Black Jogger Gunned Down In The Street

[Koyaanisqatsi]

He had to be witnessed committing a FELONY for it to be legal for a citizens arrest. I don't know if a citizen's arrest while armed is legal (though the asshole DA didn't see anything wrong with it). Even if the guy had stolen something (he didn't), that doesn't elevate to a felony (well... this is Georgia... ???), so yes, the attempted apprehension while armed is undoubtedly assault!

And that is ignoring the whole pulling the trigger (3 times) thing.

If his purpose in entering was looking for something to steal he did commit a felony by Georgia law.

We'll never know his purpose and everyone is innocent until proven guilty, so. Innocent for all time.

 

[laughing dog]

He had to be witnessed committing a FELONY for it to be legal for a citizens arrest. I don't know if a citizen's arrest while armed is legal (though the asshole DA didn't see anything wrong with it). Even if the guy had stolen something (he didn't), that doesn't elevate to a felony (well... this is Georgia... ???), so yes, the attempted apprehension while armed is undoubtedly assault!

And that is ignoring the whole pulling the trigger (3 times) thing.

If his purpose in entering was looking for something to steal he did commit a felony by Georgia law.

We will never know his purpose since he is dead. Since there is no evidence that he was looking for something to steal, why on earth are you searching for some rationale to smear the victim?

 

[laughing dog]

Really? He's looking at wall studs, not looking round on the floor/ground where tools might be left laying about. To me, he looks as though he's curious about the workmanship. Note: he doesn't take anything or attempt to take anything. If he had been the earlier thief, it seems he would have known he had already taken what was worth stealing.

Regardless: When the McMichaels shot him, he had no stolen property or weapon on him. They had called the police and instead of waiting for the police to arrive, they chased down an unarmed man and demanded he stop and then they shot him.

He walks into the center of the one room and looks around. That's not enough to tell you much about the house, but it is enough to see if there's anything worth stealing lying around. He didn't see anything, he left. If he was interested in how some particular part of the construction was done he would have gone up to that bit of construction to look at it.

Maybe he has better eyesight than you. Why are you so invested in literally making up criminal behavior on the behalf of the black victim?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Fun fact: Father of Brunswick shooter previously investigated victim.

Greg McMichael, who provided gun cover for his son as he fought and eventually shot a young black jogger, may have known the victim long before their encounter in a subdivision just south of Brunswick, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has learned.

In his letter of recusal to Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, Waycross Judicial Circuit District Attorney George Barnhill wrote that his son, a prosecutor in the Brunswick DA’s office, and McMichael, then an investigator in that same office, “both helped with the previous prosecution of (Ahmaud) Arbery.”
...
McMichael, a former Glynn County cop, told Glynn police he recognized Arbery, 25, from surveillance video that captured a recent burglary in his mostly white neighborhood. He said he planned to make a citizen’s arrest.When he was in high school, Arbery was sentenced to five years probation as a first offender on charges of carrying a weapon on campus and several counts of obstructing a law enforcement officer. He was convicted of probation violation in 2018 after he was charged with shoplifting, court documents show.McMichael, who retired from the DA’s office in April 2019, made no mention of his work on that investigation to police, though it’s unknown whether he remembered it at the time.

So, yeah, it was premeditated murder.

 

[Derec]

McMichael, a former Glynn County cop, told Glynn police he recognized Arbery, 25, from surveillance video that captured a recent burglary in his mostly white neighborhood.

Why isn't that video being released?

 

[Arctish]

McMichael, a former Glynn County cop, told Glynn police he recognized Arbery, 25, from surveillance video that captured a recent burglary in his mostly white neighborhood.

Why isn't that video being released?

Perhaps because it's irrelevant.

Or perhaps because Greg McMichael was lying when he told the cops about a surveillance video that captured a recent burglary.

Or perhaps because friends of the McMichaels don't want to make their armed pursuit and encounter with Arbery look more like a lynching than it already does.

