The ultimate COVID thread

[We'llBeDoneIn15Minutes]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Is anybody keeping track of the total tally of this? I need to upgrade my smart phone to 5G for a calculator that can handle that level of addition. Corona will be felt for a year or two. The irresponsible raiding of the treasury will be felt for generations.

Pelosi unveils $3 trillion coronavirus relief plan amid squeeze from left and right

The package marks a first move in negotiations with Republicans.

www.politico.com

 

[narcotics999]

Is anybody keeping track of the total tally of this? I need to upgrade my smart phone to 5G for a calculator that can handle that level of addition. Corona will be felt for a year or two. The irresponsible raiding of the treasury will be felt for generations.

Pelosi unveils $3 trillion coronavirus relief plan amid squeeze from left and right

The package marks a first move in negotiations with Republicans.

www.politico.com

Print when you are still able to.

 

[d9sccr]

Is anybody keeping track of the total tally of this? I need to upgrade my smart phone to 5G for a calculator that can handle that level of addition. Corona will be felt for a year or two. The irresponsible raiding of the treasury will be felt for generations.

Pelosi unveils $3 trillion coronavirus relief plan amid squeeze from left and right

The package marks a first move in negotiations with Republicans.

www.politico.com

Saw they’re wanting $750 billion bailout for states. Regardless of your political standing, using coronavirus to paper over decades of mismanagement is preposterous—the assumption being this is being used to cashflow more than the coronavirus shortfalls

 

[We'llBeDoneIn15Minutes]

Sometimes the police or prosecutors act differently due to political pressure - that doesn't mean their initial response was incorrect or corrupt. For all we know, they knew two months ago they had no chance at convicting anyone. The video that got the public's attention was not the entirety of the evidence available to the authorities, but it was the entirety of the evidence available to the public. Now that the defense attorney leaked the other video and the "innocent jogger" line has been shown to be a lie, we the public have seen a little more of what the authorities knew all along: a burglar was out casing properties and two idiots confronted him.

There'll be a trial but those idiots are going to walk. It's George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin all over again, except this time there's video, and it wasn't just a kid out to buy Skittles.

Pgg, I would call that response objective and pretty much perfect, "just like the letter was perfect." Ok, the letter wasn't quite perfect, but your response was.

I wish society could objectively look at evidence and controversial cases the same as we are supposed to objectively look at signs and symptoms forming a differential. The attire, walking up the street, sprinting into the house... "Jogger" is low on my differential. It's possible, it's on the differential somewhere, but we call that a Zebra; not likely.

Unfortunately the overwhelming majority have formed an opinion of what the verdict should be and they are emotionally attached to it. There are potential scenarios where these two are guilty and I hope are found guilty if that's the case, and there appears to be a potential plausible scenario where a correct legal verdict is not guilty; that being more evidence presented shows they had a legal right to perform a citizen's arrest, they announced this to Arbery, and Arbery chose to attack.

Again, I admittedly don't know the law and that scenario assumes some legal issues (for example, can you legally bring a shotgun to a citizen's arrest? I don't know; let the lawyers battle it out in court), but if that's the accurate scenario... I would then envision them walking. And there would be hell to pay and more division because people's minds are already made up.

 

[vector2]

Trespassing is usually a misdemeanor, and almost certainly that would be the case in an empty house under construction. Can't wait to see the absurd and utterly obscene way the right is going to spin unarmed trespassing into an offense worthy of being gun downed by a couple billy bob chuds in a pickup.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Trespassing is usually a misdemeanor, and almost certainly that would be the case in an empty house under construction. Can't wait to see the absurd and utterly obscene way the right is going to spin unarmed trespassing into an offense worthy of being gun downed by a couple billy bob chuds in a pickup.

Interestingly, most of the non-crazy right agrees that this is manslaughter at the least.

It's not often 99% of SPF agrees on anything...

 

[Neopolymath]

Trespassing is usually a misdemeanor, and almost certainly that would be the case in an empty house under construction. Can't wait to see the absurd and utterly obscene way the right is going to spin unarmed trespassing into an offense worthy of being gun downed by a couple billy bob chuds in a pickup.

This exact comment has been my only thought about this type of situation that continues to play out in America due to our (apparently quite large) nosey and vigilante-justice style wannabe cop population. I don't even care about the specifics of the law. The fact that the average middle-aged redneck thinks he needs to go follow some guy with a gun to play police is a HUGE problem with society. Let's say that guy stole some copper wire from a neighbor. Who gives a ****? Call the cops and let them do THEIR job. This is not a life or death situation. The most interesting part is that the overlap between police bootlickers and guys' whose actions scream that they don't think the police can handle their job so they must do it for them is really a circle inside of another circle.

Race played a role here, sure, but if these were pre-Trump racists they probably would have just called the police. At least no one would have died.

 

[vector2]

This exact comment has been my only thought about this type of situation that continues to play out in America due to our (apparently quite large) nosey and vigilante-justice style wannabe cop population. I don't even care about the specifics of the law. The fact that the average middle-aged redneck thinks he needs to go follow some guy with a gun to play police is a HUGE problem with society. Let's say that guy stole some copper wire from a neighbor. Who gives a ****? Call the cops and let them do THEIR job. This is not a life or death situation. The most interesting part is that the overlap between police bootlickers and guys' whose actions scream that they don't think the police can handle their job so they must do it for them is really a circle inside of another circle.

Race played a role here, sure, but if these were pre-Trump racists they probably would have just called the police. At least no one would have died.

Unfortunately, pre-Trump and the outcome might've very well been the same (Trayvon was 2012). Trump didn't cause the current situation or create these nutballs. He simply allowed for this underlying strain which has existed in America for a long time to finally rise proudly to the surface.

 

[Neopolymath]

Unfortunately, pre-Trump and the outcome might've very well been the same (Trayvon was 2012). Trump didn't cause the current situation or create these nutballs. He simply allowed for this underlying strain which has existed in America for a long time to finally rise proudly to the surface.

Sure. I just think he made it absolutely ok to act that way outside of the comfort of this type of person's own living room. There is no fear or shame anymore.

