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

Frizzle Fry said:
Again, he was leaving the scene of a crime that very moment. Same day, same moment, a felony at that. They had reasonable suspicion which is enough to satisfy Georgia law.
Click to expand...
Whether he was or wasn't isn't clear. What is clear is that the shooter wasn't at the scene of a crime and didn't follow him from there. "that very moment" didn't happen. The shooter himself stated that he thought he looked like the suspect in a string of break ins. That's what he knew at that time, assuming he is telling the truth. And the shooter was in his own front yard when he decided to chase the victim.

Or are you saying the shooter lied to police, that he was in fact at the scene of a crime and saw the victim committing the crime and gave chase from that point. And he just figured that wasn't what he should tell the police?

But on a Sunday afternoon in February, as Mr. Arbery ran through a suburban neighborhood of ranch houses and moss-draped oaks, he passed a man standing in his front yard, who later told the police that Mr. Arbery looked like the suspect in a string of break-ins.
Click to expand...

I've said it before, if the shooter had personally seen a crime in progress and chased a perpetrator from that point, the situation would be very different. But that didn't happen.
 
42! said:
Whether he was or wasn't isn't clear. What is clear is that the shooter wasn't at the scene of a crime and didn't follow him from there. "that very moment" didn't happen. The shooter himself stated that he thought he looked like the suspect in a string of break ins. That's what he knew at that time, assuming he is telling the truth. And the shooter was in his own front yard when he decided to chase the victim.
Click to expand...
That's irrelevant in the state of Georgia. When you're a legislator you can make whatever rules you like for your own state. I hope I don't live there!

42! said:
Or are you saying the shooter lied to police, that he was in fact at the scene of a crime and saw the victim committing the crime and gave chase from that point. And he just figured that wasn't what he should tell the police?
Click to expand...
Yawn. Irrelevant. He told them what he told them and it lines up with the various videos, 911 calls, etc. Don't worry though as re-iterated by multiple prosecutors, the statute and relevant case law, and a variety of self defense lawyers, that doesn't matter. I'm sorry but it doesn't. When you get your own state (let's call it 42!) you can make your own laws however you'd like and ensure that people don't have the sort of privileges they do in Georgia.

42! said:
I've said it before, if the shooter had personally seen a crime in progress and chased a perpetrator from that point, the situation would be very different. But that didn't happen.
Click to expand...
Maybe in the state of 42! but not in the state of Georgia. It's a felony, he had reasonable suspicion, the man met the description and was fleeing.

Even if he hadn't committed burglary the pursuit and attempted arrest was lawful.

Don't take it from me, take it from their legislature, multiple prosecutors and a variety of lawyers including those who specialize in these things.
 
Guyute said:
Where did you see that these men saw him committing a felony?
Click to expand...

On camera - according to both the first and second prosecutors. But again, that's irrelevant as they had reasonable suspicion that he was fleeing the scene of a different felony based on a variety of factors outlined in the police report and statements of the other witnesses. Read the statement by the second DA, read the statute, look up a little case law, and listen (since most people here trust him) to the recent breakdown by Andrew Branca. It's fairly straight forward... even if the guy hadn't committed the burglary.

This absolutely will be another Zimmerman. Reviewed by multiple officials and offices, found to be a cut and dry case in which charges shouldn't be brought, and then coerced/forced prosecution because of politicians and race baiters - only to be acquitted after a lengthy and expensive trial (hopefully). Sad that we live in a country where you can shop prosecutors as well as judges, or force a prosecution by lobbying.
 
Rather than debate state law, perceived intent or the existence or absence of racism, I would offer two questions:
If the victim was your son, your brother or your friend, would you feel any differently?
If the race of those involved was the opposite i.e., black homeowners see what they suspect is a white criminal, arm themselves, get in a truck, chase and kill the victim, would you feel any differently? If your answer to both questions is "No", then we can assume your analysis is objective and unbiased.
 
Frizzle Fry said:
On camera - according to both the first and second prosecutors. But again, that's irrelevant as they had reasonable suspicion that he was fleeing the scene of a different felony based on a variety of factors outlined in the police report and statements of the other witnesses. Read the statement by the second DA, read the statute, look up a little case law, and listen (since most people here trust him) to the recent breakdown by Andrew Branca. It's fairly straight forward... even if the guy hadn't committed the burglary.

