Ahmaud Arbery Trial

[CardinalBacker]

This one went to the jury today... I've not paid nearly as much attention to it as I have to some of the others.  My gut feeling is that these three probably will be rightfully convicted of something... not sure if murder is the case, though.  At least the father/son duo.  I'm not sold on the guy filming being responsible.

 

Any thoughts?

 

[baddog]

2 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

This one went to the jury today... I've not paid nearly as much attention to it as I have to some of the others.  My gut feeling is that these three probably will be rightfully convicted of something... not sure if murder is the case, though.  At least the father/son duo.  I'm not sold on the guy filming being responsible.

 

Any thoughts?

 

I remember all the people standing outside waiting on the verdict of the “trial of the century”. Looked like a riot mob waiting for a hate crime verdict. Not really, I just made that up. 
 

If Arbury was white, we wouldn’t have even heard of this shooting. Not sure how this will play out. Mob rules. 

[tvc184]

I commented on another Internet forum on this a good while back when the story first came to light. 

At the time there was no indictment and the case is pretty much been dismissed by the local prosecutor. I looked into the case and said that it clearly looked like a cover-up for a former police officer in the county. I thought it was corruption and the guys should be indicted. It was a while back but it seems like I caught some grief and backlash for my opinion. 

Not long after I made those comments, the state police stepped in, looked at the evidence and indicted  them in about 30 seconds. If I remember correctly they filed charges on the district attorney for misconduct for a covering up such an obvious crime. That alone should say something about this case  

I feel like they may get away with murder but I do believe it is murder. It was so egregious that I think they changed the state law immediately afterwards, making such a citizens arrest illegal.

I read the law in that state before I made my comments in the other forum. Knowing that each state is different I wanted to look it up before I made my conclusion. It seems clear to me they had racial issues and had it been a white guy we would have never heard about it because they would not have shot him and probably would not have chased him.

I hope that they are convicted but self-defense is sometimes hard to negate. They are claiming citizens arrest but even if they were doing so lawfully, and I do not think they were, why did they pull a shotgun on an apparently unarmed teenager who was fleeing when they outnumbered him? 

As far as the guy filming, he was an accomplice if it is ruled a murder. When Arbery was running away, the guy doing the filming was making phone calls to tell him which way he was running. Assuming the verdict is murder, he definitely participated by helping them catch up with Arbery.

Let’s play what if. What if a person is shoplifting at Walmart with nothing further to go on, can a person follow that suspect into the parking lot and point a shotgun at him? That would seem like aggravated assault and unjustified force in my opinion. Texas law gives anyone the right to make a citizens arrest for theft but what gives them the right to threaten deadly force when there is no such indication of danger from the person being arrested for a nonviolent crime?

Some people will make the comparison between this and Rittenhouse. It would be like comparing apples to rocks. 

[CardinalBacker]

5 hours ago, tvc184 said:

I commented on another Internet forum on this a good while back when the story first came to light. 

At the time there was no indictment and the case is pretty much been dismissed by the local prosecutor. I looked into the case and said that it clearly looked like a cover-up for a former police officer in the county. I thought it was corruption and the guys should be indicted. It was a while back but it seems like I caught some grief and backlash for my opinion. 

Not long after I made those comments, the state police stepped in, looked at the evidence and indicted  them in about 30 seconds. If I remember correctly they filed charges on the district attorney for misconduct for a covering up such an obvious crime. That alone should say something about this case  

I feel like they may get away with murder but I do believe it is murder. It was so egregious that I think they changed the state law immediately afterwards, making such a citizens arrest illegal.

I read the law in that state before I made my comments in the other forum. Knowing that each state is different I wanted to look it up before I made my conclusion. It seems clear to me they had racial issues and had it been a white guy we would have never heard about it because they would not have shot him and probably would not have chased him.

I hope that they are convicted but self-defense is sometimes hard to negate. They are claiming citizens arrest but even if they were doing so lawfully, and I do not think they were, why did they pull a shotgun on an apparently unarmed teenager who was fleeing when they outnumbered him? 

