GUILTY GA - Ahmaud Arbery, 25, jogger, fatally shot by former LEO and son, Brunswick, Feb 2020 *Arrests* #6

[Bodhi]

Funny, it is not so stunning to me... These men are so myopic that they believe the world believes as they do. Can't have people of color in your neighborhood. Can't have people you don't like in your neighborhood. You are entitled. Many in their neighborhood did not condemn them for their actions. They had people who wanted to testify for them even after the video came out. Theirs is a world view that escapes me but I dare say that there are many who still would back them from their area and across this nation.

Yes, thank you. That's what I felt I was saying.

 

[Cool Cats]

Family of Ahmaud Arbery Rejects Federal Hate Crime Plea Deal for Father and Son Convicted of His Murder at State Trial

Earlier this week, the Department of Justice approached Arbery's mother, Wanda Cooper-Jones, about a plea deal that would have Travis McMichael, 35, and his father Gregory McMichael, 66, spend 30 years in prison if they admit that what they did was motivated by hate, according to Arbery family lawyer Lee Merritt.

Wanda Cooper-Jones, Arbery’s mother, told "CBS Mornings"
she rejected the deal because she wants the men to stand trial in court for the death of her son (and all of the charges associated, including those motivated by racial prejudice).

She said, “I think that the federal charges are just as important as the state charges and I think that they need to stand trial for those charges as well.”

 

[Bodhi]

Family of Ahmaud Arbery Rejects Federal Hate Crime Plea Deal for Father and Son Convicted of His Murder at State Trial

Earlier this week, the Department of Justice approached Arbery's mother, Wanda Cooper-Jones, about a plea deal that would have Travis McMichael, 35, and his father Gregory McMichael, 66, spend 30 years in prison if they admit that what they did was motivated by hate, according to Arbery family lawyer Lee Merritt.

Wanda Cooper-Jones, Arbery’s mother, told "CBS Mornings"
she rejected the deal because she wants the men to stand trial in court for the death of her son (and all of the charges associated, including those motivated by racial prejudice).

She said, “I think that the federal charges are just as important as the state charges and I think that they need to stand trial for those charges as well.”

Good for her! A plea deal would be easier on the convicted murderers. The outcome may be less certain with a trial, but I am glad they will have to sit through a trial where the racism that spurred them to kill an unarmed young man jogging on a public street in broad daylight will be front and center. The differential treatment by officers at the scene should be acknowledged in court too. All MOO.

 

[Blondie in Spokane]

Sadly there is another very similar case to AA’s being protested in NC. White off duty copy just shot a black man crossing the street, saying victim jumped on cop’s truck. Cop shot him. Nurse witness says cop hit victim with his truck first then shot him.
ETA I might be mistaken that he was in a crosswalk so I’ll delete that.


Off-duty cop shoots and kills black man he says attacked his truck - but witness says otherwise | Daily Mail Online

 

[LinasK]

I could also support such a sentence for R, though 15 years would also be acceptable to me as well.

It is just hard to balance the totality of R's individual circumstances with the legitimate government interest is sending a deterrent message: Join a lynch mob- even on impulse, and even in a secondary role, and you will face serious penalties.

In the end, our system has always leaned towards individual, so perhaps R's individual circumstances take precedent over a deterrent message.

In an ideal and impossible world, I would like to see:

- Ms retain their LWOP sentence
- R receive either a 10 or 15 year minimum.
- The home owner receive a 3 year symbolic sentence: Contributed towards the formation of a lynch mob by telling false tales of horrible deeds.
- Former DA get 10 year sentence: Gave biased and wildly favorable reviews that allowed murderers to walk free.

If the homeowner thought that going inside his house under construction was so horrible, why were there no "No Trespassing" signs, constructions fencing up, or even doors and locks on the property? Why didn't he take action against the white people who went inside to look? That being said, I agree more with the deterrent sentence given to Bryan than a "symbolic" sentence given to the homeowner.

 

[LinasK]

Sadly there is another very similar case to AA’s being protested in NC. White off duty copy just shot a black man crossing the street, saying victim jumped on cop’s truck. Cop shot him. Nurse witness says cop hit victim with his truck first then shot him.
ETA I might be mistaken that he was in a crosswalk so I’ll delete that.


Off-duty cop shoots and kills black man he says attacked his truck - but witness says otherwise | Daily Mail Online

I'd love it if BLM did a protest run through Satilla Shores. That'd be fitting.

 

[Cryptic]

If the homeowner thought that going inside his house under construction was so horrible, why were there no "No Trespassing" signs, constructions fencing up, or even doors and locks on the property? Why didn't he take action against the white people who went inside to look?

That being said, I agree more with the deterrent sentence given to Bryan than a "symbolic" sentence given to the homeowner.

