(W:#403)The trial of Travis and Gregory McMichael, and William "Roddie" Bryan, for felony murder in the killing of Ahmaud Arbery

[CaughtInThe]

Here's the real question...

What kind of people support these murderers?

 

[mike2810]

You load (presuming he did so) to be ready in case a suspect charges you at close range. It is prudent.

If he was using a pump action, given statements made by his attorney, I believe he will freely admit that he intentionally pulled the trigger in the struggle for the gun. Hence, one supposes he managed to pump it in their hand fighting.

It will be interesting to hear once the trial gets going on what said.
If the shotgun was not preloaded then that means it was pumped at least twice. pump, shoot, pump, shoot.

Earlier statements made is that the McMichel's only wanted to stop and talk to Arbery.
Having a loaded weapon seems a bit over the top for just wanting to talk.

Good way to escalate the situation. Pull up in a vehicle, jump out and point a weapon at someone who may have been out for a jog.
Most people would go into a flight or fight mode at that point.

 

[Bodecea]

As this isn't a legal question, but one of responsibility. He lost his life for several reasons, among them is that he persisted in illegally entering a house (most likely looking for stuff to steal) and charged a man carrying a shotgun, attempting to take it from him.

"persisted in illegally entering a house"? whaaaaaaaaa?

 

[Lursa]

I understand they were in contact with the Police (Greg McM in the pickup truck bed) and someone had seen the trespass already called the police.

Arbery had a history of theft and illegal ownership of a gun, and may have been captured on video at the trespass scene on prior occasions. Ya, he was scoping out the site for something to steal, and when exiting carefully scanned the street to make sure no one was watching (and then saw a fellow dialing his cell phone, apparently to the police). So he ran like hell.

And yes, they all used very poor judgement. Travis, in particular, was an idiot in moving around to the front of the vehicle from behind his car door. Untrained and careless he put himself in a very dangerous situation.

LOL the red text is going to be completely useless, mostly not even introduced, at trial. It's almost all speculation and 'guessing' he was scoping out anything is of zero evidentiary value.

Do you understand this? If not, explain how you think those comments will have any value in court?

Whether they win or lose, the process will be the punishment. They will emerge penniless, their lives and families ruined.

And there's an innocent guy, dead...with his family suffering.

 

[Lursa]

"persisted in illegally entering a house"? whaaaaaaaaa?

Inorite? It was a construction site and many other people were observed on video checking it out too.

 

[JMB802]

Inorite? It was a construction site and many other people were observed on video checking it out too.

And IIRC, all of them are still alive.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Here's the real question...

What kind of people support these murderers?

Republicans.

 

[Lursa]

Lursa, at this point your just babbling some knee jerk nonsense. If you can't focus on the statutory law and what it does and does not say, and what the relevant case law says, its pointless for me to continue trashing your repeated straw men. All you've done is deny and never address the legal point.

An illegal act is committed the moment someone enters a building or structure without license (MEANING trespass) and if one does so with the intent steal something it is a felony. THAT is what the law says...period. Whether or not that person is known, apprehended and/or the building owner wants to press charges is irrelevant. IF one of the two conditions are met, upon "immediate direct knowledge" (e.g. of trespassing) OR a reasonable suspicion (without direct or immediate knowledge) that a person has committed and is fleeing a felony then a citizen can make a citizens arrest.

NONE has provided a definition (to me) from Georgia citizens arrest case law, what "immediate direct knowledge" means.

NONE has provided a definition (to me) from Georgia citizens arrest case law, what constitutes "reasonable suspicion".

Declaring "you've been told the definitions" without citing where in the law it is found is tantamount to gas lighting - either provide support for your legal claims or cease and desist making "home brewed" claims.

And, from everything I read they didn't hit him with the truck, the perp hit (contact) the truck. Arbery chose to run along the side of the truck parked near the shoulder, because trucks don't drive sideways (obviously), Arbery was the one that made contact, the driver moved forward fearing the Arbery was attempting to open a door. So one would expect his palm prints found on the side, and by gosh they were.

Finally, they don't didn't a duty to retreat in Georgia, and there wasn't any unlawful conflict, or unjustified use of felony force, UNTIL Arbery initiated it.

THat's a lot of wasted typing. I stopped after 'knee-jerk.' That's not what my claims and comments were...they were merely repetitious because I can no longer find words more simple or clear to explain the facts to you.

They all still stand and others have told you the same things, most esp. about 'direct' or 'immediate' knowledge and the lack of any felony status or charge at all. Why are you so desperate to deny the actual laws as written? Your contortions to try and make them fit your hopeful speculation are obvious and ridiculous.

 

[roguenuke]

Arbery is not the one on trial. Whether or not his "self-defense" was entitled is irrelevant. The only question that should be asked is that if, under Georgia law, the actions of the three men were legal. And because of the legality of open carry and then current broad citizens arrest powers, the prosecutions case should be a difficult one to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, given the current climate I am sure that won't matter and they will be convicted (while the Feds pile on).

