Ahmaud Arbery murder case

[Studdard63]

Really? Arbery ran up to the McMichaels and grabbed one of their guns, and they pursued him? You can throw out whatever technical definition you want of pursuit, approach, or whatever other synonym of choice, but that's not what I saw in the video, and I don't think your average juror is going to see it that way either.

Don’t you have more important things to worry about right now Mrs. McMichael?

 

[RonJohn]

So you would just let it go unless they started doing something to a child or someone else in your neighborhood if all you had is a shotgun? I don't think I'd take a chance of it getting that far if it was me. And if he walks or runs out of your sight, is all well as long as you can't see him?

Based on your description of a person who is suspected of breaking into homes, I would not start an armed confrontation with the person. If there are kids around, a shotgun is again a bad weapon to use. Depending on the load, the spread at 50 feet could be as much as 3-4'. Your aim could be directly in the middle of the person you intend to hit, but you could still hit kids who are several feed away from him. There is no way you could hide a shotgun, so a dangerous criminal would shooting right away, or maybe grab a kid as a hostage. An innocent person might shoot you if you become aggressive towards him and he is armed, because some nut came out of his house with a shotgun and started threatening them.

If a suspected burglar runs out of my sight, what legal authority do I have to hunt him down? I'll answer the question for you. None.

 

[Deleted member 2897]

You enjoying arguing with yourself bwelbo?

Almeone dropped in and said there were conspiracy theories that have been proven untrue being spouted on here. I was just curious what they were talking about. Left a couple follow up messages trying to elicit a response. I recall someone did the same thing before, and then refused to answer and just disappeared. Feels like the same thing again. IIWII. That is all.

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

Chasing in a truck and cutting him off so he has to turn away, having someone else cut him off at another point, and then working themselves ahead of him to cut him off again. That isn't in the video, but that is how the McMichaels described the events. That fits the definition of pursuit to me. Does it somehow not fit your definition? If not, what definition of "pursuit" are you using that does not include chasing, cutting off, chasing again, and putting yourself in the path of the person being pursued? Will the jurors be able to see those descriptions that the McMichaels themselves gave?

Arbery had been chased by the McMichaels already, and had been cut off so that he had to turn around at least twice. When he got to the front of the truck, he went at the younger McMichael, who had exited the truck and appeared to be making his way to cut Arbery off on foot, with a gun in his hands.

McMichael was not walking to hunt turkeys with his shotgun, when he was attacked by a random man from the side of the road. He had been chasing Arbery and intended to stop him. (based on their own admission)

I will use basic definitions that maybe you can understand and let's see if they fit.

Pursue -- chase. Did the McMichaels chase Arbery, yes or no? Well see that fits the entire arguments I have been making about pursue.
Approach -- move closer to. Did McMichael move closer to or further away from Arbery? Well see that fits the entire arguments I have been making about approach.

You can believe that I am twisting definitions and making things sound like something that they were not. The McMichaels did pursue Arbery. They said so themselves. Are you going to argue with their own words? The younger McMichael did approach Arbery with a gun in his hands because he moved closer to Arbery while holding a gun. Are you going to argue that McMichael was moving away from Arbery?

No, I don't think they were chasing Arbery. I think they were following him. As far as McMichael approaching him, maybe he did take a few steps toward where Arbery was going to be in order to talk to him, but Arbery ran about 100-200 feet toward McMichael to fight him for his gun, so who was approaching who the most and who started the physical altercation?

 

[ramblinwreckguru]

Based on your description of a person who is suspected of breaking into homes, I would not start an armed confrontation with the person. If there are kids around, a shotgun is again a bad weapon to use. Depending on the load, the spread at 50 feet could be as much as 3-4'. Your aim could be directly in the middle of the person you intend to hit, but you could still hit kids who are several feed away from him. There is no way you could hide a shotgun, so a dangerous criminal would shooting right away, or maybe grab a kid as a hostage. An innocent person might shoot you if you become aggressive towards him and he is armed, because some nut came out of his house with a shotgun and started threatening them.

If a suspected burglar runs out of my sight, what legal authority do I have to hunt him down? I'll answer the question for you. None.

Ok, so you would have waited for him to hurt you or someone else before you tried to retrieve the only weapon you had at the time. That's all you had to say.

