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

[Falling Down]

there some mention of it being one night "several" weeks prior in a couple of articles, no date specific is given and interestingly enough it was not reported until the day of the shooting, when police arrived to the scene of Arbery's shooting on February 23rd.

I find that very telling. So many reports of a trespasser on the property going back into August 2019, but this particular theft of valuable goods was not worth reporting to police until after a man was shot during an alleged attempted citizen's arrest. It appears the law in GA allows for a citizen's arrest if the citizen witnessed a felony.

the 11th hour after Arbery's death report of stolen a while back $2500 worth of tools is not credible to me. GM knew darn well the rules on citizen's arrest. The were following and allegedly trying to arrest a trespasser (misdemeanor).

Them, most conveniently, right after they shot Arbery, a never before reported previous theft occurred which by all accounts was not witnessed and the 911 calls indicated previous trespassing incidents caught on camera showed an unidentifiable individual. Also IMO quite conveniently the value of the misc fishing gear stolen was worth enough to be considered a felony.

I have drawn my own conclusions about what is behind all of the above that.

Other's mileage may very.

Even if this guy who was killed "wasn't supposed to be there" or what have you, that's trespassing, and that's that. If someone is asked to leave a property then that's a higher charge, but still not a big deal so long as a property or personal (civil rights) crime has not occurred.

Just imagine where we and LE would be right now with no video.

JMO

 

[firebird]

I can't think of one instance how a man's death could be considered justifiable based on a prior random burglary in the neighbourhood. I would like someone to give me a for instance.

Because once we were broken into. While we were asleep. The intruders lifted the sliding glass door out of its frame and came in through the back garden. They stole our TV and stereo equipment. They tried to steal more but my husband's tangle of cords probably was too much for them. They also stole my purse. Which was hanging on the bannister at the top of the stairs. We were sleeping. We didn't wake up. Our dog didn't wake up (although at that time, he was going deaf). If they had come into our bedroom they could have done whatever they wanted to if murder was on their minds. It wouldn't have mattered if we'd had a gun; we would have been toast.

We only figured out in the morning what had happened because when I went downstairs the drapes were blowing in the breeze through the sliding glass doors. Minutes later, a cop knocked on our door with my purse in his hand. He'd found it on a street several blocks over.

Even after that unnerving experience, neither my husband nor I ever considered getting a weapon to protect ourselves. I am a big believer in weapons are the instigators of violence rather than an amelioration of violence.

So I'd really like you to explain how killing a
human being that you 'suspect' of a petty crime is justified.

Their side, as I understand it, is that they didn't kill him on suspicion of a "petty" crime (not sure it's been established that the deceased was a "petty" criminal), they tried to detain him. But because there was a physical altercation and a struggle over a gun, he was shot. Two totally different things, imo.

Also, looks like you're in the UK ("back garden"). Maybe you know, but the attitude toward guns in the US can be very different than in the UK given the Constitutional protection Americans have. We are entitled to possess and carry weapons with the proper licensing. I personally don't have a weapon. But if I did, and someone broke into my home, I wouldn't hesitate to use it. I'm always of the mind that the best way to avoid being shot is not to commit crime. jmo

 

[branmuffin]

Their side, as I understand it, is that they didn't kill him on suspicion of a "petty" crime (not sure it's been established that the deceased was a "petty" criminal), they tried to detain him. But because there was a physical altercation and a struggle over a gun, he was shot. Two totally different things, imo.

Also, looks like you're in the UK ("back garden"). Maybe you know, but the attitude toward guns in the US can be very different than in the UK given the Constitutional protection Americans have. We are entitled to possess and carry weapons with the proper licensing. I personally don't have a weapon. But if I did, and someone broke into my home, I wouldn't hesitate to use it. I'm always of the mind that the best way to avoid being shot is not to commit crime. jmo

I live in Canada.

If there was no suspicion of a crime, how would those two men be entitled to 'detain' someone? How is it that a man who is being set upon by two men with weapons, who were chasing him in a truck, should consider succumbing to their thuggery based on a hunch they had?

