Ahmaud Arbery Shooting

[CardinalBacker]

11 minutes ago, Big girl said:

He was within his right to jog, and to fight for his life. Did you watch the video?

You need to look a little deeper. The whole “he was just out for a jog” narrative had been pretty much disproven. 
The surveillance video from outside the construction site shows him walk up, look both ways, then go into the house. They’ll only show us seven seconds of a three minute video, and it only shows him looking around. Outside surveillance cameras capture him as he’s leaving and he’s confronted from across the street by a figure who turns out to be the cameraman. Then Mr Arbery sprints away from the scene. That’s the only time we see him “jog” other than in that final confrontation.  
It’s okay for us to have different perceptions after watching the same clip. Our perceptions are based on our life experiences. But people keep parroting “he was just out for a jog! He was hunted down and killed” and that’s just plainly not the case.  
Did the actions of those two men lead to the death. Partially, I believe.  But I also believe that the actions of Mr Arbery contributed to his own death as well.  For a case that’s so racially charged, it’s kinda ironic that nothing is black and white.  

 

[baddog]

32 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

You need to look a little deeper. The whole “he was just out for a jog” narrative had been pretty much disproven. 
The surveillance video from outside the construction site shows him walk up, look both ways, then go into the house. They’ll only show us seven seconds of a three minute video, and it only shows him looking around. Outside surveillance cameras capture him as he’s leaving and he’s confronted from across the street by a figure who turns out to be the cameraman. Then Mr Arbery sprints away from the scene. That’s the only time we see him “jog” other than in that final confrontation.  
It’s okay for us to have different perceptions after watching the same clip. Our perceptions are based on our life experiences. But people keep parroting “he was just out for a jog! He was hunted down and killed” and that’s just plainly not the case.  
Did the actions of those two men lead to the death. Partially, I believe.  But I also believe that the actions of Mr Arbery contributed to his own death as well.  For a case that’s so racially charged, it’s kinda ironic that nothing is black and white.  

 

I like the way you think.

[CardinalBacker]

Here’s an example of the way that the media is fanning the flames of racial discord. The headline reads “Ahmaud Arbery’s killers had another incident with a black man 12 days before.” I’m thinking, “ok... this is gonna be the type of thing that will enable federal prosecutors to credibly seek hate crime charges against the shooters.”

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

The story basically says that there was a previous confrontation at the construction site involving Ahmaud Arbery, the cops, and the shooters 12 days prior to the deadly co frontation.  The headline doesn’t mention that the “incident with a black man” was actually a prior incident with the decedent. 

People have a vested interest in pitting black against white every chance that they get. 

[SmashMouth]

Pick sides if you want, but no way in Hell should the young man have been confronted with a shotgun if all he did was snoop around a construction site. Cmon man! I carry 24/7, but if I pull my weapon it’s with the intention of killing someone. I’m not prepared to kill someone that I “suspect may have” done something unlawful at a construction site. What’s the worst thing. Might have stole a hammer? He’s jogging down the road for Christ’s sake! 

[CardinalBacker]

Just now, SmashMouth said:

Pick sides if you want, but no way in Hell should the young man have been confronted with a shotgun if all he did was snoop around a construction site. Cmon man! I carry 24/7, but if I pull my weapon it’s with the intention of killing someone. I’m not prepared to kill someone that I “suspect may have” done something unlawful at a construction site. What’s the worst thing. Might have stole a hammer? He’s jogging down the road for Christ’s sake!

That’s a good point... Here’s my problem.  Based on what happened, I’m going to assume that Mr Arbery would have been even MORE likely to attack the people trying to stop him had they been unarmed. 
 

And please, stop pushing the “he was out for a jog” narrative. Much like “hands up, don’t shoot” it has been proven to be patently untrue. 
 

Mr Arbery was wearing khaki shorts and tennis shoes (not boots, as some would allege) when surveillance captures the image of him walk on to the property, look surreptitiously both ways before hurrying into the house. He is seen sprinting from the site upon being confronted by the cameraman from the final confrontation.  It is also becoming clear that this was not the first time Mr Arbery has been chased from the site based on police records from 2/11. 
 

