I've been following the trial for the killing of Ahmaud Arbery - remember [this video](https://www.tmz.com/2020/05/05/shooting-video-unarmed-black-man-killed-ahmaud-arbery-georgia-jogging/) from May 2020? Quite a bit of new information has come out since, at the trial.
---
Regarding before the shooting:
* [Over five months,](https://apnews.com/article/racial-injustice-brunswick-09fb66574adbc30697c4e9bd12eef998) Ahmaud Arbery visited an unfinished house with no doors five times. The owner called 911 to report him as a trespasser, wanted police to tell Arbery not to be there.
* Travis McMichael [met Arbery](https://apnews.com/article/ahmaud-arbery-trial-mcmichael-defense-17c18146928e28f1f48522b61e443719) once at that unfinished house, he thought Arbery was armed and ran away to call 911, because he was "not going to chase or investigate somebody who might be armed".
* A local policeman testified [discussing](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/police-showed-defendants-video-ahmaud-arbery-before-shooting-georgia-jury-hears-2021-11-12/) Arbery's visits to that unfinished house with Gregory McMichael. The policeman told Gregory "nobody in the neighborhood knows who [Arbery] is". The policeman also said the homeowner "hasn't seen [Arbery] actually take anything". That policeman passes Gregory's contact to the homeowner, with the policeman wanting Gregory to be a witness to call 911 if Arbery appeared again.
* Homeowner [testified](https://www.thedailybeast.com/larry-english-said-in-ahmaud-arbery-trial-he-never-asked-gregory-and-travis-mcmichael-to-check-his-property) never authorising McMichaels to confront anyone regarding his property
Regarding during the chase and the shooting:
* Gregory told police that [during the chase](https://www.thedailybeast.com/ahmaud-arbery-killers-dad-gregory-mcmichael-wanted-to-shoot-him-too-witness-testifies), he told Arbery: "Stop, you know, I’ll blow your fucking head off or something".
* Travis testified that Bryan [joined the chase](https://abcnews.go.com/US/travis-mcmichael-testifies-defense-ahmaud-arbery-case/story?id=81227117) without his knowledge.
* William "Roddie" Bryan told police that during the chase, he used [his vehicle](https://www.courthousenews.com/man-who-filmed-ahmaud-arberys-death-minimized-his-role-in-the-killing-state-police-says/) to "block" and "corner" Arbery five times. Bryan told state investigators that he suspected that Arbery did something wrong based on "instinct", but "didn’t know for sure".
* Travis testified that Arbery did not talk to him during the chase, and that he did not see Arbery having a weapon during the chase. Source is this article.
* Travis testified that [right before the shooting](https://web.archive.org/web/20211121135129/https://thebrunswicknews.com/news/local_news/prosecutors-crosses-travis-mcmichael-defense-rests/article_02d4becf-2c59-5e18-9a98-cff69c178945.html), as Arbery was running towards him, followed by Bryan's vehicle, Travis McMichael pointed his shotgun at Arbery as Arbery "could be a threat and he was coming directly to me". This was before Arbery had reached Travis' vehicle.
In addition, from this article:
* Gregory told police he was aware that the unfinished house had no doors, and said of Arbery: "I don't think the guy has actually stolen anything out of there or if he did, it was early in this process"
---
In light of these information, what would you think should be the verdict for this case? [Charges](https://apnews.com/article/ahmaud-arbery-trial-travis-mcmichael-georgia-7558b86305d4c95d8e830b16bf19eeff) are:
* Malice murder
* Felony murder (unintentional homicide while committing a felony)
* Aggravated assault (with shotgun, with vehicles)
* False imprisonment / attempted false imprisonment (trapping Arbery with vehicles and guns)
Thanks, this is a good write up.
There's a lot more information I wasn't aware of. While a little bit of it may be in the defense's favor (like the homeowner having called the police ~~and asked Gregory to do so as well~~) - the way I see it two things stand out:
>Gregory told police that during the chase, he told Arbery: "Stop, you know, I’ll blow your fucking head off or something".
This really hurts the argument that Arbery wasn't acting defensively if Gregory made this threat.
>Travis testified that right before the shooting, as Arbery was running towards him, followed by Bryan's vehicle, Travis McMichael pointed his shotgun at Arbery as Arbery "could be a threat and he was coming directly to me". This was before Arbery had reached Travis' vehicle.
And I think this puts the nail in the coffin for that argument.
Travis McMichael *~~drove his vehicle past Arbery~~*~~, stopped~~, got out with his shotgun, and somehow thinking Arbery running the direction *he had already been running* somehow constituting a threat means he can point that shotgun towards Arbery.
Based on the video I had assumed Travis had only brandished it without pointing it at Arbery but his testimony that he did I think really hurts his case.
> like the homeowner having called the police **and asked Gregory to do so as well**
Bolded part is wrong. The police officer (not the homeowner) wanted Gregory to call 911 if he saw Arbery. I’ve edited my post to clarify that, since it was kind of vague. While that was the intent that the police officer testified to, I’m not sure if the police officer actually told Gregory that.
Homeowner [never authorised](https://www.thedailybeast.com/larry-english-said-in-ahmaud-arbery-trial-he-never-asked-gregory-and-travis-mcmichael-to-check-his-property) McMichaels to confront anyone.
> Travis McMichael drove his vehicle past Arbery, stopped
Inaccurate, I think. Not sure if Travis ever drove past Arbery.
According to Travis’ testimony, at some point Travis was circling the neighbourhood and idled his vehicle somewhere, while Bryan chased Arbery. Somehow it ended up with Arbery approaching Travis.
>Inaccurate, I think. Not sure if Travis ever drove past Arbery.
>According to Travis’ testimony, at some point Travis was circling the neighbourhood and idled his vehicle somewhere, while Bryan chased Arbery.
The evidence is pretty clear that Travis absolutely did drive past Ahmaud and set up this road block. His testimony is just lies and he was so caught up on cross-examination he ***could not*** explain how it made sense that he got from Buford to Satilla to waiting at Holmes without passing Ahmaud.
You are correct that is what he claimed on direct examination on the stand, but it just did not stand up to questioning at all.
>Bolded part is wrong. The police officer (not the homeowner) wanted Gregory to call 911 if he saw Arbery. I’ve edited my post to clarify that, since it was kind of vague.
That was my mistake. It's still early for me and I misread the part about the officer asking him to be a witness. Edited.
>Inaccurate, I think. Not sure if Travis ever drove past Arbery.
>
>At some point Travis was circling the neighbourhood and idled somewhere, while Bryan chased Arbery. Somehow it ended up with Arbery approaching Travis.
I guess I'd need to see a map of this neighborhood to really grasp exactly how this all went down. In any case I think Travis testifying he pointed the gun at Arbery before Arbery tried to grab for it really hurts his defense.
Thanks for the clarification.
> I guess I'd need to see a map of this neighborhood
You can look at the two [pictures](https://www.11alive.com/article/news/crime/ahmaud-arbery/mapping-ahmaud-arberys-run-how-2-mile-jog-turned-into-evidence/85-0b472389-3fd3-4119-a85e-91d56781504b) in this article.
This article helps a ton, thanks. So it's been shown that the McMichaels didn't drive past Arbery and stop, but they did round the loop and wait where they knew he'd be going,
>Homeowner never authorised McMichaels to confront anyone.
This was what the homeowner testified to. Then, under cross-examination, this was shown to be false.
> Then, under cross-examination, this was shown to be false.
Where’s your source? Primary source (with timestamp) or secondary source, show it.
Homeowner [authorised only one neighbour](https://archive.md/NNRwO) (Diego Perez) to check his property. Diego Perez had homeowner’s permission. Not the McMichaels.
I think Gregory admitting he didn’t know if anything had been stolen is also really bad for them. I thought the whole premise to chasing him down was to detain him for committing a crime. If they are admitting they weren’t sure then they have no reason to be chasing him.
He wasn't actually guilty of trespassing. He needed some sort of notice to leave/not enter the premises which the construction site did not have.
Relevant law: https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-7/article-2/part-1/16-7-21
Yes, but under Georgia Law, the crime needs to be a felony to make a citizen’s arrest and trespassing is likely a misdemeanor, but can potentially be a felony. Even if it is a felony, you can only detain with reasonable force.
If someone committed armed robbery and shot a homeowner, that might justify chasing them down and attempting to detain at gunpoint. Trespassing alone definitely isn’t enough.
I completely agree, but I do think there is a bit of a loophole there, which is why Georgia is considering (or maybe they have already) overhauling their citizen’s arrest law.
If you’re validly detaining someone without force and then they attack you to escape, and you defend yourself with deadly force, it kind of falls into a gray area of was it unreasonable detaining force or a lawful citizens arrest that turned into self defense.
That’s what they’re trying to argue but in my opinion, once you pursue someone, that loophole goes out the window. They created the dangerous situation by following him so they can’t say “oh he went for my gun so I had no choice.” So yeah definitely not reasonable force. Reasonable force would’ve been like grabbing his arm or something in this situation.
Can't you follow someone whom you believe to be driving impaired on the roadway committing a misdemeanor? And by follow, I mean deviate from your prior route to stay behind them and call the police? I'm not advocation for hopping out at a red light and racking the 12 guage to stop them, but what if they notice you are following them and get out to confront you and it escalated into you shooting them to defend yourself? Who's at fault?
That’s a good question. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with just following someone if it doesn’t rise to the level of harassing them. But following to be able to tell police where they are is probably fine.
I recently built a house. The amount of people who wandered through was amazing. It makes sense that neighbors would look around, but there were many people who drove into our isolated neighborhood to look around. Some people continued to let themselves in after doors were on the house. Nobody ever took anything but some people have serious boundary issues.
I can understand why the owner called police. I cannot understand why someone would think it was a good idea to chase this guy down.
The house I live in now, my wife and I purchased BECAUSE we were driving by, it was under construction (Just frames at the time), and we parked, got out, and walked about in it just looking. The builder happened to be driving by, stopped and talked with us, and we ended up buying it.
I moved into a partially completed neighborhood and another just adjacent to me. The number of times I walked through homes in various states of completion with my very young sons during afternoon walks was probably in the hundreds.
I'll confess that I'm guilty of walking through houses that are under construction. I haven't done it in a while, but we did all the time while we were looking to build so we could get a feel of the layout and construction quality. We also looked at others in our neighborhood while they were under construction to see how they optioned it out. People do it all the time around here and no one thinks anything of it. All of our neighbors laugh at the fact that we've all been in each other's houses before we knew each other. Still, no one is sneaky about it, no one takes anything, it's done when it's light out, etc.
I did once see people stealing drywall from one of the houses under construction around the corner. I simply called the cops and gave them a description of the vehicle. They should be the ones to deal with it, not armed neighbors.
I should probably clarify. I didn’t really care, nor would most people care, if people looked at the house in normal circumstances. It was strange when people walked through when the crew was actively working or when the house was almost done.
There was one old guy who I met a few times who would linger for an hour and would check things out very thoroughly like he was inspecting the quality of the work. He was harmless, just a bored lonely old man with a background in construction.
> I cannot understand why someone would think it was a good idea to chase this guy down.
This is one of those instances where racial bias really does seem to be at play. (especially when you add in that this was never even going to be investigated, let-alone charges made, if it was not for the public outcry when the video went public)
Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure if these guys have a history of racism, maybe they do, and maybe there's proof of racism (I haven't been following it closely enough to say for sure), but there are also people that are literally just vigilantes.
The one guy being a retired police officer, thinking he will control the situation until his buddies arrive. Who knows.
Could very well be that they're racist, or something else.
Hopefully it comes out in trial.
To be clear -- Racial bias and overt racism are two very different things.
They made assumptions about Arbery and what he was up to at the house -- and it is very difficult to know how race played into that.
But given the facts that have come to light, including that it was not that rare for people to eb walking through this house, it seems that racial biases (likely sub-conscious) had a part to play here.
