Trayvon Martin redux?
I enjoyed our little camping trip, but I guess it is time to return to work.
https://heavy.com/news/2020/05/ahmaud-a … o-georgia/
This is not the source I would prefer, but it was the one with a video. You will get a identical story from PBS, a source whose objectivity I would generally not question.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/gra … aud-arbery
Right when we need to avoid opening new wounds, it happens again. I really haven't got over being POed over the stalking, accosting and murder of a 17 year old kid by a authoritarian type flunkie who was acquitted on some bogus "stand my ground" defense.
This case in Georgia is going to make more trouble, there is a video associated with the shooting death of this 25 year old man by a couple of "good ole boys".
Since when is it against the law for a black man to jog? I jog often, who knows, that could have easily have been me.
What right did these men have to accost him and expect him to stop running? What was their authority, they were not law enforcement? They wanted to question him because he looked like a burglar at large in the neighborhood. But, as usual, we all look alike, right?
Both of the "men" were armed, while the victim was unarmed. How was all this allowed to escalate? How would you react if two armed men intimidated you for the crime of mere existence? Under what obligation did the victim have to submit to the inquiry of these assailants?
And the most irritating aspect of all is that neither of these men were even arrested. How is that possible?
This is where we (BLM) and others have to make a scene and stir up the pot to continue to get across a point that seems to consistently fall upon on deaf ears.
I blame the Right as they defended the right of Zimmerman to consider his murder of kid as justified, and I have no reason that they would have any different attitude under this current travesty.
I would like the know who could defend the actions of these "men" and why?Defend them? No.
Wait until I get the whole story before condemning them? Absolutely.All of it. And if you weren't there witnessing it is for you as well.
Good grief, Cred - you haven't even heard the other side of the story! You haven't heard from the men in the truck at all - just those filming with a phone, and that from a distance.
Because the victim was black, and the others white, does not prove guilt!But, the men gave their side of the story. I wanted to see this before making this an issue.
I did hear it, they said that there was a struggle over a shotgun and the man was killed as a result. This is found in both articles. But, why were firearms introduced in this matter in the first place?
We are all waiting for answers, and Wlderness, they had better be good or heads will roll.So they said they were attacked and the man tried to kill them with their own weapons.
They are therefore guilty of murder. And you think you have the whole story, to the point that "heads will roll" if the court doesn't agree with your determination.
Sorry, Credence; we've seen this behavior time after time after time - people making absolute determinations of guilt without need of a trial, very often out of simple racism as in this case. In theory we left the hanging mobs in the dust a hundred years ago, but it isn't true.Come on, Wilderness, think!
These armed men were attacked? They were the ones riding in a truck accosting a running man.
Does it makes sense that the victim would want to defend himself against two armed men, who knows what their intent was?
I don't know many people who are armed while jogging, so that's out.
The Kangeroo court that traditionally let "good ole boys" off will be held accountable by our community, this time.
What determination of guilt, Wilderness? These men had not even been arrested. Do you think that it is reasonable to start there?
This entire affairs reeks of bullsh@t and its bad for you. There had better be answers and explanations quickly or else we will have another cauldron to stir.No, Credence, it is you that needs to learn to think. To collect all the evidence possible before declaring guilt, and to never, ever make that guilty declaration based on race. To wait until you have done that and quit demanding answers quickly, before a trial by a jury of peers.
Is it "reasonable" to arrest them without sufficient cause? Certainly a phone video is insufficient - you don't even know if it has been modified. And I don't think you care if it was, for you have predetermined guilt because of race. You are a vocal participant in that "Kangaroo court" you spoke so disparagingly of.
As always in these social media publicized cases I choose to wait until all the evidence is in, for I know full well just how inflammatory and false social media is.What are you talking about, from your perspective these men were within their rights to shoot an unarmed man in the street without provocation? What other evidence are you seeking here? It is a racist atmosphere or milieu that hangs over our society that continues to justify and make excuses for this kind of travesty every time?