Having a Constitutional right to carrying arms does not translate into vigilantism. If that is how citizens in the US interpret the 2nd Amendment then you have big problems.

He was shot in the hand. That is a classic defensive injury. He was trying to grab the barrel. That reaction is not aggressive. He was shot two more times.

 

[JaxFlaGal]

Here is the audio of the two 911 calls on 2/23. Per this article, the first is from TM at 1:08 PM and the 2nd is from GM at 1:15 PM.
LISTEN: 911 Dispatcher Doesn’t Understand What Arbery Is ‘Doing Wrong’

 

[firebird]

I live in Canada.

If there was no suspicion of a crime, how would those two men be entitled to 'detain' someone? How is it that a man who is being set upon by two men with weapons, who were chasing him in a truck, should consider succumbing to their thuggery based on a hunch they had?

Having a Constitutional right to carrying arms does not translate into vigilantism. If that is how citizens in the US interpret the 2nd Amendment then you have big problems.

He was shot in the hand. That is a classic defensive injury. He was trying to grab the barrel. That reaction is not aggressive. He was shot two more times.

You said he was killed for suspicion of a petty crime and asked for an explanation of who could think that's ok. I said, that's not what the defendants' say happened so your premise isn't valid, per se. I'm not here to argue with you. The facts will come out eventually. As they always do. jmo

 

[JaxFlaGal]

This is a good article on the Georgia Citizen's Arrest Law, and it also lists a few GA state cases regarding not allowing the use of disproportionate force in doing so: Breaking Down Georgia's Citizen's Arrest Law After Ahmaud Arbery Fatal Shooting

 

[Falling Down]

I live in Canada.

If there was no suspicion of a crime, how would those two men be entitled to 'detain' someone? How is it that a man who is being set upon by two men with weapons, who were chasing him in a truck, should consider succumbing to their thuggery based on a hunch they had?

Having a Constitutional right to carrying arms does not translate into vigilantism. If that is how citizens in the US interpret the 2nd Amendment then you have big problems.

He was shot in the hand. That is a classic defensive injury. He was trying to grab the barrel. That reaction is not aggressive. He was shot two more times.

I think even with no video this wouldn't hold up with a grand jury in this country, people would ask questions about the wounds, coroner's report, etc., and draw the same or similar conclusions.

Sometimes the problem is getting it to that point.

 

[BeckyF]

Maybe I'm thinking of the whole series of events too simplistically but from all of the news reports I've read:

No police reports filed on the supposed theft of fishing equipment with a value of 2500.00 from the home under construction. So pretty much this could be an out and out lie.

No police report filed on the supposed theft of a gun from a vehicle (very odd). A former police officer doesn't report the theft of a gun??

Nothing to backup the statement of the McMichaels that victim resembled a person suspected of burglaries in the neighborhood.

So, unless there is other evidence that proves they had good cause to take the actions they did on that day, it is based on their word only. Their actions alone brought on the tragic results.

They took the law into their own hands, period. And I think a jury would conclude the same, unless other facts come out that would shed a different light on the events that took place. Just my opinion only.

 

[Tbone144]

Their side, as I understand it, is that they didn't kill him on suspicion of a "petty" crime (not sure it's been established that the deceased was a "petty" criminal), they tried to detain him. But because there was a physical altercation and a struggle over a gun, he was shot. Two totally different things, imo.

