philip964 wrote: Sat May 16, 2020 12:00 am
Homeowner who may not move into the house because of threats has made some new statements.
He seems to think the video shows the man going to where there was a faucet for water.
He also says that there were a number of visitors on video to the house beside this one man.
It apparently included a number of children.
When my parents were building their house on the cliff overlooking the Pacific at Point Dume, they had LOTS of people trespassing. The property was in a dramatic location, and at the time, it stood alone with no other houses on either side. It was also an unusual design, and they were using interesting and novel building materials. My parents were living in an an obviously occupied single-wide on the property during construction....as they also did a ton of the work themselves.
Some people, those with an interest in innovative architecture, would actually come from out of state to watch the progress of the construction. People wandered onto the property all the time, even though it was surrounded by a high chain-link fence. If the gate was open, they’d just walk right in.
One guy in particular was a real pain. He'd always interrupt the contractors to ask questions about what they were doing. My dad had to finally tell him that he could only talk to workers on his OWN dime; otherwise they were on my dad's clock. He would always bring his off-leash pitbull on the property while wandering around it, and his dog would chase my parents' cat. He was
repeatedly told that his dog was not anymore welcome on the property than he was, but the dude did it anyway. One day, the dog chased the cat into the sumac bushes lining the edge of the cliff. The cat turned right and the dog went straight .... plunging 120 ft to the beach below. The dog's owner was outraged, and yelled at my dad for not having a fence along the cliff's edge. My dad reminded him that (a) he’d been told
repeatedly not to bring his dog onto the property; (b) that there
was a barrier along the cliff....consisting of a thick fence of sumac bushes; and (c) reminded him that he was trespassing, and the "victim" was free to call the cops if he wanted to.
The dog going off the cliff was the last straw, and the guy finally got the message. Fortunately for the dog, he was not killed by the fall. His owner ran to the public beach access a couple of hundred yards off, and met the dog coming up the stairs about halfway down. It had a bloodied nose, but was otherwise ok.
People are often rude, and nearly always feel entitled to whatever it is they have on their minds, with no regard for the people whose lives are adversely effected in some way by the entitled person's words and actions. But as obnoxious and entitled as that dog's owner was, he stole nothing and damaged nothing. He was motivated by insatiable curiosity about something that was manifestly none of his business, taking place in a location where he manifestly had no right to be. I doubt he learned a single thing from this life lesson, either through through the confrontations with my dad, or through his dog's near-death experience. He was a typical self-absorbed Californian—a very common breed. But, he did not deserve to die for wearing his nether regions as a hat.
Dad was a WW2 combat vet. He probably knew 6 ways to kill this guy with a simple Wushu Finger Hold, but being the better man, he just never deemed it necessary. At some point, he would have probably called the local LA County Sheriff's office and had him
formally trespassed off the property. But at no point did he deem it necessary to chase the guy down the street and confront him with his .45.....and it was
HIS PROPERTY, not someone else's.
Please, Lord, let common sense and
WISDOM prevail. As srothstein pointed out, echoing my previous thought, the law is neither moral nor immoral. It is simply the law, and it is too often unconcerned with actual
justice,
or what's right. It may even condone immoral behavior in some circumstances. Every time WE respond to the law, it is an opportunity to make a moral or immoral decision. Because a thing is legal, that does not make it moral. At the end of the day, I will have to face a higher power than any prosecutor or court.
In this thread, most seem to have devolved firmly into the following camps:
1. Those who think that what the McMichaels did was legal and morally defensible.
2. Those who think that what the McMichaels did was legal but morally questionable.
3. Those who think that what the McMichaels did was both illegal
and morally questionable.
4. Those who think (as I do) that it doesn’t matter whether what the McMichaels did was legal or illegal. The cascade of decisions that ended in Arbery's death was initiated by the McMichaels the minute they jumped into their vehicle and set off in pursuit of Arbery, armed for a confrontation.
Their actions may or may not have been legal, as strictly defined by the law.
I don’t care either way. Was it ethical? In my opinion, it was not ethical. Was it moral? In my opinion, it was not moral. It was both foolish and stupid, and it was ALSO a perfect example of why it is often better to be a good witness than a self-appointed Ranger. Until
they confronted
him, resulting in the altercation which is described as either Arbery's assaulting or being assaulted by the McMichaels—depending on your bias—nobody was hurt, and as far as they could tell (single guy running down the street clad only in shorts, a t-shirt, and sneakers),
nothing had been taken.
How often have any of us said on these pages sayings like "nothing good ever happens after 10pm in bar parking lots"? That’s not the
law talking. That’s the voice of
wisdom. I realize that not everybody here is either a Christian or Jew, or even believes in a deity. That’s fine....we have a 1st Amendment, and you have a right of conscience. So, I’ll remove references to God and paraphrase this scriptural passage taken from Micah 6:8 "what is good; and what is required of you, but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly?"
Did the McMichaels meet that standard? No, they did not.....
whatever Georgia law says....and THEREFORE, we should at all costs avoid their example.