Ahmaud Arbery

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

PF5

Deputy
Jan 3, 2014
1,394
408
713
#1
Greg McMichael didn't know if Ahmaud Arbery had a gun, but 'I don't take any chances,' he told police usatoday

A white Georgia man didn't know if Ahmaud Arbery was armed or where he was running last year when he grabbed his gun and began chasing the 25-year-old Black man, an officer testified Tuesday.
Greg McMichael is one of three men charged with murder in Arbery's death early last year in this small, coastal Georgia city. Arbery was shot by McMichael's son, Travis, after they and neighbor William "Roddie" Bryan spotted him running in their neighborhood.

After the shooting, Greg McMichael said he checked Arbery for a weapon, according to a transcript of Brandenberry's bodycam video. And, later, Greg McMichael told a bystander that Arbery "attacked" his son.

"To be perfectly honest with you, if I could have got a shot at the guy, I’d have shot him myself because he was that violently —" McMichael told Brandenberry before being interrupted by a bystander, according to the body-camera transcript.
In opening statements, attorneys for Greg and Travis McMichael argued that their clients followed Arbery in Travis' pickup truck to detain Arbery for police questioning. The attorneys said Arbery ultimately ran toward Travis, who fired his gun in self-defense. Video taken by Bryan appears to show Arbery run past the truck and turn left toward Travis, who appears to be pointing a gun at Arbery.

The prosecution, meanwhile, contends Arbery was "under attack" and was trying to escape.Prosecutors say Arbery committed no crimes and was killed because the three defendants made a series of "assumptions" about what Arbery was doing in their neighborhood that day.

On Tuesday afternoon, prosecutors showed jurors a series of video clips taken inside a neighbor's open home that had been under construction for months.
Arbery can be seen wandering around the open site. Asked by prosecutors if Arbery appeared to take anything from the home, Marcy said no.
According to a transcript of Marcy's interview with McMichael, Marcy asked McMichael if Arbery had picked anything up from the construction site. McMichael said: "You know, not that I recall. I don’t think the guy has actually stolen anything out of there, or if he did, it was early in the process."

The trial is taking place in Glynn County. While more than 26% of residents in the county are Black and more than 55% of residents in Brunswick are Black, just one juror is Black, based on information available to reporters. The court declined to release details about race or age.
 

LS1 Z28

Territorial Marshal
Oct 30, 2007
5,148
4,092
1,743
#3
Georgia's Citizen's Arrest Law:
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.

This law was recently repealed, but it was in effect during this incident, so it will play a part in the trial. The key word here is felony. Arbery was guilty of trespassing, but that's only a misdemeanor in Georgia. I haven't studied this case that closely, but it's hard for me to imagine them walking free since they weren't justified in attempting to make a citizen's arrest. This will be another interesting trial to follow.
 
May 4, 2011
2,998
1,436
1,743
Charleston, SC
#5
The judge said it was legal jury manipulation.
Pretty sure the standard is that the prosecution has to be able to prove it with individual cases. If I remember right, it basically wound up that they just have to come up with some non-racial reasoning for striking each one and then avoiding putting any racist reasons into writing (in another case, someone actually wrote out notes about every time a juror was black and that got tossed, but it left in place that as long as you avoid that and offer some other explanation if/when asked, that's legal). So, if you only marginally improve on the 50s all White juries by having a single token Black juror and massively underrepresenting the community, that's totally legal. If anyone left out there really wondered why a large proportion of Black people don't trust our legal system, here you go. And, before anyone goes there, yes, I know lots of people don't trust the legal system, this is just a reason why many Black people have some rather unique reasons not to.
 
May 31, 2007
2,287
508
1,743
Concord
#6
Georgia's Citizen's Arrest Law:
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.

This law was recently repealed, but it was in effect during this incident, so it will play a part in the trial. The key word here is felony. Arbery was guilty of trespassing, but that's only a misdemeanor in Georgia. I haven't studied this case that closely, but it's hard for me to imagine them walking free since they weren't justified in attempting to make a citizen's arrest. This will be another interesting trial to follow.
This is going to be a fascinating case.
 
May 4, 2011
2,998
1,436
1,743
Charleston, SC
#8
Regarding the jury, I'd be interested in knowing the makeup of the jury pool from the start.
Very easy to google. 13 White people struck from the Jury and 11 Black people. Meaning they struck more than 90% of Black jurors and left almost half of the White ones. The judge acknowledges that its racist in it's totality but can't do anything about it because they gave race neutral reasons for striking each Black juror. As I understand it, that's all thanks to a garbage standard left in place by our supreme court.

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/04/1052248889/a-nearly-all-white-jury-will-hear-evidence-in-the-ahmaud-arbery-case
 

PF5

Deputy
Jan 3, 2014
1,394
408
713
#9
Here are the numbers the state gave right off the top:
  • 11 Black jurors were struck
  • The defense struck 24 of 48 jurors
  • There were 12 Black jurors in the pool
  • The actual jury has one Black man and 11 white people
Looking at the first 48 potential jurors that could be chosen, there were 19 men, 29 women, 36 are white, 12 are black, 9 of the white men are over 40 years old.
The defense said they would have to question each juror one by one and none of the strikes considered race.
 
Nov 23, 2010
1,251
611
1,743
#10
Georgia's Citizen's Arrest Law:
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.

This law was recently repealed, but it was in effect during this incident, so it will play a part in the trial. The key word here is felony. Arbery was guilty of trespassing, but that's only a misdemeanor in Georgia. I haven't studied this case that closely, but it's hard for me to imagine them walking free since they weren't justified in attempting to make a citizen's arrest. This will be another interesting trial to follow.
It definitely wasn't committed in their presence, and I doubt it meets the definition of within their immediate knowledge either.
 
