GA - Ahmaud Arbery, 25, jogger, fatally shot by former PD and son, Brunswick, Feb 2020 #2

[Hope4More]

WOW. I will never understand people being so aggressive towards LE.

Said in defense of a cop who used completely unnecessary force on an unarmed man who had complied with every harassing command. That GC cops like them haven't been held accountable is precisely why their police force as a whole is so corrupt and their gross abuses of power still unchecked.

Thankfully, the publicity about AA's murder and murderers & enablers is shining a great big bright light that is revealing miscreants at all levels of power in that county. May every single one of them be brought to justice.

 

[Hope4More]

jmo, but I don't see that taser video being "helpful" to the prosecution at all.

Of course it isn't /won't be helpful to the prosecution. Nor to the defense. The video is about completely unrelated events that occurred 3 years before GM and TM's gave LE actual grounds to make an arrest. On aggravated assault and felony murder charges, not bad faith fictions.

 

[MikeF]

jmo, but I don't see that taser video being "helpful" to the prosecution at all.

I don't either because he got agitated and the officers also got agitated. It was like a moment of "we" all screwed up at the moment, and the outcome worked out for everyone.

 

[firebird]

Of course it isn't /won't be helpful to the prosecution. Nor to the defense. The video is about completely unrelated events that occurred 3 years before GM and TM's gave LE actual grounds to make an arrest. On aggravated assault and felony murder charges, not bad faith fictions.

I do think it will help the defense, if it comes in. jmo

 

[firebird]

It has been brought up several times; usually by those attempting to justify his killing by the McMs.

IMO, how about we concentrate on the past of those accused murders? Failed at policing, lost powers of arrest, ignored and did not chase down the many white subjects also seen trespassing etc etc etc ...

You see, it is their ultimate decisions and actions that will be on trial.

You seem to be content trialling the past of the victim. Whose past has zero to do with the events of the day in question.

I think his past has everything to do with the events of the day. The question is will any of it be admissible. jmo

 

[kaen]

So he was on probation at the time of this vid and they didn't contact his probation officer? But he violated his probation in 2018 and was arrested for shoplifting? I don't get this.
Driving with no licence or proof of insurance is not a violation of your probation? It would have been a ticket, no?

Shoplifting would be a violation of probation for sure.

When he was arrested in 2018 for shoplifting, did they extend his probation then? So it's possible that he could of been on probation in Feb 2020 maybe?

Mr. Arbery was killed in February. His status for probation, valid DL, and any other legal issue is a moot point. The accused killers did not have access to his records and did not know his name when they killed him. Mr. Arbery's past played no role in the following and confronting that occurred on that day because he was not a known person to them. I am not sure why we continue to discuss Mr. Arbery's past actions. The only actions that count are the ones that occurred that day-- the actions of Mr. Arbery and the men accused of killing him.

The former officer accused in the killing Mr. Arbery had training in the law so his actions of pursuing a person to detain them is legal only if the person saw or had first hand knowledge of a felony. This is important to discuss because this man got a gun, told his son to get a gun but had no direct knowledge. They were not functioning within the law but outside of it.

The two men (as videoed by the third who followed them as they pursued Mr. Arbery) had guns drawn as Mr. Arbery ran toward their vehicle. Where was Mr. Arbery going to run if he was headed in that direction and they parked in the middle of the road? By their truck. Why get out of the safety of the vehicle? Why ride in the bed of the truck other than to have a clear shot if things got out of control? If the intent was to ask him questions, did they need guns drawn as they saw no felony and did not see that Mr. Arbery was armed and threatening them? We go back to the original issue that he committed no felony and their actions were illegal. They had no right to try to detain him.

