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

[oviedo]

@wgazawayWTOC

I highlighted previously how the incident reports and surveillance videos don’t show a felony happened. Georgians need direct knowledge of a felony for a lawful citizen arrest.

911 calls, incident reports shed light on previous issues in Glynn County neighborhood

guess we just need to repost this every couple pages IMO

 

[branmuffin]

It's been posted repeatedly, with the links, that you don't have to witness a felony to do a citizen's arrest.

The definition of 'immediate knowledge' is 'without proof'.

 

[Cryptic]

I'm thinking he may pull a Linda Kasabian and testify against the McMs to get immunity and a brand new life. Although he's going to have to trade in his Howdy Doody look.

He apparently wants to do just that. But.... he could well have some trouble with his sales pitch:

- The GBI emphasized that the murder charges were placed because the facts truly supported them. The facts are based on SM messaging.

This greatly reduces his ability to deny what he said in regards to planning, or that a witness is taking things he might of said out of context, exaggerating etc.

R needs to convince the DA that he has something that she needs to buy and that he warrants a softer approach. That might be very hard to do.

As for the Howdy Doody look..... I would keep it. A slightly confused, but laid back coastal look might compliment defense arguments that the MM's pressured or coerced R into directly participating .

 

[branmuffin]

He apparently want to do just that.

But.... he could well have some trouble with his sales pitch:

- The GBI emphasized that the murder charges were placed because teh facts truly supported them. The facts are based on SM messaging.

This greatly reduces his ability to deny he say, affirmed the need for, planned, and participated in a "no limits response". Likewise, SM messaging reduces his ability claim that a hostile witness is taking things he might of said out of context, or exaggerating.

So, R needs to convince the DA that he has something she needs and that he warrants a softer approach (perhaps because his role has been exaggerated). That might be very hard to do.

As for the Howdy Doody look..... I would keep it. A slightly confused, but honest, laid back coastal guy look might compliment defense arguments that the MM's pressured or coerced R into directly participating .

I am aware of SM activity that suggests many worked in concert but I've only seen some screen grabs. I guess most have been taken down or deleted. I'd like to think there are some members of the community who weren't on board with the plan.

 

[firebird]

The definition of 'immediate knowledge' is 'without proof'.

Not sure what you're saying here.

 

[firebird]

guess we just need to repost this every couple pages IMO

Again...that is completely wrong. The incident absolutely does not need to be a felony, and the knowledge needed is "immediate knowledge" -- which includes a telephone call with a contemporaneous witness, for example. I posted the links to the statute and the case law previously. I guess I need to repost them every couple of pages.


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

 

[Niner]

Friday, May 22nd:
*Initial Appearance Hearing (@ am ET) - GA – Ahmaud Marquez Arbery (25) (Feb. 23, 2020, shot while jogging in Satilla Shores neighborhood, Brunswick) - *William “Roddie” Bryan, Jr. (50) arrested & charged (5/21/20) with felony murder & criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment.
5/22/20 Update: initial appearance.

 

[Hope4More]

IMO, there is no way this group of armed men in vehicles were trying to make a "citizen's arrest" - I think most know exactly what happened here - 3 against 1? armed v. unarmed? vehicles v. on foot? justice is coming
JMO

1. Based on whatever evidence they uncovered, the GBI is confident Roddy's involvement was intentional, not accidental.

2. Intentional involvement IMO means Roddy also had a reason in mind for video-taping the pursuit. He kept on filming, even when he rounded the corner and saw TM standing in the road holding a shotgun. He kept on filming, with steady hands and silently, even after he heard the first shot, saw TM and AA wrestling over the shotgun, heard two more shots, saw AA stagger and drop. GM yelled "Travis!" about the time of the first shot and can be seen dropping his cellphone then readying his gun.

Roddy? Not a peep. No getting out of his truck. Just continuous recording of the armed confrontation he and the MMs had been working towards. IMO it seems fairly obvious that if Roddy chose to be involved in the "pursuit," he didn't make that video to document TM or GM committing a crime.

Equally obvious, IMO, is that Roddy voluntarily told LE about the video and played it for at least one LEO, while still at the scene, not because he was shocked by what had happened, but because he thought the video was exculpatory. As in,"proof" that TM had justification for killing AA. The same reason GM allegedly had for sharing the video with his neighbors.

IMO all of the above suggests it is more probable than not that the reason Roddy had for recording the video was he knew it was either likely or a certainty AA was going to be shot. And his role, besides cutting off AA's escape, was to document that one of both of the MMs' use of deadly force was "justifiable."

3. When the MMs first roared off, armed, in pursuit of AA, GM was in the passenger seat as TM drove. According to GM's own account, it wasn't until after the attempts to trap AA on Buford Rd failed that he exited the truck and climbed into it's open bed in the back. It was a choice, and one made right smack in the middle of a "hot" pursuit, with AA still eluding all 3 men and 2 trucks.

Why did GM get into the back of his truck?