What cause is there? Their word is always to be accepted without question? They were the protagonists is this matter. It is not predetermined, you have a predetermin d attitude that in such confrontations, the black guy is always guilty in some way.
How do you know what I don't care about? The assailants explained what happened, is that good enough for you? It does not it do it for me. As usual, we are at loggerheads and I must continue my agitation through all information exchange systems to get justice in this matter, regardless.
This assault is not even addressed"What are you talking about, from your perspective these men were within their rights to shoot an unarmed man in the street without provocation?"
Exactly what I'm talking about. You cannot show where I said anything of the sort; nothing even approaching such an opinion. Only that I don't know and will wait for the whole story.
But that isn't good enough because you KNOW, beyond a reasonable doubt and even without a trial, that they are guilty. That Kangaroo court philosophy is alive and well.
"It is not predetermined, you have a predetermin d attitude that in such confrontations, the black guy is always guilty in some way."
LOL Credence, your posts have demonstrated, time and again, the most racist attitudes and conclusions I see on these forums. Because I don't accept that racism and jump on your bandwagon does NOT make me racist.
I have no doubt that you will continue your agitation, but it IS rather sad that we are at loggerheads over whether all the evidence, or even a trial before a jury of peers, is necessary to declare guilt.I just see that the two men have been arrested and charged with murder.
And that Arbery's mother has gone on "Good Morning America" in an effort to influence any jury that might be found. Do you support that action? Is it appropriate just before a trial?
https://abcnews.go.com/US/mother-unarme … d=70552216With the news that the men have been arrested and charged with murder, I now rest my case. That is what I expected to have happen at a minimum.
I am sure that these assailants have their advocates doing the same thing to influence events, nothing unusual there. I would expect that the jury would operate based only on the facts of the case as presented in opposing arguments in a court of law.
You won't have "the whole story" wilderness. Ever. One side of the story is dead.
And because of the video, there is more than a "whole story" by two killers.
Btw, you do love to wait, to have evidence, two hear both sides, etc., until you dont. Maybe I missed when his mom said she "has gone on "Good Morning America" in an effort to influence any jury that might be found."The first link I found said she was on the TV to tell the world what a great son he was. That, in my book, is an effort to influence a jury (whether intentional or not) - would you disagree?
- PrettyPantherposted 3 years ago
0Wilderness once said we need more evidence before deciding that an unarmed man had been shot in the back while running away, after watching a video that clearly showed the man was unarmed and had been shot in the back while running away. Of course, the cop "feared for his life.".
I guess seeing it with your own eyes is not "evidence."Not on a phone video then published on social media, it isn't. Not to MY satisfaction, anyway.
I do have vague recollections of that...and could not tell if he had been "shot in the back while running away", while turning or even facing the shooter. As I recall, the coroner did not find he had been shot in the back, either - all shots entered the front. And certainly no one could tell if he was unarmed. But hey - if drawing unwarranted conclusions to fit an agenda is your bag you can certainly do so.I don't know. Cal me crazy but if a guy runs from me without firing a shot it wouldn't even occur to me to shoot him as he is fleeing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Walter_Scott
Well, gang, now that we have the men under arrest, and with all thè heat and limelight that will be focused on this case, I am more than certain that it will be adjudicated properly.
I am glad I waited a bit to reply. It appears there have been a lot of assumptions made here—starting with the OP, and continuing through the bludgeoning of Wilderness.
But, looking at the thread it seems Wilderness is the only one not jumping to conclusions.
Look at the starting point: Appearances, (the video), seem to be clear that a couple of idiots with guns murdered an innocent black man. Looked that way to me too.
But, at the time of the OP;
Do we know that the black jogger wasn't a burglar fleeing the neighborhood? I haven't seen anything to prove that accusation wrong—other than his mother's statement that she thought he was jogging.
Do we know that he didn't attack the guys with the guns when confronted in front of the truck—which isn't visible in the video?
Do we know that the white guys just said "stop, we want to talk to you" as claimed—that wasn't in the video?
