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

[Kaley Smith]

I worry this will be a hung jury. I pray not, and that there are guilty verdicts today.

I worry about a hung jury too. Black young men in many regions of the US are at such a disadvantage, all seen as hoodlums, that I can see a couple of jurors letting them off the hook.

 

[clearskies1]

I worry about the jury. The fact that a defense attorney thought she could say the things she did in closing -- those things would never have been said in my area of the US. Makes me wonder about the jury/jury pool. JMO.

 

[Hope4More]

Guessing at verdicts.

I listened to the jury instructions, trying to hear them as if I were a juror. I'm back to where I have been since last year when we debated here for days & days about how the citizen's arrest law should be interpreted & how to apply what we knew then about the facts.

I think much of the law charged, *especially* the critical explanations relating to citizen's arrest, might well be confusing enough & the debates about it contentious enough for the jury ultimately to just skip to the part about using their common sense.

Did the MMs have reason enough to believe AA had stolen from English & that he kept returning to see what else he could steal? Did he run that day because he knew he'd been caught, and just hadn't had time to steal anything?

The State put on a great case. I can't imagine how it could have been any stronger. But here at the end, given current realities & sorry, but yes, the jury composition & the defense's full throated willingness to go there, I'm not sure of justice.

Best possible case, imo, is the MMs are convicted of felony murder, but not of malice murder. I doubt both MMs will be convicted of all 3 underlying felonies. I'm guessing Roddy is convicted of all 3 of the lessers, because to believe he committed one is basically to believe he committed them all, but acquitted on both malice & felony murder.

I sincerely hope both that I'm wrong about them not all being convicted on all charges, but also and more so, that I'm not being overly optimistic.

 

[joe jones]

I am normally against charging people to party to a crime statutes, I think too many get dragged into serious charges when they had little to no skin in the game and state often over charges some defendants,

this case though I think all 3 have equal parity, they without even really having to have much of a conversation saw a black man and went after him, that to me says all I need to know about them, he was black he was fair game, without all 3 I doubt their would have been a murder, it is like they (by agreeing to chase him down) all felt that they were going to get him whatever they had to do,

 

[Hope4More]

They just provided the original alternate juror numbers along with the current #s:
Alt juror #14 was 777
Alt juror #13 was 364
Alt juror #6 was 440

(I think I heard those correctly from the video)

The juror profiles: Final jury selected in death of Ahmaud Arbery case | firstcoastnews.com


edited to add link to juror profiles (11/3 article)

Bet juror 195 is the ex juror 12. And it's great that at least 2 jurors knew AA was a jogger.

 

[SharonNeedles]

Are you projecting your own feelings onto the jurors? I can only say that as one of thousands of individuals who have inspected construction sites because of an innate curiosity I find it a bit chilling that so many people attach so many negative connotations to it. I don't know where you live but it is not uncommon where I have lived.

My parents were Sunday drive aficionados. They loved nothing more than getting in the car and driving aimlessly through areas they weren't familiar with to check out the scenery, the homes, etc. Invariably, they got lost.

They'd meander up and down country roads until it was quite obvious they needed help. (This was before cellphones and GPS, not that they could have figured out the latter). The solution to their problem was driving up to a home, usually in a remote area, and ask the homeowner how to get back to a familiar area. Sometimes, they were given the directions, sometimes the homeowner got in their own vehicles and guided them back to where they needed to be. Never were they ever viewed as suspicious and treated in a manner that would have alarmed them.

I mention that last part because several years ago, I related this story on a WS thread, and was surprised by a few individuals who had said they may have answered the door with weapons drawn. That their immediate reaction was a threat was upon them. Unless invited onto their property, they would have been treated as threatening.

So I thought a couple of things after reading those responses. One was, what creates such a response that they would greet a perfect stranger with such fear and suspicion? And second, that if we had moved to the US instead of Canada from the UK, my parents would probably be dead.

No, I don’t believe he had any legitimate business wandering around in there in the middle of the night. But I’ll say it YET AGAIN, I didn’t ask and I don’t care.

 

[SuperTmo]

I am normally against charging people to party to a crime statutes, I think too many get dragged into serious charges when they had little to no skin in the game and state often over charges some defendants,

this case though I think all 3 have equal parity, they without even really having to have much of a conversation saw a black man and went after him, that to me says all I need to know about them, he was black he was fair game, without all 3 I doubt their would have been a murder, it is like they (by agreeing to chase him down) all felt that they were going to get him whatever they had to do,

Very good point. That second truck made it more confusing and scary, and maybe Ahmaud could have escaped if it weren’t there. Plus RB hit him with his truck, as far as I understand. That likely further impeded his ability to get away. I’d prefer they all 3 be found guilty of murder.

 

[SuperTmo]

No, I don’t believe he had any legitimate business wandering around in there in the middle of the night. But I’ll say it YET AGAIN, I didn’t ask and I don’t care.

Didn’t other people get caught on film entering that house at construction site too? At night nonetheless? Nobody ever has legitimate business there unless it’s their project or they are the people hired to build it.

 

[Elisaa444]

I hope the jury finds this as straightforward as I have found it to be. Lifting straight from a John Grisham novel, I'd be the juror that told the others, "Close your eyes and imagine Travis was a black man and Ahmaud was a white man."

BBM

I've thought of this many times during the trial. moo; imo; etc

 

[Ched]

I’m following a random self defence lawyer , so this just relates to how he sees what’s been said today . His comments only relate to what he sees on the actual handling .

From what I gleaned there’s been some disagreement about what the Law states on the citizens arrest stuff and it is something regarding the AND / OR wording .

A few of his observations below

“Should be Judge Walmsley instructing the jury. Be interesting to see EXACTLY how the citizen's arrest jury instruction is phrase. I'm being told judge has decided the two-sentence statute is AND construction--that would be very mistaken reading of the law.”.