Also, looks like you're in the UK ("back garden"). Maybe you know, but the attitude toward guns in the US can be very different than in the UK given the Constitutional protection Americans have. We are entitled to possess and carry weapons with the proper licensing. I personally don't have a weapon. But if I did, and someone broke into my home, I wouldn't hesitate to use it. I'm always of the mind that the best way to avoid being shot is not to commit crime. jmo

I do own a weapon and I carry every day. I shot at the range weekly before the pandemic (and I’m a woman). My weapon is to protect myself if my life is in danger, my loved ones if their life is in danger and others if I deem their life is in danger and I think I want to intervene. If I pull my gun, I have to be of sound mind and conscious that I can stand in front of 12 peers and say I was justified in what I did. I’m a private citizen, I don’t chase down criminals. These are two men off the street who decided to arm themselves and confront the runner. If they wanted to detain him, they shouldn’t have taken their guns. They were expecting confrontation, if they were worried he was armed and dangerous then they should have never confronted him. I don’t care if he’s running down the street with a sander in one hand and a drill in the other. At that moment their lives weren’t in danger and they created the dangerous situation by bringing the weapons with them. Did they set out with the intent to murder this man, I doubt it. Drunk drivers also don’t set out to kill their victims but they make decisions that results in the death of others (sometimes) and they are criminally charged for those decisions. I expect a plea deal, to what extent I don’t know.

ETA: IMOO

 

[Leve]

Remember the guy that shot the exchange student trespassing in his garage late at night? He got 70 years in prison. Just saying.

Here car burglaries are pretty common. People drive to a nice neighborhood late at night/early morning, they park at the end of the street and get out and walk down the street checking car doors. If it's unlocked, they steal whatever they find. If a garage door is left open, they steal tools ECT. It's depressingly common and is probably what is happening in this neighborhood.

I find it incredibly hard to believe it's legal anywhere to hold a stranger at gunpoint because you suspect them of a crime. Yes, if you caught them committing or attempting to commit a felony (kidnaping, rape, murder) I can see it, but trespassing or petty theft?

 

[branmuffin]

Even if this guy who was killed "wasn't supposed to be there" or what have you, that's trespassing, and that's that. If someone is asked to leave a property then that's a higher charge, but still not a big deal so long as a property or personal (civil rights) crime has not occurred.

Just imagine where we and LE would be right now with no video.

JMO

So trespassing is a death sentence?

 

[firebird]

Remember the guy that shot the exchange student trespassing in his garage late at night? He got 70 years in prison. Just saying.

Now THAT's a travesty imo

 

[Hope4More]

Maybe I'm thinking of the whole series of events too simplistically but from all of the news reports I've read:

No police reports filed on the supposed theft of fishing equipment with a value of 2500.00 from the home under construction. So pretty much this could be an out and out lie.

No police report filed on the supposed theft of a gun from a vehicle (very odd). A former police officer doesn't report the theft of a gun??

Nothing to backup the statement of the McMichaels that victim resembled a person suspected of burglaries in the neighborhood.

So, unless there is other evidence that proves they had good cause to take the actions they did on that day, it is based on their word only. Their actions alone brought on the tragic results.

They took the law into their own hands, period. And I think a jury would conclude the same, unless other facts come out that would shed a different light on the events that took place. Just my opinion only.

Nah, you're not thinking simplistically. Especially since the facts are actually pretty straightforward.

The citizens arrest excuse for pursuit came long after Senior spoke to LE. Again, I'm pretty sure it was Senior who called 911 at 1:08. But even if it wasn't, Senior originally told LE what the 1st caller to 911 had said: that he recognized Ahmaud (not by name) as a PRIOR repeat burglar from surveillance tapes.

Neither the caller or Senior (if different peeps) told LE that they had witnessed what they thought was a crime IN PROGRESS. In other words, neither Junior or Senior had any legal right whatsoever to pursue Ahmaud, much less to arm themselves, in Senior's own words, in anticipation of a confrontation with Ahmaud, much less to force that confrontation, whatever the result.

The citizens arrest excuse, imo, was jinned up to try to explain away their vigilantism. And no, I don't believe for a nanosecond Senior's imo ridiculous claim that they armed themselves because they had seen Ahmaud stick his hands in his pants on surveillance tape, so thought he might be armed.

 

[MsBetsy]

Their side, as I understand it, is that they didn't kill him on suspicion of a "petty" crime (not sure it's been established that the deceased was a "petty" criminal), they tried to detain him. But because there was a physical altercation and a struggle over a gun, he was shot. Two totally different things, imo.