 

[RonJohn]

Ok, so you would have waited for him to hurt you or someone else before you tried to retrieve the only weapon you had at the time. That's all you had to say.

If you produce a weapon, pointed at the person or not, before he threatens anyone that is assault under Georgia law. I don't have a shotgun at my house, so I wouldn't grab a shotgun. I do have a pistol, so I might get a pistol but I would not let that person see it unless he presented a threat and I was in the act of shooting him.

The scenario you described is a person who is suspected of maybe committing some non-violent crimes in the past walking down the road while children are playing. What about that scenarios makes you believe that the children are in immediate danger? That does not legally authorize me to do anything to that person. I could talk to him. I could tell the children to go inside. I cannot legally detain him. I cannot legally force him to talk to me. It would be illegal and stupid for me to run towards him with a gun in my hands and aggressively talk to him.

 

[RonJohn]

No, I don't think they were chasing Arbery. I think they were following him. As far as McMichael approaching him, maybe he did take a few steps toward where Arbery was going to be in order to talk to him, but Arbery ran about 100-200 feet toward McMichael to fight him for his gun, so who was approaching who the most and who started the physical altercation?

In the police report McMichael said that they were attempting to "intercept" him. Maybe this is an issue with definitions again, let's look at definitions of the word that McMichael used and the ones you and I are using:

Intercept -- obstruct (someone or something) so as to prevent them from continuing to a destination.
Chase -- pursue in order to catch or catch up with.
Follow -- go or come after (a person or thing proceeding ahead); move or travel behind.

If they had only intended to "follow" Arbery as you stated, then they would not be able to "intercept" him as McMichael stated was their intention. If they did "chase" Arbery, then they would have been able to "intercept" him as McMichael stated was their intention.

I use words based on definitions, not some vague understanding of the words to better matches my beliefs. I try to say tings based on what the words actually mean so that my statement can be clearly understood.

 

[RonJohn]

No, I don't think they were chasing Arbery. I think they were following him. As far as McMichael approaching him, maybe he did take a few steps toward where Arbery was going to be in order to talk to him, but Arbery ran about 100-200 feet toward McMichael to fight him for his gun, so who was approaching who the most and who started the physical altercation?

Here is McMichael's statement from the police report:

I began speaking with Gregory McMichael who was a witness to the incident . McMichael stated there have been several Break - ins in the neighborhood and further the suspect was caught on surveillance video. Mi his front yard and saw the suspect from the break - ins " hauling ***" down Satilla Drive toward Burford Drive. McMichael stated he then ran inside his house and called to Travis ( ) and said " Travis the guy is running down the street lets go " . McMichael stated he went to his bedroom and grabbed his . Magnum and Travis grabbed his shotgun because they " didn ' t know if the male was armed or not " . Michael stated " the other night" they saw the same male and he stuck his hand down his pants which lead them to believe the male was armed McMichael stated he and Travis got in the truck and drove down Satilla Drive toward Burford Drive McMichael stated when they arrived at the intersection of Satilla Drive and Holmes Drive, they saw the unidentified male running down Burford drive McMichael then stated Travis drive down Burford and attempted to cut off the male. stated the unidentified male turned around and began running back the direction from which he came and " Roddy " attempted to block him which was unsuccessful Michael stated he then jumped into the bed of the truck and he and Travis continued to Holmes in an attempt to intercept him . McMichael stated they saw the unidentified male and shouted " stop stop , we want to talk to you " . Michael stated they pulled up beside the male and shouted stop again at which time Travis exited the truck with the shotgun . McMichael stated the unidentified male began to violently attack Travis and the two men then started fighting over the shotgun at which point Travis fired a shot and then a second later there was a second shot . Michael stated the male fell face down on the pavement with his hand under his body. McMichael stated he rolled the man over to see if the male had a weapon .

So according to McMichael:

• They did pursue him with the intent to "cut off" and "intercept" Arbery.
• They were shouting at him while he as beside the truck and while the younger McMichael exited the truck.
• The elder McMichael only saw Arbery "hauling ***" down the street. He didn't even see him on the construction property.
• The younger McMichael didn't even see him running down the street, because he was inside and had to be called by his father.

