GUILTY GA - Ahmaud Arbery, 25, jogger, fatally shot by former LEO and son, Brunswick, Feb 2020 *Arrests* #5

[Smelly Squirrel]

No. The only Black juror is a man.

Thanks, there must be something else about her that is leading both the defense and prosecutor to think she would be pro-prosecution.

 

[Hope4More]

Is juror twelve a black woman? The defense really want to get rid of her.

Nope. They surely did want to get rid of #12 though. From voir dire excerpts I'm guessing #12 is now #195.

(White lady in her '60's. When asked by Gough during voir dire if she considered herself a "never Trumper" she replied- "how is that relevant?" When he replied some thought it was, she said "yes, I would identify with that." And more.

 

[Chelly]

My concern in this case is the culture of people that live in that area, which includes the jurors. One of the talking heads discussing this case suggested that the defense attorneys, during their closings, and some of their ugly remarks (re: toenails): were really a call out to a bubba juror -- they are hoping for that kind of juror or jurors to get the verdict they are looking for. There is not one doubt that the prosecutor has done a masterful job in this case- hands down ---good enough to win this case five times over. However, we are dealing with a "good ol boy" culture- remember, this case was swept under the rug and almost wound up never coming to light and never being prosecuted. Racism--- that is what we are dealing with here- Hoping and praying for a just verdict but sad to say I will not be surprised if we don't get it.

The points you raise are what I fear most.

 

[wasnt_me]

Great summary. And you're right, they couldn't lawfully pursue AA for any crime he committed on Feb 11, even if it were a felony.

What the defense ultimately did was to use the boat theft felony & Travis's awful terrible traumatizing encounter with AA on AA's 4th nighttime trespass on Feb 11 as grounds for probable cause on the 23rd.

That prior trespasses & stuff stolen, along with a black man running down the street on the 23rd & a finger pointing (how poetic), was sufficient to give them probable cause to pursue AA that day.

The jury *can* get there, but only if they close their eyes & pretend.

Thanks. It's my understanding that trespassing isn't a felony and no one even knows who stole anything or where it was stolen from, so I don't see how those things could be relevant to the jury unless, as you say, they pretend.

I think that point was made moot when the jury was given the ability to "decide" for themselves that AA was a burglar, which is the felony the McMichaels need in order to justify pursuing. However, if I understand it correctly, you gotta pursue the burglar the day you feel you have probable cause to arrest the burglar. After that, as LD said, it requires a warrant.

I am glad she brought that up about a warrant and how police are able to perfect an arrest later by using a warrant. I wish she'd repeated it (along with the fact that TM had the safety mechanisms off his shotgun).

So how I see it, the police even need a warrant to pick AA up the next day. Rash might have been able to arrest AA that night -- FEb 11th -- based on probable cause, but I don't think Rash could see AA running on Feb 22nd and arrest him without a warrant -- unless he saw something ELSE, a new or repeated crime, on Feb. 22nd. I think that would also go for the McMichaels, who have no ability to get a warrant to arrest anyone later.

That's how I understand these laws. Opinions?

 

[Niner]

Last few tweets...

Veronica Waters
@MissVWaters
·
2h
Lawyers go over the evidence; State lists for Judge what's been pulled out/left in. No transcripts of the defendants' police interviews will go back w/the jury. They'll redact the original indictment of the grand jurors' names--in case anybody's related


Today, jurors took notes as Dunikoski explained the law. Monday Juror 3 did the same as Gough argued Bryan was acting in good faith & telling the truth when he gave cops video and statement. A pooler said a woman seemed "pained" & to connect w/be locked on Hogue describing chase

Also Monday, the defense said Juror 12 was dozing. Jurors seemed attentive during Gough's argument; occasional of note-taking. By the time he got to Bryan being guided by God, one was rubbing her eyes. They leaned forward watching the Night Owl video.

Outside the Glynn County courthouse, #AhmaudArbery's mother says ADA Linda Dunikoski did a "fantastic job." She believes the verdicts will be Guilty, and adds, "God has brought us this far, and He's not going to fail us now. We will get justice for Ahmaud."



#AhmaudArbery's father, Marcus Arbery, Sr., also spoke before lunch. He echoed the sentiments that God hasn't brought them here for nothing, that God allowed them to see the evidence to convict. "I know we're going to get the verdict on these men."




link: https://twitter.com/MissVWaters

 

[Rhibread]

Thanks. It's my understanding that trespassing isn't a felony and no one even knows who stole anything or where it was stolen from, so I don't see how those things could be relevant to the jury unless, as you say, they pretend.

I think that point was made moot when the jury was given the ability to "decide" for themselves that AA was a burglar, which is the felony the McMichaels need in order to justify pursuing. However, if I understand it correctly, you gotta pursue the burglar the day you feel you have probable cause to arrest the burglar. After that, as LD said, it requires a warrant.

