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 ...
📌
The young fat guy clearly doesn't do much running, so i'm betting he wouldn't know one way or the other about that. Street thugs often drop their guns or accidentally discharge them. The guy is running towards him. That would make me wonder if he had a heater.
After he raised the weapon and pointed it at Arbery, Arbery then turned.
Arbery ran on the opposite side of the truck from the younger McMichael, so it would seem to me he had already seen the shotgun. Also, I don't think there was enough time to do a "then turned." Looked like one fluid motion without any pauses.
Travis was concerned at that point that Arbery would hurt his father, so he moved.towards Arbery and engaged him.
Yeah, I read that elsewhere and it didn't make any sense to me. Arbery could have leapt up into that truck before the younger McMichael could have done a d@mn thing. The older McMichael also had a gun and could have shot Arbery several times before he got close enough to hurt him.
I think the concern for his father is made up crap.
However, if Travis pointed the gun at armory before he made any threatening move,...
As I said, the manner in which Arbery kept running at them I would have interpreted as a threatening move. What sort of person runs at people with guns?
They were not cops. They were not wearing badges and uniforms. We are required to surrender to COPS. We are not required to surrender to assholes running around with guns threatening to blow our heads off! ...If you pursue someone and are the aggressor, you lose the right to self-defense. ...
It is called the law. I can defend myself in my home and I can defend my home against an intruder, but I don’t get to impose the death penalty on a crime that doesn’t CARRY the death penalty!
What you are stating is not the applicable law of this case in the state of Georgia. The law of Citizen Arrest and the law of Self-Defence are separate statutes. First up in this case is to determine if they were lawfully attempting a citizen arrest.
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2018/title-17/chapter-4/article-4/section-17-4-60/
2018 Georgia Code
Title 17 - Criminal Procedure
Chapter 4 - Arrest of Persons
Article 4 - Arrest by Private Persons
§ 17-4-60. Grounds for arrest Universal Citation: GA Code § 17-4-60 (2018)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.
Were there probable and reasonable grounds of suspicion of the felony of second degree burglary? The law did not require a crime to have been committed; rather it required that the defendants had probable and reasonable grounds of suspicion that a felony offense had been committed by Arbery.
If they had such probable and reasonable grounds of suspicion, then they could chase Arbery down and arrest him.
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2018/title-16/chapter-7/article-1/section-16-7-1/
2018 Georgia Code
Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses
Chapter 7 - Damage to and Intrusion Upon Property
Article 1 - Burglary
§ 16-7-1. Burglary
Universal Citation: GA Code § 16-7-1 (2018)(c) A person commits the offense of burglary in the second degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant building, structure, railroad car, watercraft, or aircraft. A person who commits the offense of burglary in the second degree shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years. Upon the second and all subsequent convictions for burglary in the second degree, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than eight years.
Were there probable and reasonable grounds to suspect second degree burglary, a felony?
Having prior knowledge of thefts in the vacant building, and claiming to recognize Arbery from the security video, did the McMichaels have a probable and reasonable suspicion that Arbery entered the building with the intent to commit a theft therein?
If yes, then the McMichaels apparently had the authority to track down the fleeing Arbery and make a citizen arrest.
If no, then the McMichaels' acts were unlawful, and self-defence would not be an available plea.
There were a few stumbles by the prosecutor today in closing arguments. In defining "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" she actually told the jury that if they believe they did it, that's enough. One of the three defense counsels made an objection on the grounds of misstatement of the law. The judge said he wanted to continue, and the defense counsel moved for a mistrial on the basis of a misstatement of the law. The second and third defense counsel stated that they joined the motion for mistrial. At that point, the judge had the jury leave, engaged in a colloquy with counsel, and when the jury returned gave them a correct statement of the law. What the prosecutor stated was a gross misstatement of law, similar to what Thomas Binger did in the Rittenhouse trial.
In another statement, the prosecutor misstated the law on citizen arrest. Again, the judge gave the jury a correct instruction on the law.
Counsel have repeatedly argued over the meaning of the statutory language.
