The Ahmaud Arbery Shooting

[Bangler]

I doubt they meant to kill him but I bet they also didn't expect him to fight back. They're in the wrong and as stated above, if they're not convicted of at least manslaughter, their lives are over. Everything they own or ever will own is gone. Their lives as anonymous citizens is over.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 

[Steve912]

Interesting comments from the Glyn County DA.

'I don't fear the truth.' Glynn DA says she welcomes...

She's actually DA for the southeast region, which
encompasses several counties. IMO recusal was appropriate,
with the employment aspect of the father.

 

[fredj338]

Correct.... Zimmerman lived in the Condo complex which had turned into a Dope hole complete with vehicle/ residential burglaries in the Complex. He Volunteered to be the designated Crime Watch person and arrived home to see a Subject walking between buildings in the rain...He called Sanford Police and was on a taped line, giving a description when he lost sight of Martin.

The Complaint Officer( non-sworn) asked " What is he doing now?" Zimmerman exited his Vehicle and attempted to locate the Subject. The C.O . than asked" Are you following him?" When Z advised yes, the C.O. Stated " Don't do that"

As He was returning to his Vehicle ,he was suddenly and violently attacked and knocked to the ground. Neighbors testified at the Trial they heard him screaming for help.This resulted in additional calls to 911.....As his head was repeatedly smashed against the concrete walkway, he managed to produce his 9mm keltec, firing one shot at point blank range.

Responding Units finally arrived and Z was treated for his injuries by Fire-Rescue @ the P.D. It wasn't until several hours later that Martin was Identified by his Father who had been out with the Female who lived at the Complex.


To get back to THIS case, did the McMichaels ever call this in, as they should have, before attempting to apprehend the Subject? What crime had the Victim committed that they witnessed or were aware of? What was the justification for them getting involved? Why not use common sense and call it in and follow at a safe distance until a Marked Unit arrived, instead of a confrontation with a shotgun?

No, these two cases are completely different.

What crime did Martin innitially commit? No i see these two case are very similar. Both deaths were preventable by just being a good witness. Want to play cop, go join the force. Both shooters went looking for trouble with loaded guns. Zimms shooting was justified but preventable & instigated by his actions. Just like this current incident. Why they are very much the same.

 

[fredj338]

I doubt they meant to kill him but I bet they also didn't expect him to fight back. They're in the wrong and as stated above, if they're not convicted of at least manslaughter, their lives are over. Everything they own or ever will own is gone. Their lives as anonymous citizens is over.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

That is just criminal stupid! You jump out of a truck & point guns at people, *** do you think is going to happen?? Fight or flight, be preoared for both. Were they intent on killing him? Well they took loaded guns, not airsofts so if I were on that jury, I would be thinking yeah, there was a certain intent. Trouble did not come to them, they went looking for it.

 

[Ziggy2525]

What crime did Martin innitially commit?
....

Felony assault. Zimmerman didn't confront Martin, didn't try to detain Martin, and didn't point a point a gun at Martin until it was necessary to defend his life. You don't get to commit a deadly assault on someone like Martin did just because you think that person is following you. Zimmerman had bad judgement, but not illegal behavior.

In this Georgia case you had two guys using deadly force, trying to hold someone at gunpoint, because they thought he committed some unknown property theft. We'll have to see if Georgia law allows use of deadly force to stop someone you think might have committed a property crime (or actually committed a property crime). Where I live you can't. In Georgia it might be OK.

 

[kbm6893]

What crime did Martin innitially commit? No i see these two case are very similar. Both deaths were preventable by just being a good witness. Want to play cop, go join the force. Both shooters went looking for trouble with loaded guns. Zimms shooting was justified but preventable & instigated by his actions. Just like this current incident. Why they are very much the same.

What crime did Zimmerman commit? Reporting the actions of a suspicious person to the police and attempting to relay his whereabouts so they could investigate? He was being a good witness when he was assaulted violently by a kid who had no reason to assault him other than "he dissed me so I gotta show him what's up" Zimmerman did NOTHING illegal that night. His weapon was legally purchased and carried and not displayed. There wasn't a mark in Trayvon Martin other than bruised knuckles. Eyewitnesses and physical evidence show he was the aggressor. Funny how some can criminalize asking a question while excusing violent assault in response to that question.

