Ahmaud Arbery - More details emerge

[ajohnstone]

While attention is elsewhere, more details are emerging in the killing of
Ahmaud Arbery which appear to contradict some of the claims made that he
was the instigator of the violence and McMichael was the one acting in
self-defence.

Arbery repeatedly reversed directions and even jumped into a ditch in a
desperate attempt to shake off his pursuers.

Some here have suggested Arbery was not hunted down

Travis McMichael then got out of his truck and confronted Arbery. He told
police he shot him in self-defense after Arbery refused his order to get
on the ground. Some had presumed that the first words exchanged were
that the McMasters on ly wished to speak with Arbery not to lie down on
the ground.

The first shot was to Arbery’s chest, the second was to his hand,
and the third was to his chest.

Some have assumed the first shot was to the hand as Arbery made a grab for
the shotgun (albeit it is not definitive proof that he did not make an
attempt to snatch or swing the shotgun away)

The investigator speculates that "Arbery's decision was to just try to get
away and when he felt like he could not escape, he chose to fight."

Bryan said he heard Travis McMaster use a racist epithet [f*cking Ni**er]
as he stood over Arbery’s body before police arrived and several
more racial slurs in messages were found on McMaster's phone as there were
on Bryan's phone that exhibited a "racist attitude" which likely played a
role in Bryan's decision to chase and help trap Arbery.

There is also evidence from social media and elsewhere that Travis
McMichael had used racial slurs in the past. McMichael, a former U.S.
Coast Guard boarding officer, once told a friend that he loved his job
because he "was on a boat and there weren't any Ni**ers anywhere.

Greg McMichael told police that “he didn’t know if Arbery
had stolen anything or not, but he had a gut feeling” that Arbery
had committed prior break-ins in the neighborhood.

These further details would not have emerged unless a video became public
and opinion pressed the legal system to take action.

https://news.yahoo.com/white-defendant-shooting-death-georgia-151627463.html

[JUDGE HOLDEN]

Was this an AA meeting?

[Bud]

On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 8:59:05 PM UTC-4, ajohnstone wrote:
> While attention is elsewhere, more details are emerging in the killing of
> Ahmaud Arbery which appear to contradict some of the claims made that he
> was the instigator of the violence and McMichael was the one acting in
> self-defence.
>
> Arbery repeatedly reversed directions and even jumped into a ditch in a
> desperate attempt to shake off his pursuers.
>
> Some here have suggested Arbery was not hunted down

Who disputed there was a pursuit. Just what are the rules of citizen`s
arrest, any idea?

From the Georgia DA`s report...

Third

It appears Travis McMichael,Greg McMichael, and Bryan William were
following, in pursuit a burglary suspect, with solid firsthand probable
cause, in their neighborhood, and asking/ telling him to stop. It appears
their intent was to stop and hold this criminal suspect until law
enforcement arrived. Under Georgia Law this is perfectly legal, OCGA 17 -4
-60 A private personmay arrest an offender if the offense is committed in
his presence or within his immediate knowledge . If the offense is a
felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private
person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion
.”


If the intent was to kill him, why then and not other times. Why didn`t
Greg McMicheals blast him with his .357 when Arbery ran right past him?

> Travis McMichael then got out of his truck and confronted Arbery. He told
> police he shot him in self-defense after Arbery refused his order to get
> on the ground. Some had presumed that the first words exchanged were
> that the McMasters on ly wished to speak with Arbery not to lie down on
> the ground.

You can hear some of it on the 911 call (things like "Stop" "Drop it"
"Dammit"). I imagine if they enhance it, it will yield more. It must be
that Greg McMichaels was in the process of talking with the dispatcher
when the altercation occurred (because that is what you do when you intend
to kill someone). It can`t be the phone of the guy following picking up
this dialog, he was too far back.

> The first shot was to Arbery’s chest, the second was to his hand,
> and the third was to his chest.

I thought the autopsy had the first shot to the hand.

> Some have assumed the first shot was to the hand as Arbery made a grab for
> the shotgun (albeit it is not definitive proof that he did not make an
> attempt to snatch or swing the shotgun away)
>
> The investigator speculates that "Arbery's decision was to just try to get
> away and when he felt like he could not escape, he chose to fight."

I speculate that Arbery didn`t want to be arrested.

> Bryan said he heard Travis McMaster use a racist epithet [f*cking Ni**er]
> as he stood over Arbery’s body before police arrived and several
> more racial slurs in messages were found on McMaster's phone as there were
> on Bryan's phone that exhibited a "racist attitude" which likely played a
> role in Bryan's decision to chase and help trap Arbery.

Bryan has been eager to throw the McMichaels under the bus to save his
own skin from the beginning.

> There is also evidence from social media and elsewhere that Travis
> McMichael had used racial slurs in the past.

Where is it and what is it? And how would it show that the McMicheals
would have acted differently had the suspect been white?

> McMichael, a former U.S.
> Coast Guard boarding officer, once told a friend that he loved his job
> because he "was on a boat and there weren't any Ni**ers anywhere.

Lots of blacks in the Coast Guard. I think George Floyd was.

> Greg McMichael told police that “he didn’t know if Arbery
> had stolen anything or not, but he had a gut feeling” that Arbery
> had committed prior break-ins in the neighborhood.

He saw Arbery something like 10 days before the shooting when the
neighbors were roused against a prowler. Other neighbors saw him also.

> These further details would not have emerged unless a video became public
> and opinion pressed the legal system to take action.

Still not hearing the McMichaels side of it.


> https://news.yahoo.com/white-defendant-shooting-death-georgia-151627463.html

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 8:59:05 PM UTC-4, ajohnstone wrote:

I hadn't seen much of the original video so I didn't have a strong opinion
one way or another about the case but if the things that were brought out
in court yesterday prove to be true, it certainly doesn't look good for
the accused.

What I'm wondering is why the selective outrage? Is it because the victim
was black and the killers were white? Is that worse than the countless
black victims who are killed by other blacks, many of the victims being
innocent and just going about their business just like Ahmaud Arbery. Are
they just as dead as Arbery? Are their killers any better than the ones
who killed Arbery? Are their friends and relatives any less hurt by the
loss.

If it proves that the allegations made in court yesterday prove to be
true, then Arbery's killers are truly vile scum. But so are the killers of
countless other innocent black victims regardless of the race of the
killers.

[Bud]

Nothing there that I see. The defense isn`t wasting time trying to get
this thrown out at the hearing (not possible that could happen anyway),
they aren`t tipping their hand, it has to be fought in court.

> What I'm wondering is why the selective outrage? Is it because the victim
> was black and the killers were white? Is that worse than the countless
> black victims who are killed by other blacks, many of the victims being
> innocent and just going about their business just like Ahmaud Arbery. Are
> they just as dead as Arbery? Are their killers any better than the ones
> who killed Arbery? Are their friends and relatives any less hurt by the
> loss.
>
> If it proves that the allegations made in court yesterday prove to be
> true, then Arbery's killers are truly vile scum. But so are the killers of
> countless other innocent black victims regardless of the race of the
> killers.

The defense didn`t play any of their cards. I know some of them from
looking at the case. I`ll mention some of the things I expect the defense
will use...

The events of about 10 days before the shooting when Arbery was in the
neighborhood up to no good. The "jogging" story was a lie from the get go,
and even the media has changed their tune from calling him a "jogger", to
just saying that his family and friends *say* he was jogging.

There is a text from the police asking the McMichaels help with the
apprehension of the prowler. Several robberies in the area.

