The Ahmaud Arbery Shooting

[sigp220.45]

The defense is not going to say this is a jogger. They will say he was a burglar.

They will point out the same home was burglarized before, and show a video of a person who bears a marked resemblance to the dead fellow making off with some stuff.

They will point out he wasn’t jogging when he went into the home on the fateful day. He was walking. They may even suggest he was checking to see if the items the mystery man had stolen before had been replaced.

They might even point out he may have seen someone take notice of him and make a cell phone call. At that point we all can agree he steps up the pace, and runs toward the pickup truck in the middle of the street, where the altercation takes place.

They will probably at least try to make the case he was attempting to disarm shotgun guy, who merely wanted to hold him for the lawful authorities as a burglar/trespasser.

They will try like hell to get into court that he was known in the past to carry a handgun, and had been relieved of one at his school some years before.

They will also try to bolster their “burglar, not a jogger” theory with the fact he was arrested for trying to steal a TV from Wal Mart, showing a larcenous nature.

They will most certainly play up any knowledge retired cop Dad had of his past indiscretions, and how that knowledge factored in to the admittedly poor decisions made that day. Especially if retired cop Dad had anything to do with the gun at school thing.

If they don’t go with the shotgun disarm theory, they will go for the furtive movement defense.

The “here’s why we didn’t charge them” letter from the DA will be presented to any future jury as the very definition of reasonable doubt.

More stuff will come out. Dad and son have probably said dumb stuff on Facebook or on forums much like this one. More surveillance videos will come out that will help one side and hurt the other.

Who knows if the defense will get any/all of the above into court. I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve sat through enough trials to have the opinion judges allow the defense way more leeway than they do the prosecutors.

At each turn, posts will be added or threads locked or new threads started. No minds will change.

Because it doesn’t matter what we think. There is a presumption of innocence I hope everyone agrees on.

Please note, forum friends: I’m not saying these guys are correct in what they did. If a jury sends them away forever or sets them free with a heartfelt apology its all the same to me. Thats the system. I’ve won my share and lost my share, but I’ve never complained about a verdict. And note I haven’t used names or races of those involved.

I hope you all are enjoying a wonderful Mother’s Day.

 

[zzclancy]

Now that this is being tried in the media it puts the jury in a terrible position.

They lose if they do the right thing and they lose if they do the wrong thing.

Verdicts in high profile cases are always ugly.

 

[forrestinmathews]

This is sort of new to me. How many pairs of specialized running shoes are required to officially be considered a jogger? How many pieces of brand name jogging apparel are required to officially be considered a jogger?

I didn’t realize there was a rule like that. My knees have aged out of jogging, but in the past I’ve jogged in cargos, a t-shirt, and an old pair of athletic shoes. I guess I didn’t realize I was breaking some obscure law.

It was stated that he loved jogging. Prove this statement. Was he listening to music in headphones like most joggers I know? Did he have a water bottle? What kind of shoes did he have on? Were they suitable for pursuing his passion of jogging? Did he have wristwatch with a timer running? Or was he just a suspect fleeing the scene of a crime with a criminal past that some fool is now trying to paint as a poster boy after he grabbed more shotgun than he could jog with?

 

[Gene L]

The video being played shows a White Pickup with a Subject in the bed, than a W/M shoving a long gun at the Jogger, which the Victim grabs ....

The way this SHOULD have been handled, if the Father/Son thought this was a Subject that matched the description of a prior Burglary suspect would have been to call it in and let a Uniform Unit handle,... A Field Interrogation card, FI, could have been filled out and forwarded to Detectives, and a Warrant check done.... NO need to confront the Victim, could have followed from a Safe distance while on the phone with Dispatch advising location.

As far as the Victim entering a Construction site, Criminal Law is based on INTENT.... If he went in there to simply look, it’s a trespass...Now if he had a truck backed up loading appliances, that would be a different situation..

These two made stupid choices/decisions that are irreverseable.

