Guns: how much longer will it take ....

@oralloy,

Quote:

I don't think the order can be conclusively determined from the video alone, and it may not be possible to determine period.

Which is no different to what I said - just missing the bit where I talked about likelihoods.

Quote:

The reason why I figure the middle shot is the one that grazed the wrist is because, even though the shooting occurs off screen, you can see a puff of smoke from the blast travel in front of the camera view. Had the blast ended in the jogger's chest, I do not believe that we would see that puff of smoke travel in front of the view of the camera.

fair enough

Quote:

He may well have felt threatened, but that doesn't mean that Gregory McMichael was pointing a gun at him.

What I said was "it is the only scenario that makes sense". No other explanation that I can come up with (or that I have seen) makes sense of the behaviour of the victim.

Quote:

I've said that they committed a misdemeanor by chasing down and confronting a jogger in the middle of the street with a shotgun, and I've said that manslaughter charges are appropriate for the resulting death.

Fair enough...to an extent. In your place, if I were trying to explain why I thought manslaughter charges were appropriate, I'd qualify my statements more often. For example "Defense are likely to argue that (the victim) charged & attacked (the killer), and so manslaughter is the correct charge in my view". In this statement, both the blue commentaries are qualifiers. Of course, that is just my view of how I'd handle it (if I held that view & wanted to explain it).

2 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

What I said was "it is the only scenario that makes sense". No other explanation that I can come up with (or that I have seen) makes sense of the behaviour of the victim.

Perhaps the zig zaging was a result of seeing Travis McMichael standing there with the shotgun.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

vikorr wrote:
What I said was "it is the only scenario that makes sense". No other explanation that I can come up with (or that I have seen) makes sense of the behaviour of the victim.

Perhaps the zig zaging was a result of seeing Travis McMichael standing there with the shotgun.

That would explain it, especially if the shooter was already aiming his gun at the victim.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Perhaps the zig zaging was a result of seeing Travis McMichael standing there with the shotgun.

Either or. I did say that it was due to a threat to his life from a firearm. So take your pick (you later correctly identified Jnr was also out of the vehicle).

It's likely both of them had them. They certainly both say they got firearms specifically to confront the victim . So it seems very unlikely that either of them didn't have a firearm during the confrontation they instigated.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

the law is the law. it's not a loophole. it's an accurate reaction to the way firearms have been used for five hundred years. it's a felony, not a misdemeanor and the McMichaels committed murder. it was in effect when they did it. the law is the law and you and the nra hate law.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

the mcmichaels forced a confrontation and they came toward unarmed awbery who was doing nothin while they doing absolutely nothing, while they were armed and menacing. It was murder,, and Georgia finally recognizes that even if you do not.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

That is incorrect. Deaths connected to a misdemeanor are involuntary manslaughter under Georgia law.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

it's not a loophole.

The Georgia legislature certainly regards it as a loophole, and they are working to close that loophole.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

It's likely both of them had them. They certainly both say they got firearms specifically to confront the victim . So it seems very unlikely that either of them didn't have a firearm during the confrontation they instigated.

They both definitely had guns. What I question is whether any guns were pointed at the jogger before he charged at Travis McMichael.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

In your place, if I were trying to explain why I thought manslaughter charges were appropriate, I'd qualify my statements more often. For example "Defense are likely to argue that (the victim) charged & attacked (the killer), and so manslaughter is the correct charge in my view". In this statement, both the blue commentaries are qualifiers. Of course, that is just my view of how I'd handle it (if I held that view & wanted to explain it).

I'd be fine with the "in my view" qualifier in this circumstance. But not if I had been stating a concrete fact.

We've had discussions about facts before. You may recall that I refuse to accept the contention that reality is a matter of opinion.

But sure, in matters where I am expressing my opinion, "in my view" would be fine. I don't tend to say it often because I consider it understood that my opinions are my opinions.

The "defense are likely to argue that" thing is really not my style however. That would be distancing myself from whatever position I am arguing, and instead blaming the existence of the argument on the defense lawyers.

I think my positions are reasonable, and am content to be associated with them.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

the people who enacted it into law did not consider it a loophole. That's why it's a law. ALEC and the NRA are actively working to enable America's destruction by supporting revoking this and similar laws, and by supporting them you too are working to destroy America. That's reality.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

I'd be fine with the "in my view" qualifier in this circumstance. But not if I had been stating a concrete fact.

Which is fine. Qualifiers are of course for opinion (and usually for perspectives). A perspective for example, exists in the difference between the use of 'defending' and 'attacking' (hence the addition of 'defence will argue' - its an example of a further qualifier of perspective, even if it is not your style)

1 Reply

@vikorr,

The difference between defending and attacking is meaningless in this case. They may seem like contradictory terms, but in this case both terms are equally true. The defense was an attack. The attack was a defense.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

the people who enacted it into law did not consider it a loophole. That's why it's a law.

I doubt that you can provide any evidence that the people who wrote the law intended for progressives to abuse it.

MontereyJack wrote:

ALEC and the NRA are actively working to enable America's destruction by supporting revoking this and similar laws, and by supporting them you too are working to destroy America. That's reality.

I don't know who Alec is, but preventing progressives from abusing the law does not harm America in any way.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

The difference between defending and attacking is meaningless in this case.

