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

[lurchadams]

Hopefully the media coverage has not tainted the jury pool. It will be interesting to see how the prosecution presents the case.

imo, the 3 defendants acted inappropriately and their actions led to to Arbery death.

"Acted inappropriately". Yes, they chased down and murdered a guy. That's pretty darn inappropriate!

 

[maxparrish]

Yeah...you keep believing that a unarmed man that got shot by a few good ole boys was a threat.

Unbelievable to watch the contortions you go through to justify murder.

He was a deadly threat the moment he charged a man with a weapon, and attempted to take it from him. That's rather basic self-defense law. It is also basic self-defense law that unless Travis issued a deadly threat to to shoot Arbery if he did not comply or ran, even without a citizens arrest law then Travis did not lose self-defense as a justification.

The prosecution has to prove TWO major aspects:

a) That the accused have NO protection afforded in citizens arrest law because to do so would have been an illegal arrest.

AND

b) That the 3 individuals lost the right of self-defense due to a felonious unlawful offense that directly resulted in Arbery's death.

As I have previously stated, in my view, I don't think their is sufficient evidence to prove BOTH those points BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. In particular, the citizen's arrest defense isn't as robust a defense as simple self-defense, and may, in fact, undermine it.

 

[maxparrish]

The guy is dead and had stolen nothing. There's no way to prove any intent to steal. No felony.

The defense does not need to prove his intent because the burden of proof is on the State.

Therefore, the prosecution will have to prove that the apparent offense was not "within (the McMichaels) immediate knowledge", AND also prove "that there was not reasonable and probable grounds of a suspicion" of a felony being committed.

I'm not going to keep repeating this. However I asked a well known attorney in self-defense law, Andrew Branca, to clarify this issue. He wrote to me:

Every statute is open to interpretation to some degree, but the relevant GA citizen’s arrest statute does not require that a crime was actually committed by the suspect–no arrest requires that an (offense) was actually committed, who could know that with legal certainty until a suspect is tried and convicted (or acquitted). It requires, in part relevant to the facts of this case, that those attempting to make the citizen’s arrest had a reasonable belief that the suspect has committed a felony and is in flight from that felony.

§17-4-60 Grounds for arrest

No assault with a weapon? They shot him to death.

Justified homicide by self-defense is not an unlawful assault.

The charges re: false imprisonment were 'attempted'. Again...he wasnt falsely imprisoned...because they shot him to death.

The anemic attempt by one member, Roddy, to mildly impede the runner's movement can't, in any sane world, be called "imprisoned", and certainty not the the level of a felony. Yelling "stop" or "stop I want to talk to you" isn't remotely an attempt at false imprisonment.

You'll have to do better than that.

 

[ClaraD]

Please provide evidence there was no sign on the property.

The three defendants say they chased Arbery because they believed he was behind neighborhood burglaries and allege they saw him trespass prior to the incident. Arbery, of course, had committed no crime; under Georgia’s “criminal trespass” law, entry onto “land or premises,” including a construction site, is only a crime when committed “with an unlawful purpose” or when there are posted “No Trespassing” signs. There is no evidence of either in this case.

Trial of Ahmaud Arbery's accused killers will scrutinize the use - and abuse - of 'outdated' citizen's arrest laws

(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary...

www.seattlepi.com

 

[ClaraD]

There is no proof "they hit" him with the car. There is evidence he was the one who initiated contact with the side of the car. Try again.

no, there is no such evidence...he wasn't chasing them....they were chasing him with their vehicle and the person hit him with his car.

 

[ASHES]

He was a deadly threat the moment he charged a man with a weapon, and attempted to take it from him. [...]

The shotgun was pointed at him well before he reached the truck and attempted to take it. That is an aggravated assault in Georgia, which Arbery was entitled to defend himself from by attempting to disarm his attacker, including the use of deadly force.

 

[ClaraD]

a) He was on foot. McMicheals truck was positioned (one or more times) to be on the road parked where they guessed he would be running. The other truck had tailed Arbery and on one occasion parked on his projected path.

b) Contact with that vehicle in question was by Arbery who at one decided to run by the tailing truck that was parked, and according to the only witness, and came in contact with the truck, perceived as an attempt to open a door. So the driver (Rody) pulled away to thwart the attempt.

c) Arbery's palm prints were found on that side and/or that door.