Not trespass in GA. Subject has to be verbally notified by someone attached to the property (like owner, manager, employee) he/she isn't welcome there and if he/she refuses to leave, then it's trespass and an arrestable offense. Or, having notified of a prohibition, he/shr comes back. It's a misdemeanor. If the perp commits a crime therein, it's no longer trespass but a burglary. If the perp, for example, paints graffiti, it's Criminal Trespass. There's an amount of monetary damage involved. but I forget how much.

 

[blues7]

A matter of concern? What does that mean? Sorry, but that doesn't cut it.

Any police force that doesn't arrest these two on the spot is not doing their job. The circumstance surrounding this situation are too questionable. Based on their own testimony, they only thought he might look like someone who might be a suspect in some crime. In what jurisdiction does that empower a regular citizen to assault someone with a gun?

The original officers that responded intended to arrest and were overridden by the prosecuting authority. It's not the individual LEOs that were at fault here.

There is a lot of information out there if people are willing to put the time into reading and viewing it. (Not aimed at you, Rastoff, just a general observation.)

There is very little "right" with this matter, imho, and a whole lot "wrong".

Now it's time for the judicial system to properly do its job. There is much at stake.

 

[Gene L]

It was stated that he loved jogging. Prove this statement. Was he listening to music in headphones like most joggers I know? Did he have a water bottle? What kind of shoes did he have on? Were they suitable for pursuing his passion of jogging? Did he have wristwatch with a timer running? Or was he just a suspect fleeing the scene of a crime with a criminal past that some fool is now trying to paint as a poster boy after he grabbed more shotgun than he could jog with?

That's not how it works at all. Especially the unreal ones you raised, like a watch with a timer.

Prosecution doesn't have to prove he loved jogging. They only have to prove the pair killed him.

The defense can raise all the issues you brought up and if they can PROVE them through records or witnesses, they should.

 

[sigp220.45]

The defense can raise all the issues you brought up and if they can PROVE them through records or witnesses, they should.

The defense doesn’t have to prove anything. They don’t even have to mount a defense.

The burden of proof lies entirely on the prosecution.

 

[Ziggy2525]

It was stated that he loved jogging. Prove this statement. Was he listening to music in headphones like most joggers I know? Did he have a water bottle? What kind of shoes did he have on? Were they suitable for pursuing his passion of jogging? Did he have wristwatch with a timer running? Or was he just a suspect fleeing the scene of a crime with a criminal past that some fool is now trying to paint as a poster boy after he grabbed more shotgun than he could jog with?

It sounds more like the your describing an over-indulged, upper-middle class millennial Nike fan-boi that doesn’t actually run, not an inner city kid that really does. Are you a marketing specialist for Nike?

 

[blues7]

It sounds more like the your describing an over-indulged, upper-middle class millennial Nike fan-boi that doesn’t actually run, not an inner city kid that really does. Are you a marketing specialist for Nike?

Frankly, neither comment is relevant nor adds anything to the search for truth.

 

[Mike 139]

Not trespass in GA. Subject has to be verbally notified by someone attached to the property (like owner, manager, employee) he/she isn't welcome there and if he/she refuses to leave, then it's trespass and an arrestable offense. Or, having notified of a prohibition, he/shr comes back. It's a misdemeanor. If the perp commits a crime therein, it's no longer trespass but a burglary. If the perp, for example, paints graffiti, it's Criminal Trespass. There's an amount of monetary damage involved. but I forget how much.

Thanks for the clarification on your Statutes.... That gives the Subjects even less probable cause to Arm up and attempting to detain/effect arrest..... Stay Safe.

 

[blues7]

Thanks for the clarification on your Statutes.... That gives the Subjects even less probable cause to Arm up and attempting to detain/effect arrest..... Stay Safe.

2010 Georgia Code
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.

IMHO...

If the defense puts on a case, they will have to demonstrate that the actions of the defendants met the burden of the law above...and that the resultant loss of life was caused by an act of self-defense once the younger defendant and the decedent got into a scrum.

On the other hand...

The prosecution will attempt to demonstrate that the burden of the law was not met and that therefore any claim of self-defense is forfeit. (Since the defendant exited the vehicle armed, with an intent to intercept the decedent...thus initiating the event.)

All the defense need do is raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of one juror. (Or, if a bench trial, in the mind of the judge.)

