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

[Hope4More]

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."

JMO.

This is why I'm pretty certain the jury will throw up their hands over trying to understand this CA law. I'm as certain as I can be that what I said was accurate, but I definitely get why & how it's very confusing. (Fyi. My understanding is based on all the original dissection of it a year ago, here & elsewhere, and the related GA appellate decisions I read back then, plus listening to every minute of the discussion of CA wording in the charge conference & the follow up discussion before trial began again on Monday).

The original law was poorly written, and as LD said during the charging conference, wasn't intended originally to apply to situations like this.

I really do understand why you think "observer" in the first clause applies to the 2nd clause, but imo that's just not the case.

 

[wasnt_me]

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

On the stand, TM said he went to the end of his driveway. He looked down the street. Albenze was there and pointed in AA's direction. GM exited the house and then he and TM got in the truck and drove the way Albenze pointed.

On the stand, Albenze said he did not point down the street to signal TM. He simply pointed down the street.

The surveillance video shows that TM and GM got in the truck. As they were turning left, Albenze pointed down the street. Just as Albenze said, he was not signaling TM. TM was already heading in the direction of AA before Albenze made his gesture. So TM was lying.

TM claimed he relied on that signal to indicate something bad had happened and he needed to take action in that direction. But that's not true. He and GM had already decided to chase AA regardless of what might or might not have happened down the street simply due to seeing him running.

 

[Cool Cats]

Hi, Niner. Right, it's the fact that they want #12 off too that has me puzzling why.

https://www.glynncounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/73659/Motion-for-Mistrial-Inherent-Prejudice

Filed November 19, 2021

Motion For Mistrial Inherent Prejudice page 4-5 it says:

Counsel is also concerned with respect to juror 380.

Lives a block and a half from courthouse can't be shielded from area surrounding the courthouse and is exposed to everything when court is not in session.

Has son who knew AA.

Attends black church and is related to the mother and pastor of that church.

 

[clearskies1]

This is why I'm pretty certain the jury will throw up their hands over trying to understand this CA law. I'm as certain as I can be that what I said was accurate, but I definitely get why & how it's very confusing. (Fyi. My understanding is based on all the original dissection of it a year ago, here & elsewhere, and the related GA appellate decisions I read back then, plus listening to every minute of the discussion of CA wording in the charge conference & the follow up discussion before trial began again on Monday).

The original law was poorly written, and as LD said during the charging conference, wasn't intended originally to apply to situations like this.

I really do understand why you think "observer" in the first clause applies to the 2nd clause, but it doesn't.

Yes, it's confusing. Really should have been clarified in the instructions IMO. I do see that in many states you don't have to witness the felony to pursue. Thanks for your knowledge and input -- very helpful!!

 

[Hope4More]

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

The piece of evidence IMO that screams this is true is Rash's body cam video from Feb 11. Rash is so determined to catch AA that he goes around the neighborhood asking peeps to identify a still of AA, for an alleged theft English told him he didn't want to report. NOT for trespassing, and not for generic burglary.

On Feb 11, well AFTER the boat theft, and AFTER AA trespassed again in November, and AFTER he's just gone looking for AA after another trespass into E's whatever, Rash specifically discussed with the assembled posse, including Greg, what AA could be charged with, since English had just then said AA had not stolen anything from him. What Rash does NOT suggest as possible charge is burglary. He says criminal trespass. Even if it applied, that's a misdemeanor.

So if LEO Rash on Feb 11, on the record, did not believe he had probable cause to accuse AA of burglary, just when & how could Greg have acquired it on or before Feb 23?

 

[sds71]

Judge Timothy Walmsley: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I didn't watch much of the trial but the closing arguments, but on that I think there is a good chance of acquittal. <modsnip> The defense was playing to suburbanite fears of outsiders committing crime in their neighborhood, and that will strike a chord with the right people, enough to be convinced that they had probable cause for an arrest. (Even then, I still wouldn't think they had the right to use trucks and brandish a gun at him.)

In contrast to the last big famous trial, I thought the judge and all the attorneys here (except maybe the "too many black pastors" guy) were very good.

Personally, I would convict, but I do fear acquittal has a good chance, and then things will get ugly.

 

[Cool Cats]

In Arbery case, shooter failed to follow training - instructors

McMichael testified last week that he drew on his U.S. Coast Guard training by levelling a shotgun at Arbery to make him "back off." But gun professionals interviewed by Reuters said he broke a basic tenet: Never point a gun at anyone, let alone shoot them, unless you are in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death.