Do we know that the videoed encounter was the first contact—maybe they had pulled up beside him before the camera came on?
I would say no, we don't know the answer to all of those questions. As Island Mom said, even Wilderness doesn't have the whole story.
Yet, going solely by the video, the OP immediately played the race card—another black man shot by a white man just because he was black.
Later appearances and information may validate the OP's assumption, (it seems that way at this point), but, how could the OP know that? What if it had turned out that the jogger had just burglarized a home and was running to leave the neighborhood? That certainly wouldn't justify the white men's actions, but it would show the danger of jumping to the conclusions the OP did.
I think Wilderness was right. Even if the incident proves to be exactly what it is portrayed to be by the video, in the early stages of this incident's announcement—it was the OP that introduced race based on assumptions, not facts.
Don't be confused by my comments. I think the incident is exactly as portrayed by the video and the OP. But I don't know that to be a fact to be declared. At this point, knowing only what the media has portrayed I think those white guys should be charged as they have.
But as the bruised and bloodied Wilderness utters from crushed lips . . . we don't yet know "the whole story." Even though some appear to think they do.
GAGA, what gives?
The point I am making is that there certainly is sufficient evidence to require that these men be put under arrest.
It doesn't matter if the suspicion of the jogger being a bulgar was the correct interpretation or not. Why do you assume that vigilante action was the appropriate move? An article also stated that there had been no burglaries in the area 2 months prior to the death of the victim.
Yes, the OP is pulling the race card as the only rational
Explanation left on the table. It is just a pattern of behavior that I have seen all too often.
You had better make sure the accusation is right before you are justified to gun men down in the street. These people are not law enforcement, what Right do they have to accost anyone with a gun? They should have called the proper authorities to investigate and perhaps that young man would still be alive.
I already "know" because the pattern is quite predictable and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to recognize it. WE know from experience.
It is not just the video, but the circumstances. So some white guy says that the victim looks like a burglar so two men hunt him down and kill him, based solely on that word. All the while, law enforcement took these men's account without question for over two months before finally arresting them and that is only because people like me turn up the heat from a myriad of angles.
There are plenty of accounts that explain "the whole story", but if you are looking for implausible loophole to excuse the behavior of these men, so be it. But, I won't buy it.
The statement from one of the men, attackers "Gregory McMichael told police that he and his adult son thought the young man matched someone caught on a security camera committing a recent break-in in the neighborhood."
Is that a crime in progress or just someone's recollection of a perpetrator of a crime that took place in the past? So, they "thought"? A man is dead solely because of their thoughts, that do rise above their heads as far as I am concerned.
As I told Wilderness, I am willing to wait on the judicial system to properly deal with these men. I just require that they be arrested because the evidence points to the fact that they should be.
No, GA, it won't do, your purple is fast amalgamating into crimson red and I expected more from you.If I read the correct inference of the "more" you expect from me Cred you shouldn't be disappointed. I think my position on this type of topic has been fairly consistent over the years.
Regarding my accusation of bringing race into it—from the start, it was this comment:
"This is where we (BLM) and others have to make a scene and stir up the pot to continue to get across a point that seems to consistently fall upon on deaf ears."
Even if the event is just as you portrayed, beyond the tragedy of the death, the only police misstep, (as in societal acceptance), was the delay in arrest and charges. That seemed to have been quickly corrected.
As for the rest of your comment, I agree, there is no justification for those men bringing guns into the confrontation. However, if the incident was one of a burglary, (not that I believe it was), I fully support the power of Citizen's Arrest.
I can also see the rationale for the "pattern" you see—an unjustified shooting of a black man by a white man, but in this incident, I don't see it as a pattern beyond the one of idiots among us. Not one proclaiming the need for your BLM thought.
My comment had nothing to do with looking for a "loophole" to defend those white guys, if you thought there was then maybe you misunderstood my point and that is the reason you are disappointed.
[EDIT ADDED] Further information seems to point out that I may be really wrong about this statement ". . . the only police misstep, (as in societal acceptance), was the delay in arrest and charges. That seemed to have been quickly corrected." I should have looked for "more of the story" myself. Mia culpa.
