GA: "Jogger" chased and murdered

[03Lightningrocks]

Yeah, you keep reposting and saying that but aparently you are severely misinterpreting the laws on this. First, they did not see him doing anything wrong and had no first hand info that he had just done anything wrong. Suspicion of wrong doing does not qualify.

Speaking of reposting things and not listening to the other side, isn't that what you just did. First, no matter what he did get seen doing something wrong. When he entered the house it was without permission and constitutes trespassing. That is a crime and he was seen doing it. I am not sure I agree with the person in the video I posted a link too, but the video from inside the house shows him looking around which could indicate planning to steal something. I am not sure if I agree with the logic of him committing a burglary, though it is worded that way in Texas also (entering a property without permission with the intent to commit a theft). But if correct, burglary is a felony in both Texas and Georgia. And Georgia law apparently does allow them to chase him down for mere suspicion of a felony.

What we all need to do is call for a thorough unbiased investigation and wait until we get all of the facts from it before we jump to a conclusion. I don't know if Arbery was a burglar or not. I don't know if the McMichaels were murderers or not. I want to see a full and proper investigation that releases the facts.

Of course, i have no faith whatsoever of the media ever presenting the unbiased facts.

Absolutely not. I have not locked down my mind on what has happened here. But at this point, only a blind man says it all looks perfectly legal.

[TimLanders]

Robert Barnes discusses the case on Viva Frei's channel: . He comes in around 7 minutes in.

[The Annoyed Man]

[Flightmare]

Thankyou for posting that TAM. Basically sums up what I had been thinking.

[philip964]

From USA Today on video guy.

“Bryan has not been arrested in connection with the case, but the director of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation said last week that investigators were looking into all people connected to the case, including him.
Lee Merritt, an attorney representing Arbery's family, has said this section of the video implicates Bryan as the sound of a firearm being cocked can be heard.
"As Mr. Byran gets closer, his camera takes a dip as if he's reaching for something in the passenger seat, and you hear what my experts tell me is the sound of a round being chambered and then the camera returns," Merritt told USA TODAY.
Gregory McMichael told police that Bryan was involved in following Arbery before the events on the video, saying Bryan "attempted to block him, which was unsuccessful," and the memo from the district attorney previously looking into the case said Bryan joined the father and son in "hot pursuit" of Arbery.
Merritt called Bryan a "willing participant of this ambush."
Kevin Gough, Bryan's attorney, has said his client did nothing wrong, was not armed during the incident and was just a witness to a crime.
"Roddie is a family man, NASCAR fan, and enjoys rock and roll. He is not now, and never has been, a 'vigilante,'" Gough said in the statement. 
Carlson, who said he was Gough's professor at University of Georgia, said it will be hard to prove the sounds from the vehicle are definitively a gun cocking.
"That sound may at the end of the day be attributed to something, but I don't think it will be provable that Bryan had a gun," Carlson said”

Wow, a sound on the video may be the cocking of a gun”

It’s really down to this now.

Well it would serve him right for having to chamber a round.

[03Lightningrocks]

From USA Today on video guy.

“Bryan has not been arrested in connection with the case, but the director of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation said last week that investigators were looking into all people connected to the case, including him.
Lee Merritt, an attorney representing Arbery's family, has said this section of the video implicates Bryan as the sound of a firearm being cocked can be heard.
"As Mr. Byran gets closer, his camera takes a dip as if he's reaching for something in the passenger seat, and you hear what my experts tell me is the sound of a round being chambered and then the camera returns," Merritt told USA TODAY.
Gregory McMichael told police that Bryan was involved in following Arbery before the events on the video, saying Bryan "attempted to block him, which was unsuccessful," and the memo from the district attorney previously looking into the case said Bryan joined the father and son in "hot pursuit" of Arbery.
Merritt called Bryan a "willing participant of this ambush."
Kevin Gough, Bryan's attorney, has said his client did nothing wrong, was not armed during the incident and was just a witness to a crime.
"Roddie is a family man, NASCAR fan, and enjoys rock and roll. He is not now, and never has been, a 'vigilante,'" Gough said in the statement. 
Carlson, who said he was Gough's professor at University of Georgia, said it will be hard to prove the sounds from the vehicle are definitively a gun cocking.
"That sound may at the end of the day be attributed to something, but I don't think it will be provable that Bryan had a gun," Carlson said”

Wow, a sound on the video may be the cocking of a gun”

It’s really down to this now.