As far as the guy filming, he was an accomplice if it is ruled a murder. When Arbery was running away, the guy doing the filming was making phone calls to tell him which way he was running. Assuming the verdict is murder, he definitely participated by helping them catch up with Arbery.

Let’s play what if. What if a person is shoplifting at Walmart with nothing further to go on, can a person follow that suspect into the parking lot and point a shotgun at him? That would seem like aggravated assault and unjustified force in my opinion. Texas law gives anyone the right to make a citizens arrest for theft but what gives them the right to threaten deadly force when there is no such indication of danger from the person being arrested for a nonviolent crime?

Some people will make the comparison between this and Rittenhouse. It would be like comparing apples to rocks. 

My opinion, FWIW... I think sometimes police officers (like a lot of professionals) believe that any attempt by a citizen to work on their own plumbing, wiring, or protect their own property is best left to the pros.  Sometimes I think that might influence opinions coming from law enforcement professionals like yourself. 

My problem with your "threaten to use deadly force" argument is that these guys (like a every cop) was legally carrying a firearm.  Is that reason enough for anyone (like Mr. Arbery) to attack them?  Not wanting to talk crap about the dearly departed, but the fact remains that the guy was literally just rummaging through a construction site, running down the street while obviously not dressed as a jogger, and fleeing from people trying to stop him.  All of which LEOs would call "probable cause." Not to mention the fact that he literally attacked the three men on trial.  We tend to lose sight of the departed's contributions to the eventual outcome just because he's gone.  But that's just human nature. 

I live down a private road.  It's obviously not county maintained.  There are 3 signs at the highway pointing out that this is private property, yet we still have people wheel in about once a month, turn around, then leave.  A true story is that last summer I was out mowing behind the house and a truck that I didn't recognize pulled in with an empty trailer.  Drove really slowly past my place, the neighbors place, and eventually turned around in a yard at the very end of the drive. You know, probably just looking for something easy to load up and go sell.  They were slowly easing back down the private drive towards the highway and I made it a point to ride my mower back up to the front front yard to ask them what they needed... just letting them know that if they had no business down there, they shouldn't be there.  It's important to note that I always keep a pistol on me when I mow for snakes and stuff.  By your logic, if those boys had jumped out and attacked me (as methheads often do) and I used my pistol, I'd be charged for murder.   Before you say "but you were on private property,"  yes, but not mine.  The driveway actually exists on my neighbors' property.

[thetragichippy]

6 hours ago, tvc184 said:

I commented on another Internet forum on this a good while back when the story first came to light. 

At the time there was no indictment and the case is pretty much been dismissed by the local prosecutor. I looked into the case and said that it clearly looked like a cover-up for a former police officer in the county. I thought it was corruption and the guys should be indicted. It was a while back but it seems like I caught some grief and backlash for my opinion. 

Not long after I made those comments, the state police stepped in, looked at the evidence and indicted  them in about 30 seconds. If I remember correctly they filed charges on the district attorney for misconduct for a covering up such an obvious crime. That alone should say something about this case  

I feel like they may get away with murder but I do believe it is murder. It was so egregious that I think they changed the state law immediately afterwards, making such a citizens arrest illegal.

I read the law in that state before I made my comments in the other forum. Knowing that each state is different I wanted to look it up before I made my conclusion. It seems clear to me they had racial issues and had it been a white guy we would have never heard about it because they would not have shot him and probably would not have chased him.

I hope that they are convicted but self-defense is sometimes hard to negate. They are claiming citizens arrest but even if they were doing so lawfully, and I do not think they were, why did they pull a shotgun on an apparently unarmed teenager who was fleeing when they outnumbered him? 

As far as the guy filming, he was an accomplice if it is ruled a murder. When Arbery was running away, the guy doing the filming was making phone calls to tell him which way he was running. Assuming the verdict is murder, he definitely participated by helping them catch up with Arbery.

Let’s play what if. What if a person is shoplifting at Walmart with nothing further to go on, can a person follow that suspect into the parking lot and point a shotgun at him? That would seem like aggravated assault and unjustified force in my opinion. Texas law gives anyone the right to make a citizens arrest for theft but what gives them the right to threaten deadly force when there is no such indication of danger from the person being arrested for a nonviolent crime?

