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

[tlcya]

The case has already consumed three district attorneys. Two recusing themselves, a third admitting it had become too big to handle.

Now an Atlanta area district attorney, Joyette Holmes, becomes DA number four. Holmes made history last year when the Republican was sworn in as Cobb County's first African American district attorney.

Cobb County prosecutor assigned in Arbery case focused on moving case forward

 

[tlcya]

Gough on Monday asked the attorneys for the Arbery family not to pursue charges against Bryan.

"Mr. Bryan is not your enemy," Gough said. "Please stop, if not for the sake of my client's family, then for the sake of the Arbery family and the cause you fight for."

"Killing off the star witness for the prosecution will not help bring Ahmaud's killers to justice," he added.

Attorney says Ahmaud Arbery's family wants man who filmed fatal shooting arrested as his attorney says lie detector test proves he didn't participate - CNN

 

[tlcya]

Holmes is a native of Valdosta and graduated from the University of Georgia, where she earned dual bachelor's degrees in both psychology and criminal justice. She then attended law school at the Baltimore School of Law in Maryland. She is the the first African American to serve as Cobb County District Attorney.

Holmes is also a board member of both the Cobb Community Foundation and MUST Ministries.

"She’s an extremely gifted person that has excelled at every opportunity that she’s been given, and yet she just conveys this amazing humility and grace that just embodies who she is,” MUST Ministries CEO Ike Reighard told the Marietta Daily Journal earlier this year.

Who Is Joyette Holmes, The New Prosecutor In The Ahmaud Arbery Case?

About the District Attorney | Cobb County Georgia

 

[ilovewings]

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

you are the juror the defense hopes and prays for

 

[Hope4More]

Gough on Monday asked the attorneys for the Arbery family not to pursue charges against Bryan.

"Mr. Bryan is not your enemy," Gough said. "Please stop, if not for the sake of my client's family, then for the sake of the Arbery family and the cause you fight for."

"Killing off the star witness for the prosecution will not help bring Ahmaud's killers to justice," he added.

Attorney says Ahmaud Arbery's family wants man who filmed fatal shooting arrested as his attorney says lie detector test proves he didn't participate - CNN

As Mr. Gough, Esquire knows, lie detector tests are meaningless. Well, other than going that route as a cheap & transparent media ploy.

Roddy could use a more competent attorney, IMO. Gough's current defense argument amounts to this: Roddy wasn't involved with or aware of the neighborhood's collective or individual Catch the Trespasser efforts.

He was just minding his own business when he looked up to see a black man he didn't recognize being pursued by 2 neighbors he did. He could have called 911. He could have taken no action at all- clearly his neighbors weren't in any danger.

Instead, he jumped into his truck and freely joined in the pursuit and attempts to trap AA, who he didn't recognize, and without ever asking GM or TM, "hey, why are you armed and going after this guy?"

And, wordlessly, soundlessly, Roddy the innocent bystander (selectively) began video-taping only when the trap was fully laid, and kept on taping as he watched a man he knew nothing about be shot 3 times then fall to the ground. Still taping, hands completely steady. Soundlessly. Not even an deep intake of breath or a holy s-hit.

IMO, Gough's narrative, even if accepted as truth, condemns, not exonerates Roddy. And his threat that Roddy's arrest would "kill" the State's star witness is not only incredibly tone deaf, but ridiculously untrue.

 

[Hope4More]

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.

There is no possibility the taze video will be introduced into evidence at any trial relating to AA's death, no matter the charges or strategies/arguments chosen by either defense or State, and no matter what judges sit on the bench.

Legally, the video is 100% and entirely irrelevant. It's not a question whether it's content is too prejudicial to introduce. It's that the content has zero probative value. The VICTIM will not be on trial, at least not in any courtroom.

What he said to cops who harassed then tried to taze him 3 years before he was killed is irrelevant. The video wouldn't be introduced even if it was Robert Lee Rash doing the tazing, unless Robert Lee Rash is arrested and put on trial, and even then, a judge wouldn't be likely to allow it in.

 

[sds71]

BRUNSWICK, Ga.- Kevin Gough, public defender of the Brunswick Judicial Circuit, was dismissed Thursday a day after one his former assistants pleaded guilty in Macon to a federal charge of selling methamphetamine and oxycodone, court records show.
Brunswick Public Defender fired amid allegations | firstcoastnews.com

 

[MikeF]

It was his second cousin, and he said the opposite.

"Walker said his cousin “was slow as molasses, but he would hit you” on the field."

'He was a beautiful soul': Lions' Walker on killing of cousin Ahmaud Arbery

Actually it was his uncle that said it.

Arbery’s uncle told the Brunswick News that Arbery was amazingly fast and agile. And the police report suggests that — despite being on foot — he evaded the McMichaels for a time. George McMichael claims his son tried to cut off Arbery with his truck, but that he turned around and ran in the other direction.

