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

[clearskies1]

I think they’re claiming that based on what they saw on the night of Feb 11, that AA running fast through the neighborhood with the neighbor pointing (I know the prosecutor proved they didn’t see the neighbor) on the 23rd gave them probable cause to think he had just committed a burglary. So therefore they had the right to make a citizen’s arrest. I think that’s what they are arguing. JMO.

 

[wasnt_me]

I think they’re claiming that based on what they saw on the night of Feb 11, that AA running fast through the neighborhood with the neighbor pointing (I know the prosecutor proved they didn’t see the neighbor) on the 23rd gave them probable cause to think he had just committed a burglary. So therefore they had the right to make a citizen’s arrest. I think that’s what they are arguing. JMO.

Do you think that might have worked or could still work even after what LD said in closing and what she showed the jury about Albenze?

I'm sorry. I know I'm probably unduly worried, but I'm really thinking someone on the jury will try to buy this. so I'm trying to work through how it can be bought. Sometimes I'm like a dog with a bone about something, so I'm just letting you guys know that I get that way even IF someone tells me a pretty good answer to consider.

 

[ontheclock]

Just now following, do we have criminal histories on the vic or perps? Would like to see background information on each.

 

[ilovewings]

Do you think that might have worked or could still work even after what LD said in closing and what she showed the jury about Albenze?

I'm sorry. I know I'm probably unduly worried, but I'm really thinking someone on the jury will try to buy this. so I'm trying to work through how it can be bought. Sometimes I'm like a dog with a bone about something, so I'm just letting you guys know that I get that way even IF someone tells me a pretty good answer to consider.

I understand completely. I recall the Casey Anthony case, and I thought who on the jury would believe her dad was involved in Caylee's death and boy oh boy, I learned quickly- lots of people did including some of the jurors----

 

[JayWill]

Just now following, do we have criminal histories on the vic or perps? Would like to see background information on each.

RB is being investigated for some illegal stuff found on his phone. Not charged but investigated for a crime in that neighborhood where black men jogging make children too frightened to go outside.
Man charged in Ahmaud Arbery’s death is also subject of a child molestation investigation, GBI says | firstcoastnews.com

 

[Snoopster]

The fact that it's ok to run around with major weapons..including carrying into stores..and then get worried and shoot in 'self-defense', or simply take the law into your own hands..... I might be banned here. But it's just too much. I give up.

 

[Rhibread]

I understand completely. I recall the Casey Anthony case, and I thought who on the jury would believe her dad was involved in Caylee's death and boy oh boy, I learned quickly- lots of people did including some of the jurors----

Just throwing this out there... the crime scene photo's of aa's body were so graphic and callous. I hope they were as impactful to the jury as they were on me. LD used the photo of him on scene in one of her final slides today and it made me really sad but also like... these guys are so guilty of all of this

 

[wasnt_me]

Maybe someone knows the answers to these questions:

- in Georgia what is the difference between burglary and trespassing?

- I believe the law there for burglary says the person must have the intent to commit a felony inside the place they are burgling, so if he has entered it over and over and never committed a felony, how can one say he intended to commit one the day he died? If he didn’t intend to commit a felony inside the house, he wasn’t burgling, so what would the citizens arrest even be for? Nobody should have assumed he stole anything because he never had before, right?

- does a house under construction even count as a dwelling or building or structure that can be burgled? Wouldn’t it have to be completed to count?

ETA - I don’t think he was burgling and I don’t believe the M’s had any reason to suspect AA of any crimes that day.

I'm just going off the top of my head, but burglary has the intent to commit an underlying crime -- Theft, rape, kidnapping, etc. It's a felony in GA. No misdemeanor.

Trespassing is an unlawful presence at a place. I think that's it. You've been told not to be there and you're there. It's a misdemeanor, but I assume you can also commit felony trespassing. IDK.

Burglary is broken down into 1st or second degree, whether it's a dwelling or a construction site. That is why the lawyers argued about what English's house is considered. But I think in the charging document, they made it the same thing for the purposes of what the jurors can decide AA was doing.