Perez Diego is going to be a good witness for the McMicheals, unless he
gets intimidated. He said that when he saw Arbery in the street he
recognized him as the prowler they were chasing about 10 days prior to the
shooting. Apparently Arbery got in a car and fled. I`m a little fuzzy
about the details and chronology of all the events regarding the previous
time the neighborhood was roused against the prowler said to be Arbery.
The media really isn`t saying and the defense is apparently just waiting
to use it at the trial. They can`t win in the court of public opinion, so
why try, anything they produce that is good for the McMicheals will be
countered with "So what, they still shouldn`t have killed him". I think
they are saving their ammo for the trial.

This information will play heavily for the defense...

https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/crime/911-call-by-travis-mcmichael-two-weeks-before-ahmaud-arberys-killing-reveals-moments-after-confrontation/77-906d10fd-0e93-47a5-900b-94668571de41

Does he sound like a bloodthirsty racist? He lives right across the
street, if he didn`t have a gun on him he could have easily gotten one on
Feb 11th when this occurred. And this is evening, why is Arbery in the
neighborhood at night? Jogging?

The neighborhood was on high alert because of recent robberies and
prowling. That is the background to this event, and although the media
doesn`t care about the facts, the court will.

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

I prefaced all my remarks with "IF". I understand that only the
prosecution case was presented at the preliminary hearing but IF the
prosecution can prove what they allege, the defendants are in trouble.

The neighborhood may have been on high alert but that doesn't give the
defendants license to do any more than what the law allows. All states
have laws which dictate when a person may resort to deadly force. Their
guilt or innocence should depend on whether those laws were followed.

[Bud]

On Friday, June 5, 2020 at 5:15:01 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:

I found the article that mentioned the previous encounter with Arbery...

https://www.ajc.com/news/crime--law/suspects-arbery-shooting-had-earlier-neighborhood-confrontation/HGz6ZaFXYs3pkJhke22x4J/

[JUDGE HOLDEN]

On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 9:59:05 PM UTC-3, ajohnstone wrote:

Was there a second shooter? Why didn't he just put his knee on Arbery's
neck instead of wasting bullets?

[ajohnstone]

A piece of info i did not know but there is forensic evidence that
suggests the pick-up hit Arbery

"...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 fiber..."

> From the Georgia DA`s report...

> A DA who had to recuse himself from the case

> If the intent was to kill him, why then and not other times. Why didn`t
> Greg McMicheals blast him with his .357 when Arbery ran right past him?

How do you know that he did not try to take aim?

"Drop it"

Drop what?

>
> I thought the autopsy had the first shot to the hand.

The post is entitles MORE DETAILS EMERGE

> I speculate that Arbery didn`t want to be arrested.
>

For what crime since the only thing he did was trespass?

>
> Bryan has been eager to throw the McMichaels under the bus to save his
> own skin from the beginning.

Or he is disassociating himself with an outcome he didn't see coming

> > There is also evidence from social media and elsewhere that Travis
> > McMichael had used racial slurs in the past.
>
> Where is it and what is it? And how would it show that the McMicheals
> would have acted differently had the suspect been white?

The investigator has access to the phone and testified to their existence.

>
> > McMichael, a former U.S.
> > Coast Guard boarding officer, once told a friend that he loved his job
> > because he "was on a boat and there weren't any Ni**ers anywhere.
>
> Lots of blacks in the Coast Guard.

"he was on a boat" He was probably referring to his own ship's crew

>
> > Greg McMichael told police that “he didn’t know if Arbery
> > had stolen anything or not, but he had a gut feeling” that Arbery
> > had committed prior break-ins in the neighborhood.
>
> He saw Arbery something like 10 days before the shooting when the
> neighbors were roused against a prowler. Other neighbors saw him also.

Or that the route was one that Arbery regularly used for his jogging.
Several residents told investigators they had seen him running in the
neighborhood previously

Glynn County police sayvthey had no records of home break-ins or
burglaries between Jan. 1 and Feb. 23 in that neighborhood. Local media
reported one car burglary. This may refer to the stolen gun from Travis's
car. And in a responsible country leaving a loaded pistol in an unlocked
car would have resulted in charges against Travis McMichael

> Still not hearing the McMichaels side of it.

He and his legal team have had ample opportunity to respond but are
exercising their right to silence

However, Jason Sheffield, an attorney for Travis McMichael, says he used
self-defense when he was attacked by Mr. Arbery,

We would never have gotten this far in the investigation if it was left to
the prevarication of the D.A.

[Bud]

On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 8:09:31 AM UTC-4, ajohnstone wrote:
> A piece of info i did not know but there is forensic evidence that
> suggests the pick-up hit Arbery
>
> "...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 fiber..."

Oh, I hope they fry Bryan, guy is a scumbag throwing his friends and
neighbors under the bus in an attempt to save his own skin. *He* is the
one with established cases of using racial slurs, so he says Travis
McMichaels did. The prosecution *needs* this attack to be made racial, and
Bryan will gladly do that to get heat off himself.

But I`m not seeing them say the fibers were matched to Arbery`s
clothing. I`m not seeing them say the dent had anything to do with the
event. I`m not seeing them saying the palm print is Arbery`s. Other than
that this is good, strong stuff.

> > From the Georgia DA`s report...
>
> > A DA who had to recuse himself from the case

Forced out for political considerations. The black woman DA who took
over for this DA has as much reason to be recused as the other DAs did,
but she won`t recuse herself.

https://www.law.com/dailyreportonline/2020/05/15/conflict-questions-extend-to-a-fourth-da-in-ahmaud-arbery-case/

They have the judge they want to pull off this railroading.

> > If the intent was to kill him, why then and not other times. Why didn`t
> > Greg McMicheals blast him with his .357 when Arbery ran right past him?
>
> How do you know that he did not try to take aim?
>
> "Drop it"
>
> Drop what?

I assume the shotgun. But no matter what it is, it is supportive of the
idea that there was no intent to kill.

It also has "Stop right there!"

Again supportive of an attempt to detain, not an intent to kill.

But don`t let facts get in the way of what you want to believe.

> > I thought the autopsy had the first shot to the hand.
>
> The post is entitles MORE DETAILS EMERGE

The autopsy has been out for awhile, the details have emerged. The
autopsy said the first shot was the one to the hand/wrist.

> > I speculate that Arbery didn`t want to be arrested.
> >
>
> For what crime since the only thing he did was trespass?

How do you know that?

> > Bryan has been eager to throw the McMichaels under the bus to save his
> > own skin from the beginning.
>
> Or he is disassociating himself with an outcome he didn't see coming

<snicker> Yeah, is is "disassociating himself" alright.

> > > There is also evidence from social media and elsewhere that Travis
> > > McMichael had used racial slurs in the past.
> >
> > Where is it and what is it? And how would it show that the McMicheals
> > would have acted differently had the suspect been white?
>
> The investigator has access to the phone and testified to their existence.

So you don`t know what this evidence is exactly, but you are impressed
with it nonetheless.

> >
> > > McMichael, a former U.S.
> > > Coast Guard boarding officer, once told a friend that he loved his job
> > > because he "was on a boat and there weren't any Ni**ers anywhere.
> >
> > Lots of blacks in the Coast Guard.
>
> "he was on a boat" He was probably referring to his own ship's crew

Then it should be easy enough to confirm that there were no blacks on
the ship Travis McMichaels served on. I`ll save you the effort, there
were.