GAYou know, I am not keen on this idea of citizens arrest. I just see it as just another concept to be abused.
Deadly force is only authorized where you or someone else is imminent danger of life or limb and would shoot copies and ask questions later regarding burglars and prowlers IN MY HOUSe which does not include the back yard.
This idea of vigilantes in "hot pursuit" with weapons drawn can be fraught was endless error.
I would say the say the police oversight was more than just an omission, but reflected unethical and illegal activity.But, but, wait . . . my idea of Citizen's Arrest does not automatically include the acceptance of brute/lethal force or vigilantes. And my view of that 'fine line' is not a blurry one.
GA
I'm glad you want to hear their side of the story. What, in your mind, could justify their actions?
I personally can't imagine a scenario where what they did is okay, but maybe I am merely limited in imagination.Considering the circumstances portrayed by the video, and speaking of the actions of the guns and the shooting, I can't think of any justification for either. But that wasn't my point.
But, and this is just a counter-thought, not a defense of the men; What if the actual shooting was semi-accidental? What if it started in the struggle for the gun as can be seen in the video? What if that was the first shot, and the second shot, (from the guy with the pistol in the truck bed), acting on the adrenalin of seeing the struggle and first shot? And what if the 3rd shot was adrenalin-fueled from the freaked-out first shotgun guy after he wrestled the gun away from the black guy that was now running away?
That is just a possible scenario and even if it were true it would change nothing—an unjustified murder still occurred, caused by idiots with guns, but, it would paint a picture different from the one of three white guys gunning down an unarmed black man just because he was black.
That could be their story.
Further, and in the category of the odds of an extinction meteor strike next Monday, what if it turns out there was a neighborhood burglary just prior to this incident?
I know how that sounds, but it is not intended to be probable mitigation, justification, or a defense of their actions. It is just intended to show the possible, (probable?), mistake of jumping to conclusions—and calling for BLM-style actions.
GA
Rather than dismiss my thoughts and perception out of hand, would you read this article?
It well explains why I so often reach for "that card" in a reflexive way. It is a bit long and touches on many grievances tangentically related to this topic,
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … ng/611389/I read your article Cred, and it makes some valid points, but I didn't need it to understand the "why" of your perspective. As a white man, I can only hope to have a glimmer of understanding of your 'starting point'.
I think you are probably right to grab "that card" more times than you are wrong to, but that doesn't mean it helps you for me to ignore those "wrong" times.
In the instance of this thread, as more of the 'story' comes out, I think that card was only one of a full hand of cards.
And contrary to your perception, I never dismiss your thoughts and perceptions out of hand, quite frequently I examine them with a microscope to find something to argue about. ;-)
GA
Once again, gang I have a article that may show that while I do not discard the race card, it is not the only card that needed to be pulled in this case
----
Excerpt from NYT article-
(Smoky and the Bandit?)
“It’s small-town America,” Mr. Merritt said in an interview on Thursday. “Those counties, the law enforcement community there they know each other well, they recycle officers in between themselves — it’s a very tight-knit community.”
Over the years, Glynn County police officers have been accused of covering up allegations of misconduct, tampering with a crime scene, interfering in an investigation of a police shooting and retaliating against fellow officers who cooperated with outside investigators.
The police chief was indicted days after Mr. Arbery’s killing on charges related to an alleged cover-up of an officer’s sexual relationship with an informant. The chief, John Powell, had been hired to clean up the department, which the Glynn County manager described last fall as suffering from poor training, outdated policies and “a culture of cronyism.”
The Glynn County force was the sort of department where disciplinary records went missing and where evidence room standards were not maintained, leading the state to strip it of its accreditation.
----------
The nature of the corruption associated with law enforcement in this Georgia County did not solely manifest itself in issues of race. I think that it is important to make that distinction.And I think it is a credit to you for posting that. I don't think it changes anything about the apparent wrongness of this tragedy and the culpability of those men, but it does offer more of the 'story'.
