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

[Bonesinium]

but warrants are one of the few checks and balances our system has that generally works okay. They make sure police do their homework, protect the integrity of investigations, and safeguard the citizen's general 4A rights to the extent possible.

I think saying they generally work okay is a bit of a stretch. When I can think of nearly a dozen examples of people being killed by police executing warrants obtained and approved based on the flimsiest of grounds, I can only image the bogus warrants approved where they don’t end up killing innocent people.

 

[Picton]

I think saying they generally work okay is a bit of a stretch. When I can think of nearly a dozen examples of people being killed by police executing warrants obtained and approved based on the flimsiest of grounds, I can only image the bogus warrants approved where they don’t end up killing innocent people.

Lol.

Only in the present superheatedly extremist America is the phrase "generally works okay" something that can be interpreted as a full-throated endorsement, or as a "stretch" of any kind. I don't mean it that way, but whatever. I think it's clear I think they work, more often than not, but feel free to parse.

Or? They don't work at all. Ever. Better?

 

[Bonesinium]

Only in the present superheatedly extremist America is the phrase "generally works okay" something that can be interpreted as a full-throated endorsement

Only in this climate could you interpret my post as such...

 

[Picton]

Only in this climate could you interpret my post as such...

Reread.

You think I'm endorsing warrants. I'm not. I'm just defining them for Reptile. I'm sorry I did it, now.

 

[Bonesinium]

You think I'm endorsing warrants.

Thank you for telling me what I’m thinking.

 

[Reptile]

BLM Martyr Ahmaud Arbery Was Known As ‘The Jogger’, Used Jogging As Alibi, Robbery Tactic – Court Docs​

Ahmaud Arbery was shot by passersby when he jogged through a construction site with work boots

Newly introduced information in Glynn County, Georgia court documents shows that Ahmaud Arbery was known as “the jogger” and had a long history of breaking into homes and businesses while using jogging as both an alibi and tactic for his crimes.​

Arbery, who was black, was shot dead by a group of three white men in Glynn County during a citizen’s arrest attempt as Arbery tried to wrestle a rifle away from one of the individuals.


Shortly thereafter, Arbery’s death became a national lightning rod and, with the ringing endorsement of mainstream media, helped launch the latest incarnation of the radical left Black Lives Matter movement. According to the press and the left’s most popular narrative, Arbery was just an innocent jogger, out getting some exercise when he was shot down by a group of white supremacists.

Court documents introduced by the defense now contradict this narrative and not only show that Arbery had a long criminal history in multiple jurisdictions, including a widely reported incident in which he brought a gun to a high school, but that he was actually a well-known burglar and shoplifter known locally as “the jogger” because he would use jogging as his alibi when questioned by police, or as a facade before, during, and after committing a crime.


“On October 23, 2018, Burke County reports and Burke County officer bodycam video reveal Mr. Arbery and two juveniles were confronted in a vacant mobile home by the Burke County Sheriff’s Office,” a portion of the court documents read. “Mr. Arbery Ran when confronted by the authorities. He was later caught and lied, stating he was just out running.” Arbery was later charged with obstruction in connection with the case.


In the months leading up to his death, Arbery was once again investigated for crimes centered around jogging when a string of convenience store robberies put him back on the radar of police.


“In 2019 and 2020,” the documents read, “local convenience store witness interviews reveal Mr. Arbery became known as ‘the jogger’ for his repeated conduct and behaviors of running up, stretching in front, and then entering several convenience stores where he would grab items and run out.” According to the documents, Arbery became violent on several occasions when confronted about his criminal behavior.


“In 2020, witness cell phone video reveals Mr. Arbery was confronted at a convenience store by employees about his theft conduct and behavior. Mr. Arbery, cornered about his thefts, chose to fight a man who worked on the location…”

Infowars Article

Infowars: There's a War on for your Mind!

www.infowars.com

"The Jogger" indeed.

 

[calsdad]

BLM Martyr Ahmaud Arbery Was Known As ‘The Jogger’, Used Jogging As Alibi, Robbery Tactic – Court Docs​

Ahmaud Arbery was shot by passersby when he jogged through a construction site with work boots

Newly introduced information in Glynn County, Georgia court documents shows that Ahmaud Arbery was known as “the jogger” and had a long history of breaking into homes and businesses while using jogging as both an alibi and tactic for his crimes.​

Arbery, who was black, was shot dead by a group of three white men in Glynn County during a citizen’s arrest attempt as Arbery tried to wrestle a rifle away from one of the individuals.