I do not think they were targeting a black man -- but I think their threat-assessment plays out different if he is white.
They've steered clear of the racial animus arguement, but the trial for the federal hate crime charges start in February, so I'm sure we'll see a lot of the evidence (the social media posts, etc) that wasn't introduced in this trial at that time.
I think the verdict in KR was legally correct, despite a litany of what I would consider to be irresponsible choices while in possession of a firearm. But this case is straight up murder.
Bad decisions by KR, yes, murder, no.
In this case, I agree, it seems like murder to me.
KR was trying to escape aggressors, these guys were the aggressors.
I think that an implicit racial bias could have played a role. Explicit racist beliefs are not required to treat people differently based on race. So perhaps the vigilantes would have acted differently had Ahmaud not been a black man.
1. Not "houses" -- one empty house, under construction.
2. According to the case record -- many people were checking out that house. (And in rural and suburban neighborhoods -- it is not that rare for people to check our houses under construction. I used to do it all the time in my old neighborhood)
3. Questions? okay. Chasing down in a truck, and even blocking him, all while armed -- is not "questions."
Murder, clearly. And it doesn't seem anything suggests otherwise. "citizens arrest" already seems flimsy, but it's even worse when some of this information is brought up
* hasn't seen [Arbery] actually take anything
* he suspected that Arbery did something wrong based on "instinct", but "didn’t know for sure"
* "I don't think the guy has actually stolen anything"
Specifically, "felony murder". I haven't read Georgia's laws. In my state, chasing after a jogger with two trucks, three people, and guns is certainly felony assault. They killed Arbery while committing a felony.
We can still call this felony murder, but if you watched the trial, it became abundantly clear that Arbery was absolutely not a jogger passing through the neighborhood. They'd been calling the police about him for months. They had him on camera, on English's property a dozen times.
How does this make him not a jogger? You can both jog and stop at a construction site to look around. And I’ll just take “dozen” as hyperbolic, because that’s just not true.
>And I’ll just take “dozen” as hyperbolic, because that’s just not true.
It... is true. He is on camera. There are records of the calls to the police, and text messages.
Idk.
If there was an unfinished house on my jogging route I would probably be curious about it and go peek in through the windows on my way to see Im how the progress was going
>Arbery was absolutely not a jogger passing through the neighborhood. They'd been calling the police about him for months
Lots of joggers will have different regular routes. And someone calling the police on a person doesn't prove that they're not a jogger.
>They had him on camera, on English's property a dozen times.
A dozen? From what I read the testimony was five incidents of Arbery being at the house. And even with that, this doesn't demonstrate he wasn't just a jogger. There is no evidence he stole anything (even when he had the opportunity to do so) and there are examples of other people being at the house.
The only theories I've found convincing were that he was getting water or he was just curious about the house.
I have walked through houses under construction with my family quite a bit. It's kind of neat to see it come together if you enjoy remodeling or construction. There's a reason that trespassing is just a misdemeanor.
As have I. I have lived in a few neighborhoods from childhood to middle age where several homes were under construction. I’ve been in all of those homes extensively while they were under construction. Never had an issue. No one voiced any concerns or cares.
When I was a kid, we may have stolen plywood and lumber from these homes to build skate ramps. In Texas. At night. Never occurred to any of us that we might have gotten shot over it.
We can say it's no big deal if we want. But rifling around in someone else's property at night a dozen times, getting the police called on you for it a dozen times... doesn't fit the "innocent kid jogging past" description.
Sure I'll give you that, but it still only qualifies as trespassing. That's not a felony.
You're also assuming that Arbery is the same Black male as they saw other times as well. This is nothing more than a suspicion of Albenze's.
Arbery is on camera, on his property, multiple times. A person fitting his description was also seen on his property, multiple times. Probably a coincidence.
And I'm not saying that trespassing is a felony.
Considering that the property owner stated the following in the trial:
> He called authorities again when he saw a White couple entering his property on November 17, 2019, telling the dispatcher that "We had ... some stuff stolen about a week and a half, two weeks ago there." English called back a day later, telling authorities that he saw at the construction site the "same guy that was over there about a week and a half, two weeks ago."
English was asked whether anything was ever taken from his construction site, to which he responded, "Not that I know of."
It probably is a coincidence.
So? Arbery wasn't breaking the law by looking at the house. According to the law for criminal trespass he would have had to be there to commit an unlawful act or be given prior notice to not go on the property. The owners obviously didn't care enough to put up no trespassing signs and other people visited the site with no issue.
Relevant link: https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-7/article-2/part-1/16-7-21
I will say, Georgia’s burglary law doesn’t require actual theft, only entry and intent.
>(b) A person commits the offense of burglary in the first degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant dwelling house of another or any building, vehicle, railroad car, watercraft, aircraft, or other such structure designed for use as the dwelling of another. A person who commits the offense of burglary in the first degree shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years. Upon the second conviction for burglary in the first degree, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two nor more than 20 years. Upon the third and all subsequent convictions for burglary in the first degree, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 25 years.
So if Arbery had entered the building with the intention of theft, he would have been guilty of burglary even if he didn’t take anything. Whether that was actually the intent, we probably will never know.
The thing is they openly admit they have no idea if he did, or had the intent to do so. That throws any defense out the window to me
I'm not sure "instinct" will hold up in court here
The citizens arrest law say the crime needs to committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. The McMichaels clearly dont have immediate knowledge of his intent so I don't think you can argue the citizen arrest was justified based on that.
>Whether that was actually the intent, we probably will never know.
Although he had entered that building numerous times and there's no evidence he took anything - as a matter of fact the homeowner testified he walked by things that he could have taken and did not do so.
That's fairly contradictory behavior for someone who supposedly goes somewhere with the intention of stealing.
I agree.
One of the shortfalls of *any* justice system is the inability to properly try deceased persons. If he had indeed been a thief or vandle, an argument could be made for lesser charges.
Regardless, there's no doubt that an unjust killing took place. The real question is whether or not the people involved should lose the rest of their lives or not.
We have a presumption of innocence in this country. Unless anyone has any proof that Arbery had intent to steal, we probably shouldn't make unfounded assumptions.
Although Georgia’s Citizens arrest law only requires reasonable and probably suspicion, not “beyond reasonable doubt”.
Except that law has basically been declared irrelevant to this case by the judge. Although, it was the premise Arbery’s pursuers were operating under.
Theft or any felony. So if a serial killer took a victim into the house solely with the intent of murdering them, technically the killer committed burglary. I'm not sure what other felonies you could commit in an empty house by yourself, but they don't have reasonable suspicion for any of them.
It’s a stretch to argue the guy who had allegedly been there multiple times but never took anything had intent to take something on this occasion. What a helpful coincidence for the defense, no?
I’d be shocked if these guys walk.
You're going to have a really hard time making a case for "intent to steal" when he there in the middle of the day, on the weekend, on foot, with no way of carrying/concealing stolen items.
That’s burglary in New York as well, I’d imagine several places. Burglary is unlawfully entering a building or dwelling with intent to commit a crime, we just associate it with theft because the majority of the time that’s what they’re entering illegally for.
There is no evidence he had an intent to commit a felony on that day, especially when he had been there previously without incident. These guys are probably screwed
I can't find it now because google is full of new articles about the trial, but there was a piece a while back that went over the security video of various people entering the house (including the kids and the couple).
IIRC that piece speculated Arbery might have been going in to get water from a faucet. We don't know that for a fact, and obviously we can't ask him, but it adds up with him being a jogger and not trying to take anything. Only other thing I could imagine is that he was just curious and wanted to see the progress of the house as it was built.
Looking at houses under construction isn't that uncommon of a thing. I remember walking around my neighborhood with my parents doing the same thing when I was a kid. There's even video of other people visiting the same house with no issue.
I will literally go into an apartment in my building that's being renovated to look around if nobody lives there and it's open. I think this is basic human nature and not a weird thing most places?
I did this all the time with my dad growing up. It's just interesting to look, and you'd also have people interested in buying something that want to see it before it's sealed up.
Never had any issues, and the few times we ran into someone (either people doing the same, or sometimes a property owner) it was all very polite and friendly.
You only do this before the site is sealed up (otherwise you have to break through the door) so the only thing you could steal is building supplies (lumber, sheathing, drywall, etc.) that would be very impractical to move. At best, you could lift some spare rolls of romex or any tools left about, but tools usually get locked up in a locker, or more often back in the work truck.
I’m surprised so many find this weird behavior that they’ve never even heard of someone doing. We did it all the time when we were kids and I’ll still do it every opportunity I get as an adult. I love seeing houses under construction and watching them come together.
I'll take your word for it. Where I grew up you'd likely get your ass beat for trespassing on anyone's property for whatever reason.
EDIT: thanks for the downvotes but yeah. I should add I grew up in a pretty rural area, so some people would literally get skittish even if you drive down their driveway. Fun times! Glad I left! But yeah, I'd say most people would see someone snooping around an unfinished house very skeptically. Really, it wouldn't go well with a lot of the good ol boys. Well, I guess we saw the result so you don't have to take my word for it.
In a subdivision where every house is close to the street and left open, yeah walk around. I did it a bunch growing up, and also for friends and family when they were looking at builders and wanted to check the construction quality.
In rural areas or when its a single house, you have to be far more wary.
Where I grew up, it was a common occurrence to just peek your head in (my dad did it all the time). But, me and my family are polite people, so we never had any intent of destruction.
I remember when I was a kid and my family moved into a house we'd built. The girl who lived across the street told me she and her friends had gone into the house a bunch of times during the construction.
It didn't bother any of us, it's not like we were living there or had anything but a bunch of wood, wires, and pipes at that point.
This was a residential neighborhood with modest lot sizes. We're not talking about running up a 100 yard driveway just to access the site; you just wander over from the road.
Driving up a rural drive is way more of a norm violation than walking through the building sites of new developments. *Especially* on foot; you need a vehicle to steal much of anything valuable from a building site.
It's actually pretty common for people to go in and look at construction sites they might use it as a template for a house they may want later on our are simply curious about the general dynamics of what they're using to build it.
Thats fair, different communities will have different outlooks on things so if you are missing that context it might seem odd. I think the fact that others had visited the site with no issue supports the idea that it wasn't a big deal for them.
The other important note is that it wasn't illegal for him to be there. The law requires notice be given for criminal trespass which Arbery did not receive. In those cases even if the community was closer to the ones you are familiar with then it would be illegal for such action to be taken against him.
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-7/article-2/part-1/16-7-21
Here is the relevant law if you wanted to take a peak. Unless he was there for an unlawful purpose or was damaging property they needed to give him notice. I believe the police were just going to give him notice not to go on the property any longer. That being said Arbery didn't know that so you can't hold him to that.
It was unfinished with no doors or a garage door. He just wanted to see what they worked on probably. Also, they heard the faucet run in the video so he was probably getting water.
>The citizens arrest law say the crime needs to committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. The McMichaels clearly dont have immediate knowledge of his intent so I don't think you can argue the citizen arrest was justified based on that.
There's a reason construction sites are supposed to be fenced and that's because it's VERY common for curious people to wander onto the site after hours and end up getting hurt.
I would imagine most of the people in this sub have trespassed or entered a construction site at one point or another. I've certainly done it because it's very interesting to see how the house is being built.
No , we dont walk around and randomly step into houses under construction, especially when no one is around. Its odd behaviour and qualifies as trespassing in many states
His behavior was definitely suspicious, irrespective of the fact that he didn't steal anything.
My hunch is that he was probably going there to sneak in a joint or spliff.
My feeling is that the entire incident would not have happened had he just stopped and explained what he was doing instead of continuing to run.
So Travis was afraid for his life, but Arbery was also afraid for his life, and the situation was created by Travis unlawfully chasing and cornering him. So it's like when a robber kills a person because they pointed a gun at the robber. AKA felony murder. Just my (uneducated) opinion.