 

[Derec]

Perhaps because it's irrelevant.

Why would it not be relevant? If Arbery was an actual burglar, McMichael had a legitimate reason to pursue and try to detain him.

Or perhaps because Greg McMichael was lying when he told the cops about a surveillance video that captured a recent burglary.

Possible.

Or perhaps because friends of the McMichaels don't want to make their armed pursuit and encounter with Arbery look more like a lynching than it already does.

It is not a "lynching" in any case.
And again, if Arbery was a burglar, than the pursuit was likely legal.

 

[ZiprHead]

White Guy Jogs Two Miles Carrying A TV To Prove A Point About Race And Ahmaud Arbery

Richard Demsick is quickly gaining internet fame after posting a TikTok video of himself running two miles through a Florida neighborhood carrying a flat-screen TV in an attempt to look like a thief— without getting more than waves and hellos from local residents.

Demsick made the video in order to press a point about racism in the U.S., where 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery was recently hunted, shot, and killed by two white men who claim they thought he was a burglar while he was out for a jog.

Demsick jogged 2.23 miles with the TV as part of a movement of people running exactly this distance to represent the date of Arbery’s death, which occurred over two months before the public was made aware of the killing. The two men responsible, Gregory and Travis McMichael, were only just arrested and charged with murder following national outrage and discussions about racist double standards in the U.S.

 

[Derec]

White Guy Jogs Two Miles Carrying A TV To Prove A Point About Race And Ahmaud Arbery

What an idiotic stunt that proves absolutely nothing.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

White Guy Jogs Two Miles Carrying A TV To Prove A Point About Race And Ahmaud Arbery

What an idiotic stunt that proves absolutely nothing.

To you.

 

[TSwizzle]

Demsick made the video in order to press a point about racism in the U.S., where 25-year-old Ahmaud Arbery was recently hunted, shot, and killed by two white men who claim they thought he was a burglar while he was out for a jog.

Who reads this crap ?

 

[Arctish]

Why would it not be relevant? If Arbery was an actual burglar, McMichael had a legitimate reason to pursue and try to detain him.

In order for their armed pursuit and attempt to detain Arbery to be lawful, they would have had to have seen him commit a crime right then and there, not days or weeks before. A video of Arbery committing a burglary on another occasion, if such exists, doesn't change what the McMichaels did from aggravated assault into something lawful.

Possible.

Or perhaps because friends of the McMichaels don't want to make their armed pursuit and encounter with Arbery look more like a lynching than it already does.

It is not a "lynching" in any case.

You are making it sound like a lynching.

You are arguing that the McMichaels targeted Arbery for an armed confrontation. You are saying they were biased against him. You are implying they intended to intimidate and threaten him. The more you talk about their suspicions, the more animosity you suppose they felt, the more you make it sound like malice aforethought.

And again, if Arbery was a burglar, than the pursuit was likely legal.

If they witnessed Arbery committing a burglary immediately before giving chase, if the burglary was the reason they gave chase, and if they intended to make a citizen's arrest for burglary, then the pursuit was legal.

But if not, then not.

 

[Derec]

In order for their armed pursuit and attempt to detain Arbery to be lawful, they would have had to have seen him commit a crime right then and there, not days or weeks before. A video of Arbery committing a burglary on another occasion, if such exists, doesn't change what the McMichaels did from aggravated assault into something lawful.

I think that's something that lawyers will have to argue over. I am not a lawyer, but to me it should not make a difference if you witness something directly or through a surveillance camera.

You are making it sound like a lynching.

You are arguing that the McMichaels targeted Arbery for an armed confrontation.

Not at all. Lynching is killing somebody with premeditation in order to extract extrajudicial punishment. There is no evidence that was the McMichaelses intent.
Wanting to confront a suspect and hold them at gunpoint until police arrive is NOT a lynching.

You are saying they were biased against him. You are implying they intended to intimidate and threaten him. The more you talk about their suspicions, the more animosity you suppose they felt, the more you make it sound like malice aforethought.