Shortly thereafter, Arbery’s death became a national lightning rod and, with the ringing endorsement of mainstream media, helped launch the latest incarnation of the radical left Black Lives Matter movement. According to the press and the left’s most popular narrative, Arbery was just an innocent jogger, out getting some exercise when he was shot down by a group of white supremacists.

Court documents introduced by the defense now contradict this narrative and not only show that Arbery had a long criminal history in multiple jurisdictions, including a widely reported incident in which he brought a gun to a high school, but that he was actually a well-known burglar and shoplifter known locally as “the jogger” because he would use jogging as his alibi when questioned by police, or as a facade before, during, and after committing a crime.


“On October 23, 2018, Burke County reports and Burke County officer bodycam video reveal Mr. Arbery and two juveniles were confronted in a vacant mobile home by the Burke County Sheriff’s Office,” a portion of the court documents read. “Mr. Arbery Ran when confronted by the authorities. He was later caught and lied, stating he was just out running.” Arbery was later charged with obstruction in connection with the case.


In the months leading up to his death, Arbery was once again investigated for crimes centered around jogging when a string of convenience store robberies put him back on the radar of police.


“In 2019 and 2020,” the documents read, “local convenience store witness interviews reveal Mr. Arbery became known as ‘the jogger’ for his repeated conduct and behaviors of running up, stretching in front, and then entering several convenience stores where he would grab items and run out.” According to the documents, Arbery became violent on several occasions when confronted about his criminal behavior.


“In 2020, witness cell phone video reveals Mr. Arbery was confronted at a convenience store by employees about his theft conduct and behavior. Mr. Arbery, cornered about his thefts, chose to fight a man who worked on the location…”

Infowars Article

Infowars: There's a War on for your Mind!

www.infowars.com

"The Jogger" indeed.

File this revelation under " Things I suspected but didn't know for sure".


It's also yet another case where the BLM types took an incident involving a known scumbag and tried (somewhat successfully) - to turn said scumbag into some sort of martyr.


Yet another reason why I have absolutely no respect for anybody who supports BLM in any way , shape - or form.

 

[42!]

OK so the guy is a dirtbag.

But the question is, since we are judging the actions of those that confronted him, is how much of this did those confronting him know at that time. Because none of them mention any of this in their stories.

If I had a history of kicking dogs, and I got beat up for walking on the grass by someone who didn't know about the dogs. Could he later use my history with dogs to make his actions OK? NO! he couldn't.

 

[42!]

File this revelation under " Things I suspected but didn't know for sure".


It's also yet another case where the BLM types took an incident involving a known scumbag and tried (somewhat successfully) - to turn said scumbag into some sort of martyr.


Yet another reason why I have absolutely no respect for anybody who supports BLM in any way , shape - or form.

BTW, I agree with you about BLM. I refuse to look at this through racist glasses despite both sides trying to frame it as such.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

OK so the guy is a dirtbag.

But the question is, since we are judging the actions of those that confronted him, is how much of this did those confronting him know at that time. Because none of them mention any of this in their stories.

If I had a history of kicking dogs, and I got beat up for walking on the grass by someone who didn't know about the dogs. Could he later use my history with dogs to make his actions OK? NO! he couldn't.

The "what the defendant knew at the time" doctrine is tricky and varies both geographically and temporally.

Familiarize yourself with Commonwealth v. Adjutant that changed the rule in MA:

ADJUTANT, COMMONWEALTH vs., 443 Mass. 649

masscases.com

 

[calsdad]

BTW, I agree with you about BLM. I refuse to look at this through racist glasses despite both sides trying to frame it as such.

You're a fool if you continue to buy into the whole "racist" thing.

You're playing your enemy's game.

 

[42!]

The "what the defendant knew at the time" doctrine is tricky and varies both geographically and temporally.

Familiarize yourself with Commonwealth v. Adjutant that changed the rule in MA:

ADJUTANT, COMMONWEALTH vs., 443 Mass. 649

masscases.com

There is a notable difference, that may be made clear in the actual court docs but we only have the Infowars article, which I would think would be slanted against Ahmaud as much as possible.
The case you referenced makes the point that past violent actions gives credibility to claimed violent action. And this does make sense.
But in Ahmaud;s case the unknown history is that he was a burglar, OK. But it doesn't change anything. Even if it was known, it would not change anything in regard to the "citizen's arrest" or the use of deadly force.