Much is made of Mr. Arbery's decision to run toward the truck or cut to the left. Mr. Arbery had no idea who these men were. He was being followed as he ran. We can all conjecture and say what we would do or what he could have done. However, Mr. Arbery and his decisions to run to the right of the truck and become engaged with a man with a gun will never be understood because these men killed him. He has no voice and we won't have his answer. Why didn't he stop at a neighbors? Why didn't he just let them apprehend him? Where was his cell? The answer is simple. This man is a victim. He didn't have to stop for these men. He was running down the road. They had no authority. He had committed no felony where they had a right to hold/detain him. I doubt that he thought he would be killed for jogging.

The police were called and en route. Why try to take the law into your own hands? The accused killers have a lot to answer for.

Mr. Arbery's status may be things we never understand. However, his status did not play into the incident that day. He was not fleeing from police officers. He did not brandish a weapon. He did not commit a felony (or attempt a felony) that either of these accused killers saw or had direct knowledge of.

I am willing to bet that Mr. Arbery would have welcomed the opportunity to live and run through the neighborhood another day. Further, I am willing to bet that if Mr. Arbery had been stopped by the police and told that he was trespassing and that he should not do it again that Mr. Arbery probably would not have stopped for water or to explore again. Lastly, I am willing to bet if the police had done this stop they would have looked up his record and still let him off with a "this is trespass and you may not do it" with a possible ticket if the home owner was willing to press charges. And he would still have been alive, most likely.

JMHO.

 

[MikeF]

WOW. I will never understand people being so aggressive towards LE.

Several years ago a friend of mine got swarmed by police while walking in front of our local bar. He hadn't done anything, they just came in both directions and stopped to make an arrest. I stepped up to get the keys to his apt and within seconds was handcuffed for obstructing justice. I was in the back seat of that police car as they took him to detox, ran red lights, jerked me around verbally and then dropped me off at the sub. Once at the sub the officer who was going to take me to the jail laughed at the charges and refused to transport. Charges were dropped. Moral of the story is---LE isn't always right.

 

[Matic]

IMO, no.

I've never heard of probation, even for a lower-level felony, lasting longer than maybe 18 months.

Shoplifting, maybe 6 months.

JMO

Thank you. I appreciate it.

 

[Matic]

Said in defense of a cop who used completely unnecessary force on an unarmed man who had complied with every harassing command. That GC cops like them haven't been held accountable is precisely why their police force as a whole is so corrupt and their gross abuses of power still unchecked.

Thankfully, the publicity about AA's murder and murderers & enablers is shining a great big bright light that is revealing miscreants at all levels of power in that county. May every single one of them be brought to justice.

The 1st officer was being very friendly and curtious towards AA. He didn't give him any beef at all until AA asked could he have his ID back and quote "I wasn't even driving the car, why the fck you come over here for". and proceeds towards the officer. I ain't got Sh*t on me, why you effing wit me for?"

At 2:31, officer friendly actually lowers his voice and tries to deescalate the situation. at the point... AA approaches the officer in an aggressive manner.
It wasn't until officer billy bob entered the picture that I absolutely, 100% agree that his actions were not called for and escalated the situation.

Don't think for 1 second that I don't think that this entire law enforcement up to the judicial system of Glynn county and beyond needs to be disbanded and reformed under new leadership. ASAP! Ive already expressed my concern about this and my comment was promptly deleted by a mod because I used a term which was not acceptable.

MOO

 

[Matic]

At 1:52 in the taze/no taze vid its also noted from the dispatcher that besides the suspended license, he has a failure to appear from an incident. Violation 2-2-17.
What would that be?

 

[Matic]

Mr. Arbery was killed in February. His status for probation, valid DL, and any other legal issue is a moot point. The accused killers did not have access to his records and did not know his name when they killed him. Mr. Arbery's past played no role in the following and confronting that occurred on that day because he was not a known person to them. I am not sure why we continue to discuss Mr. Arbery's past actions. The only actions that count are the ones that occurred that day-- the actions of Mr. Arbery and the men accused of killing him.

The former officer accused in the killing Mr. Arbery had training in the law so his actions of pursuing a person to detain them is legal only if the person saw or had first hand knowledge of a felony. This is important to discuss because this man got a gun, told his son to get a gun but had no direct knowledge. They were not functioning within the law but outside of it.

