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

Travis McMichael opened fire as soon as the victim rounded the corner.

He would have not have had time to determine if the victim was 'charging at him'. He had space to do so, but did not wait to determine this. Your interpretation of events is very biased.

It looks to me like the jogger is charging at him when the first shot is fired.

The good thing is the woman was filmed by her victim calling the cops on him, and the vid became viral as soon as he posted ir, so now she's being shamed all over, lost her job and gave the dog to a rescue center.

Again - a biased interpretation. The timing doesn't allow for such a conclusion. Nor can you see what the poor victim was doing to draw such a conclusion. Your conclusion is based purely on vicinity (which doesn't mean much by itself) and the word of the white man.

But you can say, evidentially based that:
- the victim was already in fear for his life from the McMichaels, just prior to his reaching the truck (he started zig-zagging); and
- Travis opened fire as soon as the victim turned the corner of the truck; and
- there was clear space between them

I disagree.



"Turning the corner" means he was running at Travis McMichael instead of running on down the road.

Your justification for using lethal force is that of 'the threat':

- in reality, we can only say that the victim, on turning the corner of the truck, was running roughly in the direction of Jnr. His trajectory in relation to Travis isn't 100% clear (he could have been running at a diagonal) until after the first shot , where he obviously goes to try and take the gun off Travis.

- upon turning a corner, there is insufficient time for Jnr to determine if the victim is a threat (eg which direction the victim is actually going to run). Jnr just opens fire immediately.

- Jnr had space and could have waited a little longer to determine if the victim was indeed charging him (having a shotgun, this shouldn't be an issue), but doesn't wait to make this determination

This all disregards of course, that the real threat to life was held in the hands of the McMichaels (and obviously caused the victim to fear for his life). The victim was unarmed.

If they can determine which shot was which, the angle of the wound from the first shot will show which direction the jogger was going relative to Travis McMichael when the shot was fired.

I believe I read one of the investigators saying something about the angle of a shot determining a lot about whether there should be charges and what they should be. That is likely what he meant.

Waiting to fire when someone is charging at you can be fatal. Note how the jogger did not break off his attack until after he received a second blast to the chest.

Travis and Gregory McMichael didn't know that the jogger was unarmed. And since he could potentially take the shotgun from Travis, he was still a threat even if he had been known to be unarmed.

Just observing your miserable behavior.

My interpretation would be 'the angle of the shots can help determine if they were telling the truth about the timing and sequence of events'...

Technically, if this were a simple matter - I'd say that there might be something to this. I hold out little hope that this can help anyone - as bodies twisting all over the place don't make for 'this shot matches this event'.

It can be. But carrying a firearm in the open, then placing yourself in a position where you have no time but to 'take a wild guess' if a threat exists or not (and the level of threat) isn't acceptable either. Personally, I think these boys should have left it to the police, and then (hopefully) we wouldn't be having this discussion.

By the way, your responses keep using supposition:

- supposition saying they had to believe what they claimed to believe (no, they did not. It is just a claim by them. The surrounding evidence needs to be looked at, to see if their claims are both believable, and reasonable - and again, reasonable because if they wilfully ignored the lack of evidence etc, then their actions become malicious)
- supposition that Snr obviously believed the victim to be a fleeing jogger (no, he did not. He could only believe this if he wilfully ignored his lack of knowledge of any breakin that day, and wilfully ignored the lack of evidence making the victim an arrestable suspect)
- supposition that Snr was too dumb to understand his arrest powers, or what would stand up in court (despite him being a police officer, and then being hired as a DA's investigator)
- supposition they feared the victim had a firearm (but they have no legitimate reason to think a jogger, in jogging clothes, out jogging, has a firearm)
- supposition that the victim charged Travis before Travis opened fire
- supposition that Travis perceived a threat to his life
-etc

Each and every one of your suppositions ignores the surrounding evidence. Each of them ignores the overall picture formed by a man (Snr) who ignores:
- no breakin occuring that day (but Snr claims he's 'fleeing')
- ignores the victim being dressed in jogging gear, jogging, using a joggers gait (to accuse him of being a 'fleeing burglar')
- ignores the lack of evidence (ie. no evidence to make the victim arrestable)
- ignores the standards of proof required for an arrest
- ignores his training and knowledge
- ignores the extreme unlikelihood of the victim carrying a gun
- places himself in the road, on the high ground, with his son wielding a shotgun in the open
- ignores how this would seem to a black man out jogging (seriously, it is incredibly easy to see what this would look like to the victim)

You have replied to individual pieces, but not the whole. The whole needs to be taken into account when interpreting these events (as the events we are talking about don't happen independent of a persons decision making). Supposition about the maliciousness (or not) really needs to take these things, as a whole, into account.