The applicable law, in effect at the time of the events, dates to the 1800s and has since been changed. It is not the most clearly worded statute, and reasonably susceptible to differing interpretations. In interpreting unclear statute language, the Court would tend toward the interpretation most favorable to the defense.
The probable and reasonable suspicion standard is peculiar.
If the attempted citizen arrest was lawful, then consider the plea of self-defence.
16-3-21. Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:
(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;
(2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or
(3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force. ...
Consider the report of District Attorney George Barnhill:
The video made by William Bryan clearly shows the shooting in real time. From said video it appears Ahmaud Arbery was running along the right side of the McMichael truck then abruptly turns 90 degrees to the left and attacks Travis McMichael who was standing at the front left corner of the truck. A brief skirmish ensues in which it appear Arbery strikes McMichael and appears to grab the shotgun and pull it from McMichael. The 1st shot is through Arbery’s right hand palm which is consistent with him grabbing and pulling the shotgun at the barrel tip, the 2nd and 3rd wounds are consistent with the struggle for the shotgun as depicted in the video, the angle of the 2nd shot with the rear of the buttstock being pushed away and down from the fight are also consistent with the upward angle of blood plume shown in the video and that McMichael was attempting to push the gun away from Arbery while Arbery was pulling it toward himself. The 3rd shot too appears to be in a struggle over the gun. The angle of the shots and the video show this was from the beginning or almost immediately became—a fight over the shotgun. Given the fact Arbery initiated the fight, at the point Arbery grabbed the shotgun, under Georgia Law, McMichael was allowed to use deadly force to protect himself.Just as importantly, while we know McMichael had his finger on the trigger, we do not know who caused the firings. Arbery would only had to pull the shotgun approximately 1/16th to 1/8th of one inch to fire the weapon himself and in the height of an altercation this is entirely possible. Arbery’s mental health records & prior convictions help explain his apparent aggressive nature and his possible thought pattern to attack an armed man.
Much of this case turns on a law from the 1800s and whether the attempted citizen arrest was lawful.
Do you think a cop would call that “reasonable suspicion” allowing an arrest? I don’t. It requires Arbery to have intent to commit a crime, and it requires the “cops” to have REASON to believe he was trying to commit a crime.
I don’t see it.
Second, in making an arrest, would any COP have shouted he was going to blow the guy’s head off? NOT VERY DAMN LIKELY!
They are guilty!
Do you think a cop would call that “reasonable suspicion” allowing an arrest?
Do you think a cop was there?
I do not believe in invisible cops.
I don’t see it.
That's because there was no invisible cop there. There was no imaginary cop involved either.
Second, in making an arrest, would any COP have shouted he was going to blow the guy’s head off? NOT VERY DAMN LIKELY!
It sees reasonabl clear that tere was no imaginary, invisible cop there running around and shouting. Had a cop been there, there would not have been a citizen arrest.
They are guilty!
I stated the applicable law. You have chosen to ignore the law and address hypothetical acts which did not happen, involving cops who were not there.
As there were no imaginary invisible cops there, your speculation about what said invisible imaginary cops would or would not have done will not be submitted to the jury.
Did the McMichaels, who were there, have a probable and reasonable suspicion that Arbery entered the building with intent to steal?
If so, did Arbery tug on the shotgun, either discharging it, or causing McMichael to fear for his life?
Your arguments are disconnected from the law of the case. Do the jurors believe the McMichaels? If not, the jury may find them guilty. If believed, the jury could reach an acquittal.
If no, then the McMichaels' acts were unlawful, and self-defence would not be an available plea.
In all the videos of people wandering through the building site, specifically the videos where Arbery was in the building site there are no evidence that he stole anything. In fact the owner himself as identified white people as the ones who stole plywood and who probably stole the fishing gear. On the day in question nothing was stolen, nothing was disturbed. What evidence did the McMichael's have that Arbery committed any crime at all? The crime was not committed in their presence nor did they have immediate knowledge of a felony since none was committed. They made an assumption not based on evidence and they acted upon it. That is not what the law requires.