"There's just not enough evidence that these guys had to use deadly force," said Rodney Smith, CEO and director of training at the Georgia Firearms and Security Training Academy.

Clifford Wallace, 36, said both cases showed the need for verbal warnings before pointing and discharging firearms.

"I can't just shoot you because you appear to be a threat, right? It has to be imminent. I have to know that you're a threat," said Wallace, owner of firearms training, retail and manufacturing company Democratic Arms in Berrien Springs, Michigan.

Louis Evans, 75, a former Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputy and owner of Evans Security Training & Range in Compton, California, took issue with the defense argument that gun safety protocols were followed in the shooting of Arbery.

"Everything they did was messed up. People who are not following the rule of law; they violated everything," Evans said of the McMichaels and Bryan.

Michael Cargill said Arbery should be seen as Rittenhouse was - a man in fear of his life.

"Those cases are the same," said Cargill, 52, owner of the Central Texas Gun Works firing range and gun shop in Austin, Texas. "Kyle Rittenhouse was trying to get away from people that were trying to kill him. And he had a rifle and he used it to defend himself. Ahmaud Arbery was trying to get away from people who were trying to kill him. He didn't have a gun. He was shot and killed."

 

[Elisaa444]

https://www.glynncounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/73659/Motion-for-Mistrial-Inherent-Prejudice

Filed November 19, 2021

Motion For Mistrial Inherent Prejudice page 4-5 it says:

Counsel is also concerned with respect to juror 380.

Lives a block and a half from courthouse can't be shielded from area surrounding the courthouse and is exposed to everything when court is not in session.

Has son who knew AA.

Attends black church and is related to the mother and pastor of that church.

I get confused by matters such as these. Given I do not know a lot about the jury selection process..so there is that. When the defense is going through jury selection don't they learn these kinds of facts at the time? Like why wasn't this brought up as a concern before this person was chosen? Just curious.

MOO/IMO

 

[Cool Cats]

I get confused by matters such as these. Given I do not know a lot about the jury selection process..so there is that. When the defense is going through jury selection don't they learn these kinds of facts at the time? Like why wasn't this brought up as a concern before this person was chosen? Just curious.

MOO/IMO

All the commotion going on outside the courthouse during the trial brought this juror to their attention because this juror lives only a block and a half away and is exposed to what is going on outside the courthouse after courthouse hours.

They knew that the juror's son knew AA.

They knew the juror attended the mostly black church.

Upon further investigation they discovered the juror is related to the pastor and mother of that church.

 

[JayWill]

I get confused by matters such as these. Given I do not know a lot about the jury selection process..so there is that. When the defense is going through jury selection don't they learn these kinds of facts at the time? Like why wasn't this brought up as a concern before this person was chosen? Just curious.

MOO/IMO

What has the fact that he belongs to a black church and knows the pastor to do with anything? Do not some of the white members of the jury belong to white churches and know white pastors? This is another bit of blatant racism from him.

 

[Ched]

In Arbery case, shooter failed to follow training - instructors

McMichael testified last week that he drew on his U.S. Coast Guard training by levelling a shotgun at Arbery to make him "back off." But gun professionals interviewed by Reuters said he broke a basic tenet: Never point a gun at anyone, let alone shoot them, unless you are in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death.

"There's just not enough evidence that these guys had to use deadly force," said Rodney Smith, CEO and director of training at the Georgia Firearms and Security Training Academy.

Clifford Wallace, 36, said both cases showed the need for verbal warnings before pointing and discharging firearms.

"I can't just shoot you because you appear to be a threat, right? It has to be imminent. I have to know that you're a threat," said Wallace, owner of firearms training, retail and manufacturing company Democratic Arms in Berrien Springs, Michigan.

Louis Evans, 75, a former Los Angeles County Sheriff's deputy and owner of Evans Security Training & Range in Compton, California, took issue with the defense argument that gun safety protocols were followed in the shooting of Arbery.

"Everything they did was messed up. People who are not following the rule of law; they violated everything," Evans said of the McMichaels and Bryan.

Michael Cargill said Arbery should be seen as Rittenhouse was - a man in fear of his life.

"Those cases are the same," said Cargill, 52, owner of the Central Texas Gun Works firing range and gun shop in Austin, Texas. "Kyle Rittenhouse was trying to get away from people that were trying to kill him. And he had a rifle and he used it to defend himself. Ahmaud Arbery was trying to get away from people who were trying to kill him. He didn't have a gun. He was shot and killed."