Nothing under Georgia law allowed them to pursue him like they did, to try to force him to stop and answer their questions. They had no legal authority to do that, which means their attempts to do so were a felony in themselves (hence the federal charges, like attempted kidnapping).

 

[roguenuke]

As this isn't a legal question, but one of responsibility. He lost his life for several reasons, among them is that he persisted in illegally entering a house (most likely looking for stuff to steal) and charged a man carrying a shotgun, attempting to take it from him.

Trespassing is a misdemeanor and not one that is deemed able to be excuse for a citizen's arrest.

 

[roguenuke]

First, its not clear that the 3 did commit aggravated assault, even if there wasn't a citizens arrest law. Attempting to place one-self next to another person to question them isn't assault.

Second, under the broad powers implicit in having the power to arrest (e.g. questioning and detention) the pivotal question will be if the 3 (or a portion thereof) had direct knowledge of a felony offense.

They were trying to stop him to question him, pin him in. That is illegal.

 

[roguenuke]

If so, then you would know that the aggravated assault is to intentionally threaten deadly force readily capable of causing death or serious bodily injury. And you would also know there are two of these charges, regarding the use of firearms to threaten and the other in the use of the pickup truck with to create a fear in Arbery of being run over.

The other basis of the other charges are that of false imprisonment, which is when you intend to constrain someone’s freedom of movement.

So you know what the prosecution claims: that these three decided with malice to unlawfully chase Arbery through the neighborhood, and attempt to and actually did threaten him with deadly force harm through the use of their pickup trucks and the shotgun.

Here is why I consider the charges and a finding of guilty to be problematical:

First, it's undisputed that Arbery was in a local dwelling illegally, a burglary and felony.
Second, it would see that the 3 were aware of that, i.e. had direct knowledge of that.
Three, under Georgia's citizens arrest law one need not be correct in that knowledge, only that the 3 reasonably believed it to be true (which it was).
Four, if you are allowed to arrest someone, then pursuit and detention are an inherent part of that and themselves cannot be unlawful conduct.

While I think absurd to claim an attempt to threaten with intent and malice, I think I see one part that is treacherous for the defense, at least in the case of the younger McMichaels. As Arbery approached the truck from the rear, be made a beeline to the driver standing next to his door, with a gun. At some point, it looked to me that McMichaels may have pointed the gun at Arbery (and perhaps issuing vocal commands) so as to make him cease running towards him - Arbery responded by veering away, running to the passenger side of the truck.

Did the younger McMichaels lose his right of self defense by illegally pointing his weapon at Arbery, thereby prompting Arbery's attack in front of the vehicle?

On that I am uncertain. BUT aside from that, I am confident that if the foregoing facts are true the 3 should not be otherwise convicted.

No, it is not "undisputed that Arbery was in a local dwelling illegally, a burglary and felony". They did not have direct knowledge of a felony, as all they could have seen was trespassing, which is a misdemeanor, not a felony.

 

[roguenuke]

1) It entirely depends on what is "reasonable" given the knowledge of someone who may be attempting to forcibly detain someone in an attempt to make a citizens arrest. While press reports are not entirely clear, among the source of knowledge used allegedly included Travis McMichael report to police, two weeks early, describing someone who could fit Arbery's description trespassing at the house. Gregory McMichael's claim that Arbery looked like the man he saw on a surveillance video of the house. The fact that the man was running hard, dashing down the street. If a person is aware of the general appearance of a trespasser, has seen someone like him before at the site, (a repeat offender) then that is sufficient basis for a reasonable suspeciion.

2) Doesn't matter if the homeowner sought or "sanctioned" the actions of the defendants.

3) The homeowner is the one that apparently provided the police with videos of trespassers and the complaint. Apparently, at the time, when he sought police help he didn't think their intent was innocent. Now that the heat is on, he is scrambling to distance himself. A natural reaction but clearly not honest.

4) The other trespassers weren't seen booking it down the street in flight (or what appeared to be flight).

They had no right to forcibly detain him, to question him, which is what they admitted they were trying to do.

 

[Bodecea]

Being aware of him "that day" isn't relevant. Quite aside from the fact that they had direct knowledge of the commission of a crime several weeks prior isn't in dispute, one of them filed a police report to that affect. (And yes a crime did occur that day, there is video evidence of his trespassing and furtively looking both ways before dashing from the house).

It does not have to be a felony, if it must only be a reasonable suspicion that a felony was committed. A cop, knowing the same information and conduct I alluded to in another post, might detain someone for questioning under the same reasonable suspicion.

I'm glad you are not on the jury, having already made up your mind.................can tell by your subjective word usage.

 

[ClaraD]

Just "jogging" through a neighborhood, not his own, and decided it would be a good idea to go into a house under construction to check out the floor plan I guess?

LOL. He was up to no good. I dont think the rednecks should have tried to detain him themselves, they should have called police and followed him so as to point him out to Police. Maybe they did call the Police and they hadn't arrived yet. I havent been following closely.

Watch yourselves gun nuts, I know a lot of these folks seem like they're just itching to get the "opportunity" to shoot someone, but there are legal ramifications.

