Jogger Chased and Shot

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Finally. One step closer, HOPEFULLY, to justice.

Who really knows given all the media spin and opinion. I would say all the idiots in this scenario have paid the price.
Poor decisions in life sure can mess one up!

Exactly.

There are no innocent parties here. Literally everyone involved is a bad guy of some degree. All made bad decisions. Any one of them doing something different would’ve stopped the whole thing. But none of them did.

yep. A. was on probation I read for stealing a tv. It was apparent he was casing out that place, so wasn't his first time. I was amazed he chose to run around the truck to punch the guy in the face. Then try to get the shot gun. If he had the shot gun it would be the other guy who was killed. Travis stated he told him to stop when he saw him advancing toward the gun.

Uh, the jogger was acting in self-defense. Men in cars with multiple guns were trying to hunt him down.

He was not jogging!!! “Man acting in self defense” sure. But he was not out on a jog. No one wears long baggy khaki shorts and a white cotton t shirt to go for a run—especially not someone with significant athletic experience like AA.

Once he ran around the truck to punch and grab the shot gun he was the perpetrator. That put it in another light completely. He knew why they wanted to question him, and why he ran from the home. He was seen. Yes they should have waited for the cops, but the guy with the shot gun was clearly attacked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[
I watched various video on the internet. He was in someone else's home that was already framed in. They didn't appear to block him in as reported, he could have easily left the situation yet he punched and tried to get the shot gun. There are multiples problems with this case.

I have no idea what video you watched that showed him NOT being blocked in, and with the opportnity to "leave the situation." That's definitely not what I saw in the video.

However, I do wish they'd stop referring to him as "doing nothing more than jogging." He was not a runner/jogger. His murder has aboslutely nothing to do with running.

He could have run left or right, or further down the road. Instead he ran around the truck, and violently punched him over and over while grabbing the shot gun. The guy that video taped it just got there as it happened. He shouldn't be in jail. What if Arbery did get the gun?

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwie1dia57jzAhVdLDQIHTNBAuYQtwJ6BAgCEAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DwLN4PAJEYc8&usg=AOvVaw3rXlELZxdfjWaJUguSkqQp

Arbery had been chased down by men in a truck with a gun and was fighting for his life. That's why he punched and grabbed the gun. He knew he was trapped and couldn't out run a bullet by funning "left or right" (where? Into people's yards? He still wouldn't have been able to out run a bullet.) It's very reasonable to see that he felt his only chance was to attempt to disarm them.

I don't know enough about the guy who taped from behind and exactly what his charges are to speak to whether or not he should be in jail.

I thought the guy who taped it also participated in chasing him with his truck and actually hit him with his truck. He was an active participant in his murder.

From all the video it looked like he barely drove up when the shooting happened. Except for taping it I didn't see where he was involved. Maybe there's better video out there I didn't see.

He basically blocked his exit

That may have been the intent, but he wasn't blocked.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, but men armed with guns and trying to run down a person on a public street with their vehicles - de facto - can't claim self-defense. They were not defending their "castle." They were in pursuit, not retreat.

Arbery had every reason to fear for his life throughout the encounter.

[Anonymous]

fyi They never tried to run them down. Actually right after the incident Bryan is on video telling the officer A. tried to open the passenger side door.
This is the problem with trial by media. Hopefully all the facts will come out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We all know he wasn’t jogging. This whole thread is premised on a false narrative. It’s ridiculous that it wasn’t deleted when it was started because the thread title itself is deliberately misleading.

I agree with you. He was going there to see if the builders left something of value. He was on video twice in 5 weeks before the fatal shooting. He was also on probation from a 2017 weapon charge. Then in 2018 he was charged with trying to steal a tv. In the video he walks up to the home, then upon leaving he is spotted and runs. He likely ran because he was trespassing, and he couldn't afford to break probation. This is important because it supports the defendants statement to the police. No he wasn't a jogger. Maybe going by the agenda media he would be labeled a undocumented shopper.

I would hate to be on the jury. This is one of those cases where the victims are also the perpetrators.

So that deserves death penalty?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We all know he wasn’t jogging. This whole thread is premised on a false narrative. It’s ridiculous that it wasn’t deleted when it was started because the thread title itself is deliberately misleading.

I agree with you. He was going there to see if the builders left something of value. He was on video twice in 5 weeks before the fatal shooting. He was also on probation from a 2017 weapon charge. Then in 2018 he was charged with trying to steal a tv. In the video he walks up to the home, then upon leaving he is spotted and runs. He likely ran because he was trespassing, and he couldn't afford to break probation. This is important because it supports the defendants statement to the police. No he wasn't a jogger. Maybe going by the agenda media he would be labeled a undocumented shopper.

I would hate to be on the jury. This is one of those cases where the victims are also the perpetrators.

So that deserves death penalty?

What if it was a cop instead that asked him to stop because he had questions? Once he attacked the man with the gun it was another in a series of bad decisions done by all imo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We all know he wasn’t jogging. This whole thread is premised on a false narrative. It’s ridiculous that it wasn’t deleted when it was started because the thread title itself is deliberately misleading.

I agree with you. He was going there to see if the builders left something of value. He was on video twice in 5 weeks before the fatal shooting. He was also on probation from a 2017 weapon charge. Then in 2018 he was charged with trying to steal a tv. In the video he walks up to the home, then upon leaving he is spotted and runs. He likely ran because he was trespassing, and he couldn't afford to break probation. This is important because it supports the defendants statement to the police. No he wasn't a jogger. Maybe going by the agenda media he would be labeled a undocumented shopper.

