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

@oralloy,

Kinda bullshit your claim the mcmichaels acted in self defese. Investigator says they chased him and hit him with a truck before they shot him.

Quote:

Ahmaud Arbery was hit with a truck before he died, and his killer allegedly used a racial slur, investigator testifies

By Eliott C. McLaughlin, CNN

Updated 9:51 AM ET, Thu June 4, 2020

Now Playing
Man who recorded fatal...
Source: CNN
Man who recorded fatal Ahmaud Arbery shooting arrested 03:19
(CNN)William Bryan told investigators he heard Travis McMichael use a racial epithet after fatally shooting Ahmaud Arbery in Glynn County, Georgia, a Georgia Bureau of Investigation agent testified Thursday during preliminary hearings.
Bryan told police McMichael said "f***ing n***er" after three blasts from McMichael's shotgun left Arbery dead in February the streets of the Satilla Shores neighborhood, Assistant Special Agent in Charge Richard Dial said.
Body camera footage also showed a Confederate flag sticker on the toolbox of McMichael's truck, Dial said.
The allegations came as Dial outlined the events that led to Arbery's death and told the court that before Arbery was shot, the three men charged in his murder engaged in an elaborate chase, hitting the 25-year-old jogger with a truck as he repeatedly tried to avoid them.

Content by CNN Underscored
Get meat delivered to your doorstep with these services
Dreaming of an indulgent porterhouse for two? Want to be surprised by a mixture of tasty meats, monthly?These delivery services will keep you well-fed as long as you like.

As Travis and Gregory McMichael attempted to head him off, Arbery turned and ran past the truck of Bryan, who filmed the killing, and Bryan struck Arbery with the side of his truck, Dial said.
The new details of the final moments of Arbery's life emerged amid a week of nationwide protests over another killing -- that of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis -- and demonstrators have also called for justice in Arbery's case.
Investigators found a swipe from a palm print on the rear door of Bryan's truck, cotton fibers near the truck bed that "we attribute to contact with Mr. Arbery" and a dent below the fibers, he said.
Though Bryan's attorney has contested allegations his client took part in the killing, Dial said Bryan first became involved by yelling to the McMichaels, "Do you got him?" when he saw them chasing the 25-year-old jogger. The McMichaels and Bryan have not entered pleas, but lawyers for all three men have proclaimed their innocence.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

another of your houses of cards falls apart around you.

0 Replies

Maybe they can use the ,I feared for my life because he hit my tuck excuse.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Kinda bullshit your claim the mcmichaels acted in self defese. Investigator says they chased him and hit him with a truck before they shot him.

I think they are saying that the guy who filmed it was the one who hit the jogger with his truck.

I'll have to think about this new evidence for awhile before I decide whether and how it affects my assessment of the case.

One cool thing is, it looks like my analysis of the order of shots was spot on:

"A close examination of the video of the shooting shows the first shot was to Arbery's chest, the second was to his hand, and the third was to his chest again before he collapsed in the road, Dial said."

https://apnews.com/7122aaf2c54ed22590a5b8d32565a58f

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Just so glad to hear you made a correct analysis of the order of shots fired by racist thugs to murder an innocent man. kudos.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Breaking news at this hour:
BREAKING NEWS: Judge rules there is enough evidence to try 3 suspects on murder charges in fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery. Details to come.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Just so glad to hear you made a correct analysis of the order of shots fired by racist thugs to murder an innocent man. kudos.

Facts are what I do. Cool

oralloy wrote:

I'll have to think about this new evidence for awhile before I decide whether and how it affects my assessment of the case.

I've finished digesting the new data. I think the fact that they struck the jogger guy first tilts the balance towards murder.

Of course, I haven't heard their defense yet. More could come out in trial. But based on what I currently know I'd say it was murder.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

That is incorrect. It is a fact.

Once you've walked up to a woman who doesn't know you, in a deserted area, threatened her, and tried to lure her pet away from her, the only possible way to end the menace that she feels is to go away and leave her alone.

Which opinion of yours is based on your desire to ignore the obvious.

If you can reasonably explain why any other person in her position:
- cannot possibly recognise how calm he was, how reasonable his tone was, and how he made no move towards her, and that he showed signs of a clear conscience
- cannot possibly talk to him to clarify his intent
- cannot possibly engage in conflict management

...then you would come somewhere within the ballpark of "the only possible way to end the menace that she feels is to go away and leave her alone."

But the simple fact is his behaviour on the video was conducive to resolving the situation calmly, and many people would engage in conflict management in such a situation. Many people would recognise that he was no threat at the time he started recording, talking reasonably, and making not move at all towards her. Many people would ask themselves why that calm, reasonable behaviour is so at odds with the vague threat and ask questions to clarify things. Many people would end up talking to find out what his deal was. Others of course, would just walk away.