> > > Greg McMichael told police that “he didn’t know if Arbery
> > > had stolen anything or not, but he had a gut feeling” that Arbery
> > > had committed prior break-ins in the neighborhood.
> >
> > He saw Arbery something like 10 days before the shooting when the
> > neighbors were roused against a prowler. Other neighbors saw him also.
>
> Or that the route was one that Arbery regularly used for his jogging.

At night? And he went into the same house that night as he did on the
day of the shooting. And Travis McMichael told the dispatcher on the 11th
that Arbery either was armed, or was trying to act like he was. I suppose
this was just to justify shooting him to death over a week later.

And after being chased the night of the 11th, having the cops called on
him and fleeing the area he goes back in that *exact same house* on the
23rd? This make sense in the context of an innocent jogger? I`d find a new
place to jog, I would keep prowling in an area I clearly wasn`t welcome.
Now if I was a criminal snooping around for something to steal, these
actions would be very consistent with *that* narrative. But the children
don`t *like* that narrative, and you can`t make children eat their
vegetables.

> Several residents told investigators they had seen him running in the
> neighborhood previously

Who are they and what did they say, exactly?

> Glynn County police sayvthey had no records of home break-ins or
> burglaries between Jan. 1 and Feb. 23 in that neighborhood.

"Prior thefts and trespassing incidents reported

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.[48] 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.

On February 11, 2020, Travis called 9-1-1 to report a slender 6-foot-tall
black man with short hair wearing red shorts and a white shirt who was
trespassing on the site of a house under construction. Travis was
breathing heavily on the call, and said, "I've never seen this guy before
in the neighborhood." The dispatcher asked whether Travis was OK, and he
said, "Yeah, it just startled me. When I turned around and saw him and
backed up, he reached into his pocket and ran into the house. So I don't
know if he's armed or not. But he looked like he was acting like he was."
"We've been having a lot of burglaries and break-ins around here lately,"
Travis said on the call. He told the dispatcher that he was out in his
truck and that as many as four neighbors were out looking for the man. His
father Gregory was one of the people out searching that night, and Gregory
and at least one other neighbor were armed. Police responded and searched
the house along with a neighbor, but found no one. However, surveillance
video from that evening showed a man who reportedly looked like Arbery,
who briefly walked in and out of the home under construction, without
taking anything.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Ahmaud_Arbery

That is a lot of crime and a lot of suspicious activity in a small area
in a short amount of time.

> Local media
> reported one car burglary. This may refer to the stolen gun from Travis's
> car. And in a responsible country leaving a loaded pistol in an unlocked

> car would have resulted in charges against Travis McMichael.

Blame the victim.

> > Still not hearing the McMichaels side of it.
>
> He and his legal team have had ample opportunity to respond but are
> exercising their right to silence

No use for them to say anything.

> However, Jason Sheffield, an attorney for Travis McMichael, says he used
> self-defense when he was attacked by Mr. Arbery,
>
> We would never have gotten this far in the investigation if it was left to
> the prevarication of the D.A.

They should have left Barnhill handle it, he had it wrapped up as soon
as he got the autopsy report. Obviously he couldn`t complete his report
until he has the autopsy. If you want to say there was foot dragging you`d
have to find out why it took over 40 days for the DA to get the autopsy
report.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6916-george-barnhill-letter-to-glyn/b52fa09cdc974b970b79/optimized/full.pdf

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/4/2020 8:59 PM, ajohnstone wrote:
> While attention is elsewhere, more details are emerging in the killing of
> Ahmaud Arbery which appear to contradict some of the claims made that he
> was the instigator of the violence and McMichael was the one acting in
> self-defence.
>
> Arbery repeatedly reversed directions and even jumped into a ditch in a
> desperate attempt to shake off his pursuers.
>
> Some here have suggested Arbery was not hunted down
>
> Travis McMichael then got out of his truck and confronted Arbery. He told
> police he shot him in self-defense after Arbery refused his order to get
> on the ground. Some had presumed that the first words exchanged were

> that the McMasters on=y wished to speak with Arbery not to lie down on
> the ground.
>
> The first shot was to Arbery???s chest, the second was to his hand,

> and the third was to his chest.
>
> Some have assumed the first shot was to the hand as Arbery made a grab for
> the shotgun (albeit it is not definitive proof that he did not make an
> attempt to snatch or swing the shotgun away)
>
> The investigator speculates that "Arbery's decision was to just try to get
> away and when he felt like he could not escape, he chose to fight."
>
> Bryan said he heard Travis McMaster use a racist epithet [f*cking Ni**er]

> as he stood over Arbery???s body before police arrived and several

> more racial slurs in messages were found on McMaster's phone as there were
> on Bryan's phone that exhibited a "racist attitude" which likely played a
> role in Bryan's decision to chase and help trap Arbery.
>
> There is also evidence from social media and elsewhere that Travis
> McMichael had used racial slurs in the past. McMichael, a former U.S.
> Coast Guard boarding officer, once told a friend that he loved his job
> because he "was on a boat and there weren't any Ni**ers anywhere.
>

> Greg McMichael told police that ???he didn???t know if Arbery
> had stolen anything or not, but he had a gut feeling??? that Arbery

> had committed prior break-ins in the neighborhood.
>
> These further details would not have emerged unless a video became public
> and opinion pressed the legal system to take action.
>
> https://news.yahoo.com/white-defendant-shooting-death-georgia-151627463.html
>

What about the powder burns? They tell a story. Why can't we see the
powder burns? They can show how close the muzzle was to to wounds. In the
case of Oswald the unique pattern of stippling of the powder burns on his
hands was created by the loose fit of the ammo in his revolver and shows
that he fired his revolver. Blowby.


But it ccan not whow that he fired his rifle.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/6/2020 10:58 AM, Bud wrote:
> On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 8:09:31 AM UTC-4, ajohnstone wrote:
>> A piece of info i did not know but there is forensic evidence that
>> suggests the pick-up hit Arbery
>>
>> "...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 fiber..."
>
> Oh, I hope they fry Bryan, guy is a scumbag throwing his friends and
> neighbors under the bus in an attempt to save his own skin. *He* is the
> one with established cases of using racial slurs, so he says Travis

Remind me again, which gun did he fire?

> McMichaels did. The prosecution *needs* this attack to be made racial, and
> Bryan will gladly do that to get heat off himself.
>

Usually when the victim is black and the killer calls him the N word,
that makes it racial.

> But I`m not seeing them say the fibers were matched to Arbery`s
> clothing. I`m not seeing them say the dent had anything to do with the
> event. I`m not seeing them saying the palm print is Arbery`s. Other than
> that this is good, strong stuff.
>

Jeez, you're not trying hard enough to cover up.
Maybe you could say that he pus his hand on the truck to tun around it
or he intentionally planted hid prints the day before.
You got to try harder.

>>> From the Georgia DA`s report...
>>
>>> A DA who had to recuse himself from the case
>
> Forced out for political considerations. The black woman DA who took
> over for this DA has as much reason to be recused as the other DAs did,
> but she won`t recuse herself.
>

Why? Because she's black?
Or was she a girlfriend?
You are not making any sense.

> https://www.law.com/dailyreportonline/2020/05/15/conflict-questions-extend-to-a-fourth-da-in-ahmaud-arbery-case/
>
> They have the judge they want to pull off this railroading.
>

Railroading whom? The killers?

>
>>> If the intent was to kill him, why then and not other times. Why didn`t
>>> Greg McMicheals blast him with his .357 when Arbery ran right past him?
>>
>> How do you know that he did not try to take aim?
>>
>> "Drop it"
>>
>> Drop what?
>
> I assume the shotgun. But no matter what it is, it is supportive of the
> idea that there was no intent to kill.
>

Who said it?
Maybe he meant,"Drop your shorts."

