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

[SuperTmo]

I personally find his training irrelevant because he didn't have any jurisdiction to police his neighborhood, and it didn't give him special warrantless powers.

Right. But when he’s like oh I was in the military I’m trained for this, that makes people who might not think twice about it believe he has credibility. It would be nice to see someone from that branch of the service disprove his “training”.

 

[SuperTmo]

Okay, that was so cringe.

What I said, or what she did? I can’t be certain that was her thought process, but it’s certainly how it looked to me based on how it played out. IMO she was just waiting to use that line.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I do not see a basis for a citizen's arrest. They either didn't see/personally witness the events in question (the boat, Feb 23) or they did not pursue immediately after seeing them (Feb 11). Plus there was no probable cause. JMO.

I think their argument is TM had probable cause to suspect AA just committed a burglary because he had seen him on video before in a house that's been burglarized. That's a thin reed imo.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

What I said, or what she did? I can’t be certain that was her thought process, but it’s certainly how it looked to me based on how it played out. IMO she was just waiting to use that line.

I meant what she said in the closing was cringe.

 

[Ched]

The whole case I think hinges on the statute for citizens arrest (in the photo & written below) that’s just 2 sentences long and dating back years .
If the effort to make a citizen’s arrest of Ahmaud Arbery was lawful, then everything that follows was likely also lawful, if the effort to make a citizen’s arrest of Arbery was unlawful, then everything that follow was also likely unlawful.

“A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.”

So it’s how you look at 2 sentences .
The felony scenario is in the second sentence. It has different requirements set out in the first sentence.
So I read the first sentence as an alternative criminal scenario, the non-felony, the misdemeanour.

reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion is in the second sentence the felony , so for something serious you only have to satisfy “probable” . So if I think that you might have murdered someone I’m going to arrest you .

If it’s just say , shoplifting probable cause isn’t good enough , it will require that the offense was committed in the presence of the person making the arrest, or that they have immediate knowledge of the offence as per sentence 1.

I can’t see how sentence 2 can be relevant to sentence 1 as that’s throwing in a LESSER thing of just probable .

Dunikoski argues the sentences should be read together but I can’t see how that makes sense . Also it’s not up to Dunikoski to interpret a poorly written law & it’s not the job of the jury to do that , it’s the job of the Judge .

The key issue is if the 2 sentences in the citizen’s arrest statute are intended to be melded together so that both apply to all arrests, or whether the conditions of the first sentence refer to misdemeanor arrests and the conditions of the second sentence refer to felony arrests. (Remember this statute is really old)

The judge tells the jury “The private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony, and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.”

The judge doesn’t tell the jury how to interpret those 2 sentences (together or separate)

I think the judge has left the jury with an ambiguous statute and it should be non-ambiguous for a jury.
If a statue is ambiguous it is always resolved in the favour of the defendant not the State because it’s the Government that drafted the statute.

 

[girlhasnoname]

I don't know about y'all but I'm having a hard time cooking for Thanksgiving because I keep having to check for a verdict. Really thought there would be one today. I really, really feel there will be one tomorrow.

I agree lonetraveler, I think the jury will want to get on with their holiday plans. Hopefully, they'll do the right thing and sentence these guys.

MOO

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

If the effort to make a citizen’s arrest of Ahmaud Arbery was lawful, then everything that follows was likely also lawful,

Only if you ignore the excessive force instruction.

 

[Cool Cats]

I really wish they had had a retired Coast Guard officer testify about the training and what would be appropriate in this scenario. To point out what TM did wasn’t allowed or encouraged by the coast guard. I’m not sure if that would be allowed or possible, but it would have been nice.

I can't imagine the Coast Guard Official confirming Travis's rendition. According to Travis you show a gun to de-escalate a situation.

So according to Travis he showed his gun to de-escalate a situation against a man who was running with no weapons on him and who was no threat to him. Travis testified that Ahmad was no threat to him.

No matter how you slice and dice this, Travis is the aggressor and Ahmaud was trying to defend himself against him.

Flight or fight.

For 5 minutes of this aggressive stranger chasing and yelling at Ahmaud, Ahmaud took the flight response. Finally, when the aggressive stranger got out of the truck pulling a rifle, Ahmaud's fight response clicked in.

No, none of this seems like Coast Guard training.

 

[ringbearer]

Where you hear it screaming “not a jogger,” I just see a guy making due with what he has. I ran for years in denim shorts because that is what I owned, and I didn’t have the money for shorts just for running. Not everyone is so privileged.

According to the NYT and WaPo, he was wearing Nikes. So he was at least that privileged. And btw, I wasn't referring to fancy running shorts. I was referring to the kind of nylon shorts that every male I know under 30 has at least 3 pairs of -- the kind you can buy for a buck at goodwill, or 10 bucks if you're feeling fancy and go to Target. jmo

From the links:

"Mr. Arbery was wearing a white T-shirt, khaki shorts, Nike sneakers ..."
_____
Prosecutors had also planned to show the jury Arbery’s shoes during Donoghue’s testimony. The medical examiner identified them in pictures as Nike running shoes, a potential boost to the prosecution’s portrayal of Arbery as a runner who was unfairly targeted.