The amount of things Snr had to wilfully ignore to do what he did is breathtaking. What explains the sheer breadth of things he had to ignore? The only answer I can come to, is malicious intent. Stupidity in this matter, for Snr, isn't credible in the least, at all.

America is a civilized country. We are not a third-world hellhole like Italy and South Africa. People in America are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

This means that Travis and Gregory McMichael do not have to prove that they lacked malice. Rather, it means that other people have to prove that they had malice.

Such proof requires evidence, and so far there has been no such evidence. Disagreement with their terminology and their conclusions is not evidence of malice. Neither are suppositions about what they knew and whether they intentionally disregarded what they did know.


Pleas to look at the totality of the claimed evidence (instead of considering whether the claims are valid) are a common argument when people are trying to say that someone is guilty in the absence of evidence.

A huge volume of unproven claims adds up to no evidence no matter how great the volume is.

That's because I see zero relevance to this fact.

He had no way of knowing that there had not just been another break-in.



Sure it does. He knew there was a burglar preying on the neighborhood. He thought the jogger was probably the burglar.



I also have Travis McMichael's 911 call about the jogger from a couple weeks previous to the shooting.

And I am considering the video of the incident.



I know of no evidence that contradicts their explanation. The evidence that I do know of matches their explanation quite well.



Not key in the manner that you think.

If his beliefs had been reasonable then he would not have committed any crime at all.

The unreasonableness of his beliefs is what makes it manslaughter.



Gregory McMichael did neither of those things. He did not "hunt down and kill" anyone. Travis McMichael was the one who opened fire. And unless the angle of the first shot from the autopsy results or some of the additional unreleased video shows differently, it looks like Travis only opened fire when the jogger guy charged at him.



That would be the question if we were talking about the difference between "manslaughter" and "no crime at all".

It's not really related to the difference between manslaughter and murder.



That is incorrect. We can look at what actually happened.

In this case what clearly happened is people tried to confront someone who they suspected of being a burglar.



I know of no evidence that contradicts their claims. The evidence that I do know of matches their claims quite well.



Maybe he did. But I don't see any evidence that he did so willfully.



That's pretty unlikely given that Travis and Gregory McMichael aren't even being charged with malicious murder.

The case is likely to hinge on whether or not it counts as aggravated assault to brandish a shotgun, since that is what the charges against them actually are.

If the legislature pulls the rug out from under the case by changing the law retroactively (I've no idea whether the proposed changes will be made retroactive), there may not be any case at all.



So far I've not seen any evidence of malice.



A DA's investigator is not likely to be conducting many arrests. I don't know that a good understanding of the definition of "suspect" is necessary for the job.

He hasn't been a police officer for more than 30 years. And he had actually lost his arrest powers as a DA's investigator because he had not kept current on his training.



He had no way of knowing that there hadn't just been another burglary.



Gregory McMichael didn't "hunt down and kill" anyone. Travis McMichael was the one who opened fire. And unless the angle of the first shot from the autopsy results or some of the additional unreleased video shows differently, it looks like Travis only opened fire when the jogger guy charged at him.

I've yet to see evidence that he knew as much about the law as you claim. It's been more than 30 years since he was a police officer. The definition of "suspect" is not something that an investigator for the DA is likely to frequently deal with. His arrest powers had actually been suspended due to his lack of recent training.

Even if he did know the definition of "suspect" maybe he legitimately felt that the jogger guy fit the definition.



It looks like the jogger guy was charging at Travis McMichael on the video.



Probably so.



I've yet to see any evidence that they were trying to conduct a citizens arrest as opposed to merely questioning the jogger guy.