Well it would serve him right for having to chamber a round.

[oljames3]

https://www.facebook.com/LawofSelfDefen ... 215630100/

Attorney Andrew Branca's Wednesday, May 13, 2020, Use of Force Analysis - Ahmaud Arbery.

Branca usually only leaves the most recent video on Facebook for a short time. He will be leaving the videos about this incident on Facebook.

[Ruark]

What they actually SAW was: a man walking into a house under construction, then walking out. Period. All the stuff about trespassing is irrelevant. Even if there were "No Trespassing" signs, it's still irrelevant. Just because you see a guy go in doesn't mean you can point a shotgun at him and detain him against his will. For all you know, he might be the owner of the house. Or a subcontractor. Or a mortgage company employee or city inspector checking off something. These guys are going to, and should, fry like bacon in a skillet.

[philip964]

https://news.yahoo.com/gregory-mcmichae ... 32136.html

Worked for thirty years for law enforcement or DA, never had firearm or use of force training that was required for his job.

[parabelum]

What they actually SAW was: a man walking into a house under construction, then walking out. Period. All the stuff about trespassing is irrelevant. Even if there were "No Trespassing" signs, it's still irrelevant. Just because you see a guy go in doesn't mean you can point a shotgun at him and detain him against his will. For all you know, he might be the owner of the house. Or a subcontractor. Or a mortgage company employee or city inspector checking off something. These guys are going to, and should, fry like bacon in a skillet.

Exactly.

[philip964]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ow ... t-n1205191

People who own home Ahmaud visited may not move in because of death threats they have received.

[The Annoyed Man]

Thankyou for posting that TAM. Basically sums up what I had been thinking.

You’re welcome. I think that a lot of people are going to look back on how this plays out in the end, and realize that they hastily came down on the side of their passions, and not on the side of the law..... much like the men who killed Ahmaud Arbery did.

The whole think speaks to whether or not it is worth killing someone over theft or vandalism of property—PARTICULARLY someone else's property—unless that person is directly threatening you with use of force/deadly force. Armageddon isn’t here yet.

I have three reactions:

(1) Any previous criminal record of Arbery's is irrelevant to this case. It seems extremely unlikely to me that the accused father and son would have had any prior knowledge of any such record. But even if they’d had such prior knowledge, this event was in no way connected to any previous events. It was its own distinct event. A pattern of proven past behaviors is not the same thing as a newly committed crime, and possible trespassing aside (for all they knew, he might have had permission to be there), father and son had no such proof of any kind of serious crime having been committed. That’s how the law works.

(2) Arbery threatened nobody, assaulted nobody. He was not armed. When somebody with a firearm threatened him, he fought for his life. Even people with criminal records are allowed to defend themselves from unprovoked attacks by armed men. That’s how the law works.

(3) If those two men hadn’t pursued Arbery, he’d be alive today, and they wouldn’t be in trouble. That’s how the law works.

When I was a kid, friends and I walked into LOTS of homes under construction to check them out. We never did any harm...we were just curious about what the house was going to be like. Thankfully, nobody had a wild enough hair up the wazoo to chase us down and confront us at gunpoint. I’d have run like heck too.....and maybe fought back too, depending on the demeanor and actions of my pursuers.

[RottenApple]

You’re welcome. I think that a lot of people are going to look back on how this plays out in the end, and realize that they hastily came down on the side of their passions, and not on the side of the law..... much like the men who killed Ahmaud Arbery did.