Some people will make the comparison between this and Rittenhouse. It would be like comparing apples to rocks. 

I'm not sure how it ended up, but I was listening to your buddy Nate the lawyer. He was pointing out the Judge possibly making a ruling on the wording of the self defense law. I believe there was two parts to self defense, and the defense was using one part and the Judge said it would require both for deadly force. If he ruled like he was leaning, he pretty much took the self defense off the table. 

[CardinalBacker]

6 hours ago, tvc184 said:

I commented on another Internet forum on this a good while back when the story first came to light. 

At the time there was no indictment and the case is pretty much been dismissed by the local prosecutor. I looked into the case and said that it clearly looked like a cover-up for a former police officer in the county. I thought it was corruption and the guys should be indicted. It was a while back but it seems like I caught some grief and backlash for my opinion. 

Not long after I made those comments, the state police stepped in, looked at the evidence and indicted  them in about 30 seconds. If I remember correctly they filed charges on the district attorney for misconduct for a covering up such an obvious crime. That alone should say something about this case  

I feel like they may get away with murder but I do believe it is murder. It was so egregious that I think they changed the state law immediately afterwards, making such a citizens arrest illegal.

I read the law in that state before I made my comments in the other forum. Knowing that each state is different I wanted to look it up before I made my conclusion. It seems clear to me they had racial issues and had it been a white guy we would have never heard about it because they would not have shot him and probably would not have chased him.

I hope that they are convicted but self-defense is sometimes hard to negate. They are claiming citizens arrest but even if they were doing so lawfully, and I do not think they were, why did they pull a shotgun on an apparently unarmed teenager who was fleeing when they outnumbered him? 

As far as the guy filming, he was an accomplice if it is ruled a murder. When Arbery was running away, the guy doing the filming was making phone calls to tell him which way he was running. Assuming the verdict is murder, he definitely participated by helping them catch up with Arbery.

Let’s play what if. What if a person is shoplifting at Walmart with nothing further to go on, can a person follow that suspect into the parking lot and point a shotgun at him? That would seem like aggravated assault and unjustified force in my opinion. Texas law gives anyone the right to make a citizens arrest for theft but what gives them the right to threaten deadly force when there is no such indication of danger from the person being arrested for a nonviolent crime?

Some people will make the comparison between this and Rittenhouse. It would be like comparing apples to rocks. 

But I agree that this case is nothing like the Rittenhouse one.  Not comparable. 

[tvc184]

13 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

I'm not sure how it ended up, but I was listening to your buddy Nate the lawyer. He was pointing out the Judge possibly making a ruling on the wording of the self defense law. I believe there was two parts to self defense, and the defense was using one part and the Judge said it would require both for deadly force. If he ruled like he was leaning, he pretty much took the self defense off the table. 

I saw that and it is a poorly worded law.

I understand the judge’s rationale from the way I generally read law. The second statement immediately follows the first making it appear as though they should be used together. 

Regardless of the judge’s  ruling, I don’t understand how you can justify pulling a shotgun on somebody who’s running down the street, has not made a threat and has not displayed a weapon. When the gun is shove toward his face, Arbery appears to try to push the barrel away and was killed. The father and son are claiming self-defense however in this case, unlike Rittenhouse in Wisconsin, it appears that they provoked the attack. Arbery, like Rittenhouse, was running away. The only difference was that Rittenhouse was armed and Arbery was not.

In states that allow such action, you can’t provoke the incident and then claim self-defense or stand your ground.  If you could then a man could go into a store to commit an armed robbery and when the store owner tried to defend himself, the robber could kill him and claim stand your ground. It doesn’t work that way. 

[tvc184]

28 minutes ago, CardinalBacker said:

My opinion, FWIW... I think sometimes police officers (like a lot of professionals) believe that any attempt by a citizen to work on their own plumbing, wiring, or protect their own property is best left to the pros.  Sometimes I think that might influence opinions coming from law enforcement professionals like yourself. 

