It very clearly does say that. English literally states that nothing was stolen on any of the instances. So, no burglaries.
As has already been pointed out, theft is not a requirement for burglary. And "not listed as burglaries" is not equal to "there were no burglaries." Basic logic.
The report is unclear about who gave that description, but it reads like English gave it.
Actually, the police officer makes it clear that it is Travis that also identifies the same man:
[images snipped]
The officer is responding to Travis' call, after all, not English's, so the officer would be extremely incompetent if he had reported materially different information from what the actual witness he was dispatched to get a statement from had provided.
"The unknown male appears to be [description]..." and then, "On this date the witness Travis McMichael, stated the unknown male was wearing..."
The report literally says he talked to English this time and talked to him before. And the very first paragraph is where the description is given, and it only mentions English. You blatantly snipped out that part. He doesn't mention Travis until after that.
2/11 report said:
On 02/11/2020 at 1927hours I responded to 220 Satilla Drive in reference to an unknown black male trespassing within the construction site of a new home being built on said property. Property owner Larry English, has had an on-going issue with an unknown black male continually trespassing upon the property. English actually lives in Douglas, GA but has security cameras that alert him when the incidents occur. The unknown male appears to be a lighter skinned black male, slender build, approx 5,10"-6' tall, both arms looked to be covered in tattoos. Male has 3-4" twist/dreads hair style.
Clearly the police officer is referring to the same "unknown male" or else he should be fired for gross incompetence, because he'd be making a report of Travis' eyewitness account that made reference to two entirely different suspects.
Yes, it's talking about the same person, DUH. But the information comes from two people.
And Travis said during his 911 call that he could not describe the man he saw other than he was tall, about 6 ft.
Also
incorrect.
Your link provides a helpful transcript. Thank you.
Transcript said:
So you say he was a black male. Did he have hair on his head? Any other features you can tell me about?
I couldn’t tell. He just looked like short-haired.
Was he tall, short?
Yeah he was tall about 6 foot. There’s neighbors, I guess one of the other neighbors saw it. There’s about four of us over here now.
So besides saying that he's 6 ft, he also says he's short haired. You got me, there was one other thing he described.
But he did not mention light skin nor tattoos, did he? You know, the point we're talking about. Did you forget already? He didn't even mention dreads when describing the hair.
So, the the description " lighter skinned black male, slender build, approx 5,10"-6' tall, both arms looked to be covered in tattoos. Male has 3-4" twist/dreads hair style" likely came from English.
Nearly everything you said here is unsubstantiated.
Actually, it
is substantiated by the evidence I've presented. Do you not know what "substantiated" means?
I'm not the one with the reading problem here.
We have no idea if Gregory had any memory or thought of his prior contact with Arbery at this later date.
The evidence suggests other.
Well present it then, because you haven't yet SUBSTANTIATED that claim. And in fact
this article says,
AJC said:
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.
And whether Travis got a good enough look at the man on 2/11 to distinguish him on 2/23 is doubtful.
Again, the evidence suggest other. This is from his
2/11 Feb call. Note that the guy Travis is calling about is still in his line of sight while he's on the call to 911:
That's just rampant speculation. You have no idea the lighting conditions or how well he was in view. Plus, we already know he could say nothing more about him than his height and hair length. Travis's own words are against you.
it's also against you that Gregory said he recognized Arbery as the guy from the prior break-ins.
Police Report said:
McMichael stated he was in his front yard and saw the suspect from the break-ins "hauling ass" down Satilla Drive toward Burford Drive. McMichael stated he then ran inside his house and called to Travis (McMichael) and said, "Travis the guy is running down the street lets go".
I guess he doesn’t realize we’re here. He’s got the damn lights on right now he’s got a flashlight walking through the house.
Does he? OK. You just stay where you’re at...
...
So what happened when you first saw him?
He [indaud] behind a bush. He was coming through somebody’s yard. He was trying to sneak behind a bush. When I drove on by, he got behind a port... they have here. When I backed up he looked at me. I went ahead and backed up to the road. And he reached in his pocket. I kinda watched him. he went back in the house. And then stepped back out and went into the house. That’s when I called y’all. But we’ve been having a lot of burglaries and break-ins around here lately, and I had a pistol stolen Jan. 1 actually and he, he, I’ve never seen this guy before in the neighborhood. We always keep and eye and you know sure enough there’s one or [inaud] through the yards you know.
So he evidently had plenty of time and clear line of sight to distinguish him. And,
again, there is the police report and how it noted that the description had been widely circulated; a fact that McMichaels confirms by stating there had been a "lot" of break-ins. We know that the ONLY break-ins were at English's home and Travis' truck.
So he could only be referring to the English surveillance footage and the description provided, which, again, the police officer confirms.
Yet, Gregory would have had whatever description was shared and was not able to distinguish him as not the guy from prior break-ins.
Which means they had absolutely no justification to pursue, let alone be armed, let alone kill him.
I don't believe they had the right to kill Arbery, but that has nothing to do with whether or not Arbery ever trespassed on the property before.
And that has nothing to do with what I said. Trespassing is not cause for civilians to arm themselves and pursue, let alone threaten with a shotgun, let alone fire the shotgun repeatedly.
If it's ever proven Arbery was ever there before trying to steal stuff, what will you say then?
That it's irrelevant unless the McMicheals actually witnessed him in the act of stealing something and that's why he ran and they pursued, but even then they should not have pursued, let alone armed themselves and then pursued.
If you don't think it matters, then what is your point in making your bad arguments that there were never any burglaries?
