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

[Smkd]

So why did AA keep going there?

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.

 

[wasnt_me]

TM kept referring to Feb 11 alright, but I disagree that establishing probable cause was why his attorneys prepped/programmed him to do so. IMO the principal reason was to try to justify why both MMs grabbed guns & then wielded them against AA. Hence dwelling upon the absurd allegation that Travis saw AA on the 11th reaching into his waistband or pocket, 2 different versions, and "acting like" he maybe perhaps was armed. And also connected to T's tale of Feb 11, the unsubtle insinuations that AA was scary & dangerous & there was something mentally off about him.

The defense sprinkled in the terms burglary & break-ins at every opportunity, not just about Feb 11. One definite problem for them about burglary & Feb 11 is the video evidence of LE explicitly telling both Travis & Greg that very night that English said *he had never seen AA take anything while on his property.*

IMO, the gathered posse & LEO were equally frustrated by E's declaration, which is why what immediately followed were emphatic assertions about what other crimes AA could be accused of, criminal trespass being the clear winner. For a few minutes on that night, anyway, but not as a matter of law, which Officer Rash conceded when he wrote his police report later on that night.

He listed that incident when asked what his probable cause was. They keep listing it as "totality of circumstances, " But its fine to disagree. Thanks!

 

[Boxer]

My concern is the jury doesn't know why AA kept going there. So they will assume the worst.

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.

 

[wasnt_me]

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.

It matters because the defense says burglary and without another reason, the jury might believe it.

 

[wasnt_me]

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 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 jury hasn't been told he jogs though. That is the problem. They aren't even allowed to see his shoes. I thought the prosecution was not allowed to bring up jogging or get in get AA mind at all. Is that not correct?

Burglary is going somewhere with the intent to see what you can steal. You don't have to actually steal. Unless I understand it wrong. And that is the problem. The defense gets in AA mind, but prosecution is not allowed to.

"Many people are under the misconception that the only crime that can be associated with burglary is stealing. However, this is not true. You could be convicted of burglary if you had the intention of kidnapping, assault, or rape. If you broke into and entered a house with the intent to commit one of those felonies, you would still be convicted of burglary. You do not have to take any personal property items to be convicted of burglary. This is one of the reasons why it is crucial to your case to have one of our Georgia Burglary Lawyers help with your case."

From:

Burglary | Georgia Criminal Lawyer.

 

[Boxer]

The jury hasn't been told he jogs though. That is the problem. They aren't even allowed to see his shoes. I thought the prosecution was not allowed to bring up jogging or get in get AA mind at all. Is that not correct?

Burglary is going somewhere with the intent to see what you can steal. You don't have to actually steal. Unless I understand it wrong. And that is the problem. The defense gets in AA mind, but prosecution is not allowed to.

"Many people are under the misconception that the only crime that can be associated with burglary is stealing. However, this is not true. You could be convicted of burglary if you had the intention of kidnapping, assault, or rape. If you broke into and entered a house with the intent to commit one of those felonies, you would still be convicted of burglary. You do not have to take any personal property items to be convicted of burglary. This is one of the reasons why it is crucial to your case to have one of our Georgia Burglary Lawyers help with your case."

From:

Burglary | Georgia Criminal Lawyer.

Why is prosecution not allowed to bring in intent information?
I haven't been tracking the trial close enough to know.

 

[Smkd]

The jury hasn't been told he jogs though. That is the problem. They aren't even allowed to see his shoes. I thought the prosecution was not allowed to bring up jogging or get in get AA mind at all. Is that not correct?

Burglary is going somewhere with the intent to see what you can steal. You don't have to actually steal. Unless I understand it wrong. And that is the problem. The defense gets in AA mind, but prosecution is not allowed to.