 

[pgg]

Trespassing is usually a misdemeanor, and almost certainly that would be the case in an empty house under construction. Can't wait to see the absurd and utterly obscene way the right is going to spin unarmed trespassing into an offense worthy of being gun downed by a couple billy bob chuds in a pickup.

Trespassing is a misdemeanor. Burglary of (or unlawful entry with intent to steal from) a residence is a felony. I wonder if a house under construction isn't a "residence" because no one's living there. If so the felony upgrade may not apply - and that may impact the legality of the attempted citizens arrest. Georgia's citizens arrest law clearly references a person escaping after committing a felony. Is it illegal to grab someone who committed a lesser crime and get the police? I don't think so.

Construction sites are full of valuable materials. Buildings get stripped of copper, tools get removed from job boxes, things get vandalized, it's a big problem. Arbery was obviously there casing the place to see if it was worth returning later. He wasn't "jogging" in those shoes and below-knee cargo shorts. Of course he wasn't. This is the chief method residential areas get cased and homes burglarized - someone innocently jogs through, knocks on doors (if someone answers they offer to schedule a free carpet cleaning), drives by on trash day looking for curb furniture, etc.

So he was committing a crime of probably not-felony severity, and he fled when the neighbor spotted him and called the police.

Then our two idiots saddled up in their truck and chased him down. Stupid, but not illegal.

Open carry of a shotgun is legal in Georgia. Brandishing one to instigate a fight or intimidate someone isn't. Brandishing one to stop someone fleeing a felony is.

At some point Arbery went after the guy with the shotgun and tried to take it from him. The cell phone video misses a few seconds after Arbery approached the truck and went around it. Next thing we see is him and McMichaels fighting over the shotgun. After the final shot, fudd #2 steps in frame with a handgun. If everything leading up to that point is judged as legal, then shooting him may be viewed as defensive.

A couple ways this can go -

1. McMichaels was legally open carrying a shotgun when he told a man who just committed a crime to stop and wait until the police arrived. The man assaulted him and tried to take the shotgun, McMichaels killed him in self defense. Not guilty.
2. McMichaels was illegally brandishing a shotgun at a man who just committed a crime. The man feared for his life and tried to take the shotgun and McMichaels murdered him. Guilty.

Whether this was murder or self defense, it's not accurate to view this through the lens of whether "unarmed trespassing [is] an offense worthy of being gun downed". That's an emotional argument and there are facts we don't know, and scenarios exist in which this killing was legally justifiable. Lots of killings are legally justifiable even if the initial circumstances don't cross the capital crime threshold where the death penalty might be imposed by a court.

Maybe we should just wait for the case to unfold in court.

The only thing I'm really sure of is that the McMichaels are idiots (one of the recent crimes in the neighborhood was that a gun was stolen from an unlocked vehicle in front of their house) and Arbery wasn't just innocently jogging. Stupid games, stupid prizes all around.

 

[vector2]

.
Whether this was murder or self defense, it's not accurate to view this through the lens of whether "unarmed trespassing [is] an offense worthy of being gun downed". That's an emotional argument and there are facts we don't know, and scenarios exist in which this killing was legally justifiable. Lots of killings are legally justifiable even if the initial circumstances don't cross the capital crime threshold where the death penalty might be imposed by a court.

The lens you should be looking at this whole situation through is the absurdity of what is technically "legally justifiable" in today's day and age. Ima guess we're gonna disagree here, but it is bonkers that there are statutes on the books blanket legalizing totally dumb@ss sht like open carry + citizens arrests which put everyone in totally ambiguous "he-said-he-said I just killed an unarmed guy and got off because apparently the law makes me Deputy Dipsht" situations. Yes, there are certain situations where a civilian having to point their firearm at another civilian who just threatened them or who obviously just committed a major crime are unavoidable. This is not one of those situations.

 

[deleted87051]

Unfortunately, pre-Trump and the outcome might've very well been the same (Trayvon was 2012). Trump didn't cause the current situation or create these nutballs. He simply allowed for this underlying strain which has existed in America for a long time to finally rise proudly to the surface.

Trump drained the swamp in an entirely different way than he meant. In our community we’ve had one nutjob shopping for groceries wearing a KKK hood and another one wearing a swastika mask. Pretty sure that would not have happened pre-Trump. He has emboldened them.

 

[deleted171991]

Trump drained the swamp in an entirely different way than he meant. In our community we’ve had one nutjob shopping for groceries wearing a KKK hood and another one wearing a swastika mask. Pretty sure that would not have happened pre-Trump. He has emboldened them.

If one drains the swamp, all its disgusting creatures will just start roaming freely on the land. That's what's happening now in America.

 

[AMEHigh]

Trump drained the swamp in an entirely different way than he meant. In our community we’ve had one nutjob shopping for groceries wearing a KKK hood and another one wearing a swastika mask. Pretty sure that would not have happened pre-Trump. He has emboldened them.

My grandfather recently died and at a birthday party about a year ago he was talking about growing up and seeing young black men hanging lynched in his town. He talked about how recently some of the things on the news since the new administration reminded him of those horrific things he hasn't forgotten, ugh.

Of course racism has never gone away, I got called the N word growing up more than once and I'm certainly not "old", but yeah recently it has definitely seemed to play out different unfortunately.

 

[chocomorsel]

Did he also teach you that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me"?

Every child or person can tell a similar story. We all have been bullied or verbally abused. Stop complaining, just let it go. When millions play the victim card, it gets very tiring very fast, and it only generates a negative reaction. Trump is, among others, the response to all this whining coming from non-whites and non-males.

You are such a tool sometimes.

Actually, you are a total tool very often.
You should try therapy or meds if you are this unhappy in life.

 

[AMEHigh]

You are such and tool sometimes.

Actually, you are a total tool very often.
You should try therapy or meds if you are this unhappy in life.

Was his response supposed to be towards me?
I think it must’ve gotten deleted because it seems to be gone.

 

[chocomorsel]

Was his response supposed to be towards me?
I think it must’ve gotten deleted because it seems to be gone.