> It also has "Stop right there!"
>
> Again supportive of an attempt to detain, not an intent to kill.
>

No, he had trouble shooting a moving target.

> But don`t let facts get in the way of what you want to believe.
>
>
>>> I thought the autopsy had the first shot to the hand.
>>
>> The post is entitles MORE DETAILS EMERGE
>
> The autopsy has been out for awhile, the details have emerged. The
> autopsy said the first shot was the one to the hand/wrist.
>
>>> I speculate that Arbery didn`t want to be arrested.
>>>
>>
>> For what crime since the only thing he did was trespass?
>
> How do you know that?

The video.

>
>
>>> Bryan has been eager to throw the McMichaels under the bus to save his
>>> own skin from the beginning.
>>
>> Or he is disassociating himself with an outcome he didn't see coming
>

Then why was he there?
His job was to corral the victim.

> <snicker> Yeah, is is "disassociating himself" alright.
>
>
>>>> There is also evidence from social media and elsewhere that Travis
>>>> McMichael had used racial slurs in the past.
>>>
>>> Where is it and what is it? And how would it show that the McMicheals
>>> would have acted differently had the suspect been white?
>>
>> The investigator has access to the phone and testified to their existence.
>
> So you don`t know what this evidence is exactly, but you are impressed
> with it nonetheless.

Wrong. Some of us are capable of seeing and hearing it on TV.
You would never see it when you only watch Fox.

>
>>>
>>>> McMichael, a former U.S.
>>>> Coast Guard boarding officer, once told a friend that he loved his job
>>>> because he "was on a boat and there weren't any Ni**ers anywhere.
>>>
>>> Lots of blacks in the Coast Guard.
>>
>> "he was on a boat" He was probably referring to his own ship's crew
>
> Then it should be easy enough to confirm that there were no blacks on
> the ship Travis McMichaels served on. I`ll save you the effort, there
> were.
>
>>>> Greg McMichael told police that “he didn’t know if Arbery
>>>> had stolen anything or not, but he had a gut feeling” that Arbery
>>>> had committed prior break-ins in the neighborhood.
>>>
>>> He saw Arbery something like 10 days before the shooting when the
>>> neighbors were roused against a prowler. Other neighbors saw him also.
>>
>> Or that the route was one that Arbery regularly used for his jogging.
>
> At night? And he went into the same house that night as he did on the

Who said he jogged nto the house?

> day of the shooting. And Travis McMichael told the dispatcher on the 11th
> that Arbery either was armed, or was trying to act like he was. I suppose
> this was just to justify shooting him to death over a week later.
>
> And after being chased the night of the 11th, having the cops called on
> him and fleeing the area he goes back in that *exact same house* on the
> 23rd? This make sense in the context of an innocent jogger? I`d find a new
> place to jog, I would keep prowling in an area I clearly wasn`t welcome.
> Now if I was a criminal snooping around for something to steal, these
> actions would be very consistent with *that* narrative. But the children
> don`t *like* that narrative, and you can`t make children eat their
> vegetables.
>
>
>> Several residents told investigators they had seen him running in the
>> neighborhood previously
>
> Who are they and what did they say, exactly?
>
>> Glynn County police sayvthey had no records of home break-ins or
>> burglaries between Jan. 1 and Feb. 23 in that neighborhood.
>

Hard to BREAK in when it is open and under construction.
There was no door to open or locks to pick.

> "Prior thefts and trespassing incidents reported
>
> 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.[48] 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.
>
> On February 11, 2020, Travis called 9-1-1 to report a slender 6-foot-tall

Then why didn't they blame Slender Man?

Oh, so now you make the DA the villein. But never the racist killers.

> They should have left Barnhill handle it, he had it wrapped up as soon
> as he got the autopsy report. Obviously he couldn`t complete his report
> until he has the autopsy. If you want to say there was foot dragging you`d
> have to find out why it took over 40 days for the DA to get the autopsy
> report.
>
> https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6916-george-barnhill-letter-to-glyn/b52fa09cdc974b970b79/optimized/full.pdf
>

Yes, we know you are always in favor of the cover-up.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/6/2020 10:58 AM, Bud wrote:

The video.

[Anthony Marsh]

What do you mean selectve?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 6/5/2020 7:58 PM, jecorb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, June 5, 2020 at 5:15:01 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
>> On Friday, June 5, 2020 at 2:15:10 PM UTC-4, jecorb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 8:59:05 PM UTC-4, ajohnstone wrote:
>>>> While attention is elsewhere, more details are emerging in the killing of
>>>> Ahmaud Arbery which appear to contradict some of the claims made that he
>>>> was the instigator of the violence and McMichael was the one acting in
>>>> self-defence.
>>>>
>>>> Arbery repeatedly reversed directions and even jumped into a ditch in a
>>>> desperate attempt to shake off his pursuers.
>>>>
>>>> Some here have suggested Arbery was not hunted down
>>>>
>>>> Travis McMichael then got out of his truck and confronted Arbery. He told
>>>> police he shot him in self-defense after Arbery refused his order to get
>>>> on the ground. Some had presumed that the first words exchanged were
>>>> that the McMasters on ly wished to speak with Arbery not to lie down on
>>>> the ground.
>>>>

>>>> The first shot was to Arbery???s chest, the second was to his hand,

>>>> and the third was to his chest.
>>>>
>>>> Some have assumed the first shot was to the hand as Arbery made a grab for
>>>> the shotgun (albeit it is not definitive proof that he did not make an
>>>> attempt to snatch or swing the shotgun away)
>>>>
>>>> The investigator speculates that "Arbery's decision was to just try to get
>>>> away and when he felt like he could not escape, he chose to fight."
>>>>
>>>> Bryan said he heard Travis McMaster use a racist epithet [f*cking Ni**er]

>>>> as he stood over Arbery???s body before police arrived and several

>>>> more racial slurs in messages were found on McMaster's phone as there were
>>>> on Bryan's phone that exhibited a "racist attitude" which likely played a
>>>> role in Bryan's decision to chase and help trap Arbery.
>>>>
>>>> There is also evidence from social media and elsewhere that Travis
>>>> McMichael had used racial slurs in the past. McMichael, a former U.S.
>>>> Coast Guard boarding officer, once told a friend that he loved his job
>>>> because he "was on a boat and there weren't any Ni**ers anywhere.
>>>>

>>>> Greg McMichael told police that ???he didn???t know if Arbery
>>>> had stolen anything or not, but he had a gut feeling??? that Arbery

It is not he job of the neighborhood to ptotect hemselves. It is the job
of the police. But when they called the police the police said they were
too busy and suggested that they call the KKK.

[Anthony Marsh]

Maybe when he was in the police academy they didn't teach how to do
that. Or maybe he was too drunk or clumsy to jeep his balance.

[Bud]

Effectively.

[Bud]

On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 4:55:08 PM UTC-4, Anthony Marsh wrote:
> On 6/6/2020 10:58 AM, Bud wrote:
> > On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 8:09:31 AM UTC-4, ajohnstone wrote:
> >> A piece of info i did not know but there is forensic evidence that
> >> suggests the pick-up hit Arbery
> >>
> >> "...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 fiber..."
> >
> > Oh, I hope they fry Bryan, guy is a scumbag throwing his friends and
> > neighbors under the bus in an attempt to save his own skin. *He* is the
> > one with established cases of using racial slurs, so he says Travis
>
> Remind me again, which gun did he fire?

