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

[eboos]

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.

I've been watching a lot of Officer Tatum's videos, and I've liked what he has had to say most of the time, but something did make me feel a little uneasy. Then he started commenting on this case. Furthermore he seemed to double down after the trial testimony was concluded with the view that the McMichaels did nothing wrong. While people are certainly entitled to their opinions, I think Brandon Tatum got it very wrong on this case and it calls into question his position on a lot of other topics. As a black man, and former police officer, Tatum takes umbrage with a lot of issues and prevailing viewpoints in black America. I suspect that, based on his position in the Arbery case, Officer Tatum may not be basing his opinions on careful reasoning, but possibly from a less respectable place.

 

[Hoover]

I've been watching a lot of Officer Tatum's videos, and I've liked what he has had to say most of the time, but something did make me feel a little uneasy. Then he started commenting on this case. Furthermore he seemed to double down after the trial testimony was concluded with the view that the McMichaels did nothing wrong. While people are certainly entitled to their opinions, I think Brandon Tatum got it very wrong on this case and it calls into question his position on a lot of other topics. As a black man, and former police officer, Tatum takes umbrage with a lot of issues and prevailing viewpoints in black America. I suspect that, based on his position in the Arbery case, Officer Tatum may not be basing his opinions on careful reasoning, but possibly from a less respectable place.

Ive seem a few interviews with Arbery relatives who also want actions brought against the cops who responded and didn’t offer Arbery medical care. Shot twice in the chest at close range with a shotgun and a few relatives are upset he wasn’t given medical aid? He was dead 20 seconds are the first shot and was dead before the first cop was there. Heck, it he was shot like that right outside a trauma unit, they wouldn’t be able to save him. That much damage , even if he were in surgery within seconds, they wouldn’t have a chance to save him after that much damage to his organs.

 

[weekendracer]

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.

That wouldn't change though. The civil case would still be there if the charges were dropped. I'll take possibly owing money every day over spending my life in prison.

No charges, he'd be constantly wondering when some DA wanted to try and make a name for himself. In fact, I'd say he got extremely lucky and had an incompetent DA bring the charges and ended it.

 

[weekendracer]

That wouldn't change though. The civil case would still be there if the charges were dropped. I'll take possibly owing money every day over spending my life in prison.

No charges, he'd be constantly wondering when some DA wanted to try and make a name for himself. In fact, I'd say he got extremely lucky and had an incompetent DA bring the charges and ended it.

Just realized this is in the Georgia thread. I'm talking about Kyle before it spins out of control. Dammit, hit reply instead of edit. Sorry, 10 lashes with a wet rubber chicken for punishment.

 

[Hoover]

Just realized this is in the Georgia thread. I'm talking about Kyle before it spins out of control. Dammit, hit reply instead of edit. Sorry, 10 lashes with a wet rubber chicken for punishment.

Eh, both cases are over so you’re not drifting the thread to any effect.

 

[meh]

The facts were absolutely not in the mcmichaels favor for self defense or the civil arrest law.

I agree. I was a little irritated with Robert Barnes on his weekly show with Viva Frei last Sunday because he claimed conservatives were "virtue signalling" on this case. Well, I have to be honest. The public figures are virtue signalling because they didn't watch the trial and can't really know, but that doesn't mean the verdict was wrong. Barnes came at it like a defense attorney making closing arguments (understandably, I guess, considering who he is), talking about felony home invasion, Arbery suspect of numerous burglaries in the neighborhood (including theft of guns), reasonable suspicion being a low bar (e.g. cases where fleeing in a high crime area was considered probable cause for police). But having watched about 4 hours of testimony and summation, I thought the prosecution dispensed with all that quite well.

1. All the usual kinds of trespassing were occurring at the construction site, both kids and adults.
2. One of the major neighborhood thefts (from the boat, I think, not sure now) was caught on surveillance camera and appeared to be white male with a car nearby. This was shared on the community's FB page, the point being that the rest of the community, at least, was not fixated on some black man being the culprit in every theft in the neighborhood.
3. The police were seeking Arbery to issue him a warning for trespassing. They were not seeking him in connection with suspicion of burglary.
4. The defendants didn't mention suspicion on the other burglaries in their statements contemporary to the shooting, so it seems that once they were apprised of the law, they had to fabricate a story about suspicion that might benefit them.
5. Video guy wasn't just surveilling Arbery, rather trying to corral him. He tried to hit Arbery 5 separate times with his car, at least box him in.