Welll it’s quoted above directly for your viewing pleasure.
He does this often enough and goes back and deletes stuff when he thinks better of it or when someone calls him on it.
He’s the most negative and often rude as hell person ever. I think honestly he’s very unhappy in life and it screams loud and clear on here. One of the reasons is probably because he hates his job and is stuck somewhere where he can’t practice CCM and is treated like a cog as he often says.

 

[Ezekiel2517]

I see a lot of similarities to the Trayvon case but there are also significant differences. Just my 2 cents and I'm no expert but I don't see the defense being able to prove anything more than harmless trespassing, no matter what you think Arbery's intent may have been. What's stated in the police report doesn't help the defense imo. I think there is a level of aggression and predisposition by the defendants that is clearly apparent in the video footage which will be very effective for the prosecution. There are also legal standards for both citizens arrest and self-defense which have to be met. I'm not sure the defense will be even able to prove that the pursuers witnessed a crime being committed. In the vid, Arbery can be clearly seen making attempts to avoid and evade a shooter holding a shotgun and pointing it in his direction. All of this happens after being chased down by men in vehicles who then also proceed to set a roadblock. As there was nowhere else for Arbery to run, his reaction at that point is completely reasonable. He actually acted as anyone would in that scenario. The only unreasonable actions I see happening are those by the shooter and the pursuers. Arbery also has a right to self-defense when aggressively chased down and threatened with a shotgun held by a stranger. The only point where Arbery acted aggressively was after the shotgun was pointed at him, directly in his face. Also, probably doesn't help that no burglaries were actually committed in the area in the last 6-7 weeks. The court of public opinion will also obviously have a significant impact in this case. Anyways, just my 2 cents.

 

[ValentineD]

The only thing I'm really sure of is that the McMichaels are idiots (one of the recent crimes in the neighborhood was that a gun was stolen from an unlocked vehicle in front of their house) and Arbery wasn't just innocently jogging. Stupid games, stupid prizes all around.

I think Option #2 is the only logical outcome. As far as I am aware, criminal trespass in Georgia depends both on intent (to steal or damage property) and the property owner's declaration that trespass is prohibited (verbally or through posted signage). The owner has already stated that Arbery wandered around and did not take or damage property, and they gunned the man down so hard to ask him what his intent was. Thus, I suspect it will be considered nothing and that a citizen's arrest was unwarranted.

My subjective take is that going Mad Max Wasteland Warrior and hopping in the back of your truck with a firearm to hunt a guy down for going in a construction site is absolutely insane. I am a supporter of the right to gun ownership and I would never in my life think of pointing a gun at another human being for stealing something from my property. They acted like a pack of fools and a man lost his life and will now pay the price.

 

[chocomorsel]

The fact that some people on this board are claiming that this straight up murder could be defensible is disgusting and disturbing. So what he was wearing cargo shorts? So he likes to run in non running gear. Big deal. Is there a rule that says one has to run in certain clothing? Just cuz he trespassed and was nosy doesn’t mean he was guilty or casing anything out or had intent to rob. How do you know his intent? I have stopped at construction sites before. Does that mean I meant to rob them? No, I was just nosy. Admittedly I didn't go all the way in the house being that I am from the South and know people down here love to shoot and ask questions later, but even if I had, does that mean that I was casing the place out? And deserved to be chased down and subdued by citizens without a badge?

What about the people in the neighborhood who know him and his usual runs? Caught on camera on multiple days by some in the neighborhood on his usual runs.

Speaks to the state of affairs in this country these days. Just callous.
At @pgg, try another scenario because you are reaching with this one and it's sad that you would extrapolate so much based on his gear.

Those backwoods hillbillies wanted to show a black man his place and took it too far.

It's also really sad in this country how often my family is scared when I honk my horn because of fear of getting gunned down if you piss off the wrong person. That is the country we live in. Very sad.

 

[Ezekiel2517]

Some interesting things I've learned just from reading some law experts' thoughts about this case:

-Georgia Court of Appeals has already ruled that you cannot be convicted for criminal trespass simply for entering someone else’s property without permission. You have to enter the property with an “unlawful purpose,” or after having gotten notice not to be there. So, there's a decent chance they will not even be able to get Arbery on trespassing. Further, the Court of Appeals in Georgia has held that simply entering a building without authorization is insufficient to prove burglary without proof that something was stolen.

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES :: CHAPTER 7 - DAMAGE TO AND INTRUSION UPON PROPERTY :: ARTICLE 2 - CRIMINAL TRESPASS AND DAMAGE TO PROPERTY :: PART 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS :: § 16-7-21 - Criminal trespass

law.justia.com

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES :: CHAPTER 7 - DAMAGE TO AND INTRUSION UPON PROPERTY :: ARTICLE 2 - CRIMINAL TRESPASS AND DAMAGE TO PROPERTY :: PART 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS :: § 16-7-21 - Criminal trespass

law.justia.com

-Georgia has strict rules about making citizen's arrests. "Citizens are entitled to use reasonable force to arrest people who have committed crimes in their presence or immediate knowledge". Note the term "reasonable force". The Georgia Supreme Court has already ruled as law (from a previous case) that you can’t chase someone down with a weapon because you think they have committed burglary. And the weapon in that case was just a baseball bat so you can be sure that a shotgun will be ruled illegal. One attorney posted: "The McMichaels will have a hard time establishing that a crime was committed within their presence or immediate knowledge. But even if they get past those serious hurtles, they’re still stuck justifying hemming an unarmed man in with a truck and guns when those acts are each serious felonies under Georgia law."

Carter v. State, 506 S.E.2d 124, 269 Ga. 891 – CourtListener.com

Carter v. State — After advising suspect of his right to have an attorney present, police officer ceased interrogation when suspect asked "Can I have one?"

www.courtlistener.com

-The shooter pointed his shotgun at Arbery. In Georgia, pointing a gun at someone is aggravated assault even if you had no intent to intimidate them. You can only justify using deadly force if the other person poses a deadly risk. A lawyer states: "The McMichaels will have to establish that they were in the middle of a lawful arrest when the assault began, and that will be difficult because they escalated force so quickly. Or they will have to establish that they made a “reasonable mistake of fact” that led them to believe their actions were justified. But that’s tricky, because their response was far from ordinary. Or they will have to show that it was reasonable to point weapons at an unarmed person in an effort to get him to stop — a ruling you would probably not want extended to muggers."