That you don't want to comprehend this, doesn't change the reality of it.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

If you can reasonably explain why any other person in her position:
- cannot possibly recognise how calm he was, how reasonable his tone was, and how he made no move towards her, and that he showed signs of a clear conscience
- cannot possibly talk to him to clarify his intent
- cannot possibly engage in conflict management

Once someone establishes themselves as a likely axe murderer in the mind of a woman in an isolated area where help is remote, there is no sitting down to have a nice discussion with her.

If you truly can't understand this, I imagine that you get sprayed with mace a lot.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Once someone establishes themselves as a likely axe murderer

This too, is purely your opinion. It's a self serving one at that. And one that once again, relies on ignoring his very reasonable behaviour on the video (axe murderers don't behave that way)

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

This too, is purely your opinion.

No it isn't. He approached her in a remote area where help was far away. He threatened her. And he tried to lure her pet away from her.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I note that you couldn't come up with any reasonable explanations for why she couldn't engage in conflict management, or recognise how nonthreatening his behaviour was...so you came up with an unreasonable explanation (Axe murderer).

Quote:

No it isn't. He approached her in a remote area where help was far away. He threatened her. And he tried to lure her pet away from her.

No one has disputed this - though the 'threat' was vague. Your opinion was found in the rest of your writing.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

...so you came up with an unreasonable explanation

I came up with the actual explanation.

vikorr wrote:

Axe murderer

Axe murderer is a figure of speech. I could have said "serial killer", "psychopath", or any other term for "creepy guy who means to do her harm".

3 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

I came up with the actual explanation.

Which Axe killer explanation was unreasonable.

Quote:

Axe murderer is a figure of speech. I could have said "serial killer", "psychopath", or any other term for "creepy guy who means to do her harm".

And you correct your unreasonableness here. But now to apply it to what you actually said:

Quote:

Once someone establishes themselves as a creepy guy who means to do her harm in an isolated area where help is remote, there is no sitting down to have a nice discussion with her.

...but this guy was in bird watching gear in a nature preserve and (in the video) was calm, rational, not making any threatening moves, letting her vent, agreeing she should call the cops, showing signs of a clear conscience...

...there was every opportunity for her to:

- recognise how unthreatening his actions and tone was
- ask herself why they were so reasonable and unthreatening
- ask herself why that jarred so much with a vague 'threat'
- talk to him, find out what his deal was, ask questions etc

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

...but this guy was in bird watching gear in a nature preserve and (in the video) was calm, rational, not making any threatening moves, letting her vent, agreeing she should call the cops, showing signs of a clear conscience...

Doesn't matter. He had already placed himself in the axe murderer category.

vikorr wrote:

...there was every opportunity for her to:

- recognise how unthreatening his actions and tone was
- ask herself why they were so reasonable and unthreatening
- ask herself why that jarred so much with a vague 'threat'
- talk to him, find out what his deal was, ask questions etc

There was no such opportunity.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Doesn't matter. He had already placed himself in the axe murderer category.

A self serving interpretation that has no basis in reality. Nothing he did indicated he was an axe murderer. He had no axe. He made no move to murder her. Your use of this 'expression' is purely an attempt to create more credibility for your argument (by associating it with murderers) while avoiding reality (he issued a vague threat and tried to give her dog a treat, which could be viewed as threatening - which is the only unarguable reality about any perceived menace)

Quote:

There was no such opportunity.

An utter denial of reality. In that video:
- She could very easily have said "What are you doing?". This is fact.
- She wasn't voiceless. She could talk (as she was doing so). This is fact.
- There was time to ask him a question. This is fact.
- There was space to ask him a question. This is fact (the only person who closed the space, was her. She walked away, made a call, had space to talk - and did talk - she just didn't ask him questions)
- He was listening to her (as his reasoned responses show). This if fact
- his tone and words were reasonable. This is fact (you only argue he should have acted by moving away)
- she could have recognised his calm tone, his making no movements towards her, his indicators of clear conscience. All humans are capable of making such observations, even under stress.
- she could have thought 'why does his reasonable behaviour not match the vague threat he made'. All average humans are capable of this.

You talk about dealing in reality, but are in complete denial.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

so you make slimy, slanderous, vicious, racist absolutely evidence less paranoid characterizations of Christian and then after slandering him you say it's just a figure of speech. Why didn't you call him a 'nature lover concerned onlywith the well being of animals in the park requesting entirely reasonably she show her concern for terrorized animals by leashing her dog as the law requires. That accurately captures what we know of him and his actions.
all the rest of your charges are vicious opinion, with a murderous spin placed on it.

o

1 Reply

@oralloy,

there is no actuality in your "explanation", just hyperbolic spin.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

That is incorrect. The thug threatened her and then tried to lure her dog away from her.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

A self serving interpretation that has no basis in reality.

That is incorrect. He told her that she was not going to like what he was about to do, and then he tried to lure her pet away from her.

vikorr wrote:

An utter denial of reality.

That is incorrect. Once you establish yourself as a likely axe murderer, women are not going to be interested in sitting down to have a conversation with you in a remote area.

2 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know