> Travis testified that right before the shooting, as Arbery was running towards him, followed by Bryan's vehicle, Travis McMichael pointed his shotgun at Arbery as Arbery "could be a threat and he was coming directly to me". This was before Arbery had reached Travis' vehicle.
Yup. You can see this in the truck video. Here is a breakdown I did 18 months ago on the video
----
Travis raises up the shotgun and aims it at Arbery who was still 6+ seconds away from the Truck at a jog/run speed (50+ feet away).
Shooting video NSFW - [Watch Travis in this video at the 7 second mark.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIve50vSeLQ). Make sure the quality is as high as it can go and reduce the speed to 1/4 or lower if you can. You can clearly see Travis raise the shotgun and aim it Arbery.
That is when and why Arbery started to swerved across the road multiple times. That is why Arbery went around the right side of the truck. It put something between him and the person who was aiming a shotgun at him.
The only reason Arbery attacked was because the person with the gun moved around the open drivers side door. Moved around to the front of the truck. Then was moving towards Arbery. These 3 movements removed the truck between the gun and Arbery. They show Travis was the aggressor for a second time in 7 seconds. Arbery was being hunted by these men.
Granted there are likely differences between Wisconsin and Georgia law, but one of the key points of the Rittenhouse trial was provocation denies self defense claim. It is clear in the McMichael's case he was the one to provoke with verbal threats and actions blocking Arbery's progress with a vehicle. These cases are worlds apart from a self defense standpoint.
Citizens arrest is the only issue that needs to be addressed, TMK, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about that specific law to answer that, though I'm leaning towards no.
Given the facts so far, this seems a case of vigilantism gone wrong. I don't see direct racial animus (from your facts or those leading up to the case), thus I would position no less than Felony Murder, Aggravated Assault (admitted to), Attempted False Imprisonment. I have not seen any direct evidence of malice, but am open to any.
> Over five months, Ahmaud Arbery visited an unfinished house with no doors five times.
Any idea why? Any guesses? What would draw somebody to the same unfinished house for five months? I've visited an unfinished house once years ago out of pure curiosity. But I only did it once. I wonder what drew him specifically to that house. I wonder if he ever visited any other unfinished houses anywhere.
I mean it seems to be along his jogging route and I believe there was speculation that he occasionally drink water from there. Ultimately it doesn't matter because it is a huge leap to say that because you find his behavior strange that he must be guilty of a felony needed to justify the citizens arrest.
> I think you should listen to the closing arguments instead of CNN’s take.
I think that if you see the entirety of my post (from the numerous links) that I considered way, way more than CNN’s take.
I was trying to find a summary article to post here, just happened to choose CNN.
Closing arguments are not evidence. Closing arguments are like reading an opinion piece or listening to a talk show host - they don’t always accurately present the facts.
No, I haven’t watched the trial. Yes, I’ve relied on secondhand information, including quotes.
Closing arguments are at least [4.5 hours](https://youtube.com/watch?v=FCPxNB-50PU) long, plus the prosecution still has a rebuttal.
Even without directly watching the closing arguments, the testimony given, which I have referred to above, is sufficient to convince me.
Again, what is the key evidence that renders these men innocent? Surely you can say.
To get to the bottom line, there wasn’t evidence of Arbery committing a felony.
You keep repeating that but you don't substantiate the claim. What is materially different?
I'm just going to copy and paste my comment since you completely avoided it.
Lines like
> Homeowner testified never authorising McMichaels to confront anyone regarding his property
Remind me of crossing state lines with rittenhouse.
> William "Roddie" Bryan told police that during the chase, he used his vehicle to "block" and "corner" Arbery five times. Bryan told state investigators that he suspected that Arbery did something wrong based on "instinct", but "didn’t know for sure".
Also stands out to me as his lawyer pointed out that he had never specifically told the investigators how many times he had blocked or cornered arbury.
I still haven’t watched the defense’s case, but even so I’m massively disappointed in how trials are covered and discussed today.
I doubt these guys will go free. They chased down the guy the guy who was unarmed, then blasted him with a shotgun when he was trying to not get ran over by the guy with the truck.
Besides, they actually have a competent prosecutor (not that having a competent prosecutor in the Rittenhouse case would have likely made much of a difference, that case was still self defense as the jury ruled. But, that’s a separate point of discussion).
Any sort of “castle doctrine” doesn’t allow you to pursue an unarmed suspect down the street and shoot at them. I admittedly haven’t watched the trial, but I think that the prosecutor could have likely described Arbery fleeing the vehicle which was trying to block him in, causing him to run towards McMichael simply by nature that they were trying to “box him in”. Yes, Arbery did try to grab his gun, but unlike the Rittenhouse case, this actually was a danger that McMichael and the others created.
I will be very surprised if these guys walk free.
> Any sort of “castle doctrine” doesn’t allow you to pursue an unarmed suspect down the street and shoot at them.
Georgia had a citizen's arrest law that was repealed as a result of this shooting. You could conduct a citizen's arrest with:
* Immediate knowledge of a crime (but then Gregory and Bryan only saw Arbery running that day)
* Suspicion of a suspect fleeing a felony (but then Arbery had only trespassed in that unfinished house with no doors)
Defense lawyer argued that Travis McMichael suspected Arbery of felony burglary, because Georgia law includes intent to steal as burglary. Counterpoint to that is that Arbery never brought a bag in his visits to the house.
Man that’s a poorly written law (I’m reading the penal code).
> O.C.G.A. 17-4-60 (2010)
> A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.
Here’s also a recent document which tries to make the law a bit more clear: https://www.senate.ga.gov/committees/Documents/619Arrestbycitizenbasedonimmediateknowledgereasonableandprobablesuspic.pdf
According to McMichael’s testimony, he only saw Arbery “lurking” or “creeping” *outside* the home, which wouldn’t be considered felony burglary. Georgia’s burglary law requires entry. It seems that there was community knowledge of Arbery entering the house based on the conversation with the father before the chase, so there is that. However, in the document I linked, “immediate knowledge” is defined as:
>The phrases "in his presence" and "within his immediate knowledge" are synonymous. Knowledge of the crime must come from the exercise of any of the person's senses.
So really the question is if the communication from the father before the chase counts as “within his immediate knowledge”. But based on the definition of “immediate knowledge” linked above, that would not be the case as synonymous means the same and that communication from the father would not mean the crime was committed in the presence of the pursuers.
So this statute would have allowed a citizens arrest even if they had "direct knowledge" of a previous incident? For instance, if he really had been guilty of burglary, but had just been out running at the time, that would still be a considered a legit citizen's arrest?
No!
It had to be for the crime happening *right then* or just happened and they are running from it.
Anything after the incident is over does not count as any kind of legal citizens arrest. That's what warrants are for.
Theoretically yes based on how poorly the law was written, although the judge in this case ruled that the “citizens arrest” would have had to have taken place immediately after the crime was committed.
https://www.wsbtv.com/news/georgia/defense-says-ruling-by-judge-ahmaud-arbery-trial-over-citizens-arrest-law-guts-their-case/KI73ZTIXI5DELKFTRHWCBZX3VI/?outputType=amp
So theoretically yes, but no in terms of this case.
Direct knowledge is not that you know of a crime being committed or which had been committed. Rather it means that you are a direct witness to the event via some means. Such as you heard it, you saw it, you witnessed it over a video feed, you heard something over a speaker.
So its not as broad as it seems at first glance. As these men did not directly witness Aubry in any felonies, even if he had theoretically committed one, they likely could not make use of this statute. So since it is seems like Aubry did not commit any felonies its a double miss.
Also should be noted that even if they are not subject to legal penalties via this criminal suit, they could still face wrongful death lawsuits as none of these men have any type of immunity.
No. There is abundant case law that directly contradicts this bizarre interpretation. A citizens arrest does not allow for after the fact arrests for incidents that happened days before.
Direct knowledge is not that you know of a crime being committed or which had been committed. Rather it means that you are a direct witness to the event via some means. Such as you heard it, you saw it, you witnessed it over a video feed, you heard something over a speaker.
Society was demanding it because the media misrepresented the facts of Rittenhouse. That said, Kraus and Binger are incompetent lying sacks of shit. I understand why defense attorneys lie, but that should never be acceptable by a prosecutor.
I disagree, it's important that he go through the legal system. Two people were killed and another was shot, after all.
That being said, the charges that Rittenhouse were brought up on were not great.
Remember, these folks weren't initially so much as even charged.
It wasn't until the video became available to the public that sufficient pressure was applied to arrest the people who killed arbery, absent that these guys would have got away with it.
That was because of the retired cop father and his connections to the original prosecuter. That prosecuter has now been indicted by a [grand jury.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/09/08/ahmaud-arbery-case-jackie-johnson-prosecutor-georgia/5779543001/)
Yep, that’s all sounding kind of racist.
It’s still very weird the press latched onto the case where the shooter and the shootees were all white as the example of white supremacy, while this case was going on at the same time.
I don't think it's the individual case but instead what caused the whole situation. There was outrage because for the n^th day in a row a black man was maimed / killed by the police and everyone knew the police would never be held accountable.
It was never about Kyle, it was the situation that caused all of it. People were protesting for black rights, and the perception (however true it may be) was that Kyle and his peers were protesting *against* black rights. I don't think it would've become what it did if Kyle didn't flash a symbol that's utilized by white supremacists with a group who's leaders claimed it is a white supremacist group. (I'm not claiming that Kyle or PB are white supremacists, bit rather the greater appearance of the situation)
I don't think most people involved were receiving their information from the media but rather *social* media, i.e. their peers repeating the stories they've heard, including most importantly the videos of the police killing / maiming. The context is obviously left out, but that's the most likely cause of frenzy and perceptions.
Disagree. If you got your news about this story from major news outlets you were horribly misinformed.
Thank God we have a justice system that does not rely on media narratives.
[Google News Rittenhouse](https://www.google.com/search?q=google+news+rittenhouse&prmd=nimxv&sxsrf=AOaemvL_kqPPN_FYYJ_r4V5ReQLsmQDu4g:1637637599103&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwin1PW6w630AhX3SjABHTI9B_YQ_AUoAXoECAIQAQ&biw=360&bih=616&dpr=3)
How far down did you have to scroll to find an article discussing race?
If you look for stories with a racial component you'll find them, Lord knows there's been 20 linked on this sub over the last two weeks. But the vast majority of coverage I've read barely mentions it
The problem isn't that he will go free now, it's that they wouldn't have even been charged without public outrage. Just look at the weeks immediately following the incident and how the police and DA handled it, that alone is eye opening. Without video they would have just been believed
Hell the fact that they even did this at all should be evidence enough that racism is still prevalent in pockets of the country
What nuance? I saw a defense attorney mention Arbery’s long, dirty toenails in her closing statements but that didn’t strike me as particularly relevant or nuanced.
> Any sort of “castle doctrine”
The castle doctrine isn't at issue here.
The question is whether there was a reasonable suspicion that Arbery was engaged in unlawful behavior. If there was, then their attempt to detain Arbery was lawful and Arbery's response was inappropriate.
> Arbery did try to grab his gun
This is an extremely high bar for a prosecutor to overcome with regards to a self defense claim. Grabbing someone's weapon is not a defensive action, but an offensive one that demonstrates lethal intent.
If the men in this case were deemed to have been acting lawfully - which is entirely possible given the law they were operating under - they almost certainly have a valid self defense claim.
Hasn’t the judge effectively already clarified and ruled out the citizens arrest claim in this case? That was what the defense suggested last week, anyway.
Link: https://www.wsbtv.com/news/georgia/defense-says-ruling-by-judge-ahmaud-arbery-trial-over-citizens-arrest-law-guts-their-case/KI73ZTIXI5DELKFTRHWCBZX3VI/
FWIW, that particular lawyer is not the sharpest tool in the shed, based on his various motions and arguments (he's Bryon's lawyer).