This absolutely will be another Zimmerman. Reviewed by multiple officials and offices, found to be a cut and dry case in which charges shouldn't be brought, and then coerced/forced prosecution because of politicians and race baiters - only to be acquitted after a lengthy and expensive trial (hopefully). Sad that we live in a country where you can shop prosecutors as well as judges, or force a prosecution by lobbying.
Click to expand...
You forgot after an expensive trial to include the riots, looting, and destroying of property.
 
I maybe confused but didn’t the prosecutors recuse themselves? I didn’t see 2 decided against charges
 
Guyute said:
I maybe confused but didn’t the prosecutors recuse themselves? I didn’t see 2 decided against charges
Click to expand...

The first made a statement about her opinion and the likelihood of charges being brought to the local paper when she recused herself for a legitimate reason (one of the shooters had worked in that DAs office as an investigator 8+ years earlier, for a period of 20 years, before leaving to become a police officer).

The second prosecutor chose not to bring charges and explained in detail why charges should not and would not be brought. And there it sat for several weeks.

The mother of the burglar, now represented by an attorney, wanted the second prosecutor to recuse himself on the basis that the prosecutors son works in the same DAs office where the shooter had previously worked, but not during the same period that the shooter had worked there. The son of the prosecutor stated that he had perhaps seen the shooter once or twice, but did not know him and had not worked with him, where the prosecutor did not know him at all. The prosecutor stated he would not recuse and again, there it sat for several further weeks, until the grievance industry started pressuring the .gov to turn the case over to a different office... at which point the second prosecutor was forced to recuse and again stated in writing his opinions and the opinions of his colleagues on why he had not pursued charges and believe they should not be pursued.

Regardless of anyones feelings on the rightness or wrongness of the laws here, or how smart/dumb the choices are of anyone involved, it's a terrifying concept that outside political pressure from protestors and lobbying groups can effectively shop DAs over and over until they either land on one they like, or force a prosecution where every office handling it believes one isn't needed. In this case the third prosecutor decided to convene a grand jury, at which point the Georgia equivalent of State Police investigators (GBI) stepped in to make an arrest and bring charges. "Well we had to step in, a grand jury would take weeks to convene because of COVID-19, and the mob is angry NOW!"
 
Most posters here carry a gun for self-defense. So, hopefully, you’ve given some thought to having to fight back against an aggressor. Amazing that you can’t imagine a scenario where you aren’t in fact the criminal someone thinks you are, and with no context two morons (because at the very least, these guys are morons) are hopping out of their pickup truck pointing guns at you. And of course, none of you would fight back?! All of you would run into the woods. Bullshit — you don’t know what you’d do, you’d make a split second decision that will be either fight, or flight, and you probably wouldn’t even realize until after the event. In the fight scenario your death is justified because you defended yourself, instinctually, against reckless idiots, well-intentioned as they might be? Because that is what a ton of you are saying to justify this shooting. If I fight back against an aggressor when there was a flight option (as determined by keyboard warriors and Monday morning quarterbacks), I deserve death if they shoot me first. That’s some liberal anti self-defense thinking if I ever heard it.

As to the scenario as a whole, totally possible this is some scumbag who died unnecessarily at the hands of some rednecks, but it’s no great loss to the world. Also possible some rednecks murdered some guy either because they are malicious racists who fear black people and have an excuse, or, we can be generous, are at best totally retarded yahoos who truly don’t have a racist bone in their bodies.
 
crazymjb said:
Most posters here carry a gun for self-defense. So, hopefully, you’ve given some thought to having to fight back against an aggressor. Amazing that you can’t imagine a scenario where you aren’t in fact the criminal someone thinks you are, and with no context two morons (because at the very least, these guys are morons) are hopping out of their pickup truck pointing guns at you. And of course, none of you would fight back?! All of you would run into the woods. Bullshit — you don’t know what you’d do, you’d make a split second decision that will be either fight, or flight, and you probably wouldn’t even realize until after the event. In the fight scenario your death is justified because you defended yourself, instinctually, against reckless idiots, well-intentioned as they might be? Because that is what a ton of you are saying to justify this shooting.

As to the scenario as a whole, totally possible this is some scumbag who died unnecessarily at the hands of some rednecks, but it’s no great loss to the world. Also possible some rednecks murdered some guy either because they are malicious racists who fear black people and have an excuse, or, we can be generous, are at best totally retarded yahoos who truly don’t have a racist bone in their bodies.
Click to expand...