I don't normally make a practice of disagreeing with you, TAM. But I think you might be wrong in this case (subject to new evidence being brought forth). After watching Andrew Branca's piece on this (link above) several times, I have a different view.

The whole think speaks to whether or not it is worth killing someone over theft or vandalism of property—PARTICULARLY someone else's property—unless that person is directly threatening you with use of force/deadly force. Armageddon isn’t here yet.

I completely agree that killing someone over property isn't worth it. However, being stupid or making bad choices is not itself a crime.

(1) Any previous criminal record of Arbery's is irrelevant to this case. It seems extremely unlikely to me that the accused father and son would have had any prior knowledge of any such record. But even if they’d had such prior knowledge, this event was in no way connected to any previous events. It was its own distinct event. A pattern of proven past behaviors is not the same thing as a newly committed crime, and possible trespassing aside (for all they knew, he might have had permission to be there), father and son had no such proof of any kind of serious crime having been committed. That’s how the law works.

Agreed; but that isn't how this went down. The McMichaels witnessed a man stop outside a home under construction, in a neighborhood that has had several break-ins\thefts, look both ways (possibly to see if he was being observed?), and then head into the house. He was there for a few minutes, left the structure, and then started running. That certainly does seem like suspicious behavior to me.

Additionally, in GA, the law doesn't require that the McMichaels had "proof of any kind of serious crime having been committed". GA law only requires Reasonable Suspicion of intent to flee from committing a felony burglary.

(2) Arbery threatened nobody, assaulted nobody. He was not armed. When somebody with a firearm threatened him, he fought for his life. Even people with criminal records are allowed to defend themselves from unprovoked attacks by armed men. That’s how the law works.

The problem is that there is no evidence (publicly available at this time) that the McMichaels threatened anyone. Open Carry is 100% legal in GA and cannot be used as an element of threat without some additional action ("stop or I'll shoot", pointing the firearm, etc.) and there is no evidence of any other such threatening action or behavior from the McMichaels.

What there is evidence (video) of is of Arbery running towards the McMichaels (he was not pursued by them), dodging to the right side of the pickup, and then charging at one of them across the front of the truck.

(3) If those two men hadn’t pursued Arbery, he’d be alive today, and they wouldn’t be in trouble. That’s how the law works.

This is, without a doubt, completely true and correct. What they did was foolish and stupid, but that is not a crime.

When I was a kid, friends and I walked into LOTS of homes under construction to check them out. We never did any harm...we were just curious about what the house was going to be like. Thankfully, nobody had a wild enough hair up the wazoo to chase us down and confront us at gunpoint. I’d have run like heck too.....and maybe fought back too, depending on the demeanor and actions of my pursuers.

But would you have charged someone holding, but not pointing it at you, a firearm? They don't say anything threatening to you (from the video we can't even tell if words were even exchanged much less what was said). Would you have charged across 6-10 feet (Tueller Drill anyone?) and tried to grapple the gun away from them? Because that's what apparently happened in this case. Which, again, absent any additional evidence that may come to light, makes Arbery the aggressor and makes this a self-defense case.

I guess we'll have to see if something new comes out.

[philip964]

https://apple.news/Ajm7zHhJWQ-KawYIx_0KyYQ

New footage from 11 days before that triggered a 911 call from the shooters.

[The Annoyed Man]

You’re welcome. I think that a lot of people are going to look back on how this plays out in the end, and realize that they hastily came down on the side of their passions, and not on the side of the law..... much like the men who killed Ahmaud Arbery did.

I don't normally make a practice of disagreeing with you, TAM. But I think you might be wrong in this case (subject to new evidence being brought forth). After watching Andrew Branca's piece on this (link above) several times, I have a different view.

The whole think speaks to whether or not it is worth killing someone over theft or vandalism of property—PARTICULARLY someone else's property—unless that person is directly threatening you with use of force/deadly force. Armageddon isn’t here yet.

I completely agree that killing someone over property isn't worth it. However, being stupid or making bad choices is not itself a crime.

