Two Weapons, a Chase, a Killing and No Charges: A 25-year-old man running through a Georgia neighborhood ended up dead

[Reptile]

Evidence the Arbery jury never heard: Storekeepers nicknamed Ahmaud 'The Jogger' for stealing and running away - while Travis McMichael called him racial slur AFTER shooting him​

• The jury in Ahmaud Arbery's murder trial heard from more than two dozen witnesses across 10 days of testimony
• They also heard the prosecution and defense state their cases over two days of closing statements
• However, there were five key arguments the court ruled could not be presented to the 12-juror panel who will decide the fate of the three white men charged
• They included Arbery's mental health records and criminal history, and the fact that trace amounts of THC were found in his blood after his death
• The judge also refused evidence claiming Arbery was known as 'The Jogger' because he would jog to convenience stores, and run out with stolen goods
• Information about the defendants, including their alleged racist social media posts and text messages, were also withheld from the jury
• Travis McMichael, Gregory McMichael and neighbor William 'Roddie' Bryan have been found guilty of murder

Ahmaud Arbery jury did not hear five key arguments

Before they reached their guilty verdict, the jury - made up of 11 white people and one black person - was presented with hours of testimony.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[42!]

I don't think anyone is saying Ahmaud hadn't committed crimes in the past, it's even possible he was coming from comitting another crime (possible but no evidence of such).
What it comes down to is 1. Was he fleeing a felony crime at that time, AND 2. did the McMichaels have direct knowledge (personally witnessed) of his committing that crime. Without both of these the citizens arrest angle doesn't stand up legally or morally.
Without these it just doesn't rise to the point were I would even think of getting personally involved. I might call the cops and report a suspect, but I wouldn't feel the need to chase him down myself. There was no threat to anyone's life and certainly not to me and mine.

 

[Spanz]

a lot of Rambo types really should take the time to read some primers on self defense:

Amazon product ASIN 0936783451View: https://www.amazon.com/Armed-Response-Comprehensive-Firearms-Self-Defense/dp/0936783451/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=ayoob+lethal+force&qid=1637929018&qsid=130-3409108-6858127&s=books&sr=1-4&sres=1440240612%2C1440247544%2C1511434651%2C0936783451%2CB01F9FAJBA%2CB003NZQBCA%2C0811713008


AND be prepared for a lengthy and costly legal defense if you do shoot someone, even in clear self defense (see Rittenhouse) because of some woke anti-gun local AG, or worse, some woke anti-gun President sicking the DOJ on your azz!

cops get paid to do this stuff, and have protections written into the law so they do not get jacked up. you....have no such protections

 

[FPrice]

AND be prepared for a lengthy and costly legal defense if you do shoot someone, even in clear self defense (see Rittenhouse) because of some woke anti-gun local AG, or worse, some woke anti-gun President sicking the DOJ on your azz!

Our AG's response to the Rittenhouse verdict clearly demonstrate that she would come down on the side of the bad guys and would crucify any good guys who get in the way.

cops get paid to do this stuff, and have protections written into the law so they do not get jacked up. you....have no such protections

The first part is true but their protections are slowly vanishing every day. At some point they may become the San Angeles Police Department for real.

 

[Spanz]

The first part is true but their protections are slowly vanishing every day. At some point they may become the San Angeles Police Department for real.

i am quite surprised the police unions allow any of that shit to happen.
if i were a cop, i would be agitating for MORE protections!
its getting to be like The Road Warrior out there.

 

[FPrice]

i am quite surprised the police unions allow any of that shit to happen.
if i were a cop, i would be agitating for MORE protections!
its getting to be like The Road Warrior out there.

IF the police unions were that powerful, they are probably already in bed with the political powers that are screwing their officers over.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

i am quite surprised the police unions allow any of that shit to happen.
if i were a cop, i would be agitating for MORE protections!
its getting to be like The Road Warrior out there.

It used to be, and largely still is, that police unions have great sway over legislatures. Just look at how the Katrina bill was killed in MA at a point where it was a virtual fait accompli - all because it included punishments for police who violate it. The police lobby was able to pull off a backroom kill so effective that even GOAL was not able to tell us which legislators rolled over for the police belly rub.