My position has evolved. When I first saw the final confrontation video, it seemed to me to be a vigilante/cowboy/wannabe cop gone wrong scenario. More evidence has kind of made me less supportive of the initial reporting. 
 

 

This is unedited surveillance footage from across the street from the construction site. Skip to 13:30 and you’ll see Mr Arbery enter the screen from the right side. He is absolutely not jogging. He walks past the house, pauses (some say looks both ways, I can’t tell), then hurries into the house. He comes back out, circles behind the house, and disappears from view. 
At 14:18 we see another person enter our view from the left side of the screen. That person has been identified as the person who filmed the final confrontation and also phoned 911 during the chase. He claims to have confronted Mr Arbery and told him that the police were being called at that time. THIS is when we see Mr Arbery sprint up the street... look quick, because he IS actually running at this point. 
 

Combined with the fact that there was already a confrontation at the same site 12 days before involving the same parties, a confrontation as the young man is leaving the neighborhood doesn’t seem so irrational. 

An interview with the homeowner today said that he didn’t want the outcome that we got, but he did install the surveillance system in regards to repeated entries into his site, and also that the system notified him on 2/11 that someone was in the property and at that point the owner (English) contacted another neighbor (Perez) to investigate. Travis (the shooter) and his dad were also that night and Perez stated that he believed the black man from 2/11 was Arbery. There was a police report confirming all of this, despite repeated claims that there were no other burglaries reported in the neighborhood in the last few months besides the gun stolen from Travis’ truck in January. 
 

So, if I’m a retired cop/investigator who had a gun stolen from a family members vehicle recently....AND a person (Arbery) whose probation for a previous firearm offense I had personally worked to revoke is now appeared multiple times in a house that doesn’t belong to him... I’m probably gonna arm myself before we do any business, if you know what I mean. 
 

I’m not making this stuff up I can provide links to details if it helps anybody. I’m not trying to change anybody’s mind, I’m just trying to illustrate a different perspective. 

[SmashMouth]

2 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

That’s a good point... Here’s my problem.  Based on what happened, I’m going to assume that Mr Arbery would have been even MORE likely to attack the people trying to stop him had they been unarmed. 
 

And please, stop pushing the “he was out for a jog” narrative. Much like “hands up, don’t shoot” it has been proven to be patently untrue. 
 

Mr Arbery was wearing khaki shorts and tennis shoes (not boots, as some would allege) when surveillance captures the image of him walk on to the property, look surreptitiously both ways before hurrying into the house. He is seen sprinting from the site upon being confronted by the cameraman from the final confrontation.  It is also becoming clear that this was not the first time Mr Arbery has been chased from the site based on police records from 2/11. 
 

My position has evolved. When I first saw the final confrontation video, it seemed to me to be a vigilante/cowboy/wannabe cop gone wrong scenario. More evidence has kind of made me less supportive of the initial reporting. 
 

 

This is unedited surveillance footage from across the street from the construction site. Skip to 13:30 and you’ll see Mr Arbery enter the screen from the right side. He is absolutely not jogging. He walks past the house, pauses (some say looks both ways, I can’t tell), then hurries into the house. He comes back out, circles behind the house, and disappears from view. 
At 14:18 we see another person enter our view from the left side of the screen. That person has been identified as the person who filmed the final confrontation and also phoned 911 during the chase. He claims to have confronted Mr Arbery and told him that the police were being called at that time. THIS is when we see Mr Arbery sprint up the street... look quick, because he IS actually running at this point. 
 

Combined with the fact that there was already a confrontation at the same site 12 days before involving the same parties, a confrontation as the young man is leaving the neighborhood doesn’t seem so irrational. 

An interview with the homeowner today said that he didn’t want the outcome that we got, but he did install the surveillance system in regards to repeated entries into his site, and also that the system notified him on 2/11 that someone was in the property and at that point the owner (English) contacted another neighbor (Perez) to investigate. Travis (the shooter) and his dad were also that night and Perez stated that he believed the black man from 2/11 was Arbery. There was a police report confirming all of this, despite repeated claims that there were no other burglaries reported in the neighborhood in the last few months besides the gun stolen from Travis’ truck in January. 
 