I agree with your observations that the homeowner's actions were not consistent with his claimed state of alarm regarding the thefts.

My wish for a symbolic criminal sentence is centered on the homeowner telling neighbors, including McMichael senior that 20K worth of wishing gear had been stolen from the house. Naturally, he suspected a black trespasser, though not the victim per se as an individual.

Hearing what are, in all probability, false tales of large scale theft, could well have pushed the McMichaels even further towards vigilantism.

But.... for better or for worse, our Roman law legal system does not support such charges short of the homeowner ordering a violent confrontation. In Roman law, an action is legal or it is not. Likewise, a defendant either committed an illegal action, or he did not. No middle ground.

As a trivia side note, Napoleonic law does allow criminal charges in cases like this as it requires responsible actions. If one does not, they can be to a lesser degree responsible for a chain of events. In this case, responsible citizens dont tell vigilante inclined dimwits false tales of large scale theft- then express inconsistent concerns about certain individuals.

 

[kaen]

My wish for a symbolic criminal sentence is centered on the homeowner telling neighbors, including McMichael senior that 20K worth of wishing gear had been stolen from the house. Naturally, he suspected a black trespasser, though not the victim per se as an individual.

SBM for focus

If I recall correctly, the homeowner didn't suspect a black trespasser. He was unsure of when the items were stolen as the boat had been to a couple of places in a move and he could not recall the last time he saw the items. Additionally, he thought the thief was probably a contractor rather than the young man who visited his property.


From an article:

"Conversely, a video was played of a white couple entering onto the property with what appeared to be a bag at one point, and a 911 call following their entrance onto the property featured English saying he thought, "they might be trying to steal" something.

In a second call, he said he thinks the couple is who stole items out of his offshore fishing boat that was on the property. English said in his deposition that about $2,500 of electronic equipment, as well as a Yeti cooler, was taken out of the boat sometime in 2019.

"I know that first time they went in and stole," he said, with some of the rest of his call muffled."

Ahmaud Arbery trial jurors hear from homeowner Larry English | 11alive.com

 

[nightowl1975]

The differential treatment by officers at the scene should be acknowledged in court too. All MOO.

Honestly, IMO, this issue is at least as important, if not even more so than the original murder. We will ALWAYS have murderers among us in society that need to be dealt with. But for the ones who have pledged to uphold the law to then behave the way we’ve seen in this case is truly stunning. It cannot be tolerated any more than the murder itself IMO. We have to be able to trust those entrusted with protecting us.

 

[Cryptic]

If I recall correctly, the homeowner didn't suspect a black trespasser. He was unsure of when the items were stolen as the boat had been to a couple of places in a move and he could not recall the last time he saw the items. Additionally, he thought the thief was probably a contractor rather than the young man who visited his property.

English appears to "enjoy talking"- even before the murder. This has evidently included some "fish tales" (get it, get it) as to the value of the stolen fishing gear. Likewise, fears of negative attention following the murder and fears of possible police interest could well have contributed to further modifications.

This has resulted in a jumble of statements including what it means to truly converse with somebody, the value of the stolen items, and who the suspects were.

Shortly after the murder, E denied speaking to about anything- totally shocked and horrified about the events. Later, he admitted that he might of had a conversation with M senior that could have included thefts- but the conversation was not "meaningful".

Likewise, the value of the purported fishing gear has evidently changed several times. Was it 6K or 2.5K, or a higher number?

Were E's suspected culprits contractors? Were the suspects really and truly the white couple holding a small bag? Or....Was the main person of interest at one time a black male with extensive tattoos on both arms? (No, of course not- never! Well... at least now- wink, nod). Did the suspect list became more uhmm.... "inclusive" as time went on?

 

[Bodhi]

Honestly, IMO, this issue is at least as important, if not even more so than the original murder. We will ALWAYS have murderers among us in society that need to be dealt with. But for the ones who have pledged to uphold the law to then behave the way we’ve seen in this case is truly stunning. It cannot be tolerated any more than the murder itself IMO. We have to be able to trust those entrusted with protecting us.

The DA's already charged but the frontline first responders who may not have violated the law seem to have violated protocols. I am not fully up to speed on what happened at the scene. I'm aware of the references in testimony that Greg McMichael was allowed to leave the scene and come back, the vehicles were not impounded, they didn't collect evidence like Bryant's video, father and son were allowed to talk to each other and witnesses.

Can you tell me whether the responding officers knew Greg McMichael from the DA's office or were aware of who he was. Is that what made the difference here? Or was the kid glove treatment simply because they were 3 white men who lived in the neighborhood and the victim was a young black man?

TIA!