That is according to McMichael, not some liberal protester. I don't listen to what protesters say and decide that these are some bad guys. I don't counter the protesters and decide that these guys are saints and Arbery deserved to die. I look at available information, such as the video, the video at the house, and statements from McMichael and compare those to Georgia statutes.

 

[RonJohn]

Here is a pretty good video that puts all of the videos, statements, and 911 calls together. It is from the NYTs, but the recreation of the events from when he entered the construction building to the shooting are based exclusively on the available information without commentary. The first 55 seconds is about protests and general reaction, so if you want to skip that go to 55 seconds.

 

[GT_EE78]

What should Arbery have thought about the younger McMichael jumping out of the truck with a shotgun? In what possible way could chasing him in a truck, yelling at him, and then approaching him with a gun not be perceived as aggresive?

Maybe he was thinkin to himself "dang, I wish i hadn't stolen that dude's handgun"
or not thinking at all.When you grab hold on a gun held by someone else by the barrel and you yank on it what can happen?
Regardless of what was said in the heat of the moment- either at the scene or subsequent interview,
maybe they were just following to talk to him (like they said) until police arrived to make the arrest?
.
.
An attorney friend once told me:
If the law is on your side,you argue law.
If the facts are on your side,you argue facts.
If neither are on your side,you confuse the issues.
- - So it's pretty obvious why you try to confuse the issues.

 

[GT_EE78]

I asked you for any possible scenario you could imagine that would legally justified them pursuing him with guns.

Probably just following him to talk until police arrived to make the arrest. open carry is legal.And if you're attacked - So is standing your ground.
DA Barnhill said that McMichaels actions were legal.
You did correctly point out (in an old post that i can't find now) that i had misstated something,regarding when DA Durden decided to go to Grand Jury,so i'll restate correctly. > 3 consecutive DA offices and one police dept refused to make an arrest in this case. Slander them all if u like,that's opinion which hasn't been proven.
In case you haven't been following , DA Durden's action is why Shaun King, Lee Merritt and Ben Crump removed DA Durden from the case and continue
"prosecutor shopping".. > We've seen this movie before, Does the Zimmermen case ring a bell?

 

[GT_EE78]

Have you seen that the home owner now thinks that Arbery was getting water on the property during jogs? He has other video of Arbery entering the property and going towards a water source. .

sure, And next he might say “When I visited my home yesterday for the first time in a long long long time, I was shocked and stunned to find someone had installed a high resolution motion-activated security camera system that knew how to send me text and video.”
Wonder why?
Maybe agitators like Shaun King,lee Merritt, and Ben Crump have gotten people to call him threatening to kill him and family and burn down his home?
Let's not forget that it was Shaun King's BLM group members or supporters who murdered 5 Dallas police officers in 2016 while wounding 7 others -
now there's ya some "reasonable apprehension"

 

[RonJohn]

Maybe he was thinkin to himself "dang, I wish i hadn't stolen that dude's handgun"
or not thinking at all.When you grab hold on a gun held by someone else by the barrel and you yank on it what can happen?
Regardless of what was said in the heat of the moment- either at the scene or subsequent interview,
maybe they were just following to talk to him (like they said) until police arrived to make the arrest?
.
.
An attorney friend once told me:
If the law is on your side,you argue law.
If the facts are on your side,you argue facts.
If neither are on your side,you confuse the issues.
- - So it's pretty obvious why you try to confuse the issues.

Confuse what issue?

Did they attempt a citizen's arrest? Yes or no? Yes. Is that confusing?
Did they witness a crime immediately before attempting the citizen's arrest? Yes or no? No, based on their own statements. Is that confusing?
Did they use more force than necessary to attempt to detain an unarmed man? Yes or no? Yes. Is that confusing?

Which one of us is using vague descriptions about what the law might, maybe, somewhat, if you look at it in just the right way, maybe this guy was doing something, so they were justified under some statute that doesn't even exist type arguments? I have posted statutes. I have demonstrated that McMichael, even just using his father's statements, violated those statutes. It isn't confusing.

 

[RonJohn]

sure, And next he might say “When I visited my home yesterday for the first time in a long long long time, I was shocked and stunned to find someone had installed a high resolution motion-activated security camera system that knew how to send me text and video.”
Wonder why?
Maybe agitators like Shaun King,lee Merritt, and Ben Crump have gotten people to call him threatening to kill him and family and burn down his home?
Let's not forget that it was Shaun King's BLM group members or supporters who murdered 5 Dallas police officers in 2016 while wounding 7 others -
now there's ya some "reasonable apprehension"

I don't care what protesters say. Have I quoted a protester?