That's what I don't like about the case. The jurors and the defendants can guess at AA's intent, but the prosecution hasn't been allowed to. In the charging doc, the judge said they can infer that he was burgling if it was an unlawful presence in a place where there are items of value, and you can infer no other reason for him to be there.

I assume the jury will apply that same rule to TM and GM, so they will think it was reasonable for TM and GM to think AA was a burglar, based on the criteria in the charge doc.

 

[clearskies1]

Do you think that might have worked or could still work even after what LD said in closing and what she showed the jury about Albenze?

I'm sorry. I know I'm probably unduly worried, but I'm really thinking someone on the jury will try to buy this. so I'm trying to work through how it can be bought. Sometimes I'm like a dog with a bone about something, so I'm just letting you guys know that I get that way even IF someone tells me a pretty good answer to consider.

Well I don't know about this jury, but even if TM or GM saw Albenze point -- what does that mean?? To me, someone pointing in the direction that a person is running is nowhere near probable cause of a felony. JMO.

 

[wasnt_me]

I understand completely. I recall the Casey Anthony case, and I thought who on the jury would believe her dad was involved in Caylee's death and boy oh boy, I learned quickly- lots of people did including some of the jurors----

Good point.

 

[Rhibread]

Well I don't know about this jury, but even if TM or GM saw Albenze point -- what does that mean?? To me, someone pointing in the direction that a person is running is nowhere near probable cause of a felony. JMO.

it's a weak attempt to build up a weak defense. they're grasping at straws for any sort of justification. it doesn't REALLY mean anything, but if the defense can suggest that oh, travis saw matt albenze directing him to where ahmaud was running, then they can use that to instill a sense of urgency that didn't actually exist

 

[wasnt_me]

Just throwing this out there... the crime scene photo's of aa's body were so graphic and callous. I hope they were as impactful to the jury as they were on me. LD used the photo of him on scene in one of her final slides today and it made me really sad but also like... these guys are so guilty of all of this

The most impactful photos to me were was the one of the center chest wound, the wrist, and the pellets stuck in the right side of his back. I couldn't buy that anyone grabbed a gun or was fighting over any gun to get a shot like that. It looks like he was shot rounding the lights on the front of the car. When he was shot, his wrist was angeled the way it would be if you're moving your arms while you naturally run.

And I believe he'd decided to do that because, if you look to the right of the truck, there are hedges there, blocking the ability to run through that yard. Right beside those hedges is someone's carport. You have to get past the truck in order to run into that yard and flee. But AA couldn't trust doing that with the gun pointed at his back. So he rounded the truck light and was immediately shot -- and he could be immediately shot because TM had already prepared the gun for firing.

You can see it in the video also, how AA looks like he's running to the right. He sees the hedges blocking his way, and he pivots. I had wondered why the mcmichaels didn't just pull up to the stop sign. That's why. They used that house and hedges to set up an ambush.

 

[wasnt_me]

Well I don't know about this jury, but even if TM or GM saw Albenze point -- what does that mean?? To me, someone pointing in the direction that a person is running is nowhere near probable cause of a felony. JMO.

Well, I was thinking that they were trying to tie that to the escaping or attempting to escape a felony -- the Burglary.

See, if Albenze called 911 to report AA in the house, that's the burglary. And they know AA committed burglary before on Feb 11th, according to them. LD begs to differ. If Albenze communicated to them that the burglar was there burgling, then it's now okay to chase AA because he's fleeing a felony. It's like Albenze was pointing, indicating the fleeing burglar that they can now apprehend. It's that "totality of the circumstances" thing.

Too bad for them, Albenze was like, "I wasn't signaling them..."

It's not neat, but it's all they got in retrospect. Am I making sense? I know there are flaws in it, but this is what I was thinking their case was before the Albenze thing fell apart. Now I don't know what the case is.

 

[clearskies1]

Well, I was thinking that they were trying to tie that to the escaping or attempting to escape a felony -- the Burglary.