"Many people are under the misconception that the only crime that can be associated with burglary is stealing. However, this is not true. You could be convicted of burglary if you had the intention of kidnapping, assault, or rape. If you broke into and entered a house with the intent to commit one of those felonies, you would still be convicted of burglary. You do not have to take any personal property items to be convicted of burglary. This is one of the reasons why it is crucial to your case to have one of our Georgia Burglary Lawyers help with your case."

From:

Burglary | Georgia Criminal Lawyer.

I think you are misunderstanding, the way I interpret it is that for it to be a burglary you have to either steal from there or commit a felony there. Just going inside of a building is not a burglary, there has to be an intent to commit a felony as well. So it includes but it’s not limited to theft. AA didn’t do any of those things and I don’t see how they can argue intent

 

[Hope4More]

It matters because the defense says burglary and without another reason, the jury might believe it.

If this jury thinks Travis had reason enough to believe AA was a thief & a burglar simply because he was on E's construction site several times at night, GA's legal definition of burglary -and just about any of the other charges- is probably irrelevant.

((It's accurate that nothing has to be taken for the crime of burglary to be charged in GA, but also true that intent to commit another crime while there must be proven. There isn't any direct proof of that intent by AA because he was never seen on video even riffling through anything, much less stealing.

So, his supposed intent can only be inferred, including he had stolen from the property before- the boat related theft (which the jury would have to believe AA guilty of, based on no evidence whatsoever), and/or that there was no other reason for AA to have been on E's construction site. (See paragraph #1).

For now I'm gonna believe the jury will convict, because the State's case was strong enough, the defense's weak enough & Travis's testimony so abysmal that I don't believe any fair & impartial jury that follows the law as instructed could do otherwise.

 

[Hope4More]

Why is prosecution not allowed to bring in intent information?
I haven't been tracking the trial close enough to know.

Because Ahmaud Arbery was the victim, intent is about state of mind, and the judge has ruled consistently on every issue that AA the victim's state of mind is irrelevant.

 

[wasnt_me]

Why is prosecution not allowed to bring in intent information?
I haven't been tracking the trial close enough to know.

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

 

[Smkd]

It matters because the defense says burglary and without another reason, the jury might believe it.

But the jury is not being asked to convict AA. Nothing presented during the trial has decidedly shown that AA was up to no good, and prosecution has demonstrated that not only had AA not stolen anything on the 11th or the day he died, but it has also shown that the McMichaels had no probable cause. Moreover, the jury instructions say that “a private citizen’s warrantless arrest must occur immediately after the perpetration of the offense, or in the case of a felony during escape.”, and this effectively eliminates anything that happened before the 23rd from being considered. And Travis himself has admitted that he had no knowledge of what happened before he started chasing.

 

[wasnt_me]

I think you are misunderstanding, the way I interpret it is that for it to be a burglary you have to either steal from there or commit a felony there. Just going inside of a building is not a burglary, there has to be an intent to commit a felony as well. So it includes but it’s not limited to theft. AA didn’t do any of those things and I don’t see how they can argue intent

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

 

[wasnt_me]

If this jury thinks Travis had reason enough to believe AA was a thief & a burglar simply because he was on E's construction site several times at night, GA's legal definition of burglary -and just about any of the other charges- is probably irrelevant.

((It's accurate that nothing has to be taken for the crime of burglary to be charged in GA, but also true that intent to commit another crime while there must be proven. There isn't any direct proof of that intent by AA because he was never seen on video even riffling through anything, much less stealing.

So, his supposed intent can only be inferred, including he had stolen from the property before- the boat related theft (which the jury would have to believe AA guilty of, based on no evidence whatsoever), and/or that there was no other reason for AA to have been on E's construction site. (See paragraph #1).

For now I'm gonna believe the jury will convict, because the State's case was strong enough, the defense's weak enough & Travis's testimony so abysmal that I don't believe any fair & impartial jury that follows the law as instructed could do otherwise.

I agree with a lot of this, but it's what the defense is asserting, nonetheless. I hope the jury figures out that intent of burglary makes no sense, but it is what they are alleging. The are alleging that and the theft of the equipment, hoping the jury will buy it.

