Ahmaud Arbery Thread #2

[iluvatar5150]

Okay kids, let's try to keep this one from getting locked. Here's the first thread in case anybody needs a refresher:
The Next Trayvon Martin? GA Man Chased, Killed While Jogging

The latest development I've seen and found interesting is the comparison between the way DA Barnhill (the second prosecutor to be assigned and then recuse himself) treated this case and the way his office treated the case of Olivia Pearson a few years earlier (which also grabbed headlines at the time).

If you'll recall, Barnhill wrote a letter saying that, under the citizen's arrest laws in GA, the McMichael's were allowed to pursue Arbery and that it was Arbery who initiated the contact, thus justifying the McMichaels in defending themselves. From that perspective, he found no grounds to arrest them. Other lawyers and agencies found his rationale preposterous and once the case got into the hands of the state, they quickly filed charges against the McMichaels.

Contrast that with: back in 2012, Olivia Pearson was a local politician who happened to be at a polling place when another voter was having trouble figuring out how to work the voting machine and asked for assistance. Having read a couple articles on the matter, I'm unclear as to whether Pearson was asked directly by the voter or whether the voter asked the polls workers who then asked Pearson to help (I think it's the latter, but I'm not positive). Pearson obliged and then signed a form saying that the voter had qualified for assistance. Turns out that that was incorrect - GA law places some strict conditions on who qualifies for that sort of assistance (i.e. you have to be disabled or illiterate, not merely a first-time voter who can't figure out a machine). So, in helping and then in signing the form, she inadvertently broke voter laws. To be clear, there was never any allegation that she'd so much as tried to influence the vote, just that she inappropriately provided assistance.

According to the articles I've read, cases like this are typically handled with administrative punishments like fines or censure. But four years later, after the investigation had concluded, DA Barnhill's office brought felony voter fraud charges against her. The first trial resulted in a hung jury, after which, Barnhill's office decided to retry the case. But in the interim, Pearson got better representation and won a change of venue. The second jury acquitted her in 20 minutes.

The unbiased articles I've found from the time of the trial typically don't name Barnhill, but rather the ADA under him who directly prosecuted the case (Barnhill was the DA at the time):
Jury quickly says ‘not guilty’ in Georgia elections case

Commissioner Olivia Pearson's second voter fraud trial on October calendar

whereas if you read current articles at sites like Mother Jones (yeah, I know), they point the finger at Barnhill:
He didn't file charges in the Arbery case. But he spent years accusing a Black grandma of voter fraud.

And now it appears that the GA AG will be launching a broader investigation into the justice system in the area:
Georgia Killing Puts Spotlight on a Police Force’s Troubled History

The charges — which came after the release of a graphic video showing the killing as the two white men confront Mr. Arbery, who was African-American — made clear the depths of the local department’s bungling of the case, which was just the latest in a series of troubling episodes involving its officers.

And it was one element of the broader potential breakdown of the justice system in South Georgia. Attorney General Chris Carr, through a spokeswoman, said on Friday that he planned to start a review of all of the relevant players in that system

 

[Ana the Ist]

So...the case has now been handed off again...

Georgia Attorney General Names New Prosecutor In Ahmaud Arbery Case

She's now the 4th person to take over prosecution. I find it interesting that Tom Durden handed the case over because it had gotten "too big" for him to handle. Surely an Atlanta prosecutor has handled murder cases before.

 

[iluvatar5150]

GBI reviewing additional video footage in Ahmaud Arbery case

 

[Subduction Zone]

Since Arbery was known to Michael there was no need to shoot him. There was no need to chase him down even if they wanted to make a citizen's arrest. And it was rather clear by his dress that he could not have anything of value on him. By the way, claiming that the Michael's saw the video of the break in of that day would only make matters worse. That too would be more than enough to arrest him. It was a case of "you can run but you can't hide". There was no need to shoot and kill him. And in fact any police chase would not authorize deadly force for such a case.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And in fact any police chase would not authorize deadly force for such a case.

I disagree. If police witnessed him trespassing, tried to stop him, and he tried to wrestle a gun from a cop....lethal force is completely justified.

 

[Sketcher]

I disagree. If police witnessed him trespassing, tried to stop him, and he tried to wrestle a gun from a cop....lethal force is completely justified.

But these guys weren't cops. If a vehicle is chasing you, and two men in a truck cut you off, one of them brandishing a shotgun and the other is standing in the truck bed, would you not reasonably fear for your life?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagree. If police witnessed him trespassing, tried to stop him, and he tried to wrestle a gun from a cop....lethal force is completely justified.

That is not a fair comparison. You would have to show that the Georgia citizen arrest laws allow an armed group to chase down a suspect that is fleeing a scene. And that is a best case scenario. When a person or persons make an affirmative defense they put the burden of proof upon themselves.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

But these guys weren't cops. If a vehicle is chasing you, and two men in a truck cut you off, one of them brandishing a shotgun and the other is standing in the truck bed, would you not reasonably fear for your life?