As vehicles don't drive sideways, its slap you Momma obvious that Arbery had to have initiated contact.

So this garbage about "they hit him with a vehicle" are nothing more than histrionics to cover for a very poor case by the prosecution.

they should not have been chasing him at all....there was no reason to do so.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

The defense does not need to prove his intent because the burden of proof is on the State.

Therefore, the prosecution will have to prove that the apparent offense was not "within (the McMichaels) immediate knowledge", AND also prove "that there was not reasonable and probable grounds of a suspicion" of a felony being committed.

No, that's not how it works. Self-defense and citizen's arrest are affirmative defenses. The McMichaels will have the burden of proof.

 

[Jredbaron96]

He was a deadly threat the moment he charged a man with a weapon,

No, Arbery was right to act in *his* self-defense when the trio attempted an unlawful detention using a vehicle and a firearm.

 

[JMB802]

I tend to not answer kindly to a bad faith interrogative based on a false presupposition (e.g. a "when did you stop beating your wife?" interrogative).

There was no wife beating, nor a twisting of knots to justify a unnecessary killing. I am not justifying the death of any person of any age. I am defending the rights of any American, even if he were the Devil himself, to a fair trial and just outcome in accordance with the principles of the law (as well as occasionally commenting on the moral and personal choices of individuals).

But hey, in like spirit, why do you oppose giving them a fair trial and a just legal outcome ?

How is it a false presumption? You've posted dozens of times about possible justifications for the killing of Arbery. You're not defending the rights of the accused to a fair trial, you are specifically and repeatedly defending their actions.

For someone who purports himself to be legally astute and "fair", your responses to me are surprisingly emotional and logical fallacy-filled.

And, of course, I support a fair trial for the suspects, I've never posted anything to the contrary.

 

[ASHES]

Here's some info about the potential jurors so far, and what's been happening when the sound was off during the stream.

Courtroom Report: Here's what's happening during jury selection in trial against men charged in Ahmaud Arbery's death

Here are the notes taken by the pool reporter assigned by Judge Timothy Walmsley. The reporter is from Court TV.

www.11alive.com

So far, 8 potential jurors have been selected, out of 12+4 needed.

Jury selection continues for trial over Arbery slaying

A third group of 20 potential jurors were going through the selection process Wednesday, and multiple people have been excused.

www.wrdw.com

 

[ASHES]

Another site with good jury updates.

Updates from day 2 & 3 of jury selection in the death of Ahmaud Arbery trial

There have been 37 total jurors dismissed over the three days of jury selection.

www.firstcoastnews.com

Court is starting soon, possibly with a pretrial conference.
.

 

[ASHES]

Judge explaining voir dire process to the next group of potential jurors.

 

[ASHES]

About 13 jurors (out of 20 in this group) said they have already reached a conclusion regarding guilt/innocence of the defendants.

 

[ASHES]

One potential juror knows one of the defendants, another knows former DA Jackie Johnson. Two know Arbery's dad.

 

[ASHES]

Five have been jurors before, one as a foreperson, all reached verdicts except one of them that had served on two, and one of his two didn't. Three with prior law enforcement experience.

 

[ASHES]

Four have been convicted of a DUI or worse.

 

[ASHES]

Six say they have witnessed a crime in progress.

 

[JMB802]

One potential juror knows one of the defendants, another knows former DA Jackie Johnson. Two know Arbery's dad.

Brunswick social connections usually operate with one or two degrees of separation. I think it's going to be a big issue for the attorneys to find people who aren't socially related to the parties involved AND don't have preconceived notions about the defendants or the deceased.

 

[ASHES]

Five have been the victim of burglary or home invasion.

 

[ASHES]

One says he's taken it upon himself to investigate a crime. Three potential jurors know each other. Seven recognized people in the other jury groups.

 

[ASHES]

15 or 16 have a rifle or handgun at home.

 

[ASHES]

One has a family member or close personal friend who was arrested for murder.

 

[ASHES]

Four or five know the GCPD Chief. Several know various GCPD officers.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

@ASHES

I know that we don't always agree, but I wanted you to know that I do appreciate your live coverage threads.