GA: "Jogger" chased and murdered

[philip964]

https://news.yahoo.com/black-republican ... 04021.html

Female black Republican prosecutor picked to run the case.

https://news.yahoo.com/lawyers-suspect- ... 39064.html

Defense attorneys have a different narrative for what happened.

[The Annoyed Man]

Homeowner who may not move into the house because of threats has made some new statements.

He seems to think the video shows the man going to where there was a faucet for water.

He also says that there were a number of visitors on video to the house beside this one man.

It apparently included a number of children.

When my parents were building their house on the cliff overlooking the Pacific at Point Dume, they had LOTS of people trespassing. The property was in a dramatic location, and at the time, it stood alone with no other houses on either side. It was also an unusual design, and they were using interesting and novel building materials. My parents were living in an an obviously occupied single-wide on the property during construction....as they also did a ton of the work themselves.

Some people, those with an interest in innovative architecture, would actually come from out of state to watch the progress of the construction. People wandered onto the property all the time, even though it was surrounded by a high chain-link fence. If the gate was open, they’d just walk right in.

One guy in particular was a real pain. He'd always interrupt the contractors to ask questions about what they were doing. My dad had to finally tell him that he could only talk to workers on his OWN dime; otherwise they were on my dad's clock. He would always bring his off-leash pitbull on the property while wandering around it, and his dog would chase my parents' cat. He was repeatedly told that his dog was not anymore welcome on the property than he was, but the dude did it anyway. One day, the dog chased the cat into the sumac bushes lining the edge of the cliff. The cat turned right and the dog went straight .... plunging 120 ft to the beach below. The dog's owner was outraged, and yelled at my dad for not having a fence along the cliff's edge. My dad reminded him that (a) he’d been told repeatedly not to bring his dog onto the property; (b) that there was a barrier along the cliff....consisting of a thick fence of sumac bushes; and (c) reminded him that he was trespassing, and the "victim" was free to call the cops if he wanted to.

The dog going off the cliff was the last straw, and the guy finally got the message. Fortunately for the dog, he was not killed by the fall. His owner ran to the public beach access a couple of hundred yards off, and met the dog coming up the stairs about halfway down. It had a bloodied nose, but was otherwise ok.

People are often rude, and nearly always feel entitled to whatever it is they have on their minds, with no regard for the people whose lives are adversely effected in some way by the entitled person's words and actions. But as obnoxious and entitled as that dog's owner was, he stole nothing and damaged nothing. He was motivated by insatiable curiosity about something that was manifestly none of his business, taking place in a location where he manifestly had no right to be. I doubt he learned a single thing from this life lesson, either through through the confrontations with my dad, or through his dog's near-death experience. He was a typical self-absorbed Californian—a very common breed. But, he did not deserve to die for wearing his nether regions as a hat.

Dad was a WW2 combat vet. He probably knew 6 ways to kill this guy with a simple Wushu Finger Hold, but being the better man, he just never deemed it necessary. At some point, he would have probably called the local LA County Sheriff's office and had him formally trespassed off the property. But at no point did he deem it necessary to chase the guy down the street and confront him with his .45.....and it was HIS PROPERTY, not someone else's.

Please, Lord, let common sense and WISDOM prevail. As srothstein pointed out, echoing my previous thought, the law is neither moral nor immoral. It is simply the law, and it is too often unconcerned with actual justice, or what's right. It may even condone immoral behavior in some circumstances. Every time WE respond to the law, it is an opportunity to make a moral or immoral decision. Because a thing is legal, that does not make it moral. At the end of the day, I will have to face a higher power than any prosecutor or court.

In this thread, most seem to have devolved firmly into the following camps:

1. Those who think that what the McMichaels did was legal and morally defensible.

2. Those who think that what the McMichaels did was legal but morally questionable.

3. Those who think that what the McMichaels did was both illegal and morally questionable.

4. Those who think (as I do) that it doesn’t matter whether what the McMichaels did was legal or illegal. The cascade of decisions that ended in Arbery's death was initiated by the McMichaels the minute they jumped into their vehicle and set off in pursuit of Arbery, armed for a confrontation.

