Someone who fully commits to it should be even easier to identify.

I try to give people the same benefit of the doubt that I expect from others. There are certainly times when I ask someone for more information or a source for what they are saying, but it always in service of a point or an argument. There is always something I am trying to say to contribute to the discussion instead of just trying to satisfy myself with this information. So when someone else asks for more sources or more information, I'll do what I can to assist, in the expectation that they are going to contribute in some way. When they don't, I feel like that's pretty shitty.

That said, its kind of ridiculous that you are trying to discredit all the information we do have as "mere hearsay" just because it isn't on video. When someone says "I said this and I did this", that is not hearsay. It is actually direct evidence and it would, 100% of the time, be admissible in court. There is no substantive or legal justification to ignoring this information that we do have. It is important to take into consideration that this is the actor's account of what happened, and it is possible that they were lying to protect themselves, but when that account is incriminating, there isn't really any reason to believe that the truth would make them look less guilty.

As for your last statement, we aren't in court and you are not a jury member. Your role in this conversation is not to be the trier of fact or to passively sit back and see if you will be convinced. Your role is closer to that of the lawyer. You are assumed to be a contributing party to a discussion, who is making a point or an argument. I'd love to see a defense lawyer, wholly unprepared for court, asking for the prosecution to spoonfeed them information so they can maybe make a case...

Actually I wouldn't. That would suck.

And it does.

This conversation sucks.

They made statements to the police that they were pursuing him, and when he refused to stop as they requested, the shooter exited his vehicle with a shotgun.  This is in the letter that has been posted several times here, as well as on many other sources.  Nowhere is it disputed that they initiated the pursuit and interaction.  

Considering the undisputed facts, would a reasonable person in the victim's shoes feel that their safety was being threatened?  Is there anything the shooters could have said that would have given him justifiable assurance that he was safe?

Have we transcripts? I assume we don't have recordings...

1). That is an unusual request.  The was partially recorded but there is no audio of the verbal exchanges because the video recorder was too far away.  Do you really expect everybody in that neighborhood to have their phones out and recording every time a vehicle goes by or a jogger goes by?

2). You didn't accept it in good faith, you pushed the goal posts from video to audio.  And if video really is the ultimate evidence for you, then why do you need audio?

3). Even if you're being told what was said by the very people that said them?  Seriously?

This is proof you either didn't read my response to you or it's irrelevant and you simply want to argue for the sake of an argument. You've already been told this, you said being told wasn't enough and you needed the audio of it and now you're asking to be told what was already told to you again.

"McMichael stated he and Travis got in the truck and drove down Satilla
Drive toward Burford Drive McMichael stated when they arrived at the
intersection of Satilla Drive and Holmes Drive, they saw the unidentified male
running down Burford drive McMichael then stated Travis drive down Burford and
attempted to cut off the male. stated the unidentified male turned
around and began running back the direction from which he came and " Roddy "
attempted to block him which was unsuccessful Michael stated he then jumped
into the bed of the truck and he and Travis continued to Holmes in an attempt to
intercept him .

McMichael stated they saw the unidentified male and shouted " stop stop ,
we want to talk to you " . Michael stated they pulled up beside the male and
shouted stop again at which time Travis exited the truck with the shotgun .
McMichael stated the unidentified male began to violently attack Travis and the
two men then started fighting over the shotgun at which point Travis fired a
shot and then a second later there was a second shot . Michael stated the male
fell face down on the pavement with his hand under his body. McMichael stated he
rolled the man over to see if the male had a weapon ."

Don't know why you're arguing about something that is not in dispute, but this is from the police report.  Clearly states that they were pursuing him, despite his attempt to flee from the situation.

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6915-arbery-shooting/b52fa09cdc974b970b79/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

"That is an unusual request.  The was partially recorded but there is no audio of the verbal exchanges because the video recorder was too far away. Do you really expect everybody in that neighborhood to have their phones out and recording every time a vehicle goes by or a jogger goes by?"

>No but would be nice thing to have.

"You didn't accept it in good faith, you pushed the goal posts from video to audio. And if video really is the ultimate evidence for you, then why do you need audio?"

