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

[Smkd]

Repectfully, I'm not misunderstanding the law. I quoted a lawyer clarifying it.. I will leave it there.

I may be misunderstanding you, do you mean that they could argue that he intended to commit some other felony apart from stealing? From the explanation you posted, I took their explanation to mean that even though people think stealing is the only crime associated with burglary, any felony committed during a breaking and entering is a burglary.
What I don’t understand is if because it is a construction site, would it be a burglary? They talk about dwellings occupied or vacant in the statute, but is a construction site a dwelling, even if it’s a home under construction?

This is what the law says for everyone’s reference:
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.

 

[wasnt_me]

I may be misunderstanding you, do you mean that they could argue that he intended to commit some other felony apart from stealing? From the explanation you posted, I took their explanation to mean that even though people think stealing is the only crime associated with burglary, any felony committed during a breaking and entering is a burglary.
What I don’t understand is if because it is a construction site, would it be a burglary? They talk about dwellings occupied or vacant in the statute, but is a construction site a dwelling, even if it’s a home under construction?

This is what the law says for everyone’s reference:
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.

I have said that the burglary is because he was in the property with the INTENT. I've said that several times. The act of whatever is INTENDED doesn't have to actually happen -- whatever that INTENT is. I have been saying that the problem is the defense is allowed, therefore, to assume AA's intent. The PA is not allowed to give another INTENT for him to be at the property.

I'm not arguing this. The defense is arguing it. The defense is the one arguing he burglarized the place. I'm just discussing how the jury will take THEIR argument, not mine.

I don't think I can be more clear, so please, respectfully, I'm going to move on from it without replying because the DEFENSE is the one talking burglary. Not me. It's not my argument. I suggest going to them and reviewing why THEY keep saying it.

 

[Smkd]

I have said that the burglary is because he was in the property with the INTENT. I've said that several times. The act of whatever is INTENDED doesn't have to actually happen -- whatever that INTENT is. I have been saying that the problem is the defense is allowed, therefore, to assume AA's intent. The PA is not allowed to give another INTENT for him to be at the property.

I'm not arguing this. The defense is arguing it. The defense is the one arguing he burglarized the place. I'm just discussing how the jury will take THEIR argument, not mine.

I don't think I can be more clear, so please, respectfully, I'm going to move on from it without replying because the DEFENSE is the one talking burglary. Not me. It's not my argument. I suggest going to them and reviewing why THEY keep saying it.

Duly noted.
Sorry, I wasn’t trying to convince you or anyone, just trying to discuss.

ETA: I was just replying to what you replied to me, so I wasn’t aware of what you have explained to other people or posted about in the meantime.

 

[wasnt_me]

Duly noted.
Sorry, I wasn’t trying to convince you or anyone, just trying to discuss.

That's fine, but it's not my argument. I need to clarify that. I'm discussing the defense's argument. They are the ones asserting that they had probable cause because AA burglarized the place. I'm discussing THEIR argument. I'm not saying AA did burglarize it, but if the prosecution cannot allege he was there for another reason, I fear the jury will accept that he was probably burglarizing. That word came up a 100 times in this case. I'm afraid it will stick.

That's all I've been saying the whole time.

ETA, in fact, I think the argument is bogus. But they keep saying AA burglarized the place. Or insinuating it.

 

[wasnt_me]

Sorry to keep posting in a row, but I was just thinking while sweeping. The burglary thing we're talking about it is probably why the Prosecution keeps adding in that AA didn't have a bag. He didn't have a flashlight, etc. Because those things would lend to AA's intent for burglary to steal or not. I don't think the defense has a case that he was committing burglary, but I fear that it's been said so much in testimony, that the jury will accept it as fact. I hope not.

 

[Boxer]

On his jogging route.
Unfinished houses are interesting. To me it AA looks like he is dreaming of getting back into trades.

Anyway MOO TM hiding in front of his truck with a shotgun, instead of just yelling at AA from the truck window which MOO is "laying in wait."
AA obviously had no stolen construction stuff with him like lumber or cable so they were not stopping a burglary.

The defense keeps objecting to the PA giving him intent when he can't be cross examined.

