Posted on 05/19/2020 12:34:28 PM PDT by tlozo
Newly released police bodycam video shows Georgia slay victim Ahmaud Arbery being handcuffed and arrested for shoplifting in 2017.
The video, dated Dec. 1, 2017, shows Arbery and three teenagers being confronted by police in the parking lot of a Walmart shopping center, according to the footage posted on YouTube on Tuesday.
“Tell me about the TV,” a police officer asks. “TV? What? We don’t have any TV,” Arbery, wearing shorts and a parka, responds. “What about the 65-inch TV?” the cop says. “Sixty-five inch TV?” Arbery says. “Do me a favor,” the cop replies. “All of you take a seat.” “Take a seat for what?” Arbery snaps back. “I don’t know nothing about no TV…. I don’t steal no TV.”
Another man, presumably a Walmart employee, then approaches and the police officer tells him, “it’s that one right there with the fur jacket” — suggesting Arbery — and the man nods. “What TV?” Arbery says. “The TV is in there,” motioning toward the store. Arbery then claims he has a receipt and tries to get up from the ground, but is placed in handcuffs and put into a squad car. He’s driven back to the store, where he and the three teenagers are seen walking into the back of the store and into a rear office, where the video eventually ends. The outcome of the shoplifting arrest is not clear. The release of the footage comes one day after another bodycam video shows a confrontation between Arbery a month earlier at a local park...
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Jury's don't arrest people. Cops and Citizens do, and they don't decide guilt they just decide "suspicion."
Suspicion of a crime is all that is necessary.
Cops can't carry around a Jury in their back pocket. Courts decide "facts", Cops grab "suspects."
The victim rushing him caused him not to shoot,
Very bad plan for anyone rushing a man with a shotgun. That he wasn't killed instantly was only because the man holding the shotgun didn't want to kill him.
The problem here isn't English comprehension - the problem is the logical contortions needed to defend this shooting.
Defending the shooting is logical and clear cut. Trying to *FORCE* it to be a "crime", requires all sorts of logical and factual contortions.
You don't see how ridiculous it is because your initial gut reaction is that two "Bubba's" should not be trying to arrest a black guy, and certainly shouldn't be using guns.
But you were not in that situation, and anyone as weak as those two men would stand no chance against a young man like Arbery without a weapon.
You don't have a realistic view of what they were facing. You make these snap judgements from the comfort of your chair, and don't really consider how you would have behaved were you in their situation.
President Eisenhower once said "Farming is easy if your plow is a pencil and the fields are a thousand miles away."
If they shoot a violent criminal i'll say "Hallelujah!"
Also I am not questioning your motives, i'm questioning your judgement. I don't have a double standard here, and I think a lot of you out there do.
If this criminal had been white, we would not be hearing a big fuss over this. Everyone would have shrugged and gone about their business, and people would have been focusing on the fact that some stupid white guy was insane enough to attack a man holding a shotgun.
Which is what people *OUGHT* to be focusing on. Arbery was nuts. He way overreacted to the circumstances he faced.
Rational people do not play with men holding shotguns. They either go the other direction, or they stop. What they never do is run at the man and hit him.
The state of Georgia has very clear laws for citizens arrest, and they did not follow them.
They most certainly did. You just don't like the fact that they did because you don't like the outcome. You want them to have broken a law, just as you want Arbery to NOT have broken a law.
Arbery did break the law, and that's why they were interested in him. They did not break any laws, and are only being held because of angry demands from portions of the populace.
This is a show trial, and they will be acquitted. A DA would have to be a fool to take this case, because it's a complete loser.
At best, at best they could argue "reckless homicide", but I very much doubt they could even make that stick.
It's self defense, and they're not going to be able to turn it into murder.
Thank you for the response, and the correction on the timeline.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
It is unnecessary to see the ASSAILANT, not "victim", commit any felony. All that is required is a reasonable suspicion of a crime.
Stop trying to move the goalposts and stop believing everyone is dumb enough to accept your changes to what the law actually is.
The citizens witnessed the crime of trespass, and had reason to believe the recurring trespasser whom they had seen on several videos spanning several months, was the thief.
Yes, they had probable cause.
This statement reminds me of the concern over the murder weapon during the OJ Simpson trial. A lot of people felt that it was absolutely essential that they have a murder weapon. They acted as if not finding the murder weapon absolved OJ of any culpability.
My point at the time was that the murder weapon did in fact exist, because the people were murdered with it. The fact that they were murdered with a knife (Believe it or not a Swiss Army Knife) demonstrates beyond question that the weapon existed. Not being able to find it did not make it nonexistent, it made it non available. It still existed.
Now apply that logic to the McMichaels. If they were not aware of his trespass, then how the f*** did they know to be chasing him? Clearly they were aware of it. Not being aware of it would have caused them to do nothing. The mere fact that they did something proves they had knowledge of the trespass.
"In their presence" is not the only allowable condition. "Immediate knowledge" of a crime is adequate to justify a citizen arrest. They had immediate knowledge of the crime.
You are ignoring the portion of Georgia law that states "immediate knowledge" is an acceptable alterantive.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.