Their actions may or may not have been legal, as strictly defined by the law. I don’t care either way. Was it ethical? In my opinion, it was not ethical. Was it moral? In my opinion, it was not moral. It was both foolish and stupid, and it was ALSO a perfect example of why it is often better to be a good witness than a self-appointed Ranger. Until they confronted him, resulting in the altercation which is described as either Arbery's assaulting or being assaulted by the McMichaels—depending on your bias—nobody was hurt, and as far as they could tell (single guy running down the street clad only in shorts, a t-shirt, and sneakers), nothing had been taken.

How often have any of us said on these pages sayings like "nothing good ever happens after 10pm in bar parking lots"? That’s not the law talking. That’s the voice of wisdom. I realize that not everybody here is either a Christian or Jew, or even believes in a deity. That’s fine....we have a 1st Amendment, and you have a right of conscience. So, I’ll remove references to God and paraphrase this scriptural passage taken from Micah 6:8 "what is good; and what is required of you, but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly?"

Did the McMichaels meet that standard? No, they did not.....whatever Georgia law says....and THEREFORE, we should at all costs avoid their example.

[K.Mooneyham]

SNIP:

4. Those who think (as I do) that it doesn’t matter whether what the McMichaels did was legal or illegal. The cascade of decisions that ended in Arbery's death was initiated by the McMichaels the minute they jumped into their vehicle and set off in pursuit of Arbery, armed for a confrontation.

I posted this snip from TAM's post because I have a question, since I'm just an aircraft technician and not involved in law enforcement or the legal profession in any way. My question is this: does the totality of circumstances not have any bearing on the case? Because as TAM pointed out, Arbery would be alive had those men not pursued him. That's what I want to know. Would the jury not have to take that into account, as well?

[philip964]

SNIP:

4. Those who think (as I do) that it doesn’t matter whether what the McMichaels did was legal or illegal. The cascade of decisions that ended in Arbery's death was initiated by the McMichaels the minute they jumped into their vehicle and set off in pursuit of Arbery, armed for a confrontation.

I posted this snip from TAM's post because I have a question, since I'm just an aircraft technician and not involved in law enforcement or the legal profession in any way. My question is this: does the totality of circumstances not have any bearing on the case? Because as TAM pointed out, Arbery would be alive had those men not pursued him. That's what I want to know. Would the jury not have to take that into account, as well?

I'm not an attorney and all I know about criminal law was from Perry Mason and Law and Order. I also did not sleep at Holiday Inn last night.

I have been told that in Saudi Arabia, If an American is involved in a car accident it is his fault. the logic is if he had not been in Saudi Arabia there would not have been a car accident. I have heard that in Mexico, if an American is in a taxi involved in a car accident it is his fault since he employed the taxi and is immediately arrested. These both maybe old wives tales and are not true.

But I think they follow the same logic as what you have asked about.

Had Ahmaud continued jogging rather than darting to the left and grabbing the gun, he might still be alive? Some here have said, he had a right to self defense, so it was ok for him to attempt to neutralize the threat that he saw.



Here is the video. I watched it for the first time. They have edited when Ahmaud falls to the ground but have apparently left in the third shot.

I am still confused as to who is in the pick up truck bed and who is on the ground. Young guy coming after an older guy, or young guy coming after a younger middle aged guy. I thought since both men were arrested that both had fired. But it appears all three shots come from what appears to be a semi automatic shotgun or rifle. I'm thinking the Dad is in the pickup truck bed, younger guy would have jumped down to help his dad.

Autopsy says two shots to the chest one on the wrist. You hear three shots. None appear to be from the bed of the pickup truck. All from the shotgun or rifle.