These guys didn't think they were doing anything wrong. Perhaps they did suspect Arbery of every theft in the neighborhood, but if so, they suspected him because he was a BLACK trespasser on the construction site. At the very least, they thought he had been caught in the act of some larceny. That's how the incident was about race--their prejudice elevated their unreasonable suspicions to something that seemed reasonable to them. None of this proves that Arbery didn't commit some thefts in the neighborhood, but the defendants weren't justified for what they tried to do on that day based on anything they could have known, or indeed is even known today.

 

[Hoover]

I agree. I was a little irritated with Robert Barnes on his weekly show with Viva Frei last Sunday because he claimed conservatives were "virtue signalling" on this case. Well, I have to be honest. The public figures are virtue signalling because they didn't watch the trial and can't really know, but that doesn't mean the verdict was wrong. Barnes came at it like a defense attorney making closing arguments (understandably, I guess, considering who he is), talking about felony home invasion, Arbery suspect of numerous burglaries in the neighborhood (including theft of guns), reasonable suspicion being a low bar (e.g. cases where fleeing in a high crime area was considered probable cause for police). But having watched about 4 hours of testimony and summation, I thought the prosecution dispensed with all that quite well.

1. All the usual kinds of trespassing were occurring at the construction site, both kids and adults.
2. One of the major neighborhood thefts (from the boat, I think, not sure now) was caught on surveillance camera and appeared to be white male with a car nearby. This was shared on the communitie's FB page, the point being that the rest of the community, at least, was not fixated on some black man being the culprit in every theft in the neighborhood.
3. The police were seeking Arbery to issue him a warning for trespassing. They were not seeking him in connection with suspicion of burglary.
4. The defendants didn't mention suspicion on the other burglaries in their statements contemporary to the shooting, so it seems that once they were apprised of the law, they had to fabricate a story about suspicion that might benefit them.
5. Video guy wasn't just surveilling Arbery, rather trying to corral him. He tried to hit Arbery 5 separate times with his car, at least box him in.

These guys didn't think they were doing anything wrong. Perhaps they did suspect Arbery of every theft in the neighborhood, but if so, they suspected him because he was a BLACK trespasser on the construction site. At the very least, they thought he had been caught in the act of some larceny. That's how the incident was about race--their prejudice elevated their unreasonable suspicions to something that seemed reasonable to them. None of this proves that Arbery didn't commit some thefts in the neighborhood, but the defendants weren't justified for what they tried to do on that day based on anything they could have known, or indeed is even known today.

I think Arbery was likely looking to steal things when he went to that house under construction. I and most people have walked through houses under construction but that’s done during the day, Arbery was in that house at 10pm in the dark on occasions. You’re not sight seeing in the dark at night. The day the chased Arbery was in the middle of the day so that given day Arbery is less suspicious.

Like you said, and I agree with, the father and son used the civil arrest law months after the fact and created their justification. That day they were suspicious of Arbery but knew nothing more than that. I think they thought Arbery would stop when they drove up to him and they would have called the cops or asked him questions themselves and nothing else would have happened. When Arbery didn’t stop (he has no obligation to, I wouldn’t have either), they used their truck to stop him and it kept escalating. Even if everything else happened but Travis didn’t take the shotgun out of the truck, the mcmichaels would have never been in this situation. If Arbery charged an unarmed mcmichael and they fight, Arbery would have probably been charged and everyone’s would be alive and healthy. The mcmichaels foolishly kept escalating and making extremely poor choices.

 

[Mesatchornug]

I think Arbery was likely looking to steal things when he went to that house under construction. I and most people have walked through houses under construction but that’s done during the day, Arbery was in that house at 10pm in the dark on occasions. You’re not sight seeing in the dark at night. The day the chased Arbery was in the middle of the day so that given day Arbery is less suspicious.

I don't know; among my friends, "urban spelunking" tended to happen at night. Granted, we were college kids and as likely to find decomposing structures as new ones, but I think it's hard to draw too much inference from individual anecdote.

 

[meh]

I think Arbery was likely looking to steal things when he went to that house under construction. I and most people have walked through houses under construction but that’s done during the day, Arbery was in that house at 10pm in the dark on occasions. You’re not sight seeing in the dark at night. The day the chased Arbery was in the middle of the day so that given day Arbery is less suspicious.

Yeah, maybe. He went multiple times and each time left with nothing. He could have been planning a heist for later with a vehicle suitable for making off with construction materials. But an alternate explanation is just mental. The guy was mentally ill. The defense even wanted to admit evidence of that because they wanted to emphasize a tendency to violence. But the flip side of that coin is that his behavior in other respects may not be "reasonable". You and I would think there is no reason to be there at night unless you're up to no good. But with mental illness, all bets are off. Something about being there might have been tickling his brain in some way that just doesn't compute to you and me. I don't know. I'm just saying.

