing is just a whole lot of nonsense.
I was being sincere. I understand a bit more what you are trying to convey after reading post 5676 above.
Doesnt mean I agree with you.
You seem to believe there is some rule here that we must have solid evidence to discuss anything about this case. But, like I said before there is currently NO evidence in this case until it is presented in a courtroom.
What you call spin may be being used to promote a certain narrative or it may be the reasoned conclusions of people based on the things they think they know.
It’s ok. Actually, on this issue I think we may be more in agreement than I originally thought.
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.