That is changing as "support the police" is no longer the golden ticket to extra votes, and cameras are showing that the version of events in the police report is not always accurate.

 

[meh]

I don't think anyone is saying Ahmaud hadn't committed crimes in the past, it's even possible he was coming from comitting another crime (possible but no evidence of such).
What it comes down to is 1. Was he fleeing a felony crime at that time, AND 2. did the McMichaels have direct knowledge (personally witnessed) of his committing that crime. Without both of these the citizens arrest angle doesn't stand up legally or morally.

I agree that it doesn't stand up, though I come at it from a more nuanced angle. As Andrew Branca points out, the GA citizen's arrest statute was (at the time) ambiguous on the requirements for apprehending a suspected fleeing felon. They probably intended to make it legal for citizens to assist the police in apprehending dangerous suspects, e.g. a person on a wanted poster. I'm not convinced the verdict hinges on this interpretation. The cops wanted to find Arbery to issue him a warning for trespassing. The cops obviously didn't think they had probable cause that Arbery had committed burglaries in the neighborhood, so where did the McMichaels come up with probable cause to chase Arbery down for any felony? I think their suspicion was more likely based on racial profiling and weak supposition. It would be ironic if Arbery were the actual burglar, but without probable cause to arrest him for those burglaries, they were chasing down a suspected trespasser and nothing more. Hence the verdict.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Bringing a gun into a situation to enforce your will rather than defend you life is a dangerous proposition for the non-immune (from charges, not Covid).

The rooftop Koreans played that game and won, but just imaging what the fallout would have been if some of the would-be looters called their bluff and got shot.

 

[Matt_SERE]

but just imaging what the fallout would have been if some of the would-be looters called their bluff

I recall watching it on the news. I don't think all of them were bluffing. Choosing the bluffer would be a roll of the dice in itself.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I recall watching it on the news. I don't think all of them were bluffing. Choosing the bluffer would be a roll of the dice in itself.

What I meant in this case by "call their bluff" was loot and get shot. The Korean's reaction would likely be "we never intended to shoot anyone, they were supposed to retreat when they saw our guns".

 

[Matt_SERE]

What I meant in this case by "call their bluff" was loot and get shot. The Korean's reaction would likely be "we never intended to shoot anyone, they were supposed to retreat when they saw our guns".

Rob, I agree the proposed defense. But, damn, I remember one video where the RTK had a look in his eye, maybe the owner, but he certainly had the eye of the tiger. I'll look around in a documentary of time stamped news clips and see if I can find it.

In WA state, I was driving around in a full size blazer for the county emergency services team. I was pulled in to the garage and had all the sheriff stars and some other emblems 'removed for my safety'.

I think this is a segment of it:


View: https://youtu.be/OCYT9Hew9ZU

 

[Reptile]

If there was not the video recorded by the guy in the car - would these guy have gotten away with this?

Dead men tell no tales. Even if they have long toe nails with lots of dirt underneath.

They all could have shut up and the burden to prove it was murder beyond a reasonable doubt would have been on the state.

 

[Hoover]

If there was not the video recorded by the guy in the car - would these guy have gotten away with this?

Dead men tell no tales. Even if they have long toe nails with lots of dirt underneath.

They all could have shut up and the burden to prove it was murder beyond a reasonable doubt would have been on the state.

Without the video they would never have been charged much less convicted.

 

[Baby Billy]

I heard Andrew Branca (the law of self defense guy) on a podcast discussing this case and his take was that the judge didn't do his job correctly. According to him, there are 2 ways that the citizens arrest law could be interpreted, and under one of those ways, the defendants action's were "justified".
Instead of the judge deciding on the interpretation and instructing the jury as such, he left the interpretation up tge jury which is not what is supposed to happen. Additionally, if there is any ambiguity in the law (apparently there is in this case, according to him), the correct interpretation should favor the defense, because the state wrote the laws.

I'm paraphrasing a bit, but I thought it was an interesting take.