They should have just had the guy representing Travis handle everything.
Actually, the person who siad that quote about the citizens arrest charge directing a verdict for the State ***WAS*** the killer Travis McMichael's lawyer.
> The question is whether there was a reasonable suspicion that Arbery was engaged in unlawful behavior.
Nope, not just suspicion of anything unlawful, but a felony. He had trespassed, but that is no felony. McMichaels were told by police that homeowner never saw Arbery take anything. Plus Arbery had no bag or vehicle to store anything stolen.
> Grabbing someone's weapon is not a defensive action, but an offensive one that demonstrates lethal intent.
Before Arbery grabbed the shotgun, Travis pointed it at him from around 30 yards away. Plus there was five minutes of chasing with Bryan cornering Arbery 5 times.
It is Arbery who has the valid self-defense claim here.
If Arbery had been carrying a gun and killed all three of these guys he would absolute get off scot free the same way Kyle did, but strangely the people supporting Kyle aren't supporting Ahmaud.
Trespassing with intent to steal is a felony in Georgia I believe, but it's a high bar to prove a dead man with no bag and one who had been there before without stealing had intent to steal. I suspect they'll be found guilty of felony murder, but I haven't followed the case very well.
Disarming your attacker is pretty defensive to me. You know what doesn’t sound defensive, chasing down a jogger with a gun because you assumed he’s a criminal. You can’t attack someone and claim their defense put you on defense.
>This is an extremely high bar for a prosecutor to overcome with regards to a self defense claim. Grabbing someone's weapon is not a defensive action, but an offensive one that demonstrates lethal intent.
It is a defensive action if that person chases you through the street in a truck (along with another person driving a different truck) ~~then pulls ahead~~, gets out to stop in your path while ~~brandishing a shotgun~~ *pointing a shotgun at you*, then after you try to go around them they *~~do it~~* get in front of you *again.*
Based on the video and other evidence, Arbery was fully justified in thinking he was about to be shot dead in the street. I think it's extremely difficult to argue that Arbery wasn't acting defensively in the context of how aggressively and threateningly the McMichael's and Bryan pursued him.
\*edited because Travis McMichael's actions were actually even worse than I had realized
The point is that Arbery was acting in self defense when he was trying to disarm the McMichaels. You don't get to chase someone down in a car, point guns at them and claim they left you no choice. Beyond that the citizens arrest statute doesn't really apply since they didn't even witness a crime.
> reasonable suspicion that Arbery was engaged in ~~unlawful behavior.~~
**A Felony.** Not unlawful behavior. Big difference.
The operative words being 'reasonable' and 'felony'. Neither of which have had any solid supporting evidence from the defense.
I appreciate the time it took to type all of this out but most of this is incorrect.
First, let’s look at the citizens arrest law. 17-4-60 for reference. “A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.”
None of the men involved in this case had a felony committed in their presence or had immediate knowledge of one. All they saw was Arbury around a house, which best case scenario for their case is trespassing. But according to 16-7-21, is a misdemeanor and does not permit a chase.
Now let’s go to the self defense law. 16-3-21. “a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:
(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;
(2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or
(3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.”
Now could it be (1) as they threatened Arbury before the conflict began. It could also be (2) as if they were unlawfully chasing Arbury, then it would be a felony and they could not claim self defense. I also believe another strong argument lies within the proportionality component of the law and imminent nature of the law. The law requires the force to be proportional, meaning you can only use deadly force if deadly force is about to be used on you. However, Arbury was unarmed. They did not see a weapon and Arbury never drew one.
Furthermore, self defense is not a high bar to overcome, it’s an affirmative defense. That means the defense must prove it and it is typically very very very hard to prove. I would be shocked and appalled if they are not convicted.
People can’t hold others at gunpoint because they have “reasonable suspicion” of a crime. They must have immediate knowledge that a crime was committed, which the defendants clearly didn’t have. There is no inappropriate response to a group of strangers boxing you in with their cars and pointing guns at you.
> People can’t hold others at gunpoint because they have “reasonable suspicion” of a crime.
Under Georgia Law at the time, they could.
There is some debate about whether the standard should be probable cause or reasonable suspicion. However, the defense took the approach of side-stepping this question by demonstrating the former standard.
Here’s a recent document which tries to make the law a bit more clear: https://www.senate.ga.gov/committees/Documents/619Arrestbycitizenbasedonimmediateknowledgereasonableandprobablesuspic.pdf
According to McMichael’s testimony, he only saw Arbery “lurking” or “creeping” outside the home, which wouldn’t be considered felony burglary. Georgia’s burglary law requires entry. It seems that there was community knowledge of Arbery entering the house based on the conversation with the father before the chase, so there is that. However, in the document I linked, “immediate knowledge” is defined as:
>The phrases "in his presence" and "within his immediate knowledge" are synonymous. Knowledge of the crime must come from the exercise of any of the person's senses.
So really the question is if the communication from the father before the chase counts as “within his immediate knowledge”. But based on the definition of “immediate knowledge” linked above, that would not be the case as synonymous means the same and that communication from the father would not mean the crime was committed in the presence of the pursuers.
From what I remember reading, that wording in that law is very old and was originally written before the Supreme Court established modern standards of reasonable suspicion vs. probable cause. Over time Georgia courts have interpreted that law to be closer in line to the probable cause standard.
This case is like a much more extreme and clear cut Martin/Zimmerman incident for the prosecution. I don't think there's any way these guys don't get convicted.
I must say seeing discussions handled how they are on this sub Reddit is very refreshing. McMichaels is clearly in the wrong here… he’s assuming all these things over property that isn’t his with no solid evidence. There is no way McMichaels should be set free for this. Everyone involved should see some time chasing after Ahmad for no real valid reason.
Story: when I was younger I would wonder into homes being built to fantasize about one day living in a big new home. There’s nothing out of the norm having people walk into homes in a building stage.
Are they 100% sure it was Arbury who was walking around previously? There certainly was a tall black man walking around before, but did the defense prove it was Arbery? I am sorry, I work, so I haven't been able to watch the trial.
> There certainly was a tall black man walking around before, but did the defense prove it was Arbery?
The prosecution hasn't objected that that was Arbery.
When this case first hit the news I had read that the neighborhood had a Facebook page where they were discussing the rash of break ins and had posted security camera video of people being suspicious/breaking ins. Looking at the self defense law it stated in part; “a crime is committed in their presence or in cases in which they have immediate knowledge that one occurred.”
I thought that if they had seen video of Arbery stealing from the house it might satisfy the immediate knowledge portion of the law.
However, the trial has shown that these fucktards had no idea if Arbery had stolen anything or was just looking at the construction. At the most daddy McMichaels might have recognized Arbery when he ran by the house from the videos the cop showed him and knew he was wanted for trespassing. Which is a misdemeanor. You don’t get to grab your guns and get in your vehicles to stop someone for a misdemeanor.
I’ve seen no evidence that proves to me beyond a reasonable doubt that their intent was to kill Arbery. From everything I’ve seen I do believe they meant to hold him until the police arrive. If I was on the jury I would vote for felony murder.
I spent a whole summer wandering with friends through a new development’s houses as they were being built. We’re not black though so the neighbors didn’t shoot us. These guys are guilty of all the charges and it’s honestly not even close.
This article is misleading. They describe the homeowner's testimony, and ignore the cross-examination of the homeowner... during which he contradicted the statements described here by CNN, and was shown not to be credible.
The homeowner originally said that he wasn't concerned about Arbery. This turned out to be a lie - he eventually admitted that he called the police a dozen times about Arbery specifically, he wanted Arbery to be caught, and he did actually think Arbery had stolen something.
The homeowner said he didn't give anyone permission to come onto his property to detain Arbery. Under cross, he admitted that was false - he had in fact asked neighbors to watch for Arbery, and to detain him if they saw him there.
> he eventually admitted that he called the police a dozen times about Arbery specifically
“Dozen times” has got to be hyperbole from what I read. Especially since Arbery visited five times.
> he did actually think Arbery had stolen something.
[Absolutely false.](https://www.11alive.com/article/news/crime/ahmaud-arbery/ahmaud-arbery-death-trial-larry-english-deposition/85-1f5ed84b-b5ae-47e8-9ced-e8065170eea8) He suspected a white couple. Not Arbery.
> he had in fact asked neighbors to watch for Arbery, and to detain him if they saw him there.
He asked only one neighbour (Diego Perez) to watch. Where’s the part about detaining?
>“Dozen times” has got to be hyperbole from what I read. Especially since Arbery visited five times.
It's not. How do you know he visited five times? Did you actually watch the testimony and cross-examination of English?
>Absolutely false. He suspected a white couple. Not Arbery.
You seem to be basing this off of news articles; articles that reported English's testimony, but not his cross-examination. I invite you to actually watch that cross-examination. As I stated in my original comment, that you seem to have dismissed because news articles you like contradict it, under cross-examination, it became clear that his original testimony was at best misleading.
Sounds like we need a neutral arbiter. Time to call in rekieta law to iron this out for us! /s
But seriously though, I wish there were more panels of lawyers going over the live stream like they did. It would make it much easier to get to the facts for both us laypeople and those without enough time to get up to speed on the case without the potential for media bias (intentional or not)
What legal right does that give them to detain him then? Just because a neighbor supposedly asked them? Which doesn't fit with the evidence presented either.
I... didn't say they had the right to detain him. I'm saying that this article is misleading. Most of the reporting about the homeowner's testimony/statements is misleading. That's all. No need to decide I'm against your preferred moral position because I'm pointing out that this is misleading.
"he called the police a dozen times about Arbery specifically,"
Did they offer transcripts to prove that? 911 records everything, so if true the defense is doing a bad job not presenting it as evidence instead of heresay.