The two men (as videoed by the third who followed them as they pursued Mr. Arbery) had guns drawn as Mr. Arbery ran toward their vehicle. Where was Mr. Arbery going to run if he was headed in that direction and they parked in the middle of the road? By their truck. Why get out of the safety of the vehicle? Why ride in the bed of the truck other than to have a clear shot if things got out of control? If the intent was to ask him questions, did they need guns drawn as they saw no felony and did not see that Mr. Arbery was armed and threatening them? We go back to the original issue that he committed no felony and their actions were illegal. They had no right to try to detain him.

Much is made of Mr. Arbery's decision to run toward the truck or cut to the left. Mr. Arbery had no idea who these men were. He was being followed as he ran. We can all conjecture and say what we would do or what he could have done. However, Mr. Arbery and his decisions to run to the right of the truck and become engaged with a man with a gun will never be understood because these men killed him. He has no voice and we won't have his answer. Why didn't he stop at a neighbors? Why didn't he just let them apprehend him? Where was his cell? The answer is simple. This man is a victim. He didn't have to stop for these men. He was running down the road. They had no authority. He had committed no felony where they had a right to hold/detain him. I doubt that he thought he would be killed for jogging.

The police were called and en route. Why try to take the law into your own hands? The accused killers have a lot to answer for.

Mr. Arbery's status may be things we never understand. However, his status did not play into the incident that day. He was not fleeing from police officers. He did not brandish a weapon. He did not commit a felony (or attempt a felony) that either of these accused killers saw or had direct knowledge of.

I am willing to bet that Mr. Arbery would have welcomed the opportunity to live and run through the neighborhood another day. Further, I am willing to bet that if Mr. Arbery had been stopped by the police and told that he was trespassing and that he should not do it again that Mr. Arbery probably would not have stopped for water or to explore again. Lastly, I am willing to bet if the police had done this stop they would have looked up his record and still let him off with a "this is trespass and you may not do it" with a possible ticket if the home owner was willing to press charges. And he would still have been alive, most likely.

JMHO.

Tldnr. I'll try and respond tomorrow.

 

[MikeF]

For the people who are suggesting Arbery turned and attacked Travis are you keeping in mind Arbery played football in highschool? If he wanted to cut that corner (in front of the truck) wouldn't it make more sense that he used his training and momentum on a full tackle over anything else?

 

[Falling Down]

For the people who are suggesting Arbery turned and attacked Travis are you keeping in mind Arbery played football in highschool? If he wanted to cut that corner (in front of the truck) wouldn't it make more sense that he used his training and momentum on a full tackle over anything else?

I'm going with a similar assumption.

I think he felt trapped, in a way. He very well may have made the decision to go after the 'immediate threat' that was close by.

That and I don't think Arbery would be one to 'back down from a fight', so to speak.

JMO

 

[tayaway]

I'm going with a similar assumption.

I think he felt trapped, in a way. He very well may have made the decision to go after the 'immediate threat' that was close by.

That and I don't think Arbery would be one to 'back down from a fight', so to speak.

JMO

The accused men, who were armed and in a vehicle, spent minutes intimidating the unarmed, lone pedestrian jogger, before he confronted one of them was shot and killed. Here, we don't know the ethnicity of anyone involved, and we assume that the jogger might feel his life is threatened. He reacted to protect himself.

Change that sentence to: The accused white men, who were armed and in a vehicle, spent minutes intimidating the unarmed POC, lone pedestrian jogger, before he confronted one of them and was shot and killed. As a POC, he clearly presented a threat to their lives. They shot him to protect themselves.

That people even feel obligated to justify whether AA had a right to self defense, to attack one of the aggressors, highlights the two-tiered justice system in America.

 

[oviedo]

Read the Guardian article about LE trying to taze AA. Irony abounds, given what was going on in the PD of the officers (groundlessly) suspecting AA of drug use.