The killing of Ahmaud Arbery, an unarmed black jogger in Georgia, explained

 

[kaen]

As Mr. Gough, Esquire knows, lie detector tests are meaningless. Well, other than going that route as a cheap & transparent media ploy.

Roddy could use a more competent attorney, IMO. Gough's current defense argument amounts to this: Roddy wasn't involved with or aware of the neighborhood's collective or individual Catch the Trespasser efforts.

He was just minding his own business when he looked up to see a black man he didn't recognize being pursued by 2 neighbors he did. He could have called 911. He could have taken no action at all- clearly his neighbors weren't in any danger.

Instead, he jumped into his truck and freely joined in the pursuit and attempts to trap AA, who he didn't recognize, and without ever asking GM or TM, "hey, why are you armed and going after this guy?"

And, wordlessly, soundlessly, Roddy the innocent bystander (selectively) began video-taping only when the trap was fully laid, and kept on taping as he watched a man he knew nothing about be shot 3 times then fall to the ground. Still taping, hands completely steady. Soundlessly. Not even an deep intake of breath or a holy s-hit.

IMO, Gough's narrative, even if accepted as truth, condemns, not exonerates Roddy. And his threat that Roddy's arrest would "kill" the State's star witness is not only incredibly tone deaf, but ridiculously untrue.

This man needs a competent lawyer. The CNN interview was a disaster. The cancelled press conference was one more major mis-step. His continued representation by this man is astounding.

 

[firebird]

Actually


Actually it was his uncle that said it.



The killing of Ahmaud Arbery, an unarmed black jogger in Georgia, explained

So two diametrically opposed statements by family members. Interesting.

 

[firebird]

you are the juror the defense hopes and prays for

I'm okay with that.

 

[Hope4More]

BRUNSWICK, Ga.- Kevin Gough, public defender of the Brunswick Judicial Circuit, was dismissed Thursday a day after one his former assistants pleaded guilty in Macon to a federal charge of selling methamphetamine and oxycodone, court records show.
Brunswick Public Defender fired amid allegations | firstcoastnews.com

LE harassing and trying to use force against AA because of suspected drug use (based entirely on where AA parked his car that AM) gets more ironic by the day.

 

[Cryptic]

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.

I made a mistake in earlier posts. The crime does not need to be a felony. But...

The Georgia Supreme Court, however, has made several rulings where they directly stated that the use of force in a citizen's arrest must be proportionate to the offense.

It the use of force was disproportionate, then the citizen's arrest was illegal. Two cases included:

-could not use lethal force attempting to citizens arrest a shoplifter.
-could not use a baseball bat on an after the fact burglar in the course of a citizens arrest.

My guess is that the prosecution will apply the Georgia Supreme Court rulings and state that chasing, cornering and confronting an after the fact trespasser at gun point is also disproportionate force. Therefore, the citizen's arrest was illegal.

 

[Cappuccino]

I made a mistake in earlier posts. The crime does not need to be a felony. But...

The Georgia Supreme Court, however, has made several rulings where they directly stated that the use of force in a citizen's arrest must be proportionate to the offense:

-could not use lethal force attempting to citizens arrest a shoplifter.
-could not use a baseball bat on an after the fact burglar.

My guess is that the prosecution will apply the Georgia Supreme Court rulings and state that chasing, cornering and confronting an after the fact trespasser at gun point is also disproportionate force. Therefore, the citizen's arrest was illegal.

They didn't make a citizens arrest though. I don't think their defence will involve citizens arrest laws, it will be a self defense case for TM, and a straight forward didn't break any laws for GM.

 

[Cryptic]

They didn't make a citizens arrest though. I don't think their defence will involve citizens arrest laws, it will be a self defense case for TM, and a straight forward didn't break any laws for GM.

They appeared to have gone with a Citizens Arrest gone bad presentation with past DAs. One DA even cited the citizens arrest law in the decision not to prosecute.

Though they could change their approach and argue pure self defense, I think a Citizens Arrest gone bad argument has more potential from the defense point of view.

It is hard to argue pure self defense when the defendants initiated a chase, repeated attempts to corner, and an armed confrontation- that is all caught on video.

Meanwhile Citizens Arrest gone bad gives them a valid reason for pursuing the individual and a reason for confronting him. Thus, it might have more spin potential.

Maybe, GM: "I had a lawful reason in the chase, cornering and confrontation. I also recognized AA from before and knew he had carried a weapon in the past. I knew he might resist an arrest violently." TM then acted under my direction in making the arrest.

 

[Hope4More]

I just caught this detail from a statement by Roddy's (ex) attorney Gough:

Roddy showed his video to LE at the scene. Later, he handed over his cellphone with the video when he was being questioned.

According to Gough, it is his understanding that LE made a copy of the video before giving Roddy his phone back an hour later.