But Cobb County prosecutors changed course on the shoes after the defense indicated that this could open the door for its alternative arguments about Arbery’s activities the day of shooting.


Investigators Call Evidence in the Ahmaud Arbery Shooting ‘Extremely Upsetting’ (Published 2020)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/11/16/ahmaud-arbery-trial-medical-examiner/

 

[Hope4More]

I agree. I think that if the jury rejects the citizens' arrest claim, then AA is defending himself against an unlawful arrest, which is his right. If the jury doesn't reject the citizen's arrest claim, AA is still defending himself against the excessive force of the citizens' arrest.

I think the idea of a citizens' arrest is something the lawyers came up with as a defense as the McMichaels never say they were doing that in the beginning, and they don't even know what crime AA supposedly committed.

I'm afraid the jury will be biased against AA's skin color just like the McMichaels were and that bias will lead them to think the McMichaels had rights but AA didn't.

The idea to invoke the citizen's arrest law was first made by DA Barnhill in April 2020. He said it was a legal attempt at citizen's arrest (had probable cause, felony burglary), Travis had lawfully defended himself, and Roddy had helpfully joined in. He exonerated all 3. Then the video was "leaked."

 

[JayWill]

According to the NYT and WaPo, he was wearing Nikes. So he was at least that privileged. And btw, I wasn't referring to fancy running shorts. I was referring to the kind of nylon shorts that every male I know under 30 has at least 3 pairs of -- the kind you can buy for a buck at goodwill, or 10 bucks if you're feeling fancy and go to Target. jmo

From the links:

"Mr. Arbery was wearing a white T-shirt, khaki shorts, Nike sneakers ..."
_____
Prosecutors had also planned to show the jury Arbery’s shoes during Donoghue’s testimony. The medical examiner identified them in pictures as Nike running shoes, a potential boost to the prosecution’s portrayal of Arbery as a runner who was unfairly targeted.

But Cobb County prosecutors changed course on the shoes after the defense indicated that this could open the door for its alternative arguments about Arbery’s activities the day of shooting.


Investigators Call Evidence in the Ahmaud Arbery Shooting ‘Extremely Upsetting’ (Published 2020)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/11/16/ahmaud-arbery-trial-medical-examiner/

Nylon running shorts are not recommended for running in hot climates, sweaty and become smelly. That is your choice, not everyone's. MOO.

 

[JayWill]

The idea to invoke the citizen's arrest law was first made by DA Barnhill in April 2020. He said it was a legal attempt at citizen's arrest (had probable cause, felony burglary), Travis had lawfully defended himself, and Roddy had helpfully joined in. He exonerated all 3. Then the video was "leaked."

But that was when they claimed (as LE told his mother) he was killed in the execution of a burgling a home. A total lie.

 

[wasnt_me]

Right. But when he’s like oh I was in the military I’m trained for this, that makes people who might not think twice about it believe he has credibility. It would be nice to see someone from that branch of the service disprove his “training”.

I think how he acted with AA disproves his training. jmo

 

[wasnt_me]

According to the NYT and WaPo, he was wearing Nikes. So he was at least that privileged. And btw, I wasn't referring to fancy running shorts. I was referring to the kind of nylon shorts that every male I know under 30 has at least 3 pairs of -- the kind you can buy for a buck at goodwill, or 10 bucks if you're feeling fancy and go to Target. jmo

From the links:

"Mr. Arbery was wearing a white T-shirt, khaki shorts, Nike sneakers ..."
_____
Prosecutors had also planned to show the jury Arbery’s shoes during Donoghue’s testimony. The medical examiner identified them in pictures as Nike running shoes, a potential boost to the prosecution’s portrayal of Arbery as a runner who was unfairly targeted.

But Cobb County prosecutors changed course on the shoes after the defense indicated that this could open the door for its alternative arguments about Arbery’s activities the day of shooting.


Investigators Call Evidence in the Ahmaud Arbery Shooting ‘Extremely Upsetting’ (Published 2020)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/11/16/ahmaud-arbery-trial-medical-examiner/

I disagree that one is privileged because they have Nike shoes. You can get used Nike shoes off Ebay or in a thrift store. You also can get Nike shoes if you can afford them in your budget or because you chose to buy them DESPITE your budget. Heck, you can even get them as a gift or a hand-me-down.

 

[wasnt_me]

The idea to invoke the citizen's arrest law was first made by DA Barnhill in April 2020. He said it was a legal attempt at citizen's arrest (had probable cause, felony burglary), Travis had lawfully defended himself, and Roddy had helpfully joined in. He exonerated all 3. Then the video was "leaked."

Thanks. As I suspected -- someone came up with it for them.

 

[clearskies1]

The whole case I think hinges on the statute for citizens arrest (in the photo & written below) that’s just 2 sentences long and dating back years .
If the effort to make a citizen’s arrest of Ahmaud Arbery was lawful, then everything that follows was likely also lawful, if the effort to make a citizen’s arrest of Arbery was unlawful, then everything that follow was also likely unlawful.