 

[Hoover]

Yeah, maybe. He went multiple times and each time left with nothing. He could have been planning a heist for later with a vehicle suitable for making off with construction materials. But an alternate explanation is just mental. The guy was mentally ill. The defense even wanted to admit evidence of that because they wanted to emphasize a tendency to violence. But the flip side of that coin is that his behavior in other respects may not be "reasonable". You and I would think there is no reason to be there at night unless you're up to no good. But with mental illness, all bets are off. Something about being there might have been tickling his brain in some way that just doesn't compute to you and me. I don't know. I'm just saying.

Yes, I forgot about that. He had some diagnosised mental issues. I also read he often stole from convenience stores. Regardless of those things the mcmichaels had many chances to make a better choice and never did.

 

[Reptile]

Ahmaud Arbery's killers sentenced to life in prison for 25-year-old Black man's murder

Three White men who chased and murdered 25-year-old Black jogger Ahmaud Arbery in south Georgia were sentenced to life in prison Friday, with two having no chance of parole.

www.cnn.com

 

[Drix]

Ahmaud Arbery: Jogger's murderers sentenced to life in prison

The sentencing judge condemns the three men for the "callous" murder of the black jogger.

www.bbc.com

And thats a wrap 'till appeals.

 

[Junior314]

Ahmaud Arbery's killers sentenced to life in prison for 25-year-old Black man's murder

Three White men who chased and murdered 25-year-old Black jogger Ahmaud Arbery in south Georgia were sentenced to life in prison Friday, with two having no chance of parole.

www.cnn.com

I believe this a textbook definition of PSGWSP.

 

[Hoover]

Not surprising the son (shooter) and father got life no parole. I really believe the neighbor roadie Bryan was just a dumb guy, who had no idea what was going on, and thought he was just helping a neighbor. Felony murder is very easy for prosecutors to seek in many cases and it’s a minimum of 30 to life in GA.

He was part of it but he was so unwitting in what was happening and unlike the other two, I think he regrets his actions and feels badly about someone dying. I think a just sentence for his part would have been 10-15. 30 years for his actions is not justice.

 

[drgrant]

Not surprising the son (shooter) and father got life no parole. I really believe the neighbor roadie Bryan was just a dumb guy, who had no idea what was going on, and thought he was just helping a neighbor. Felony murder is very easy for prosecutors to seek in many cases and it’s a minimum of 30 to life in GA.

He was part of it but he was so unwitting in what was happening and unlike the other two, I think he regrets his actions and feels badly about someone dying. I think a just sentence for his part would have been 10-15. 30 years for his actions is not justice.

Wasnt he the guy who videoed the thing? I bet he regrets that. That did not work in their favor.

 

[Hoover]

Wasnt he the guy who videoed the thing? I bet he regrets that. That did not work in their favor.

Yep. When a radio show host in GA leaked the tape months after the actual shooting, that’s whe; it blew up in GA and went national. The local DA was corrupt and broomed it. She’s now facing corruption charges as a result of her actions in this. Without the tape, I doubt they’re ever arrested, never mind getting convicted.

The tape was extremely powerful evidence here and was an asset for the prosecution. The exact opposite happened with Rittenhouse, the numerous video tapes showed he was fleeing and attacked. Without the tapes, Rittenhouses attorney Richards said he thinks Kyle would have been found guilty.

Video and DNA are extremely powerful evidence in these trials.

An aside. Look up chandler halderson he’s a 23 year old on trial in Madison Wisconsin this week for killing his parents, chopping them up and disposing of the parts. I never thought anyone who leave more evidence against themselves than Aaron Hernandez, I was wrong. He’s as cooked as it gets.

 

[meh]

Wasnt he the guy who videoed the thing? I bet he regrets that. That did not work in their favor.

Isn't he also the guy with the "could we please not have black preachers here" lawyer? I thought they were being harsh with him until I actually listened to what he did. If he'd have just shadowed Arbery, I could have held on to my sympathy, but the guy tried to corral him, even run him down on more one occasion. He was actively trying to detain Arbery at the very least, and expressed regret that he hadn't actually hit him (on the theory that it would have prevented Arbery from being shot). Furthermore, I'm not buying the supposed significance of him not "knowing" the McMichaels pair were armed. He didn't know it for an actual fact, but it was something he no doubt would have bet money on.

 

[KBCraig]

Wasnt he the guy who videoed the thing? I bet he regrets that. That did not work in their favor.