Trayvon was walking in the rain, in between houses, and looking into them. The neighborhood watchman called the cops and kept tabs on him to relay his location. Kid assaults watchman. Watchman fired a shot to prevent his head from continuing to be banged into pavement.

The two cowboys were stupid to try and engage this kid who was definitely NOT out for an invigorating jog, but was it criminal? That's up to a Georgia jury, which will almost certainly convict them regardless if it was criminal or not.

 

[Mike 139]

What crime did Martin innitially commit? No i see these two case are very similar. Both deaths were preventable by just being a good witness. Want to play cop, go join the force. Both shooters went looking for trouble with loaded guns. Zimms shooting was justified but preventable & instigated by his actions. Just like this current incident. Why they are very much the same.

Florida Statute 856.021. Loitering and Prowling...... Arrestable misdemeanor Offense, read the Statute...Subject was wandering around on private property, late at night, in the rain and had No ID.

 

[kbm6893]

Florida Statute 856.021. Loitering and Prowling.

Now some will say "Oh, but that's not a REAL crime!". Like this kid walking into a home he doesn't own and looking around was "only trespassing. it wasn't a REAL crime". I imagine the homeowner would have a much bigger problem with it if he wasn't afraid to be villifed for saying he did

Why didn't he steal anything? Probably because he was on foot and not prepared to carry something off.

 

[gwpercle]

When it comes to juries and defense lawyers OJ ALWAYS comes to mind.

This new ...Trial by Social Media thing isn't right !
Reminds me of the lynch mob storming the jail and hanging someone because they heard he had committed a crime .
That's not justice . This is one of the really bad aspects of Social Media ... way to easy to sit in judgement and not have the facts .
I've sat on too many juries to know the facts inside the courtroom and the facts as portrayed by the "media" are sometimes quite different . Sometimes so different it is frightening to me .
Gary

 

[Steve912]

What crime did Martin innitially commit? No i see these two case are very similar. Both deaths were preventable by just being a good witness. Want to play cop, go join the force. Both shooters went looking for trouble with loaded guns. Zimms shooting was justified but preventable & instigated by his actions. Just like this current incident. Why they are very much the same.

You might want to brush up on the details of that case.

 

[Rastoff]

An interesting point here...

I've talked about this a few times and it bears repeating. What happens when you point a gun at someone, issue commands on what they should do and then they don't follow your commands?

The only reason a regular citizen should point a gun at anyone is to defend their lives from a deadly threat. If you're not in danger of losing your life or great bodily harm, why is your gun even out? Because, if you're not ready to shoot, the gun is an empty threat. So, if you point a gun at someone, demand that they stop, drop, hands up, whatever, but they don't do what you ask, you have to shoot them.

Absolutely everyone, who isn't a psychopath, is going to say that you shouldn't shoot unless in danger. I agree with that which is why your gun shouldn't be out.

The McMichaels made this mistake. They pointed their guns at a guy and demanded he comply. When he didn't, they were taken by surprise and the result is ugly.

 

[Ziggy2525]

An interesting point here...

I've talked about this a few times and it bears repeating. What happens when you point a gun at someone, issue commands on what they should do and then they don't follow your commands?

The only reason a regular citizen should point a gun at anyone is to defend their lives from a deadly threat. If you're not in danger of losing your life or great bodily harm, why is your gun even out? Because, if you're not ready to shoot, the gun is an empty threat. So, if you point a gun at someone, demand that they stop, drop, hands up, whatever, but they don't do what you ask, you have to shoot them.

Absolutely everyone, who isn't a psychopath, is going to say that you shouldn't shoot unless in danger. I agree with that which is why your gun shouldn't be out.

The McMichaels made this mistake. They pointed their guns at a guy and demanded he comply. When he didn't, they were taken by surprise and the result is ugly.

There's also a straight up legal aspect that depends on state.

In my state, pointing a loaded firearm at someone is a deadly force felony assault (one of many - guns, knives, bats, bricks, disparity of force, shod foot to the head, etc.). You can only use deadly force to stop someone trying to kill you, severely injure you, rape you, or kindnap you (or protect a third party from those things). You can use straight up force to stop a property crime, but not deadly force. You also can't start a deadly force confrontation and then claim self defense for using your gun on the guy trying to defend themselves.