My problem with your "threaten to use deadly force" argument is that these guys (like a every cop) was legally carrying a firearm.  Is that reason enough for anyone (like Mr. Arbery) to attack them?  Not wanting to talk crap about the dearly departed, but the fact remains that the guy was literally just rummaging through a construction site, running down the street while obviously not dressed as a jogger, and fleeing from people trying to stop him.  All of which LEOs would call "probable cause." Not to mention the fact that he literally attacked the three men on trial.  We tend to lose sight of the departed's contributions to the eventual outcome just because he's gone.  But that's just human nature. 

I live down a private road.  It's obviously not county maintained.  There are 3 signs at the highway pointing out that this is private property, yet we still have people wheel in about once a month, turn around, then leave.  A true story is that last summer I was out mowing behind the house and a truck that I didn't recognize pulled in with an empty trailer.  Drove really slowly past my place, the neighbors place, and eventually turned around in a yard at the very end of the drive. You know, probably just looking for something easy to load up and go sell.  They were slowly easing back down the private drive towards the highway and I made it a point to ride my mower back up to the front front yard to ask them what they needed... just letting them know that if they had no business down there, they shouldn't be there.  It's important to note that I always keep a pistol on me when I mow for snakes and stuff.  By your logic, if those boys had jumped out and attacked me (as methheads often do) and I used my pistol, I'd be charged for murder.   Before you say "but you were on private property,"  yes, but not mine.  The driveway actually exists on my neighbors' property.

From my opinion and the officers that I have worked with over the years (over 300) have no issue with citizens arrest. In fact we respond to those calls several times a week. The  thought that, you don’t do the cop’s  job, doesn’t come from the police. It comes from people who don’t like people taking action. Even looking at the Rittenhouse case as a comparison, I have probably read 1, 000 statements that it was not Rittenhouse‘s business. It for the most part is not the police saying that.

When deadly force is used in self-defense, I have seen several such situation where I worked, it isn’t the police that have issues.

There is no indication that I have seen that indicated Arbery committed a felony.

Arbery did not attack for three men. He tried to run away and had a gun shoved in his face. That was basically the prosecution‘s claim in the Rittenhouse case. Oh look, Rittenhouse attacked them. No, he was attacked.

I would be stunned   if the police did what the suspects did in this case. We don’t shove shotguns in peoples’ faces who are running away and have not displayed a weapon or made a threat to kill. If this had been uniformed police officers and acted the same way, they would be a huge outcry across this land.

[CardinalBacker]

1 hour ago, tvc184 said:

From my opinion and the officers that I have worked with over the years (over 300) have no issue with citizens arrest. In fact we respond to those calls several times a week. The  thought that, you don’t do the cop’s  job, doesn’t come from the police. It comes from people who don’t like people taking action. Even looking at the Rittenhouse case as a comparison, I have probably read 1, 000 statements that it was not Rittenhouse‘s business. It for the most part is not the police saying that.

When deadly force is used in self-defense, I have seen several such situation where I worked, it isn’t the police that have issues.

There is no indication that I have seen that indicated Arbery committed a felony.

Arbery did not attack for three men. He tried to run away and had a gun shoved in his face. That was basically the prosecution‘s claim in the Rittenhouse case. Oh look, Rittenhouse attacked them. No, he was attacked.

I would be stunned   if the police did what the suspects did in this case. We don’t shove shotguns in peoples’ faces who are running away and have not displayed a weapon or made a threat to kill. If this had been uniformed police officers and acted the same way, they would be a huge outcry across this land.

I guess I'm confused.  Does a person have the right to possess a gun in public in Georgia?  Yes.  Do you have a right to ask someone to stop?  Sure.  No harm, no foul...  Is it true that a citizen has the right to affect a citizens' arrest... sure if they meet certain requirements.... if those requirements aren't met, then the person affecting that arrest would face civil and possibly criminal charges.  While we all agree that those three guys were stupid, at what point is a law broken?  