 

[Picton]

I heard Andrew Branca (the law of self defense guy) on a podcast discussing this case and his take was that the judge didn't do his job correctly. According to him, there are 2 ways that the citizens arrest law could be interpreted, and under one of those ways, the defendants action's were "justified".
Instead of the judge deciding on the interpretation and instructing the jury as such, he left the interpretation up tge jury which is not what is supposed to happen. Additionally, if there is any ambiguity in the law (apparently there is in this case, according to him), the correct interpretation should favor the defense, because the state wrote the laws.

I'm paraphrasing a bit, but I thought it was an interesting take.

Post #1033. Been brought up already.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Rob, I agree the proposed defense. But, damn, I remember one video where the RTK had a look in his eye, maybe the owner, but he certainly had the eye of the tiger. I'll look around in a documentary of time stamped news clips and see if I can find it.

Actually, it was an observation that taking a gun into a situation where you are not in fear for you life, could safely retreat, but wish to use the gun to control the action of others, is not a defense but evidence of guilt. Except maybe in Texas where it might get you a citation (the kind the Mayor gives in a public ceremony, not the kind that requires going to court).

Try justifying shooting someone from a perch 20ft high and 50ft away when you could just run to the center of the roof and let them loot the business, plus explaining why self defense necessitated going to a sniping perch instead of leaving the location.

 

[meh]

Additionally, if there is any ambiguity in the law (apparently there is in this case, according to him), the correct interpretation should favor the defense, because the state wrote the laws.

He may have a point where the judge is concerned and that this was a defect in the process. His argument that the outcome of the trial hinged on the interpretation is weaker than advertised because they clearly didn’t have probable cause, either, and much of the prosecution’s case was devoted to showing exactly that. If you appeal the error and win a new trial, the second trial has the same outcome, except possibly Bryan fares better. Not sure about that, but I don’t see how the McMichaels would.

 

[Baby Billy]

Post #1033. Been brought up already.

Whoops I'm a bit behind! I was this close to starting a new thread about his comments, too. Phew!

 

[Picton]

Whoops I'm a bit behind! I was this close to starting a new thread about his comments, too. Phew!

No worries. I’m sure the appeals court will ponder Branca’s argument.

 

[MaverickNH]

Opinion: Ahmaud Arbery verdict defies expectation that injustice will prevail

Arbery verdict brings hope, but bitter experience makes Black people wary that nation has put racial injustice behind it

www.freep.com

"One hopes those white people who think themselves inherently entitled to stop Black people on the street and demand they justify their presence will now check themselves and correct themselves. One hopes they will question this high-handed assumption of theirs that random white people have some divine right to police random Black people and Black people some moral obligation to quiescently accept it."

Nobody is stopping swarms of people dashing into stores and stealing - good enough?

 

[MaverickNH]

Opinion | The Left, the Ahmaud Arbery Verdict and ‘Felony Murder’

If the charge is unjust, the jury should have convicted only one of the defendants.

www.wsj.com

“Progressive criminal-justice reformers have argued that felony-murder laws are unjust, and they have a point….Legal scholar Guyora Binder wrote that U.S. states have maintained felony-murder laws “in the teeth of academic scorn.” Reformers liken felony murder to the death penalty, in that most other Western democracies have repealed such laws. They argue that felony murder is racially discriminatory and unfair in itself. “One of the basic principles of a fair justice system is that you are punished for the crimes you commit, not those committed by other people,” as a 2019 item in the New York Timesput it.”

Unjust, unless the need racial justice revenge is served.

 

[rosco61]

Approaching 800 murdered in Chicago so far this year. Crickets from BLM. That’s just one big city.

 

[Randy Lahey]

One thing I’ve taken from this case that has surprised me greatly is how many people out there think it’s just cool to walk onto private property and enter a house under construction. I’ve been involved in building a lot of houses over the years And I can tell you that if we found you in one of the houses we were building you would have some explaining to do. Many many sites are ripped off While under construction and I would assume immediately if I caught someone in a house we were building that you were there to rob the place. It’s also wildly unsafe depending on the stage of development. Just not a good idea people, I wouldn’t suggest it.

