Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.

[Leonhard]

The argument would have to be made that Arbery was "in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury." IF McMichaels pointed the shotgun at Arbery, that may meet the criteria,

If I chased after you in an SUV, hollering to you, cutting you off several times as you tried to escape, and I then got out holding a loaded shotgun in my hands... you'd still consider it unreasonable for you to have "reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury?"

[Leonhard]

Though we still haven't gotten an proper accounting of why it took 70+ days and a civil riot before these two killers were arrested.

[Cow Poke]

Though we still haven't gotten an proper accounting of why it took 70+ days and a civil riot before these two killers were arrested.

But arrested they are.

[Mountain Man]

Though we still haven't gotten an proper accounting of why it took 70+ days and a civil riot before these two killers were arrested.

As I understand it, the case was making its way through the system trying to find a prosecutor who didn't personally know the McMichaels which would have been a conflict of interest.

[Leonhard]

But arrested they are.

They are, but we need a full accounting of why it took this long. I don't buy the justice departments coffee drip weak excuses of "I worked with him" and the other one who's first excuse was something about his son having met him, or him having met the man's son once, and then later it was altered to be that he just didn't think anything wrong was done.

[Leonhard]

As I understand it, the case was making its way through the system trying to find a prosecutor who didn't personally know the McMichaels which would have been a conflict of interest.

This doesn't take 70+ days. They were stalling.

[Mountain Man]

This doesn't take 70+ days. They were stalling.

Has somebody actually admitted this? Or is that speculation?

[Leonhard]

Has somebody actually admitted this? Or is that speculation?

It's a reasonable conclusion. It doesn't take 70 days to do this. No effort was spent on it, and it was pickled.

The only excuse I can see that even begins to be reasonable is that there was the covid-19 pandemic.

[MaxVel]

Something here stinks, at least in the way you're laying it out. It can't both be the case that the senior McMichael was informed immediately prior to chasing down Arbery, and at the same time being something he is informed about in the middle of the night and then dizzily remembering the day after.

??

You were saying that the McMichaels might be accused of being racist because they didn't take the same action against other trespassers who weren't black. AFAIK those other trespassers were only ever seen AFTER they had been and gone, at night, on security camera footage.

So the McMichaels can simply say that they didn't try to make a citizen's arrest on other trespassers because they didn't know about it at the time the trespassers were in the house / had just left. Whereas, in Arbery's case, it was daytime, a local saw him go in and come out a few minutes later, and they were told then and there - while Arbery was still in the immediate area, in daytime. At least, that's a defense I can see them making. It's not racist to pursue a black man, in daytime, when you've just been told he's just left the premises, but not to 'pursue' (how, even?) a white person who came and left during the hours of darkness, and who you didn't know about until several hours (or more) later.

IOW, it would have to be shown that they pursued Arbery, but didn't pursue a white person when all other relevant circumstances were the same - daytime, they were at home, there was an eye witness telling them, the trespasser had literally just left the premises.

But as you say all they have is a misdemeanor, he was trespassing on a construction site.

Not a construction site - a dwelling. Irrelevant anyway, as he had trespassed there whatever the site was.

Also, we have a misdemeanor (grounds for a citizen's arrest already) and a possible felony (if he was stealing or had intent to steal) - grounds for a citizen's arrest if they had reasons to suspect him of it.

They couldn't have known that he hadn't stolen anything, nor if he had intent to steal or not, until they had stopped him and spoken to him. By running off (before anyone was pursuing him, btw) and by refusing to stop Arbery made it impossible for them to know whether or not he had committed a felony. (Not saying it's Arbery's fault, he may well have been quite frightened). Arbery (AFAIK) came out, there was someone watching him while talking on the phone (he may not have seen them ?), and he ran off immediately (I think at some speed). He doesn't seem to have made any attempt to explain his trespass at any point.

Every action they made was a poor choice. A better use of their time would be to sit put and make a phone call to the police.

