The Ahmaud Arbery Shooting

[Gene L]

Well, the GA law on powers of arrest has been around for many years and has worked great so far. Cops are rather extensively trained on this law, while citizens aren't. Citizens arrests outside of security busting shoplifters and the like is a very rare thing in GA because most citizens don't know the fine points of the law. Then there's the liability thing which will almost certainly result in a lawsuit. Not to mention legal woes if the arrest isn't legal.

To whom and when did the prosecutor address this letter and who is he/she? He was wrong. Me, I'd see such a letter as devastating to his career and possibly a reason to question if local corruption is present.

 

[sigp220.45]

The retired cop has said he had dealings with the dead guy from previous run-ins with the law, which included firearms offenses. That will not be hard to prove.

They may get convicted, but the whole story has not been told - just a shaky video that doesn’t even show the initial encounter.

The two “vigilantes” called the cops - twice.

I know it is horribly politically incorrect, but the two folks in custody are innocent until proven guilty.

I’ll wait for the rest of the story.

 

[usmc2427765]

It is a very sad situation that the liberal media had to immediately jump on the fact that one of those involved was an "ex-cop". They are always ready to "stir the pot", sell an extra paper and start a riot. They are mostly scum.

 

[CapnB]

Gene L. Sorry, I just figured you were aware of this (copied and pasted without edits directly from CNN): “. . . before Barnhill's recusal, he wrote a separate letter to police saying he believed Gregory and Travis McMichael were within their rights to make a citizen's arrest of Arbery at the time of the shooting. "It appears their intent was to stop and hold this criminal suspect until law enforcement arrived. Under Georgia law, this is perfectly legal," Barnhill wrote in an April 2 letter. He went on to question whether Arbery could have been responsible for the gunshots by pulling on the shotgun and wrote Travis McMichael "was allowed to use deadly force to protect himself."

Again, I’m sure there is more to this story and you’re certainly in a position to know more about it than me. I appreciate your insight on this interesting and tragic story.

 

[6string]

This incident has nothing to do with "citizens arrest".

The guy was out for a run and was targeted by the other two.
Senator Tim Scott made a good point when he said "burglars don't go jogging down the middle of the street in the afternoon."

The father and son staked out a position blocking the road.
Arbery went along the shoulder of the road to continue his run.

The first shot was fired while he was just running.

Watch the unedited video WITH the original audio!
The first shot is fired, but even though the vehicle blocks a lot of the view, it appears that Arbery's feet are still moving at his same run pace.
The physical engagement didn't begin until AFTER that.

If you were unarmed and came under fire by two armed assailants would you not feel as though your life was under immediate threat?
If you saw as perhaps your last chance to survive by trying to disarm one of the assailants, while you were being shot at, would you not take it?

IF the father had any legitimate law enforcement background what justification can he offer for any of this?

 

[ColbyBruce]

Any of you LEO’s been to the federal training place near Brunswick? Is it called Glynco? If so, you know the area has issues.

 

[Harrychristopher]

I've mentioned it before in several threads: if your home suffers a break-in, any shots fired in self-defense within your home are easily viewed as legitimate self defense. If the intruder flees and you give chase outside your home, you are no longer acting in self defense but are now attempting a citizens' arrest where the laws become a legal minefield.

The classic definition of a self-defense situation has been said to be the following: A reasonable person knowing what you knew at the time of the incident believes that there is an imminent and unavoidable threat of death or serious bodily injury and the person making the threat has the ability, opportunity and jeopardy to carry it out.

Chasing a person in public whom you believe may have committed a criminal offense certainly seems to me to be rather difficult to justify in meeting the "imminent and unavoidable" part of the self-defense definition.

I would suspect that the first thing a jury is going to ask is why after calling the local PD did they escalate the matter by chasing down the suspected criminal on a public road? How does this action meet the imminent and unavoidable part of the self-defense definition in view of the fact that the person shot was not trying to break into their homes and threaten their families with death or serious bodily injury but was rather running away from them?

Some states may take a rather expansive view of when a citizen has the legal right to shot at another individual outside the setting of one's home but states such as the Democratic People's Republic of Massachusetts certainly is not one of those states.

If one disregards any questions pursuant to the moral issue of shooting there is still the legal issues to contend with. I strongly believe that an individual who is not acting in the sworn capacity of a LEO would be better served by adapting a more conservative interpretation of their legal responsibilities of self-defense as opposed to a more expansive one even if their particular state allows a degree of wider latitude in defining the matter.

I carry a concealed pistol everyday that I leave my home and I bear in mind that as I have chosen to do so of my own volition it is incumbent upon me to have a keen awareness of the citizen rules of engagement involving the employment of deadly force that I am operating under in my particular area.

Mr. Grant Cunningham has written several articles pointing out that situational awareness and subsequent avoidance of being in a shooting situation are a prudent approach to surviving when out and about these days. A person who says that they relish the opportunity to become involved in a potential deadly force situation has proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that not only are they a fool but also that they never have been confronted by such circumstances in the real world.

Harry

 

[BAM-BAM]

Seen some of the videos ......... from what little I've seen this is a classic....

You can't fix stupid.

I do know that two guys getting out of a pickup truck with shotguns would scare the poop out of me.............................

Beyond that ...... I'll wait for the Trial.

 

[max503]

The retired cop has said he had dealings with the dead guy from previous run-ins with the law, which included firearms offenses. That will not be hard to prove.

They may get convicted, but the whole story has not been told - just a shaky video that doesn’t even show the initial encounter.

The two “vigilantes” called the cops - twice.