Given the fact Arbery initiated the fight, at the point Arbery grabbed the shotgun, under Georgia Law, McMichael was allowed to use deadly force to protect himself.
Is that, in fact, correct?. Who provoked the incident? Yes, Arbery went for the shotgun but for some time before that the McMichael's, by their own admission, followed Arbery and attempted to cut him off their their truck several times. They admit that they confronted him with firearms clearly visible. They admitted that the senior McMichael had ordered him to stop or he would blow his head off. Greg McMichael said that they had Arbery "trapped like a rat", that he "wanting to flee", but "realized ... he was not going to get away". By placing Arbery in a position where his only option was to literally fight for his life then it is clear that they provoked the incident, not Arbery. And under those circumstances then self defense is not a valid defense.
Real life cops don’t threaten to blow your head off. That’s movie cops. And also cops have symbols of authority. This was just random dudes jumping in front of him with their cars and threatening to kill him.
The guy that actually did it, the elder McMichael, was in fact a cop for 20 years, so to answer your question, *YES*, a "cop" would call that "reasonable suspicion" because a cop did in fact do it.
Second, in making an arrest, would any COP have shouted he was going to blow the guy’s head off? NOT VERY DAMN LIKELY!
Are you on drugs? Cops do that all the f***ing time. It isn't even remarkable. Do you want an example?
Go to youtube and find that video of that cop in Las Vegas that shot that man to death in the hallway of that hotel while the man was begging him not to kill him.
The cop told him over and over again that he would blow his f***ing head off if he made one wrong move. The man was unarmed, on his knees and begging not to be shot.
And guess what? They didn't prosecute that cop.
As has been explained to you before, there was evidence that things were stolen, but no evidence as to *WHO* stole them. Everyone who entered that house is still a suspect, and one particular suspect kept coming back.
In fact the owner himself as identified white people as the ones who stole plywood and who probably stole the fishing gear.
He doesn't know. He just made that up.
By placing Arbery in a position where his only option was to literally fight for his life then...
This is well known fallacy argument called "the fallacy of false choice." You are asserting he had no other option when in fact he did.
1. He could have stopped.
2. He could have ran back the way he came.
3 He could have interposed objects between him and the McMichaels.
4. He could have simply kept running, which is a lot safer than grabbing a shotgun from someone.
5. He could have screamed for help to attract attention to the fact that two men may be trying to kill him.
You have been advised of these options before, and continuing to insist he had no other options is deceitful at this point.
And here you are once again spouting bullsh*t. The Las Vegas cop who shot that unarmed man to death in a hotel hallway told him over and over again that he would blow his f***ing head off. It's on video. It was the body cam video from that officer.
I have watched numerous cop videos, and it is not uncommon for them to tell someone they will "blow their f***ing head off."
Once again, you don't know what the f*** you are talking about.
Were there probable and reasonable grounds to suspect second degree burglary, a felony?Having prior knowledge of thefts in the vacant building, and claiming to recognize Arbery from the security video, did the McMichaels have a probable and reasonable suspicion that Arbery entered the building with the intent to commit a theft therein?
If yes, then the McMichaels apparently had the authority to track down the fleeing Arbery and make a citizen arrest.
If no, then the McMichaels' acts were unlawful, and self-defence would not be an available plea.
In all the videos of people wandering through the building site, specifically the videos where Arbery was in the building site there are no evidence that he stole anything.
As explained at my #183, just prior to what you quoted from, it was not necessary that any theft had occurred.
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2018/title-17/chapter-4/article-4/section-17-4-60/2018 Georgia Code
Title 17 - Criminal Procedure
Chapter 4 - Arrest of Persons
Article 4 - Arrest by Private Persons
§ 17-4-60. Grounds for arrest Universal Citation: GA Code § 17-4-60 (2018)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.
Were there probable and reasonable grounds of suspicion of the felony of second degree burglary? The law did not require a crime to have been committed; rather it required that the defendants had probable and reasonable grounds of suspicion that a felony offense had been committed by Arbery.
If they had such probable and reasonable grounds of suspicion, then they could chase Arbery down and arrest him.