Until yesterday, I believed it most probable that GM really did intend to chase down AA in order to play cop and to detain him until LE arrived. The timing of his 911 call was one piece of evidence I thought supported that conclusion: that he waited to call because he wanted to play hero cop himself, and called when he was sure they had AA trapped.

Another possible reason for the timing of GM's call is that the 3 of them had just succeeded in setting up their armed confrontation with AA, and GM called 911 to document their justification for whatever happened next. IMO, it's probable shots were going to be fired no matter how the confrontation unfolded, and the only surprise for the MMs was that AA fought back. Same outcome....

 

[Boxer]

Again...that is completely wrong. The incident absolutely does not need to be a felony, and the knowledge needed is "immediate knowledge" -- which includes a telephone call with a contemporaneous witness, for example. I posted the links to the statute and the case law previously. I guess I need to repost them every couple of pages.


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

Either way its overkill to chase, block and bring weapons and brandish weapons to effect a capture, does not match for the "immediate knowledge" they had.
They thought they had their neighborhood thief and acted according to their rumor steeped suspicions of other crimes.
Since the community was trying to defraud insurance companies by not accurately reporting crimes in the Saltillo area to keep the rates low they developed a narrative among themselves that led to attempting to falsely imprison Arbery for the for "multiple thefts."
Once people get the blame bug about missing things, the drama of "it was stolen" is irresistible and the narrative flies.
Some things might have been stolen, some lost, who knows since there was group deception, insurance fraud going on AND a scapegoat identified.

 

[firebird]

~sbm

Either way its overkill to chase, block and bring weapons and brandish weapons to effect a capture, does not match for the "immediate knowledge" they had.
They thought they had their neighborhood thief and acted according to their rumor steeped suspicions of other crimes.
Since the community was trying to defraud insurance companies by not accurately reporting crimes in the Saltillo area to keep the rates low they developed a narrative among themselves that led to attempting to falsely imprison Arbery for the for "multiple thefts."
Once people get the blame bug about missing things, the drama of "it was stolen" is irresistible and the narrative flies.
Some things might have been stolen, some lost, who knows since there was group deception, insurance fraud going on AND a scapegoat identified.

I'm just correcting incorrect information that keeps being repeated, not arguing about it.

 

[Boxer]

2010 Georgia Code
ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS
§ 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest
O.C.G.A. 17-4-60 (2010)
17-4-60. Grounds for arrest

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

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE :: CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS :: ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS :: § 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest

 

[branmuffin]

Not sure what you're saying here.

What immediate knowledge did Roddie have?

 

[MsBetsy]

It's been posted repeatedly, with the links, that you don't have to witness a felony to do a citizen's arrest.

We already know that none of the men had direct knowledge that the victim had committed a felony.

"Knowing" that Arbery was seen trespassing does not warrant a citizens arrest with the use of deadly weapons.

Imo

 

[firebird]

2010 Georgia Code
ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS
§ 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest
O.C.G.A. 17-4-60 (2010)
17-4-60. Grounds for arrest

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

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE :: CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS :: ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS :: § 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest

"If the offense is a felony"...Otherwise "A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge." The "offense" does not need to be a felony. One of the two cases I posted specifically addresses this issue as well. Not sure how it can be any more clear.

 

[firebird]

We already know that none of the men had direct knowledge that the victim had committed a felony.

"Knowing" that Arbery was seen trespassing does not warrant a citizens arrest with the use of deadly weapons.

Imo

Like I said, I'm just correcting an error that keeps being repeated. No sense in saying Arbery was not committing a felony if he didn't need to be for a citizen's arrest to be made.

eta: and we do not know that none of them had "immediate" knowledge -- which is not the same as direct (but we also don't know whether any of them had direct knowledge).

 

[firebird]

What immediate knowledge did Roddie have?

We don't know exactly what immediate knowledge he had, but it sure seems like someone who saw Arbery in English's house told him about it -- which would be sufficient under the statute and the case law I posted.

 

[Boxer]

"If the offense is a felony"...Otherwise "A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge." The "offense" does not need to be a felony. One of the two cases I posted specifically addresses this issue as well. Not sure how it can be any more clear.

The word "otherwise" is not in the code.

 

[firebird]

The word "otherwise" is not in the code.

It doesn't need to be. Read the case at the link I provided.

 

[MikeF]

He apparently wants to do just that. But.... he could well have some trouble with his sales pitch:

- The GBI emphasized that the murder charges were placed because the facts truly supported them. The facts are based on SM messaging.

This greatly reduces his ability to deny what he said in regards to planning, or that a witness is taking things he might of said out of context, exaggerating etc.

R needs to convince the DA that he has something that she needs to buy and that he warrants a softer approach. That might be very hard to do.

As for the Howdy Doody look..... I would keep it. A slightly confused, but laid back coastal look might compliment defense arguments that the MM's pressured or coerced R into directly participating .

Remind me if I'm ever going to commit a crime, to not do it when the country is shut down and my wife has to give me a bowl haircut to appear on TV.

 

[Boxer]

It doesn't need to be. Read the case at the link I provided.

I cannot find the link you are talking about, do you mind reposting. What they did is clearly against the law.