Being white in Georgia is better than being a cop.

 

[jayem]

Since Arbery was known to Michael there was no need to shoot him. There was no need to chase him down even if they wanted to make a citizen's arrest. And it was rather clear by his dress that he could not have anything of value on him. By the way, claiming that the Michael's saw the video of the break in of that day would only make matters worse. That too would be more than enough to arrest him. It was a case of "you can run but you can't hide". There was no need to shoot and kill him. And in fact any police chase would not authorize deadly force for such a case.

Absolutely. Was the man actually trespassing? From what I’ve read, it seems like he was jogging on a public street. And even if it was a private street, the proper action by a concerned civilian would be to call the police and take some time stamped phone photos or a video if possible.

Unless clear evidence to the contrary arises, the only thing Mr. Arbery did wrong was to be a black man in a white south GA neighborhood.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Absolutely. Was the man actually trespassing? From what I’ve read, it seems like he was jogging on a public street. And even if it was a private street, the proper action by a concerned civilian would be to call the police and take some time stamped phone photos or a video if possible.

Unless clear evidence to the contrary arises, the only thing Mr. Arbery did wrong was to be a black man in a white south GA neighborhood.

To be honest he was not jogging. That was the claim of the family. He was videoed going into a home under construction. It looks like a burglary. One does not have to take something to burglarize a house. If one enters a building with an intent to steal, whether at that time or later, that is a burglary. But even if that was the case there was no excuse to hunt him down and shoot him. He was suspected to be the person that performed earlier burglaries in the neighborhood and this pretty much confirmed it. The problem for the Michael's is that since he was known he could not get away by running. There is a clear video of him entering a house and his mother confirmed it was him:

Video shows man who may have been Ahmaud Arbery enter work site

Burglary by a known individual that is not making a threat is not a valid reason to shoot him.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I disagree. If police witnessed him trespassing, tried to stop him, and he tried to wrestle a gun from a cop....lethal force is completely justified.

Every armed thug is the same as the police -- got it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

But these guys weren't cops.

Right...but the post I replied to was talking about what would be legal if they were cops.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Every armed thug is the same as the police -- got it.

Again, I was replying to a post that mentioned the legality of the situation if it was two cops instead of two civilians.

You bring up a fair point though....I often see certain posters lamenting that "civilians would never get away with" a shooting incident done by the police.

Would you feel better about this situation if it's declared self defense?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Again, I was replying to a post that mentioned the legality of the situation if it was two cops instead of two civilians.

You bring up a fair point though....I often see certain posters lamenting that "civilians would never get away with" a shooting incident done by the police.

Would you feel better about this situation if it's declared self defense?

Self-defense applies to one responding with deadly force -- not the ones instigating it.

Arbery's attempt at self-defense did not end well for him... sometimes you just have to do what the armed thugs say; it's not worth dying over.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Self-defense applies to one responding with deadly force -- not the ones instigating it.

Well that's the tough part of the case I think....

I said in the other thread that if they were pointing their guns at him, or had grabbed him, or tried to force him into the truck, or even yelled at him they were going to shoot him....I'd agree they were the instigators.

As it stands, it looks like they had reasonable belief he was engaged in a crime and they were simply trying to keep him from fleeing before the cops arrived.

If that's the case, and they forfeit their right to self defense regardless...

Then is the only option they have when Arbery rushed at Travis and tried to take his gun is to let him take the gun and shoot them?

Arbery's attempt at self-defense did not end well for him... sometimes you just have to do what the armed thugs say; it's not worth dying over.

Yeah....generally charging at someone who is holding a shotgun and trying to wrestle it away isn't a good strategy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well that's the tough part of the case I think....

I said in the other thread that if they were pointing their guns at him, or had grabbed him, or tried to force him into the truck, or even yelled at him they were going to shoot him....I'd agree they were the instigators.

As it stands, it looks like they had reasonable belief he was engaged in a crime and they were simply trying to keep him from fleeing before the cops arrived.

If that's the case, and they forfeit their right to self defense regardless...

Then is the only option they have when Arbery rushed at Travis and tried to take his gun is to let him take the gun and shoot them?



Yeah....generally charging at someone who is holding a shotgun and trying to wrestle it away isn't a good strategy.

If one watches the video it looks as if Arbery was trying to avoid a confrontation. The son with the shotgun got outside of the left side of his pickup. Arbery swerves around to the right side. The camera lose the two in the shot for a couple of seconds but when it is back in the younger son is now in front of his pick up. He had to go around his door to the front. It is rather clear that he got out and went around his door the front of the truck to confront Arbery:

Yes, at the last second it does look as if Arbery charged the younger Michael with a shotgun. But the younger Michael more than met him halfway. If someone is chasing another person down with a shotgun one's best defense may be to confront him. Running away is not a safe option. Arbery could have claimed self defense. It is pretty hard to make that claim on the part of Michael.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Well that's the tough part of the case I think....