GAIt certainly raises eyebrows and makes a case for oversight and caution in any investigation and trial.
At least 2 prosecuting attorneys have recused themselves; can there be a fair trial in that location? Should it be moved?
The two men involved were arrested and charged with capital murder.
"Two men have been arrested and charged with murder in the fatal shooting of an unarmed black man whose family said he was jogging on the day he was killed, officials from the Georgia Bureau of Investigation announced Thursday night. The shooting of 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery, which took place February 23, ignited racial tensions across Georgia."
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ahmaud-arb … mcmichael/
What they did and how the local police department handled it is a disgrace.
I hope these two men get the worst possible sentence. All those involved with delaying the arrest of these two individuals should also be prosecuted for obstruction of justice. THAT is what needs to happen.
Just how I see it.What did the police dept. do wrong? Certainly I don't have all the information in this matter, but what do you think they did wrong?
If you want "the whole story", all the evidence, etc. maybe you should start reading about it. A suggestion.
Perhaps you can give me the information. Where were the wounds on the body? Was the shotgun the only weapon used, and at what range? What kind of shoes did the victim have on - were they running shoes, plain tennis shoes or something else? How long (estimated) between being shot and death? Were additional 911 calls place, specifically after shots were fired? Were any shots fired from inside the truck? What ammunition was being used in the shotgun?
What past arrests/convictions have been made on any of the three involved? Were the two men in any sort of neighborhood watch program? How far from their home was the killing? What had been the path of the victim prior to being killed? How far from his home did he die? What was he wearing, and what was the weather and temperature at the time? What, besides clothing, did he have on his person?
I heard that there were no break-ins in the neighborhood - do police records support that? Did the person filming call 911? Why did he wait 2 months to provide the video, and who did he make it available to? How long had he been following the truck or victim, if at all? Did he witness the truck following the victim for more than a few yards?
Does the video show any signs of tampering - has it been edited at all, including cutting off the beginning or end? Has a strong analysis even been done on it?
Think I can find those on social media, from a believable source?
Seriously? You need to read about this.
For starters they lied to his mother about how his death occurred.
"But when police came to her home on Feb. 23, she said they told her that her son had been shot and killed inside a house during the commission of a burglary. Cooper-Jones said she didn't question the officer.
"I didn't question it because it was authority talking," said Cooper-Jones."
They continued to lie about it.
Cooper-Jones said news reports started to come out that contradicted what the police told her about her son's death. "He wasn't killed inside a house but chased down and shot in the street," she said.
Johnson requested that the state's attorney general, Christopher Carr, assign the case to another office to investigate."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/events-leadin … d=70576804
So, it was a cover up by the local police in the beginning. It took 74 days after the incident to arrest these two individuals.
The police involved in the cover up need to also be prosecuted.I agree with you, Mike. It is long past time to hold police accountable for these types of coverups.
Prior to the video, what evidence did they have that there was a murder? Not a killing in self defense, or an accident or even manslaughter - a murder in the legal sense in that location and one that they could prove before a jury?
You really ought to read more carefully. For a guy who purports to want to know all the facts, you seem woefully ill-informed. The video did not 'suddenly surface," it was leaked.
And the terminology you choose to use to provide the slant you wish means...what? That you have nothing to offer in the way of a real answer so will change the subject?
(I know it was "leaked", if that's the desired term for giving it to someone. And I see reports it was "leaked" by a friend of the defendant trying to show innocence, which you did not mention. Not sure why "leaked" is a better term than "suddenly surfaced", though - is it just that "leaked" carries a connotation, true or not, that whoever provided it did so to stop a conspiracy?)I think what she meant was that the police had the video from the beginning. It was shot by a third party involved in the shooting. The guy that shot the video was also pursuing Ahmaud.
That is not what the information I saw indicated. It was pretty plain that the warrants and arrests were made within 36 hours of receiving the video.
How do we know which is correct?No. Arrest were made after the video was leaked and the consequent public outrage.