“A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.”

So it’s how you look at 2 sentences .
The felony scenario is in the second sentence. It has different requirements set out in the first sentence.
So I read the first sentence as an alternative criminal scenario, the non-felony, the misdemeanour.

reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion is in the second sentence the felony , so for something serious you only have to satisfy “probable” . So if I think that you might have murdered someone I’m going to arrest you .

If it’s just say , shoplifting probable cause isn’t good enough , it will require that the offense was committed in the presence of the person making the arrest, or that they have immediate knowledge of the offence as per sentence 1.

I can’t see how sentence 2 can be relevant to sentence 1 as that’s throwing in a LESSER thing of just probable .

Dunikoski argues the sentences should be read together but I can’t see how that makes sense . Also it’s not up to Dunikoski to interpret a poorly written law & it’s not the job of the jury to do that , it’s the job of the Judge .

The key issue is if the 2 sentences in the citizen’s arrest statute are intended to be melded together so that both apply to all arrests, or whether the conditions of the first sentence refer to misdemeanor arrests and the conditions of the second sentence refer to felony arrests. (Remember this statute is really old)

The judge tells the jury “The private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony, and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.”

The judge doesn’t tell the jury how to interpret those 2 sentences (together or separate)

I think the judge has left the jury with an ambiguous statute and it should be non-ambiguous for a jury.
If a statue is ambiguous it is always resolved in the favour of the defendant not the State because it’s the Government that drafted the statute.

If you start watching at 2:40 you'll see that on Friday the judge said that he thinks the first sentence of the statute addresses both felonies and misdemeanors, and that the second sentence goes on to only address felonies -- allowing a private citizen to chase and arrest someone if they have probable cause that a person just committed a felony. I agree that the jury instructions were confusing. I do think the judge believes that the person who chases and arrests an alleged fleeing felon must have actually seen the underlying act (and must also have probable cause to believe that it was felony). But it's all unclear, which is a shame. JMO.

 

[wasnt_me]

If you start watching at 2:40 you'll see that on Friday the judge said that he thinks the first sentence of the statute addresses both felonies and misdemeanors, and that the second sentence goes on to only address felonies -- allowing a private citizen to chase and arrest someone if they have probable cause that a person just committed a felony. I agree that the jury instructions were confusing. I do think the judge believes that the person who chases and arrests an alleged fleeing felon must have actually seen the underlying act (and must also have probable cause to believe that it was felony). But it's all unclear, which is a shame. JMO.

Yes, it's confusing. I was thinking the probable cause part is because, once you chase, you are no longer right there on scene, and things can change.

For example, say a clown shoots another person in the leg. The shooter is wearing a clown hat and clown shoes. You witness the shooting. The person runs and maybe you lose sight of him. You catch up to "someone" wearing the before mentioned items. You arrest them because you have "probable cause" to believe that this person in the clown hat and shoes is the same person you saw earlier shoot someone and run -- even though that person has now changed their pants or no longer has a gun on them or maybe wiped off his clown makeup. The clown hat and shoes are your probable cause.

But say you don't catch up to this person until next week. Well, because of the time that has passed, you can't arrest them without a warrant.

That's what I think it means, but it's JMO. And my example might be a bad one, but I hope if it is, people get the gist.

 

[Hope4More]

But that was when they claimed (as LE told his mother) he was killed in the execution of a burgling a home. A total lie.

That despicable lie came very first, in the same timeframe that DA Jackie Johnson & DA Barnhill colluded on not making arrests, before Johnson recused herself & handed the case over to Barnhill.

Had AA's mother believed the lies about how & why AA was killed, Johnson may not even have bothered to recuse herself. Barnhill would definitely have not recused his own covering up self.

 

[Lilibet]

According to the NYT and WaPo, he was wearing Nikes. So he was at least that privileged. And btw, I wasn't referring to fancy running shorts. I was referring to the kind of nylon shorts that every male I know under 30 has at least 3 pairs of -- the kind you can buy for a buck at goodwill, or 10 bucks if you're feeling fancy and go to Target. jmo

From the links:

"Mr. Arbery was wearing a white T-shirt, khaki shorts, Nike sneakers ..."
_____
Prosecutors had also planned to show the jury Arbery’s shoes during Donoghue’s testimony. The medical examiner identified them in pictures as Nike running shoes, a potential boost to the prosecution’s portrayal of Arbery as a runner who was unfairly targeted.

But Cobb County prosecutors changed course on the shoes after the defense indicated that this could open the door for its alternative arguments about Arbery’s activities the day of shooting.


Investigators Call Evidence in the Ahmaud Arbery Shooting ‘Extremely Upsetting’ (Published 2020)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/11/16/ahmaud-arbery-trial-medical-examiner/

With all due respect, why are you repeatedly insisting on this thread that what Mr Arbery was wearing matters? I hate to think that you are implying that the defendants were justified in their suspicions and in hunting him down because he wasn’t wearing the “right” running attire in their neighborhood.

 

[SuperTmo]

I meant what she said in the closing was cringe.

Yes, I totally agree. She was absolutely horrendous.