I am glad she brought that up about a warrant and how police are able to perfect an arrest later by using a warrant. I wish she'd repeated it (along with the fact that TM had the safety mechanisms off his shotgun).

So how I see it, the police even need a warrant to pick AA up the next day. Rash might have been able to arrest AA that night -- FEb 11th -- based on probable cause, but I don't think Rash could see AA running on Feb 22nd and arrest him without a warrant -- unless he saw something ELSE, a new or repeated crime, on Feb. 22nd.

That's how I understand these laws. Opinions?

One thing that I think is important to note is that trespassing requires being told that you are forbidden from the premises. AA wasn't *technically* trespassing (lack of no trespassing signs/not being told he was forbidden from the property)

ETA forgot to say: on Feb 23rd, the MMs didn't have direct knowledge of a felony anyway. GM just saw AA and then went and got TM

 

[wasnt_me]

One thing that I think is important to note is that trespassing requires being told that you are forbidden from the premises. AA wasn't *technically* trespassing (lack of no trespassing signs/not being told he was forbidden from the property)

ETA forgot to say: on Feb 23rd, the MMs didn't have direct knowledge of a felony anyway. GM just saw AA and then went and got TM

Right, I agree with that. And the jury wasn't told they could ignore proof of intent and just "decide" AA was trespassing as they currently have the ability to just "decide" AA was a burglar.

 

[Rhibread]

Right, I agree with that. And the jury wasn't told they could ignore proof of intent and just "decide" AA was trespassing as they currently have the ability to just "decide" AA was a burglar.

I'm going to go back and relisten to that portion of the instructions. I have watched/listened to every second of this whole thing so the discussions on the charging statements from Friday and the actual instructions from today are melting together in my brain. I think I may have tuned out for the portion you're referring to lol

 

[wasnt_me]

I'm going to go back and relisten to that portion of the instructions. I have watched/listened to every second of this whole thing so the discussions on the charging statements from Friday and the actual instructions from today are melting together in my brain. I think I may have tuned out for the portion you're referring to lol

It was today. At the end during the reading of the instructions to the jury.

34 minutes in.

"You may infer an intent to steal where the evidence shows an unlawful entry without authority into the place of another, where items of some value are present or kept inside and where there is no other apparent motive for entry. Whether or not you make such an inference in the matter is solely for you, the jury to determine."

So I'm saying the instructions say the jury can decide AA's intent and decide he was a burglar.

 

[clearskies1]

I do not see a basis for a citizen's arrest. They either didn't see/personally witness the events in question (the boat, Feb 23) or they did not pursue immediately after seeing them (Feb 11). Plus there was no probable cause. JMO.

 

[Hope4More]

One thing that I think is important to note is that trespassing requires being told that you are forbidden from the premises. AA wasn't *technically* trespassing (lack of no trespassing signs/not being told he was forbidden from the property)

ETA forgot to say: on Feb 23rd, the MMs didn't have direct knowledge of a felony anyway. GM just saw AA and then went and got TM

(Not sure if I managed to multi quote here).

Citizens arrest law, FELONY.

1. Arrestors do NOT need to have first hand knowledge of the felony.

2. Arrestors MUST have probable cause to believe a felony has been committed.

3. Probable cause CAN'T be based on suspicion alone or gossip or FB page kinda stuff, but otherwise the burden is low to establish it.

4. If the arrestor has probable cause to believe a felony has been committed, he MAY pursue the suspect, if he does so IMMEDIATELY following the felony. (This part is what the defense attorneys objected to mightily).

5. So, if the MMs had probable cause to believe AA committed a felony THAT DAY, whether they had firsthand knowledge or not, they were legally permitted to chase him.

6. The only possible felony on the 23rd would have been burglary, which based on wide open instructions, imo, the jury could easily find possible simply from AA being there. But, finger pointing & AA running down the road is all they "knew" about any possible felony *that day.*

 

[Boxer]

(Not sure if I managed to multi quote here).

Citizens arrest law, FELONY.

1. Arrestors do NOT need to have first hand knowledge of the felony.

2. Arrestors MUST have probable cause to believe a felony has been committed.

3. Probable cause CAN'T be based on suspicion alone or gossip or FB page kinda stuff, but otherwise the burden is low to establish it.

4. If the arrestor has probable cause to believe a felony has been committed, he MAY pursue the suspect, if he does so IMMEDIATELY following the felony. (This part is what the defense attorneys objected to mightily).

5. So, if the MMs had probable cause to believe AA committed a felony THAT DAY, whether they had firsthand knowledge or not, they were legally permitted to chase him.

GM knew he had no right then.
Neither first hand or immediate.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

I've watched a lot of trials and served on two juries myself.

