"Cruelty to Children." Glynn County Superior Court Arraignment Calendar, Jan. 17, 2019 [PDF]
Posted on 11/23/2021 9:18:55 AM PST by ChicagoConservative27
Jurors in the Ahmaud Arbery slay case started deliberating Tuesday over the fate of the three white men accused of killing the black unarmed jogger in Georgia last year.
Gregory McMichael, 65, his son Travis McMichael, 35, and their neighbor William “Roddie” Bryan, 52, are charged with murder, aggravated assault and other crimes in the shooting death of Arbery, 25, who they suspected was fleeing a burglary as he ran through their neighborhood near Brunswick.
Superior Court Judge Timothy Walmsley told the jurors Tuesday, “It is your duty to consider the facts objectively without favor, affection, or sympathy to anyone.”
Walmsley directed them to retire to the jury room, where they began officially deliberating the case at 11:53 a.m..
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I have seen cases in the news in which judges and lawyers argue for hours in an effort to determine if something is "unlawful" while the cop had to make a decision in a few hundreths of a second.
The law uses something called "the reasonable man" standard. Would a reasonable man chase after someone whom a neighbor alerted them to having bolted from a house which had been burglarized in the past? Would he do so if he was a retired cop?
Would a reasonable man, after having seen the video of this exact same guy going through the house (which had been burglarized) in the middle of the night four times, have reasonable grounds to believe this guy may have committed the previous theft, and may have just committed another one?
Would a reasonable man, knowing that a gun had been stolen recently from them, believe this man might be armed, and therefore necessitating themselves being armed as well?
But without having seen all the evidence and all the jury instructions, I wouldn't have a strong opinion either way.
I have been told by others who claimed to have watched the trial that Arbery's past history of criminal behavior was not admitted as evidence. Presumably this means the videos of his shoplifting and confronting a cop were not shown, nor his record of taking a gun to school and threatening people with it.
Also his brother is a criminal too.
This is a political show trial. The administrators of the state want a conviction so they can appease the mob. I think they've worked to slant as much as they legally can to obtain that result.
In the same manner that you consider me the opposite of correct, I likewise recognize you as a very reliable reverse barometer.
I am reassured whenever I find you against me.
As I have said previously, If you think a man might shoot you in the back, you can be absolutely certain he will shoot you in the front if you attack him.
However, everyone who has a shred of common sense left would not object to that being described as “stopping” someone.
Well, except for the inconvenient fact that it absolutely did not stop him.
Institutional failure is exactly what kept AA jogging in Timberlands, after his 2018 shoplifting and probation violation conviction. And then AA wouldn't be a viral video.
"In December 2013, Arbery was arrested by Glynn County Schools Police after bringing a handgun into the Brunswick High gymnasium during a basketball game with rival Glynn Academy, according to reports. Arbery, then 19, ran when a schools police officer saw the .380 caliber handgun in his waistband.A schools police officer broke his hand in the pursuit of Arbery, who was charged with carrying a weapon on campus and several counts of obstructing a law enforcement officer. He was sentenced to five years’ probation as a first offender, county court records show.
Arbery also was placed on probation for a 2018 shoplifting arrest, according to county court records."
The salient point here is that Arbery was still going in whatever direction he pleased, and it appears that he chose to run in the direction they were.
Both Gregory McMichael and Travis McMichael admit that Gregory made that threat as Arbery was passed the truck. Why should Arbery doubt that they would do what they threatened?
He clearly did doubt it, or else he would not have given the man a very good reason to do it. I now think he believed the guy didn't have the guts to shoot him.
Why wouldn't he believe that they would kill them if they could?
I would say that "because they had not already done so" is a pretty good reason to believe they would not do so. I think shooting someone in broad daylight would be a tough thing to cover up, especially with the police sirens wailing in the distance while the cop cars are converging on your area.
Indeed, the man acted like he was more afraid of the police than he was of the fat guy holding the shotgun.
So it's semantics now?
Yeah, you're right. That was a cheap dodge.