Adding: AA's arms were extended out all the way on each side when that cop tried to taze him, ffs. The cop on tape, about what he saw to "justify" tazing him: "he had a wallet in his pocket. And a big coat on. And he wasn't moving fast enough."

Police tried to tase Ahmaud Arbery in 2017 incident, video shows | Ahmaud Arbery | The Guardian

CBS this morning just ran this story - wow

 

[kaen]

That had absolutely zero to do with why I asked that question. @Vern said my questions about his probation violations had zero to do with the current case.

His past has been brought up several times.
His gun charge/fleeing for which he got probation for. Again, been brought up several times by many posters.

His shoplifting charge in 2018. Brought up and discussed by many, several times.

And now the tazing/non tazing event featuring body cam footage. And the questions I posed as to whether or not he could have still been on probation. But that's not allowed to be talked about Per another member. Ok.

Your answer doesn't even make sense. I never asked about the validity of "The Gaurdian".

So I'll ask again.
Is it possible that AA could have been on probation from the 2018 shoplifting charge?

Oh, I must have misunderstood your original question. I hypothesize that The Guardian posted it just to have more video and another item for people to click. Thanks for succinctly clarifying your point. I will say I am not sure why his probation status is relevant as no one knew who he was on the day of the chase and murder. JMHO.

 

[Nadi]

Oh, I must have misunderstood your original question. I hypothesize that The Guardian posted it just to have more video and another item for people to click. Thanks for succinctly clarifying your point. I will say I am not sure why his probation status is relevant as no one knew who he was on the day of the chase and murder. JMHO.

Maybe it’s relevant in the way a rape Victim’s sexual history is relevant to some people and defence lawyers will try to destroy the victim's character. Make the trial less about the accused’s actions and more about the Victim deserving it.

 

[watergirl62]

On this point, my opinion is what you hear is his him unfastening his seatbelt because (in the yt raw video that's 43/44 seconds) at 16 seconds you hear the click, at 19 you hear what sounds like the seat belt retracting.

I will have to go re-listen for the seal belt retracting, that is a very different action from chambering a round. Appreciate the heads-up!

 

[ilovewings]

All of which has zero to do with the current case of a young man who was chased down and killed by the McMs.

That is the point. all of whatever happened in the past has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was chased down and killed by two citizens, not cops even (which would have been bad enough): two vigilantes who murdered a man doing nothing but jogging down the damn road. But make no mistake, that video from 2017 involving the incident that occurred in the park will find its way into a trial (if the judge allows it)-- the now decedent used the "F" word a lot: guaranteed to piss jurors off and take a disliking to the man. The defense's goal in this case is to dirty up the decedent using anything and everything possible to distract from the nasty horrible truth: those two chased and killed a man who was doing absolutely nothing wrong.

 

[watergirl62]

That is the point. all of whatever happened in the past has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he was chased down and killed by two citizens, not cops even (which would have been bad enough): two vigilantes who murdered a man doing nothing but jogging down the damn road. But make no mistake, that video from 2017 involving the incident that occurred in the park will find its way into a trial (if the judge allows it)-- the now decedent used the "F" word a lot: guaranteed to piss jurors off and take a disliking to the man. The defense's goal in this case is to dirty up the decedent using anything and everything possible to distract from the nasty horrible truth: those two chased and killed a man who was doing absolutely nothing wrong.

If the judge allows it.

Character defamation is a two-way street and is nothing new, it comes with the territory.

I think the video adds perspective to what brought us here, in terms of all of the involved players and their associates. There is some history here that explains so very much, IMO. Big picture: I think it may have everything to do with it (in terms of motive). There are other suggestions here, being that Ahmaud's disposition was well-known to LE after this video. JMO

My parents got death threats for being the first white family in the neighborhood to sell to an African-American family. That was in 1970. And yet here we are, 50 years later. NOW I suspect they (GM&TM) not only did not want Ahmaud in their neighborhood, but they also knew he would become aggressive when cornered. My take.