Yes. He shared it with the McMichaels, whose lawyer leaked it, thinking it exonerated them. Then Roddie claimed he didn't even know them and had no idea how they got the video.

 

[Junior314]

Yes. He shared it with the McMichaels, whose lawyer leaked it, thinking it exonerated them. Then Roddie claimed he didn't even know them and had no idea how they got the video.

Because when I chase down a guy after I run into my house to grab a gun looking for a confrontation I ALWAYS make sure to have my neighbor get it all on video.

 

[Picton]

Because when I chase down a guy after I run into my house to grab a gun looking for a confrontation I ALWAYS make sure to have my neighbor get it all on video.

Yep.

The one thing I think everyone agrees with, even the McMichael apologists who still haven't come back to this thread to share their reactions, is that these are NOT the sharpest tools in the shed.

I sense prison will not be an environment in which they will thrive.

 

[Nick Leduc]

Ahmaud Arbery: Jogger's murderers sentenced to life in prison

The sentencing judge condemns the three men for the "callous" murder of the black jogger.

www.bbc.com

And thats a wrap 'till appeals.

Don't forget the federal trail that starts next month!

There is a truckload of incompetence and unintelligence in this case.

Never talk to the police. These guys could have probably gotten away with murder if they weren't so stupid.

 

[Hoover]

Don't forget the federal trail that starts next month!

There is a truckload of incompetence and unintelligence in this case.

Never talk to the police. These guys could have probably gotten away with murder if they weren't so stupid.

There words and that video cooked them. As you said, without their words to the police, even with the video they probably never even get arrested. I watched some of the trial and what they said on body cam to the cops and afterwards in interviews was used extensively against them by the prosecution. Never ever a good idea to talk to police even when you believe you are 100% in the right legally. “Anything you say, can and will be used against you in a court of law”

They absolutely will use it against you, even minor misstatements. Cops are not having a friendly conversation with you, they’re gathering evidence

 

[Rob Boudrie]

There words and that video cooked them. As you said, without their words to the police, even with the video they probably never even get arrested. I watched some of the trial and what they said on body cam to the cops and afterwards in interviews was used extensively against them by the prosecution. Never ever a good idea to talk to police even when you believe you are 100% in the right legally. “Anything you say, can and will be used against you in a court of law”

They absolutely will use it against you, even minor misstatements. Cops are not having a friendly conversation with you, they’re gathering evidence

What many people do not understand is that the prosecution cannot use the fact that you waited until retaining counsel and calming down to tell your side of the story cannot be used against you. People commonly think "If I come clean now, it will help".

One sexual assault investigator told me his favorite trick was "Sure, I respect your right to have an attorney present, but the first thing that person will do is tell you not to talk to me and you won't be able to tell me your side of the story". He told me it almost always worked.

 

[Hoover]

What many people do not understand is that the prosecution cannot use the fact that you waited until retaining counsel and calming down to tell your side of the story cannot be used against you. People commonly think "If I come clean now, it will help".

One sexual assault investigator told me his favorite trick was "Sure, I respect your right to have an attorney present, but the first thing that person will do is tell you not to talk to me and you won't be able to tell me your side of the story". He told me it almost always worked.

Yep. People think they’ll explain what happened (which they believe was 100% legal) and the police will understand it was legal and you’re clear. As you ere are some obscure laws or quirks in the law which may expose people and even when something is 100% justified as was Rittenhouse in Wisconsin, you may have a police agency or DA who doesn’t care and wants to railroad you. Even if found not guilty as Rittenhouse was, it’s a long process with major risk and could be devastating financially.

If you never talk, even at the trial, that cannot be used against you.


An interesting show on tv is “first 48”, a show on murder investigations in a dozen cities. It’s amazing how often the detectives say we don’t have enough for an arrest, we need a confession, etc during the interview. And people confess or answer questions about where they were at a certain time, etc. and these are murder cases so most of the time the confession results in life in prison sentences

 

[meh]

Intuitively you think you can play your cards right and not fall under suspicion of having committed a crime, whereas if you "lawyer up", the cops will immediately think "Aha! This person has lawyered up because they know they are guilty, so let's focus all our attention on him." But for the most part, cops are dispassionately collecting evidence, and the only thing you can say that they won't take with a grain of salt is something self-incriminating. That's where their intuition can steer them wrong, but you can't change that.