I know it is horribly politically incorrect, but the two folks in custody are innocent until proven guilty.

I’ll wait for the rest of the story.

I put a "like" on this for the simple fact that the news is not really the news. It's always skewed. I'll wait for the facts and make up my own mind. I haven't seen the video or really heard a story about it. I pretty much avoid the news.

 

[38SPL HV]

That event saddens me very much...terrible, terrible...those things should never happen today and sadly is reminiscent of the Jim Crow South.

 

[forrestinmathews]

Apparently the deceased loved to jog. So he should have multiple pairs of shoes and various pieces of jogging apparel. Right? What exactly was he dressed in at the time? Jogging apparel? Why didn't he run perpendicular to and away from the roadway to escape the persons hassling him from the vehicle? Run away from the problem. Not with it. This whole thing stinks and every side is trying to manipulate it. Racial difference between victim and perpetrator does not a hate crime automatically make. Might be manslaughter. Might not be, but there are a lot of Monday morning quarterbacks fawning to an agenda here. So many racing to condemn to avoid being labeled as insensitive or racists. Sit back and let the investigation happen.

 

[Ziggy2525]

Apparently the deceased loved to jog. So he should have multiple pairs of shoes and various pieces of jogging apparel. Right? What exactly was he dressed in at the time? Jogging apparel? Why didn't he run perpendicular to and away from the roadway to escape the persons hassling him from the vehicle? Run away from the problem. Not with it. This whole thing stinks and every side is trying to manipulate it. Racial difference between victim and perpetrator does not a hate crime automatically make. Might be manslaughter. Might not be, but there are a lot of Monday morning quarterbacks fawning to an agenda here. So many racing to condemn to avoid being labeled as insensitive or racists. Sit back and let the investigation happen.

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.

 

[sigp220.45]

At least he was able to take time out of his dedicated jogging routine to go into someone else’s house for five minutes.

 

[Ziggy2525]

At least he was able to take time out of his dedicated jogging routine to go into someone else’s house for five minutes.

Maybe. IANAL, but when I looked up the Georgia statutes, if he was in someone else's house I'm pretty sure once he came out of someone else's house it stopped being a deadly force event. Force, yes. Deadly force, no.

 

[Kanewpadle]

As usual, lots of attitude and folks passing judgment before all the facts are known.

A new rule should be established which states that we must wait at least a month before posting these type events here.

There’s this thing called Due Process. A process which takes time.

 

[Rastoff]

Had the third individual not recorded the act, I don't believe that anything would have been done to the father and son.

Regardless of anything else in this case, this one thing is the most important to all of us. The fact that nothing was done about this murder until it hit the national news, is the real tragedy here.

It was not handled well, but I DO NOT think these men deserve life, as no malicious intent was involved.

You have this wrong Jay. When a gun is pointed at a person intentionally, there's malicious intent. Either the person shot was trying to assault the shooter or the shooter's intentions were nefarious. You cannot intentionally point a gun at someone and then claim it wasn't on purpose. The only question at this point is, was the shooting justified.

I’ll wait for the rest of the story before pronouncing judgement.

In the coming days and weeks the dead guy’s mugshots will be released by the defense, along with his criminal history. Maybe the doorbell cam video, or other witnesses who saw him interrupt his jog by poking around in a home under construction.

I’ll let the system work.

Yes, the system will do something. However, do you realize that all that stuff is irrelevant in a court of law? All these things are irrelevant:
Mug shots
Prior arrests
Prior convictions
Jogging paraphernalia
If he was in a home for a few minutes (unless the shooters personally saw him in that home AND he was committing a crime there)

One side will try to paint Aubrey as a saint and the other will try to make him the devil. Neither aspect is relevant to this case. Was Aubrey in the commission of a crime at the time the two guys started to follow him? That's the question that needs to be answered. If he was, then this could be a justified shooting. If he wasn't than this is a case of two guys hunting down and killing another guy.

Past information that IS relevant to this case is, do the father and son have a history of racial prejudice? That will be a factor.

 

[LPD256]

I have two new homes under construction on my daily walk. I sometimes step inside to check out the floor plan, get ideas, or whatever. They are open, no doors. I’m nosy. I know exactly what I’d do if a couple blocks later a pickup stopped and two armed people that weren’t cops jumped out of a truck and started yelling at me.

Won’t happen because “jogging while white” doesn’t attract much attention from the vigilante crowd. Think about it from Arbery’s viewpoint.

 

[Rastoff]

There’s this thing called Due Process. A process which takes time.

I think you're right. What should be the main focus of our discussion about this case is, why didn't the police/district attorney prosecute this until after it made national headlines? That's the aspect I'm most interested in because it smacks of a very corrupt/prejudiced police force.

 

[Imissedagain]

It's the store formally known as Sports Authority's fault!!!
If they still sold J Frames near the Jogging supplies they'd all be in the hospital or the ground.

If you all were jogging or bike riding down a street and two strangers tried to stop you with guns, knowing you did nothing wrong... what would you do?

Happy Mothers Day.

 

[Ziggy2525]

...
Was Aubrey in the commission of a crime at the time the two guys started to follow him? That's the question that needs to be answered. If he was, then this could be a justified shooting. If he wasn't than this is a case of two guys hunting down and killing another guy.
...

I agree mostly with your post, but disagree with this one point. It's not if he was just in the commission of a crime. It's was he in the commission of a crime that Georgia statutes permit deadly force to stop. That's where I think this is going to fall down. From what I can tell, and similar to my state, Georgia doesn't permit deadly force to stop a property crime.