In every case I've observed, the prosecution has laid out its case more or less logically and the defense has countered with a lot of illogical dancing around and muddying the waters.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull puckey.

 

[wasnt_me]

I do not see a basis for a citizen's arrest. They either didn't see/personally witness the events in question (the boat, Feb 23) or they did not pursue immediately after seeing them (Feb 11). Plus there was no probable cause. JMO.

Upon reading the law, I do not, either. As I said above, it's just like the police. The police can arrest you on the spot for probable cause, but if they don't and then they see you next week, they cannot arrest you for that same thing without a warrant.

Therefore, they have to get probable cause ALL OVER again for a new incident or have a warrant for the old incident.

 

[clearskies1]

(Not sure if I managed to multi quote here).

Citizens arrest law, FELONY.

1. Arrestors do NOT need to have first hand knowledge of the felony.

2. Arrestors MUST have probable cause to believe a felony has been committed.

3. Probable cause CAN'T be based on suspicion alone or gossip or FB page kinda stuff, but otherwise the burden is low to establish it.

4. If the arrestor has probable cause to believe a felony has been committed, he MAY pursue the suspect, if he does so IMMEDIATELY following the felony. (This part is what the defense attorneys objected to mightily).

5. So, if the MMs had probable cause to believe AA committed a felony THAT DAY, whether they had firsthand knowledge or not, they were legally permitted to chase him.

I may be wrong, but I don't think that's correct. I think you must observe the act and have probable cause that the act was a felony in order to pursue someone. Here is the judge's instruction -- note the word "observer".

"A private citizen's warrantless arrest must occur immediately after the perpetration of the offense, or in the case of felonies, during escape. If the observer fails to make the arrest immediately after the commission of the offense or during escape in the case of felonies, his power to do so is extinguished."

ETA: If you don't have to observe the crime then I'm not sure why the judge used the word observer. (Unless it was an error??)

JMO.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

I have not followed this case as closely as others here have, so please forgive me if this has already been discussed, but did any of the defendants tell any LE in the immediate aftermath that they were trying to make a citizen's arrest?

 

[wasnt_me]

I have not followed this case as closely as others here have, so please forgive me if this has already been discussed, but did any of the defendants tell any LE in the immediate aftermath that they were trying to make a citizen's arrest?

No. Not one time.

They said they wanted AA "Identified" and they wanted LE to "Check him out." GM suggested the police, as AA lay bleeding to death, go knock on doors and find the crime he "must have committed."

 

[IzzyBlanche]

No. Not one time.

Thank you.

 

[wasnt_me]

Thank you.

You're welcome. I added some other stuff to my post. Things that they said that day. Additionally, LD brought out that TM wrote in his statement, the first line "My gun was stolen..." (not exact words) So that was the first thing he wanted to talk about regarding AA, even though, he'd already suspected that a white man with a truck had taken that gun. She brought that out through a FB post where someone was asking him about it and he said he knew who'd done it and had surveilled the guy and everything.

Regular Batman, I tell you.

 

[branmuffin]

I was leery of the way the judge said it was up to the jury to decide AA's intent on burglary and that the defense didn't have to tell someone they are performing a citizen's arrest.

But even if the jury thinks that's what AA was doing, am I correct in understanding that the law says if the defendants tried to perform a citizen's arrest on Feb 11th, and AA escaped, the McMichael's have no right to pick up the chase another day for that particular "suspected crime?"

If so, that means they can't be chasing him 11 days later for what happened Feb 11th. It has to be for what happened that day. They clearly say they have no idea what he was doing that day and they didn't see him do anything but run up the street. TM's lie that Albenze point up the street in a direction even blows the thin excuse he tried to make that he knew something "bad" had happened back there.

If what I'm writing is the correct interpretation of the law, they can't be pursuing AA lawfully.

As for Roddie Bryan, he knew what he was getting involved in -- chasing a black man. He was trying to hit that black man with his car, and he knew that could cause death. To me, that means he was okay with AA's death if it happened. He also did not call 911 at all. I didn't hear him gasp or say "no, don't, or stop" when he saw the gun raised. His lawyer tried to get us to believe he didn't see it based on what his phone captured. Well, humans can see more than phones.

RB's reaction about his involvement did not indicate that he didn't participate. When police asked if he was a bystander, he didn't say, "Yes, I was following in my truck, filming, so there would be a record." He didn't say, "I was recording. I had no idea what was going on or what was about to unfold." Instead, we hear how he cornered AA, tried to cut him off, tried to back into him, and tried to run him off the road.

And for what reason did RB do any of this? Did the police even ask him that? He can't be out there playing pinball with AA and then claim he didn't know what could happen. I believe he's a party to it -- every bit of it.

Can someone clarify for me the issue of TM and Albenze, the man who called police on Feb 23?