The difference is at the crux of such conversations like this. One term defends the killers, the other term defends the innocent victim. In long form: one term defends the white guys who killed an innocent black man out jogging...the other term allows that the innocent black man out jogging was allowed to defend his life.

That's why qualifiers like 'defence will argue' should be used (when you use the words like 'charged' and 'attacked', rather than 'ran towards'
and 'to defend his life')...because without qualifiers, all you're doing is defending white guys who hunted down and killed an innocent black man.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

I am in fact defending them. I am saying that they committed a lesser crime than what they are accused of.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Err no...that's what qualifiers would do (say they committed a lesser crime than what they are accused of). Without the qualifiers, all you'd be doing is defending two white guys who hunted down and killed an innocent black guy.

Perhaps they will get found guilty of just manslaughter - I don't know. To me it appears to be straight up murder. I've no issues even with somone arguing that it should be just manslaughter (even if I disagree, because maybe, just maybe, that is all it is). But without the qualifiers, you are just defending two white guys hunting down and killing an black innocent man. Hence why I say the use of such words (attacking vs defending) is actually at the heart of conversations like this.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Murder requires malicious intent of some sort.

There is no malicious intent in honestly believing that someone is a criminal and confronting them, then defending yourself when you suddenly find yourself under attack.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Which is obviously just an opinion of what happened and so needs no qualifications.

Having said that:

- redneck goes "Oi son, there's this black man hauling ass past our place" (but wait...why did he use the term 'hauling ass' for jogging?). This is obviously a self serving re-interpretation of events, so that McMichael could do what he wanted to do.
- redneck goes "He's running!" (but wait...why frame it as he's running, rather than 'he's jogging'). This is obviously a self serving re-interpretation of events, so that McMichael could do what he wanted to do.
- redneck goes "He's the suspect for the breakins" (but wait...the redneck, being a former police officer and DA investigator, should know no complaint has been made against this man for the one piece of footage he knows about...and know he wasn't seen doing anything...so what is he going to confront him for?).

All of that..from a former police officer and prosecutions investigator...I'd say there was malicious intent right from the start.

He calls 911, and tells them he's armed up because he saw the 'suspect' reach into his pants some time previously...given McMichaels habit of re-interpreting innocent actions, the poor victims was probably re-adjusting himself...if McMichael saw this at all. Nothing in the victims body language, dress, or activities suggested he was armed....except, oh wait...he's black...so saying this seems purely self serving so that McMichael could do what he wanted to do.

Now if somehow McMichael did honestly think these things and it all just went wrong...you might have a case for manslaughter. But the way he described a black man who was just jogging (he's haulting ass. He's running!) flat out screams of racism. And his followup actions do seem malicious. His son on the other hand, may just be stupid.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Which is obviously just an opinion of what happened and so needs no qualifications.

It is an opinion that is consistent with all the evidence.

I know of no evidence that supports a more sinister narrative.

Under a civilized system of justice, the burden of proof is on the accuser.

vikorr wrote:

Having said that:

- redneck goes "Oi son, there's this black man hauling ass past our place" (but wait...why did he use the term 'hauling ass' for jogging?). This is obviously a self serving re-interpretation of events, so that McMichael could do what he wanted to do.
- redneck goes "He's running!" (but wait...why frame it as he's running, rather than 'he's jogging'). This is obviously a self serving re-interpretation of events, so that McMichael could do what he wanted to do.

Jogging, running, hauling ass... I see nothing sinister in their use of this terminology.

vikorr wrote:

- redneck goes "He's the suspect for the breakins" (but wait...the redneck, being a former police officer and DA investigator, should know no complaint has been made against this man for the one piece of footage he knows about...and know he wasn't seen doing anything...so what is he going to confront him for?).

He was going to confront him for this:

"In December 2019 and January 2020, residents of Satilla Shores reported thefts, trespassing, and activities they deemed suspicious to police and posted on the Satilla Shores Facebook page and Nextdoor account.[46] Three break-ins or thefts were reported. On December 8, 2019, a Satilla Shores neighbor reported rifles stolen from their unlocked car. Police records next reported a theft on December 28, 2019. On January 1, 2020, Travis McMichael filed a report of a firearm stolen from his unlocked truck.[47][48]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery#Prior_thefts_and_trespassing_incidents_reported

vikorr wrote:

All of that..from a former police officer and prosecutions investigator...I'd say there was malicious intent right from the start.

What is malicious about confronting someone who you suspect of theft?

vikorr wrote:

He calls 911, and tells them he's armed up because he saw the 'suspect' reach into his pants some time previously...given McMichaels habit of re-interpreting innocent actions, the poor victims was probably re-adjusting himself...if McMichael saw this at all. Nothing in the victims body language, dress, or activities suggested he was armed....except, oh wait...he's black...so saying this seems purely self serving so that McMichael could do what he wanted to do.

Now if somehow McMichael did honestly think these things and it all just went wrong...you might have a case for manslaughter.

The evidence is consistent with him thinking those things, and I know of no evidence for any more sinister motivation.

vikorr wrote:

But the way he described a black man who was just jogging (he's haulting ass. He's running!) flat out screams of racism..

How so?

vikorr wrote:

And his followup actions do seem malicious.

What actions seem malicious?

2 Replies

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know