So, if I’m a retired cop/investigator who had a gun stolen from a family members vehicle recently....AND a person (Arbery) whose probation for a previous firearm offense I had personally worked to revoke is now appeared multiple times in a house that doesn’t belong to him... I’m probably gonna arm myself before we do any business, if you know what I mean. 
 

I’m not making this stuff up I can provide links to details if it helps anybody. I’m not trying to change anybody’s mind, I’m just trying to illustrate a different perspective. 

Careful. I never pushed the “he was out for a jog narrative”. I said he was jogging down the road...implying he couldn’t have stolen much more than a door knob or a tape measure if he was immediately after jogging down the road after leaving a construction site. If you want to know the narrative I’m pushing it’s this:

If you plan on killing some poor bastard that may or may not have stolen a gun out of a neighbor’s truck a month or so ago, you’re a friggin murderer. Whether the law is on your side or not...

[tvc184]

9 hours ago, 5GallonBucket said:

I believe the two men handled the situation poorly

but put yourself in the shooters place ...jogger is punching kicking wrestling with you. You have the gun....What are you thinking....

 

I can tell you what I’m thinking....this man is trying to get my gun from me and possibly do me great bodily harm

jogger ran around truck then towards the man with gun instead of running away.

jmo.

Again poor decisions by all involved

But can you lawful pull the gun in the first place as justified force? 
 

This wasn't a guy out rabbit hunting and some crazy guy charged him and tried to take his gun away. 
 

Pointing a gun at someone might be any one of a number of crimes, according to state law. If the man with the gun pulled it without justification, Arbery has the same right of self defense and stand your ground. 

[tvc184]

7 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

I’m not talking bad about you here... but I think you’ve illustrated a way of thinking that is prevalent regarding these incidents. 
 

There’s a segment of our population that believes that violence is an acceptable response to many, many situations, and that the person who is being attacked should simply take their beating. People are regularly beaten to death. People will often die because of injuries sustained from being knocked out and striking their head on the ground. An unarmed assault has a reasonable expectation of a deadly outcome. 
 

No one has to submit to a beating. There is a very real possibility that the person you intend to harm may kill you for attempting to injure them. Those are facts. 
 

To step back and say “oh, he was unarmed” doesn’t mean anything. I’m under no obligation to engage in unarmed combat with anybody. The simple fact that you are trying to hurt me gives me the right to protect myself by any means necessary.  Period.  

Well, I will disagree. You do not have the right to self defense by any means. You have a right to a reasonable and necessary defense. 

 Under your premise, if a guy tries to give you a bloody nose, you can kill him. 

 Good luck with that defense...

[SmashMouth]

9 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Well, I will disagree. You do not have the right to self defense by any means. You have a right to a reasonable and necessary defense. 

 Under your premise, if a guy tries to give you a bloody nose, you can kill him. 

 Good luck with that defense...

Exactly my point. Even further, why did you bring a gun? Like I said, if I’m breaking out my weapon, it’s to cause great bodily harm or death. I don’t aim at the knees when I’m at the practice range. Center mass shots with intent to stop my target.

[NetCat]

4 hours ago, stevenash said:

Is it my imagination or has the media totally refused to mention a prior history between those involved?

No it's not your imagination. 

[CardinalBacker]

23 minutes ago, SmashMouth said:

Careful. I never pushed the “he was out for a jog narrative”. I said he was jogging down the road...implying he couldn’t have stolen much more than a door knob or a tape measure if he was immediately after jogging down the road after leaving a construction site. If you want to know the narrative I’m pushing it’s this:

If you plan on killing some poor bastard that may or may not have stolen a gun out of a neighbor’s truck a month or so ago, you’re a friggin murderer. Whether the law is on your side or not...