I’m not even clear where the first parts of this day are going but “I can’t just shoot you because you appear to be a threat , it has to be imminent, I have to know you are a threat”

Well that’s not really WHEN he shoots , it’s when he’s going for Travis' shotgun, so in process of arming himself, so that is the imminent moment. REASONABLE PERCEPTION, not ACTUAL, that counts in law .

And the bit about “deadly force” Deadly defensive force only if believe force necessary to prevent deadly force attack. (Eg he’s going to get your gun) Belief can be reasonable even if MISTAKEN. (See what people say in comments isn’t the same meaning as what’s in the law)


As I said I’m not even saying what I think about this case , I’m just trying to highlight the law of self defence that a jury have to try & consider , so that for any reason the case gets over all the other hurdles before we even get to this point some people might be shocked when it comes to the self defence bit as not fully understanding the exact words in the law , if it goes in that direction with a jury .

 

[wasnt_me]

I’m not even clear where the first parts of this day are going but “I can’t just shoot you because you appear to be a threat , it has to be imminent, I have to know you are a threat”

Well that’s not really WHEN he shoots , it’s when he’s going for Travis' shotgun, so in process of arming himself, so that is the imminent moment. REASONABLE PERCEPTION, not ACTUAL, that counts in law .

And the bit about “deadly force” Deadly defensive force only if believe force necessary to prevent deadly force attack. (Eg he’s going to get your gun) Belief can be reasonable even if MISTAKEN. (See what people say in comments isn’t the same meaning as what’s in the law)


As I said I’m not even saying what I think about this case , I’m just trying to highlight the law of self defence that a jury have to try & consider , so that for any reason the case gets over all the other hurdles before we even get to this point some people might be shocked when it comes to the self defence bit as not fully understanding the exact words in the law , if it goes in that direction with a jury .

Hopefully, they consider the fact that TM said he had to remove the safety and flip something else on the gun back to ready it to shoot.

 

[Cool Cats]

I’m not even clear where the first parts of this day are going but “I can’t just shoot you because you appear to be a threat , it has to be imminent, I have to know you are a threat”

Well that’s not really WHEN he shoots , it’s when he’s going for Travis' shotgun, so in process of arming himself, so that is the imminent moment. REASONABLE PERCEPTION, not ACTUAL, that counts in law .

And the bit about “deadly force” Deadly defensive force only if believe force necessary to prevent deadly force attack. (Eg he’s going to get your gun) Belief can be reasonable even if MISTAKEN. (See what people say in comments isn’t the same meaning as what’s in the law)


As I said I’m not even saying what I think about this case , I’m just trying to highlight the law of self defence that a jury have to try & consider , so that for any reason the case gets over all the other hurdles before we even get to this point some people might be shocked when it comes to the self defence bit as not fully understanding the exact words in the law , if it goes in that direction with a jury .

Travis had reasonable perception to fear for his life when Ahmad grabbed his rifle but no reasonable perception to draw the gun on him in the first place.

3 times Travis stopped and tried to talk to Ahmad and all 3 times he admits Ahmad was not a threat to him and Travis did not see any weapons.

So when Travis drew the gun on Ahmaud, it was Ahmaud who had the reasonable perception to fear for his life and went to disarm Travis.

Travis harassed Ahmaud for 5 minutes with his truck and yelling at him 3 x's with dad yelling "stop or I will blow your @#$%& head off."

Then after harassing him he pulled a rifle on him without reasonable perception to fear for his life, thus turning the tables.

Then it was Ahmaud who had the reasonable perception to fear for his life, Ahmaud who needed a gun to defend himself, not having that, he attempted to disarm his enemy.

 

[tlcya]

MOO - it makes zero logical sense that you can initiate a confrontation repeatedly with someone and then cry self defense when they FINALLY attempt to defend themselves from you. This is the problem with TM's self defense nonsense. at all times on February 23, until the moment AA literally begins to try to fight for his life, TM was the aggressor. I think the state did an excellent job of explaining the distinction with closing. I only hope the jury heard it.

 

[JayWill]

MOO - it makes zero logical sense that you can initiate a confrontation repeatedly with someone and then cry self defense when they FINALLY attempt to defend themselves from you. This is the problem with TM's self defense nonsense. at all times on February 23, until the moment AA literally begins to try to fight for his life, TM was the aggressor. I think the state did an excellent job of explaining the distinction with closing. I only hope the jury heard it.