So a non-eyewitness to no crime can chase and assault a citizen with deadly force, by hiding and laying in wait in front of a truck with a shotgun.


I am sure pretty TM didn't consider AA a citizen.

 

[LMDlong]

Gough is the kind of lawyer that give lawyers the bad reputation they have.

IMO so very true. Gough is out of his league.

 

[Boxer]

FWIW, there's a huge difference between the defense being allowed to argue about AA's intent (they can't) and being allowed to argue about what the defendants *believed* AA's intent to be (they're allowed).

The jury gets to decide whether or not the MMs supposed beliefs about AA's intent were reasonable (up through AA deciding to turn left instead of continuing to run, for instance).

AA ran past the truck while being chased by the M's friend's car toa find TM hiding in front of it with a shotgun pointed at him.

 

[LMDlong]

I mean, not that it matters because there’s no evidence to suggest that he was doing anything illegal, but Larry English has said (and this to me is probably one of the saddest things about this case) that he concluded that Ahmaud was stopping to drink water from a tap that was at the back of the house and wasn’t covered by the cameras.

I’m not sure if he said that during his deposition, but he did say that in a statement through his attorney.

I remember him saying that.

 

[wasnt_me]

So a non-eyewitness to no crime can chade and assault a citizen with deadly force, by hiding and laying in wait in front of a truck with a shotgun.

I am sure pretty TM didn't consider AA a citizen.

I agree that TM, RB, nor GM saw AA as even human. And I hope the jury doesn't come back with what you said above as the answer.

This is my understanding of the defense's case:

1. TM believes he saw with his own eyes that AA was in the process of committing a burglary on February 11th.

By that, the definition we've been over is -- breaking and entering into any structure with the intent to commit a felony therein. First degree added to commit a felony OR theft. Nothing has to be actually stolen -- which wasn't in the case on Feb 11th. There's a second-degree burglary, also, and it distinguishes vacant dwelling from a vacant building. Friday, the lawyer for RB argued that PA keeps calling it a construction site, but it's a dwelling. I assume he did that because that's the difference between first and second-degree burglary. I don't know if that means second-degree is also a felony or not, but in GA, first-degree IS a felony.

It's important that it's a felony because then TM could use probable cause to chase TM later -- not immediately after.

2. TM had probable cause because he witnessed it on February 11th himself.

3. TM then decided to detain AA for this felony of burglary when he saw him 11 days later, and TM is justified in trying to detain him for a citizen's arrest due to everything written above.

Oh, and I guess so is GM because he supposedly saw AA, too, on February 11th.

Various people keep pointing out about jogging or getting water, etc, but if I was the defense, I would say jogging is a burglary cover and you can get water while burglarizing a place. You can multitask. I remember a crime once where the man did a murder and then ate Reese's out of the fridge. He got caught because of that, but my point is you can eat or drink and commit crime at the same time.

I think that's what they're going for. as for RB, I don't know what the heck he's going for. He should have stayed on his porch.

 

[Hope4More]

Sorry to keep posting in a row, but I was just thinking while sweeping. The burglary thing we're talking about it is probably why the Prosecution keeps adding in that AA didn't have a bag. He didn't have a flashlight, etc. Because those things would lend to AA's intent for burglary to steal or not. I don't think the defense has a case that he was committing burglary, but I fear that it's been said so much in testimony, that the jury will accept it as fact. I hope not.

I understand why you're concerned the jury might believe AA was up to no good at E's house, despite the complete lack of evidence he ever stole anything from there. I'm sure at least one or two jurors will think, as some here on WS have said, that AA simply had no business being on some one else's private property, ever, much less at night, much less multiple times. That just the very fact alone he did that made him suspect.

Which is in part why the judge ruled that the undisputed fact that AA jogged was irrelevant, because as you said, one can jog AND burgle too, one does not exclude the other, and both can be true on the same or different days.

Even if one thinks this jury will believe the MMs had legal grounds to go after AA, there's a second prong to the citizen's arrest law the jury must believe: that every element of the actual pursuit of AA was also lawful. That includes continuing to chase him down after AA tried multiple times to run away from them, never threatening them in any way, and trying to block him in, to "trap him like a rat," rather than asking the pointing finger A what had just happened, or just following him as they waited for LE to arrive at any minute (suuuure), or disengaging entirely as they waited for LE. For starters.