What gun did Gregory McMichael fire? I don`t think any of them should be
in jail.

> > McMichaels did. The prosecution *needs* this attack to be made racial, and
> > Bryan will gladly do that to get heat off himself.
> >
>
> Usually when the victim is black and the killer calls him the N word,
> that makes it racial.

How about when the killer is black and uses the n-word? How about when a
white guy shoots a white guy and uses the n-word?

> > But I`m not seeing them say the fibers were matched to Arbery`s
> > clothing. I`m not seeing them say the dent had anything to do with the
> > event. I`m not seeing them saying the palm print is Arbery`s. Other than
> > that this is good, strong stuff.
> >
>
> Jeez, you're not trying hard enough to cover up.

You`re not trying hard enough to present evidence.

> Maybe you could say that he pus his hand on the truck to tun around it
> or he intentionally planted hid prints the day before.
> You got to try harder.
>
> >>> From the Georgia DA`s report...
> >>
> >>> A DA who had to recuse himself from the case
> >
> > Forced out for political considerations. The black woman DA who took
> > over for this DA has as much reason to be recused as the other DAs did,
> > but she won`t recuse herself.
> >
>
> Why? Because she's black?

Exactly.

> Or was she a girlfriend?
> You are not making any sense.
>
> > https://www.law.com/dailyreportonline/2020/05/15/conflict-questions-extend-to-a-fourth-da-in-ahmaud-arbery-case/
> >
> > They have the judge they want to pull off this railroading.
> >
>
> Railroading whom?

You should apprise yourself of the basic facts before entering a
discussion.

>The killers?
>
> >
> >>> If the intent was to kill him, why then and not other times. Why didn`t
> >>> Greg McMicheals blast him with his .357 when Arbery ran right past him?
> >>
> >> How do you know that he did not try to take aim?
> >>
> >> "Drop it"
> >>
> >> Drop what?
> >
> > I assume the shotgun. But no matter what it is, it is supportive of the
> > idea that there was no intent to kill.
> >
>
> Who said it?
> Maybe he meant,"Drop your shorts."

You`d make a hell of an investigator, Clouseau.

> > It also has "Stop right there!"
> >
> > Again supportive of an attempt to detain, not an intent to kill.
> >
>
> No, he had trouble shooting a moving target.

Apparently not.

> > But don`t let facts get in the way of what you want to believe.
> >
> >
> >>> I thought the autopsy had the first shot to the hand.
> >>
> >> The post is entitles MORE DETAILS EMERGE
> >
> > The autopsy has been out for awhile, the details have emerged. The
> > autopsy said the first shot was the one to the hand/wrist.
> >
> >>> I speculate that Arbery didn`t want to be arrested.
> >>>
> >>
> >> For what crime since the only thing he did was trespass?
> >
> > How do you know that?
>
> The video.

Which video? Did you see the whole thing, or only the few seconds they
let you see?

> >
> >
> >>> Bryan has been eager to throw the McMichaels under the bus to save his
> >>> own skin from the beginning.
> >>
> >> Or he is disassociating himself with an outcome he didn't see coming
> >
>
> Then why was he there?
> His job was to corral the victim.

You mean apprehend the criminal?

> > <snicker> Yeah, he is "disassociating himself" alright.

> >
> >
> >>>> There is also evidence from social media and elsewhere that Travis
> >>>> McMichael had used racial slurs in the past.
> >>>
> >>> Where is it and what is it? And how would it show that the McMicheals
> >>> would have acted differently had the suspect been white?
> >>
> >> The investigator has access to the phone and testified to their existence.
> >
> > So you don`t know what this evidence is exactly, but you are impressed
> > with it nonetheless.
>
> Wrong. Some of us are capable of seeing and hearing it on TV.
> You would never see it when you only watch Fox.

Why don`t you produce it?

> >>>
> >>>> McMichael, a former U.S.
> >>>> Coast Guard boarding officer, once told a friend that he loved his job
> >>>> because he "was on a boat and there weren't any Ni**ers anywhere.
> >>>
> >>> Lots of blacks in the Coast Guard.
> >>
> >> "he was on a boat" He was probably referring to his own ship's crew
> >
> > Then it should be easy enough to confirm that there were no blacks on
> > the ship Travis McMichaels served on. I`ll save you the effort, there
> > were.
> >
> >>>> Greg McMichael told police that “he didn’t know if Arbery
> >>>> had stolen anything or not, but he had a gut feeling” that Arbery
> >>>> had committed prior break-ins in the neighborhood.
> >>>
> >>> He saw Arbery something like 10 days before the shooting when the
> >>> neighbors were roused against a prowler. Other neighbors saw him also.
> >>
> >> Or that the route was one that Arbery regularly used for his jogging.
> >
> > At night? And he went into the same house that night as he did on the
>
> Who said he jogged nto the house?

The voices in your head, apparently.

> > day of the shooting. And Travis McMichael told the dispatcher on the 11th
> > that Arbery either was armed, or was trying to act like he was. I suppose
> > this was just to justify shooting him to death over a week later.
> >
> > And after being chased the night of the 11th, having the cops called on
> > him and fleeing the area he goes back in that *exact same house* on the
> > 23rd? This make sense in the context of an innocent jogger? I`d find a new
> > place to jog, I would keep prowling in an area I clearly wasn`t welcome.
> > Now if I was a criminal snooping around for something to steal, these
> > actions would be very consistent with *that* narrative. But the children
> > don`t *like* that narrative, and you can`t make children eat their
> > vegetables.
> >
> >
> >> Several residents told investigators they had seen him running in the
> >> neighborhood previously
> >
> > Who are they and what did they say, exactly?
> >
> >> Glynn County police sayvthey had no records of home break-ins or
> >> burglaries between Jan. 1 and Feb. 23 in that neighborhood.
> >
>
> Hard to BREAK in when it is open and under construction.
> There was no door to open or locks to pick.

Why do you say there was no door?

It seems blacks and liberals were never so much against lynching, they
just wanted to be the ones to decide who gets lynched.

> > They should have left Barnhill handle it, he had it wrapped up as soon
> > as he got the autopsy report. Obviously he couldn`t complete his report
> > until he has the autopsy. If you want to say there was foot dragging you`d
> > have to find out why it took over 40 days for the DA to get the autopsy
> > report.
> >
> > https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6916-george-barnhill-letter-to-glyn/b52fa09cdc974b970b79/optimized/full.pdf
> >
>
>
>
> Yes, we know you are always in favor of the cover-up.

What was covered up?

[Bud]

Aren`t they being disbanded?

[ajohnstone]

I have more interest in what Travis McMichaels was saying to Arbery than
his father and also in what tone he was demanding that Arbery get down on
the ground.

Just as the McMichaels will hold back their defence for the full trial, so
will the prosecution reserve their best evidence for the trial.

How disappointing that you are reduced to ad hominem attacks on Bryans not
knowing anything about the person. But I think it reveals the extent you
are willing to go to justify your own bias, even to the degree of implying
that Perez may be intimidated into false testimony if it goes against what
you hold to be true.

[Bud]

On Saturday, June 6, 2020 at 11:13:33 PM UTC-4, ajohnstone wrote:
> I have more interest in what Travis McMichaels was saying to Arbery than
> his father and also in what tone he was demanding that Arbery get down on
> the ground.

Only because you want to ignore the fact that "Get on the ground"
indicates an intent to detain, not murder.

