Black Jogger Gunned Down In The Street

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

When arresters are doing their jobs properly, they are identifying themselves and demanding compliance immediately. They are not acting like they are trying to murder someone.

 

[Rhea]

We also have the TV theft and the gun at the ball game. ...

Which are irrelevant to this situation. [...], there is no evidence Mr. Arbery was there to steal and he did not steal anything. .

But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart

Maybe Loren is going religious on us.

 

[Rhea]

Probable grounds is the standard for police making an arrest, not civilians. Rhea just covered that.

The citizen's arrest statute explicitly uses the phrase "probable grounds of suspicion". Rhea and you are wrong here.

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.

Definite knowledge is not required when the offense is a felony and the suspect is trying to escape.

No. Even if it's a felony, the construction of the sentence is clear that it still had to have happened in their presence. Which it did not.

If "THE OFFENSE," the same one as in the first sentence, not "an offense," but "THE offense," if "THE OFFENSE," that they witnessed first hand, is a felony, they can arrest on "REASONABLE AND PROBABLE GROUNDS of suspicion." So if the felony is witnessed, and you see a second person that you have REASON to believe was involved, you can try to arrest him, too.

Some examples:

• The felony occurs before your eyes. You're not sure which of the bystanders did it, but you think it was the one in the red shirt, because only one guy has a red shirt and you are reasonably sure it was a red shirt. you have reasonable and probable cause. You may arrest
• The felony occurs before your eyes. You have reasonable and probable cause that the second guy, who just started running, was in on it. You may arrest.
• Some misdemeanor occurs some other day last week and someone tells you about it, you MAY NOT arrest a guy jogging through your neighborhood who looks nothing like the guy in the story.

You don't get to make up crimes, you don't get in invent felonies, and you don't get to arrest people when no crime has been committed in your presence.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

nevermind. it's just the same sophistry regurgitated and already conclusively dealt with

 

[Derec]

No. Even if it's a felony, the construction of the sentence is clear that it still had to have happened in their presence. Which it did not.

It doesn't, in my admittedly amateur opinion. Are you a criminal lawyer?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

On February 23rd, the only thing Greg McMichael could have known (and only from Officer Nash of the Glynn County Police department) was that:

1. Among several other people having trespassed on the English's construction site over the past few months, a light-skinned black man with four inch long dreadlocks and tattoos covering both of his arms had been recorded trespassing four nights on the surveillance camera, but he is never seen taking anything from the property;
2. The owner of the home never reported to the police anything stolen from his property on any occasion.

In short, the ONLY crime McMichael could have suspected--not seen or "within his immediate knowledge" but merely suspected--from anyone coming or going from the English construction site (let alone someone who did not fit the description given to him by the police, like Arbery), would have been criminal trespassing, which, as a former Glynn County Police Officer, he would know was a misdemeanor, not a felony.

Just to reiterate for the cheap seats: The ONLY crime in regard to the English property McMichael could have "immediate knowledge" of (even according to the wrong definition of that term being applied itt) is criminal trespassing. This crime would have been repeatedly affirmed--at least four times over several months--by the owner of the house and the Glynn County Police to be the ONLY crime that anyone had committed in the months prior. NOT "burglaries," but merely "criminal trespassing."

Someone was on my property, but they didn't steal anything. THAT is, at best, criminal trespassing, NOT burglary. Someone was on my property four different times, but they didn't steal anything on any of those occasions. Repeated confirmation of trespassing, NOT burglary.

And the person suspected of having trespassed--or burgled in some idiot brains--was NOT Arbery no matter what, once again and for auld lang syne, the "citizen's arrest" clause does not apply to the McMichael's actions.

Let me reiterate again on that point: the ONLY person the McMichaels could possibly have ANY hope of applying the citizen's arrest defense toward would have been to a light-skinned black male with dreadlocks and tattoos covering both arms and even if that is the person they killed they STILL would not have justification under CA, because that man only ever committed a misdemeanor, never a felony so there was NEVER ANY reasonable grounds to make a citizen's arrest in the first place.