Bottom line imo, the actions of the shooter and pursuers will in no way be considered reasonable interventions; their actions are what caused the crisis.

 

[vector2]

Ok @Arch Guillotti , first it was COVID economics thread. Now it's ultimate COVID thread. I finally give you permission to change the title to

"General BS aka post about whatever topic pops into your pretty little head. Like, did you know the German word for gloves is literally 'handshoes?' And oh yea, remember when 'Sports' was a thing?" thread

 

[pgg]

The lens you should be looking at this whole situation through is the absurdity of what is technically "legally justifiable" in today's day and age. Ima guess we're gonna disagree here, but it is bonkers that there are statutes on the books blanket legalizing totally dumb@ss sht like open carry + citizens arrests which put everyone in totally ambiguous "he-said-he-said I just killed an unarmed guy and got off because apparently the law makes me Deputy Dipsht" situations. Yes, there are certain situations where a civilian having to point their firearm at another civilian who just threatened them or who obviously just committed a major crime are unavoidable. This is not one of those situations.

I'm not really a fan of open carry as it's inherently provocative in today's world. Unless there's a felony endangering a person's life in progress, initiating confrontation with someone while carrying a firearm in your hands has got to be illegal brandishing and a crime itself. Every event downstream of that stupid decision is a consequence of that.

Completely agree that individuals shouldn't be playing cop, and that this looks like a crime to me. What probably happened is that Arbery was running away and got accosted by two dudes unknown to him who illegally brandished guns at him, and he felt justifiably threatened at that point. Then he made the bad decision (understandable under stress) to charge the guy with a shotgun.

I think their defense will fail if no information emerges to support their "citizens arrest of escaping felon" argument. But already one widely accepted lie has been shown to be false ("jogging") so who knows what else will come to light. Lies and misinformation fed to the media to stoke the public fires seem to be the standard order of the day in these events.

 

[deleted59964]

You are such a tool sometimes.

woah - did FFP actually say that? seems uncharacteristic ...

 

[pgg]

At @pgg, try another scenario because you are reaching with this one and it's sad that you would extrapolate so much based on his gear.

Come on. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck. It's not just the clothing, which is admittedly hard to ID in the cell phone video. It was stopping, turning, scanning the neighborhood before entering the house. He might as well carry a sign. The only running he did was when the neighbor caught him and called the cops. He's a guy with a history of juvenile and adult felonies. Of course "jogging" was just a cover story. Of course it was.

How do you know his intent? I have stopped at construction sites before. Does that mean I meant to rob them? No, I was just nosy.

That's dumb. As I mentioned upthread, I did the same ... as a kid. My friends (also kids) had to evade security to do so, every time. Even then we knew what we were doing was wrong and that there would be consequences if we were caught. But at some point I grew up and quit doing dumb things like that - in part because another party's reasonable interpretation of catching you trespassing on a construction site is to believe you're up to no good.

Those backwoods hillbillies wanted to show a black man his place and took it too far.

Maybe. I expect they'll go to prison. Were they racially motivated? Maybe. There's a photo circulating that purports to show the elder McMichaels fudd in a KKK costume but it's not clear if it's him. Maybe he's a grand dragon poohba of some kind. White trailer trash copper-stealing meth heads get chased off construction sites all the time too. I'm just reluctant to attribute to racist hate what can be more simply explained by stupidity.

 

[chocomorsel]

Come on. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck. It's not just the clothing, which is admittedly hard to ID in the cell phone video. It was stopping, turning, scanning the neighborhood before entering the house. He might as well carry a sign. The only running he did was when the neighbor caught him and called the cops. He's a guy with a history of juvenile and adult felonies. Of course "jogging" was just a cover story. Of course it was.



That's dumb. As I mentioned upthread, I did the same ... as a kid. My friends (also kids) had to evade security to do so, every time. Even then we knew what we were doing was wrong and that there would be consequences if we were caught. But at some point I grew up and quit doing dumb things like that - in part because another party's reasonable interpretation of catching you trespassing on a construction site is to believe you're up to no good.




Maybe. I expect they'll go to prison. Were they racially motivated? Maybe. There's a photo circulating that purports to show the elder McMichaels fudd in a KKK costume but it's not clear if it's him. Maybe he's a grand dragon poohba of some kind. White trailer trash copper-stealing meth heads get chased off construction sites all the time too. I'm just reluctant to attribute to racist hate what can be more simply explained by stupidity.

Been reading some comments in the comments section on this. Plenty of people have walked into construction sites cuz they were nosy. Plenty of home builders have found nosy neighbors looking at their house when it was under construction and nobody thought to chase someone down with a gun or even call the cops. They figured people are just curious as how things are built.

It may be stupid to your eyes, but it’s not to plenty of others. Doesn’t mean he was casing it. You are making assumptions.

And if you are a black man, in the Deep South especially, you sometimes to run when White people approach you. It’s reflexive because of the history of this place and what has often happened with black people, especially men, when caught doing something they shouldn’t. In this case, entering a construction site without permission.

So unless you are a black man, raised in the Deep South, you have no idea what you are talking about. You are viewing your world from a very different, rose colored perspective. YOUR perspective. Not his. And therefore, reaching. And assuming. You are military. Plenty of black folks in the military. Maybe get to know some of them, especially from the Deep South and see what they experienced growing up. May open your eyes some.

And yes, he’s done some stupid things in the past like bring a gun to school. When he was younger and stupid. Don’t try to use that against him now after the statement you just said about growing up.

Could it be, that maybe this young black man also grew up?

 

[chocomorsel]

woah - did FFP actually say that? seems uncharacteristic ...

I quoted him directly somewhere above. I made the tool comment.

 

[AMEHigh]

California universities likely to be online in fall. I wonder how this is going to affect enrollment and the survival of smaller schools if they decide to do the same thing. I know for a fact I would’ve switched to an in-state cheaper school since I went to college for athletics, so if I was just doing online classes I would opt for the least expensive option since my athletic scholarship didn’t cover all of tuition.