> Just as the McMichaels will hold back their defence for the full trial, so
> will the prosecution reserve their best evidence for the trial.
>
> How disappointing that you are reduced to ad hominem attacks on Bryans not
> knowing anything about the person.

I do know about him, I`ve been watching him from the beginning.

>But I think it reveals the extent you
> are willing to go to justify your own bias, even to the degree of implying
> that Perez may be intimidated into false testimony if it goes against what
> you hold to be true.

A hostile army was occupying Satilla Drive, right out in front of his
house. Some might find this intimidating. Some might be tempted to appease
those people by telling them what they want to hear. I don`t know if you
noticed but the "protesters" here have no compulsion about burning other
people`s property to the ground.

[ajohnstone]

DA Johnson, who was the first one approached and who the father worked
directly for, tells the police department in a phone call not to arrest
the pair and to release them. She then recuses herself.

Barnhill tells the police with limited information that there are no
grounds for criminal charges and then he recuses himself.

I detect a pattern of giving the police the message to treat the case as
non-priority before passing the buck.

I will pass over the corruption accusations against the police department
because they probably aren't relevant

Barnhill already had a background of racial bias when he brought charges
against Olivia Pearson on voter fraud for simply showing a first-time
voter how to use the machine and that could have led to 15 year jail time
for her. He brought Pearson to trial twice before she was eventually
acquitted. He could be suspected of complicity in a general right-wing
trend to intimidate African-American from voting.

When ordered to get to the ground at the point of a gun, Arbery can
rightly expect worse is to come and resist, as he has no knowledge that
the police are already on the way and are already close enough that they
heard the gun-shots.

The father is so concerned about what is happening that he tells his son
not to shoot.

Was it what is called First Degree premeditated murder? I myself don't
think so.

But was it Murder Two. I think the evidence exists for it to go to full
trial - unlike Barnhill's determination.

But on checking Georgia does not differentiate murder. Georgia only has
one category.

But there still exists voluntary manslaughter when a person intentionally
kills another while under the influence of a sudden and violent passion,
perhaps from the adrenaline rush of the pursuit and panic that Arbery did
not obediently submit passively to being accosted and held against his
will.

Perhaps even the offence of involuntary manslaughter is appropriate in the
opinion of less partisan supports of the McMichaels - involuntary
manslaughter being the unintentional killing of another person resulting
from illegal or reckless conduct by the perpetrator. A good case could be
made against Travis that he was irresponsible in his actions and that
contributed to Arbery's death

https://www.jeffhellerlaw.com/aop/georgia-criminal-defense/homicide-manslaughter-murder/

You don't know Bryans and are unqualified to make a judgement on his
character.

Perez's testimony is of little value. He can only say that there was a
previous encounter with Arbery but only to confirm that Arbery had
committed no crime even back then that they had any evidence of. But it
could be used against McMichael that he still held a grudge against Arbery
because of that earlier incident and sought revenge.

[Bud]

On Sunday, June 7, 2020 at 8:25:01 PM UTC-4, ajohnstone wrote:
> DA Johnson, who was the first one approached and who the father worked
> directly for, tells the police department in a phone call not to arrest
> the pair and to release them. She then recuses herself.
>
> Barnhill tells the police with limited information that there are no
> grounds for criminal charges and then he recuses himself.
>
> I detect a pattern of giving the police the message to treat the case as
> non-priority before passing the buck.

It seemed to me that Barnhill would have preferred to stay on the case.

> I will pass over the corruption accusations against the police department
> because they probably aren't relevant
>
> Barnhill already had a background of racial bias when he brought charges
> against Olivia Pearson on voter fraud for simply showing a first-time
> voter how to use the machine and that could have led to 15 year jail time
> for her. He brought Pearson to trial twice before she was eventually
> acquitted. He could be suspected of complicity in a general right-wing
> trend to intimidate African-American from voting.

Olivia Pearson could be suspected for voter fraud, she had no business
being in a booth with someone when they were voting.

> When ordered to get to the ground at the point of a gun, Arbery can
> rightly expect worse is to come and resist, as he has no knowledge that
> the police are already on the way and are already close enough that they
> heard the gun-shots.

Or perhaps Arbery attacked Travis McMichaels because he didn`t want to
be arrested.

> The father is so concerned about what is happening that he tells his son
> not to shoot.

Look where it got him. But at the hearing they said the Gregory
McMicheals also got out his gun.

> Was it what is called First Degree premeditated murder? I myself don't
> think so.
>
> But was it Murder Two. I think the evidence exists for it to go to full
> trial - unlike Barnhill's determination.
>
> But on checking Georgia does not differentiate murder. Georgia only has
> one category.
>
> But there still exists voluntary manslaughter when a person intentionally
> kills another while under the influence of a sudden and violent passion,
> perhaps from the adrenaline rush of the pursuit and panic that Arbery did
> not obediently submit passively to being accosted and held against his
> will.
>
> Perhaps even the offence of involuntary manslaughter is appropriate in the
> opinion of less partisan supports of the McMichaels - involuntary
> manslaughter being the unintentional killing of another person resulting
> from illegal or reckless conduct by the perpetrator. A good case could be
> made against Travis that he was irresponsible in his actions and that
> contributed to Arbery's death

How about fear?

> https://www.jeffhellerlaw.com/aop/georgia-criminal-defense/homicide-manslaughter-murder/
>
> You don't know Bryans and are unqualified to make a judgement on his
> character.

I`ve made my assessment of his character. The owner of the house,
English is another one willing to say anything to keep his distance and to
help polish Arbery`s image. He was the one alerting people and asking
people from the neighborhood for help to watch his property, then the
lying POS tells the media that he had $2,500 worth of fishing gear stolen,
but he isn`t sure where it was stolen from. Yeah, right! The reason claims
he doesn`t know is because a previous theft from the property can help the
McMichaels` eventual claim in court that Arbery was a burglary suspect.

> Perez's testimony is of little value.

Guess again. Just him being a minority will help the McMichaels. It will
take the edge of the race angle, and it will show that it is an "us" (the
neighbors) against "them" (the prowlers and thieves who had been targeting
the neighborhood). Also, Perez is the liaison between English, the
property owner and the neighborhood.

But this is what I like, the narrative is immune to information. At
first, it was just Arbery jogging and being accosted. Then when it was
shown that he had been on the property, this didn`t harm the initial
narrative one bit. When it is shown that he was there previously at night,
and had the cops called on him, that doesn`t harm the narrative either.

Does it make sense for him to keep returning to this neighborhood to
prowl around if he is just taking an innocent jog? Wouldn`t you avoid the
neighborhood the first time the cops were called on you?

> He can only say that there was a
> previous encounter with Arbery but only to confirm that Arbery had
> committed no crime even back then that they had any evidence of.

You think you can just enter someone`s property and it isn`t a crime?

> But it
> could be used against McMichael that he still held a grudge against Arbery
> because of that earlier incident and sought revenge.

Perhaps Arbery held a grudge and sought revenge for Travis McMichaels
calling the cops on him on the 11th, maybe that is why he attacked him.

[ajohnstone]

"maybe that is why he attacked him."

We have analysis of the video that says who attacked who first cannot be
discerned as the very first face-to-face is out of sight. The state
investigator did say having already been shot, Arbery did struggle with
McMichael.

"..the narrative is immune to information..."

My, oh, my...your tunehas never changed even when lots of new information
has become available. You dance around new details.