If you watch the video the old man was trying to get his piece ready after the fight broke out. He wasn’t even locked and loaded. Which makes the whole “plan on killing some poor bastard” kinda exaggerated. The actual shooter had no choice but to shoot Mr Arbery once he started trying to take control of the weapon. What would have happened if there hadn’t been a struggle over the gun? We can only guess, but once that struggle started, somebody was getting shot, period. 

I don’t have all of the answers. I can’t help but think that the father/son duo (def the son) have some culpability in Mr Arbery’s demise. But I can’t ignore the evidence that clearly indicates that a portion of the blame also lies at Mr Arbery’s feet.  Just my opinion, worth no more than yours, my friend. 

[CardinalBacker]

34 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

But can you lawful pull the gun in the first place as justified force? 
 

This wasn't a guy out rabbit hunting and some crazy guy charged him and tried to take his gun away. 
 

Pointing a gun at someone might be any one of a number of crimes, according to state law. If the man with the gun pulled it without justification, Arbery has the same right of self defense and stand your ground. 

You definitely have a right to carry a gun. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I didn’t see the shotgun pointed at anybody. By the time confrontation really got started they were both in front of the truck and shielded from the camera view. 
 

The whole premise of self defense is debatable for both parties in my opinion. I don’t think that the shooter can claim SD because he basically set the stage for the confrontation. On the other hand, just holding a gun does not equate to brandishing or threatening, so I don’t know just what would qualify as just cause for Mr Arbery to initiate a physical struggle with the man holding the shotgun. And if the young man was in the commission of a crime (which I don’t believe) he wouldn’t be able to claim it either. You can’t show up to rob a bank with a pistol and then claim self defense if you kill a security guard who tries to shoot you. 

I have a nasty suspicion that the physical struggle was initiated out of a desire not to be apprehended by the same guy who was previously responsible for jailing the deceased. Once again, just my opinion. 
 

The only thing that’s clear is that this whole thing shouldn’t have happened. That doesn’t mean that the guy who survived is wrong.  

[CardinalBacker]

51 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Well, I will disagree. You do not have the right to self defense by any means. You have a right to a reasonable and necessary defense. 

 Under your premise, if a guy tries to give you a bloody nose, you can kill him. 

 Good luck with that defense...

Well, let’s just say that know I don’t fight that good.... and I don’t have an ASP handy.... or a tazer.... in your scenario I’m just supposed to take my beating?

If you attack me, I don’t have to say “oh, he’s punching me, but I’d better not use this stick. That wouldn’t be fair.”  That’s the criminal mindset that I can’t stand. “I’m committing a crime by attacking you, but there are a set of rules that you can’t break in the manner in which you respond to MY breaking of the rules. How dare you!”

A fight is when two people agree to combat to as a means to settle their differences. If one party is unwilling to participate in that combat, then what you have is an assault and THAT crime is what gives the victim the right to defend themself as they see fit. 
 

Probably five years ago there was a death at the furniture warehouse at the corner of I10 and MLK IN Beaumont. There was an dispute between the manager and an employee. The employee punched the manager one time.... the manager fell and struck his head on the concrete and died from his injury. I’m certain that the employee only wanted to give out a bloody nose, but look how it worked out. 
 

I repeat... ANY TIME YOU PUT YOUR HANDS ON ANOTHER PERSON, THERE IS A CHANCE THAT YOU WILL BE JUSTIFIABLY KILLED FOR DOING SO.  That’s the lesson that should be taught. 
 

I’m 47 now... that ground is a lot harder than it used to be and I don’t have enough cardio to protect myself for more than about 45 seconds. I’m not gonna mix it up with anybody.  So what do you think will happen if somebody decides to hurt me?

Somebody’s mama will be on the news crying about how her baby was unarmed. 

[SmashMouth]

43 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

You definitely have a right to carry a gun. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I didn’t see the shotgun pointed at anybody. By the time confrontation really got started they were both in front of the truck and shielded from the camera view. 
 