You don't apply "reasonable grounds of suspicion" to a person whose actions you KNOW have been nothing more than a misdemeanor.

 

[ZiprHead]

A lawyer's view of the incident.

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/lAgD8pvdQ7k[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

A lawyer's view of the incident.

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/lAgD8pvdQ7k[/YOUTUBE]

Excellent! Nice to know I got the criminal trespass part right. I clearly missed my calling .

 

[Rhea]

Derec, in another thread:

It is especially disgraceful to call for arrests and charges before any investigation has been done

Well, when the perp is white, anyway.

 

[atrib]

In this country, no civilian is under any obligation to submit to questioning by another. Arbery acted appropriately by initially trying to avoid confrontation. Arbery acted appropriately and had every reason to believe his life was in danger when McMichaels persisted and approached him with gun in hand, not shouldered, not holstered, but in hand. McMichaels actions were excessive for the situation. He had no business approaching Arbery with gun in hand. That is excessive for the situation. Citizen's arrest laws were largely enacted so merchants could detain shoplifters, bystanders could stop crimes they are witnessing. McMichaels, in attempting a citizen's arrest had the responsibility to ensure excessive force would not be used. With Arbery unarmed, McMichaels brought that excessive force with him, in hand. McMichaels proper course of action was to call police and continue to follow Arbery.

If the caught him they could hold him for the police.

I fully agree they are total idiots, but I'm not convinced they were acting illegally.

Chasing pedestrians in trucks and pointing guns at them is illegal. Go out in public and point a gun at someone, and see how quickly you get your ass thrown in jail, or shot down by someone else with a gun.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Special agent Richard Dial with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation said during the hearing that Bryan said during a May 13 interview that he heard

Travis McMichael say, "f---ing n-word" after Arbery had been shot.

The defense noted that Bryan had been interviewed before May 13 and had not mentioned that Travis McMichael used a racial slur.

Dial went on to say that Travis McMichael had also previously used the n-word on social media in January, allegedly responding to an unspecified Instagram post that it would have been better if someone had "blown the f---ing n-word's head off."

The special agent also talked about another instance when Travis McMichael, who was in the Coast Guard, allegedly used the slur.

“One particular one that comes to mind was he made the statement that he loved his job because he’s out on a boat and there aren’t any n-words anywhere,” Dial testified Thursday.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ud-arbery-allegedly-used-racial-slur-n1224696

Interesting.

 

[ZiprHead]

There was a lot more video of the incident shown in court than has been shown in public.

 

[Arctish]

The CNN article has some interesting details, too:

Ahmaud Arbery was hit with a truck before he died, and his killer allegedly used a racial slur, investigator testifies

Bryan, too, had several messages on his phone that included "racial" terms and indicated he may have prejudged Arbery when he saw him that day, Dial said.
"There's evidence of Mr. Bryan's racist attitude in his communications, and from that I extrapolate the reason why he made assumptions he did that day," he said. "He saw a man running down the road with a truck following him, and I believe he made certain assumptions that were, at least in part, based upon his racial bias."

 

[laughing dog]

I am shocked, shocked that this fine examples of Georgia's finest would use racial slurs while chasing a black man jogging down the street.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

The CNN article has some interesting details, too:

Ahmaud Arbery was hit with a truck before he died, and his killer allegedly used a racial slur, investigator testifies

Bryan, too, had several messages on his phone that included "racial" terms and indicated he may have prejudged Arbery when he saw him that day, Dial said.
"There's evidence of Mr. Bryan's racist attitude in his communications, and from that I extrapolate the reason why he made assumptions he did that day," he said. "He saw a man running down the road with a truck following him, and I believe he made certain assumptions that were, at least in part, based upon his racial bias."

And more from AP: Testimony: Shooter used racist slur as Arbery lay dying. Snippet:

In a hearing to determine whether there was enough evidence to proceed with a murder trial, the lead Georgia Bureau of Investigation agent in the case testified that Travis and Greg McMichael and a third man in another pickup, William “Roddie” Bryan, used their trucks to chase down and box in Arbery, who repeatedly reversed directions and ran into a ditch while trying to escape.