As for the trial, it can go both ways. They can inflate the charge to
premedicated murder which makes conviction very difficult and acquittal
more likely - and I conceded I did not think it premedicated. Or they can
plea bargain on a lesser charge and a lesser sentence. Too lenient and the
suspicion of a fix will persist.

[Bud]

On Monday, June 8, 2020 at 9:45:42 AM UTC-4, ajohnstone wrote:
> "maybe that is why he attacked him."
>
> We have analysis of the video that says who attacked who first cannot be
> discerned as the very first face-to-face is out of sight.

It is easy to tell that Arbery charged McMichaels to cause the
"face-to-face".

> The state
> investigator did say having already been shot, Arbery did struggle with
> McMichael.

Having been charged at by Arbery, Travis McMicael shot Arbery.

> "..the narrative is immune to information..."
>
> My, oh, my...your tunehas never changed even when lots of new information
> has become available. You dance around new details.

Like?

> As for the trial, it can go both ways. They can inflate the charge to
> premedicated murder which makes conviction very difficult and acquittal
> more likely - and I conceded I did not think it premedicated. Or they can
> plea bargain on a lesser charge and a lesser sentence. Too lenient and the
> suspicion of a fix will persist.

You mean if the children don`t get their way they will throw a tantrum.

[ajohnstone]

Arbery is running. He then apparently see what, Travis McMichael, in front
of him. Then he changes direction to go around the passenger side of the
vehicle. Rather than going to the driver’s side, where is Travis
McMichael with a shotgun. He’s now going to the opposite side of
that truck that’s parked in this public roadway. He’s
going around the truck. Travis McMichael then moved from the
driver’s side, where he’s actually standing then positions
himself towards the front of the truck. Arbery then sees Travis McMichael,
then makes the decision and turns and decides to engage Travis McMichael.
[We don't know in what way or in what demeanour. You assume it was
aggressive, aj] You hear a shot. Then you see Travis McMichael moving
backwards with Mr. Arbery. Obviously, they were engaged in a physical
confrontation at this point. They go off the screen. You then hear a
second shot where you see blood and spray into the screen, the mist of it.
Then they come back in to the view of the camera. There, Mr. Arbery is
striking Travis McMichael, there’s a struggle going on. And then
you see a third shot occur, the firearm being lowered down like that we
see. After the third shot, you then see Mr. Arbery get past Travis
McMichael and continue running down Holmes, almost right there at the
intersection and then he falls.

Greg McMichael was in the back of the pickup truck when the situation
began, he was on the phone. As the confrontation began, he drops the phone
or puts the phone down and then pulls his weapon.

That is an analysis of the video, no doubt enhanced better than the public
versions we have viewed and according to the hearing transcript

So there was a confrontation, there was a struggle, Arbery was not
acquiescent or docile. We have no audible of what said between them. I
have no read of any media report of any verbal exchange between them.

What will have to be determined is if the McMichaels action was lawful
"hot pursuit", if his firing the shotgun three times was in
self-defensive, and whether Arbery's resistance was warranted and if he
was reacting in self-defense.

We now have a trial where a jury will sit in judgement of those events and
McMichaels and Bryans will be directly cross-examined, something that was
not originally going to take place AFAIK.

Now my question for you is do you think there has to be a trial ordo you
believe that the police statements made by the McMichaels is sufficient
and the DA recommendation is support enough for no court proceedings to
happen. Their word and their version should have been enough.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 12:36:17 AM UTC-4, ajohnstone wrote:
> Arbery is running. He then apparently see what, Travis McMichael, in front
> of him. Then he changes direction to go around the passenger side of the
> vehicle. Rather than going to the driver’s side, where is Travis
> McMichael with a shotgun. He’s now going to the opposite side of
> that truck that’s parked in this public roadway. He’s
> going around the truck. Travis McMichael then moved from the
> driver’s side, where he’s actually standing then positions
> himself towards the front of the truck.

A better to position to yell at Arbery to stop.

> Arbery then sees Travis McMichael,
> then makes the decision and turns and decides to engage Travis McMichael.

Arbery sees McMichael when he runs up. Knowing that charging directly at
him has little chance of success, he decides to use the truck as cover in
order to get closer to Travis McMichael in order to attack him.

This narrative fits the evidence as well as yours. Better, even.

> [We don't know in what way or in what demeanour. You assume it was
> aggressive, aj] You hear a shot.

I know he made a ninety degree turn to the left and charged Travis
McMichael.

> Then you see Travis McMichael moving
> backwards with Mr. Arbery. Obviously, they were engaged in a physical
> confrontation at this point.

Obviously, Arbery is attacking Travis McMichael.

> They go off the screen. You then hear a
> second shot where you see blood and spray into the screen, the mist of it.
> Then they come back in to the view of the camera. There, Mr. Arbery is
> striking Travis McMichael, there’s a struggle going on. And then
> you see a third shot occur, the firearm being lowered down like that we
> see. After the third shot, you then see Mr. Arbery get past Travis
> McMichael and continue running down Holmes, almost right there at the
> intersection and then he falls.

He stumbles away and succumbs to his wounds. Wounds he wouldn`t have
received had he not decided to attack Travis McMichael.

> Greg McMichael was in the back of the pickup truck when the situation
> began, he was on the phone. As the confrontation began, he drops the phone
> or puts the phone down and then pulls his weapon.
>
> That is an analysis of the video, no doubt enhanced better than the public
> versions we have viewed and according to the hearing transcript
>
> So there was a confrontation, there was a struggle, Arbery was not
> acquiescent or docile. We have no audible of what said between them. I
> have no read of any media report of any verbal exchange between them.

Some of the things said were picked up by the phone.

> What will have to be determined is if the McMichaels action was lawful
> "hot pursuit", if his firing the shotgun three times was in
> self-defensive, and whether Arbery's resistance was warranted and if he
> was reacting in self-defense.
>
> We now have a trial where a jury will sit in judgement of those events and
> McMichaels and Bryans will be directly cross-examined, something that was
> not originally going to take place AFAIK.
>
> Now my question for you is do you think there has to be a trial ordo you
> believe that the police statements made by the McMichaels is sufficient
> and the DA recommendation is support enough for no court proceedings to
> happen. Their word and their version should have been enough.

I think Barnhill`s determination was correct. Arbery`s actions warranted
pursuit, and Arbery`s actions made Travis McMichaels response legal.

In the Travon Martin killing, the DA knew the shooting was legal.
Pressure was put on, and it was forced to go to court. This case is worse,
it is in the best interests of everyone (except those charged) that they
be convicted and given serious time. They are going to use a judge who
will allow the "right" jurors to be selected, and inflammatory and
prejudicial evidence to be allowed. I expect the deck to be stacked so far
against them that they can`t possibly get a fair trial.

[ajohnstone]

So your basic belief is that the McMichaels and Bryan have absolutely
nothing to be answerable for.

I suggest you are endorsing "white entitlement" and i further suggest you
would never endorse such a process if the position was flipped, either if
the crime was white upon white or an African-American vigilante killed a
white man.

Barnhill made his determination on limited one-sided information. But you
maintain he is above reproach and any criticism is politically motivated.

“Probable cause was clear to our agents pretty quickly,”
Georgia Bureau of Investigation Director Vic Reynolds said.

At a request from Attorney General Chris Carr, Georgia Bureau of
Investigation will proceed with a formal examination into possible
misconduct by DAs offices involved in Ahmaud Arbery's murder case which
may have constituted "unprofessional conduct" in addition to "other
crimes."