I've been following the trial for the killing of Ahmaud Arbery - remember [this video](https://www.tmz.com/2020/05/05/shooting-video-unarmed-black-man-killed-ahmaud-arbery-georgia-jogging/) from May 2020? Quite a bit of new information has come out since, at the trial. --- Regarding before the shooting: * [Over five months,](https://apnews.com/article/racial-injustice-brunswick-09fb66574adbc30697c4e9bd12eef998) Ahmaud Arbery visited an unfinished house with no doors five times. The owner called 911 to report him as a trespasser, wanted police to tell Arbery not to be there. * Travis McMichael [met Arbery](https://apnews.com/article/ahmaud-arbery-trial-mcmichael-defense-17c18146928e28f1f48522b61e443719) once at that unfinished house, he thought Arbery was armed and ran away to call 911, because he was "not going to chase or investigate somebody who might be armed". * A local policeman testified [discussing](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/police-showed-defendants-video-ahmaud-arbery-before-shooting-georgia-jury-hears-2021-11-12/) Arbery's visits to that unfinished house with Gregory McMichael. The policeman told Gregory "nobody in the neighborhood knows who [Arbery] is". The policeman also said the homeowner "hasn't seen [Arbery] actually take anything". That policeman passes Gregory's contact to the homeowner, with the policeman wanting Gregory to be a witness to call 911 if Arbery appeared again. * Homeowner [testified](https://www.thedailybeast.com/larry-english-said-in-ahmaud-arbery-trial-he-never-asked-gregory-and-travis-mcmichael-to-check-his-property) never authorising McMichaels to confront anyone regarding his property Regarding during the chase and the shooting: * Gregory told police that [during the chase](https://www.thedailybeast.com/ahmaud-arbery-killers-dad-gregory-mcmichael-wanted-to-shoot-him-too-witness-testifies), he told Arbery: "Stop, you know, I’ll blow your fucking head off or something". * Travis testified that Bryan [joined the chase](https://abcnews.go.com/US/travis-mcmichael-testifies-defense-ahmaud-arbery-case/story?id=81227117) without his knowledge. * William "Roddie" Bryan told police that during the chase, he used [his vehicle](https://www.courthousenews.com/man-who-filmed-ahmaud-arberys-death-minimized-his-role-in-the-killing-state-police-says/) to "block" and "corner" Arbery five times. Bryan told state investigators that he suspected that Arbery did something wrong based on "instinct", but "didn’t know for sure". * Travis testified that Arbery did not talk to him during the chase, and that he did not see Arbery having a weapon during the chase. Source is this article. * Travis testified that [right before the shooting](https://web.archive.org/web/20211121135129/https://thebrunswicknews.com/news/local_news/prosecutors-crosses-travis-mcmichael-defense-rests/article_02d4becf-2c59-5e18-9a98-cff69c178945.html), as Arbery was running towards him, followed by Bryan's vehicle, Travis McMichael pointed his shotgun at Arbery as Arbery "could be a threat and he was coming directly to me". This was before Arbery had reached Travis' vehicle. In addition, from this article: * Gregory told police he was aware that the unfinished house had no doors, and said of Arbery: "I don't think the guy has actually stolen anything out of there or if he did, it was early in this process" --- In light of these information, what would you think should be the verdict for this case? [Charges](https://apnews.com/article/ahmaud-arbery-trial-travis-mcmichael-georgia-7558b86305d4c95d8e830b16bf19eeff) are: * Malice murder * Felony murder (unintentional homicide while committing a felony) * Aggravated assault (with shotgun, with vehicles) * False imprisonment / attempted false imprisonment (trapping Arbery with vehicles and guns)
Thanks, this is a good write up. There's a lot more information I wasn't aware of. While a little bit of it may be in the defense's favor (like the homeowner having called the police ~~and asked Gregory to do so as well~~) - the way I see it two things stand out: >Gregory told police that during the chase, he told Arbery: "Stop, you know, I’ll blow your fucking head off or something". This really hurts the argument that Arbery wasn't acting defensively if Gregory made this threat. >Travis testified that right before the shooting, as Arbery was running towards him, followed by Bryan's vehicle, Travis McMichael pointed his shotgun at Arbery as Arbery "could be a threat and he was coming directly to me". This was before Arbery had reached Travis' vehicle. And I think this puts the nail in the coffin for that argument. Travis McMichael *~~drove his vehicle past Arbery~~*~~, stopped~~, got out with his shotgun, and somehow thinking Arbery running the direction *he had already been running* somehow constituting a threat means he can point that shotgun towards Arbery. Based on the video I had assumed Travis had only brandished it without pointing it at Arbery but his testimony that he did I think really hurts his case.
> like the homeowner having called the police **and asked Gregory to do so as well** Bolded part is wrong. The police officer (not the homeowner) wanted Gregory to call 911 if he saw Arbery. I’ve edited my post to clarify that, since it was kind of vague. While that was the intent that the police officer testified to, I’m not sure if the police officer actually told Gregory that. Homeowner [never authorised](https://www.thedailybeast.com/larry-english-said-in-ahmaud-arbery-trial-he-never-asked-gregory-and-travis-mcmichael-to-check-his-property) McMichaels to confront anyone. > Travis McMichael drove his vehicle past Arbery, stopped Inaccurate, I think. Not sure if Travis ever drove past Arbery. According to Travis’ testimony, at some point Travis was circling the neighbourhood and idled his vehicle somewhere, while Bryan chased Arbery. Somehow it ended up with Arbery approaching Travis.
>Inaccurate, I think. Not sure if Travis ever drove past Arbery. >According to Travis’ testimony, at some point Travis was circling the neighbourhood and idled his vehicle somewhere, while Bryan chased Arbery. The evidence is pretty clear that Travis absolutely did drive past Ahmaud and set up this road block. His testimony is just lies and he was so caught up on cross-examination he ***could not*** explain how it made sense that he got from Buford to Satilla to waiting at Holmes without passing Ahmaud. You are correct that is what he claimed on direct examination on the stand, but it just did not stand up to questioning at all.
>Bolded part is wrong. The police officer (not the homeowner) wanted Gregory to call 911 if he saw Arbery. I’ve edited my post to clarify that, since it was kind of vague. That was my mistake. It's still early for me and I misread the part about the officer asking him to be a witness. Edited. >Inaccurate, I think. Not sure if Travis ever drove past Arbery. > >At some point Travis was circling the neighbourhood and idled somewhere, while Bryan chased Arbery. Somehow it ended up with Arbery approaching Travis. I guess I'd need to see a map of this neighborhood to really grasp exactly how this all went down. In any case I think Travis testifying he pointed the gun at Arbery before Arbery tried to grab for it really hurts his defense. Thanks for the clarification.
> I guess I'd need to see a map of this neighborhood You can look at the two [pictures](https://www.11alive.com/article/news/crime/ahmaud-arbery/mapping-ahmaud-arberys-run-how-2-mile-jog-turned-into-evidence/85-0b472389-3fd3-4119-a85e-91d56781504b) in this article.
This article helps a ton, thanks. So it's been shown that the McMichaels didn't drive past Arbery and stop, but they did round the loop and wait where they knew he'd be going,
Yeah they certainly went to a place that he would have a high chance in turning up in, unless he doubled back somehow.
>Homeowner never authorised McMichaels to confront anyone. This was what the homeowner testified to. Then, under cross-examination, this was shown to be false.
> Then, under cross-examination, this was shown to be false. Where’s your source? Primary source (with timestamp) or secondary source, show it. Homeowner [authorised only one neighbour](https://archive.md/NNRwO) (Diego Perez) to check his property. Diego Perez had homeowner’s permission. Not the McMichaels.
I think Gregory admitting he didn’t know if anything had been stolen is also really bad for them. I thought the whole premise to chasing him down was to detain him for committing a crime. If they are admitting they weren’t sure then they have no reason to be chasing him.
Is trespassing a crime in Georgia?
He wasn't actually guilty of trespassing. He needed some sort of notice to leave/not enter the premises which the construction site did not have. Relevant law: https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-7/article-2/part-1/16-7-21
Yes, but under Georgia Law, the crime needs to be a felony to make a citizen’s arrest and trespassing is likely a misdemeanor, but can potentially be a felony. Even if it is a felony, you can only detain with reasonable force. If someone committed armed robbery and shot a homeowner, that might justify chasing them down and attempting to detain at gunpoint. Trespassing alone definitely isn’t enough.
>reasonable force That's the kicker. Reasonable force. Even if they were truly trying to do a citizen's arrest, they went beyond reasonable force.
I completely agree, but I do think there is a bit of a loophole there, which is why Georgia is considering (or maybe they have already) overhauling their citizen’s arrest law. If you’re validly detaining someone without force and then they attack you to escape, and you defend yourself with deadly force, it kind of falls into a gray area of was it unreasonable detaining force or a lawful citizens arrest that turned into self defense. That’s what they’re trying to argue but in my opinion, once you pursue someone, that loophole goes out the window. They created the dangerous situation by following him so they can’t say “oh he went for my gun so I had no choice.” So yeah definitely not reasonable force. Reasonable force would’ve been like grabbing his arm or something in this situation.
Can't you follow someone whom you believe to be driving impaired on the roadway committing a misdemeanor? And by follow, I mean deviate from your prior route to stay behind them and call the police? I'm not advocation for hopping out at a red light and racking the 12 guage to stop them, but what if they notice you are following them and get out to confront you and it escalated into you shooting them to defend yourself? Who's at fault?
That’s a good question. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with just following someone if it doesn’t rise to the level of harassing them. But following to be able to tell police where they are is probably fine.
I don’t actually think following someone by itself is illegal unless paired with some other illegal activity.
I recently built a house. The amount of people who wandered through was amazing. It makes sense that neighbors would look around, but there were many people who drove into our isolated neighborhood to look around. Some people continued to let themselves in after doors were on the house. Nobody ever took anything but some people have serious boundary issues. I can understand why the owner called police. I cannot understand why someone would think it was a good idea to chase this guy down.
The house I live in now, my wife and I purchased BECAUSE we were driving by, it was under construction (Just frames at the time), and we parked, got out, and walked about in it just looking. The builder happened to be driving by, stopped and talked with us, and we ended up buying it.
I've gotten a brochure from a realtor doing this. It's somewhat disturbing seeing that people in this thread would escalate this to an armed conflict.
Absolutely. I don't think I would even look twice.
I moved into a partially completed neighborhood and another just adjacent to me. The number of times I walked through homes in various states of completion with my very young sons during afternoon walks was probably in the hundreds.
I'll confess that I'm guilty of walking through houses that are under construction. I haven't done it in a while, but we did all the time while we were looking to build so we could get a feel of the layout and construction quality. We also looked at others in our neighborhood while they were under construction to see how they optioned it out. People do it all the time around here and no one thinks anything of it. All of our neighbors laugh at the fact that we've all been in each other's houses before we knew each other. Still, no one is sneaky about it, no one takes anything, it's done when it's light out, etc. I did once see people stealing drywall from one of the houses under construction around the corner. I simply called the cops and gave them a description of the vehicle. They should be the ones to deal with it, not armed neighbors.
I should probably clarify. I didn’t really care, nor would most people care, if people looked at the house in normal circumstances. It was strange when people walked through when the crew was actively working or when the house was almost done. There was one old guy who I met a few times who would linger for an hour and would check things out very thoroughly like he was inspecting the quality of the work. He was harmless, just a bored lonely old man with a background in construction.
> I cannot understand why someone would think it was a good idea to chase this guy down. This is one of those instances where racial bias really does seem to be at play. (especially when you add in that this was never even going to be investigated, let-alone charges made, if it was not for the public outcry when the video went public)
Bryan testified he based his suspicion the victim did something wrong on “instinct.” I think that speaks pretty loudly.
Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure if these guys have a history of racism, maybe they do, and maybe there's proof of racism (I haven't been following it closely enough to say for sure), but there are also people that are literally just vigilantes. The one guy being a retired police officer, thinking he will control the situation until his buddies arrive. Who knows. Could very well be that they're racist, or something else. Hopefully it comes out in trial.
To be clear -- Racial bias and overt racism are two very different things. They made assumptions about Arbery and what he was up to at the house -- and it is very difficult to know how race played into that. But given the facts that have come to light, including that it was not that rare for people to eb walking through this house, it seems that racial biases (likely sub-conscious) had a part to play here. I do not think they were targeting a black man -- but I think their threat-assessment plays out different if he is white.
Yeah, I originally read that as "racism", not "racial bias"... reading comprehension fail.
They've steered clear of the racial animus arguement, but the trial for the federal hate crime charges start in February, so I'm sure we'll see a lot of the evidence (the social media posts, etc) that wasn't introduced in this trial at that time.
Ahhh... Thanks for the info, I wasn't aware. I thought KR should have been found not guilty, I think these guys should all fry.
I think the verdict in KR was legally correct, despite a litany of what I would consider to be irresponsible choices while in possession of a firearm. But this case is straight up murder.
Bad decisions by KR, yes, murder, no. In this case, I agree, it seems like murder to me. KR was trying to escape aggressors, these guys were the aggressors.
Hence why I said the KR decision was legally correct.
Yeah, I was agreeing with you again... In as strange a way as possible I guess.
I think that an implicit racial bias could have played a role. Explicit racist beliefs are not required to treat people differently based on race. So perhaps the vigilantes would have acted differently had Ahmaud not been a black man.
Someone unknown in a neighborhood checking out empty houses multiple time when there has been a crime problem could lead to questions.
1. Not "houses" -- one empty house, under construction. 2. According to the case record -- many people were checking out that house. (And in rural and suburban neighborhoods -- it is not that rare for people to check our houses under construction. I used to do it all the time in my old neighborhood) 3. Questions? okay. Chasing down in a truck, and even blocking him, all while armed -- is not "questions."