Someone was already on the phone to the police. By the time police arrived, Arbery would likely be long gone. They were acting in accordance with the law, and AFAICT, the request of the property owner.

Or to sit in their car, watch him run by and call the police, and do nothing after that.

Still results in him fleeing the scene and probably not getting talked to by the police. Also gives him an opportunity to dump anything he may have had on himself (burglary tools, something stolen). McMichaels senior had law enforcement experience, I think he would have known that at the least he needed to maintain constant visual contact.

They should have followed Arbery in vehicles, while informing the police of their whereabouts. Getting out was a mistake. However, we don't know the area, and it may have been that they were concerned that Arbery could evade them is they didn't stop him where they were.

[rogue06]

This doesn't take 70+ days. They were stalling.

They had to go through three different prosecutors to look into it since the first two ended up recusing themselves. Then there is the fact that the courts had been effectively shutdown due to the Chicom coronavirus which meant that unless there was immediate evidence that a serious felony had been committed the case would be on the back burner. Even though there was a death involved, the initial evidence pointed to accident or self-defense.

And then you have the fact that the elder McMichael, who was retired from law enforcement, was apparently acting in some sort of quasi-official capacity. When the owner of the property contacted the police about concerns about trespassing and theft or vandalism he was told to contact McMichael, who lived nearby, if there was any trouble. Apparently these sort of unofficial arrangements with retired officers and deputies is not all that uncommon in sparely populated rural areas.

In any case, this will definitely complicate things come the trial. And it almost certainly complicated the investigation as they would have to determine exactly what McMichael's authority actual was (makes a LOT of difference with regard to the pursuing and confrontation) before they proceeded (and I suspect that's when the recusing came into play).



In any case, it appears that one of the prosecutors is drawing a good deal of attention over the fact that she's recused herself in other cases.

[MaxVel]

If I chased after you in an SUV, hollering to you, cutting you off several times as you tried to escape, and I then got out holding a loaded shotgun in my hands... you'd still consider it unreasonable for you to have "reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury?"

I think it would have to be argued in court.


The argument is: the McMichaels assaulted Arbery (chasing him in the vehicle, getting out with the gun), Arbery then acted in legitimate self-defense by trying to grab the gun.

Do we know the McMichaels vehicle tried to cut Arbery off? Due to the marks on the side, we know Bryan's vehicle did, but the McMichaels?



The counter-argument is that the McMichaels

(1) did nothing that meets the definition of assault {"(2) Commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury."}, especially in view of the time it took for Arbery to come up to them;

(2) were using lawful force (in making a citizen's arrest), if they were using force at all;

(3) Arbery was in no immediate threat (the McMichaels stopped some distance away) and he himself freely made any threat more immediate by his own actions

(4) Arbery was "attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony;" (Georgia law on simple assault, clause (2)) which means he has no right to self-defense;

(5) By his own free actions (running up to the stopped truck, then running over to McMichaels and trying to grab the gun) Arbery comes under the exceptions to justified self-defense "(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;" and "(3) Was the aggressor"


I'm no lawyer, but I think the McMichaels have a much stronger case here legally, given the time Arbery had to choose other options, and given his range of other choices (stop where he was, wait for the police; talk to them; move off the road to either side and shelter behind tress and ditches; double back and force both vehicles to turn around to continue to pursue him; run through a property to a parallel street; etc etc)

[Leonhard]

You were saying that the McMichaels might be accused of being racist because they didn't take the same action against other trespassers who weren't black. AFAIK those other trespassers were only ever seen AFTER they had been and gone, at night, on security camera footage.

Precisely there's a lot of unknowns, was Arbery singled out because he was spotted that day, or had they already been informed about him? This doesn't appear to be clear at all. The clearest testimony we have is from one person, senior McMichael, and his account begins with pointing out Arbery, and having him and his son arm themselves.