(PS. An again even though). The judge looks likely to provide jury instructions that pursuit of AA was not lawful even if the Feb 11 episode can be construed a burglary & provides probable cause, because of the length of time between Feb 11 & the day they killed AA).

 

[LMDlong]

Ok I might get in trouble and my post deleted. But IMO there was more to MM’s targeting AA than just being in the house being built and the crimes that had happened in the neighborhood . I think GM may had thought something was up with AA coming around and his daughter . I can’t prove it. JMO

 

[wasnt_me]

I understand why you're concerned the jury might believe AA was up to no good at E's house, despite the complete lack of evidence he ever stole anything from there. I'm sure at least one or two jurors will think, as some here on WS have said, that AA simply had no business being on some one else's private property, ever, much less at night, much less multiple times. That just the very fact alone he did that made him suspect.

Which is in part why the judge ruled that the undisputed fact that AA jogged was irrelevant, because as you said, one can jog AND burgle too, one does not exclude the other, and both can be true on the same or different days.

Even if one thinks this jury will believe the MMs had legal grounds to go after AA, there's a second prong to the citizen's arrest law the jury must believe: that every element of the actual pursuit of AA was also lawful. That includes continuing to chase him down after AA tried multiple times to run away from them, never threatening them in any way, and trying to block him in, to "trap him like a rat," rather than asking the pointing finger A what had just happened, or just following him as they waited for LE to arrive at any minute (suuuure), or disengaging entirely as they waited for LE. For starters.

Yes, all of that is true, Hope4More, except that you don't have to actually commit the act of theft to be a burglar. It's about intent. Which is what I keep worrying that the jurors will buy. That's it's AA's intent.

That brings us to the next parts of their argument because if the jury is willing to believe they had a right to be out there detaining AA, they might also believe what they were doing to catch him was lawful. From what I understood about Friday's session, they are talking about whether they used reasonable force. It sounded like the defense was trying to liken reasonable force to that which a police officer can use, and if they get the jury to buy that, it's a problem.

I know you're sure one or two jurors might believe this or that, and that's the very thing I worry about because 12 need to agree to the same thing.

 

[kaen]

I think it is important to remember the law that the murderers were using as justification for chasing, apprehending and using deadly force on was a law that all the lawyers in this court believe to be a bad law because of its ambiguities. That said, it was the law at the time.

Much about Mr. Arbery that has not been allowed is about his intent (we will never know), his state of mind (we will never know) or his past state of mind ( we know and it can't be used). Mr. Arbery running in that area was not a crime. Mr. Arbery going on that property was not a crime.

The DA created a beautiful lasting impression in her cross of the alleged murderer. She got him to admit that Mr. Arbery had no weapon, had not threatened him, had worked to get away from him. And, Mr. Arbery only engaged with him after being chased for 5 minutes with the alleged murderer out of his truck with his gun at the ready. She also got the alleged murderer to admit that he chose to go after Mr. Arbery after telling his father that he would not go down certain streets. He was making decisions all along the way. I have never thought that alleged murderer was going out with the intent to murder but his anger and rage and racism (IMO) placed him in a mindset that this man was not going to escape. He was going to stop him at any cost.

Am I surprised that Gough is pointing out the only black juror and was being cagey by framing his issue by the juror's number? No. I am just no surprised by this man's antics but agree with the prosecutor that he is smart. He will continue to put these motions forth because they are a dog whistle to delegitimize the proceedings. I am sure lots of people will never see these men as guilty even if they are convicted. Gough's posture is insuring that many will think they didn't get a fair trial.

 

[sds71]

Ok I might get in trouble and my post deleted. But IMO there was more to MM’s targeting AA than just being in the house being built and the crimes that had happened in the neighborhood . I think GM may had thought something was up with AA coming around and his daughter . I can’t prove it. JMO

I don’t think that’s true but I was surprised his attorney mentioned that rumor yesterday.

 

[wasnt_me]

I think it is important to remember the law that the murderers were using as justification for chasing, apprehending and using deadly force on was a law that all the lawyers in this court believe to be a bad law because of its ambiguities. That said, it was the law at the time.