Also, looks like you're in the UK ("back garden"). Maybe you know, but the attitude toward guns in the US can be very different than in the UK given the Constitutional protection Americans have. We are entitled to possess and carry weapons with the proper licensing. I personally don't have a weapon. But if I did, and someone broke into my home, I wouldn't hesitate to use it. I'm always of the mind that the best way to avoid being shot is not to commit crime. jmo

Yet they had no reason to detain him or chase him down with a weapon. He was not committing a crime that would justify a citizens arrest.

Imo

 

[firebird]

Yet they had no reason to detain him or chase him down with a weapon. He was not committing a crime that would justify a citizens arrest.

Imo

I don't know that yet.

 

[Falling Down]

So trespassing is a death sentence?

It shouldn't be.

That was my point.

Trespassing, no big deal. It appears some people thought otherwise.

 

[MsBetsy]

I don't know that yet.

I meant according to the information we have so far. All that's been reported is that he was seen trespassing.

It's been over two months. I would think if there was evidence that he was in the process of carrying out a crime we would have heard by now.

Imo

 

[tlcya]

SBM
It's been over two months. I would think if there was evidence that he was in the process of carrying out a crime we would have heard by now.

Imo

IMO as well. I mean, if there was any sort of compelling evidence AA was committing a felony they would have led with it.

Johnson and Barnhill would be screaming it from the rooftops right now. Because let's face it, they are not looking real good at the moment.

Also, I think the McMichaels's defense attorney would have immediately made sure that was front and center on every national new station.

 

[BeckyF]

Nah, you're not thinking simplistically. Especially since the facts are actually pretty straightforward.

The citizens arrest excuse for pursuit came long after Senior spoke to LE. Again, I'm pretty sure it was Senior who called 911 at 1:08. But even if it wasn't, Senior originally told LE what the 1st caller to 911 had said: that he recognized Ahmaud (not by name) as a PRIOR repeat burglar from surveillance tapes.

Neither the caller or Senior (if different peeps) told LE that they had witnessed what they thought was a crime IN PROGRESS. In other words, neither Junior or Senior had any legal right whatsoever to pursue Ahmaud, much less to arm themselves, in Senior's own words, in anticipation of a confrontation with Ahmaud, much less to force that confrontation, whatever the result.

The citizens arrest excuse, imo, was jinned up to try to explain away their vigilantism. And no, I don't believe for a nanosecond Senior's imo ridiculous claim that they armed themselves because they had seen Ahmaud stick his hands in his pants on surveillance tape, so thought he might be armed.

IMO not many people would believe that explanation about why they armed themselves. They sound like 2 paranoid citizens. But for their actions, Ahmaud would be alive. He had nanoseconds to figure out how to save his life.

 

[Tbone144]

I don't know that yet.

He wasn’t committing a crime that put their lives in danger if he was even committing a crime. If this was an actual (not retired) police officer asking him to stop in full dress with the appropriate car, this is a different story Disobeying an order from an actual officer, charging an actual officer with the intent to do harm, that’s a completely different scenario. Joe Schmo off the street doesn’t get to play caped crusader and chase after people unless they witness a crime that puts someone’s life is in eminent danger. There is no Stand Your Ground, it wasn’t their ground. There is no Castle Doctrine it wasn’t their castle. They chased him down and he tried to flee. He could have a big screen under each arm, unless he’s doing something that puts some ones life at risk, we don’t get to chase him down and shoot him. That is up to police to decide. I get the whole citizens arrest thing, you did something wrong, I’m going to detain you but I don’t get to be judge, jury and executioner. And I certainly don’t go into the confrontation armed. That’s not how this works.

ETA: And frankly I don’t give a rat’s what his previous record is. I don’t get to peruse some one just because I have a gun. My DH has tried to present scenarios where I would chase some one. That’s not how this works. If my life is in immediate danger (or those I love, etc) I can and will defend myself and those around me.