I'm not saying that they weren't attempting a citizens arrest, but I've certainly not seen it established that this is what they were doing.

I've also not seen it established that he had much of this legal knowledge that you keep referring to. An investigator for a lawyer is not a lawyer. It's been more than 30 years since he was a police officer. His training as an investigator for the DA was so out of date that his arrest powers had been suspended.



I do not see how this evidence is relevant to my point.



I see no contradiction between any evidence and the claims of Travis and Gregory McMichael.

You have no way to prove that. 2 white folks chasing down a black guy doing nothing but jogging. They are both guilty of murder because their actions led to his death. Had they not chased them, he would still be alive.

Don't blame a victim for dying. Blame the assholes that killed him.

Unless the angle of the first shot from the autopsy results or some of the additional unreleased video shows differently, it looks like Travis McMichael only opened fire when the jogger guy charged at him.

Without the attack, there would have been no self defense from the attack.



That makes them guilty of manslaughter, not murder. They had no intent to kill anyone.

It sounds like she should sue her former employer for wrongful termination.

sounds like rightful termination to me.

How is calling the police on someone at all related to her job?

She was taped on the phone lying and saying he was assaulting her when clearly he was not assaulting her. She claimed to the police he WAS assaulting her. She's on the phone video saying he wwas and he plainly was not. She says he's black and assaulting her and he plainly was black and was NOT assaulting her. She worked for a private company at their pleasure. Their assets are provided by people of all colors. Probable bias against some of their potential customers is certainly ample reason to fire her.

Is armed protest by African Americans treated differently? History says yes.
Law and order has long been enforced selectively

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/05/21/is-armed-protest-by-african-americans-treated-differently-history-says-yes/
Image without a caption

By Michael Sierra-Arévalo

Michael Sierra-Arévalo is an incoming assistant professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin. His current book project explores the causes and consequences of U.S. policing structured around danger, violence, and death.
May 21, 2020 at 5:00 a.m. CDT

In recent weeks, groups of angry, armed white men gathered in multiple states to protest stay-at-home orders and business closures brought on by the coronavirus pandemic. In Michigan, neither force nor legal action met gun-toting, body-armor-clad men — standing shoulder to shoulder, many with no protective mask — who were breaking the law by violating emergency orders designed to protect public health. When asked about the armed protesters, a Michigan police spokesperson stipulated it was perfectly legal to carry firearms so long as they were openly displayed with “lawful intent.”

But “lawful intent” is not assumed of all Americans. In 1967, Black Panther Party members entered the California State Capitol with rifles, shotguns and revolvers openly and legally displayed. They were there to protest a bill to outlaw such open carry of firearms; the bill was, not coincidentally, spurred by fear over Black Panthers patrolling their Oakland communities with firearms to prevent rampant police brutality.

Unlike the armed protesters in Michigan, the Panthers were removed by state police and taken into custody. One officer assured reporters the Panthers were not under arrest and that this was a only a precautionary measure to “check them all out [...] and check out all these weapons.” In reality, the Panthers were charged with a variety of offenses, including conspiracy to disrupt a legislative session. Later that year, the Mulford Act was signed into law by then-Gov. Ronald Reagan, outlawing the open carry of firearms in California and preventing further armed protest by the Panthers.

This vigorous state response reveals how notions of “law and order” are selectively enforced. Whereas armed, white protesters in 2020 were met with the calm restraint of police and the full-throated support of the sitting president, the protest and activism of minority groups like the Panthers is all too often framed as a threat to public order and quashed by political leaders and police officers alike.

Panther activism was frequently silenced with extreme force. In the dawn hours of Dec. 4, 1969, Chicago police — acting on a tip from an FBI informant — raided a West Side apartment to execute a search warrant for illegal weapons. The police entered with guns blazing, and Fred Hampton, the 21-year old chairman of the Illinois Black Panther Party, was shot dead while lying in bed next to his pregnant girlfriend. Mark Clark, another Panther, was also killed. The surviving Panthers, four seriously wounded, were charged with attempted murder, armed violence and a variety of weapons offenses.

