Again, trespassing is not a felony. The killers could have unequivocal knowledge that Arbery had trespassed (which they didn’t), and still be unable to claim “citizen’s arrest”. What they did have was evidence that there was a black man running through their neighborhood. Which, to their mind, was enough to justify assaulting him with a vehicle, and shooting him to death when he was terrified of three men threatening him with guns.
Play the race card all you want, they weren’t after a random black person and this wasn’t some “innocent jogger”. Arbury was the specific person the neighborhood watch was tasked on finding and stopping. There was no mistake. They recognized him, they knew that he had just left the property. Arbery would still be alive today if he knew how to stay the hell off of posted private property that he wasn’t wanted on. But he didn’t do that. Arbery would still be alive today if he had simply stopped running and waited for the police to arrive and arrest him. But he didn’t do that.
I think that it is terrible that the situation escalated to the point that someone died. But I’d be really pleased to live in a neighborhood where I know that my neighbors are attempting to look out for me and my property and stop serial criminals. If there was someone wandering around on my property when I wasn’t there, I’d want someone to do something about it.
My understanding is it is not even a misdemeanor in this case. The Georgia statute that controls criminal trespass says in something like an open construction site there must either be clear warnings posted (i.e. ‘No Trespassing’ signs and the like), which there apparently were not. Or it would have to be proven that he entered with ‘unlawful intent’ which cannot be done because a.) he’s dead and b) he was never shown stealing or damaging anything in the captured video. And according to the owners nothing was ever stolen from that site.
Arbery would be alive today if THE DEFENDANT’S DIDN’T KILL HIM.
You can continue to blame the victim and ignore the law all you want. It doesn’t change the fact that the defendants had no legal right to chase down, assault, and then kill a man for being on someone else’s property.
Interesting. For me, if someone was going to chase me down and shoot me to death, I’d want my neighbors to try to stop them.
But hey, wandering through a construction site is bad too, so I see why that’s what you want neighbors to stop.
He wouldn’t have been chased if he wasn’t serially trespassing on someone’s posted property, and he wouldn’t have been shot if he hadn’t tried to take the gun from the person trying to stop him.
edit: yikes, wrong thread! my apology. I really shouldn’t engage in the same conversation in the Pit and GD at the same time.
You mean like the personal responsibility of the “sweet, innocent, wrongly profiled jogger” that was caught multiple times trespassing on someone’s land?
Sure, like that. I believe that he should have faced the appropriate legal repercussions for his behavior, just like the murderers should face the appropriate legal repercussions for theirs. Sadly, he got killed before his day in court.
And I don’t disagree with you there. As I said in the earlier post:
You can make an argument that the McMichaels should not have confonted Audrey and instead stayed back at let the police handle it. You can make an argument that they should have not brought guns along with them, allowing a struggle over the gun to happen. What you can’t (with good faith) argue is that 1.) there was an assumption that he was guilty “because he was black”, but because a black man had been recorded on the property on several occasions, the neighbors were activity watching for one, and he was witnessed doing exactly what they were looking out for moments earlier and 2.) that Aubrey didn’t know exactly why people were chasing him.
It was a irresponsible decision to bring guns into the picture exactly because of what ended up happening, but the moment he tried to take the gun from one of them, they had a legitimate concern for their lives.
Here is what I wish would have happened: They would have detained Arbury, police would have came and arrested him, and a judge would have put him on trespass notice that if he was caught doing it again his ass would be going to jail. I’m not happy that he ended up dead. But I’m also not happy that people who genuinely thought they were doing the right and honorable thing and protecting their neighborhood are getting their lives ruined over this.
This concern could have been avoided by not chasing him with guns. They didn’t need to do that, they shouldn’t have done that. If they hadn’t brought guns to the situation, there wouldn’t have been guns.
I dearly hope I never live in a neighborhood where chucklefucks with shotguns decide to chase people down. That doesn’t make me safe. It doesn’t make anyone safe.
Whereas I’m fuckin thrilled that their lives are getting ruined over this, because maybe the next asshole who thinks about doing something like this might think, “wait, what if this isn’t the right and honorable thing?” and not grab their shotgun and chase someone down.
“Lives ruined over this”? Wow. The “this” is killing a man with a gun; a gun that they brought. So let’s let everyone decide for themselves what the “right and honorable thing” is. That’ll work real well.
No, they killed a man with a gun they brought. They could just as easily been looking for an excuse to intimidate a black man, and perhaps create enough fear in him so that he had no choice but to attempt the desperate action of taking their guns from them, thereby creating the plausible deniability of “self defense.” No, they are murderers and they should be in prison for life.
That is objectively false. The neighborhood watch was not tasked with any such thing. Neighborhood watches aren’t “tasked” with anything. Their job is to call the police.
Modnote: This is GD and not the Pit. And this was a very clear personal attack. Do not do this again.
Pit thread is here: I Pit Darren Garrison
My understanding from the previous time we went around and around on this was that the folks accused of murder didn’t actually see Arbury on the property that day, nor did they see any video of trespassing that day.
ETA: His name is spelled “Arbery”. I’m going to ask a mod to fix that.