The arrests were made within 36 hours of the release of the video. The video was taken by William Bryan, the third man involved in the incident.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/202 … 89040001/.
"The district attorney who previously led the investigation told police he did not see grounds for an arrest of the McMichaels or the man who recorded it from his vehicle, according to a memo obtained by USA TODAY."Also, the person who leaked the video was "a criminal defense lawyer who had informally consulted with the suspects" in an effort to help them.
“I really thought the video would put the truth out to the public,” Tucker told the news show. "I was trying to stop a riot."
“The video speaks for itself,” Tucker told "Inside Edition." “What happened, I don’t have any excuse for it. I can’t explain it other than, you know, we always say what if he had just froze, wouldn’t have done anything -- he wouldn’t have gotten shot.”
SMH
https://www.foxnews.com/us/lawyer-says- … 2-suspects
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/us/a … awyer.htmlThe video speaks for itself,” Tucker told "Inside Edition." “What happened, I don’t have any excuse for it. I can’t explain it other than, you know, we always say what if he had just froze, wouldn’t have done anything -- he wouldn’t have gotten shoT
--------
IB,
Carlson is just another Rightwinger cretin. What makes him so certain that those men would not have shot Arbery, regardless of his putting up resistance? Could not put it past them, as it is pretty brazen to hunt a man down in Broad daylight and in public. Just like Trayvon, this man Arbery, was just expected to forfeit his right to self defense?
But, as I predicted, this story had legs and the pressure applied to make an arrest based upon probable cause that a crime has been committed is irresistible. As I mentioned earlier, there is enough public pressure and attention on the case to insure that justice will be realized.
So for now, my log remains open."What makes him so certain that those men would not have shot Arbery, regardless of his putting up resistance?"
LOL Perhaps the same it so certain that "Carlson is just another Rightwinger cretin."If you have watched Carlson, then you know he is right-wing. The "cretin" part is a matter of opinion, but I agree that it is a perfect description of Tucker Carlson.
Sorry for the confusion, Cred and PP. I posted the article but posted just one or two quotes. The Tucker quoted is Brunswick attorney Alan Tucker. He is the lawyer that leaked the video.
aha! Good catch. So the police didn't just 'learn' of the video six weeks after the event? At least that is what you quote says. Just as a note; I read the video was leaked by the attorney for one of the white guys. Said he did it in the interest of "transparency."
GA
"They continued to lie about it."
Or she did - what do we have outside her word, and that of the police? Do they agree they told her that?
"Johnson requested that the state's attorney general, Christopher Carr, assign the case to another office to investigate."
Not sure of your point - are you saying the AG should have been out canvassing the neighborhood and gathering evidence?
"It took 74 days after the incident to arrest these two individuals."
Perhaps I'm just ignorant, but I don't believe police simply arrest anyone with a gun after a killing. A "reasonable cause" must be established - according to the sparse reports I've read that cause was the video...that suddenly surfaced 2 months after the shooting. 36 hours later (a day and a half) the arrests were made - that seems reasonable on the surface. Unless you have other evidence to the contrary?I don't know if this is true:
"For starters they lied to his mother about how his death occurred.
"But when police came to her home on Feb. 23, she said they told her that her son had been shot and killed inside a house during the commission of a burglary. Cooper-Jones said she didn't question the officer."
But it does seem to fit with other information, (re. Cred's blurb). So, without looking for myself, I agree with your comment. It seems to fit.
GAThat's what I read in NY Times and others. Wouldnt be hard to believe.
Over the years, Glynn County police officers have been accused of covering up allegations of misconduct, tampering with a crime scene, interfering in an investigation of a police shooting and retaliating against fellow officers who cooperated with outside investigators.
The police chief was indicted days after Mr. Arbery’s killing on charges related to an alleged cover-up of an officer’s sexual relationship with an informant.
Over the last decade, the Glynn County Police Department, which has 122 officers, has faced at least 17 lawsuits, including allegations of illegal search and seizure.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/08/us/g … rbery.html
The crime and cover ups would have to rise to the highest levels of county government.