Only if they intended to kill him rather than hold him. Calling police before they started pursuing him is evidence against that scenario.

If they witnessed Arbery committing a burglary immediately before giving chase, if the burglary was the reason they gave chase, and if they intended to make a citizen's arrest for burglary, then the pursuit was legal.

But if not, then not.

Two out of three ain't bad.

 

[barbos]

From my link:

Assault is also any intentional act or threat of action that reasonably causes a person to feel afraid of impending violence. Threatening to beat up someone or to “break your arm,” when said in a menacing or angry manner, is assault if it appears that the assailant has the ability to carry out the threat and the victim believes or could reasonably believe that he is about to be struck or injured.

So you are gonna charge police with assault every time they arrest anyone?

Aubery would only have considered they were trying to make a citizen's arrest if a) he had done anything criminal in nature and b) if his murderers had actually said: We're making a citizen's arrest and holding you here until the police arrive.

It would have been great if (b) happened but come on, you don't wonder into construction sites and get surprised by by attention from some people. He knew damn well why these two were after him.

 

[J842P]

So you are gonna charge police with assault every time they arrest anyone?

No, of course not. For the same reason we charge people with kidnapping if they put handcuffs on them, but not police. Police are given various powers not available to citizens. How is this not obvious?

In any case, this will come down to whether or not the McMichael's will be able to demonstrate that they were legally able to perform a citizen's arrest. So far, it doesn't seem so, based on what they have claimed. But that is what a trial is for.

Remember, the real galling aspect of all this is they were never even going to be investigated in the first place if the video had never surfaced.

 

[laughing dog]

McMichael, a former Glynn County cop, told Glynn police he recognized Arbery, 25, from surveillance video that captured a recent burglary in his mostly white neighborhood.

Why isn't that video being released?

Perhaps because it's irrelevant.

Or perhaps because Greg McMichael was lying when he told the cops about a surveillance video that captured a recent burglary.

Or perhaps because friends of the McMichaels don't want to make their armed pursuit and encounter with Arbery look more like a lynching than it already does.

Or maybe because there is no surveillance video. Or maybe because the person in the video does not resemble Mr. Arbery at all, except for the skin color.

 

[Arctish]

In order for their armed pursuit and attempt to detain Arbery to be lawful, they would have had to have seen him commit a crime right then and there, not days or weeks before. A video of Arbery committing a burglary on another occasion, if such exists, doesn't change what the McMichaels did from aggravated assault into something lawful.

I think that's something that lawyers will have to argue over. I am not a lawyer, but to me it should not make a difference if you witness something directly or through a surveillance camera.

TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS
ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS
§ 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest
O.C.G.A. 17-4-60 (2010)
17-4-60. Grounds for arrest

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-17/chapter-4/article-4/17-4-60/

Under Georgia law a private citizen can attempt to arrest someone if they've actually witnessed a crime or have immediate knowledge of a crime, but only under those specific circumstances. They may not attempt to arrest someone for what they saw in a video taken days or weeks before, or on suspicion that the person they're after was thinking about committing a crime in the future.

You are making it sound like a lynching.

You are arguing that the McMichaels targeted Arbery for an armed confrontation.

Not at all. Lynching is killing somebody with premeditation in order to extract extrajudicial punishment. There is no evidence that was the McMichaelses intent.
Wanting to confront a suspect and hold them at gunpoint until police arrive is NOT a lynching.

You are arguing that the McMichaels were motivated by bias and malice against Arbery. You are implying their intention was to mete out extrajudicial punishment by intimidating, harassing, and/or threatening him. You are making it sound like a hate crime, that Arbery was killed by armed white men who took it upon themselves to punish a black man for being in their neighborhood.

If you don't want to make Arbery's death sound like a lynching, stop pointing out just how much Arbery's presence offended the white men who chased him in their truck, menaced him with a shotgun, and killed him when he resisted their unlawful assault.