Infowars give some details on his past robberies. But only makes a passing vague reference to bringing a gun to school and "Arbery became violent on several occasions when confronted about his criminal behavior." The lack of any additional information on the gun thing, when it would have been so beneficial to the case and the article, makes me think it's a big nothing and just a chance to play the same "GUN" game the libs play all the time. As for the vague "became violent" that sounds like boilerplate police report to me, like "resisting arrest" based on "resistive tension" (ya, it's a real thing in PO training. if you grab someone's arm and they tense up thats resistive tension and is "resisting arrest")

 

[Bonesinium]

File this revelation under " Things I suspected but didn't know for sure".


It's also yet another case where the BLM types took an incident involving a known scumbag and tried (somewhat successfully) - to turn said scumbag into some sort of martyr.


Yet another reason why I have absolutely no respect for anybody who supports BLM in any way , shape - or form.

Yep. It seemed pretty darn likely he was casing the place. Chasing him down and shooting him dead was still an extreme and illegal response.

These are exactly the cases BLM loves and requires. When good honest people are wronged, there’s no controversy and therefore it cannot make waves. So they need circumstances where they can frame criminals as completely innocent victims. When the response is probably over the top, that’s the best.

Of course the second reason they need criminals is downplay criminal action itself. And when you look at some of the actions of liberal DA’s and AG’s, it’s working.

BLM is a terrorist organization.

 

[calsdad]

Yep. It seemed pretty darn likely he was casing the place. Chasing him down and shooting him dead was still an extreme and illegal response.

These are exactly the cases BLM loves and requires. When good honest people are wronged, there’s no controversy and therefore it cannot make waves. So they need circumstances where they can frame criminals as completely innocent victims. When the response is probably over the top, that’s the best.

Of course the second reason they need criminals is downplay criminal action itself. And when you look at some of the actions of liberal DA’s and AG’s, it’s working.

BLM is a terrorist organization.

It's funny how language works. The English language in particular has been designed and/or has evolved to be amazingly precise about things - if used correctly. Part of that is the it takes in many words from other languages - if nothing exists already to describe something when a need arises for that precise description.

For instance - once everybody realizes we're actually descending into another ice age - instead of the global warming all the lefties keep telling us is happening - we can simply start using all the Eskimo words for the different types of snow so that everybody can be precise about what kind the 24 inches of snow that fell last night is.

So - when you say:

Chasing him down and shooting him dead was still an extreme and illegal response.

You sound suspiciously like a New York Times reporter - or a Democrat politician. Because my understanding of what REALLY happened there was ... yes , OK - I suppose you could say "chased him down" because the two guys saw him casing the house (which if I remember correctly had already had materials stolen from it previously) . But from what I remember they were going to do a citizens arrest, which I believe IS legal. In any case - "and shooting him dead" - doesn't really correctly describe AT ALL - what went down there. Because ....... OK - even if the "chasing him down" part was bogus - as soon as the jogger attacked the guy with the gun - we're in a different world. Now we're talking about a DIFFERENT EVENT. Because now we're talking about a guy who just attacked a guy with a gun - and got shot for doing so. You know - sort of like Trayvon Martin. Last time I checked my reality meter - it pretty solidly bangs pegs the pin on the "expected result" side of the meter.

I know for damn sure that if you tried that crap with pretty much any cop - any where - you'd also get your ass shot.


Now I'm sorry if everybody is so damn lazy that banging away on a keyboard for an extra 50 characters or so wears you out for the day - but if doing so stops half the country from burning down because the ignoramuses and the commies want to take statements like : " Chasing him down and shooting him dead was still an extreme and illegal response " .... and run (amuck) with them...... but I'd suggest at this point that a little bit more keyboard time might be worth the investment.

 

[Bonesinium]

Sorry you're but hurt because you have a different understanding. They literally chased him down. I'm not even sure why you'd dispute that. He was literally shot and killed. Again, not sure why you'd take issue with that.

Meanwhile you say "which if I remember correctly had already had materials stolen from it previously". Except you don't remember correctly.

Homeowner Linked to Ahmaud Arbery Case Said House Wasn't Robbed | Law & Crime

A Georgia homeowner linked to the Ahmaud Arbery case said that his residence, which was under construction, was never burglarized. "I’ve never had a police report or anything stolen from my property, or any kind of robbery," Larry English told The Washington Post in a Sunday report.

lawandcrime.com

So maybe rather than being mad someone correctly characterized something but in a way you don't like, you should verify your own recollection is correct.

Comparing a group of guys going to get guns, getting in trucks, and chasing someone up and down the street to a guy who's already has a gun on him getting jumped unexpectedly, even if you think both shootings are justified, no, they aren't "sort of like" each other.