Redirect Notice

 

[vector2]

I think their defense will fail if no information emerges to support their "citizens arrest of escaping felon" argument. But already one widely accepted lie has been shown to be false ("jogging") so who knows what else will come to light. Lies and misinformation fed to the media to stoke the public fires seem to be the standard order of the day in these events.

Is the media going to highlight the narrative? Sure. Is there going to be some misinformation along the way? Absolutely.

But as far as the overarching theme of racism, you are missing the forest from the trees by focusing in on the aspect of the perpetrators' alleged racism or whether McMichaels wore a Klan outfit or whatever. Let's all remind ourselves- it has been over 10 weeks since Arbery's death and until this past week the perpetrators were walking free. We would not even be having the conversation we are now if not for a leaked video and the associated viral blow up and media coverage. None of us would've ever even heard the names Arbery or McMichaels after what was almost certainly a felonious killing.

A couple southern good ol' boys being immediately released after the suspicious killing of a black person, meanwhile another good ol' boy prosecutor purposefully makes essentially zero investigatory progress for 2 months before finally recusing himself- is the very definition of institutional racism, and yet there is a large swath of the population denying this phenomenon even exists as it pops up in their face over and over again.

 

[Southpaw]

A black man is running down what appears to be a public road in Georgia. He comes up on a white truck with driver‘s side door open. It’s obvious the white man standing outside has a gun. There’s also a white guy in the bed of the truck. The black man is unarmed. Again, this all occurs in broad daylight on a public road.

The unarmed black man ends up dead, tragically.

It takes 2 months and the release of video footage for the arrest of the white men to occur. In Georgia.

Do we really even need to debate this one?

 

[pgg]

Yeah, you guys are right.

I probably have a devil's advocate tumor in my brain.

 

[Monty Python]

I write this having spent five years (in a former career) as a POST-certified police officer in a major metropolitan city's nationally accredited police department. What follows is based on my particular state's criminal code, my professional experience, and probably differs somewhat from state to state.

1. Arbery committed a felony by burglarizing the house under construction, even though he didn't take anything, as long as he entered with intent to take something. That we do not know. However I think the garage interior security video gives credence to that theory. I think his actions on that interior garage video are sufficient to meet the threshold for probable cause. Had Arbery gone into the house without permission out of, say, pure curiosity of the floorplan with no intent to steal anything, it would have been simple misdemeanor trespassing.

2. My state allows "citizens arrest" if two or more citizens participate. Citizens arrest only have merit in felony cases, not to misdemeanors. (In fact, trying to carry out a citizens arrest for something which turns out to be a misdemeanor can get the citizens in serious legal trouble of their own.).

3. The two McMichaels had standing to attempt a citizens arrest, and to defend themselves if they felt threatened with serious bodily harm WHICH THEY WOULD NEED TO SPECIFICALLY ARTICULATE IN DETAIL. (i.e., you can't shoot someone in the back if they're fleeing, you can't shoot someone standing unarmed 30 feet away from you). If indeed Arbery tried to (or did) grab one of the McMichaels' firearms, then McMichaels had standing to defend himself. One of the videos does show Arbery grabbing the McMichaels' shotgun.

This entire incident is sad, unfortunate, and shows poor judgment by all the actors. Should Arbery have gone into that house? No. Should McMichaels have tried to effect a citizens arrest? No: Arbery wasn't running down the street with a kidnapped child in tow, nor while a blood-soaked neighborhood resident screamed for help while pointing at Arbery as he ran. Yes I think Arbery's actions were suspicious, but by his actions he posed no immediate threat to "persons" just to "property." In my opinion, nothing more should have taken place other than calling 911 and letting the police do their job.

A commonly-expressed sentiment among police officers is the preference to be tried by 12 (jurors), versus being carried by six (pallbearers). Despite my above thesis (which may differ from GA criminal code) I think the McMichaels will rue the jury's decision.

 

[chocomorsel]

I write this having spent five years (in a former career) as a POST-certified police officer in a major metropolitan city's nationally accredited police department. What follows is based on my particular state's criminal code, my professional experience, and probably differs somewhat from state to state.

1. Arbery committed a felony by burglarizing the house under construction, even though he didn't take anything, as long as he entered with intent to take something. That we do not know. However I think the garage interior security video gives credence to that theory. I think his actions on that interior garage video are sufficient to meet the threshold for probable cause. Had Arbery gone into the house without permission out of, say, pure curiosity of the floorplan with no intent to steal anything, it would have been simple misdemeanor trespassing.

2. My state allows "citizens arrest" if two or more citizens participate. Citizens arrest only have merit in felony cases, not to misdemeanors. (In fact, trying to carry out a citizens arrest for something which turns out to be a misdemeanor can get the citizens in serious legal trouble of their own.).

3. The two McMichaels had standing to attempt a citizens arrest, and to defend themselves if they felt threatened with serious bodily harm WHICH THEY WOULD NEED TO SPECIFICALLY ARTICULATE IN DETAIL. (i.e., you can't shoot someone in the back if they're fleeing, you can't shoot someone standing unarmed 30 feet away from you). If indeed Arbery tried to (or did) grab one of the McMichaels' firearms, then McMichaels had standing to defend himself. One of the videos does show Arbery grabbing the McMichaels' shotgun.

This entire incident is sad, unfortunate, and shows poor judgment by all the actors. Should Arbery have gone into that house? No. Should McMichaels have tried to effect a citizens arrest? No: Arbery wasn't running down the street with a kidnapped child in tow, nor while a blood-soaked neighborhood resident screamed for help while pointing at Arbery as he ran. Yes I think Arbery's actions were suspicious, but by his actions he posed no immediate threat to "persons" just to "property." In my opinion, nothing more should have taken place other than calling 911 and letting the police do their job.

A commonly-expressed sentiment among police officers is the preference to be tried by 12 (jurors), versus being carried by six (pallbearers). Despite my above thesis (which may differ from GA criminal code) I think the McMichaels will rue the jury's decision.

How does anyone know what his intent was?