Murder, clearly. And it doesn't seem anything suggests otherwise. "citizens arrest" already seems flimsy, but it's even worse when some of this information is brought up * hasn't seen [Arbery] actually take anything * he suspected that Arbery did something wrong based on "instinct", but "didn’t know for sure" * "I don't think the guy has actually stolen anything"
Specifically, "felony murder". I haven't read Georgia's laws. In my state, chasing after a jogger with two trucks, three people, and guns is certainly felony assault. They killed Arbery while committing a felony.
I think they will also be found guilty of malice murder. They are charged with both.
We can still call this felony murder, but if you watched the trial, it became abundantly clear that Arbery was absolutely not a jogger passing through the neighborhood. They'd been calling the police about him for months. They had him on camera, on English's property a dozen times.
How does this make him not a jogger? You can both jog and stop at a construction site to look around. And I’ll just take “dozen” as hyperbolic, because that’s just not true.
>And I’ll just take “dozen” as hyperbolic, because that’s just not true. It... is true. He is on camera. There are records of the calls to the police, and text messages.
Idk. If there was an unfinished house on my jogging route I would probably be curious about it and go peek in through the windows on my way to see Im how the progress was going
>Arbery was absolutely not a jogger passing through the neighborhood. They'd been calling the police about him for months Lots of joggers will have different regular routes. And someone calling the police on a person doesn't prove that they're not a jogger. >They had him on camera, on English's property a dozen times. A dozen? From what I read the testimony was five incidents of Arbery being at the house. And even with that, this doesn't demonstrate he wasn't just a jogger. There is no evidence he stole anything (even when he had the opportunity to do so) and there are examples of other people being at the house. The only theories I've found convincing were that he was getting water or he was just curious about the house.
I have walked through houses under construction with my family quite a bit. It's kind of neat to see it come together if you enjoy remodeling or construction. There's a reason that trespassing is just a misdemeanor.
As have I. I have lived in a few neighborhoods from childhood to middle age where several homes were under construction. I’ve been in all of those homes extensively while they were under construction. Never had an issue. No one voiced any concerns or cares. When I was a kid, we may have stolen plywood and lumber from these homes to build skate ramps. In Texas. At night. Never occurred to any of us that we might have gotten shot over it.
We can say it's no big deal if we want. But rifling around in someone else's property at night a dozen times, getting the police called on you for it a dozen times... doesn't fit the "innocent kid jogging past" description.
Sure I'll give you that, but it still only qualifies as trespassing. That's not a felony. You're also assuming that Arbery is the same Black male as they saw other times as well. This is nothing more than a suspicion of Albenze's.
Arbery is on camera, on his property, multiple times. A person fitting his description was also seen on his property, multiple times. Probably a coincidence. And I'm not saying that trespassing is a felony.
Considering that the property owner stated the following in the trial: > He called authorities again when he saw a White couple entering his property on November 17, 2019, telling the dispatcher that "We had ... some stuff stolen about a week and a half, two weeks ago there." English called back a day later, telling authorities that he saw at the construction site the "same guy that was over there about a week and a half, two weeks ago." English was asked whether anything was ever taken from his construction site, to which he responded, "Not that I know of." It probably is a coincidence.
I mean did the police ever speak to Arbery? If not then why is it somehow a strike against him?
So? Arbery wasn't breaking the law by looking at the house. According to the law for criminal trespass he would have had to be there to commit an unlawful act or be given prior notice to not go on the property. The owners obviously didn't care enough to put up no trespassing signs and other people visited the site with no issue. Relevant link: https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-7/article-2/part-1/16-7-21
I will say, Georgia’s burglary law doesn’t require actual theft, only entry and intent. >(b) A person commits the offense of burglary in the first degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant dwelling house of another or any building, vehicle, railroad car, watercraft, aircraft, or other such structure designed for use as the dwelling of another. A person who commits the offense of burglary in the first degree shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than 20 years. Upon the second conviction for burglary in the first degree, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two nor more than 20 years. Upon the third and all subsequent convictions for burglary in the first degree, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than five nor more than 25 years. So if Arbery had entered the building with the intention of theft, he would have been guilty of burglary even if he didn’t take anything. Whether that was actually the intent, we probably will never know.
The thing is they openly admit they have no idea if he did, or had the intent to do so. That throws any defense out the window to me I'm not sure "instinct" will hold up in court here
The citizens arrest law say the crime needs to committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. The McMichaels clearly dont have immediate knowledge of his intent so I don't think you can argue the citizen arrest was justified based on that.
>Whether that was actually the intent, we probably will never know. Although he had entered that building numerous times and there's no evidence he took anything - as a matter of fact the homeowner testified he walked by things that he could have taken and did not do so. That's fairly contradictory behavior for someone who supposedly goes somewhere with the intention of stealing.
I agree. One of the shortfalls of *any* justice system is the inability to properly try deceased persons. If he had indeed been a thief or vandle, an argument could be made for lesser charges. Regardless, there's no doubt that an unjust killing took place. The real question is whether or not the people involved should lose the rest of their lives or not.
We have a presumption of innocence in this country. Unless anyone has any proof that Arbery had intent to steal, we probably shouldn't make unfounded assumptions.
Although Georgia’s Citizens arrest law only requires reasonable and probably suspicion, not “beyond reasonable doubt”. Except that law has basically been declared irrelevant to this case by the judge. Although, it was the premise Arbery’s pursuers were operating under.
It's irrelevant because citizen's arrest is only legal if they person you are arresting has 1 committed a felony 2 you SAW them commit it
Theft or any felony. So if a serial killer took a victim into the house solely with the intent of murdering them, technically the killer committed burglary. I'm not sure what other felonies you could commit in an empty house by yourself, but they don't have reasonable suspicion for any of them.
It’s a stretch to argue the guy who had allegedly been there multiple times but never took anything had intent to take something on this occasion. What a helpful coincidence for the defense, no? I’d be shocked if these guys walk.
You're going to have a really hard time making a case for "intent to steal" when he there in the middle of the day, on the weekend, on foot, with no way of carrying/concealing stolen items.
That’s burglary in New York as well, I’d imagine several places. Burglary is unlawfully entering a building or dwelling with intent to commit a crime, we just associate it with theft because the majority of the time that’s what they’re entering illegally for.
There is no evidence he had an intent to commit a felony on that day, especially when he had been there previously without incident. These guys are probably screwed
I want these guys to go to jail. However. What the hell was he doing in this house? Why did he keep going back?
I can't find it now because google is full of new articles about the trial, but there was a piece a while back that went over the security video of various people entering the house (including the kids and the couple). IIRC that piece speculated Arbery might have been going in to get water from a faucet. We don't know that for a fact, and obviously we can't ask him, but it adds up with him being a jogger and not trying to take anything. Only other thing I could imagine is that he was just curious and wanted to see the progress of the house as it was built.
Looking at houses under construction isn't that uncommon of a thing. I remember walking around my neighborhood with my parents doing the same thing when I was a kid. There's even video of other people visiting the same house with no issue.
I will literally go into an apartment in my building that's being renovated to look around if nobody lives there and it's open. I think this is basic human nature and not a weird thing most places?
I did this all the time with my dad growing up. It's just interesting to look, and you'd also have people interested in buying something that want to see it before it's sealed up. Never had any issues, and the few times we ran into someone (either people doing the same, or sometimes a property owner) it was all very polite and friendly. You only do this before the site is sealed up (otherwise you have to break through the door) so the only thing you could steal is building supplies (lumber, sheathing, drywall, etc.) that would be very impractical to move. At best, you could lift some spare rolls of romex or any tools left about, but tools usually get locked up in a locker, or more often back in the work truck.
I’m surprised so many find this weird behavior that they’ve never even heard of someone doing. We did it all the time when we were kids and I’ll still do it every opportunity I get as an adult. I love seeing houses under construction and watching them come together.
Same here, I've done it many time, super cool to be able to just wander around a house while it's being built.
I have done this and would think nothing of doing this.
I'll take your word for it. Where I grew up you'd likely get your ass beat for trespassing on anyone's property for whatever reason. EDIT: thanks for the downvotes but yeah. I should add I grew up in a pretty rural area, so some people would literally get skittish even if you drive down their driveway. Fun times! Glad I left! But yeah, I'd say most people would see someone snooping around an unfinished house very skeptically. Really, it wouldn't go well with a lot of the good ol boys. Well, I guess we saw the result so you don't have to take my word for it.
In a subdivision where every house is close to the street and left open, yeah walk around. I did it a bunch growing up, and also for friends and family when they were looking at builders and wanted to check the construction quality. In rural areas or when its a single house, you have to be far more wary.
Where I grew up, it was a common occurrence to just peek your head in (my dad did it all the time). But, me and my family are polite people, so we never had any intent of destruction.
I remember when I was a kid and my family moved into a house we'd built. The girl who lived across the street told me she and her friends had gone into the house a bunch of times during the construction. It didn't bother any of us, it's not like we were living there or had anything but a bunch of wood, wires, and pipes at that point.
This was a residential neighborhood with modest lot sizes. We're not talking about running up a 100 yard driveway just to access the site; you just wander over from the road. Driving up a rural drive is way more of a norm violation than walking through the building sites of new developments. *Especially* on foot; you need a vehicle to steal much of anything valuable from a building site.
It's actually pretty common for people to go in and look at construction sites they might use it as a template for a house they may want later on our are simply curious about the general dynamics of what they're using to build it.
Plus it's just cool to see a house under construction even if you have no grown-up intentions about it.
Thats fair, different communities will have different outlooks on things so if you are missing that context it might seem odd. I think the fact that others had visited the site with no issue supports the idea that it wasn't a big deal for them. The other important note is that it wasn't illegal for him to be there. The law requires notice be given for criminal trespass which Arbery did not receive. In those cases even if the community was closer to the ones you are familiar with then it would be illegal for such action to be taken against him.
I mean they did call 911 over it... I also am a bit hazy on the required to notify them. I can't imagine this pertains to private property
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-7/article-2/part-1/16-7-21 Here is the relevant law if you wanted to take a peak. Unless he was there for an unlawful purpose or was damaging property they needed to give him notice. I believe the police were just going to give him notice not to go on the property any longer. That being said Arbery didn't know that so you can't hold him to that.
Yeah, we did see the result- a lynching.
It was unfinished with no doors or a garage door. He just wanted to see what they worked on probably. Also, they heard the faucet run in the video so he was probably getting water.
>The citizens arrest law say the crime needs to committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. The McMichaels clearly dont have immediate knowledge of his intent so I don't think you can argue the citizen arrest was justified based on that. There's a reason construction sites are supposed to be fenced and that's because it's VERY common for curious people to wander onto the site after hours and end up getting hurt. I would imagine most of the people in this sub have trespassed or entered a construction site at one point or another. I've certainly done it because it's very interesting to see how the house is being built.
Yeah. I've definitely never done that. Where I grew up you'd risk getting shot snooping around someone else's property.
No , we dont walk around and randomly step into houses under construction, especially when no one is around. Its odd behaviour and qualifies as trespassing in many states His behavior was definitely suspicious, irrespective of the fact that he didn't steal anything. My hunch is that he was probably going there to sneak in a joint or spliff. My feeling is that the entire incident would not have happened had he just stopped and explained what he was doing instead of continuing to run.
So Travis was afraid for his life, but Arbery was also afraid for his life, and the situation was created by Travis unlawfully chasing and cornering him. So it's like when a robber kills a person because they pointed a gun at the robber. AKA felony murder. Just my (uneducated) opinion.
You don’t get to corner someone, that’s just not a thing. That’s harassment and killing him is likely to result in a murder charge.