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2018/title-16/chapter-7/article-1/section-16-7-1/
2018 Georgia Code
Title 16 - Crimes and Offenses
Chapter 7 - Damage to and Intrusion Upon Property
Article 1 - Burglary
§ 16-7-1. Burglary
Universal Citation: GA Code § 16-7-1 (2018)(c) A person commits the offense of burglary in the second degree when, without authority and with the intent to commit a felony or theft therein, he or she enters or remains within an occupied, unoccupied, or vacant building, structure, railroad car, watercraft, or aircraft. A person who commits the offense of burglary in the second degree shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years. Upon the second and all subsequent convictions for burglary in the second degree, the defendant shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than eight years.
Were there probable and reasonable grounds to suspect second degree burglary, a felony?
Having prior knowledge of thefts in the vacant building, and claiming to recognize Arbery from the security video, did the McMichaels have a probable and reasonable suspicion that Arbery entered the building with the intent to commit a theft therein?
The crime of second degree burglary is completed when the perpetrator enters the unoccupied building or structure with intent to commit a theft. There need not be any actual theft. It could be a vacant building with nothing to steal.
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.
Second degree burglary is a felony. If the jury finds that the McMichaels had reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion that Arbery committed said offense, the old law from the 1800s authorized a citizen arrest.
There simply is no element where it must be shown that any offense was actuallly committed. The statute goes to McMichael's state of mind, and whether there was reasonable and probable grounds for suspicion.
Given the fact Arbery initiated the fight, at the point Arbery grabbed the shotgun, under Georgia Law, McMichael was allowed to use deadly force to protect himself.Is that, in fact, correct?.
The quote was identified as coming from the report of District Attorney Barnhill.
Consider the report of District Attorney George Barnhill:
Whether that is correct is for the jury to decide. It appears clear that Arbery tried to take the weapon away from McMichael.
By placing Arbery in a position where his only option was to literally fight for his life then it is clear that they provoked the incident, not Arbery.
If the jury should find it was a valid attempt at citizen arrest, your argument is meaningless. In a case of a valid arrest attempt, the subject is routinely subjected to a situation where he can flee, fight, or submit.
In such case, should the subject tug on the shotgun in an attempt to wrest it away, the person with the shotgun has the right to self-defence.
The Mesa cop was a prime example of how hideous SOME cops behave. He was charged with 2nd degree murder but acquitted - IMHO, due in part to evidence not allowed into the trial. The city was sued by the victim’s parents and paid $1.5 million.
You want to SEE what crappy cops can do and get away with it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIUnEWYdPnI
71 shots put into 5 homes. They were not charged and at least had much better reason for opening fire. But the various cities still ended up paying $3.4 million to the widow.
“the elder McMichael, was in fact a cop for 20 years”
I know. I also know REAL cops have to justify their “probable cause” versus this retired idiot acting on his own.
“Well, except for the inconvenient fact that it absolutely did not stop him.”
Not everyone that is pulled over by police decides to follow orders and stay put, but nobody objects to calling it a “police stop” anyway. You’re just picking nits.
That cop deserves the death penalty. He should be in prison awaiting his execution.
I know. I also know REAL cops have to justify their “probable cause” versus this retired idiot acting on his own.
Had an active duty police man done exactly the same thing as the McMichaels, this wouldn't even be a story.
I doubt an active duty cop would have needed a shotgun to make the arrest.
Oh well.
Now you have the opportunity to generate a seemingly endless number of posts and countless words on just why the jury was wrong. But please leave me out of it.
I have already done so, and don't see the point of trying to get people to understand something they deliberately chose not to understand.
It is my understanding that a lot of these sort of people keep shotguns in their trucks. Perhaps it was the only weapon available to him at the time? I don't know, but I do know cops do use shotguns and carry them in their cars.
Georgia Code 17-4-20 was revised to eliminate citizen arrest, and to restrict officer arrest without a warrant to a crime committed in his presence, or within in immediate knowledge; the offender is endeavoring to escape; and the officer has probable cause to believe that one of several listed crimes has been committed.
The previous mess of a statute is no longer an issue.
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.