Travis McMichael then got out of his truck and confronted Arbery, later telling police he shot him in self-defense after Arbery refused his order to get on the ground, GBI agent Richard Dial said. He said a close examination of the video of the shooting shows the first shot was to Arbery’s chest, the second was to his hand, and the third hit his chest again before he collapsed in the road in a subdivision in the port town of Brunswick.

So much for the self defense defense. There is no possible way Travis could have shot Arbery in the chest if Arbery was close enough to be grabbing the shotgun (as we see in the video, that part happens after being shot in the chest, regardless). A shotgun blast at point blank range would have blown a hole in Arbery's chest, which necessarily must have meant that he was farther away when the first shot was fired, just as I laid out previously and the video attests.

And of course he called him a “fucking nigger.”

Now the McMichaels will have the choice of the prettiest white boys to fuck in prison, where they will no doubt be celebrated as prison celebrities among the other white trash rotting behind bars where they all belong.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And more from AP: Testimony: Shooter used racist slur as Arbery lay dying. Snippet:

In a hearing to determine whether there was enough evidence to proceed with a murder trial, the lead Georgia Bureau of Investigation agent in the case testified that Travis and Greg McMichael and a third man in another pickup, William “Roddie” Bryan, used their trucks to chase down and box in Arbery, who repeatedly reversed directions and ran into a ditch while trying to escape.

Travis McMichael then got out of his truck and confronted Arbery, later telling police he shot him in self-defense after Arbery refused his order to get on the ground, GBI agent Richard Dial said. He said a close examination of the video of the shooting shows the first shot was to Arbery’s chest, the second was to his hand, and the third hit his chest again before he collapsed in the road in a subdivision in the port town of Brunswick.

So much for the self defense defense. There is no possible way Travis could have shot Arbery in the chest if Arbery was close enough to be grabbing the shotgun (as we see in the video, that part happens after being shot in the chest, regardless). A shotgun blast at point blank range would have blown a hole in Arbery's chest, which necessarily must have meant that he was farther away when the first shot was fired, just as I laid out previously and the video attests.

And of course he called him a “fucking nigger.”

Now the McMichaels will have the choice of the prettiest white boys to fuck in prison, where they will no doubt be celebrated as prison celebrities among the other white trash rotting behind bars where they all belong.

This is still Georgia. Conviction is hardly an assured thing. That'll come down to the jury, unless their lawyer tells them to plead.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I am shocked, shocked that this fine examples of Georgia's finest would use racial slurs while chasing a black man jogging down the street.

Wasn't he fleeing from a house under construction, not jogging as per the video from across the street?

Regardless, this might very well have been a flat out premeditated lynching. Likely be hard to prove in court though. But the case seems pretty good.

Of course, this was all a terrible mistake and yes, my clients did err in chasing after him, but they were trying to help which they are legally allowed to do (no they aren't). And only when they thought their lives were in danger, did they fire. These are law abiding people who don't have a record, unlike the person that was trespassing. They don't represent a threat to the community. My clients regret leaving their home that day and wish they could take back what happened, but you can't send these two to prison for making a mistake.

You can thank me for not needing to read a single article about what their lawyers say in the trial now.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Where's Derec?

 

[blastula]

A belated reply.

As has already been pointed out, theft is not a requirement for burglary.

Intent is. When there is something to steal--as is confirmed by English telling the police that nothing was stolen--then asside from the fact that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, intent shifts to something else, like getting a drink of water, which is what English's attorney noted.

Yes, intent is, and ONCE AGAIN, we don't have the evidence to say either way. You are bizarrely claiming some kind of metaphysical certainty about the trespasser's state of mind.

And "innocent until proven guilty" means a lot of guilty people are never convicted.

