The Ahmaud Arbery Shooting

[Chief Wiggums]

The event has multiple negative implications
- a life was lost
- it didn't need to happen
- father & son murdered that poor kid
- a mother & father lost their son
- a classic case of racial profiling
- fuel to the fire of why people hate gun owners

 

[LCC]

A young man went for a jog and ended up ambushed and shot down in the street like a rabid dog.
The DA's that had an existing relationship for over 25 years with one of the shooters pressured the crime investigators to withhold charges.
Full stop.

 

[sigp220.45]

Prior history of violence or criminal behavior is not irrelevant if it was known to the shooter at the time. The retired cop said he had prior LE dealings with this dedicated jogger. That will be easy enough to prove, if true.

Not justification by itself, but the retired cop can use it in his articulation of why he thinks the shooting was justified. Something for the lawyers and judge to hash out.

 

[Kanewpadle]

Prior history of violence or criminal behavior is not irrelevant if it was known to the shooter at the time. The retired cop said he had prior LE dealings with this dedicated jogger. That will be easy enough to prove, if true.

Not justification by itself, but the retired cop can use it in his articulation of why he thinks the shooting was justified. Something for the lawyers and judge to hash out.

You're missing the point.

The jogger may have committed a property crime.

The two men had absolutely no business acting as they did. They should have called the REAL police. Doesn't matter what the retired cop knew or thought he knew. He should have known better. And it doesn't say much for his career as a cop.

 

[biku324]

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.

It's not directly relevant, but I was loading my horse into my trailer after a ride in the mountains on National Forest land. Natl Forest is grazed in the area by ranchers who are overwhelmingly the salt of the earth.

As I was loading my horse, a rancher and his hand rode (horseback) around some brush and saw me and my trailer; they immediately came and confronted me with hands on their pistols and demanded to know what I was doing there and what I had in my trailer. I told them I had been riding my horse; the older me told me I was trespassing and needed to show him some identification.

I'd had enough, and told who I was (I was District Commander of the state police there at the time - the rancher recognized my name) and that if he wanted to see my badge he'd surely get to see it, but it would cost him, since he was harassing someone on public property while armed. He and his hand decided they had to go and left with hands on their reins and pommels, no longer on their pistols.

A gun is not a magic wand nor a police commission.

 

[sigp220.45]

You're missing the point.

The jogger may have committed a property crime.

The two men had absolutely no business acting as they did. They should have called the REAL police. Doesn't matter what the retired cop knew or thought he knew. He should have known better. And it doesn't say much for his career as a cop.

And you are missing the main point. They will say they only wanted to detain him, and that he violently assaulted the shotgun guy, at which point he/they believed deadly force was justified. They will also trot out the "reached in his waistband" claim, and try to get in his 2013 arrest for carrying a handgun to school, which Mr. retired cop will say he knew about. They don't have to be right about the gun, just reasonable.

As I said, there is a process to hash all this out. This ain't it.

 

[biku324]

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

 

[Kanewpadle]

And you are missing the main point. They will say they only wanted to detain him, and that he violently assaulted the shotgun guy, at which point he/they believed deadly force was justified. They will also trot out the "reached in his waistband" claim, and try to get in his 2013 arrest for carrying a handgun to school, which Mr. retired cop will say he knew about. They don't have to be right about the gun, just reasonable.

They did call the cops. Twice.

As I said, there is a process to hash all this out. This ain't it.

No sir, you are missing the main point.

They had no business in trying to detain him. None at all.

I don't care what the laws say about citizens arrest. The law of common sense must prevail. And these two gentlemen wanted to play heroes. They initiated contact without clear evidence. They went out armed intending to play cop.

How would you feel and react if a citizen tried to detain you of something they thought you did wrong? At gun point?

I'm not saying that the jogger did nothing wrong. Time will tell if and when the investigation produces more facts. But the jogger never even had a chance. The two men denied him of due process at the end of a gun.

 

[sigp220.45]

We'll see. There is no "law of common sense", just the law as written. Maybe a jury will agree with you.

 

[Rastoff]

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.

Yes, you have it exactly correct.

Prior history of violence or criminal behavior is not irrelevant if it was known to the shooter at the time. The retired cop said he had prior LE dealings with this dedicated jogger. That will be easy enough to prove, if true.

Not justification by itself, but the retired cop can use it in his articulation of why he thinks the shooting was justified. Something for the lawyers and judge to hash out.

It is irrelevant in this situation. Even if the father (was he a cop or just worked for the police?) knew of some past behavior, it's not justification to stop, detain, harass a person out jogging.

Also, I don't know how it works in Georgia specifically, but you don't get to start a confrontation and then claim self-defense if the person you assaulted with your gun starts to fight back. It simply doesn't work like that.

 

[Gene L]

Geez, the victim was wearing a T-shirt and shorts. Where could he hide stolen construction materials? Let's get real, people who are looking for mitigating circumstances. There are none I can see, but if you see anything exculpatory, please post it. The perps' lawyer would like to know, too.

