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.
Lie #1. Video tape shows that Arbery veered AWAY from Travis. I even included the stills that show that. That you keep trying to frame this as technically he's still running AT Travis, even after he veers away and puts the truck between the two of them is just more proof of how dishonest you are in this discussion.
When we first see Arbery in the video, he is on he left side of the double yellows. He then veers to the right across the double yellows, then veers back to the left across the double yellows, and then back to the right across the double yellows (this last one being the stills you’re fixated on). During the entirety of this somewhat serpentine run, the distance between Arbery and Travis is diminishing, because HE’S RUNNING AT TRAVIS.
After Arbery crosses the double yellows the last time we lose sight of both until they emerge, fighting, to the left from in front of the vehicle.
How you can conclude that Travis ran at Arbery, based on the portion of the video where we can’t see either one of them, is baffling.
How you can conclude that I’ve lied when I’ve simply described what we see in the video is baffling.
Quote:
Your speculation was a complete fabrication of events. It doesn't line up with the video evidence, so trying to present as a theory of what happened, amounts to lying. Usually when someone speculates, they're using the actual facts of what happened to create a "spin." That's honest. You made up facts of what happened, and then created your "spin." That's blatantly dishonest. Lie #2
I simply presented a possible explanation for what happened, and it is perfectly consistent with what the video shows, and made it clear it was speculation. I didn’t make up any facts. Spin is presenting speculation and conjecture as fact. I’ve never done that.
How you can conclude that I lied about anything is baffling.
Quote:
In the context of football, on a football field, under football rules. Immaterial, like I said.
If you can’t understand that moving towards someone (as Arbery moved towards Travis) doesn’t require moving in a straight line, nor in the shortest possible distance, well, that’s a special kind of special right there.
On “stopping his aggression” - a consistent theme throughout this thread is that the “following/chasing/pursuing” is the aggression that caused Arbery to fear for his life. If that’s so, I believe the aggression stopped when that activity stopped. This will clearly be a question for the jury to decide. However, if my belief is correct, then Arbery’s continued movement at Travis will likely create a situation where Arbery is now the aggressor towards Travis. Of course, this is also a question to be answered by the jury.
On “self defense and Arbery” - I included Arbery in that line of discussion solely because other posters insisted that Arbery had a right to self defense. And you’re correct, he’s not on trial.
Yeah ........I think the blocking in the road, the dad taking high ground will still be there and be part of the aggression.
Also, imo at this point they dont have a lot of valid reason to continue to believe Arbery is armed. He's made no move that I can see that looks like him reaching for a weapon and surely if he had one he would have pulled it out to use it. Also, the flimsy clothes didnt give him a lot places to put it.
It will be interesting to see how the prosecution lays out the aggression witch leads to aggravated assault.
Guessing the DA/GBI already laid that out before bringing charges.
She was indeed speaking about a different neighborhood, but the highlighted portion above isn’t in the linked article. Do you know if it’s in a different article?
She was indeed speaking about a different neighborhood, but the highlighted portion above isn’t in the linked article. Do you know if it’s in a different article?
It is in a different article that I read. I remember the comment about setting her watch by him.
Sorry, dont have a link to it, remember where it was or feel like searching for it now.
Given that GA is an open carry state, exiting a vehicle shotgun in hand, is a perfectly legal activity.
Again, I dont believe this is a correct interpretation of the law.
If you are legally prohibited from parking the truck the way they did and standing in the middle of the road how do you get to your right to be legally open carrying there?
This interpretation imo can only be correct if they make a successful case that they were engaged in a legal citizens arrest and therefore had the right to set up their quasi-roadblock.
Your post was a useful vehicle for pointing out that the FACTS support the narrative that he was jogging. The possibility that he simply walked there is irrelevant; Arbery was a known jogger. And if he walked part of the way, it changes nothing. Stop already with the, maybe he walked. It doesn't matter.
Both walking and jogging are supported by the same information. I’d you’d like to stop this line of discussion, we can stop. But it is incredibly disingenuous to suggest that jogging is supported, but walking isn’t.
Quote:
When you point out the nefarious narrative as equally possible, it's important to point out that there are NO facts supporting the nefarious narrative. None. I don't care if you personally believe the nefarious narrative or not. YOU gave it a place here when you included it in your post.
I never said nor suggested that they were equally possible. But I’m sure you’ll be able to quote me if you disagree.
Haven’t you tired of claiming that I’ve said things that I haven’t? I can’t imagine why you would want to continue embarrassing yourself like that.
Umpteen posts (by others, but not by me) have been used to address the nefarious narrative. I didn’t give it a place, it’s been in the thread from almost the very beginning.
This entire argument is a somewhat silly war over unimportant details.
There is and likely will be only one issue. Was it a legal citizens arrest?
GBI says no and therefore murder for a death that occurred during a felonious aggravated assault.
At least one DA has asserted it was in fact a legal citizens arrest that would not require anyone be arrested.
And right there you have the almost certain reasonable doubt to prevent a conviction.
Again though the McMichaels get big trouble in the civil suit certain to follow. Unless someone has a big umbrella policy they will get wiped out.
Given that the DA who asserted it was in fact a legal citizens arrest is under investigation precisely for how he handled this case what makes you so sure that his memo or testimony will create reasonable doubt.
It is in a different article that I read. I remember the comment about setting her watch by him.
Sorry, dont have a link to it, remember where it was or feel like searching for it now.
It doesn't matter, I was just curious.
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.
I can’t imagine why you would want to continue embarrassing yourself like that.