The whole premise of self defense is debatable for both parties in my opinion. I don’t think that the shooter can claim SD because he basically set the stage for the confrontation. On the other hand, just holding a gun does not equate to brandishing or threatening, so I don’t know just what would qualify as just cause for Mr Arbery to initiate a physical struggle with the man holding the shotgun. And if the young man was in the commission of a crime (which I don’t believe) he wouldn’t be able to claim it either. You can’t show up to rob a bank with a pistol and then claim self defense if you kill a security guard who tries to shoot you. 

I have a nasty suspicion that the physical struggle was initiated out of a desire not to be apprehended by the same guy who was previously responsible for jailing the deceased. Once again, just my opinion. 
 

1. The only thing that’s clear is that this whole thing shouldn’t have happened.
2. That doesn’t mean that the guy who survived is wrong.  

1. Agree on that one. 
2. Could go either way. 

[CardinalBacker]

The old man apparently let his peace officer certifications fall 8 years behind while he was an investigator for the DA’s office. Make no mistake.... these guys are clowns, too. 

[5GallonBucket]

8 hours ago, Big girl said:

Did you all watch the video? They persued him. Young white males are violent. They commit a majority of the school shootings.

Really. Hmmm I believe there has been many deadly crimes committed by all young races.....  been plenty in bmt.

 

they did Persue him...  U are right but can you tell me why

 

 

[5GallonBucket]

Who runs at a person that has a gun in hand and they don’t have one?

he wasn’t fighting for his life if he ran at the man who was holding the gun.

not one person on here is gonna run unarmed at someone who is armed!!!!!!

[Rez Ipsa]

25 minutes ago, 5GallonBucket said:

Who runs at a person that has a gun in hand and they don’t have one?

he wasn’t fighting for his life if he ran at the man who was holding the gun.

not one person on here is gonna run unarmed at someone who is armed!!!!!!

If you turn a corner and a guy has a gun and seems to want to use it on you, your only (slim) chance of survival is taking it away. Without expressing an opinion about the overall situation, I think Ahmed did what any reasonable person would/should do. If someone comes at me with a gun and they are only a few steps from me I'm assuming they are going to use it on me and I will spend what will probably be my last moments on earth trying to take that gun away.

[tvc184]

2 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

The old man apparently let his peace officer certifications fall 8 years behind while he was an investigator for the DA’s office. Make no mistake.... these guys are clowns, too. 

This guy was acting as a cop when he wasn’t one? Ouch!

 The DA’s office didn’t keep up with their employee records? 

 And then the update classes he missed... de-escalation, use of force..... 

Again.... ouch!!

[5GallonBucket]

6 hours ago, Rez Ipsa said:

If you turn a corner and a guy has a gun and seems to want to use it on you, your only (slim) chance of survival is taking it away. Without expressing an opinion about the overall situation, I think Ahmed did what any reasonable person would/should do. If someone comes at me with a gun and they are only a few steps from me I'm assuming they are going to use it on me and I will spend what will probably be my last moments on earth trying to take that gun away.

Your scenario is exactly right.  But that wasn’t this scenario. Ahmed is actually running in the direction of the truck the shooter gets out the truck then Ahmed turns right to go to passenger side of truck away from shooter then decides to go at shooter once past the truck.

[Kountzer]

19 hours ago, stevenash said:

Was going into the home under construction part of the jogging routine?

He didn't steal anything from the construction.  At most that was a misdemeanor, not worth the punishment of being blasted with a shotgun and a .357.  

[CardinalBacker]

20 minutes ago, Kountzer said:

He didn't steal anything from the construction.  At most that was a misdemeanor, not worth the punishment of being blasted with a shotgun and a .357.  

He wasn’t killed over a possible burglary. He was killed in a struggle over a gun.  
 

I’d wholeheartedly agree with you if those men pulled up and just blasted the kid... but that’s not what happened and you all want to keep pretending like the physical attack that preceded the shooting didn’t occur. 
 

[LumRaiderFan]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

[baddog]

On 5/13/2020 at 2:18 PM, Big girl said:

Did you all watch the video? They persued him. Young white males are violent. They commit a majority of the school shootings.

This was a school shooting?

[stevenash]

1 hour ago, baddog said:

This was a school shooting?

Are you an idoit if you spell persue in lieu of pursue?