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

[sds71]

@KaileyTracy
·
POOL: Wanda Cooper-Jones leaves courtroom during discussion of Arbery yanking gun from Travis and causing the first shot

Sheffield also shows photos/body camera screenshots of Travis looking upset at scene, and with bloody hands at police HQ. POOL: several jurors look to defense table and gallery at this moment

 

[Niner]

Veronica Waters
@MissVWaters
·
1m
Court in a break for one hour lunch. Will reconvene at 1:30p. I'm back from recording stories. Will re-rack my #AhmaudArbery shooting case closing arguments audio and tweet at least some of what I missed

link: https://twitter.com/MissVWaters

 

[wasnt_me]

Yes, but I thought the judge ruled that the right to make a citizen's arrest when the person is "fleeing" extinguishes basically immediately after the alleged crime. You can't wait days to catch someone "fleeing" -- I thought that was the judge's ruling on Friday. Did it change over the weekend?

Idk. I just know the argument he just gave, adding that AA was doing it again and fleeing that Sunday. Idk what the ruling was but no one has objected to all he's been arguing, so.....

You're saying he can't make a bogus argument or misapply the law in closing? I thought they could say what they want and it's up to others to object.

 

[Kristin Esq.]

Yeah, I have wondered if in some trials one side or the other has the upper hand because they have a much more likeable person representing them.

Linda Dunikoski is super engaging and explained everything so clearly without ever sounding patronising. Sheffield just comes across as a brat lol arrogant and snappy, I’m over him. Greg’s attorneys I can’t even remember them honestly. And I’m not sure Gough can follow a cohesive, linear narrative. Anything that comes out of his mouth is a word salad, and I can’t imagine the jury being particularly stoked about having to listen to him.

Greg's attorney puts me to sleep.

 

[clearskies1]

Idk. I just know the argument he just gave, adding that AA was doing it again and fleeing that Sunday. Idk what the ruling was but no one as objected to all he's been arguing, so.....

I think he's arguing an incorrect view of the law. I think he's the one who said on Friday that the judge's ruling on a citizen's arrest would essentially result in a directed verdict for the State. The prosecutor is probably waiting to slam his argument on rebuttal. (Unless of course the judge changed his ruling which I don't think he did). JMO.

 

[Hope4More]

Yes, but I thought the judge ruled that the right to make a citizen's arrest when the person is "fleeing" extinguishes basically immediately after the alleged crime. You can't wait days to catch someone "fleeing" -- I thought that was the judge's ruling on Friday. Did it change over the weekend?

No, that instruction didn't change. The State in closing focused mostly on what happened on E's property on the 23rd, not on the 2019 boat stuff & felony. And she explained the law in crystal clear terms, imo.

Sheffield can yap & lie & tweak definitions & insinuate all he wants to about Travis having probable cause to believe AA committed a felony on the 23rd, but what it boils down to is whether or not the jury believes his hearing second & third hand information about a theft in 2019 & knowing AA went into E's house 4 times before the 23rd & the fact he ran down Satilla Drive on the 23rd constitutes probable cause to try to detain him.

 

[clearskies1]

No, that instruction didn't change. The State in closing focused mostly on what happened on E's property on the 23rd, not on the 2019 boat stuff & felony. And she explained the law in crystal clear terms, imo.

Sheffield can yap & lie & tweak definitions & insinuate all he wants to about Travis having probable cause to believe AA committed a felony on the 23rd, but what it boils down to is whether or not the jury believes his hearing second & third hand information about a theft in 2019 & knowing AA went into E's house 4 times before the 23rd & the fact he ran down Satilla Drive on the 23rd constitutes probable cause to try to detain him.

Right, so he did not himself see a felony (or misdemeanor) on the 23rd. No right to arrest/detain. This was the prosecutor's argument. Sheffield has nothing. JMO.

 

[sds71]

"Ms. Linda," as she's affectionately referred to online, is the Georgia State Law graduate now the prosecutor in one of the highest-profile cases of the year.

Linda Dunikoski | Who is the prosecutor in Ahmaud Arbery trial? | 11alive.com

 

[Smkd]

If I hear one more second of Travis being talked about like he’s the most non confrontational, level headed, innocent perfect little angel I’m going to need a sick bucket.

 

[MrsWatson]

Travis is not a victim here, and attempting to create empathy for him is insulting to Mr Arbery, who died at his hands.

moo

 

[Smkd]

Twisting AA narrowly avoiding being ran over into “he was attacking the truck!” could be a funny bit in a comedy sketch if it wasn’t because the defence is literally arguing that.