This (and the rest of your post) sums up how crazy almost any concept of “citizens arrest” really is, however strictly defined, in a country awash with guns. To take the reductio ad absurdum further… if you know you have done nothing wrong, then you have “immediate knowledge” that the people trying to arrest you are committing a crime in their misguided (or malicious) attempt to arrest you. So presumably, if you yourself are armed or you can successfully grab one of their weapons, you can attempt to arrest them for their crime of attempting a citizen’s arrest without justification.
As far as I can determine, there is no way the three suspects even could have done so; they weren’t in any position to know.
Darren_Garrison appears to be very confident that he “knows” the truth and has repeatedly insisted that Ahmaud Arbury was a criminal who should have merely waited around to be arrested. There are several problems with this theory for the defence. Once again, I am not making a moral judgment; I am only trying to illustrate the known facts and describe how I think they may appear before the court. I think this is a very, very bad case for the McMichaels family, although as stated it’s possible that Bryan might have lesser culpability.
*It doesn’t appear that Arbury committed any crime at all. At worst, it would have been a petty Misdemeanor, but even that seems highly unlikely. This isn’t just a non-crime - it’s not even wrong. People like poking around construction sites and generally the desire to keep them away is for safety and legal liability reasons. Not only had he committed no serious crimes, but there doesn’t appear to be any reason to think he had done so, certainly not to the kind of standard demanded by a Citizen’s Arrest.
*It has been reported that the McMichaels family were very concerned about robberies in their neighborhood. However, there is no evidence which tied Arbury to these alleged crimes at the time, and in fact even now there doesn’t seem to have been any link.
*The aforementioned two points may be irrelevant at trial, because Arbury isn’t being brought before the Court. Generally speaking, a victim’s crimes, alleged or otherwise, are not normally relevant, but read on…
*Arbury may have had some trouble as a youth, but that is likely not considered legally proper. The Defence may try to bring this in but that could be extremely hazardous to their case. The Judge may block some or all of it, and it could open the door to questions they wouldn’t want asked and which the prosecution couldn’t otherwise raise. I am not sure what the judicial standard here is however. Could someone with relevant legal knowledge speculate?
*Darren_Garrison states repeatedly, and I quote from his statements here, “black man captured on video”. That is awesomely dangerous to the defence, because it does not mean that, and again I am quoting from Darren_Garrison, “Arbury was the specific person the neighborhood watch was tasked on finding and stopping. There was no mistake.” This appears to be factually incorrect. Nobody else was concerned about Arbury specifically, and the only so-called evidence is that Arbury was an African-American male.
*The McMichaels (and Bryan) probably had no grounds to even consider a Citizen’s Arrest, because of the stuff we mentioned first. They had not witnessed Arbury committing any crimes, nor were the alleged offenses serious enough to warrant such as response.
*Arming themselves and hopping into trucks arguably violated even the lowest possible bar, because they then left the non-scene or the non-crime and chased down Arbury. Just for hypothetical, imagine is there were two African-American males jogging that day. Are we to expect that the McMichaels are not only eagle-eyed but have such perfect recall that they could not have made a mis-identification? And if they could perhaps have done so when a man was casually jogging by their home, could they not also have done so based a a videotape of a construction site?
*Even if ALL of above were true, there’s still the problem that Arbury was unarmed and would have had no idea why these crazy people were chasing after him in trucks and confronting him with guns drawn. There doesn’t appear to be any evidence that they actually communicated, but instead they tried to box him with vehicles. Now, to clarify, this may be important because in itself it probably represents an offense worse than even the most uncharitable possible interpretation of Arbury’s actions. Using a half-ton vehicle in that way is reckless, dangerous, and irresponsible.
*The suspects, or at least the McMichaels, confronted Arbury. We dont’ specifically know what might have been said but it couldn’t have been much. Arbury’s perspective would have been that of a jogger who suddenly faced three belligerent, armed men who seemed VERY intent on doing him harm, and had no apparent authority. Their actions appear utterly beyond the law.
*The McMichaels claim that Arbury rushed them. However, this necessarily had to have happened after they initiated the encounter, drove dangerously, attempted to trap him, and then exited the vehicle. Arbury, being unarmed, had no way to protect himself when confronted by three gun-wielding men, regardless of whether they were screaming :Citizen’s Arrest". To which point, at least at this time, I think there is no evidence they did so. Even if he rushed at one of them, he would have been doing so as an innocent-passerby suddenly forced into a life-or-death situation and desperate to survive. But it’s somewhat questionable that this occurred.
*It is unclear if Arbury was shot before or after the struggle. Hopefully forensic analysis of this will reveal more at trial. Neither is actually good for the defence, because of all the aforementioned factors. However, if the first gunshot occurred before the struggle, it’s… bad. Very bad.
*Although it probably won’t be legally relevant in the trial, but fact that the D.A. repeatedly tried to bury the case, and that several police officers weren’t too happy with that, does not look good. Generally speaking, if the case were legitimate, it could be brought out into the open and acknowledged. The fact that the public, and more seriously the government of the State of Georgia, immediately forced through some pretty significant oversight of the D.A.'s office does not suggest that this was handled professionally or honestly on their part.
You can slander me as much as you like but I find it very sad that nobody can look at the facts about a case that happens to involve a black person without being tarred as a racist. I am also being slured as a right-wing conservative. I have no history of racism here because I am not a racist. I have no history of right-wing conservatism here because I am not a right-wing conservative. But I’m not too worried about being insulted by a bunch of random internet people, because I know who I am and I don’t care who you are.