You have already made up your mind and reached your judgement. McMichaels
own version of what happened is the truth. Bryans is unreliable. A trial
by jury is pointless. Arbery was guilty of something, and because he
didn't submit meekly to the demands of armed strangers, he deserved what
he got.

And that is what you describe to be justice.

[Bud]

On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 5:30:53 PM UTC-4, ajohnstone wrote:
> So your basic belief is that the McMichaels and Bryan have absolutely
> nothing to be answerable for.

Correct. There was criminal activity in their neighborhood and they
wanted it to stop. They only threat to Arbery`s life is if he did what he
did. He literally forced Travis McMichaels` hand.

> I suggest you are endorsing "white entitlement" and i further suggest you
> would never endorse such a process if the position was flipped, either if
> the crime was white upon white or an African-American vigilante killed a
> white man.

I think the event plays out exactly the same if the prowler was white.
Travis McMichaels calls the cops just like he did on the 11th, And if it
was a white suspect leaving the house, the McMichaels react the same, they
grab their guns, jump in their truck and chase him down. You think Gregory
McMichaels says "Ah, never mind, it`s a white guy, let him go". Not a
chance.

And if you think I would care if Travis McMichael blew away a white guy
who came at him like this, you don`t know me very well. I can show you
video after video of cops shooting white guys that I wholeheartedly
support. It is the people of the left that insist on making racist
assumptions whenever a white shoots a black.

> Barnhill made his determination on limited one-sided information.

What pertinent information didn`t he have? He had the autopsy, witness
statements, the video and knowledge of Georgia law.

> But you
> maintain he is above reproach and any criticism is politically motivated.

I believe politically motivated groups want to dictate outcomes. That is
what you are seeing here, people with the "wrong" kind of thinking are
being replaced with people with the "right" kind of thinking. The Arbery
family is making all the demands, and those demands are being met. That
alone shows the assumption that the McMichaels were in the wrong, and
Arbery is blameless for what occurred. The call for "justice" is merely a
demand of getting the outcome they desire.

> “Probable cause was clear to our agents pretty quickly,”
> Georgia Bureau of Investigation Director Vic Reynolds said.

They could have called a grand jury. They knew they`d be blown out of
the water.

> At a request from Attorney General Chris Carr, Georgia Bureau of
> Investigation will proceed with a formal examination into possible
> misconduct by DAs offices involved in Ahmaud Arbery's murder case which
> may have constituted "unprofessional conduct" in addition to "other
> crimes."

You saw what Barnhill said, look all you like.

And beside only looking at the DAs, I hope they also look at surrounding
neighborhoods that Arbery might have "jogged" through, see if any criminal
complaints match his description.

> You have already made up your mind and reached your judgement.

Pretty much. I believe I have a pretty good idea about how things
transpired.

> McMichaels
> own version of what happened is the truth.

Without the video I`d have no idea. With it, it is easy to see. Arbery
made a foolish and ultimately fatal decision.

> Bryans is unreliable.

Bryan is willing to say anything to help himself, and if he thinks
saying something helps him and hurts the McMichaels, he is willing to do
this. He could have said the truth, that the neighborhood was concerned
about all the criminal activity going on, so they were all on the lookout.
They should have all stuck together (English too) and said there was a
problem, and the neighborhood was acting in response to the problem. Call
it what it was, law abiding people banding together against those up to no
good.

> A trial
> by jury is pointless.

When it is clear no crimes were committed, yes.

> Arbery was guilty of something, and because he
> didn't submit meekly to the demands of armed strangers, he deserved what
> he got.

He got what he got because he attacked Travis McMichaels. He took the
only action that would have gotten that result. If they wanted Arbery dead
they could have just run him down with their truck. The could have shot
him numerous times during the chase. The only thing that was different
when he got shot was he rushed and attacked the person holding the gun.

> And that is what you describe to be justice.

You assume an injustice. I don`t. I see it as a event that Arbery could
have avoided. I`d feel the same if Arbery jumped in front of McMichaels
truck and they rolled over him. "There is someone who didn`t hold his life
dearly enough"

[ajohnstone]

I shall patiently wait for the eventual trial where arguments and
counter-arguments will be presented with further details revealed of
evidence not yet made fully public.

You have chosen to make a pre-judgment of the events - another word for it
is prejudice.

I will leave it to the common-sense of others to decide what is the cause
of your prejudice.

[John McAdams]

On 9 Jun 2020 22:22:21 -0400, ajohnstone <alanjjo...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:

Do you understand that some people think that you are the one showing
prejudice? And they are free to speculate on the cause?

.John
-----------------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Bud]

On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 10:22:23 PM UTC-4, ajohnstone wrote:
> I shall patiently wait for the eventual trial where arguments and
> counter-arguments will be presented with further details revealed of
> evidence not yet made fully public.
>
> You have chosen to make a pre-judgment of the events -

Just like every other person who looked at the event.

And I read Barnhill`s report which made a determination of the events.

> another word for it
> is prejudice.
>
> I will leave it to the common-sense of others to decide what is the
> cause of your prejudice.

What other choice do you have?

[jecorb...@yahoo.com]

On Tuesday, June 9, 2020 at 10:22:23 PM UTC-4, ajohnstone wrote:

That pretty much sums up my feelings about this case. Unlike the Floyd
case, the video is not as clear as what happened. What was presented at
the preliminary hearing certainly doesn't look good for the accused but
we've only heard or portion of the prosecutions case. I'm taking a wait
and see approach and hopefully the trial will reach a just verdict. That
doesn't always happen but most of the time it does.

[ajohnstone]

> >
>
> Do you understand that some people think that you are the one showing
> prejudice? And they are free to speculate on the cause?
>
> .John
> -----------------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

I suggest you re-read my posts on the several threads that they have
appeared and see how reasonable they are phrased on leaving guilt or
innocence to be decided by a court and a jury. I have presented both sides
of the event but most criticism has been at the legal process where one DA
disputed reading of the law would have led to no further action.


I have not pre-judged the case nor have I accused one of the participants
of being a scumbag based on no more information than any of us have of the
person. That is not speculation but again a blatant example of prejudice.

[Bud]

Well, as usual my suspicions turned out to be spot on. New evidence is
showing a pattern of criminal activity by Arbery (good luck finding this
information covered by the MSM).

See the video here, starting around 6:45...

https://youtu.be/4ZOXKVRL3Sw

Clearly these are patterns of criminal behavior. You can see the MO of
criminal activity and you can see that he is known to react violently when
confronted.

I`ll make an observation that will make some people unhappy. I`ve know
criminals my whole life, had many career criminals as friends growing up.
Whenever you see a criminal, say a car thief, and his record is something
like a year ago, arrested for stealing cars, 6 months ago same thing,
three months ago same thing, you can be pretty sure that person has been
doing the same crime in many of the days in between those arrests, he just
wasn`t unlucky enough to be caught the few times he committed such a
crime.

[Bud]

I should have linked to the primary material rather than the video
talking about the information. These are the primary documents...

https://www.glynncounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/69162/114-Notice-of-Intent

The guy clearly had mental issues, and would respond violently when
confronted. His own mother said as much in a 9-11 call to police.

The whole contrive narrative of innocent jogger is in a shambles, and it
doesn`t seem the case against Chauvin is doing much better. We can expect
"unrest", I suppose, and I wonder if anyone is taking any steps in
preparation. Is the National Guard on standby, do we have plenty of buses
and zipties ready to arrest those who act unlawfully? Or are our elected
officials going to leave us unprotected, only acting against those that
have the audacity to protect themselves from the irrational angry mobs?