Link: Brunswick Public Defender fired amid allegations

What are the odds that LE made a forensic copy of what was on Roddy's phone, including that video, within ONE HOUR? Especially given that DA Barnhill had apparently decided to give GM and TM a free pass from the git-go, and that he categorized Roddy as a witness only?

If LE handed Roddy his phone back without making a forensic copy, that might matter a great deal further down the road. It's even possible that attorneys for GM and TM will argue the video shouldn't be admissible in court, because there wouldn't be any way of proving that the video as is hasn't been edited, changed, altered.

Sure hope LE and DA Barnhill weren't so negligent as to provide this kind of legal opening to the defense of alleged murderers.

 

[Matic]

I just caught this detail from a statement by Roddy's (ex) attorney Gough:

Roddy showed his video to LE at the scene. Later, he handed over his cellphone with the video when he was being questioned.

According to Gough, it is his understanding that LE made a copy of the video before giving Roddy his phone back an hour later.

Link: Brunswick Public Defender fired amid allegations

What are the odds that LE made a forensic copy of what was on Roddy's phone, including that video, within ONE HOUR? Especially given that DA Barnhill had apparently decided to give GM and TM a free pass from the git-go, and that he categorized Roddy as a witness only?

If LE handed Roddy his phone back without making a forensic copy, that might matter a great deal further down the road. It's even possible that attorneys for GM and TM will argue the video shouldn't be admissible in court, because there wouldn't be any way of proving that the video as is hasn't been edited, changed, altered.

Sure hope LE and DA Barnhill weren't so negligent as to provide this kind of legal opening to the defense of alleged murderers.

Mini usb cable and 5 minutes to transfer the original video to a laptop.

 

[Reasonable & Just]

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

Echoing your statement - And he shouldn't have backed down . He was unarmed, they were armed, and they were not law enforcement. He was being threatened. Put your own young adult child (son, daughter, regardless of skin color) in that situation. Would you really expect your kid to just submit to whatever a bunch of armed men want? I was taught to never allow myself to be taken to another location. They had guns and vehicles - who knows what they had in mind? Is that the culture we want - highwaymen get to have their way because they are armed? And do we really want highwaymen chasing any of us down...just because? Is that defensible?

 

[Hope4More]

They appeared to have gone with a Citizens Arrest gone bad presentation with past DAs. One DA even cited the citizens arrest law in the decision not to prosecute.

Though they could change their approach and argue pure self defense, I think a Citizens Arrest gone bad argument has more potential from the defense point of view.

It is hard to argue pure self defense when the defendants initiated a chase, repeated attempts to corner, and an armed confrontation- that is all caught on video.

Meanwhile Citizens Arrest gone bad gives them a valid reason for pursuing the individual and a reason for confronting him. Thus, it might have more spin potential.

Maybe, GM: "I had a lawful reason in the chase, cornering and confrontation. I also recognized AA from before and knew he had carried a weapon in the past. I knew he might resist an arrest violently." TM then acted under my direction in making the arrest.

They didn't make a citizens arrest though. I don't think their defence will involve citizens arrest laws, it will be a self defense case for TM, and a straight forward didn't break any laws for GM.

There will be different arguments made at different times, and they may vary by defendant.

1. They can (and undoubtedly will) try to avoid trial by arguing for immunity from prosecution in a pre-trial hearing. The one and only argument presented in an immunity hearing is self-defense, based on GA's stand your ground law.

If a judge rules (in separate cases) that TM and GM were justified in using the force they did and to defend themselves, they will not be put on trial for felony murder.

2. If the case against either or both goes to trial, having failed in a bid for immunity, it won't matter to the State's case if either or both defendants go with a strategy solely based on self-defense.

Each defendant will have to provide an explanation for why they armed themselves and pursued AA as they did. There isn't even a half-arsed case to be made for self defense without accounting for how each defendant ended up in a situation where they felt so threatened by AA they trapped him with trucks and in TM's case, wielded a shotgun BEFORE the victim was within yards of him, then used it.

3. Both gave recorded statements to LE and to DA Barnhill that they pursued AA in order to DETAIN him. You say potato I say patato. Whether or not either defendant uses the term "citizens arrest," what will be argued is whether or not either had a justifiable/legal reason to pursue AA in order to detain him.

And at least some part of what the State argues will be based on GA law relating to the rights of "private parties" to give chase to or try to apprehend a fellow citizen. Aka- citizen arrest law.

 

[Nadi]

Actually it was his uncle that said it.

The killing of Ahmaud Arbery, an unarmed black jogger in Georgia, explained

I'm not surprised we get 2 different accounts of his speed from an Elite NFL athlete and from another family member. NFL Safeties are generally Fast fast. In the cousin's opinion AA, even if considered fast by normal standards, would be likely considered slow. All IMO