>My apologies, when I said video, I meant both video with audio. Audio accompanies video in a majority of video recordings. Unfortunately, the video we do have was recorded too far away to record a majority of the audio of the incident...

"Even if you're being told what was said by the very people that said them?  Seriously?"

>You know the gunmen could be lying, right? Or recalling events inaccurately, human memory is not perfect. Have you considered these possibilities?

Not what I had in mind for transcripts but it'll have to do.

"Stop, stop, we want to talk to you" doesn't sound terribly threatening. If that's all that was said, I still can't understand why Arbery decided to run towards the truck before him in the video for a considerable amount of time, run to the right of said vehicle, and then turn to try to wrestle the gun away from one of the gunmen?

Perhaps the pursuit alone was enough to freak Arbery out but if I was confronted with gunmen in trucks telling me "they wanted to talk", my instinct would be to keep running rather than going up against bad odds. Either that or I'd probably freeze up from the encounter. If cornered, I'd try to negotiate which seems to be what the gunmen wanted to do if the quote above is indeed true...

Also of note in the video is that one of the gunmen does not discharge his firearm until after the struggle for the gun breaks out. I'd expect someone intending to cause bodily harm to someone else for ill reasons would never allow someone else to get that close to them. I'd expect the gunman to discharge much earlier.

...I dunno, we'll see what the courts have to say.

Complete strangers drive after you.  You turn around to go the other way, and another car drives to block you.  You run the other way, and they drive around and intercept you.   The car then pulls up next to you, and a man gets out with a shotgun.  The person who was chasing you has a tool that he could use to end your life immediately.  You don't consider that reasonable grounds to be afraid?  Does he have to assume these people who are chasing him for reasons he probably doesn't understand are calm reasonable people?  How does he know they're not crazy?

When he was approached by gunmen in the car, his first reaction was in fact to run away.  When he did so, they kept pursuing him.  Regardless, what you would personally do is irrelevant.  If there was reasonable grounds to believe he was in danger, he was legally entitled to try and defend himself. Whether he may have been better off trying another tactic is irrelevant in regards to whether or not the killer's actions were justified. Seems like you're closely scrutinizing whether the victim, who mind you was simply jogging, was acting reasonably, yet you're not putting any scrutiny on the killers.  Why aren't you in the least bit second guessing what they did?  Why is it "if I were confronted by a gunman..." instead of "well if I was driving and saw a jogger who I thought maybe fit a vague description of a person who was accused of tresspassing..."?  Whose actions were more unreasonable?

It is not noteworthy that the gunmen doesn't discharged the gun until there is a struggle.  He wasn't charged with first degree murder, which would imply that he specifically set out with the intent to kill him.  What he was charged with was felony murder.  In the process of committing an unlawful act, aggravated assault, a person was killed.  You are not allowed to chase someone around while armed with a deadly weapon.  In events like this, we hold the person committing the felony as responsible for causing the death. Because it makes more sense that the person who is actually committing an illegal act should be held responsible for its consequences rather than the person reacting.  

Again I have to ask.  A person was followed by a car and was told to stop.  Despite trying to flee from the situation he was still pursued.  Then a man got out of the car with a gun.

In this situation, what rules are you suggesting?  What do I have to do as the victim?  What do I have to wait for before I could defend myself?  Should I have When should the gunman have a legal right to shoot me without legal repercussions?  

As the victim, you keep calm and don't try to go hero mode when the odds are clearly stacked against you. Fast food workers are trained that during a robbery, they should comply with the robber's orders and not try to go hero mode. You give the robber what he's after, money, and shut the hell up! Let the robber know you don't plan to resist and hand over what the robber wants.

https://dps.usc.edu/safety-tips/suspicious-activity/robbery/

In this case, sounds like the gunmen were after answers if they did indeed ask Arbery to stop and that they wanted to talk to him.

Arbery was having none of it and had to run a considerable distance before he could get a chance to struggle for the gun. If I'm that far away from a gunman, I'm not gonna charge for the gunman because the gunman could at any point turn the gun on me. Not to mention that I'm outnumbered.