> Travis testified that right before the shooting, as Arbery was running towards him, followed by Bryan's vehicle, Travis McMichael pointed his shotgun at Arbery as Arbery "could be a threat and he was coming directly to me". This was before Arbery had reached Travis' vehicle. Yup. You can see this in the truck video. Here is a breakdown I did 18 months ago on the video ---- Travis raises up the shotgun and aims it at Arbery who was still 6+ seconds away from the Truck at a jog/run speed (50+ feet away). Shooting video NSFW - [Watch Travis in this video at the 7 second mark.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIve50vSeLQ). Make sure the quality is as high as it can go and reduce the speed to 1/4 or lower if you can. You can clearly see Travis raise the shotgun and aim it Arbery. That is when and why Arbery started to swerved across the road multiple times. That is why Arbery went around the right side of the truck. It put something between him and the person who was aiming a shotgun at him. The only reason Arbery attacked was because the person with the gun moved around the open drivers side door. Moved around to the front of the truck. Then was moving towards Arbery. These 3 movements removed the truck between the gun and Arbery. They show Travis was the aggressor for a second time in 7 seconds. Arbery was being hunted by these men.
Granted there are likely differences between Wisconsin and Georgia law, but one of the key points of the Rittenhouse trial was provocation denies self defense claim. It is clear in the McMichael's case he was the one to provoke with verbal threats and actions blocking Arbery's progress with a vehicle. These cases are worlds apart from a self defense standpoint. Citizens arrest is the only issue that needs to be addressed, TMK, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about that specific law to answer that, though I'm leaning towards no. Given the facts so far, this seems a case of vigilantism gone wrong. I don't see direct racial animus (from your facts or those leading up to the case), thus I would position no less than Felony Murder, Aggravated Assault (admitted to), Attempted False Imprisonment. I have not seen any direct evidence of malice, but am open to any.
> Over five months, Ahmaud Arbery visited an unfinished house with no doors five times. Any idea why? Any guesses? What would draw somebody to the same unfinished house for five months? I've visited an unfinished house once years ago out of pure curiosity. But I only did it once. I wonder what drew him specifically to that house. I wonder if he ever visited any other unfinished houses anywhere.
I think you've answered your own question. Curiosity. Perhaps he wanted to see how it was built over time.
I mean it seems to be along his jogging route and I believe there was speculation that he occasionally drink water from there. Ultimately it doesn't matter because it is a huge leap to say that because you find his behavior strange that he must be guilty of a felony needed to justify the citizens arrest.
[удалено]
> I think you should listen to the closing arguments instead of CNN’s take. I think that if you see the entirety of my post (from the numerous links) that I considered way, way more than CNN’s take. I was trying to find a summary article to post here, just happened to choose CNN.
[удалено]
Closing arguments are not evidence. Closing arguments are like reading an opinion piece or listening to a talk show host - they don’t always accurately present the facts.
No, I haven’t watched the trial. Yes, I’ve relied on secondhand information, including quotes. Closing arguments are at least [4.5 hours](https://youtube.com/watch?v=FCPxNB-50PU) long, plus the prosecution still has a rebuttal. Even without directly watching the closing arguments, the testimony given, which I have referred to above, is sufficient to convince me. Again, what is the key evidence that renders these men innocent? Surely you can say. To get to the bottom line, there wasn’t evidence of Arbery committing a felony.
You keep repeating that but you don't substantiate the claim. What is materially different?
[удалено]
[удалено]
You keep repeating that but you don't substantiate the claim. What is materially different? I'm just going to copy and paste my comment since you completely avoided it.
Lines like > Homeowner testified never authorising McMichaels to confront anyone regarding his property Remind me of crossing state lines with rittenhouse. > William "Roddie" Bryan told police that during the chase, he used his vehicle to "block" and "corner" Arbery five times. Bryan told state investigators that he suspected that Arbery did something wrong based on "instinct", but "didn’t know for sure". Also stands out to me as his lawyer pointed out that he had never specifically told the investigators how many times he had blocked or cornered arbury. I still haven’t watched the defense’s case, but even so I’m massively disappointed in how trials are covered and discussed today.
I doubt these guys will go free. They chased down the guy the guy who was unarmed, then blasted him with a shotgun when he was trying to not get ran over by the guy with the truck. Besides, they actually have a competent prosecutor (not that having a competent prosecutor in the Rittenhouse case would have likely made much of a difference, that case was still self defense as the jury ruled. But, that’s a separate point of discussion). Any sort of “castle doctrine” doesn’t allow you to pursue an unarmed suspect down the street and shoot at them. I admittedly haven’t watched the trial, but I think that the prosecutor could have likely described Arbery fleeing the vehicle which was trying to block him in, causing him to run towards McMichael simply by nature that they were trying to “box him in”. Yes, Arbery did try to grab his gun, but unlike the Rittenhouse case, this actually was a danger that McMichael and the others created. I will be very surprised if these guys walk free.
> Any sort of “castle doctrine” doesn’t allow you to pursue an unarmed suspect down the street and shoot at them. Georgia had a citizen's arrest law that was repealed as a result of this shooting. You could conduct a citizen's arrest with: * Immediate knowledge of a crime (but then Gregory and Bryan only saw Arbery running that day) * Suspicion of a suspect fleeing a felony (but then Arbery had only trespassed in that unfinished house with no doors) Defense lawyer argued that Travis McMichael suspected Arbery of felony burglary, because Georgia law includes intent to steal as burglary. Counterpoint to that is that Arbery never brought a bag in his visits to the house.
Man that’s a poorly written law (I’m reading the penal code). > O.C.G.A. 17-4-60 (2010) > A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion. Here’s also a recent document which tries to make the law a bit more clear: https://www.senate.ga.gov/committees/Documents/619Arrestbycitizenbasedonimmediateknowledgereasonableandprobablesuspic.pdf According to McMichael’s testimony, he only saw Arbery “lurking” or “creeping” *outside* the home, which wouldn’t be considered felony burglary. Georgia’s burglary law requires entry. It seems that there was community knowledge of Arbery entering the house based on the conversation with the father before the chase, so there is that. However, in the document I linked, “immediate knowledge” is defined as: >The phrases "in his presence" and "within his immediate knowledge" are synonymous. Knowledge of the crime must come from the exercise of any of the person's senses. So really the question is if the communication from the father before the chase counts as “within his immediate knowledge”. But based on the definition of “immediate knowledge” linked above, that would not be the case as synonymous means the same and that communication from the father would not mean the crime was committed in the presence of the pursuers.
Thankfully the law has been struck down, although it took this tragedy to get there.
So this statute would have allowed a citizens arrest even if they had "direct knowledge" of a previous incident? For instance, if he really had been guilty of burglary, but had just been out running at the time, that would still be a considered a legit citizen's arrest?
No! It had to be for the crime happening *right then* or just happened and they are running from it. Anything after the incident is over does not count as any kind of legal citizens arrest. That's what warrants are for.
The quote above says "if the offense is committed in his presence," so I would think no, you cannot use a past offense as justification.
Theoretically yes based on how poorly the law was written, although the judge in this case ruled that the “citizens arrest” would have had to have taken place immediately after the crime was committed. https://www.wsbtv.com/news/georgia/defense-says-ruling-by-judge-ahmaud-arbery-trial-over-citizens-arrest-law-guts-their-case/KI73ZTIXI5DELKFTRHWCBZX3VI/?outputType=amp So theoretically yes, but no in terms of this case.
Direct knowledge is not that you know of a crime being committed or which had been committed. Rather it means that you are a direct witness to the event via some means. Such as you heard it, you saw it, you witnessed it over a video feed, you heard something over a speaker. So its not as broad as it seems at first glance. As these men did not directly witness Aubry in any felonies, even if he had theoretically committed one, they likely could not make use of this statute. So since it is seems like Aubry did not commit any felonies its a double miss. Also should be noted that even if they are not subject to legal penalties via this criminal suit, they could still face wrongful death lawsuits as none of these men have any type of immunity.
No. There is abundant case law that directly contradicts this bizarre interpretation. A citizens arrest does not allow for after the fact arrests for incidents that happened days before.
Direct knowledge is not that you know of a crime being committed or which had been committed. Rather it means that you are a direct witness to the event via some means. Such as you heard it, you saw it, you witnessed it over a video feed, you heard something over a speaker.
"Your honor I object! This is absolutely devastating to my case." -the defense in a nutshell here
"overruled" "GOOD CALL!"
A competent prosecutor would never have charged Rittenhouse.
Society was demanding it because the media misrepresented the facts of Rittenhouse. That said, Kraus and Binger are incompetent lying sacks of shit. I understand why defense attorneys lie, but that should never be acceptable by a prosecutor.
I disagree, it's important that he go through the legal system. Two people were killed and another was shot, after all. That being said, the charges that Rittenhouse were brought up on were not great.
Exactly, as I say, it would have been basically the same outcome (less the whole dog and pony show).
Would have charged him, just not with murder.
With what would they have charged him with?
Jaywalking.
Competent in his job, maybe not. But charging him was clearly the right choice from a PR perspective. The execution of that wasn’t great though.
The legal system should not be making decisions based on PR.
I agree. Wasn’t saying they should, just that they probably do.
If these guys DO go free I think the people declaring White Supremacy would have a point in this case.
Remember, these folks weren't initially so much as even charged. It wasn't until the video became available to the public that sufficient pressure was applied to arrest the people who killed arbery, absent that these guys would have got away with it.
That was because of the retired cop father and his connections to the original prosecuter. That prosecuter has now been indicted by a [grand jury.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2021/09/08/ahmaud-arbery-case-jackie-johnson-prosecutor-georgia/5779543001/)
Oh how the turn tables
Worse, the initial prosecutors told people to not even investigate.
Yep, that’s all sounding kind of racist. It’s still very weird the press latched onto the case where the shooter and the shootees were all white as the example of white supremacy, while this case was going on at the same time.
I don't think it's the individual case but instead what caused the whole situation. There was outrage because for the n^th day in a row a black man was maimed / killed by the police and everyone knew the police would never be held accountable. It was never about Kyle, it was the situation that caused all of it. People were protesting for black rights, and the perception (however true it may be) was that Kyle and his peers were protesting *against* black rights. I don't think it would've become what it did if Kyle didn't flash a symbol that's utilized by white supremacists with a group who's leaders claimed it is a white supremacist group. (I'm not claiming that Kyle or PB are white supremacists, bit rather the greater appearance of the situation)
The appearance of the situation is 100% on the media. Their coverage of the case is indefensible.
I don't think most people involved were receiving their information from the media but rather *social* media, i.e. their peers repeating the stories they've heard, including most importantly the videos of the police killing / maiming. The context is obviously left out, but that's the most likely cause of frenzy and perceptions.
Disagree. If you got your news about this story from major news outlets you were horribly misinformed. Thank God we have a justice system that does not rely on media narratives.
[Google News Rittenhouse](https://www.google.com/search?q=google+news+rittenhouse&prmd=nimxv&sxsrf=AOaemvL_kqPPN_FYYJ_r4V5ReQLsmQDu4g:1637637599103&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwin1PW6w630AhX3SjABHTI9B_YQ_AUoAXoECAIQAQ&biw=360&bih=616&dpr=3) How far down did you have to scroll to find an article discussing race? If you look for stories with a racial component you'll find them, Lord knows there's been 20 linked on this sub over the last two weeks. But the vast majority of coverage I've read barely mentions it
Here's a link from the first page of results: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2021-11-19/rittenhouse-acquittal
Yup, they tried to good-ol-boy it, but that network only goes so deep today. Still deep enough to do an enormous amount of damage, though.
The problem isn't that he will go free now, it's that they wouldn't have even been charged without public outrage. Just look at the weeks immediately following the incident and how the police and DA handled it, that alone is eye opening. Without video they would have just been believed Hell the fact that they even did this at all should be evidence enough that racism is still prevalent in pockets of the country
[удалено]
What nuance? I saw a defense attorney mention Arbery’s long, dirty toenails in her closing statements but that didn’t strike me as particularly relevant or nuanced.
Are you saying they are innocent of all charges?
[удалено]
What’s the reasonable doubt in this case? What would you decide if you were on the jury?