And why would ignorant people or people with an agenda, taking something out of context to support their agenda, be the fault of the person they are taking out of context? And why would my post on NES even fit into said scenario?

Funny why you'd get so butthurt by my post which was agreeing with you and turn it into an argument, based on you "understanding of what REALLY happened", which happened to be wrong anyways.

 

[42!]

But from what I remember they were going to do a citizens arrest, which I believe IS legal.

They had not personally witnessed a crime, which is required for the citizen's arrest. They may have thought he was up to no good but that doesn't allow a person to chase a guy down with guns. Any "citizen's arrest" was NOT legal.

 

[Junior314]

So kid wasn’t a saint, not shocking.

The father son combo that chased him down in a car and killed him dead are still morons.

 

[Roadglide]

It’s a shit show of epic proportions no doubt. But the bottom line is none of were there and have no real clue about the exact circumstances. We are all just banging away in the court of public opinion.

 

[Picton]

3 men charged with federal hate crimes, attempted kidnapping in Ahmaud Arbery death

The grand jury in the Southern District of Georgia handed up the indictment on Wednesday.

www.wsbtv.com

And so, the Federal circus begins...

 

[Reptile]

Judge Blocks ‘Jogger’ Armaud Arbery’s History of Attempting Robberies From Being Presented as Evidence in Murder Trial​

A Georgia circuit court judge has determined that Armaud Arbery’s history of posing as a jogger in order to commit robberies will not be allowed to be presented at his murder trial.


Judge Timothy Walmsley said that the “just a jogger” libel created by the fake news media and Black Lives Matter hoaxsters must be protected because presentation of the facts might “lead the jury to believe that although Arbery did not apparently commit any felony that day, he may pose future dangerousness in that he would eventually commit more alleged crimes, and therefore, the Defendants’ actions were somehow justified.”


“The character of victim is neither relevant nor admissible in murder trial,” the judge declared in his ruling Monday.


Big League Politics has reported on how Arbery was known around the community as “the jogger” because he would pose as a jogger and then attempt robberies, which he was caught in the act of perpetrating on at least several occasions:


“25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery became a national icon after being shot dead in Georgia after trying to wrestle a firearm away from concerned citizens last year…


As usual, the Black Lives Matter mob lionized Arbery despite understanding zero facts of the case. The truth of the matter indicates exactly how divorced from reality their narrative has become.


Court documents in the murder trial of Travis and Greg McMichael indicate that Arbery was known as the “jogger” because he regularly acted like he was on a run as he committed robberies through town…


“In 2019 and 2020, local convenience store witness interviews reveal Mr. Arbery became known as “the jogger” for his repeated conduct and behavior of running up, stretching in front in, and then entering several convenience stores where he would grab items and run out before he could be caught,” the court documents read.


There is apparently video evidence of Arbery engaging in this type of behavior too.


“On August 21, 2018, Burke County witness reports and Burke County Office body cam video reveals Mr. Arbery was caught by a stay-at-home mom who saw him in her backyard looking into the windows of her cars. She called police who found Mr. Arbery at his grandmother’s residence,” the court documents state.


“Police officers arrived to give Mr. Arbery a trespass warning about his conduct and behavior. When confronted by officers about the eye-witness report, he lied and said he had “gone running in the street,” and then became aggressive, confrontational, and repeatedly threatened he would “whip the officer’s ass” if they didn’t leave him alone. He was not arrested,” they continue.


The court documents paint the picture of Arbery as a serial criminal who was coddled by a weak criminal justice system increasingly gamed to let thugs terrorize property owners.


“In 2019 and 2020, witness interviews reveal Mr. Arbery was seen by his own neighbors, removing screen from windows and trying [to] enter their homes through the windows. When confronted by the neighbors about his conduct and behavior, he appeared “nervous or agitated” and “trying to figure out where to go.” Then he said he was interested in buy[ing] the house but “took off running.” On the second occasion, the home owner observed Arbery trying to gain entrance through a door. They again tried to talk to Mr. Arbery but he would not speak or say anything, he simply ran away,” the court documents read.”


This judge has forced this key evidence from being presented during the trial. The politically-motivated railroading of the McMasters is underway, similar to what happened to police officer Derek Chauvin in the murder case of serial felon drug addict George Floyd. Welcome to the United States of Somalia.

Judge Blocks 'Jogger' Armaud Arbery’s History of Attempting Robberies From Being Presented as Evidence in Murder Trial - Big League Politics

The railroading is being set up.

bigleaguepolitics.com

 

[67ray]

That's nothing unusual for the justice process. History of crime does not conclude that the incident in question is criminal behavior. This isn't a political move by the judge it is legal standard and precedent.