 

[Cryptic]

Can you tell whether the responding officers knew Greg McMichael from the DA's office or were aware of who he was. Is that what made the difference here?

There maybe no way of telling for sure. But.....

M senior had recently been "called out retirement" by a Brunswick police officer to deal with relentless thefts (well, relentless according to neighborhood lore). As to whether the officer recognized M senior as a retired officer, or M informed the officer that he was, I have no idea.

Going back to your question....

I would say that the responding officers A: could well have recognized M senior (recently retired, long term officer, different department-but small town). Or, it is equally possible that B: M senior quickly identified himself as a retired officer.

In either case, strongly suspect that option C: M says nothing and officers don't recognize him is pretty remote given his "call out" from retirement. Thus, my bet is that whether by A or B, the responding officer knew M's status and accordingly put on the "kidd gloves".

 

[Bodhi]

There maybe no way of telling for sure. But.....

M senior had recently been "called out retirement" by a Brunswick police officer to deal with relentless thefts (well, relentless according to neighborhood lore). As to whether the officer recognized M senior as a retired officer, or M informed the officer that he was, I have no idea.

Going back to your question....

I would say that the responding officers A: could well have recognized M senior (recently retired, long term officer, different department-but small town). Or, it is equally possible that B: M senior quickly identified himself as a retired officer.

In either case, strongly suspect that option C: M says nothing and officers don't recognize him is pretty remote given his "call out" from retirement. Thus, my bet is that whether by A or B, the responding officer knew M's status and accordingly put on the "kidd gloves".

Thanks for your insight!

 

[Cool Cats]

‘Represents That Entire Department’: Sheriff Moves to Fire Georgia Deputy Who Commented Online That Ahmaud Arbery ‘Still Got the Death Penalty’

Paul Urhahn Suspension Letter | PDF

A Georgia sheriff’s deputy in middle Georgia has been “suspended without pay pending termination” after allegedly calling murder victim Ahmaud Arbery a “criminal” on social media. In addition to labeling the slain jogger as a criminal, he is accused of smugly writing, “he still got the death penalty.”

Houston County Deputy Paul Urhahn commented on the Macon outlet’s Facebook post about the recent sentencing of Arbery’s killers, Travis McMichael, Gregory McMichael, and William Bryan. The deputy replied, “That criminal arbery still got the death penalty though.”

 

[Cool Cats]

English appears to "enjoy talking"- even before the murder. This has evidently included some "fish tales" (get it, get it) as to the value of the stolen fishing gear. Likewise, fears of negative attention following the murder and fears of possible police interest could well have contributed to further modifications.

This has resulted in a jumble of statements including what it means to truly converse with somebody, the value of the stolen items, and who the suspects were.

Shortly after the murder, E denied speaking to about anything- totally shocked and horrified about the events. Later, he admitted that he might of had a conversation with M senior that could have included thefts- but the conversation was not "meaningful".

Likewise, the value of the purported fishing gear has evidently changed several times. Was it 6K or 2.5K, or a higher number?

Were E's suspected culprits contractors? Were the suspects really and truly the white couple holding a small bag? Or....Was the main person of interest at one time a black male with extensive tattoos on both arms? (No, of course not- never! Well... at least now- wink, nod). Did the suspect list became more uhmm.... "inclusive" as time went on?

This will affect what he says:

Owner of house Ahmaud Arbery purportedly entered before shooting is getting threats

English has received death threats since the arrests, his attorney said in an interview Monday night, speaking on behalf of her client. She said English and his wife are "heartsick" for Arbery's parents.

His dream home is under construction in Brunswick, Georgia. But English said it is unlikely that he and his family will ever move in once it is complete.

"Ahmaud did not take anything from the construction site," the family's lawyers said in a statement. "He did not cause any damage to the property. He remained for a brief period of time and was not instructed by anyone to leave but rather left on his own accord to continue his jog. Ahmaud's actions at this empty home under construction were in no way a felony under Georgia law."

 

[Cryptic]

This will affect what he says:

Owner of house Ahmaud Arbery purportedly entered before shooting is getting threats

English has received death threats since the arrests, his attorney said in an interview Monday night, speaking on behalf of her client. She said English and his wife are "heartsick" for Arbery's parents.

His dream home is under construction in Brunswick, Georgia. But English said it is unlikely that he and his family will ever move in once it is complete.

I am not surprised about the death threats.

I cant decide whether I feel sorry for him as he did not mean for anybody to get killed over his theft concerns and had nothing to do with the confrontation.

Or, feel that he contributed to build up with fish tales regarding the value of purportedly stolen fishing gear told to an audience that included the dimwitted and the vigilante prone.