The attorney also revealed that Greg McMichael was evidently "informally" deputized by the Glynn County Police Department back in December in regard to English's reports to the police of his trespasser, which evidently started in October:

So, apparently Greg McMichael was informed of the reports from English via his cop buddy, "Officer Rash," who certainly would have brought him up to speed prior to sending that text offering his services to English. Which would include the fact that nothing was ever stolen and a description of the man, which would include the dreads and the fact that both of his arms were covered in tattoos.

That text was sent to English on December 20th, so in the lead up to that text, beginning in October, there were at least two or three times that the same light-skinned black man with dreadlocks and tattoos covering both arms had entered the construction site at night, but never took anything, in spite of the fact that there was evidently shit there to take (as, once again, confirmed indirectly by English affirming nothing was ever stolen).

At best, then, it is McMichael assuming the intent of the tattooed man was to steal in spite of the fact that nothing was ever stolen. Regardless, we now have confirmation that as early as December 20th, Greg McMichael was informed by the Glynn County Police department that a light-skinned black man with dreadlocks and tattoos covering both of his arms had trespassed several times on English's construction site at night, but never stole anything.

So, at this point, in December, Greg M knows the following:

1. both the homeowner and the police department have confirmed that no burglaries had taken place;
2. the trespasser--seen on camera at least, multiple times--is a light-skinned black man with dreadlocks and tattoos covering both of his arms
3. McMichael has agreed to let Officer Rash reach out to English to offer McMichael's services in regard to this trespasser

In what capacity is unclear from the text. It just says that Greg is English's neighbor and that:

Greg is retired Law Enforcement and also a Retired Investigator from the DA’s office. He said please call him day or night when you get action on your camera.

This is what prompted English's attorney to state that McMichael was informally deputized, which, again, would imply that he had been brought up to speed by the police department in regard to everything known about English's trespasser, but it ALSO underscores that fact that neither English nor the police department considered the trespassing to be burglaries. Why in the world would the police department suggest to English the services of a retired cop/investigator if the tattooed man was considered a burglar caught in the act of burglarizing English's home? That would be their job, not the job of someone no longer on active duty.

Iow, evidence that substantiates the fact that the police department did not consider these incidents to be burglaries and McMicheal knew this long before Arbery's killing.

We also now know that the video of Arbery being shot has an additional four minutes of footage of him being chased by the McMichaels, which is more than enough time for Greg McMichael to note that Arbery does not fit the description McMichael had been given by "Officer Rash."

All the rampant speculation you spewed can be ignored now since at the preliminary hearing, the GBI agent Dial said the guy in the prior videos was Arbery, he said he could identify him by his face and tattoos.

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.

I didn't "blatantly" snip anything in an attempt to deceive you.

You did snip that section, which would require more work than just posting the image uncut. One wonders why you would go to that bother?

I'm the one who originally sourced the fucking report for anyone to see.

No, you didn't. You got that report from me. You replied to me in this post and quoted me giving that link and then you quoted stuff from it.

Do you have a memory problem to go along with your reading problem?

I took a screen shot of the relevant sections, where the police officer first refers to the "unknown male" by description and then again in regard to Travis, using the same signifier ("unknown male").

If I first describe a "Braindead Moron" as someone with your height, hair and distinguishing marks and then go on to report, "On this day, the witness saw the Braindead Moron posting in a discussion forum" am I referring to two different people?

When a police officer is told by dispatch that there is a witness who called 911--named Travis McMichael--then their job is to go interview the person who called 911 and take their statement and put into their report all of the pertinent information that the witness provides in regard to the case, yes?

So, you are assuming that the police officer first describes the "Unknown Male" as a light-skinned black man, with dreadlocks and tattoos covering both arms, but he does not confirm that description with the witness he's making a report about, yet still uses the same referent without noting the incredibly central and all-important point that the police officer is actually talking about two different people

Iow, the cop is officially reporting that the homeowner and, presumably, the video confirm that the suspect in question is a light-skinned black man with dreads and tattoos all over both of his arms, but the witness the cop just interviewed didn't confirm any of that and in fact described a completely different person. But the police officer isn't going to make that point clear in his report..