You are saying they were biased against him. You are implying they intended to intimidate and threaten him. The more you talk about their suspicions, the more animosity you suppose they felt, the more you make it sound like malice aforethought.

Only if they intended to kill him rather than hold him. Calling police before they started pursuing him is evidence against that scenario.

Lying to the police about a burglary recorded on a surveillance video is evidence in favor of it.

If they witnessed Arbery committing a burglary immediately before giving chase, if the burglary was the reason they gave chase, and if they intended to make a citizen's arrest for burglary, then the pursuit was legal.

But if not, then not.

Two out of three ain't bad.

What two?

They didn't witness or have immediate knowledge of Arbery committing a burglary right before they gave chase, therefore it couldn't have been the reason why they gave chase. Nor could they have made a citizen's arrest for burglary because they didn't witness or have immediate knowledge of one.

Greg McMichael wasn't some random guy with a hazy knowledge of Georgia laws. He was a retired investigator for the DA's office. It's quite a stretch to believe he was so ignorant when it came to citizen's arrest he didn't realize he couldn't make one based on mere suspicion.

The McMichaels' actions fit the description of aggravated assault, and I have no doubt Greg McMichael knows it.

 

[Derec]

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

Under Georgia law a private citizen can attempt to arrest someone if they've actually witnessed a crime or have immediate knowledge of a crime, but only under those specific circumstances. They may not attempt to arrest someone for what they saw in a video taken days or weeks before, or on suspicion that the person they're after was thinking about committing a crime in the future.

I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV, but my reading of that law is that a private citizen may arrest a suspect for any offense "if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge". But if the offense is a felony and the suspect is trying to escape, then "reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion" suffice. And observing a burglary via surveillance video would fit I think.

You are arguing that the McMichaels were motivated by bias and malice against Arbery.

No. YOU are arguing that. I am arguing that they were motivated by suspicion that Arbery committed a felony.

You are implying their intention was to mete out extrajudicial punishment by intimidating, harassing, and/or threatening him.

Wrong. By detaining him until police arrived.

You are making it sound like a hate crime, that Arbery was killed by armed white men who took it upon themselves to punish a black man for being in their neighborhood.

First of all Arc, Georgia doesn't have hate crime laws. Second of all, there is no evidence Arbery's race was any part of their motivation. Him being black and them being white is not enough.

If you don't want to make Arbery's death sound like a lynching

You really have to twist the facts to make it sound like a lynching.

Lying to the police about a burglary recorded on a surveillance video is evidence in favor of it.

Did he though?

What two?

The latter two ones.

They didn't witness or have immediate knowledge of Arbery committing a burglary right before they gave chase,

Yes.

therefore it couldn't have been the reason why they gave chase.

Does not follow logically. They could reasonably and with probable cause have suspected him of burglary without having immediate knowledge.

Nor could they have made a citizen's arrest for burglary because they didn't witness or have immediate knowledge of one.

Not what the plain reading of the text of the law indicates.

Greg McMichael wasn't some random guy with a hazy knowledge of Georgia laws. He was a retired investigator for the DA's office. It's quite a stretch to believe he was so ignorant when it came to citizen's arrest he didn't realize he couldn't make one based on mere suspicion.

Reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

The McMichaels' actions fit the description of aggravated assault, and I have no doubt Greg McMichael knows it.

At least one prosecutor disagreed. The only reason the McMichaelses were arrested was the public pressure. Mob "justice", backed up by threats by the armed black supremacist militia.

 

[Gospel]

TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS
ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS
§ 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest
O.C.G.A. 17-4-60 (2010)
17-4-60. Grounds for arrest

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-17/chapter-4/article-4/17-4-60/

Under Georgia law a private citizen can attempt to arrest someone if they've actually witnessed a crime or have immediate knowledge of a crime, but only under those specific circumstances. They may not attempt to arrest someone for what they saw in a video taken days or weeks before, or on suspicion that the person they're after was thinking about committing a crime in the future.