No guns were pointed in the video. And Georgia law calls for literally every single one of their actions. One of the "yahoo rednecks" was a 20 year investigator and 8 year police officer, who identified the man from video footage of his crime, which has been confirmed by a prosecutor... A split second decision probably doesn't involve an unarmed 100 foot sprint at a stationary armed man who doesn't have the apparent triggerhappiness in him to shoot you as you charge at him - at least until after you've attacked him or according to the prosecutor likely discharged his weapon for him.

Armed man not pointing a gun at me "has some questions for me" or "wants to talk to me"?

"Sure I've got all day ask away" or "Gee I'm a little busy catch ya later"
 

“ Moments before Ahmaud Arbery was shot dead on a public street on a Sunday afternoon in February, 911 dispatchers received the first of two calls about his presence in the Satilla Shores neighborhood.

Fifty seconds into that call, the dispatcher interrupted the man with a pressing question.

“I just need to know what he was doing wrong,” the dispatcher said to the caller at 1:08 p.m.”

“ As for the emergency call on the afternoon of Feb. 23, the Glynn-Brunswick 911 dispatcher never got a clear answer to her question. The man said Arbery was walking inside an open home that apparently had been under construction for some time, according to transcripts. Also, Arbery ran.

The 911 center received a second call from the Satilla Shores neighborhood moments later, at 1:14 p.m.

“I’m out here at Satilla Shores,” the caller said. “There’s a black male running down the street.”

“ Only one burglary, an automobile burglary, was reported to county police in the Satilla Shores neighborhood between Jan. 1 and Feb. 23, according to documents obtained by The News in a public records request to the Glynn County Police Department. It involved a Smith & Wesson M&P 9 mm pistol stolen Jan. 1 from a pickup truck outside 230 Satilla Drive, the home of Travis McMichael, according to the police report.”
 
garandman said:

“ Moments before Ahmaud Arbery was shot dead on a public street on a Sunday afternoon in February, 911 dispatchers received the first of two calls about his presence in the Satilla Shores neighborhood.

Fifty seconds into that call, the dispatcher interrupted the man with a pressing question.

“I just need to know what he was doing wrong,” the dispatcher said to the caller at 1:08 p.m.”

“ As for the emergency call on the afternoon of Feb. 23, the Glynn-Brunswick 911 dispatcher never got a clear answer to her question. The man said Arbery was walking inside an open home that apparently had been under construction for some time, according to transcripts. Also, Arbery ran.

The 911 center received a second call from the Satilla Shores neighborhood moments later, at 1:14 p.m.

“I’m out here at Satilla Shores,” the caller said. “There’s a black male running down the street.”

“ Only one burglary, an automobile burglary, was reported to county police in the Satilla Shores neighborhood between Jan. 1 and Feb. 23, according to documents obtained by The News in a public records request to the Glynn County Police Department. It involved a Smith & Wesson M&P 9 mm pistol stolen Jan. 1 from a pickup truck outside 230 Satilla Drive, the home of Travis McMichael, according to the police report.”
Click to expand...
Travis was one of the 2 men who chased the black guy.

It is reasonable to think that the black guy had the stolen gun and therefore confronting him with the shotgun was reasonable.

You just don't walk up to a robber who has a stolen gun.

They'll be found not guilty at the end of this once the truth comes out.

Riots will ensue like they always do and more black people will die as a result - like they always do.

Rodney King, Fergusson, etc.
 
Reptile said:
It is reasonable to think that the black guy had the stolen gun and therefore confronting him with the shotgun was reasonable.
Click to expand...
I've got to hear the logic behind this reasoned thinking. A gun was stolen almost 2 months prior by an unknown person. Even if I saw someone that I suspected of a crime, based on a video of some other action, if I didn't see a gun, I can't see reaching this as a reasoned conclusion. I may act with normal caution, reasoned thinking doesn't put a gun in his hand.
 
42! said:
I've got to hear the logic behind this reasoned thinking. A gun was stolen almost 2 months prior by an unknown person. Even if I saw someone that I suspected of a crime, based on a video of some other action, if I didn't see a gun, I can't see reaching this as a reasoned conclusion. I may act with normal caution, reasoned thinking doesn't put a gun in his hand.
Click to expand...
He was seen on video stealing the gun.

Extreme caution and defensive measures are warranted when dealing with gun thieves.