You are certain that Arbery was committing burglary, even though there isn't any evidence that he did. When the homeowner says that it appeared that on at least one occasion, Arbery went into the house, drank water, and jogged away from the house, you state that he has no way of knowing that.

I'll ask this again. What crime did McMichael see Arbery commit immediately before he chased him? According to McMichael's statement, he only saw Arbery running down the road. According to his own statement. Not something that someone on an internet forum dreamed up, according to his own statement. The younger McMichael never say anything because according to the elder McMichael, he was in the house at the time the elder McMichael saw Arbery running down the street. According to the Georgia statute, you cannot detain someone if you didn't actually witness a crime. The younger McMichael didn't, once again according to the statements the McMichaels made to the police, not something I am dreaming up.

 

[RonJohn]

Probably just following him to talk until police arrived to make the arrest.

Read the statement McMichael made to the police. They were not "just following him". Continue making things up and ignoring facts. Continue ignoring statements that McMichael made.

I'll help you out, what about we just make up this one. They were just sitting on their porch when a man ran up to them with a shotgun and told them to give him all their money. The younger McMichael then grabbed the shotgun away from him and in the struggle the robber was shot. They were just minding their own business and this person inflicted violence upon them. That matches the facts as well as all of the round about scenarios you keep posting.

 

[GT_EE78]

Best I remember, Woodstock was in NY instead of Woodstock, GA. The Georgia statute wouldn't have any importance there..

Do you really think that i don't know the difference?
View attachment 8337

 

[GT_EE78]

You are simply stating general, non law based opinion that the McMichaels are decent guys.

I have never said that.
Stop trying to put words in my mouth!
Most of what I've said is just repeating what the DA said,
Like it or not, a 36 year DA knows the law better than you or I

 

[GT_EE78]

Here is a pretty good video that puts all of the videos, statements, and 911 calls together. It is from the NYTs, but the recreation of the events from when he entered the construction building to the shooting are based exclusively on the available information without commentary. The first 55 seconds is about protests and general reaction, so if you want to skip that go to 55 seconds.

ROFL LOL
That video you posted is COMEDIAN Trevor Noah from Comedy Central
This was a tragic and sad event...You should be ashamed of yourself!
Only a minute of protests to avoid biasing the viewer??? b4 he delivers over 90% opinion with little fact.
Here's a video from comedians who deliver mostly facts instead of opinion.
The first two min is discussion of "fact versus opinion" so if you want to skip, that's fine. imho, you shouldn't

 

[RonJohn]

Like it or not, a 36 year DA knows the law better than you or I

I don't have a personal conflict with the parties involved. I haven't been admonished by a national professional society for my handling of this case. I am not under investigation for my handling of this case.

But, go on putting your faith in Barnhill.

 

[RonJohn]

ROFL LOL
That video you posted is COMEDIAN Trevor Noah from Comedy Central
This was a tragic and sad event...You should be ashamed of yourself!
Only a minute of protests to avoid biasing the viewer??? b4 he delivers over 90% opinion with little fact.
Here's a video from comedians who deliver mostly facts instead of opinion.
The first two min is discussion of "fact versus opinion" so if you want to skip, that's fine. imho, you shouldn't

??????

Did you watch the video? Noah is shown in an interview but doesn't speak. He is shown in a fast cycle that includes Ellen, Stacy Abrams, then then him to show that this case has gotten a lot of media attention. What does he say in that video? What joke does he make in that video?

The basics of the NYT video are taking the statements from the McMichaels, the video from across the street, the video from the house under construction, the cell phone video, and two 911 calls to construct what happened from the time that Arbery entered the house under construction until police arrived at the scene. It doesn't discuss guilt or innocence of the McMichaels. It doesn't vilify them. It only shows where people were and how they moved. The match the 911 call from the neighbor to the video from across the street in which you can see Arbery and the neighbor. They match the 911 call from McMichael to the cell phone video so you can hear sound on the cell phone video.

I figured that some people, with you specifically included, would find that interesting.