I said in the other thread that if they were pointing their guns at him, or had grabbed him, or tried to force him into the truck, or even yelled at him they were going to shoot him....I'd agree they were the instigators.

As it stands, it looks like they had reasonable belief he was engaged in a crime and they were simply trying to keep him from fleeing before the cops arrived.

I'm a little fuzzy on the nature of their reasonable belief... help me out here?

If that's the case, and they forfeit their right to self defense regardless...

Then is the only option they have when Arbery rushed at Travis and tried to take his gun is to let him take the gun and shoot them?

The option was to forgo the guns and not play at being a thug.

Yeah....generally charging at someone who is holding a shotgun and trying to wrestle it away isn't a good strategy.

Unless one thought their life was in danger regardless -- a shotgun blast to the back is just as deadly as one from the front.

Our friends on the Right are expecting people in a mass shooting event to charge the shooter... it doesn't work as well when you don't have numbers on your side, but sometimes there is no other option.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If one watches the video it looks as if Arbery was trying to avoid a confrontation. The son with the shotgun got outside of the left side of his pickup. Arbery swerves around to the right side. The camera lose the two in the shot for a couple of seconds but when it is back in the younger son is now in front of his pick up. He had to go around his door to the front. It is rather clear that he got out and went around his door the front of the truck to confront Arbery:

Yes, at the last second it does look as if Arbery charged the younger Michael with a shotgun. But the younger Michael more than met him halfway. If someone is chasing another person down with a shotgun one's best defense may be to confront him. Running away is not a safe option. Arbery could have claimed self defense. It is pretty hard to make that claim on the part of Michael.

I actually posted still pics from the video in the previous thread....

That's the moment they appear to first come into contact with each other. You're correct that Travis does go from behind the driver's side door to the front of it....somewhere in the vicinity of the driver's side bumper.

Arbery does travel from the rear passenger side of the truck...to the front passenger side...across the front to this particular moment when they made contact.

I'll agree that if he genuinely believed these two guys were intent on killing him....running isn't a great option. You might be a moving target, but you'd still be a target.

The safest option in my opinion is to give up....and hope that they just want to turn you into the police. Lacking that, running for cover. It's hard to imagine a scenario where you get the shotgun off one guy, kill him before he gets it back, and shoot the guy in the back of the pickup before he shoots you.

That sort of stuff may work in a John Wick movie....but even John Wick seems inclined to get a bulletproof suit before engaging in those kinds of shenanigans.

Do you think it's odd that the 3rd DA refused himself from the case citing "the case had gotten too big and his office lacked adequate resources"?

I can't imagine that he hasn't been involved in murder cases before. The legwork also appears to have been done....or mostly done....so I'm definitely curious about what his reason for sidestepping it means.

 

[jayem]

To be honest he was not jogging. That was the claim of the family. He was videoed going into a home under construction. It looks like a burglary. One does not have to take something to burglarize a house. If one enters a building with an intent to steal, whether at that time or later, that is a burglary. But even if that was the case there was no excuse to hunt him down and shoot him. He was suspected to be the person that performed earlier burglaries in the neighborhood and this pretty much confirmed it. The problem for the Michael's is that since he was known he could not get away by running. There is a clear video of him entering a house and his mother confirmed it was him:

Video shows man who may have been Ahmaud Arbery enter work site

Burglary by a known individual that is not making a threat is not a valid reason to shoot him.

Agree. My opinion still stands. If you witness a possible crime, you call 911. And document the incident if you can do it safely. Especially in a situation like this, where there is no threat to life or limb, a civilian should not engage.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I actually posted still pics from the video in the previous thread....

View attachment 276821

That's the moment they appear to first come into contact with each other. You're correct that Travis does go from behind the driver's side door to the front of it....somewhere in the vicinity of the driver's side bumper.

Arbery does travel from the rear passenger side of the truck...to the front passenger side...across the front to this particular moment when they made contact.

I'll agree that if he genuinely believed these two guys were intent on killing him....running isn't a great option. You might be a moving target, but you'd still be a target.

The safest option in my opinion is to give up....and hope that they just want to turn you into the police. Lacking that, running for cover. It's hard to imagine a scenario where you get the shotgun off one guy, kill him before he gets it back, and shoot the guy in the back of the pickup before he shoots you.

That sort of stuff may work in a John Wick movie....but even John Wick seems inclined to get a bulletproof suit before engaging in those kinds of shenanigans.

Do you think it's odd that the 3rd DA refused himself from the case citing "the case had gotten too big and his office lacked adequate resources"?

I can't imagine that he hasn't been involved in murder cases before. The legwork also appears to have been done....or mostly done....so I'm definitely curious about what his reason for sidestepping it means.

You have yet to show that citizens are allowed to do this in attempting to make a citizen's arrest. Once again I must point out that the Michael's are using an affirmative defense. That puts the burden of proof upon them, and you if you want to defend their actions.