I don't have much faith. The jury is pulled from the same people in that neighborhood who claimed that children were too scared to go outside because a black man (they claimed) was stealing things from unlocked vehicles over several years. A few incidents over years.

 

[sds71]

James “Major” Woodall

@iMajorWish

Just received word that Judge Walmsley is about to bring the jury panel back into the courtroom. After nearly 6 hours of deliberation, they will be asked whether they want to break for the evening and start again first thing in the morning.
The foreperson is a female. “We are working towards a verdict.”

NEW: JURY BREAKING FOR DAY, BACK TOMORROW AT 8:30 A.M.


@HayleyMasonTV

After a few mixed messages from the jury forewoman, the jurors say they want to keep working.

 

[kaen]

I was able to watch much of the rebuttal from this morning. I felt that she did an amazing job. She captured the issues in a relatable and clear way. The objections were not a surprise as I felt they needed to do something to distract from getting pummeled. I had no doubt that the mistrial would not be granted.

I thought more about the dirty nail thing over night. I continue to be disturbed by the continual subtle (and possibly effective) ways that the defense uses the stereotypes. Yesterday, the McMichael defense attorneys were caught on camera speaking to the Black Panthers who were outside the courthouse. It was a cordial conversation (from what was published by the news outlet that caught the exchange. The conversation focused on first amendment rights (which the lawyers agreed everyone has a right to) and keeping people safe. Then, with the video out there, Bryan's lawyer makes it seems like the most important factor was their guns. You can carry these weapons openly in GA (Georgia man can legally carry AR-15 rifle in Atlanta airport terminal: 'It should be no cause for concern for anybody'). So why the gun fuss-----is it the gun? Or, is it the men and women carrying the gun? (video of exchange between McMichael's lawyers and the NBP party here: Closing arguments in death of Ahmaud Arbery trial | firstcoastnews.com) I have my opinion.

My heart goes out to Mr. Arbery's mother who witnessed the first photo taken of her deceased son on the day he was killed. His eyes were open and it was clear there was no life within him. I am sure she knew it was coming but I can only guess the pain that must have struck her heart.

From the first I heard this case and posted about Mr. Arbery on WS, I had hoped for justice for him and his family. Today, I was committed to hearing the prosecution give the case to the jury. Justice for Ahmaud. I "Run with Ahmaud". I stand with his family. On behalf of many, I am sorry that his life was cut short by being terrorized and murdered by people who felt they could get away with murder based on their belief that he didn't belong as well as the atmosphere in their county, the corruption of their DA, and their connection to LE in the area. Of course, JMHO.

 

[tlcya]

I don't have much faith. The jury is pulled from the same people in that neighborhood who claimed that children were too scared to go outside because a black man (they claimed) was stealing things from unlocked vehicles over several years. A few incidents over years.

I pray you are wrong. I tend to want to believe the best about people. and If they aren't found guilty of the crimes in state court I guess I will hang my hat on the federal case. But I really don't think I will have to.

 

[Hope4More]

I’m not even clear where the first parts of this day are going but “I can’t just shoot you because you appear to be a threat , it has to be imminent, I have to know you are a threat”

Well that’s not really WHEN he shoots , it’s when he’s going for Travis' shotgun, so in process of arming himself, so that is the imminent moment. REASONABLE PERCEPTION, not ACTUAL, that counts in law .

And the bit about “deadly force” Deadly defensive force only if believe force necessary to prevent deadly force attack. (Eg he’s going to get your gun) Belief can be reasonable even if MISTAKEN. (See what people say in comments isn’t the same meaning as what’s in the law)


As I said I’m not even saying what I think about this case , I’m just trying to highlight the law of self defence that a jury have to try & consider , so that for any reason the case gets over all the other hurdles before we even get to this point some people might be shocked when it comes to the self defence bit as not fully understanding the exact words in the law , if it goes in that direction with a jury .

It's a bit more & less complicated than that. Defense atty Hogue for Greg said it best herself, during discussion about the jury charges:

If the citizen's arrest itself was not lawful then Greg & Travis were the aggressors, and every action they took to detain AA was ILLEGAL. The end. No legal grounds to claim self-defense whatsoever.

Even if they had adequate grounds to make the arrest, there is a second required prong, which is it's illegal to use excessive force in making an arrest. There's plenty of grounds to argue that all 3 used excessive force against AA even before he came within sight of the truck.

Last, on the same day Travis killed AA he told LE that he shot Arbery BEFORE Arbery came towards him or hit him or put his hands on the gun. Travis's own words.