It'll be interesting see how Georgia law is applied.

 

[vt_shooter]

The McMichaels made this mistake. They pointed their guns at a guy and demanded he comply.

Do we know McMichaels pointed a gun at Arbery before Arbery perhaps initiated physical contact with McMichaels? We can see a tussle for the shotgun in the video, but I haven't seen video of what happened before the tussle while they were facing each there. It could be that McMichaels was merely holding the shotgun with the muzzle pointed at the ground and Arbery attacked him, and there was never a gun pointed at Arbery until actual physical contact was initiated. I don't know. I've seen no video that suggests otherwise to me.

 

[Fastbolt]

New wrinkle ...

What if the deceased victim had recently been making it a practice to stop at that construction site during his runs to get a drink of water? (In other words, not using the bathroom, but just getting a drink of water?)

"It now appears that this young man may have been coming onto the property for water," J. Elizabeth Graddy, the attorney for homeowner Larry English, said in a statement. "There is a water source at the dock behind the house as well as a source near the front of the structure."

Lawyer: Security video in Arbery case may show water breaks

Folks, the investigation needs to be completed in a thorough manner. Despite the media attention, the actual trial is still a long ways off.

However, bear in mind that if/when this case goes to trial, there's liable going to be a different application of the word "reasonable" when it comes to reasonable doubt and the whether the actions of the suspects in this case were reasonable and justified for the circumstances.

Like with no shortage of other tragic cases, this one may become a comparison of which poor decision, and by whom, was worse.

 

[Rastoff]

Do we know McMichaels pointed a gun at Arbery before Arbery perhaps initiated physical contact with McMichaels?

No, we don't know that McMichaels actually pointed it at Aubrey. Even so, in this situation does it matter? We do know that the McMichaels chased Aubrey and that they had their guns out. The question now becomes how doe this affect the legal standing? In some jurisdictions, just having the gun out (i.e. not concealed) is tantamount to threatening with it.

New wrinkle ...

What if the deceased victim had recently been making it a practice to stop at that construction site during his runs to get a drink of water?

Not relevant because the McMichaels wouldn't have known this. Because they didn't have any knowledge of a crime, their actions were completely wrong no matter if there was a crime or not.

 

[vt_shooter]

We do know that the McMichaels chased Aubrey and that they had their guns out.

We don't know that either (plural guns). It could be that whichever McMichaels had a handgun kept it concealed until the physical altercation began. We really know next to nothing.

 

[blues7]

Anyone making ironclad assertions about what is known, unknown or suspected is still speculating.

All the facts have not yet been unearthed. That's why the investigation continues...as it should. As any one of us would want it to under the same circumstances.

What I think we, as CCWs and private citizens can agree on, it was a poor decision to get involved directly in this matter...even if it had turned out differently and avoided loss of life.

If it doesn't involve imminent threat of danger to life and limb, make the call to 911 and document as much as you can to assist law enforcement. (And even if it does, consider carefully if the moment allows.)

 

[kbm6893]

New wrinkle ...

What if the deceased victim had recently been making it a practice to stop at that construction site during his runs to get a drink of water? (In other words, not using the bathroom, but just getting a drink of water?)


Lawyer: Security video in Arbery case may show water breaks

Folks, the investigation needs to be completed in a thorough manner. Despite the media attention, the actual trial is still a long ways off.

However, bear in mind that if/when this case goes to trial, there's liable going to be a different application of the word "reasonable" when it comes to reasonable doubt and the whether the actions of the suspects in this case were reasonable and justified for the circumstances.

Like with no shortage of other tragic cases, this one may become a comparison of which poor decision, and by whom, was worse.

That's a totally unverified opinion and a highly educated lawyer knows that and only made the statement to sway potential jurors. Look at the sentence. "It APPEARS he MAY have gone in there for water". There is not one iota or evidence that is what he was doing there. And since he was in there for 3 minutes and there's no video of him drinking, it's ****.

Imagine if the Michaels lawyer released a statement saying "it APPEARS he MAY have been in there to survey for his planned burglary". Charges of racism and slandering an innocent young lamb.

