Modnote: This is a GD thread, that is attacking the poster and not the post. Do not do this again.
There has been reference to “recent burglaries in the area”. Can somebody help me understand that better? Were occupied residences being broken into, and items stolen? Or is this some sort of reference to people going into this home under construction?
I ask because Arbery clearly wasn’t engaged in burglary, which requires a crime in addition to breaking into a place (usually theft). He was jogging, and didn’t have anything in his possession. And he didn’t break into anywhere; simply entering a place without authority isn’t the same thing, and a home that lacks walls doesn’t need to be broken into in order to get inside. I also thought that the homeowner had not been having issues with people taking stuff from the construction site, so that location wasn’t having burglary issues.
But then I read that cops had shown the defendants video of black men (or, specifically, Arbery). Was that of the construction site, or of home burglaries?
Are the defendants trying to assert that Arbery had just committed a crime (e.g. entering a construction site and perhaps getting a drink or, worst case, stealing something), or are they saying that he was the wanted suspect in prior burglaries? In other words, did they think they were in fresh pursuit, or seeking to enforce some existing warrant?
ETA: I see that Georgia’s burglary statute doesn’t require breaking into a place. You could just be there without authority. It still requires some additional crime, though, and still leaves me wondering if this “burglaries in the area” reference was to this construction home or occupied residences. And did these guys think that Arbery had just committed one of the burglaries or if he was instead wanted for past crimes?
I wonder if they weren’t just doing some recreational circle jerking about the black peril. Like “look here at this tape. It’s this black boy running around here. No one knows why. Up to No Good” Good old boys talking shit, getting each other stirred up.
That’s why I question the legitimacy of “burglaries in the area”. Are they referring to the fact that Arbery was a routine jogger who had made it part of his routine to stop and get a drink at this particular construction spot? And did they interpret the cops acknowledgment that “yes, somebody needs to tell him that he’s not allowed to go into that location, and if he returns after warning he can get arrested” as “this black guy is breaking the law and we need to stop him!” And did some of the neighbors decide that meant “call the cops the next time you see this guy jogging” while others interpreted it to mean “you have a civic duty to hunt him down”?
I don’t think the cops could establish that there had been a pattern of burglaries, or even more than a few burglaries, in the neighborhood. I think those they could find mostly involved people breaking into cars, not home burglaries. And Arbery wasn’t the only person on their radar, there was a homeless white couple (I think, but I’m not sure, it may have been the couple seen at the construction site) they were concerned about.
Arbery’s behavior and appearance on the videos makes a strong argument against any intent of burglary. He never carried anything with him, no bags or backpacks and he was always wearing shorts and a tee-shirt, no jacket. He didn’t walk around picking things up and he never appeared to be looking for anything, he paid no attention to the construction supplies and items that might have been a target for theft.
There was another couple that made an appearance on the videos that behaved more suspiciously, they carried bags with them and I believe they may have been poking around a boat English had stored on the property. But they were never seen taking anything, either.
Larry English reported that there were some electronics missing from his boat, but no one, not even the defense, has suggested that Arbery was involved. English isn’t even sure when the electronics went missing and he says it’s highly possible they were stolen when the boat was in another location.
The police felt that if they were stolen from the site they were probably taken by a contractor that was working on the house, as they often carried large containers and boxes in and out of the property.
Everyone seems pretty much in agreement that the videos prove Arbery didn’t steal anything, no matter how often the defense tries to use pejorative language such as “plundering”.
As near as I’ve been able to tell, there was one recent burglary in the area.
The “string of burglaries” was likely an invention of a Facebook group.
It was just of the construction site.
Two white men on trial in the killing of Ahmaud Arbery were shown surveillance video of the Black man walking around a half-built house in their southern Georgia neighborhood 12 days before they chased and shot him, a jury heard on Friday.
“Nobody seems to know who this kid is or where he’s coming from,” Robert Rash, a Glynn County police officer, told the two men, Gregory McMichael and his son Travis McMichael, on the night of Feb. 11, 2020, after showing them the clips, according to body-worn camera video played in court.
This, however, raises other questions:
1)So the videos were not from security cameras but from “body worn” cameras?
Whose body-worn cameras? Cops? Why were cops filming this site if the owner said he hadn’t complained to LE?
- Did Rash show McMichaels video of the white people who entered the construction area and make comments about them?
I interpret this as the jury was shown body camera video from the time when the officer showed the McMichaels the security video. The officer presumably had it on when he was talking to the McMichaels, but he might have still been showing them video that he had on some device, like his phone, that was secured from the house under construction.
Which basically means they decided that Arbery was a serial trespasser into that location (on account, I’m guessing, of having a regular jogging routine that took him past this house), so when he finally came again these guys made an attempt to capture him.