The accused went too far and they are going to pay for their crime. It's been beat to death in 26 pages of posts here.
.

 

[Picton]

That's nothing unusual for the justice process. History of crime does not conclude that the incident in question is criminal behavior. This isn't a political move by the judge it is legal standard and precedent.

The accused went too far and they are going to pay for their crime. It's been beat to death in 26 pages of posts here.
.

This.

What constitutes "key evidence" to one person is another person's "inadmissable." Given that I'm not a legal scholar, I'm glad I don't have to be the one that sorts it all out.

Judges tend to be very careful about not wanting to be overturned on appeal. So there were (no doubt) solid arguments and precedents that guided this decision.

 

[Dennis in MA]

OK so the guy is a dirtbag.

But the question is, since we are judging the actions of those that confronted him, is how much of this did those confronting him know at that time. Because none of them mention any of this in their stories.

If I had a history of kicking dogs, and I got beat up for walking on the grass by someone who didn't know about the dogs. Could he later use my history with dogs to make his actions OK? NO! he couldn't.

Ditto.

Blocked the presentation that he did this often??? F that. Present it. Present all that mofo. I want them to present every single proof that he was a dirtbag.

IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER. You can't run down a dude and shoot him. This isn't about if Abu Bababooey is a great guy or a scum sucking pig. It's about if you can unprovoked chase a guy and kill him. That's it. Simple case. Hell, Jack McCoy could try this case and win it.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

This.

What constitutes "key evidence" to one person is another person's "inadmissable." Given that I'm not a legal scholar, I'm glad I don't have to be the one that sorts it all out.

Judges tend to be very careful about not wanting to be overturned on appeal. So there were (no doubt) solid arguments and precedents that guided this decision.

Commonwealth v. Adjutant has changed that in MA, and also refers to it being admissable at the federal level :
Under Rules 404 and 405 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, all Federal courts now permit the introduction of evidence of the victim's violent character to support a defendant's self-defense claim that the victim was the first aggressor.

The issue is does such information increase the ability of the jury to determine if there is reasonable doubt as to guilt on the part of a defendant claiming self defense. Fairness and "beyond a reasonable doubt" are best served by excluding such information regarding a defendant, but allowing its introduction regarding others in the case. To do otherwise is similar to allowing someone to testify against a defendant but prevent the defense from introducing that witnesses' previous perjury convictions.

IT JUST DOESN'T MATTER. You can't run down a dude and shoot him. This isn't about if Abu Bababooey is a great guy or a scum sucking pig. It's about if you can unprovoked chase a guy and kill him. That's it. Simple case. Hell, Jack McCoy could try this case and win i

Even so, that does not change the principle. Excluding evidence that could help a defendant is generally a bad idea - as it was in the case where a marijuana defendant was prohibited from mentioning he took it for medical reasons (case pre-dated the legal medical MJ movement)

 

[Palladin]

all this does is give them a great basis for an appeal, when they get convicted

 

[Rob Boudrie]

all this does is give them a great basis for an appeal, when they get convicted

Not in jurisdictions that have a well established precedent of "Irrelevant unless the defendant knew about it at the time of the incident".

 

[67ray]

I'll say it again: court notwithstanding there is 'natural law'. You don't kill someone if they try to steal something that is inequitable retribution. That punishment doesn't fit the crime and generally people are going to have a problem with it. This shooting wasn't accidental and there was deliberate intent to use lethal force in retaliation to alleged petty theft. Appropriate punishment is deserved.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Even so, that does not change the principle. Excluding evidence that could help a defendant is generally a bad idea - as it was in the case where a marijuana defendant was prohibited from mentioning he took it for medical reasons (case pre-dated the legal medical MJ movement)

My point is this: As the prosecutor, I'd not even argue it. I'd have the defense wondering if I'm a moron or have something up my sleeve. What I've got up my sleeve is that the victim's prior acts are irrelevant. And after they spend the better part of three days hammering it home, I'll make sure the jury knows that the reason we are sitting there an extra 3 days is because Moron Mike brought up a meaningless yet fascinating sub-topic.

 

[KBCraig]

Here's a Rarity: A Former Prosecutor Is Facing Criminal Charges for Violating Her Oath of Office

Former District Attorney Jackie Johnson may face accountability for her official actions in the Ahmaud Arbery investigation.

reason.com

 

[Roadglide]

there was deliberate intent to use lethal force in retaliation to alleged petty theft.

I thought lethal force was used after the victim attempted to disarm the man with the gun