This is so weirdly pointless for you to go on about this. Nobody was saying those were supposed to be two different people. You even quoted me saying that in your very next section. It's so bizarre you keep arguing this.

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.

Except that, in YOUR interpretation, Travis does not positively ID the same person that the officer is describing! DUH.

Yes, that’s my admitted interpretation, so what? I’m not the one claiming metaphysical certainty about anything. But my interpretation makes the most sense, which is why you snipped out the section on English.

Your link provides a helpful transcript. Thank you.

Too bad you didn't actually read it all or understand that this was the transcript of the 911 call, NOT the subsequent interview by the police officer dispatched as a result of the 911 call.

Once again, the 911 call was in real-time as the events Travis was witnessing were still unfolding, so what he says in the call is NOT the complete account of what subsequently happened. THAT part would come after, when he gets interviewed by the police officer who then writes up his report. See above in regard to that report.

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.

Actually, two other things (that he was wearing a red shirt and white shorts).

But he did not mention light skin nor tattoos, did he?

On the 911 call. Which, again, is in real time as whoever is in English's home is still in there while Travis is on the phone. Travis is watching him the whole time (and notes he's got a flashlight and the "damn lights on"). The call lasts several minutes and then the cops show up and the call ends. We don't know what Travis did or did not see after he hangs up. For that part, we have only the police report, which, once again, if YOUR interpretation is correct necessarily means that the police officer deliberately omitted the all-importnat point that Travis did not positively ID the same "Unknown Male" the officer is describing. That, in fact, when the officer uses the term "Unknown Male" twice in the report he is in fact referring to two different men.

One is a light skinned black man with long dreadlocks and tattoos covering both of his arms. The other--using just the 911 call--is a black man with short hair wearing a red shirt and white shorts with no other distinguishing marks (i.e., no tattoos). But we also know the call is not the end-all be-all to what happened after the call.

Again, for that, we have to turn to the police report.

More of Koy’s Special Sauce Speculation™.

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.

Then, once again, the officer made a very important mistake on his report in that he does not note that Travis's description does not match English's description.

No, there was nothing that didn’t match.

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

Done. Again. Gregory knew as early as December 20th (the date of the text) that the man who had repeatedly trespassed (i.e., in McMichael's terms, committed a string of burglaries in the area) was a light-skinned black man with "three to four inch" dreads and tattoos covering both arms.

After at least four minutes of armed pursuit, Gregory had plenty of time to see that, at the very least, the man they were chasing did not fit the description of the man that had committed those "burglaries." Maybe he didn't recognize Arbery as someone he had evidently investigated two years ago, but he certainly would have had enough time to know whoever they were chasing did not fit the description of the man that had trespassed on English's construction site several times prior.

Except, now we know it was the same man as from the videos.

But there is still no report that GM recognized Arbery from the prior investigation.

ETA: You actually provided yet another confirmation that the police officer is referring to the same "Unknown Male" throughout (emphasis mine):

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.

The officer then goes on to refer, once again, to the "unknown male" as the one that Travis McMichael witnessed:

View attachment 27768

Indeed, it never changes throughout the entire report. Always referring to the same "unknown male" NOT two (or more) unknown males with different descriptions. So, again, if this officer MEANT to say that Travis did not actually confirm the identity of the unknown male to be the same one the officer is describing in his opening paragraph, then the cop needs to be fired.

This is lunacy. Let me requote my comment that you yourself quoted in this post.

Yes, it's talking about the same person, DUH. But the information comes from two people.

It’s so fun conversing with such a special interlocutor as yourself, Koy.

 

[blastula]

Like with the Floyd killing, the NY Times put together a good timeline of events on the day of for this case too.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nKf0TW-L1M[/YOUTUBE]

This video got it basically right, based on what was said in the preliminary hearing.

Of some note, is that the security video from across the street from the construction site which shows Arbery leaving that house, also is able capture the McMichaelses leaving their own house in their truck about 30 seconds after Arbery. They live just a few doors down from the construction site house. You can see it above after about 3:20. It also shows the police driving by right about when the killing happened but just too late.