Let us reverse this whole situation around. And put two black men in the truck chasing after a white man and shooting him in the Deep South?

How long would it have taken for them to be arrested? Would it have required two months, video and protest?

Come on. We have no idea what his intent was. But because he is a black man and has a criminal history, and wasn’t wearing running shorts, people are quick to pre judge him and are convinced he was “casing” the place.

 

[Southpaw]

I write this having spent five years (in a former career) as a POST-certified police officer in a major metropolitan city's nationally accredited police department. What follows is based on my particular state's criminal code, my professional experience, and probably differs somewhat from state to state.

1. Arbery committed a felony by burglarizing the house under construction, even though he didn't take anything, as long as he entered with intent to take something. That we do not know. However I think the garage interior security video gives credence to that theory. I think his actions on that interior garage video are sufficient to meet the threshold for probable cause. Had Arbery gone into the house without permission out of, say, pure curiosity of the floorplan with no intent to steal anything, it would have been simple misdemeanor trespassing.

2. My state allows "citizens arrest" if two or more citizens participate. Citizens arrest only have merit in felony cases, not to misdemeanors. (In fact, trying to carry out a citizens arrest for something which turns out to be a misdemeanor can get the citizens in serious legal trouble of their own.).

3. The two McMichaels had standing to attempt a citizens arrest, and to defend themselves if they felt threatened with serious bodily harm WHICH THEY WOULD NEED TO SPECIFICALLY ARTICULATE IN DETAIL. (i.e., you can't shoot someone in the back if they're fleeing, you can't shoot someone standing unarmed 30 feet away from you). If indeed Arbery tried to (or did) grab one of the McMichaels' firearms, then McMichaels had standing to defend himself. One of the videos does show Arbery grabbing the McMichaels' shotgun.

This entire incident is sad, unfortunate, and shows poor judgment by all the actors. Should Arbery have gone into that house? No. Should McMichaels have tried to effect a citizens arrest? No: Arbery wasn't running down the street with a kidnapped child in tow, nor while a blood-soaked neighborhood resident screamed for help while pointing at Arbery as he ran. Yes I think Arbery's actions were suspicious, but by his actions he posed no immediate threat to "persons" just to "property." In my opinion, nothing more should have taken place other than calling 911 and letting the police do their job.

A commonly-expressed sentiment among police officers is the preference to be tried by 12 (jurors), versus being carried by six (pallbearers). Despite my above thesis (which may differ from GA criminal code) I think the McMichaels will rue the jury's decision.

I’m not gonna go down the rabbit hole on this one. I’m a doctor not a lawyer. But he wasn’t robbing a bank. He wasn’t holding someone at gun point in the middle of that public road. There was no amber alert and he wasn’t in a vehicle. He was running. And unarmed. It was nothing. Literally. And two guys show up - both armed and both obviously trying to do the work of the police.

I repeat. Broad daylight. Running down a public road. Unarmed. Now dead.

I imagine lawyers will be lawyers. But this is so clear cut.

 

[Tramadeezy]

My wife and I did this exact thing last weekend in my neighborhood; walked into a house being built for about 2 minutes out of curiosity. Did we deserve to die if two dudes followed us with shotguns and demanded we go with them? I had a DUI when I was 17. Would that make it ok then because of my “checkered past”? Scary world we live in. Even scarier that people can defend this type of thing.

 

[Monty Python]

How does anyone know what his intent was?

Let us reverse this whole situation around. And put two black men in the truck chasing after a white man and shooting him in the Deep South?

How long would it have taken for them to be arrested? Would it have required two months, video and protest?

Come on. We have no idea what his intent was. But because he is a black man and has a criminal history, and wasn’t wearing running shorts, people are quick to pre judge him and are convinced he was “casing” the place.

My initial post, and my reply to your excellent questions, are written strictly from my perspective as a former accredited police officer based on training and guidance from prosecuting attorneys, civil rights attorneys, retired FBI agents, and judges who teach at the police academy and based on state criminal code. I'm replying with police officer blinders on, not trying to figure it out as would social workers, psychologists, clergy, etc., as I lack that expertise.

Police don't "know" what intent is. That's not their job nor training. Police can only go by evidence (videos in this case), put it up against behavioral specifics articulated in state criminal code, make an arrest (or not), and then it's up to the DA to evaluate the evidence, indict, prosecute, and the let jury decide with the threshold in criminal cases being, "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt."

If he wasn't casing the place, how would you describe his videoed actions walking up to and entering the structure? I have absolutely no problem with his running down the middle of a public street, regardless of his attire. I do have a problem with his suspicious (to me as a former police officer) trespassing onto private property followed by his felonious entering of the structure. I cannot come up with a rational explanation for Arbery's actions once he departed the public street to enter private property apart from what my police training leads me to discern.

To all the others who followed my initial post with input, I appreciate your opinions. My wife (a non-police layperson) is essentially on the same page as you. My one and only reason for posting was to give insight how the law enforcement process (police, attorneys, jury, etc) works without justifying it, what is specified under criminal law, and what constitutes a violation of law. I myself have problems with some of it, but that blame must be placed at the feet of the state legislature.

 

[chocomorsel]

My initial post, and my reply to your excellent questions, are written strictly from my perspective as a former accredited police officer based on training and guidance from prosecuting attorneys, civil rights attorneys, retired FBI agents, and judges who teach at the police academy and based on state criminal code. I'm replying with police officer blinders on, not trying to figure it out as would social workers, psychologists, clergy, etc., as I lack that expertise.

Police don't "know" what intent is. That's not their job nor training. Police can only go by evidence (videos in this case), put it up against behavioral specifics articulated in state criminal code, make an arrest (or not), and then it's up to the DA to evaluate the evidence, indict, prosecute, and the let jury decide with the threshold in criminal cases being, "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt."

If he wasn't casing the place, how would you describe his videoed actions walking up to and entering the structure? I have absolutely no problem with his running down the middle of a public street, regardless of his attire. I do have a problem with his suspicious (to me as a former police officer) trespassing onto private property followed by his felonious entering of the structure. I cannot come up with a rational explanation for Arbery's actions once he departed the public street to enter private property apart from what my police training leads me to discern.