(1) Any previous criminal record of Arbery's is irrelevant to this case. It seems extremely unlikely to me that the accused father and son would have had any prior knowledge of any such record. But even if they’d had such prior knowledge, this event was in no way connected to any previous events. It was its own distinct event. A pattern of proven past behaviors is not the same thing as a newly committed crime, and possible trespassing aside (for all they knew, he might have had permission to be there), father and son had no such proof of any kind of serious crime having been committed. That’s how the law works.

Agreed; but that isn't how this went down. The McMichaels witnessed a man stop outside a home under construction, in a neighborhood that has had several break-ins\thefts, look both ways (possibly to see if he was being observed?), and then head into the house. He was there for a few minutes, left the structure, and then started running. That certainly does seem like suspicious behavior to me.

Additionally, in GA, the law doesn't require that the McMichaels had "proof of any kind of serious crime having been committed". GA law only requires Reasonable Suspicion of intent to flee from committing a felony burglary.

(2) Arbery threatened nobody, assaulted nobody. He was not armed. When somebody with a firearm threatened him, he fought for his life. Even people with criminal records are allowed to defend themselves from unprovoked attacks by armed men. That’s how the law works.

The problem is that there is no evidence (publicly available at this time) that the McMichaels threatened anyone. Open Carry is 100% legal in GA and cannot be used as an element of threat without some additional action ("stop or I'll shoot", pointing the firearm, etc.) and there is no evidence of any other such threatening action or behavior from the McMichaels.

What there is evidence (video) of is of Arbery running towards the McMichaels (he was not pursued by them), dodging to the right side of the pickup, and then charging at one of them across the front of the truck.

(3) If those two men hadn’t pursued Arbery, he’d be alive today, and they wouldn’t be in trouble. That’s how the law works.

This is, without a doubt, completely true and correct. What they did was foolish and stupid, but that is not a crime.

When I was a kid, friends and I walked into LOTS of homes under construction to check them out. We never did any harm...we were just curious about what the house was going to be like. Thankfully, nobody had a wild enough hair up the wazoo to chase us down and confront us at gunpoint. I’d have run like heck too.....and maybe fought back too, depending on the demeanor and actions of my pursuers.

But would you have charged someone holding, but not pointing it at you, a firearm? They don't say anything threatening to you (from the video we can't even tell if words were even exchanged much less what was said). Would you have charged across 6-10 feet (Tueller Drill anyone?) and tried to grapple the gun away from them? Because that's what apparently happened in this case. Which, again, absent any additional evidence that may come to light, makes Arbery the aggressor and makes this a self-defense case.

I guess we'll have to see if something new comes out.

Well, maybe you’re right and I’m wrong. I can only call 'em like I see 'em, and in this particular case, it seems like both the McMichaels and Aubrey would have been better served if the McMichaels had simply tried to be good witnesses. But they clearly went beyond that line when they decided to chase him down and try to detain him, when they could have merely stayed in the daggum car, avoided direct contact, and tailed him and directed police to his location. I’m telling all of you right now, stuff like THIS is why I have insurance..... for those times when I’m not home to order someone off of my property, and he or she breaks into my house and takes something. But an empty, unfinished house in mid-construction in my neighborhood? Nah. Just call the cops and let them deal with it. That’s what they get paid for. I don’t.

And if I were the owner of that unfinished house, my answer would be, "I have property insurance. Thank you for your concern, but please don't put yourselves at risk on behalf of my property. If you see me getting a beat-down, then by all means help me if you can, and I’ll welcome any help you can give, and return the favor if the shoe's on the other foot. But for property crimes? let the police make the arrests, and my insurance company will make me whole if there’s any damage to or theft of my property."

There’s an obvious caveat here.... if someone is intent on going through me to get to my property, then self defense comes into play. But if I come home just in time to see someone go roaring out of my driveway with my lawnmower in the back of their truck, AT MOST I'd follow at a safe distance, dial 911, and direct officers to the location of that truck.