The fact is he accosted Arbery armed with a shotgun after his father had just threatened to blow his head off. And yet the McMichaels claim all they wanted to do was talk with him.
I'm pretty sure all they wanted to do was get him to stop so that the police could deal with him. If they talked to him at all, it would probably be to ask what he was doing in that house, but it never really got to the talking stage.
He defended himself from those who would do him harm if not kill him.
A defense is running away. A defense is interposing some object between you and the man wielding a shotgun. Running at, punching in the face, and then grabbing at the weapon is not defense, it is offense.
He knew they wouldn't kill him because they already had made threats on which they didn't carry through, just as you noted above.
One does not grab a shotgun thinking someone will kill you with it. One grabs a shotgun by thinking someone *WON'T* kill you with it.
If part of that was trying to get the gun away from the closest one threatening him then that's still trying to defend yourself.
The father was in the bed of a truck with a pistol. The situation was untenable if they wanted him dead.
Or someone who thinks "bitch ain't got the balls to shoot me."
I've met plenty of the later type. Judging by Arbery's previous confrontations with cops (caught on video, link posted above) Arbery was one of those people who thought nobody would have the guts to shoot him.
Who the hell gets close enough with a shotgun that whoever he’s trying to “cover” can grab it?
Yeah, that was pretty stupid, but it also supports my point that Arbery believed the younger McMichael didn't have the balls to shoot him.
He probably didn't until Arbery grabbed the gun. Then panic set in.
You've admitted that property was stolen. You are now saying that no videos show Arbery stealing anything. It is my understanding that no videos show anyone stealing anything.
What can we conclude from this? There was no video covering the theft of the items at the time they were stolen.
It means Arbery could have stolen them, but we just don't know for certain if he did. My recollection is that it was the theft of items from the house that induced the owner into installing security cameras.
These cameras captured Arbery in the house several times at night, and Occam's razor implies this is very likely the thief.
A palm print "proves" that they hit Arbery with the truck? How do we know Arbery didn't slap the truck?
Do they have diagrams that show how the truck impacted Arbery? What is their theory for how the vehicle struck Arbery, because a palm print only says he was there, it does not show he was struck. Shirt fibers are usually the worst sort of crap evidence, they often cannot be traced to a specific source with any degree of certainty.
Even if they were from Arbery's shirt, this still does not establish him as being struck by the vehicle.
Was there blood? Was their bruising on his body that would indicate he was hit by a truck? Did witnesses say he was hit by the truck?
If there is actual proof that they hit Arbery with the truck, then this diminishes their defense claims in my opinion.
Stopping would have also been a pretty good solution for Arbery, but if he chose not to do that, running away was the next best move. Interposing the vehicle or a tree in between them was a possibility.
Attacking a man holding a shotgun is the worst possible idea of all the choices.
Wrong as usual. There is video of two white kids stealing plywood scraps from the garage. There isn't video of the white couple stealing anything but the owner told police he suspected they were the ones who took the fishing gear.
It means Arbery could have stolen them, but we just don't know for certain if he did.
Well only you would conclude that since there is no video evidence of Arbery stealing anything then it's almost certain that he stole something.
My recollection is that it was the theft of items from the house that induced the owner into installing security cameras.
Wrong again. The owner said he installed cameras to begin with because kids were supposedly messing around on his dock.
These cameras captured Arbery in the house several times at night, and Occam's razor implies this is very likely the thief.
The simplest solution may be the best but the most idiotic assumption is not often correct. As you frequently show.
Man, that is silly.
If you chase me, and then point a gun at me, YOU can claim self-defense if I try to defend myself by getting your gun away from you?
The murdered was an idiot for trying to get a shotgun away from someone, but to be honest if I thought you were going to kill me anyway - which would be a very logical conclusion after being chased by armed people - then I like to think I at least try to take you with me. What do I have to lose? Better to go out with a boom and a non zero chance of getting the gun away and using it on you than to be tied up and tortured to death, dragged behind a truck or something like that, which is what *I* would expect from anyone chasing me.
At least two of these guys should never see the light of day again, the third one just seems to be an idiot. But as others here have said, you would *NEVER* want me on your jury, for anything.