Read the response above yours. Plenty of people check out unfinished houses out of curiosity.
Doesn’t mean they are casing the place. You as a police officer are making assumptions as to most likely scenario based on your training and his criminal past. Understood. But your view of him, based on his criminal past has already been tainted and is biased. And let’s face it, a jury of my peers most often means a whole lot of Caucasian people, of whom many have no clue about their own unconscious biases.

Doesn’t mean he’s guilty. Doesn’t mean he’s still a criminal based on his criminal past.

There are plenty of innocent people behind bars or dead based on erroneous assumptions by people like you just doing your job. Many of them minorities.

You guys are human and can make mistakes. When you are black in this country, the jury most likely is not gonna be people who look anything like you.

 

[Neopolymath]

My wife and I did this exact thing last weekend in my neighborhood; walked into a house being built for about 2 minutes out of curiosity. Did we deserve to die if two dudes followed us with shotguns and demanded we go with them? I had a DUI when I was 17. Would that make it ok then because of my “checkered past”? Scary world we live in. Even scarier that people can defend this type of thing.

I go in houses under construction in my fancy neighborhood every time I walk my dog past one. Oops.

Edit: Additionally, it's clear that law enforcement just does whatever they want and then it's up to the judicial system to figure it all out later.

 

[pgg]

1. Arbery committed a felony by burglarizing the house under construction, even though he didn't take anything, as long as he entered with intent to take something.

Is it a felony? He was obviously casing the joint but it sure looks like he left empty-handed when the neighbor who called the police scared him off.

The legality of a citizens arrest in Georgia appears to hinge on preventing a person from escaping the commission of a felony.

A house under construction isn't a residence/dwelling so I'm doubtful that the unlawful entry can get bootstrapped above misdemeanor trespassing into a felony that "justifies" the attempted citizens arrest. There are a bunch of places in the legal code that give special consideration to dwellings because of the associated risk that comes with breaking into an occupied building. An empty house under construction wouldn't seem to qualify.

I'm sure you know more about this than I do.

 

[pgg]

I go in houses under construction in my fancy neighborhood every time I walk my dog past one. Oops.

You live there, the people know you, and I'm going to guess that you don't sprint away down the street when confronted by a neighbor asking what you're doing. You probably say hello and he pets your dog.

 

[pgg]

Read the response above yours. Plenty of people check out unfinished houses out of curiosity.
Doesn’t mean they are casing the place. You as a police officer are making assumptions as to most likely scenario based on your training and his criminal past. Understood. But your view of him, based on his criminal past has already been tainted and is biased. And let’s face it, a jury of my peers most often means a whole lot of Caucasian people, of whom many have no clue about their own unconscious biases.

Doesn’t mean he’s guilty. Doesn’t mean he’s still a criminal based on his criminal past.

There are plenty of innocent people behind bars or dead based on erroneous assumptions by people like you just doing your job. Many of them minorities.

You guys are human and can make mistakes. When you are black in this country, the jury most likely is not gonna be people who look anything like you.

Your points are well taken, but they basically amount to "white people are more likely to get away with this crime than black people" ...

Which I believe is true, and an injustice. It doesn't make the activity legal though, because one group of people usually gets away with it.

 

[Monty Python]

Is it a felony? He was obviously casing the joint but it sure looks like he left empty-handed when the neighbor who called the police scared him off.

The legality of a citizens arrest in Georgia appears to hinge on preventing a person from escaping the commission of a felony.

A house under construction isn't a residence/dwelling so I'm doubtful that the unlawful entry can get bootstrapped above misdemeanor trespassing into a felony that "justifies" the attempted citizens arrest. There are a bunch of places in the legal code that give special consideration to dwellings because of the associated risk that comes with breaking into an occupied building. An empty house under construction wouldn't seem to qualify.

I'm sure you know more about this than I do.

The leaving empty-handed isn't relevant, it's the intent which the law specifies at least in my state. Successful completion of intent isn't required. Of course, intent must be proven beyond reasonable doubt in court. And yes, there is variation in details and specifics between different state criminal codes.

 

[vector2]

I write this having spent five years (in a former career) as a POST-certified police officer in a major metropolitan city's nationally accredited police department. What follows is based on my particular state's criminal code, my professional experience, and probably differs somewhat from state to state.

1. Arbery committed a felony by burglarizing the house under construction, even though he didn't take anything, as long as he entered with intent to take something. That we do not know. However I think the garage interior security video gives credence to that theory. I think his actions on that interior garage video are sufficient to meet the threshold for probable cause. Had Arbery gone into the house without permission out of, say, pure curiosity of the floorplan with no intent to steal anything, it would have been simple misdemeanor trespassing.

2. My state allows "citizens arrest" if two or more citizens participate. Citizens arrest only have merit in felony cases, not to misdemeanors. (In fact, trying to carry out a citizens arrest for something which turns out to be a misdemeanor can get the citizens in serious legal trouble of their own.).

3. The two McMichaels had standing to attempt a citizens arrest, and to defend themselves if they felt threatened with serious bodily harm WHICH THEY WOULD NEED TO SPECIFICALLY ARTICULATE IN DETAIL. (i.e., you can't shoot someone in the back if they're fleeing, you can't shoot someone standing unarmed 30 feet away from you). If indeed Arbery tried to (or did) grab one of the McMichaels' firearms, then McMichaels had standing to defend himself. One of the videos does show Arbery grabbing the McMichaels' shotgun.

This entire incident is sad, unfortunate, and shows poor judgment by all the actors. Should Arbery have gone into that house? No. Should McMichaels have tried to effect a citizens arrest? No: Arbery wasn't running down the street with a kidnapped child in tow, nor while a blood-soaked neighborhood resident screamed for help while pointing at Arbery as he ran. Yes I think Arbery's actions were suspicious, but by his actions he posed no immediate threat to "persons" just to "property." In my opinion, nothing more should have taken place other than calling 911 and letting the police do their job.

A commonly-expressed sentiment among police officers is the preference to be tried by 12 (jurors), versus being carried by six (pallbearers). Despite my above thesis (which may differ from GA criminal code) I think the McMichaels will rue the jury's decision.