They can be very ornery and unpredictable as seen in the video where the black guy attacked, beat and attempted to disarm the guy with the shotgun.

Since he was the same guy who stole the gun the cops should search his house for the gun.

Attempting to disarm a person can be grounds for lethal force.

The black guy escalated the situation by going on the attack and giving a beating to the guy with the shotgun.

I know that if I was running through a neighborhood that I’d just robbed and some guys in a truck stop in the road I’d keep running.

The black guy confronted and attacked, beat and attempted to disarm the white guy.

He had the ability to avoid the men but he chose to attack. He should have left.

If you are not innocent and you chose not to avoid the situation, your claim to self defense goes out the window.

In GA, holding a gun at ones side is legal.

The black guy attacked first.
 
Interesting plot of IHME COVID deaths data vs forecasts. The pair of point below the middle line are weekends, when it appears fewer people die. Actually, it’s just fewer are reporting and those counts spike on Monday/Tuesday.

DD0019BE-FEC6-46F8-B2E8-7DB147EA5FF7.png
 
Reptile said:
It is reasonable to think that the black guy had the stolen gun and therefore confronting him with the shotgun was reasonable.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to wrap my mind around that statement. So you think it's reasonable to think that a guy he'd never seen was the perp in a theft from two months earlier that he also didn't see happen. And that it's reasonable to think that same guy was running down the same street with the stolen gun from two months ago.

Sure that's reasonable. As reasonable as thinking it was bigfoot, or Elvis. Or the neighbor's dog.
 
Frizzle Fry said:
The first made a statement about her opinion and the likelihood of charges being brought to the local paper when she recused herself for a legitimate reason (one of the shooters had worked in that DAs office as an investigator 8+ years earlier, for a period of 20 years, before leaving to become a police officer).

The second prosecutor chose not to bring charges and explained in detail why charges should not and would not be brought. And there it sat for several weeks.

The mother of the burglar, now represented by an attorney, wanted the second prosecutor to recuse himself on the basis that the prosecutors son works in the same DAs office where the shooter had previously worked, but not during the same period that the shooter had worked there. The son of the prosecutor stated that he had perhaps seen the shooter once or twice, but did not know him and had not worked with him, where the prosecutor did not know him at all. The prosecutor stated he would not recuse and again, there it sat for several further weeks, until the grievance industry started pressuring the .gov to turn the case over to a different office... at which point the second prosecutor was forced to recuse and again stated in writing his opinions and the opinions of his colleagues on why he had not pursued charges and believe they should not be pursued.

Regardless of anyones feelings on the rightness or wrongness of the laws here, or how smart/dumb the choices are of anyone involved, it's a terrifying concept that outside political pressure from protestors and lobbying groups can effectively shop DAs over and over until they either land on one they like, or force a prosecution where every office handling it believes one isn't needed. In this case the third prosecutor decided to convene a grand jury, at which point the Georgia equivalent of State Police investigators (GBI) stepped in to make an arrest and bring charges. "Well we had to step in, a grand jury would take weeks to convene because of COVID-19, and the mob is angry NOW!"
Click to expand...
Your last paragraph sums it up beautifully. We unfortunately have long since reached a point in society where rules, laws and facts no longer matter. The only thing that matters now is a 20 second bumpy iPhone video that shows a fraction of what happened. That and LeBron James opinion on the matter of course. Sad.
 
m_n_x said:
I'm trying to wrap my mind around that statement. So you think it's reasonable to think that a guy he'd never seen was the perp in a theft from two months earlier that he also didn't see happen. And that it's reasonable to think that same guy was running down the same street with the stolen gun from two months ago.

Sure that's reasonable. As reasonable as thinking it was bigfoot, or Elvis. Or the neighbor's dog.
Click to expand...
Same guy on video.
 

Similar threads

Kennedy is a no vote.
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
2K
HARRYM
H
Need a good 2A attorney for a friend
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
3K
Len-2A Training
Len-2A Training
Is there a reason.......
2 3
Replies
66
Views
2K
CMEBoston
CMEBoston
Ohio man, 81, is charged with murder for shooting dead female Uber driver who was called by a scammer to pick up parcel outside his home
Replies
11
Views
378
slugworth
slugworth
Plus and Minus of buying a Semi Auto Uzi?
2
Replies
46
Views
1K
Road_Clam
R
Back
Top Bottom