I WILL say the jogger did nothing wrong in this instance at least nothing legally wrong. Did he go to a construction site? If he did, that's not illegal, not trespass in GA.

 

[dubshooter]

It appears they pulled out a shotgun and held the man at gunpoint, at which point Arbery attempted to disarm the man attempting the citizen's arrest.

At this time, I believe the guy with the shotgun was forced to fire on the suspect because he was afraid he would be disarmed and shot. I do not think it would have ended this way with anybody dead if Arbery had complied.

I do not think these two should have been prowling for someone just based on security camera footage, but DO NOT be so quick to demonize fellow gun owners. These two men were misguided, sure, but were attempting to be patriots defending their homesteads from a burglar.

It was not handled well, but I DO NOT think these men deserve life, as no malicious intent was involved. He was forced to shoot once the disarm attempt occurred, leading to this outcome.

A black man in Georgia confronted by two white males, armed with shotguns, in a pickup truck (one standing in the bed), is supposed to say "yessir" and stand there waiting for the cops during their "citizens arrest"?

The memories are still fresh down there. I would've done the same as Arbery.

 

[dubshooter]

And you are missing the main point. They will say they only wanted to detain him, and that he violently assaulted the shotgun guy, at which point he/they believed deadly force was justified. They will also trot out the "reached in his waistband" claim, and try to get in his 2013 arrest for carrying a handgun to school, which Mr. retired cop will say he knew about. They don't have to be right about the gun, just reasonable.

As I said, there is a process to hash all this out. This ain't it.

Here in Arizona, jumping out of your vehicle and pointing a gun at someone who has not committed an act that could harm or kill someone else is aggravated assault, a felony. So maybe Arbery should have detained the two felons in this case.

 

[Loyaljeeper]

Senator Tim Scott made a good point when he said "burglars don't go jogging down the middle of the street in the afternoon."

Incorrect! They almost always pose as a jogger. Unless they are out of shape; then they pose as utility workers.

 

[Mike 139]

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.

 

[Steve912]

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.

There's plenty of info on how local govt responded with case.
It was a matter of concern and a lot of activity, for weeks before
national media began covering it.

 

[Rpg]

Geez, the victim was wearing a T-shirt and shorts. Where could he hide stolen construction materials? Let's get real, people who are looking for mitigating circumstances. There are none I can see, but if you see anything exculpatory, please post it. The perps' lawyer would like to know, too.

One of the first things the perps' lawyer should do is get them clean shaves and haircuts.

These guys will look like the paradigm case of lynch mob members to a jury and to the Feds.

I suspect that the Feds will file against them too.

 

[Rastoff]

There's plenty of info on how local govt responded with case.
It was a matter of concern and a lot of activity, for weeks before
national media began covering it.

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?

 

[Fastbolt]

A couple thoughts ...

First, someone making a Private Person's arrest (often called by the public a "citizen's arrest", but you don't have to be a citizen to do it) exposes themselves to liability. This is usually something a private person may be warned about when a police officer becomes involved to accept an arrest made by a private person, at least in my state.

Even if a police officer/deputy accepts the private person's arrest (and a statute may require it, so know your laws), that doesn't necessarily "protect" the person making the private person's arrest if it turns out to have been improper and is subsequently alleged to be a case of a "false arrest". The cop will have some protection (presumably by statute, depending on the state, of course), but the private person is still the one who instigated the chain of events, making the initial arrest, so he/she is likely still going to be exposed to liability ... and when the music stops and there may not be a chair.

Secondly, I wonder if the investigating police went to check out the residence under construction/ One of the things I'd check would be to see if there was any remaining sign of someone (like a jogger) having ducked in to use a bathroom to relieve himself. It wouldn't exactly be a shock for that to happen, even if the utilities hadn't yet been turned on or were off due to construction/reno work. Not everyone wants to duck behind a bush, especially in a neighborhood in the middle of the day. There may be some laws that may make that inconvenient, to say the least. I've certainly come across signs of someone having used an "open" house/structure's bathroom, even if they had technically trespassed in order to do it.

Naturally, it would've been easier if the deceased individual had been alive to offer such a possible explanation for his behavior, at least as claimed by the suspects regarding being on private property.

 

[zzclancy]

Jury

Prior history of violence or criminal behavior is not irrelevant if it was known to the shooter at the time. The retired cop said he had prior LE dealings with this dedicated jogger. That will be easy enough to prove, if true.

Not justification by itself, but the retired cop can use it in his articulation of why he thinks the shooting was justified. Something for the lawyers and judge to hash out.

That's the part which I think will sway the jury. They had history and it was a weapons violation. Taking a gun to school. Violated probation. Shoplifting charge. This guy was not a poster boy.

I also still think it was a mistake to try and grab the barrel of the shotgun.

As of now this is being tried in the media.

From what I read the son had or still did works in the DA's office.

Maybe I'm wrong but I still think if he had just stopped and said let's wait for the cops to get here it would have turned out different. Frankly I don't buy he was just jogging.

I think there was stupid and poor judgment on both sides.

I also have seen retired cops get in trouble, they seem to forget they're retired.

 

[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.