Where did this kid live? Did he DRIVE to go JOG in this particular neighborhood? Are calories burned faster there?

 

[fredj338]

Felony assault. Zimmerman didn't confront Martin, didn't try to detain Martin, and didn't point a point a gun at Martin until it was necessary to defend his life. You don't get to commit a deadly assault on someone like Martin did just because you think that person is following you. Zimmerman had bad judgement, but not illegal behavior.

In this Georgia case you had two guys using deadly force, trying to hold someone at gunpoint, because they thought he committed some unknown property theft. We'll have to see if Georgia law allows use of deadly force to stop someone you think might have committed a property crime (or actually committed a property crime). Where I live you can't. In Georgia it might be OK.

No, Martin had committed no crime until pursued by Zimmerman. That is the entire missed point by all of you that think him some sort of victim. He created the incident, even after being told by lea to not follow. Its like killing your parents then claiming to be an orphan.
In no place in the USA should somene be held at gun point by anyone for what they think the person did. Aubry had commited at most a misdemeanor tresspass. Idiots like those two give every gun owner a black eye & really, no one should support or defend what they did. If you do, re evaluate your mind set as a gun owner.

 

[fredj338]

You might want to brush up on the details of that case.

I followed the case quite closely. Zimmerman was justified in his shooting but he caused the shooting by pursuing Martin. That is 100% factual. He was an idiot & has since proved it many, many times.
So again, what crime did Martin commit to justify being pursued by Ole Zim?? Exactly, none. Zim was a wanna be & couldnt handle his poop. You dont take a gun to a fist fight, you avoid the fist fight.

 

[fredj338]

Do we know McMichaels pointed a gun at Arbery before Arbery perhaps initiated physical contact with McMichaels? We can see a tussle for the shotgun in the video, but I haven't seen video of what happened before the tussle while they were facing each there. It could be that McMichaels was merely holding the shotgun with the muzzle pointed at the ground and Arbery attacked him, and there was never a gun pointed at Arbery until actual physical contact was initiated. I don't know. I've seen no video that suggests otherwise to me.

Pretty much yes, watch the video. Presenting a firearm while trying to detain, gun does not have to be pointed at anyone. The obvious presence of the gun is threat enough depending on verbage used.

 

[fredj338]

That's a totally unverified opinion and a highly educated lawyer knows that and only made the statement to sway potential jurors. Look at the sentence. "It APPEARS he MAY have gone in there for water". There is not one iota or evidence that is what he was doing there. And since he was in there for 3 minutes and there's no video of him drinking, it's ****.

Imagine if the Michaels lawyer released a statement saying "it APPEARS he MAY have been in there to survey for his planned burglary". Charges of racism and slandering an innocent young lamb.

Where did this kid live? Did he DRIVE to go JOG in this particular neighborhood? Are calories burned faster there?

There is also not one ioda of evidence that Aubry was there to steal anything or commit any crime. Ya know this stuff works both ways. Why is it you are so intent on defending these two idiots? They are really quite lucky they are dead. Pull guns on people with more skill than they obviously had, you end up dead.

 

[Ziggy2525]

...
That is the entire missed point by all of you that think him some sort of victim. He created the incident, even after being told by lea to not follow.

You're totally wrong. It's that simple. The reason reason "we all" think Z was the victim of a deadly force attack by Martin is because Z was the victim of a deadly force attack by Martin.

Just because you don't like how he presents himself doesn't take away his right to defend himself.

 

[LCC]

One thing for sure, if the video recording of the event hadn't surfaced, father and son would no doubt be home free.

Doing right, incident video footage is an ally..doing wrong, a worse nightmare..

 

[Fastbolt]

...

Not relevant because the McMichaels wouldn't have known this. Because they didn't have any knowledge of a crime, their actions were completely wrong no matter if there was a crime or not.

I wasn't presenting that new video to infer that the suspects in this case would've been able to use it as prior knowledge of a purported "crime". Although, it's been reported that the father/suspect has claimed to have seen recent video of the deceased purportedly on a construction site. Whether that's correct remains to be substantiated, of course.

I presented it because the deceased victim's family attorney has made the statement. If true, what the father/suspect thought he (or they?) had seen may have been misconstrued.