Much about Mr. Arbery that has not been allowed is about his intent (we will never know), his state of mind (we will never know) or his past state of mind ( we know and it can't be used). Mr. Arbery running in that area was not a crime. Mr. Arbery going on that property was not a crime.

The DA created a beautiful lasting impression in her cross of the alleged murderer. She got him to admit that Mr. Arbery had no weapon, had not threatened him, had worked to get away from him. And, Mr. Arbery only engaged with him after being chased for 5 minutes with the alleged murderer out of his truck with his gun at the ready. She also got the alleged murderer to admit that he chose to go after Mr. Arbery after telling his father that he would not go down certain streets. He was making decisions all along the way. I have never thought that alleged murderer was going out with the intent to murder but his anger and rage and racism (IMO) placed him in a mindset that this man was not going to escape. He was going to stop him at any cost.

Am I surprised that Gough is pointing out the only black juror and was being cagey by framing his issue by the juror's number? No. I am just no surprised by this man's antics but agree with the prosecutor that he is smart. He will continue to put these motions forth because they are a dog whistle to delegitimize the proceedings. I am sure lots of people will never see these men as guilty even if they are convicted. Gough's posture is insuring that many will think they didn't get a fair trial.

What you're saying in the last paragraphs of this are my concerns. If Gough believes that only the black juror is going to think differently than his clients, then....yeah, I worry that they'll all get off because I worry that the rest of the jury will be willing to believe AA was doing "something" wrong and therefore, it's all justified. And of course you have to point your weapon at a person to make them stop. Of course it's reasonable to try to box a runner in to make him stop. That's reasonable to people like the McMichaels who already have that fear and stereotype of a certain kind of people within them. I worry that the jury has it and it will color how they interpret the action of AA's. Or at least say it was reasonable that the McMichaels thought what they did about AA even though they were wrong.

It happened with Treyvon Martin, so it can happen here.

ETA-- maybe I'm biased because I'm black. But no law on my side has ever mattered, no right to be somewhere has ever mattered, and no proof that I did anything wrong has ever mattered for a white person to view me a certain way and think I was probably doing something wrong and to tell me to leave or to follow me around in a store or to say their kids can't play with me, etc. My friends experience the same things, so I'm probably biased in not believing that these ideas will not be what decides this trial. I hope the jury doesn't think that he's black, so he probably did it. They are white and mostly likely right, but that's the experience I have in America.

 

[kaen]

What you're saying in the last paragraphs of this are my concerns. If Gough believes that only the black juror is going to think differently than his clients, then....yeah, I worry that they'll all get off because I worry that the rest of the jury will be willing to believe AA was doing "something" wrong and therefore, it's all justified. And of course you have to point your weapon at a person to make them stop. Of course it's reasonable to try to box a runner in to make him stop. That's reasonable to people like the McMichaels who already have that fear and stereotype of a certain kind of people within them. I worry that the jury has it and it will color how they interpret the action of AA's. Or at least say it was reasonable that the McMichaels thought what they did about AA even though they were wrong.

It happened with Treyvon Martin, so it can happen here.

I am with you 100000% about the potential for coloring of the jury. Not much can be done at this point. The judge and the state do not seem to be relenting on disqualifying jurors or anything like that. Gough's attempts have been transparent to them I believe.

I do think that had they been allowed to look at Mr. Arbery's intent the mental health issues and any other previous actions of his would have come in which I think would have definitely been used as a bolster by the defense. I think it is important to remember that Mr. English was clear nothing was stolen on that date. I think that video and the understanding that Mr. Arbery had been chased before the video is powerful. The "Stop or I will blow .............head off" is clear that they were antagonistic. I believe the prosecution will wrap up this case with a visual of Mr. Arbery being terrified and acting out of fear.