Big lesson here, to me. I have always heard safety in distance. Never more clear here. Since I view I am a better shot, distance and cover to me is most important.

Second big lesson. One in the pipe cocked and locked. Yeah the big places where the camera goes off center you hear clicking.

Ahmaud ignores the distance rule, so he charges the shooter. The first shot occurs well before he has a hand on the rifle or shotgun, he is still behind the pick up truck. This must be the injury to the wrist. Problem with open carrying a rifle not on your shoulder, could it be viewed as threatening?
So if he had not been a bad shot and killed Ahmaud right here with the first shot is it murder? Attempted murder? Or stand your ground self defense?

Quickly hunted becomes the hunter. They fight for the gun. Ahmaud never gets the barrel pointed away from him for long in the fight, shooter fires twice, second time doesn't stop the fight, third time he is dead.

We don't hear any voices. We don't know what was said. "come over here nword or I'm going to shoot you", or " Sir, we have called the police, please remain here until they arrive, they have some questions for you".

You try and take a police officers gun. Probably they can shoot you. Private citizen not in their home. Probably not.

[Flightmare]

Mike the Cop has an interesting take on this case

[The Annoyed Man]

Mike the Cop has an interesting take on this case

Excellent video.

[TreyHouston]

That video is really good

[philip964]

Mike the Cop has an interesting take on this case

Excellent video.

Interesting he uses the word “tribal” rather than using the word racial. Interesting concept.

Video of armed black man making a citizens arrest of a young white teen was interesting. White officer shaking black mans hand was very telling of the situation.

Now what if instead of laying on the ground trying real hard to not get shot. What if he had simply got up and walked off. Would the man making a citizens arrest have shot him in the back after repeated demands he stop or I will shoot commands? That sounds like murder to me. What if the young kid went for the black man’s gun? Same situation we have here in Brunswick.

Sounds like if your going to make a citizens arrest you do it without a weapon.

Maybe why the officer in the video didn’t like citizens arrests.

[C-dub]

I just got through all the pages of this thread. I thought I had been at least halfway though, but had only read into the first page before tonight. I read all or nearly all posts, so apologize if someone else has suggested this and I missed it.

Does anyone think the arrests of the father and son might have been for their own protection from an actual lynch mob until this can be thoroughly investigated?

[03Lightningrocks]

I just got through all the pages of this thread. I thought I had been at least halfway though, but had only read into the first page before tonight. I read all or nearly all posts, so apologize if someone else has suggested this and I missed it.

Does anyone think the arrests of the father and son might have been for their own protection from an actual lynch mob until this can be thoroughly investigated?

I think if that were the case it would be called protective custody rather than under arrest. I had not considered it but they may well be in some danger from a vigilante if they do get released on bail.

[philip964]

https://news.yahoo.com/ahmaud-arberys-f ... 21575.html

Obama weighs in.

Lived in Fancy Bluff. Need to look up where that is.

Ok that is right across the highway from where he was shot not 11 miles away. Both are subdivisions aways from the town of Brunswick and across the River.

Apparently lots of 911 calls.

[oljames3]

Attorney Andrew Branca has created a freely accessible page, other than Facebook, of his Facebook LIVE sessions and blogs on the Arbery case.
https://lawofselfdefense.com/ahmaud-arbery-files/

You have probably seen some of our in-depth coverage of the legal and factual issues surrounding the shooting death case of Ahmaud Arbery, killed in Georgia in a confrontation with Travis McMichael and Greg McMichael.

For your convenience, we've now gathered all our coverage as links on a single aggregating blog post, "Ahmaud Arbery Files," which we'll keep pinned as the top post over at the Law of Self Defense blog.

[03Lightningrocks]

https://news.yahoo.com/ahmaud-arberys-f ... 21575.html

Obama weighs in.

Lived in Fancy Bluff. Need to look up where that is.