The prosecution has a much greater burden of proof.

What evidence the judge admits will be key.

 

[Gene L]

The defense doesn’t have to prove anything. They don’t even have to mount a defense.

The burden of proof lies entirely on the prosecution.

Very true. But if the Defense can raise these issues, though I don't see their relevance, they will. It's probably going to be viewed as a desperation grasping at straws defense, but that may be all the Defense has.

 

[vt_shooter]

Personally, outside of my home, I will only get involved if there is a threat of loss of life or grave bodily harm to myself or others...if I feel I can make a difference without putting others at risk.

The "or others" part is filled with pitfalls. The odds are very slim I would come to someone other than a family member's aid using deadly force. Let's say you happened upon someone you didn't know who was being stabbed, and you employed deadly force to stop that attack. You might be on the hook for murder if the one being stabbed himself did not have a right to employ deadly force to protect himself because he himself started the altercation. Maybe he has a knife in his hand that you didn't see. Also, the person you perceived as being victimized made the decision to not be able to protect himself by carrying his own firearm. He owns that, you don't have to risk your neck because of his choice (assuming we're talking about an adult).

 

[Ziggy2525]

Frankly, neither comment is relevant nor adds anything to the search for truth.

You lost me on that one. It’s an internet forum where people are all speculating on things they don’t know fully. The search for the truth will happen in a court in Georgia, not on this forum.

 

[blues7]

The "or others" part is filled with pitfalls. The odds are very slim I would come to someone other than a family member's aid using deadly force. Let's say you happened upon someone you didn't know who was being stabbed, and you employed deadly force to stop that attack. You might be on the hook for murder if the one being stabbed himself did not have a right to employ deadly force to protect himself because he himself started the altercation. Maybe he has a knife in his hand that you didn't see. Also, the person you perceived as being victimized made the decision to not be able to protect himself by carrying his own firearm. He owns that, you don't have to risk your neck because of his choice (assuming we're talking about an adult).

My post was not intended to be read as a statute or case law. I mentioned the conditions under which I "might" respond.

And while there are exceptions to the rule, a person defending themselves against an aggressor (who cannot claim self-defense) does not have the right to continue stabbing, clubbing, beating or shooting the (original guilty party) once he or she is capable of extricating themselves from the threat.

So, I'll see your "what if" and raise you one.

But anyway, yes, it's always prudent to be sure of what you're about to do when you intervene, or consider doing so.

 

[vt_shooter]

My post was not intended to be read as a statute or case law.

I know

My intent was just to advocate people giving a lot of thought to the notion of protecting others (besides their own family).

Cheers, and thank you for serving!

 

[blues7]

You lost me on that one. It’s an internet forum where people are all speculating on things they don’t know fully. The search for the truth will happen in a court in Georgia, not on this forum.

Well, I just thought the comments on so-called privileged wannabes vs. the inner city / urban genuine article a bit over the top. But don't let my personal bias stop you.

Some of us actually are interested in the truth, though. I will stand by that. YMMV.

 

[Steve912]

Hmmm....violently assaulted a guy with a shotgun... not thinking that's one for attracting juror sympathy.

The video shows the deceased advancing on the shotgun-
holder, while shotgun holder backpedals. The deceased
closes the distance to arms-reach, where he grabs
the shotgun in one hand and punches the holder in
the face/head with the other, while the shotgun-holder
continues backpedaling. This is prior to shot(s) fired.


More info will no doubt be forthcoming, but my impression is
"bad judgement" on all involved parties.

 

[blues7]

More info will no doubt be forthcoming, but my impression is
"bad judgement" on all involved parties.

I would agree...speaking for myself and not as a representative of either side.

The legal and human cost it has and will generate will be staggering.

 

[Fastbolt]

This is already becoming quite the media storm.

The "big blender" of politics, racist claims, legal considerations and legal wrangling is going to keep this in the news cycle for some time. The only (sadly) "winners" of this whole debacle are going to be the cable/network news talking heads (and the advertisers), and the attorneys.

At least 2 families have been, or are in the process of being, destroyed by the decisions of the people immediately involved.

Another cautionary tale. Sigh.