I don't know if you are religious, but there is a concept that sin (possibly say, telling seemingly harmless fish tales about theft) can "snowball" and "ricochet" in ways that we cannot foresee. This could be one of those instances.

I know that I have told fish tales- though not about theft. Likewise, I have acted on fish tales told to me (not as a vigilante), but by making an ethics complaint against a coach based on info not entirely true.

The whole episode in Brunswick just gives me pause to think and pray.

 

[Cool Cats]

I am not surprised about the death threats.

I cant decide whether I feel sorry for him as he did not mean for anybody to get killed over his theft concerns and had nothing to do with the confrontation.

Or, feel that he contributed to build up with fish tales regarding the value of purportedly stolen fishing gear told to an audience that included the dimwitted and the vigilante prone.

I don't know if you are religious, but there is a concept that sin (possibly say, telling seemingly harmless fish tales about theft) can "snowball" and "ricochet" in ways that we cannot foresee. This could be one of those instances.

I know that I have told fish tales- though not about theft. Likewise, I have acted on fish tales told to me (not as a vigilante), but by making an ethics complaint against a coach based on info not entirely true.

The whole episode in Brunswick just gives me pause to think and pray.

When he found out he had trespassers/lookers on his property he watched the property through the security cameras but the mistake he made was not putting up a simple barrier with no trespassing signs.

As soon as he saw people coming around he had a minimal obligation in my opinion to deter onlookers.

I think one reason people are irritated with him is that he just "let" his property sit unprotected becoming a neighborhood nuisance. People next to the property didn't feel safe letting their kids play.

He was irresponsible I think. Just let the neighborhood deal with it instead of doing more himself.

He could have even put on a door with a lock. People were going through the front door.

 

[Cryptic]

As soon as he saw people coming around he had a minimal obligation in my opinion to deter onlookers.

I think one reason people are irritated with him is that he just "let" his property sit unprotected becoming a neighborhood nuisance. People next to the property didn't feel safe letting their kids play.

He was irresponsible I think. Just let the neighborhood deal with it instead of doing more himself.

I agree, he had an obligation to at least attempt to keep people out and not create an attractive nuisance.

As to whether the neighbors truly did not feel safe letting their children out, I think that could be part of the neighbor legend n' lore- similar to the feelings of relentless thefts and the purported theft of high value fishing gear.

At the end of the day, there were not alot of people entering the property caught on video- maybe say seven. Of these, two were kids from the neighborhood.

"M junior's" leaving a pistol in an unlocked car to get stolen posed far more danger to the neighborhood than the property being an attractive nuisance.

 

[kaen]

This will affect what he says:

Owner of house Ahmaud Arbery purportedly entered before shooting is getting threats

English has received death threats since the arrests, his attorney said in an interview Monday night, speaking on behalf of her client. She said English and his wife are "heartsick" for Arbery's parents.

His dream home is under construction in Brunswick, Georgia. But English said it is unlikely that he and his family will ever move in once it is complete.

"Ahmaud did not take anything from the construction site," the family's lawyers said in a statement. "He did not cause any damage to the property. He remained for a brief period of time and was not instructed by anyone to leave but rather left on his own accord to continue his jog. Ahmaud's actions at this empty home under construction were in no way a felony under Georgia law."

With all due respect, I will go by the words that English used when he was under oath for the deposition. The death threats were in May 2020 when the story broke. His deposition was last August or September. He had told the cops before the murder that all he wanted was for Mr. Arbery to stop coming by. And, that he didn't believe that Mr. Arbery was the thief of his boating goods. People do all kinds of talking until they are under oath then they know that a perjury charge could come their way if they are not truthful or exaggerate. The lawyers statement is consistent with what he told the police prior as well.

 

[CP244]

I agree with your observations that the homeowner's actions were not consistent with his claimed state of alarm regarding the thefts.

My wish for a symbolic criminal sentence is centered on the homeowner telling neighbors, including McMichael senior that 20K worth of wishing gear had been stolen from the house. Naturally, he suspected a black trespasser, though not the victim per se as an individual.

Hearing what are, in all probability, false tales of large scale theft, could well have pushed the McMichaels even further towards vigilantism.

But.... for better or for worse, our Roman law legal system does not support such charges short of the homeowner ordering a violent confrontation. In Roman law, an action is legal or it is not. Likewise, a defendant either committed an illegal action, or he did not. No middle ground.

As a trivia side note, Napoleonic law does allow criminal charges in cases like this as it requires responsible actions. If one does not, they can be to a lesser degree responsible for a chain of events. In this case, responsible citizens dont tell vigilante inclined dimwits false tales of large scale theft- then express inconsistent concerns about certain individuals.

I don't believe that story about $20,000 of fishing gear. Why would anyone leave that in an open boat parked on an unoccupied half built dwelling?