That and the fact that since he was black, of *course* he was guilty of burglarizing or whatever
/sarc
I was trying not to go there...even though we can be sure it was the primary motivation for the McMichael's actions to begin with.
I reject that assertion. Arbery ran towards the truck and the armed men in it. He could *SEE* them. He could *SEE* their guns. I am now convinced Arbery believed those men would absolutely not shoot him, and this is why he showed no fear of them.
Men threatening to kill me over nothing HAVE NO RIGHT TO SELF-DEFENSE.
Cops do that routinely, but if a man attacks a cop after he says he'll "blow his head off", the cop would be regarded as justified in shooting the attacker.
Arbery was a "gangsta thug" and he didn't believe those men had the guts to shoot him. He was probably encouraged in thinking that because the elder McMichael in the back of the truck could have shot Arbery at any time, but did not.
I’d find it very hard to acquit them based on “Maybe the law allowed them to pursuit the guy”
The "pursuit" has nothing to do with it. So many people want to focus on that bit of legal hairsplitting instead of considering only the significant issue of the case; That Arbery charged at a man holding a shotgun, struck him in the face and attempted to wrest his weapon away to be presumably turned on it's previous owner.
At the point Arbery attacked the younger McMichael, it became a very obvious case of life or death, and Arbery initiated it.
With that said, I think too many Americans have become cowed into being p*ssies who think letting thieves get away is a reasonable thing to do.
Arbery was a thief. He should have been pursued, he should have been accosted, he should have been detained, and he should have been arrested by the cops when they finally arrived.
That is what *SHOULD* have happened, but Arbery tried to attack a man when he should have either ran away or complied.
Great information. Thanks for reminding me about this stuff, and thanks for informing others who may not have seen it.
"Cruelty to Children." Glynn County Superior Court Arraignment Calendar, Jan. 17, 2019 [PDF]
Which if I remember right was $2,500.oo in value.
... which be believed that a white couple he caught on tape had stolen.
If he had evidence he would have shown it, so clearly he doesn't have evidence that the white couple did it. Therefore he doesn't know who stole it, and I suspect he is only accusing them to avoid any blowback from the Arbery case.
My recollection is that the camera equipment was installed *AFTER* the $2,500.00 in fishing gear was stolen. Lo and behold, it appears Arbery was the most commonly captured trespasser on the new security system.
Now because this "fishing gear" thing reminded me of our previous conversation, I'll tell you I don't fish. I hate fishing and I haven't done it since I was a kid. I also don't hunt. I don't like sports. I don't drink beer.
My point here is that I have nothing in common with "bubba" types and as I said before, i'm a science nerd type.
You didn’t also quote my /sarc, I’m afraid
He has no evidence but he suspects it was them? If he has no evidence, then it is as likely it was stolen by Arbery or some other unknown thief.
But I think Arbery is the most often captured trespasser in his security camera videos.
Well only you would conclude that since there is no video evidence of Arbery stealing anything then it's almost certain that he stole something.
There is no evidence *ANYONE* stole anything, other than the fact that $2,500.00 worth of crap was stolen. All this means is that he didn't catch the thief at it.
Wrong again. The owner said he installed cameras to begin with because kids were supposedly messing around on his dock.
He put cameras inside his house because kids were playing on his dock? And they didn't capture the theft of his stuff? Was his valuable stuff not placed where a camera could see it?
Yeah, at this point I suspect everything the owner says is said in an effort to keep people from directing any anger at him. He gave the video to McMichael and now he wants to disavow any fallout from the consequences of doing that.
The simplest solution may be the best but the most idiotic assumption is not often correct.
There is no idiotic assumption being put forth. It is quite a rational assumption to believe the person most commonly trespassing in a house at night time is the thief.
“That and the fact that since he was black, of *course* he was guilty of burglarizing or whatever
/sarc”
Unfortunately, there are more than a few FReepers who think that way. Search for the threads that talk about blacks being bad tippers. Incredible the number of racist, ignorant FReepers on those threads that lump all blacks in together.
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.