My initial post, and my reply to your excellent questions, are written strictly from my perspective as a former accredited police officer based on training and guidance from prosecuting attorneys, civil rights attorneys, retired FBI agents, and judges who teach at the police academy and based on state criminal code. I'm replying with police officer blinders on, not trying to figure it out as would social workers, psychologists, clergy, etc., as I lack that expertise.

Police don't "know" what intent is. That's not their job nor training. Police can only go by evidence (videos in this case), put it up against behavioral specifics articulated in state criminal code, make an arrest (or not), and then it's up to the DA to evaluate the evidence, indict, prosecute, and the let jury decide with the threshold in criminal cases being, "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt."

If he wasn't casing the place, how would you describe his videoed actions walking up to and entering the structure? I have absolutely no problem with his running down the middle of a public street, regardless of his attire. I do have a problem with his suspicious (to me as a former police officer) trespassing onto private property followed by his felonious entering of the structure. I cannot come up with a rational explanation for Arbery's actions once he departed the public street to enter private property apart from what my police training leads me to discern.

To all the others who followed my initial post with input, I appreciate your opinions. My wife (a non-police layperson) is essentially on the same page as you. My one and only reason for posting was to give insight how the law enforcement process (police, attorneys, jury, etc) works without justifying it, what is specified under criminal law, and what constitutes a violation of law. I myself have problems with some of it, but that blame must be placed at the feet of the state legislature.

Excellent demonstration from you of why many people don't trust police or prosecutors. Always looking to upcharge the crime, even when there might not be a crime in the first place. As if American prisons aren't already overstuffed.

I watched the video too. It is purely based on a goddamn whim of yours that this guy had intent and was committing a "felony" by "casing the place" vs the misdemeanor trespassing shown on the video where the guy walks around staring at 2x4s, house studs, and a stack of drywall before promptly walking out.

 

[Monty Python]

Excellent demonstration from you of why many people don't trust police or prosecutors. Always looking to upcharge the crime, even when there might not be a crime in the first place. As if American prisons aren't already overstuffed.

I watched the video too. It is purely based on a goddamn whim of yours that this guy is committing a "felony" by "casing the place" vs the misdemeanor trespassing shown on the video where the guy walks around staring at 2x4s, house studs, and a stack of drywall before promptly walking out.

Please remember street police (not detectives, which I never was) can only go by what's in front of them at the time of the incident, and that's an educated presumption based on evidence on hand through the lens of state law (written by the legislature). I thought his actions were sufficient to demonstrate intent; others may disagree. Under my particular state law, that met the felony definition. It would be up to the DA to evaluate, prosecute if indicated, and a majority of the jury to decide guilt. The evidence must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Not perfect of course, but more checks and balances than you'll find about anywhere else.

 

[Impromptu]

Entering that construction site was not a felony. There was no breaking and entering, as that requires breaking a seal, such as a door or window. This was an open construction site, so no seal was broken. There was no felony. Georgia citizens arrest requires the people performing the arrest to witness the crime. They did not. They thought they had seen him previously. There was probably racism involved. This will likely be prosecuted as a felony murder.

The lack of arrest is also concerning. I do not think the suspension of grand juries due to Coronavirus was enough grounds to not arrest, as they could arrest without a grand jury. I do not think the lack of arrest was necessarily racism, but rather cronyism, which is something that should be rooted out, too.

 

[Southpaw]

Is it a felony? He was obviously casing the joint but it sure looks like he left empty-handed when the neighbor who called the police scared him off.

What do you think the white, armed dudes were planning while driving down the road in their truck? First degree murder, right?

You’re deriving a conclusion based on a witnessed action and reaction along with a personal assumption. The same must be said about the white men if we are without bias.

 

[pgg]

What do you think the white, armed dudes were planning while driving down the road in their truck? First degree murder, right?

You’re deriving a conclusion based on an witnessed action and reaction along with a personal assumption. The same must be said about the white men if we are without bias.

No, I don't think they were planning to kill the guy. I think they went to chase down a guy they thought was committing a crime in their neighborhood to bag him for the cops, then they waved some guns at him, then he was justifiably afraid for his life, and fought with them.

They made some stupid decisions, probably committed two crimes (brandishing firearms, attempting a citizens arrest for a non-felony). Someone died as a direct result of their criminal acts, that's probably murder, they'll probably go to prison. That's what my 'bias' tells me.

I don't think it's 'bias' to point out that if the victim, who was fleeing a crime, attacked a guy with a gun who'd told him to stop, then there might be a winning self-defense argument when the trial rolls around. And that has nothing to do with what color anybody is.

 

[vector2]

No, I don't think they were planning to kill the guy. I think they went to chase down a guy they thought was committing a crime in their neighborhood to bag him for the cops, then they waved some guns at him, then he was justifiably afraid for his life, and fought with them.

They made some stupid decisions, probably committed two crimes (brandishing firearms, attempting a citizens arrest for a non-felony). Someone died as a direct result of their criminal acts, that's probably murder, they'll probably go to prison. That's what my 'bias' tells me.

I don't think it's 'bias' to point out that if the victim, who was fleeing a crime, attacked a guy with a gun who'd told him to stop, then there might be a winning self-defense argument when the trial rolls around. And that has nothing to do with what color anybody is.

A former cop is pretty much positive he had intent to steal and was casing the joint. You said earlier it was pretty much obvious he was casing the joint. But sommmmeeehoowwwww the natural conclusion you come to is you think they had no intent to kill. What's your evidence for knowing their state of mind?

 

[Southpaw]

A former cop is pretty much positive he had intent to steal and was casing the joint. You said earlier it was pretty much obvious he was casing the joint. But sommmmeeehoowwwww the natural conclusion you come to is you think they had no intent to kill. What's your evidence for knowing their state of mind?

This. One guy is a criminal and two others are just stupid. Not vice versa. That’s the intrinsic bias of millions of white people in this country. It’s a problem whether we admit it or not.

 

[Mman]

walking into a construction site is not a felony, at least where I live. It would also be impossible to prove a criminal "intent" from somebody walking into a framed house.