Ok that is right across the highway from where he was shot not 11 miles away. Both are subdivisions aways from the town of Brunswick and across the River.

Apparently lots of 911 calls.

Interesting that Arbery is in several of the videos, always appearing to be going between the water sources but never once stealing anything or even attempting to steal. Several others were also seen on video on the property. It does not appear he entered with the intent to commit burglary.

[oljames3]

From my understanding, once a plea of self-defense is entered the burden is flipped - it's then on the defense to show that the actions were reasonable, etc, and all the prosecution has to do is sit back and pick that apart.

I am not a lawyer and did not sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night. Here is what the law firm Davis, Chapman & Wilder LLC said about burden of proof in criminal cases in GA on May 19, 2019.

Burden of Proof
In Georgia, the prosecutor’s office must prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If you can cast any reasonable doubt on the government’s case, then the jury cannot legally convict you.

https://dcwattorneys.com/defenses-crimi ... s-georgia/

I understand that, and that's not what I'm talking about - I'm referring to the steps before conviction/acquittal and that's the "burden of production".

I am still not a lawyer. All I know about the law comes from talking with lawyers and my own reading. So, I will rely on the Cornell Law School.

Burden of Proof
Overview
Generally, describes the standard that a party seeking to prove a fact in court must satisfy to have that fact legally established. There are different standards in different circumstances. For example, in criminal cases, the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt is on the prosecution, and they must establish that fact beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving his case by a preponderance of the evidence. A "preponderance of the evidence" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" are different standards, requiring different amounts of proof.

The burden of proof is often said to consist of two distinct but related concepts: the burden of production, and the burden of persuasion.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/burden_of_proof

And once again, that's not the point I'm making - which is that the burden of production for someone claiming self-defense rests on HIM:

"On the legal defense of self-defense the burden of production is on the defendant claiming self-defense. This is rarely a difficult burden for a defendant in a “good guy” case of self-defense (the small minority of self-defense claims)."

Andrew Branca, self-defense attorney, from: https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/11/l ... fense-law/

Sorry for being dense. I am assuming you are asking about the burden of proof (burden of production and burden of persuasion) on the defendant who is charged in a criminal case with unlawful use of force or deadly force. Broadly, in US law which is almost the same in all 50 states, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. When a defendant raises the legal defense of self-defense, the defendant has the burdens of production and persuasion, but so does the prosecution. The differences are in the standard of proof which the law requires of each party for both elements of the burden of proof.

For the defendant on production, "Fortunately, the burden of production is usually very low. If there is any evidence, however contested it might be, you can argue self-defense. In most 'good' self-defense cases there is little difficulty in meeting the burden of production" The Law of Self Defense 3rd Edition, Andrew Branca, page 16.

For the defendant on persuasion, "... do you also bear the burden of persuasion? The answer, in 49 states, is no. With one exception, every state imposes the burden of persuasion on self-defense on the prosecution, and to the legal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt" ibed, page 18.

The prosecution on production, "They are required to present evidence that you committed the crime you're charge with, or the judge won't allow them to take you to trial at all. This is not difficult at all in a self-defense case, because you've already admitted that you used force against the guy to defend yourself" ibed, page 16.

The prosecution on persuasion, "The prosecution bears the burden of proving you committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt (except Ohio)" ibed, page 17.

The Ohio law changed in March, 2019. "Now the burden is on the prosecution, which it should be" wdtn.com, BJ Bethel, August 29, 2019, https://www.wdtn.com/news/local-news/oh ... l-history/.

There is much more to the process of trial in a self-defense case beyond the burden and standard of proof. That is one reason that one needs a lawyer. Put simply, there are at most five elements to a claim of self-defense. If the prosecution can disprove any of the elements, beyond a reasonable doubt, the claim of self-defense fails.

The five elements are: Innocence, Imminence, Proportionality, Avoidance, and Reasonableness. For a discussion of the elements: https://lawofselfdefense.com/beginjourney/