I would hate to be on the jury. This is one of those cases where the victims are also the perpetrators.

So that deserves death penalty?

What if it was a cop instead that asked him to stop because he had questions? Once he attacked the man with the gun it was another in a series of bad decisions done by all imo.

What if it were Alien or Predator? It wasn't a cop and these guys had no business confronting someone with a gun, even if they thought he was trespassing in an EMPTY HOUSE. We are not vigilantes. Aubery had every right to try to not get shot, to fight for his life if he was scared.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Once he ran around the truck to punch and grab the shot gun he was the perpetrator. That put it in another light completely. He knew why they wanted to question him, and why he ran from the home. He was seen. Yes they should have waited for the cops, but the guy with the shot gun was clearly attacked.

He was under no obligation to answer their questions. They were not the property owner. They were not authorized to act on behalf of the property owner (security guards.) They were not the police.

He had every right to walk (run) away from them. They had no right to hunt him down and trap him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Once he ran around the truck to punch and grab the shot gun he was the perpetrator. That put it in another light completely. He knew why they wanted to question him, and why he ran from the home. He was seen. Yes they should have waited for the cops, but the guy with the shot gun was clearly attacked.

He was under no obligation to answer their questions. They were not the property owner. They were not authorized to act on behalf of the property owner (security guards.) They were not the police.

He had every right to walk (run) away from them. They had no right to hunt him down and trap him.

True. He could have run in many directions and off the street. He instead chose to assault shotgun guy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Once he ran around the truck to punch and grab the shot gun he was the perpetrator. That put it in another light completely. He knew why they wanted to question him, and why he ran from the home. He was seen. Yes they should have waited for the cops, but the guy with the shot gun was clearly attacked.

He was under no obligation to answer their questions. They were not the property owner. They were not authorized to act on behalf of the property owner (security guards.) They were not the police.

He had every right to walk (run) away from them. They had no right to hunt him down and trap him.

True. He could have run in many directions and off the street. He instead chose to assault shotgun guy.

Off the street where? They were in a neighborhood with homes. On to someone's private property? Isn't trespassing on private property what got him chased down by some vigilantes with guns in the first place?

[Anonymous]

I wonder if they can find fair and impartial jurors. This may take awhile-

https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/crime/ahmaud-arbery/live-updates-in-death-of-ahmaud-arbery-trial/77-00407643-53fe-46bf-8bdb-d32c3470e455

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Once he ran around the truck to punch and grab the shot gun he was the perpetrator. That put it in another light completely. He knew why they wanted to question him, and why he ran from the home. He was seen. Yes they should have waited for the cops, but the guy with the shot gun was clearly attacked.

He was under no obligation to answer their questions. They were not the property owner. They were not authorized to act on behalf of the property owner (security guards.) They were not the police.

He had every right to walk (run) away from them. They had no right to hunt him down and trap him.

True. He could have run in many directions and off the street. He instead chose to assault shotgun guy.

If he had, they would have shot him even sooner, but in the back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Once he ran around the truck to punch and grab the shot gun he was the perpetrator. That put it in another light completely. He knew why they wanted to question him, and why he ran from the home. He was seen. Yes they should have waited for the cops, but the guy with the shot gun was clearly attacked.

He was under no obligation to answer their questions. They were not the property owner. They were not authorized to act on behalf of the property owner (security guards.) They were not the police.

He had every right to walk (run) away from them. They had no right to hunt him down and trap him.

True. He could have run in many directions and off the street. He instead chose to assault shotgun guy.

If he had, they would have shot him even sooner, but in the back.

No. They wanted to see why he was in the home, and detain him until the cops arrived. They didn't expect him to turn and rush the guy with the gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Once he ran around the truck to punch and grab the shot gun he was the perpetrator. That put it in another light completely. He knew why they wanted to question him, and why he ran from the home. He was seen. Yes they should have waited for the cops, but the guy with the shot gun was clearly attacked.

He was under no obligation to answer their questions. They were not the property owner. They were not authorized to act on behalf of the property owner (security guards.) They were not the police.

He had every right to walk (run) away from them. They had no right to hunt him down and trap him.

True. He could have run in many directions and off the street. He instead chose to assault shotgun guy.

If he had, they would have shot him even sooner, but in the back.

No. They wanted to see why he was in the home, and detain him until the cops arrived. They didn't expect him to turn and rush the guy with the gun.

They should have stayed out of it and just called the police. As a result, they created the entire situation. I would find them guilty of manslaughter and give them a 10-15 year sentence….Next case

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Once he ran around the truck to punch and grab the shot gun he was the perpetrator. That put it in another light completely. He knew why they wanted to question him, and why he ran from the home. He was seen. Yes they should have waited for the cops, but the guy with the shot gun was clearly attacked.

He was under no obligation to answer their questions. They were not the property owner. They were not authorized to act on behalf of the property owner (security guards.) They were not the police.

He had every right to walk (run) away from them. They had no right to hunt him down and trap him.

True. He could have run in many directions and off the street. He instead chose to assault shotgun guy.

If he had, they would have shot him even sooner, but in the back.

No. They wanted to see why he was in the home, and detain him until the cops arrived. They didn't expect him to turn and rush the guy with the gun.

They should have stayed out of it and just called the police. As a result, they created the entire situation. I would find them guilty of manslaughter and give them a 10-15 year sentence….Next case

I agree. No one should take the law into their own hands. I understand they kept seeing him there, and a gun was stolen but let the cops handle it.

All involved played a role, but yes I would guess they will get some significant jail time.