 

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

I guess I'm confused.  Does a person have the right to possess a gun in public in Georgia?  Yes.  Do you have a right to ask someone to stop?  Sure.  No harm, no foul...  Is it true that a citizen has the right to affect a citizens' arrest... sure if they meet certain requirements.... if those requirements aren't met, then the person affecting that arrest would face civil and possibly criminal charges.  While we all agree that those three guys were stupid, at what point is a law broken?  

 

Murder

[CardinalBacker]

3 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

Murder

Bingo!  The problem is that the murder didn't occur until they were struggling over the gun. 

 

Is your contention that no laws were broken, but they are somehow guilty of murder because a man died trying to wrestle a legally held gun away from them?

[PAMFAM10]

This is about as clear as it gets . Hope all 3 found guilty.

[thetragichippy]

33 minutes ago, PAMFAM10 said:

This is about as clear as it gets . Hope all 3 found guilty.

All three were convicted....the father and son guilty on all 8 or 9 counts......

the 3rd wheel guilty of 7/9 or 8/9

Their future is trying to hold on to the soap for the rest of their lives.....

 

 

[Bobcat1]

2 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

I guess I'm confused.  Does a person have the right to possess a gun in public in Georgia?  Yes.  Do you have a right to ask someone to stop?  Sure.  No harm, no foul...  Is it true that a citizen has the right to affect a citizens' arrest... sure if they meet certain requirements.... if those requirements aren't met, then the person affecting that arrest would face civil and possibly criminal charges.  While we all agree that those three guys were stupid, at what point is a law broken?  

 

You have the right to ask someone to stop?  I would NEVER make it home if that was the case.... 

I get asked to stop for money from a beggars on the side of the sidewalk/road while walking, I don't stop because I don't want to.  Should he be able to put a gun in my face because he has the right to carry one?  I'm not understanding how you being able to carry a gun makes is ok to put it in my face? Or am I not understanding what you're meaning.  

[baddog]

Yeah, we have to give in to the rioters. For what it’s worth, I think they were guilty of murder and the photographer guilty of accessory. How’s that. It still doesn’t alter the fact that we now have trials and convictions by the media. The fact that blacks threaten to burn and loot, possibly kill if they don’t get their, way is atrocious. Why didn’t whites threaten to loot and burn before the O.J. verdict? Could it be we believe in the law and the courts? If blacks had their way, all black killed were innocent and if killed by white guys or the police, it’s time to riot and burn down cities. If they are killed by a black person, then that is totally acceptable. Please keep feeding me info to digest so I can understand that mentality. 
 

These guys killed a black guy who they believed was stealing from a construction site. I think there is more to the story than came out in the trial, but it doesn’t excuse them from killing this man. Should I riot, loot, burn, and THREATEN innocent citizens if I thought otherwise?

[tvc184]

1 hour ago, CardinalBacker said:

Bingo!  The problem is that the murder didn't occur until they were struggling over the gun. 

 

Is your contention that no laws were broken, but they are somehow guilty of murder because a man died trying to wrestle a legally held gun away from them?

I never said no why was broken.

I believe the McMichaels committed the crimes of aggravated assault for trying to run over Arbery and also for pointing a shotgun at him without justification. They also committed false imprisonment by ordering him to stop without legal justification.

Your question about asking a person to stop is disingenuous at best. That sounds like a question as if Arbery was walking down the street minding his own business and a couple of guy said hey, do you mind talking with us. Pointing a shotgun at someone and order the person to stop is hardly legal unless you can justify a deadly force in an arrest of an unarmed person.

The  then  Georgia law said you had to have an immediate knowledge of a possible felony. First it was no felony but even assuming it was possible to think there was a felony they had to have immediate knowledge. They had none. They were not in the area. Immediate knowledge without witnessing it is like if you hear a shot inside of a store and a few seconds later see a man running out with a bag and a gun. It makes it look like he just committed a robbery and that would probably be a reasonable conclusion. Even if it was not, it could be a reasonable belief.

The Michaels had none of that.

[tvc184]

And I see while I was typing, the jury came to the same conclusion I did before the McMichaels were even indicted.  