Or, he'd not seen that video from that neighbor, and now it might end up not being helpful to the defense, but helpful in some manner for the prosecution's case of presenting mindset (or for the plaintiff's civil case down the road?).

While I don't have any firsthand knowledge of the laws in the state where this tragedy occurred, I do have some passing familiarity with how things have often worked here in CA during my years of LE service.

 

[kbm6893]

There is also not one ioda of evidence that Aubry was there to steal anything or commit any crime. Ya know this stuff works both ways. Why is it you are so intent on defending these two idiots? They are really quite lucky they are dead. Pull guns on people with more skill than they obviously had, you end up dead.

I'm not defending these two for attempting to apprehend Aubrey. It was stupid. But from what I have read, open carrying a weapon in Georgia is legal. Affecting a citizens arrest is legal. If attempting to make a citizens arrest was ILLEGAL, then throw the book at them. I think what they did was stupid. That doesn't mean it was illegal.

I object to Aubrey being presented as a innocent lad out for his afternoon jog. He clearly wasn't. The video and his arrest record support my opinion.

As for following people when you believe there was a crime being committed, I have ZERO problem with people doing that. Cops can't be everywhere. Do I think they should engage tbe person? No. But unless it's ILLEGAL then they shouldn't be criminally punished for it.

I followed The Zimmerman case closely. Watched the trial everyday. Zimmerman was NOT ordered to stop following. He was advised by a civilian employee they didn't NEED him to do that. And he followed that SUGGESTION and was attacked on his way back to his car. Resident following a suspicious person to give his whereabouts to the cops? No problem with me if he's up for it. He had a gun in when he did it? Boo Hoo. Guys here don't go outside to get the paper without their gun. He should leave his gun at home now? Trayvon Martin attacked a man for observing him. His attack was not warranted. He was clearly beating the hell out of Zimmerman when the bullet fired stopped the assault. Wasn't a mark on Martin other than bruised knuckles.

The Michaels are gonna go to prison. What they did was stupid. I surely wouldn't have done it. I'm sure they regret it. But let's step away from the evil racists set upon a young lass just getting exercise. That's not what happened and you know it.

 

[kbm6893]

There is also not one ioda of evidence that Aubry was there to steal anything or commit any crime. Ya know this stuff works both ways. Why is it you are so intent on defending these two idiots? They are really quite lucky they are dead. Pull guns on people with more skill than they obviously had, you end up dead.

Im well aware it goes both ways. I'm saying that there is no evidence at all he went in there for a drink. Three minutes of video in the house and 7 seconds released. If there was video of him drinking water it would have been shown.

I'm saying the lawyer for the family is completely making stuff up to further paint Aubrey as a harmless lass, rather than the person his arrest record shows him to be. And I'm saying if the Michaels family lawyer made such a baseless statement about Aubrey casing the place the media would be up in arms and calls of racism would be flying through the air.

It works both ways? Maybe. But the reaction is surely not the same.

 

[Kanewpadle]

Man, 238 posts. I woulda thought it was done.

 

[Ziggy2525]

Man, 238 posts. I woulda thought it was done.

Apparently not. Did you have something to contribute or just upping your post count?

 

[steelslaver]

Nit wits. Wanna bes.

Having a gun on you there may well be legal.
A citizens arrest may well be legal
Having a gun while making a citizens arrest may well be legal there too.
Killing a black "suspect" with a gun while making a citizens arrest?
Manslaughter at least. "Reckless disregard"

Driving a car there is legal.
Having a blood alcohol level of .05 is legal there
Driving with a blood alcohol level of .05 is probably legal too.
Run over a kid that comes off the sidewalk while you got a blood alcohol level of .05 and see what happens. Your going to be guilty of being "impaired"

Drive down the street at 25mph, hit a patch of ice, loose control and run over a nun and see how it works out. "Driving to fast for existing conditions"

Do stupid stuff win stupid prizes.

They are going win the worst possible prize. They have won the "examples" prize.

Do I think the victum was 100% innocent as the driven snow? Nope

Do, I think the father/son combo were pure of heart? Nope

Do the Natives have their pitchforks out and at the ready? You betcha.