I am not sure that we will ever be able to get past the privilege viewpoint of "you stop because I say so" in our culture as it is relates to race or socioeconomic position but I can hope. I believe this case and George Floyd's murder and Brianna Taylor's murder and Cameron Lamb's murder and Elijah McClain's murder and Atatiana Jefferson's murder are getting more and more people to recognize that the circumstances that are unseen are usually not just about a good guy/woman defending against a bad guy/woman. We have a long way to go. In my mind, I want all of us to wear body cams 24/7 because that seems to be the most effective way to hold bad actors to account. I am so aware of the awful human cost and suffering that so much ignorance has on so many people. I am sorry for that. I work every day to make things better but it is a Herculean task and one in which I feel like I am often swimming against the tide.

 

[Smkd]

I remember him saying that.

During the deposition they played at the trial? That makes me v happy lol it would be great if the prosecution can use that during closing.

 

[Hope4More]

Yes, all of that is true, Hope4More, except that you don't have to actually commit the act of theft to be a burglar. It's about intent. Which is what I keep worrying that the jurors will buy. That's it's AA's intent.

That brings us to the next parts of their argument because if the jury is willing to believe they had a right to be out there detaining AA, they might also believe what they were doing to catch him was lawful. From what I understood about Friday's session, they are talking about whether they used reasonable force. It sounded like the defense was trying to liken reasonable force to that which a police officer can use, and if they get the jury to buy that, it's a problem.

I know you're sure one or two jurors might believe this or that, and that's the very thing I worry about because 12 need to agree to the same thing.

I'm clear about what the various laws involved say, and how the judge plans to instruct the jury about the law, barring last minute alterations. What a jury will or won't believe is always unknowable, and I don't pretend to know what the verdict will be or how the jury will reach the conclusions they do.

But what I know now that I didn't before trial began, when I was very pessimistic about any of the 3 being convicted, is that:

--the State had an even better case against all 3 than was evident from everything presented pretrial.

-- all the defense had, imo, is wink wink nod nod, unsupported by fact allegations about AA, mostly dressed up as an understandable & reasonable concern about crime in the neighborhood, a concern shared by other reasonable & understandable & even perky, likable gun-toting women neighbors.

--Travis, imo, likely buried all 3 of defendants with his testimony. It was theoretically possible that his testimony would prove a gutsy move, and that he could explain himself well enough that inclined jurors might find the probable cause he was trying to sell.

What I saw & heard was someone who had clearly been coached to spit out the same lines, over & over, and one who simply could not keep track of his lies well enough & readily enough to credibly explain the many & very significant discrepancies between what he told LE & what he was saying on the stand. IMO he was utterly eviscerated on the stand.

I really very much believe a fair & impartial jury that follows the law as instructed would convict all 3 on all the charges. Sure do hope this is a fair & impartial jury.

 

[wasnt_me]

I am with you 100000% about the potential for coloring of the jury. Not much can be done at this point. The judge and the state do not seem to be relenting on disqualifying jurors or anything like that. Gough's attempts have been transparent to them I believe.

I do think that had they been allowed to look at Mr. Arbery's intent the mental health issues and any other previous actions of his would have come in which I think would have definitely been used as a bolster by the defense. I think it is important to remember that Mr. English was clear nothing was stolen on that date. I think that video and the understanding that Mr. Arbery had been chased before the video is powerful. The "Stop or I will blow .............head off" is clear that they were antagonistic. I believe the prosecution will wrap up this case with a visual of Mr. Arbery being terrified and acting out of fear.

I am not sure that we will ever be able to get past the privilege viewpoint of "you stop because I say so" in our culture as it is relates to race or socioeconomic position but I can hope. I believe this case and George Floyd's murder and Brianna Taylor's murder and Cameron Lamb's murder and Elijah McClain's murder and Atatiana Jefferson's murder are getting more and more people to recognize that the circumstances that are unseen are usually not just about a good guy/woman defending against a bad guy/woman. We have a long way to go. In my mind, I want all of us to wear body cams 24/7 because that seems to be the most effective way to hold bad actors to account. I am so aware of the awful human cost and suffering that some much ignorance has on so many people. I am sorry for that. I work every day to make things better but it is a Herculean task and one in which I feel like I am often swimming against the tide.

I agree with you. Thanks. I often think that if I feel this way, how did my parents feel? How did my grandparents feel? Before that, my great grandfather was the son of a slave and first free man in my family on my father's side.

We'll see. Maybe GA will prove me wrong and impress me.