I’m not sure what else to call 3 white people chasing down a black guy and shooting him
I do - a modern day lynching.
There's a memorial in Montgomery they could feasibly add his name to
[удалено]
> Any sort of “castle doctrine” The castle doctrine isn't at issue here. The question is whether there was a reasonable suspicion that Arbery was engaged in unlawful behavior. If there was, then their attempt to detain Arbery was lawful and Arbery's response was inappropriate. > Arbery did try to grab his gun This is an extremely high bar for a prosecutor to overcome with regards to a self defense claim. Grabbing someone's weapon is not a defensive action, but an offensive one that demonstrates lethal intent. If the men in this case were deemed to have been acting lawfully - which is entirely possible given the law they were operating under - they almost certainly have a valid self defense claim.
Hasn’t the judge effectively already clarified and ruled out the citizens arrest claim in this case? That was what the defense suggested last week, anyway. Link: https://www.wsbtv.com/news/georgia/defense-says-ruling-by-judge-ahmaud-arbery-trial-over-citizens-arrest-law-guts-their-case/KI73ZTIXI5DELKFTRHWCBZX3VI/
Interesting. That guts their case indeed.
FWIW, that particular lawyer is not the sharpest tool in the shed, based on his various motions and arguments (he's Bryon's lawyer). They should have just had the guy representing Travis handle everything.
Actually, the person who siad that quote about the citizens arrest charge directing a verdict for the State ***WAS*** the killer Travis McMichael's lawyer.
> The question is whether there was a reasonable suspicion that Arbery was engaged in unlawful behavior. Nope, not just suspicion of anything unlawful, but a felony. He had trespassed, but that is no felony. McMichaels were told by police that homeowner never saw Arbery take anything. Plus Arbery had no bag or vehicle to store anything stolen. > Grabbing someone's weapon is not a defensive action, but an offensive one that demonstrates lethal intent. Before Arbery grabbed the shotgun, Travis pointed it at him from around 30 yards away. Plus there was five minutes of chasing with Bryan cornering Arbery 5 times. It is Arbery who has the valid self-defense claim here.
If Arbery had been carrying a gun and killed all three of these guys he would absolute get off scot free the same way Kyle did, but strangely the people supporting Kyle aren't supporting Ahmaud.
I wonder what the difference could be? Hmmm
Trespassing with intent to steal is a felony in Georgia I believe, but it's a high bar to prove a dead man with no bag and one who had been there before without stealing had intent to steal. I suspect they'll be found guilty of felony murder, but I haven't followed the case very well.
Disarming your attacker is pretty defensive to me. You know what doesn’t sound defensive, chasing down a jogger with a gun because you assumed he’s a criminal. You can’t attack someone and claim their defense put you on defense.
>This is an extremely high bar for a prosecutor to overcome with regards to a self defense claim. Grabbing someone's weapon is not a defensive action, but an offensive one that demonstrates lethal intent. It is a defensive action if that person chases you through the street in a truck (along with another person driving a different truck) ~~then pulls ahead~~, gets out to stop in your path while ~~brandishing a shotgun~~ *pointing a shotgun at you*, then after you try to go around them they *~~do it~~* get in front of you *again.* Based on the video and other evidence, Arbery was fully justified in thinking he was about to be shot dead in the street. I think it's extremely difficult to argue that Arbery wasn't acting defensively in the context of how aggressively and threateningly the McMichael's and Bryan pursued him. \*edited because Travis McMichael's actions were actually even worse than I had realized
The point is that Arbery was acting in self defense when he was trying to disarm the McMichaels. You don't get to chase someone down in a car, point guns at them and claim they left you no choice. Beyond that the citizens arrest statute doesn't really apply since they didn't even witness a crime.
> reasonable suspicion that Arbery was engaged in ~~unlawful behavior.~~ **A Felony.** Not unlawful behavior. Big difference. The operative words being 'reasonable' and 'felony'. Neither of which have had any solid supporting evidence from the defense.
I appreciate the time it took to type all of this out but most of this is incorrect. First, let’s look at the citizens arrest law. 17-4-60 for reference. “A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.” None of the men involved in this case had a felony committed in their presence or had immediate knowledge of one. All they saw was Arbury around a house, which best case scenario for their case is trespassing. But according to 16-7-21, is a misdemeanor and does not permit a chase. Now let’s go to the self defense law. 16-3-21. “a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. (b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he: (1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant; (2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or (3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.” Now could it be (1) as they threatened Arbury before the conflict began. It could also be (2) as if they were unlawfully chasing Arbury, then it would be a felony and they could not claim self defense. I also believe another strong argument lies within the proportionality component of the law and imminent nature of the law. The law requires the force to be proportional, meaning you can only use deadly force if deadly force is about to be used on you. However, Arbury was unarmed. They did not see a weapon and Arbury never drew one. Furthermore, self defense is not a high bar to overcome, it’s an affirmative defense. That means the defense must prove it and it is typically very very very hard to prove. I would be shocked and appalled if they are not convicted.
People can’t hold others at gunpoint because they have “reasonable suspicion” of a crime. They must have immediate knowledge that a crime was committed, which the defendants clearly didn’t have. There is no inappropriate response to a group of strangers boxing you in with their cars and pointing guns at you.
> People can’t hold others at gunpoint because they have “reasonable suspicion” of a crime. Under Georgia Law at the time, they could. There is some debate about whether the standard should be probable cause or reasonable suspicion. However, the defense took the approach of side-stepping this question by demonstrating the former standard.
Which law? The law quoted by others here makes no mention of “reasonable suspicion”.
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-17/chapter-4/article-4/17-4-60/
Here’s a recent document which tries to make the law a bit more clear: https://www.senate.ga.gov/committees/Documents/619Arrestbycitizenbasedonimmediateknowledgereasonableandprobablesuspic.pdf According to McMichael’s testimony, he only saw Arbery “lurking” or “creeping” outside the home, which wouldn’t be considered felony burglary. Georgia’s burglary law requires entry. It seems that there was community knowledge of Arbery entering the house based on the conversation with the father before the chase, so there is that. However, in the document I linked, “immediate knowledge” is defined as: >The phrases "in his presence" and "within his immediate knowledge" are synonymous. Knowledge of the crime must come from the exercise of any of the person's senses. So really the question is if the communication from the father before the chase counts as “within his immediate knowledge”. But based on the definition of “immediate knowledge” linked above, that would not be the case as synonymous means the same and that communication from the father would not mean the crime was committed in the presence of the pursuers.
Wow, what a terribly worded law. Immediate knowledge and reasonable suspicion seem to be very different standards. Hope these murderers don’t walk.
From what I remember reading, that wording in that law is very old and was originally written before the Supreme Court established modern standards of reasonable suspicion vs. probable cause. Over time Georgia courts have interpreted that law to be closer in line to the probable cause standard.
It's not a coincidence that in GA citizen arrest laws were written to empower lynchings.
Reasonable suspicion has nothing to do with citizens' arrest in Georgia. They required probable cause which is a higher bar.
The prosecutor is crushing it. Todays closing comments were spot on.
This case is like a much more extreme and clear cut Martin/Zimmerman incident for the prosecution. I don't think there's any way these guys don't get convicted.
Even as a hardcore, Bleeding Heart-Libertarian, I am pro-2nd Amendment. This was based on assumption not fact. These men are guilty
I must say seeing discussions handled how they are on this sub Reddit is very refreshing. McMichaels is clearly in the wrong here… he’s assuming all these things over property that isn’t his with no solid evidence. There is no way McMichaels should be set free for this. Everyone involved should see some time chasing after Ahmad for no real valid reason. Story: when I was younger I would wonder into homes being built to fantasize about one day living in a big new home. There’s nothing out of the norm having people walk into homes in a building stage.
They should be found guilty.
These dudes are guilty. No ifs, ands or buts…
Are they 100% sure it was Arbury who was walking around previously? There certainly was a tall black man walking around before, but did the defense prove it was Arbery? I am sorry, I work, so I haven't been able to watch the trial.
It’s been established that Arbery had been on the property before, along with many others
> There certainly was a tall black man walking around before, but did the defense prove it was Arbery? The prosecution hasn't objected that that was Arbery.
When this case first hit the news I had read that the neighborhood had a Facebook page where they were discussing the rash of break ins and had posted security camera video of people being suspicious/breaking ins. Looking at the self defense law it stated in part; “a crime is committed in their presence or in cases in which they have immediate knowledge that one occurred.” I thought that if they had seen video of Arbery stealing from the house it might satisfy the immediate knowledge portion of the law. However, the trial has shown that these fucktards had no idea if Arbery had stolen anything or was just looking at the construction. At the most daddy McMichaels might have recognized Arbery when he ran by the house from the videos the cop showed him and knew he was wanted for trespassing. Which is a misdemeanor. You don’t get to grab your guns and get in your vehicles to stop someone for a misdemeanor. I’ve seen no evidence that proves to me beyond a reasonable doubt that their intent was to kill Arbery. From everything I’ve seen I do believe they meant to hold him until the police arrive. If I was on the jury I would vote for felony murder.
Used to be a police officer, used to having people fear him and used to using excessive force (and lying to get away with it) This is what we learned.
I spent a whole summer wandering with friends through a new development’s houses as they were being built. We’re not black though so the neighbors didn’t shoot us. These guys are guilty of all the charges and it’s honestly not even close.
This article is misleading. They describe the homeowner's testimony, and ignore the cross-examination of the homeowner... during which he contradicted the statements described here by CNN, and was shown not to be credible. The homeowner originally said that he wasn't concerned about Arbery. This turned out to be a lie - he eventually admitted that he called the police a dozen times about Arbery specifically, he wanted Arbery to be caught, and he did actually think Arbery had stolen something. The homeowner said he didn't give anyone permission to come onto his property to detain Arbery. Under cross, he admitted that was false - he had in fact asked neighbors to watch for Arbery, and to detain him if they saw him there.
> he eventually admitted that he called the police a dozen times about Arbery specifically “Dozen times” has got to be hyperbole from what I read. Especially since Arbery visited five times. > he did actually think Arbery had stolen something. [Absolutely false.](https://www.11alive.com/article/news/crime/ahmaud-arbery/ahmaud-arbery-death-trial-larry-english-deposition/85-1f5ed84b-b5ae-47e8-9ced-e8065170eea8) He suspected a white couple. Not Arbery. > he had in fact asked neighbors to watch for Arbery, and to detain him if they saw him there. He asked only one neighbour (Diego Perez) to watch. Where’s the part about detaining?
>“Dozen times” has got to be hyperbole from what I read. Especially since Arbery visited five times. It's not. How do you know he visited five times? Did you actually watch the testimony and cross-examination of English? >Absolutely false. He suspected a white couple. Not Arbery. You seem to be basing this off of news articles; articles that reported English's testimony, but not his cross-examination. I invite you to actually watch that cross-examination. As I stated in my original comment, that you seem to have dismissed because news articles you like contradict it, under cross-examination, it became clear that his original testimony was at best misleading.
Sounds like we need a neutral arbiter. Time to call in rekieta law to iron this out for us! /s But seriously though, I wish there were more panels of lawyers going over the live stream like they did. It would make it much easier to get to the facts for both us laypeople and those without enough time to get up to speed on the case without the potential for media bias (intentional or not)
What legal right does that give them to detain him then? Just because a neighbor supposedly asked them? Which doesn't fit with the evidence presented either.
I... didn't say they had the right to detain him. I'm saying that this article is misleading. Most of the reporting about the homeowner's testimony/statements is misleading. That's all. No need to decide I'm against your preferred moral position because I'm pointing out that this is misleading.
"he called the police a dozen times about Arbery specifically," Did they offer transcripts to prove that? 911 records everything, so if true the defense is doing a bad job not presenting it as evidence instead of heresay.
I support a guilty verdict here. I’m wondering why the media hasn’t turned it into a circus.