 

[Nick Leduc]

I didn't watch the entire trial, I did watch most of the sons testimony. After seeing it, I changed my opinion on the son slightly.
Originally I had him pegged as a complete retard that was out looking for justice.
I feel a little bad for him now. I think he honestly felt that he was doing the right thing. Be it that he was either uneducated about the law or just ignored it, his actions resulted in killing the guy.
It reminds me of the the quote from Shawshank Redemption about being rehabilitated. I personally think that the son can be rehabilitated after some time served. He is around my age, and thinking about life with no chance of parole is numbing.

The neighbor as well. I'm sure he has gone thru a million different ways that his life could have gone differently that day. He was outside and saw them go by and joined in. What if he wasn't outside at the time. If it were me, that would be eating me alive. "If I took a piss before going outside, that would have delayed me being outside by a minute, I would have not seen them go by and wouldn't have joined".

I can say that I believe that all 3 didnt wake up that day and say "I want to kill someone today" but because of some terrible judgment calls, they did.

 

[FPrice]

What many people do not understand is that the prosecution cannot use the fact that you waited until retaining counsel and calming down to tell your side of the story cannot be used against you. People commonly think "If I come clean now, it will help".

One sexual assault investigator told me his favorite trick was "Sure, I respect your right to have an attorney present, but the first thing that person will do is tell you not to talk to me and you won't be able to tell me your side of the story". He told me it almost always worked.

Massad Ayoob had a story in his column, maybe 10-15 years ago, about an individual in Miami who had to shoot another man, in front of the man's wife. As Ayoob described it, it was a clear case of self-defense. When the police showed up, the shooter refused to speak to them and the wife immediately began to accuse him of murder, ignoring the fact that her husband initiated the incident by attacking the other man. The man continued to remain silent and the media picked up on it as a clear case of murder in front of the victim's wife. The police also treated it as an unprovoked shooting, casting the man as a killer.

When the man finally started talking it was too late and he did go to trial. As I recall, the man was treated liked Kyle Rittenhouse in the media. The defense team finally proved self-defense but only after a long trial, at great expense and the loss of his reputation.

Would he have been better off to say, "I was attacked by this man and I had to defend myself I need my lawyer."

Or was he better off being treated like a criminal, found guilty in the media, and probably bankrupted?

I am certainly not advocating talking too much, but if you just shup up and let the other side control the scenario and the dialogue you are going to pay a price.

What is the best strategy?

 

[Hoover]

I didn't watch the entire trial, I did watch most of the sons testimony. After seeing it, I changed my opinion on the son slightly.
Originally I had him pegged as a complete retard that was out looking for justice.
I feel a little bad for him now. I think he honestly felt that he was doing the right thing. Be it that he was either uneducated about the law or just ignored it, his actions resulted in killing the guy.
It reminds me of the the quote from Shawshank Redemption about being rehabilitated. I personally think that the son can be rehabilitated after some time served. He is around my age, and thinking about life with no chance of parole is numbing.

The neighbor as well. I'm sure he has gone thru a million different ways that his life could have gone differently that day. He was outside and saw them go by and joined in. What if he wasn't outside at the time. If it were me, that would be eating me alive. "If I took a piss before going outside, that would have delayed me being outside by a minute, I would have not seen them go by and wouldn't have joined".

I can say that I believe that all 3 didnt wake up that day and say "I want to kill someone today" but because of some terrible judgment calls, they did.

I saw a good amount of the sons testimony and he was honest in it (which wasn’t helpful to his case). I get a similar impression of him as you, not a bad person who made some really bad decisions which resulted in a murder. There a wasn’t intent to commit a crime but when Arbery didn’t stop then they tried to stop Arbery and the criminal acts began.

I definitely think the son was very influenced by his father and probably did everything he’s ever told him to do. The father is a dominant personality, the son a meek one. But for the father calling for his son to get in the truck, etc, I doubt anything would have happened that day.

Trigger person is always going to get the harshest sentence. I think the son is 35 ish. Even if the sentence were 50 years, there’s still a small chance you breathe freedom before you die. The evidence, testimony, etc is so solid, an appeal has zero chance. And he’s never getting a governor to commute that life no parole. The only hope is some woke GA legislature abolishes life no parole or federal court rule life no parole is unconstitutional as they did for the death penalty and life no parole for those under 18. That’s his only hope.

The father is 60+ with heart issues, he’s never leaving alive.

I think roddie is remorseful and his part and motivation was next to help a neighbor. He literally had no idea what was going on and was probably in disbelief when the shooting happened. Maybe in the future he meets Arberys family and they petition to have the governor reduce his sentence to 15. Arberys parents seem like decent people and when they get away from the Ben crumps and Al sharptons, they will be open to a meeting.