From the photos and partial video that I saw, the first shot hit Arbery in the head and almost certainly killed or incapacitated him.  I did not watch the evidence at trial but from what I understand, McMichael then pump two more rounds into him. Even assuming that everything else was legal up until that point, what justification is there for firing two rounds into somebody who has been shot the head?

It seems from the evidence and their own actions, these guys had a problem and it wasn’t really because a black guy was jogging down the street who may have committed a nonviolent crime.

I believe Georgia law is automatic life in prison with a possibility of parole at 30 years at the discretion of the judge only. 

Bye bye……

I am sure they will appeal.

[thetragichippy]

6 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

And I see while I was typing, the jury came to the same conclusion I did before the McMichaels were even indicted.  

From the photos and partial video that I saw, the first shot hit Arbery in the head and almost certainly killed or incapacitated him.  I did not watch the evidence at trial but from what I understand, McMichael then pump two more rounds into him. Even assuming that everything else was legal up until that point, what justification is there for firing two rounds into somebody who has been shot the head?

It seems from the evidence and their own actions, these guys had a problem and it wasn’t really because a black guy was jogging down the street who may have committed a nonviolent crime.

I believe Georgia law is automatic life in prison with a possibility of parole at 30 years at the discretion of the judge only. 

Bye bye……

I am sure they will appeal.

they each got 6-7 murder charges......was that just to stack the sentence? 

[tvc184]

15 minutes ago, thetragichippy said:

they each got 6-7 murder charges......was that just to stack the sentence? 

Yes. 

[Setx fan]

Good decision by the judge and jurors. I kind of figured they would be found guilty. I seriously thought the third party might come out with a slap on the wrist or something though. Just to think if the video wasn’t leaked all 3 of these guys might have gotten away with this.

[tvc184]

For anyone that thinks three guys were not guilty….

Why was Arbery shot 3 times when the first shot either killed or incapacitated him?

When the local DA looked at the incident for several weeks and decided that there was nothing to investigate and would not even submit it to a grand jury, why did the state police look at it for about 24 hours and come back with warrants? 

Why did the state then indict the DA for a cover-up?

[Hagar]

For those that contend that Rittenhouse shouldn’t have been where he was at the shooting, I’m curious why?  Does the mob rule decide where we can be or not be?  You could say the same about Aubrey - he shouldn’t have been there, but you’re wrong again.  Aubrey had every right to be where he was, just like Rittenhouse.  John was innocent just like these guys are guilty.  These three, like the three who attacked John, made bad decisions.  I agree with both verdicts.

[CardinalBacker]

18 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

For anyone that thinks three guys were not guilty….

Why was Arbery shot 3 times when the first shot either killed or incapacitated him?

When the local DA looked at the incident for several weeks and decided that there was nothing to investigate and would not even submit it to a grand jury, why did the state police look at it for about 24 hours and come back with warrants? 

Why did the state then indict the DA for a cover-up?

Did you even watch the video? He was still upright fighting over the gun until the third shot was fired. 

To answer your question, the indictment could very possibly also have been political in nature.  

I’m just saying that there is a whole lot of “shoving a gun in his face” talk without a shred of evidence that it actually occurred. Kinda like “hands up, don’t shoot.”

Would anybody believe that a black man was getting a fair trial when the courthouse was surrounded by hundreds of good ol’ boys? If you think so, you’re kidding yourself.  

That man’s violent nature led to his own death. The video doesn’t lie. 

[Big girl]

5 hours ago, CardinalBacker said:

I guess I'm confused.  Does a person have the right to possess a gun in public in Georgia?  Yes.  Do you have a right to ask someone to stop?  Sure.  No harm, no foul...  Is it true that a citizen has the right to affect a citizens' arrest... sure if they meet certain requirements.... if those requirements aren't met, then the person affecting that arrest would face civil and possibly criminal charges.  While we all agree that those three guys were stupid, at what point is a law broken?  

 

When they killed dude.

[BS Wildcats]

3 hours ago, PAMFAM10 said:

This is about as clear as it gets . Hope all 3 found guilty.

What are your thoughts on the Rittenhouse trial?