IOW, it would have to be shown that they pursued Arbery, but didn't pursue a white person when all other relevant circumstances were the same - daytime, they were at home, there was an eye witness telling them, the trespasser had literally just left the premises.

I'd agree with that, but I don't think a racist act is off the table as of this moment. We just don't know enough about what the investigation is turning up. For instance we only have the small bit of the recordings that was released to the public, we don't have the rest from Bryan's car, so we don't know whether the McMichaels were bumping their car into Arbery.

Also, we have a misdemeanor (grounds for a citizen's arrest already) and a possible felony (if he was stealing or had intent to steal) - grounds for a citizen's arrest if they had reasons to suspect him of it.

It was a misdemeanor. They might have suspected it of being more, but they didn't have any grounds for thinking that.

They couldn't have known that he hadn't stolen anything,

They could have presumed it, and worked from that presumption instead of foolishly presuming the opposite.

Someone was already on the phone to the police.

Then I suggest putting sausages on the grill, crack open a beer and enjoy life.

McMichaels senior had law enforcement experience, I think he would have known that at the least he needed to maintain constant visual contact.

I'll never understand why chose not to be the one driving. His son was driving. It was also his son who rashly got out of the car. It was senior McMichael who delivered the calm and collected description of the events. I wouldn't be surprised if senior McMichael would have acted far better than junior McMichael, but we don't know what instructions were passed between the two.

What we do know is that they didn't simply 'follow and observe' Arbery, they chased after with intent to stop him and likely perform citizen arrest.

They should have followed Arbery in vehicles, while informing the police of their whereabouts.

Or not done anything at all, and let real police handle this. But yes, they should have kept a distance of say a hundred to two hundred feet in their car and told the police where he was.

However, we don't know the area, and it may have been that they were concerned that Arbery could evade them is they didn't stop him where they were.

Between Arbery getting away (even without hindsight that he was innocent of burglary), and him losing his life. Don't you find the former preferable?

[Leonhard]

The argument is: the McMichaels assaulted Arbery (chasing him in the vehicle, getting out with the gun), Arbery then acted in legitimate self-defense by trying to grab the gun.

Do we know the McMichaels vehicle tried to cut Arbery off? Due to the marks on the side, we know Bryan's vehicle did, but the McMichaels?

Senior McMichael confessed to this at the moment of arrest. This is all in the testimony he delivered that I've been referring to. https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthel...mized/full.pdf

In this report Travis is the name of the son who was driving the vehicle, Roddy is the person in the other car. I'm posting this report (again).

Source: Glynn County Police Department - Public Release Incident Report for G20-11303

Upon my arrival I observed Officer Minshew(184) setting up a perimeter. I began speaking with Gregory McMichael who was a witness to the incident. McMichael stated there have been several Break-ins in the neighborhood and further the suspect was caught on surveillance video. McMichael stated he was in his frontyard and saw the suspect from the break-ins "haulingass" down Satilla Drive toward Burford Drive. McMichael stated he then ran inside his house and called to Travis(McMichael) and said "Travis the guy is running down the street lets go". McMichael stated he went to his bedroom and grabbed his .357. Magnum and Travis grabbed his shotgun because they "didn't know if the male was armed or not". McMichael stated "the other night" they saw the same male and he stuck his hand down his pants which lead them to believe the male was armed.

McMichael stated he and Travis got in the truck and drove down Satilla Drive toward Burford Drive McMichael stated when they arrived at the intersection of Satilla Drive and Holmes Drive, they saw the unidentified male running down Burford drive McMichael then stated Travis drive down Burford and attempted to cut off the male. McMichael stated the unidentified male turned around and began running back the direction from which he came and "Roddy" attempted to block him which was unsuccessful Michael stated he then jumped in to the bed of the truck and he and Travis continued to Holmes in an attempt to intercept him.

© Copyright Original Source

Roddy was the other guy in a car. They both tried to cut off Arbery at which point Arbery changed direction and tried to flee from them.