“The ENTIRE issue in dispute on citizen's arrest between the State and defenses was whether lawful citizen's arrest could be made of suspect in flight from a felony reasonably believed committed on a prior occasion.

Judge didn't answer that at all. JUDGE FAIL.”


“There is a veritable mountain of appealable issues in this case, but generally speaking I advise that appeals are for losers (technically true, as well, I guess). On appeal all the presumptions are against you, burden on you, etc. But very fertile ground here.”


I think he’s implying that it’s become a mess because this law hasn’t been clarified in the instructions to the Jury & it means the Jury have to interpret that law for themselves .

it’s almost as though you can’t even move on to the actual next part of the charges until you completely understand that first bit.

So obviously this doesn’t relate to any testimony evidence which way the Jury will go , he just thinks the Judge hasn’t done something they should have .

 

[SharonNeedles]

Didn’t other people get caught on film entering that house at construction site too? Nobody ever has legitimate business there unless it’s their project or they are the people hired to build it.

Exactly. Thank you.

 

[LMDlong]

Guessing at verdicts.

I listened to the jury instructions, trying to hear them as if I were a juror. I'm back to where I have been since last year when we debated here for days & days about how the citizen's arrest law should be interpreted & how to apply what we knew then about the facts.

I think much of the law charged, *especially* the critical explanations relating to citizen's arrest, might well be confusing enough & the debates about it contentious enough for the jury ultimately to just skip to the part about using their common sense.

Did the MMs have reason enough to believe AA had stolen from English & that he kept returning to see what else he could steal? Did he run that day because he knew he'd been caught, and just hadn't had time to steal anything?

The State put on a great case. I can't imagine how it could have been any stronger. But here at the end, given current realities & sorry, but yes, the jury composition & the defense's full throated willingness to go there, I'm not sure of justice.

Best possible case, imo, is the MMs are convicted of felony murder, but not of malice murder. I doubt both MMs will be convicted of all 3 underlying felonies. I'm guessing Roddy is convicted of all 3 of the lessers, because to believe he committed one is basically to believe he committed them all, but acquitted on both malice & felony murder.

I sincerely hope both that I'm wrong about them not all being convicted on all charges, but also and more so, that I'm not being overly optimistic.

Y

Guessing at verdicts.

I listened to the jury instructions, trying to hear them as if I were a juror. I'm back to where I have been since last year when we debated here for days & days about how the citizen's arrest law should be interpreted & how to apply what we knew then about the facts.

I think much of the law charged, *especially* the critical explanations relating to citizen's arrest, might well be confusing enough & the debates about it contentious enough for the jury ultimately to just skip to the part about using their common sense.

Did the MMs have reason enough to believe AA had stolen from English & that he kept returning to see what else he could steal? Did he run that day because he knew he'd been caught, and just hadn't had time to steal anything?

The State put on a great case. I can't imagine how it could have been any stronger. But here at the end, given current realities & sorry, but yes, the jury composition & the defense's full throated willingness to go there, I'm not sure of justice.

Best possible case, imo, is the MMs are convicted of felony murder, but not of malice murder. I doubt both MMs will be convicted of all 3 underlying felonies. I'm guessing Roddy is convicted of all 3 of the lessers, because to believe he committed one is basically to believe he committed them all, but acquitted on both malice & felony murder.

I sincerely hope both that I'm wrong about them not all being convicted on all charges, but also and more so, that I'm not being overly optimistic.

Yesterday after the defense was done I weighed everything said , put myself in there place and could not come up with a not guilty verdict. All I wanted to do was Gibb smack myself in the back of the head for thinking so stupid.

 

[wasnt_me]

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.

 

[Cool Cats]

11Alive.com - Atlanta, Georgia

Ahmaud Arbery mistrial denied over Black Panthers coffin outside | 11alive.com



On Monday Kevin Gough, the attorney for William "Roddie" Bryan, objected to the presence of armed people outside the Glynn County Courthouse, allegedly members of the Black Panthers group, and the display of a coffin supposedly bearing the names of his client and the other two defendants, Greg and Travis McMichael. The three men are facing murder charges in the death of the Black jogger.

Judge Timothy Walmsley denied a mistrial, again, saying that he agreed "with the concern that is out there" but that nothing "has been brought to my attention" that suggests the jury has been exposed to or influenced by it.

11Alive's Hope Ford is reporting this week from Brunswick and captured a photo of the coffin outside the courthouse. Her photo showed many names on the coffin, none visible belonging to the defendants. The names appeared to primarily belong to Black victims of police shootings.

The attorney for Greg McMichael, Franklin Hogue, said he wanted to respect the First Amendment rights of people outside and said they were okay if the jury remained unaware of things. The attorneys for Travis McMichael agreed.

 

[Smkd]

No, I don’t believe he had any legitimate business wandering around in there in the middle of the night. But I’ll say it YET AGAIN, I didn’t ask and I don’t care.

But you did though, so no point in getting short with people when they reasonably believe that you did ask

So why did AA keep going there?

I would genuinely like to know what kept drawing him back. He was familiar enough with that house to know there was nothing left to steal, so no I don’t think that’s why he kept returning.

 

[Hope4More]

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.

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.

 

[SuperTmo]

Exactly. Thank you.

Maybe I misunderstand your perspective, but not sure you should be thanking me. (The I don’t care part of your post makes it confusing to know what you are arguing). I don’t feel anyone should be in trouble for entering that construction site. White people weren’t rundown and shot by the defendants so why was anyone?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

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

 

[clearskies1]

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.

Yes, I believe you are correct about February 11. Here is the judge's jury instruction from today:

"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.

 

[JaxFlaGal]

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

No. The only Black juror is a man.