At least you can see that the complaint has validity. Thanks...
Wilderness: Very valid and lucid points, we do not have the whole story. However we do know that 3 armed men chased down a man and had no right, authority or reason to do so.Why would anyone comply with 3 armed men in the back of a pick up?
Even by citizens arrest standards, they would have had to witness the felony, which they did not. The DA, who the father previously worked for as an investigator decided they would not be charged 6 weeks ago. The public is just now seeing the video, the DA saw it 6 weeks ago. Ironically as soon as the video surfaced publicly, the DA resigns.
Whether they should be charged with murder, remains to be seen, as you stated, there are a lot of unanswered questions. At the very least they should have been arrested right after the incident for unlawful use of a firearm, reckless endangerment, gross negligence or any number of other charges.I just watched video of Arbery while he was inside the home under construction. He looks around but doesn't touch anything. His motive could have been as simple as looking for a bathroom, but as nefarious as casing it from a burglary aspect. We will never know because the police never got to ascertain that due to two citizens applying vigilantism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg8CaecNJI8
I also went through comments sections to hear that going into homes under construction is a common occurrence as people like to look at designs. Is it technically trespassing and not welcomed by builders, yes. But it is also very common and hardly ever prosecuted if people are just there to look.
Those defending the two arrested men are now claiming Arbery had a record and was on probation.
Either way, I just don't see cause for two non-policemen to detain someone when they are not an imminent threat to others, let alone brandish weapons and threaten them.William "Roddie" Bryan Jr., the man who recorded the fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery in a neighborhood outside Brunswick, Georgia, has been arrested on charges including felony murder, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation said Thursday.
A person can be charged with felony murder in Georgia if he or she is alleged to have contributed to another's death, even unintentionally, while committing another felony. Bryan also faces a charge of criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment.
"The accused (Bryan) did attempt to confine and detain Ahmaud Arbery without legal authority, by attempting to confine ... Arbery and utilizing his vehicle on multiple occasions" between 1 p.m. and 1:20 p.m. "with the intention of confining and detaining Arbery," the warrant dealing with false imprisonment reads.
Related Discussions
- 30
Why Did Some people See George Zimmerman As The Victim And Trayvon Martin As The
by VC L Veasey 10 years ago
Why Did Some people See George Zimmerman As The Victim And Trayvon Martin As The Aggressor?Why did they believe and not question his account of how their confrontation started?
- 28
Police Brutality. A murder of an unarmed young black man.
by realtalk247 9 years ago
FERGUSON, Mo. (AP) reported — An unarmed18-year-old black man was shot and killed by a suburban St. Louis police officer was unarmed. Several protesters were angry that Brown's body remained on the street for hours after the killing. Brown was a 2014 Normandy High School graduate who was to...
- 800
Are we witnessing "Racial Creep"?
by Mike Russo 8 years ago
I know this is going to be controversial, but I'm deeply concerned about racism in this country. There seems to be many more shootings of unarmed black men by white police in the last few months. This latest shooting in Ferguson Missouri has me wondering, are these pent-up tensions...
- 18
Tucson SWAT Shot U.S. Marine Over 60 Times in Front of Family
by Reality Bytes 12 years ago
This is a terrible incident on both sides. I do not know what to say. Do You?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkOXjOCkQfMEdit: title of thread is title of video
- 114
Robert Zimmerman Stirs the Issue of Racism
by SpanStar 10 years ago
Robert Zimmerman brother of George Zimmerman has stirred the issue of racism.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/2 … 79949.htmlClearly listening to Robert Zimmerman he appears to be a educated young man and one can understand a sibling being protective of a family member yet and still...
- 190
Is the boy president a liar or did the Navy SEALS murder Bin Laden?
by sn53Anon 12 years ago
This fascinates me. The bungler in chief has changes his story a few times about Bin Laden's well deserved death. One might think they could just watch the videos from the assault team along with the helicopter-mounted cameras, develop a timeline, create some PowerPoint slides and tell the people...