See, if Albenze called 911 to report AA in the house, that's the burglary. And they know AA committed burglary before on Feb 11th, according to them. LD begs to differ. If Albenze communicated to them that the burglar was there burgling, then it's now okay to chase AA because he's fleeing a felony. It's like Albenze was pointing, indicating the fleeing burglar that they can now apprehend.

It's not neat, but it's all they got in retrospect. Am I making sense? I know there are flaws in it, but this is what I was thinking their case was before the Albenze thing fell apart. Now I don't know what the case is.

1) Reporting someone in the house is not reporting a (felony) burglary. 2) The MMs did not know that Albenze called the (nonemergency) police (number) on the 23rd. 3) Even if they saw Albenze pointing, it's not probable cause of a felony. But that's me. I also did not see the whole trial and have no idea about this jury.

 

[IzzyBlanche]

This case makes me sick to my stomach on so many levels.

If those defendants are acquitted--and I won't be surprised in the least if they are, but I'm cynical like that--I will be researching countries I can emigrate to.

 

[wasnt_me]

1) Reporting someone in the house is not reporting a (felony) burglary. 2) The MMs did not know that Albenze called the (nonemergency) police (number) on the 23rd. 3) Even if they saw Albenze pointing, it's not probable cause of a felony. But that's me.

I don't want to appear as if I'm arguing the defenses case or what not. Just trying to figure out what their defense is. With that said, this entire defense had to come about after it all happened. They are making lemonade out of piss, right? And I'm trying to figure out what their case is.

That said, I do agree with what you're saying. But it's the probable cause of it that the McMichaels would be getting at. It doesn't have to be burglary -- just probable cause to believe it was. As far as Albenze, they might have expected a degree of good ole boy cooperation but didn't get it. You know? I'm just guessing on that.

It's hard for me to come up with a case for the defense because I don't believe in the defense. This was the best I could muster, I think. (And I don't buy my own theory, so...) Thanks for helping me parse through it. You have any ideas if you pretended to be the defense? It's kind of intriguing to try to think like them -- even if I do need a shower afterward.

 

[Lilibet]

I know there are flaws in it, but this is what I was thinking their case was before the Albenze thing fell apart. Now I don't know what the case is.

BBM

They have no case except for “fear the black man.” I don’t need to tell you that this fear is so entrenched and pervasive that they don’t need to make any other case, in reality. They can just pretend they have a legal basis for their defense, but do their dog whistles to the jurors (long dirty toenails) and hope at least one will hang the jury and prevent conviction. The best I can hope for is that one juror will keep them from acquitting. I will be thrilled to be wrong.

 

[wasnt_me]

BBM

They have no case except for “fear the black man.” I don’t need to tell you that this fear is so entrenched and pervasive that they don’t need to make any other case, in reality. They can just pretend they have a legal basis for their defense, but do their dog whistles to the jurors (long dirty toenails) and hope at least one will hang the jury and prevent conviction. The best I can hope for is that one juror will keep them from acquitting. I will be thrilled to be wrong.

And that's probably their strategy. It's really a pity.

There are a lot of dog whistles, racial and intelligence-wise. Like we're supposed to believe that Roddie is a stupid dope who didn't know what he was getting into when he was running AA off the road to prevent him from going out of the neighborhood.

 

[ontheclock]

This case makes me sick to my stomach on so many levels.

If those defendants are acquitted--and I won't be surprised in the least if they are, but I'm cynical like that--I will be researching countries I can emigrate to.

Canada

 

[alliecat44]

I apologize, as I haven’t had the time to follow as closely as I want (even though I have devoted hours to these threads and the trial!).
I assume the judge ruled that the expletive uttered when AA’s body was turned over was inadmissible for some reason? Or did the prosecution choose not to include that in order to minimize the racial aspect of this case? (As if…!)

thanks for any information/clarity on this.

I think we’ll have a verdict tomorrow—fingers crossed. MOO