This is similar to the Trayvon Martin case IMO, where a moron with a gun followed a kid around, started a physical fight with him, and then shot the kid in "self defense" after Trayvon started kicking his ass.

Shooter found "not guilty" in that case. I think he was guilty though. I dont have an opinion about these rednecks here, except for: the dead guy was up to no good and the Joe Bobs should have notified Police and nothing more.

the house was open....no doors, etc.

 

[ClaraD]

Recognition is a subjective assessment by a witness, one that creates the reasonable suspicion. Whether or not it turns out to be the same guy isn't relevant. If he believed it was or likely was the same guy, that is all that is necessary.

And you don't understand Georgia law so until you read my last several posts quoting and explaining it, no point in discussing it further.

private citizens aren't entitled to act on reasonable suspicion....they have to observe the felony in progress.

 

[roguenuke]

I understand they were in contact with the Police (Greg McM in the pickup truck bed) and someone had seen the trespass already called the police.

Arbery had a history of theft and illegal ownership of a gun, and may have been captured on video at the trespass scene on prior occasions. Ya, he was scoping out the site for something to steal, and when exiting carefully scanned the street to make sure no one was watching (and then saw a fellow dialing his cell phone, apparently to the police). So he ran like hell.

And yes, they all used very poor judgement. Travis, in particular, was an idiot in moving around to the front of the vehicle from behind his car door. Untrained and careless he put himself in a very dangerous situation.

Whether they win or lose, the process will be the punishment. They will emerge penniless, their lives and families ruined.

Trespass is not a felony. The law in Georgia is it must be a felony.

 

[ClaraD]

And IIRC, all of them are still alive.

yeah, all the others were white...and not pursued by moron red necks.

 

[Bodecea]

Just "jogging" through a neighborhood, not his own, and decided it would be a good idea to go into a house under construction to check out the floor plan I guess?

LOL. He was up to no good. I dont think the rednecks should have tried to detain him themselves, they should have called police and followed him so as to point him out to Police. Maybe they did call the Police and they hadn't arrived yet. I havent been following closely.

Watch yourselves gun nuts, I know a lot of these folks seem like they're just itching to get the "opportunity" to shoot someone, but there are legal ramifications.

This is similar to the Trayvon Martin case IMO, where a moron with a gun followed a kid around, started a physical fight with him, and then shot the kid in "self defense" after Trayvon started kicking his ass.

Shooter found "not guilty" in that case. I think he was guilty though. I dont have an opinion about these rednecks here, except for: the dead guy was up to no good and the Joe Bobs should have notified Police and nothing more.

When I ran, I was always jogging in neighborhoods not my own. What is wrong with that?

 

[ClaraD]

No, it is not "undisputed that Arbery was in a local dwelling illegally, a burglary and felony". They did not have direct knowledge of a felony, as all they could have seen was trespassing, which is a misdemeanor, not a felony.

and they didn't even observe him doing anything other than running....they didn't even observe him in the home.

 

[bongsaway]

The trial is soon to start, with a thousand jury summons sent out to residents of Glynn County.

1,000 summoned as possible jurors in Arbery slaying trial

Jury duty notices have been mailed to 1,000 people in Georgia for the approaching trial of three white men charged with killing Ahmaud Arbery.

www.wrdw.com

The defense filed a motion to not allow media during jury selection. This will hopefully be denied:

Defense pushes to bar media in jury selection for Arbery death

Defense attorneys for men charged with killing Ahmaud Arbery are asking a Georgia judge to keep reporters out of the courtroom.

www.wrdw.com

A defense attempt to suppress jailhouse calls was denied:

Arbery Killing: Judge allows defendants' jailhouse calls

In a blow to the defense for the men accused of killing Ahmaud Arbery Georgia judge rules Gregory McMichael Travis McMichael and William "Roddie" Bryan's jailhouse calls be admissible.

www.courttv.com

Defense can not use Arbery's past criminal history, mental health history hasn't been ruled yet that I can find:

Judge: Ahmaud Arbery’s past troubles irrelevant to trial

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

www.wrdw.com

Right from the first time I saw the video of the incident I asked myself what are the chances this person filming this wasn't planned?

I'm seeing guilty verdicts in their future days.

 

[Bodecea]

Why is "up to no good" a more reasonable explanation for him being there than "getting a drink" as he had been there multiple times and never took anything. Is it against any law to jog in adjacent neighborhoods? What's wrong with jogging down a street you don't live on? People do that every day.

Oh! I know! I know!

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

When I ran, I was always jogging in neighborhoods not my own. What is wrong with that?

Did you "jog" on into some peoples homes under construction sites?

 

[MaryP]

This case is really disturbing. I don't live in the south, only know what I hear.

First thing I thought of when I read about it was Faulkner's story "Was," where two old boys chased their slave (and half brother) Turl for running off to court his sweetie on the next plantation. It was just like a possum hunt, same terminology, same attitude. I don't think things have changed much, from the sound of it.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

the house was open....no doors, etc.

You still are 100% aware that you should not be in there. Its not your house is it?
Common sense.
he was looking for some stuff to steal.