Only after it was revealed that Chicago police fabricated evidence to support their narrative of being attacked by the Panthers were the charges dropped. And though Chicago police involved with the raid were indicted by a grand jury, all charges against them were eventually dismissed. It was not until 1983 that Hampton’s estate would receive a $1.8 million dollar settlement for the violation of the Panthers’ civil rights.

Just four days after Hampton was murdered, police raided the Black Panthers’ headquarters in Los Angeles to serve a search warrant for illegal weapons. More than 350 police officers, including the newly formed Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) unit, descended on the 13 occupants of Panther headquarters. The officers fired over 5,000 rounds during the ensuing firefight. A helicopter and tank supported the assault and explosives were detonated on the roof of the building. The raid was so egregious that a jury later acquitted the accused Panthers of almost all charges brought by prosecutors, including assault with a deadly weapon and conspiracy to murder a police officer.

This pattern of state violence reflected and perpetuated the racialized fear of crime and violence that suffused the 1960s. Political leaders such as Barry Goldwater and Richard Nixon invoked the language of law and order to fan the flames of moral panic and demonize antiwar protesters and “black extremists” like the Panthers.

This rhetoric had long-term policy consequences. In 1971, Nixon’s calls for increased enforcement coalesced into a bipartisan War on Drugs that would metastasize into mass incarceration over the next 30 years. On the heels of calls by Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush to address violent gangs and the “crack epidemic” with more enforcement, Democratic lawmakers also doubled down on law and order. At the signing of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, for example, President Bill Clinton invoked the law-and-order rhetoric of decades past, proclaiming, “Without responsibility, without order, without lawfulness, there is no freedom.” This legislation expanded the criminal justice system to an unprecedented scale, providing $10 billion dollars for prisons and billions more to hire 100,000 new police officers across the United States.

The creation of the “1033 Program” in 1997 further expanded federal support for local police and helped turn the militarized tactics deployed against the Panthers in 1969 into daily operations across the United States. This program provided police with extraordinary access to military equipment for little or no cost, supercharging the nationwide proliferation of SWAT teams. Though created decades earlier to address high-risk hostage situations or bank robberies, these militarized police units became a standard tool in low-level drug enforcement throughout the late 1980s and 1990s. Today, these SWAT operations continue to be concentrated in poor, minority communities long targeted by law-and-order policies.

Though one would hope that such injustices were relegated to the past, our present is one in which the constitutional rights of citizens are still selectively protected and assumptions of lawful intent are not given to everyone. In 2016, hundreds gathered in Standing Rock, S.D., to protest the construction of the Dakota Access pipeline. The protesters were unarmed, but police responded with tear gas, rubber bullets, fire hoses and sound weapons. Over 100 protesters were arrested and hundreds more were injured. In the years since, 22 states have passed new laws to restrict and criminalize protest; several of these laws explicitly target protest around “critical infrastructure” and “pipelines.”

Yet law enforcement showed decidedly more restraint during the 2014 standoff between the federal Bureau of Land Management and Cliven Bundy, a disgruntled Nevada rancher who refused to pay fines incurred after illegally grazing his cattle on federal land. After declaring a “range war,” Bundy was joined by hundreds of supporters who, with guns in hand, forced bureau agents to give up their efforts to seize Bundy’s cattle. Despite the assault of federal agents during the days-long standoff, the Bureau of Land Management retreated out of concern for the safety of its agents and the public. Though Bundy was eventually arrested, all charges against him were dismissed in early 2018.

These inconsistencies in the use of state violence should not be interpreted as justification for more enforcement or more severe punishment of protest writ large. We need more police restraint, more protection of peaceful protest, not less. Nonetheless, the past and present provide clear evidence that appeals to law and order are and always have been constructed and enforced strategically. Today’s stay-at-home protesters, secure in their knowledge that their armed intimidation will come with little if any cost, are proof of this long tradition and its enduring hypocrisy.

She did not say anything about any assault. What she said was that she was being threatened.

The statement "look, if you're going to do what you want, I'm going to do what I want, but you're not going to like it" could certainly be taken as a threat.

I gotta say, if someone said that to me and then made a move at one of my cats, they'd find themselves looking down the barrel of a gun.

So, no lies on her end. She should sue. She'll get a good bit of cash from them. Probably not enough to retire and never work again, but maybe enough to buy a nice sports car.