Which is vigilantism, and something I really don’t now anybody could think to tolerate in modern society. It’s one thing for citizens to decide to report potential crime, it’s another thing for them to decide to enforce the criminal code.
The videos shown to the McMichaels were from the security cams. The proof that the cop showed these videos to them was from his body cam.
Got it. Thanks.
Obviously gun safety was of paramount concern to Travis! /s
Supposedly he was in the Coast Guard, I think, but leaving a gun unsecured doesn’t sound like a responsible gun owner to me. This plus the fact that he chased after Arbery with trucks and guns (but no evidence) makes me think he really didn’t know what he was doing in regard to guns or law enforcement and had no business with either one. Plus strongly argues that the fact that Arbery was black was the main motivation to single him out.
So Travis McMichael (the younger, more obviously racist) shooter of Arbery testified yesterday, and his cross-examination will be today. His testimony was, generally speaking, that his father came running in, told him to get his gun, and he did. They followed Arbery in the car, and then, when he got out and confronted Arbery, Arbery charged him and grabbed the gun. Fearing for his life after Arbery’s brutal attack, Travis shot him: " He had my gun, he struck me. It was obvious that he was, he was attacking me that if he would have got the shotgun from me, then it was, this is a life-or-death situation. And I’m gonna have to stop him from doing this, so I shot."
McMichael also testified that two weeks before the killing, he had seen Arbery creeping around the neighborhood and when Arbery saw him, Arbery pulled up his shirt and reached toward his waistband, presumably for a gun. McMichael fled and then told the cops about it later. This doesn’t match up perfectly with the testimony in the state’s case in chief, so I expect a competent prosecutor will get into it today during cross examination. As well as a lot of the other issues. Should be interesting.
I think we got as close as we are going to get to a factual answer on the “string of burglaries in the neighborhood” yesterday. If I’m remembering the testimony correctly, in the year or so before the murder, there were four cases of items being stolen from cars, in at least two of those cases (and possibly all of them) the cars were unlocked.
They also referenced one report of a home burglary that turned out to be a false alarm. But that’s it.
I’m thinking the string of burglaries and “atmosphere of fear” is pretty much after the fact cherry-picked bullshit.
They’re using the police playbook.
“He went for my gun!” “I was in fear for my life!” “It was a split-second decision!”
And they see it as absolutely obvious that any black person should respond to any white person as if the white person was a uniformed police officer. This is a bedrock assumption in communities where white supremacy is the norm. All PoC should seee all white people as authority figures. If they don’t, that alone is so deviant it’s a sign they are dangerous.
This is why the first prosecutor probably did think “resisting citizen’s arrest” was a valid call. In the mind of a white supremacist, all white people are inherently deputized to perpetuate white supremacy.
I don’t think taking the stand will do him any good. Sure he’ll get a chance to plead his case, look scared/sorry, and try to spin his actions but the prosecution also gets their own time with the shooter too.
The prosecution will slow everything down. Take as much time as they need. All the events that the defence glossed over, all those little split-second decisions, will be reviewed. “so you called 911?” “you took the shot gun, yes? Was it loaded?” “you got your keys? climbed into your truck? Removed items blocking your path?” “searched for Arbery?” “Once you found him you drove along side him?” “You said a few words to him?”
Every little choice will be questioned and stretched. Following every inquiry would be the same question “you could have stopped no?” All of them will paint a picture of a shooter who had thousands of chances to leave, de-escalate, stop, or taken different actions. The prosecution will remind the jury that the McMicheals had all the power to make any alternative choice. These events will come from McMicheal’s own mouth with his own demeaner.
In the end the defence will have given McMicheal less than one hour to personally plead his case while the prosecution will spend multiple days with McMicheal condescendingly questioning him on all his aggression and violent actions. Not worth it.
Yeah, that’s exactly what I was thinking. “Help us understand: after your father told you to get your shotgun, what steps did you take, and how long did it take you for each of these steps?” Split second my split buttcheeks.
Putting your client on the stand is horrible value (from relative comparison of the defence-prosecution time alone).
The only way it makes sense is if your client is insanely charismatic or if the events tilts towards your client innocence heavily.
You left off a third option: white-good-ol-boy wants to appeal to white-good-ol-boys on the jury.
True. It is such a bad move that you’d need to think that the jury is predisposed INSANELY in your favour.
Arbery was unarmed and jogging. McMicheals hunted him, yelled at him through his car, chased Arbery after he broke off and ran away, struck/boxed him in with their car, attacked him armed with a shotgun, and then shot him three times.
Every step of the way the McMicheals tried to remove Arbery’s freedoms and options until they finally shot him dead. It’s clear as day. Those are the events.
Trying to say that you were scared for your life while committing these acts is irrelevant. You were never forced to do these actions. You were committing a crime by trying to detain Arbery. He was in his rights to not want to talk to you, to disengage from you, to run from you, AND EVEN to try to disarm you.