You are making it sound like a lynching.

You are arguing that the McMichaels targeted Arbery for an armed confrontation.

Not at all. Lynching is killing somebody with premeditation in order to extract extrajudicial punishment. There is no evidence that was the McMichaelses intent.
Wanting to confront a suspect and hold them at gunpoint until police arrive is NOT a lynching.

You are arguing that the McMichaels were motivated by bias and malice against Arbery. You are implying their intention was to mete out extrajudicial punishment by intimidating, harassing, and/or threatening him. You are making it sound like a hate crime, that Arbery was killed by armed white men who took it upon themselves to punish a black man for being in their neighborhood.

If you don't want to make Arbery's death sound like a lynching, stop pointing out just how much Arbery's presence offended the white men who chased him in their truck, menaced him with a shotgun, and killed him when he resisted their unlawful assault.

You are saying they were biased against him. You are implying they intended to intimidate and threaten him. The more you talk about their suspicions, the more animosity you suppose they felt, the more you make it sound like malice aforethought.

Only if they intended to kill him rather than hold him. Calling police before they started pursuing him is evidence against that scenario.

Lying to the police about a burglary recorded on a surveillance video is evidence in favor of it.

If they witnessed Arbery committing a burglary immediately before giving chase, if the burglary was the reason they gave chase, and if they intended to make a citizen's arrest for burglary, then the pursuit was legal.

But if not, then not.

Two out of three ain't bad.

What two?

They didn't witness or have immediate knowledge of Arbery committing a burglary right before they gave chase, therefore it couldn't have been the reason why they gave chase. Nor could they have made a citizen's arrest for burglary because they didn't witness or have immediate knowledge of one.

Greg McMichael wasn't some random guy with a hazy knowledge of Georgia laws. He was a retired investigator for the DA's office. It's quite a stretch to believe he was so ignorant when it came to citizen's arrest he didn't realize he couldn't make one based on mere suspicion.

The McMichaels' actions fit the description of aggravated assault, and I have no doubt Greg McMichael knows it.

Wasn't McMichaels (the X investigator) the one in the cab of the truck & on the phone? I thought his son pulled the trigger. Sorry this is an presumption based on the cab guy seemingly being older matched with the 911 call that seems to match the caller yelling "Travis!" (which happens too be his sons name). I think the dad was yelling for his son to stop (not Arbery) in that call. My opinion is the father was trying to do things right and the son made a mistake.

Edit: That mistake being not staying behind cover and going around the front of the truck to intercept - Creating a situation not acceptable for anyone.

 

[SLD]

No, the intent to kill is not a requirement for felony murder. The rather, as long as you are committing an inherently dangerous felony that results in the death of someone, then you have committed felony murder. Suppose, you commit armed burglary and your gun goes off, it's felony murder. Or suppose you rob a bank and then while fleeing, you run over a pedestrian, that is felony murder. Indeed, this is one of the reasons these statutes are controversial.

But they weren’t committing a felony in stopping him. They weren’t trying to rob him. They wanted to stop him. They had no right to stop him, but asking someone to stop is not a felony.

What’s the specific felony?

It seems likely that they were committing a felony by demanding he stop while they were obviously armed: https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.c...minal-offense/georgia-aggravated-assault-laws

They might have committed a simple assault, but that’s a misdemeanor, not a felony per Georgia statute. But even that’s not clear. Just carrying a gun doesn’t create a reasonable apprehension that the carrier is going to use it on you. People carry guns all the time. Open carry is legal. Did the shooter point the gun at him? That s not clearly seen in the video. In fact the video leaves lots of unanswered questions. What was said between the two? “I’m gonna get you?” Or “excuse me, sir, can I ask you a question?” Did Aubrey live near by? If not, why was he jogging there? Is he really a regular jogger? Was he wearing jogging clothes? The reporting here has been pretty poor. The details are important.