I fear the jury will buy burglary because the PA hasn't been allowed to enter an alternative into evidence.

 

[wasnt_me]

But the jury is not being asked to convict AA. Nothing presented during the trial has decidedly shown that AA was up to no good, and prosecution has demonstrated that not only had AA not stolen anything on the 11th or the day he died, but it had also shown that the McMichaels had no probable cause. Moreover, the jury instructions say that “a private citizen’s warrantless arrest must occur immediately after the perpetration of the offense, or in the case of a felony during escape.”, and this effectively eliminates anything that happened before the 23rd from being considered. And Travis himself has admitted that he had no knowledge of what happened before he started chasing.

The defense is relying on jurors convicting AA in their own minds. It's ironic that to make a citizen's arrest, AA must be guilty of "something," right?

ETA-- that's the major problem I have with this whole case. AA is being convicted of being a burglar, stealing, etc, with NO trial in order to justify his killing. In fact, the defense is even trying to add in "carjacking" Roddie as an excuse to kill him. The jury has to believe that was AA's intent or that Roddie and the rest were justified in "believing" that was AA's intent.

It's just not fair.

 

[Hope4More]

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).

 

[wasnt_me]

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).

Respectfully, this doesn't change what I'm positing, but thanks for the insight. I believe the defense is arguing AA's intent every step of the way while disallowing the prosecution to even show the shoes. But that's my view. I'll leave it there and move on.

 

[Jax49]

Respectfully, this doesn't change what I'm positing, but thanks for the incite. I believe the defense is arguing AA's intent every step of the way while disallowing the prosecution to even show the shoes. But that's my view. I'll leave it there and move on.

Respectful question - did you mean insight?

"incite is sometimes confused with insight"

 

[wasnt_me]

Respectful question - did you mean insight?

"incite is sometimes confused with insight"

yeah, autocorrect from my phone. My phone thinks it knows my "intent." LOL

I edited it. Thanks!

 

[Hope4More]

It doesn't matter. As a kid I would bike over to the construction site of what would be my family's new house dozens of times.

IMO, it was the midpoint of a 5 mile run, where he could take a break and check out something cool.

I absolutely agree. AA's jogging/running route from his neighborhood into SS & directly to E's house consisted of a single road & about 1.7-1.8 miles. English testified during his depo that based on his surveillance cameras, he believed that after leaving his property AA crossed Satilla Shores & went onto Jones.

His going on Jones then turning left on Zellwood & exiting the neighborhood makes perfect sense IMO. It also explains why AA had never been seen jogging through the neighborhood. Before Feb 23, he had only gone to SS a handful of times, and at night. If English is correct, AA had the great good sense to not jog any further into that neighborhood, at least not at night. Yep, he probably stopped for a brief rest (which every video of him inside suggests) & perhaps a drink of water as he didn't jog with a water bottle.

 

[wasnt_me]

I absolutely agree. AA's jogging/running route from his neighborhood into SS & directly to E's house consisted of a single road & about 1.7-1.8 miles. English testified during his depo that based on his surveillance cameras, he believed that after leaving his property AA crossed Satilla Shores & went onto Jones.

His going on Jones then turning left on Zellwood & exiting the neighborhood makes perfect sense IMO. It also explains why AA had never been seen jogging through the neighborhood. Before Feb 23, he had only gone to SS a handful of times, and at night. If English is correct, AA had the great good sense to not jog any further into that neighborhood, at least not at night. Yep, he probably stopped for a brief rest (which every video of him inside suggests) & perhaps a drink of water as he didn't jog with a water bottle.

I hate to argue the defense's case, but you can jog and burglarize as you go. It's also a lot of assuming of what AA is doing off camera. I just wish the PA was allowed to enter more things into evidence about AA. I wish someone he knew could testify that it was his routine, but it wasn't allowed.

I hope the jury thinks like you guys do, but I don't have faith that they will.