May 31, 2007
2,287
508
1,743
Concord
#13
Nope. Shot him to death.
Yeah I have seen the video of him trying to attack the shooter and take his shotgun away. And he ends up getting shot a few times. I guess the question is, is it legal to pursue someone that doesn’t want to be pursued based on suspicion? I don’t know the answer to that. But given that it doesn’t seem they got to the point of arresting him I don’t know if that statute on GA citizen’s arrest comes into play.
 
Nov 23, 2010
1,251
611
1,743
#14
Yeah I have seen the video of him trying to attack the shooter and take his shotgun away. And he ends up getting shot a few times. I guess the question is, is it legal to pursue someone that doesn’t want to be pursued based on suspicion? I don’t know the answer to that. But given that it doesn’t seem they got to the point of arresting him I don’t know if that statute on GA citizen’s arrest comes into play.
Attempted citizen's arrest was their explanation at the time and I assume will be their defense now.

Otherwise their defense is "we were trying to kidnap him and he didn't like it so we shot him" which is an even worse defense.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
19,291
20,856
1,743
#15
Georgia's Citizen's Arrest Law:
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.

This law was recently repealed, but it was in effect during this incident, so it will play a part in the trial. The key word here is felony. Arbery was guilty of trespassing, but that's only a misdemeanor in Georgia. I haven't studied this case that closely, but it's hard for me to imagine them walking free since they weren't justified in attempting to make a citizen's arrest. This will be another interesting trial to follow.
I'm not familiar with all the nuances of Georgia citizens' arrest law, but I'd bet there are other statutes or court decisions that define the level of force a citizen can use to make a citizens' arrest, and I'd bet that a private citizen isn't allowed to use deadly force to make such arrest or keep them from escaping.
 
May 31, 2007
2,287
508
1,743
Concord
#16
Attempted citizen's arrest was their explanation at the time and I assume will be their defense now.

Otherwise their defense is "we were trying to kidnap him and he didn't like it so we shot him" which is an even worse defense.
Yeah I understand that was their excuse. But they didn’t actually arrest him did they? I thought they were chasing him, he eventually stopped running and then the altercation happened immediately. And that’s where I’m not sure how the law views it. Is it illegal to follow someone if you suspect they committed a crime? I just don’t know the answer. I know the victim was mentally ill so perhaps getting into his head is difficult, but if someone is pointing a gun at you or is in possession of one, do you have the right to attack that person if you feel your life is in danger? I think it is very possible in that moment that both men felt their life was in danger. Which is why like I said, this case is fascinating because I can see so many angles there.
 
Dec 9, 2013
1,322
452
713
51
#17
Very easy to google. 13 White people struck from the Jury and 11 Black people. Meaning they struck more than 90% of Black jurors and left almost half of the White ones. The judge acknowledges that its racist in it's totality but can't do anything about it because they gave race neutral reasons for striking each Black juror. As I understand it, that's all thanks to a garbage standard left in place by our supreme court.

https://www.npr.org/2021/11/04/1052248889/a-nearly-all-white-jury-will-hear-evidence-in-the-ahmaud-arbery-case
This whole situation and the beginning of the trial is fascinating. It is exactly the situation that we should be having open and honest dialogue about in our high school and college classrooms. But bc we are scared to own up to racial consequences of our laws and systems we can’t without punishment.

Are there instances where this discussion gets taken too far? I am sure there are, but if we don’t talk about these issues how will future generations stop them from happening?

I’m sure I am not the only one here who attended every year of education in OK and never knew about the Tulsa Race Massacre. Why is that?
 
Dec 9, 2013
1,322
452
713
51
#18
Yeah I understand that was their excuse. But they didn’t actually arrest him did they? I thought they were chasing him, he eventually stopped running and then the altercation happened immediately. And that’s where I’m not sure how the law views it. Is it illegal to follow someone if you suspect they committed a crime? I just don’t know the answer. I know the victim was mentally ill so perhaps getting into his head is difficult, but if someone is pointing a gun at you or is in possession of one, do you have the right to attack that person if you feel your life is in danger? I think it is very possible in that moment that both men felt their life was in danger. Which is why like I said, this case is fascinating because I can see so many angles there.
Isn’t this essentially what Rittenhouse is claiming?
 
May 4, 2011
2,998
1,436
1,743
Charleston, SC
#19
This whole situation and the beginning of the trial is fascinating. It is exactly the situation that we should be having open and honest dialogue about in our high school and college classrooms. But bc we are scared to own up to racial consequences of our laws and systems we can’t without punishment.

Are there instances where this discussion gets taken too far? I am sure there are, but if we don’t talk about these issues how will future generations stop them from happening?

I’m sure I am not the only one here who attended every year of education in OK and never knew about the Tulsa Race Massacre. Why is that?
Not all schools are afraid to have those conversations. I'd be shocked if this isn't being discussed regularly in some classes at Booker T. BA and Jenks on the other hand.....

FWIW, I went to school in Tulsa at the time the commission released that report in 2001. It never came up in my history classes that I remember, but it did get discussed in earth science of all places.
 

andylicious

Territorial Marshal
Nov 16, 2013
6,268
2,846
743
36
tractor
#20
This whole situation and the beginning of the trial is fascinating. It is exactly the situation that we should be having open and honest dialogue about in our high school and college classrooms. But bc we are scared to own up to racial consequences of our laws and systems we can’t without punishment.

Are there instances where this discussion gets taken too far? I am sure there are, but if we don’t talk about these issues how will future generations stop them from happening?

I’m sure I am not the only one here who attended every year of education in OK and never knew about the Tulsa Race Massacre. Why is that?
Your coach sucked at history? I went all 13 years in far central western OK and we knew about, just like we were taught what really happened at "The Battle of the Washita"