This does not look like the action of some people who just wanted to ask questions, or simply wanted to see where he was going.

[Mountain Man]

This does not look like the action of some people who just wanted to ask questions, or simply wanted to see where he was going.

Their intent was to stop Arbery and detain him until police arrived.

[MaxVel]

Precisely there's a lot of unknowns, was Arbery singled out because he was spotted that day, or had they already been informed about him? This doesn't appear to be clear at all. The clearest testimony we have is from one person, senior McMichael, and his account begins with pointing out Arbery, and having him and his son arm themselves.



I'd agree with that, but I don't think a racist act is off the table as of this moment. We just don't know enough about what the investigation is turning up. For instance we only have the small bit of the recordings that was released to the public, we don't have the rest from Bryan's car, so we don't know whether the McMichaels were bumping their car into Arbery.



It was a misdemeanor. They might have suspected it of being more, but they didn't have any grounds for thinking that.



They could have presumed it, and worked from that presumption instead of foolishly presuming the opposite.



Then I suggest putting sausages on the grill, crack open a beer and enjoy life.



I'll never understand why chose not to be the one driving. His son was driving. It was also his son who rashly got out of the car. It was senior McMichael who delivered the calm and collected description of the events. I wouldn't be surprised if senior McMichael would have acted far better than junior McMichael, but we don't know what instructions were passed between the two.

What we do know is that they didn't simply 'follow and observe' Arbery, they chased after with intent to stop him and likely perform citizen arrest.



Or not done anything at all, and let real police handle this. But yes, they should have kept a distance of say a hundred to two hundred feet in their car and told the police where he was.



Between Arbery getting away (even without hindsight that he was innocent of burglary), and him losing his life. Don't you find the former preferable?

I agree with most of this, Leonhard. However, I don't think that the McMichaels had any plan to kill Arbery, or even a thought that that might happen. It was not illegal, and it was perhaps advisable, for them to be armed.

Just calling the police would 99+% likely have meant Arbery disappeared, end of story.

The facts and background they knew at the time (trespassing, thefts in the neighbourhood, Arbery was known to them as a prior criminal (conviction for carrying a gun at school, obstructing an officer, violation of probation (shoplifting)) I think they will argue gave them grounds for a citizen's arrest: "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."

Trespassing with intent to steal (Arbery's previous conviction for shoplifting adds grounds here) is a felony; then attempting to flee = reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion

At least that's a line of argument they could use. McMichaels senior (?) had investigated Arbery in a law enforcement capacity, he could say that on getting close he recognised Arbery (true or not it would be hard for a prosecution to disprove) - hence he knew that Arbery might be in possession of a firearm (previous conviction), and a handgun was stolen from their vehicle in January - grounds and reason to be armed and to have weapons to hand; also he knew of Arbery's shoplifting parole violation (hence grounds for suspicion of a felony (burglary)) and thus an extended pursuit and attempt at an arrest.


In an ideal world, no-one would do anything wrong.

But I think in this case the McMichaels made an error in stopping and getting out of their vehicle. Arbery made errors in trespassing; running off without explanation after being seen trespassing; moving up to the vehicle; and worst of all, in trying to grab the gun. Understandable errors, but errors none the less. Grabbing for the gun was the single most dangerous thing he could have done. Choices have real consequences, that's the glory and the burden that God has given us all.

I can't find it in me to find much fault with people acting within the law, except to say that some of their choices were unwise at best.

I have a friend that on his motorcycle - delivery rider - hit and killed a man carrying a child, who was crossing the road. The light was green, going orange, the man ran out from behind a turning big truck at the lights. There was no pedestrian crossing there. An awful tragedy. Was my friend at fault? Legally, no. Morally, not really? Prudentially... he should have waited for the next green light.. maybe. Was the man at fault? Legally... maybe yes. Morally...?? Prudentially... yeah.