I knew a guy who trained German Shepherds that would be left on construction sites overnight to prevent materials and tools from being stolen. Had some interesting tales of coming in in the morning and there being blood all over the place from people who thought it was a smart idea to check out a property under construction. Apparently not everyone respects “no trespassing” signs.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Absent the felony murder charge, more defendants would go to trial rather than take the deal - which is why the system likes it so much.

What about misdemeanor uttering - if you drive to the store with someone who writes a bad check, accompanying them into the store makes you just as guilty of a bad check charge as they are.

 

[weekendracer]

A little slice of my faith has been restored in the “Justice” system after this outcome and Kenosha. Although I still contend Rittenhouse never should have even been charged.

Look at it from a different point of view. He's now done criminally. He can never be charged again. If he hadn't gone to trial, this would hang over his head forever.

Yes, it sucked. Yes, I'm the king of understatement. But it's over and he can go on with his life for the most part. Civil trial might come into play, but there's no money floating other than the city. Kyle is NOT OJ with bags of money hidden.

 

[weekendracer]

Because how many times do those people see white defendants get off a rape or other charge with a slap on the wrist and black defendants get put away for decades for a weed posession or distribution charge WITH NO VICTIM. Even decades ago, white underaged kids caught driving drunk by cops would just get their alcohol taken away and driven home by the cops. I'm not saying that is wrong. But you bet your butthole that a black kid in the same situation would get very different treatment.

This may be the media cherry picking, showing whichever story they want. But the average person isnt looking up statistics and analyzing anything. The average person is living their life, trying to make money, and taking care of the family

Dude, seriously. Show me ONE person who's 'decades' for actual 'simple possession' in the last 25 years?

Not a plea down to possession, an initial charge of possession.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Look at it from a different point of view. He's now done criminally. He can never be charged again. If he hadn't gone to trial, this would hang over his head forever.

Yes, it sucked. Yes, I'm the king of understatement. But it's over and he can go on with his life for the most part. Civil trial might come into play, but there's no money floating other than the city. Kyle is NOT OJ with bags of money hidden.

There is always the dangling sword of civil rights charges, so his attorneys have no doubt advised him not to poke the bear.

A civil judgment can F up his life - wage garnishment forever; inability to ever own real estate in his name (except in FL and perhaps TX), and possibility the need to move to a state that makes it harder to collect judgments. Unlike most "no pot of gold" cases where it is impossible to find contingency fee counsel, this is the sort of case that will attract attorneys either because of the cause or publicity. Unlike most civil cases, the goal of one against this subject would be punishment and the infliction of pain, not financial recovery.

 

[eboos]

There is always the dangling sword of civil rights charges, so his attorneys have no doubt advised him not to poke the bear.

A civil judgment can F up his life - wage garnishment forever; inability to ever own real estate in his name (except in FL and perhaps TX), and possibility the need to move to a state that makes it harder to collect judgments. Unlike most "no pot of gold" cases where it is impossible to find contingency fee counsel, this is the sort of case that will attract attorneys either because of the cause or publicity. Unlike most civil cases, the goal of one against this subject would be punishment and the infliction of pain, not financial recovery.

Civil rights charges would be a poor tactic for the DOJ. Who's civil rights are Rittenhouse accused of violating? Filing any charges would expose the DOJ for pursuing a purely political goal and would undermine any of its remaining credibility.

 

[Hoover]

He may have a point where the judge is concerned and that this was a defect in the process. His argument that the outcome of the trial hinged on the interpretation is weaker than advertised because they clearly didn’t have probable cause, either, and much of the prosecution’s case was devoted to showing exactly that. If you appeal the error and win a new trial, the second trial has the same outcome, except possibly Bryan fares better. Not sure about that, but I don’t see how the McMichaels would.

I watched some of the trial and some of the son (Travis mcmichael) testimony. The sons testimony was very very unhelpful to the defense. He answered that Arbery never had a weapon, never made any threats or showed any aggression (until the end), never said anything, didn’t see Arbery commit any crime, etc.

The facts were absolutely not in the mcmichaels favor for self defense or the civil arrest law. They were extremely stupid and national the very best (if someone or a judge had a very generous view of civil arrest in GA) may have technically not committed a crime. I didn’t see very many people who understand the GA law think the mcmichaels were within the law.