 

[wasnt_me]

Yes, but I thought the judge ruled that the right to make a citizen's arrest when the person is "fleeing" extinguishes basically immediately after the alleged crime. You can't wait days to catch someone "fleeing" -- I thought that was the judge's ruling on Friday. Did it change over the weekend?

According to the prosecutor -- isn't the law that you need to be there to see the crime --live or via live video -- to make a citizen's arrest? How can Sheffield argue probable cause when TM didn't actually see AA in the construction place that day??? I'm confused.

I went back to your original question. I see you were asking "how" he can argue that. Yeah, I assume he's just trying it anyway and seeing if he can get away with it.

 

[Hope4More]

Right, so he did not himself see a felony (or misdemeanor) on the 23rd. No right to arrest/detain. This was the prosecutor's argument. Sheffield has nothing. JMO.

Not quite. The law's been changed, but the old C.A law applies & said: Citizen's arrests are only allowed for a misdemeanor if the crime was witnessed first hand, and no pursuit is allowed.

If the crime was a felony, then immediate pursuit is allowed, and the crime doesn't have to be witnessed first hand. The wannabe citizen arrestor only needs probable cause to believe a felony had been committed to give lawful pursuit.

Hence the defense trying like crazy to say the MMs had probable cause to believe AA committed burglary on the 23rd, and whether or not he actually stole anything is immaterial. (Remember their unsubtle suggestions that AA initially ran because he knew he'd been seen. So just hadn't managed to steal stuff yet).

 

[wasnt_me]

Twisting AA narrowly avoiding being ran over into “he was attacking the truck!” could be a funny bit in a comedy sketch if it wasn’t because the defence is literally arguing that.

Yes, and I'm afraid someone might buy it that AA was trying to steal the truck because he was fleeing a burglary because he 'must have seen' the neighbor call the police. I think that's where the defense's probable cause comes in, based on Feb 11th.

 

[Smkd]

Oh.my.god just finished watching the defences closing.

Sheffields imaginary dialogues and blatant appeals to emotion are the worst telenovela I have ever had the misfortune of watching.

 

[clearskies1]

Not quite. The law's been changed, but the old C.A law applies & said: Citizen's arrests are only allowed for a misdemeanor if the crime was witnessed first hand, and no pursuit is allowed.

If the crime was a felony, then immediate pursuit is allowed, and the crime doesn't have to be witnessed first hand. The wannabe citizen arrestor only needs probable cause to believe a felony had been committed to give lawful pursuit.

Hence the defense trying like crazy to say the MMs had probable cause to believe AA committed burglary on the 23rd, and whether or not he actually stole anything is immaterial. (Remember their unsubtle suggestions that AA initially ran because he knew he'd been seen. So just hadn't managed to steal stuff yet).

Ok, I'll go back and listen to the judge's ruling on Friday. I thought the judge ruled that immediate pursuit of a felony (but not a misdemeanor) is allowed but that it did not obviate the first part of statute (which requires immediate knowledge of the underlying crime). I guess I'm wrong. I'll listen again. JMO.

 

[wasnt_me]

Ok, I'll go back and listen to the judge's ruling on Friday. I thought the judge ruled that immediate pursuit of a felony (but not a misdemeanor) is allowed but that it did not obviate the first part of statute (which requires immediate knowledge of the underlying crime). I guess I'm wrong. I'll listen again. JMO.

You just reminded me. Sheffield reminded the jurors that "criminals" are not always "immediately" caught. He could be planting that idea regardless of the any ruling. I have always heard judges say in trial that the openings and closings aren't evidence and the judge will instruct the law. It's too bad no one at least objected to what he said.

 

[sds71]

Gough is going to ask for another mistrial citing Black Pastors with guns:

@Alex_Presha

Defense attorneys for Greg and Travis McMichael speak with armed New Black Panther Party members outside the Glynn County courthouse.

https://twitter.com/Alex_Presha/status/1462849252766502914?s=20

 

[Smkd]

Gough is going to ask for another mistrial citing Black Pastors with guns:

@Alex_Presha

Defense attorneys for Greg and Travis McMichael speak with armed New Black Panther Party members outside the Glynn County courthouse.

https://twitter.com/Alex_Presha/status/1462849252766502914?s=20

They’re just the neighbourhood watch, leave them alone

 

[wasnt_me]

Gough is going to ask for another mistrial citing Black Pastors with guns:

@Alex_Presha

Defense attorneys for Greg and Travis McMichael speak with armed New Black Panther Party members outside the Glynn County courthouse.

https://twitter.com/Alex_Presha/status/1462849252766502914?s=20

Because we know how s are black pastors exercising their constitutional rights can be.