Arbery Shooting in Georgia and Citizen's Arrest [& similar shootings]

Great Debates
585

I don’t think that’s the natural reading of her testimony.

I think she is saying that Martin ran for a period of time (consistent, of course, with Zimmerman’s 911 call stating that Martin started running) and then stopped running when he “thought he lost the guy” and resumed walking to his destination. And that Jeantel told him to keep running to his destination, even though he thought he had lost him. And Martin didn’t think it was necessary because he was close (which is somewhat counterintuitive, but makes sense to me).

That said, every effort I’ve seen to map out the course of events (relying mostly on the 911 tapes and the testimony), indicates that very little ground was covered (by either Martin or Zimmerman) between the beginning of the “running” and the final confrontation. Martin ran far enough to be too tired to run any more, but didn’t go anywhere. One possible explanation is certainly that Martin doubled-back.

586

That’s not what the transcript says. It says that he reports that Martin is following him. And that he’s talking about the “guy getting close” …“getting real close to him”.

Which makes absolutely no sense in a narrative in which he goes back to find Zimmerman. I get why people want to ignore or misinterpret evidence (although they shouldn’t) but “reasonable doubt” is easy to manufacture when widespread character assassination of the person unable to give their side of the story due to being shot to death is actively in force.

Which is why the difference with the Arbery case is so striking. A black man chased down, harassed and threatened with guns ends up dead, and the narrative of a thug with a criminal history who “attacked” the people threatening him, thus justifying his murder, immediately began to circulate. The only difference with Arbery was that this time there was a video to prevent people from simply asserting that the murderer’s version of events must be true.

587

Putting on my IANAL hat, and recalling that this Zimmerman side discussion started as people were trying to distinguish Martin allegedly getting in an altercation with Zimmerman and Arbery doing likewise with his murderer, I will note that False Imprisonment (among the charges brought against the murderers in Arbery’s case) goes beyond merely following someone, causing them to evade you, or preventing them from going their preferred direction (as I think Zimmerman did unquestionably: his stalking Martin from the shadows seems to have put Martin in apprehension, such that he sought to evade him).

I believe, usually (again, IANAL), false imprisonment has to amount to preventing someone from getting away altogether, in any direction (not just their preferred direction), effectively confining them to boundaries established by the false imprisoner. While it is true, IIRC, that Arbery did momentarily get past the McMichaels’ truck, I think it relevant that they had previously pursued him, caught up, pulled ahead, moved to obstruct, etc, etc. That suggests a pattern of preventing him from escaping in any direction. It stands to reason that, even absent the fatal encounter, once he got past they would have pursued again, and prevented his escape again. He was never, from the moment they colluded to wrongly detain him, free and clear of their effective obstruction.

There’s probably a lot of nuance I’m missing, and the Georgia statute may differ from what I can recall of common law false imprisonment, but the point is I think it’s clear from the video evidence that Arbery’s murderers moved to prevent him from escaping in any direction. Martin’s murderer, unfortunately, acted outside the view of cameras, slinking around in the shadows after a child. I guess that’s a lesson to murderers everywhere, or at least in Florida: pick your victims when they are isolated and vulnerable. Then, even if there is air tight evidence tying you to the crime, you can claim self defense and be free to go after a lengthy media circus and a short trial (if the local DA even brings charges, that is).

588

The vast majority of cases don’t need trials, either because they are clear cut and the criminal pleads guilty, or because there’s so little evidence that the prosecution doesn’t proceed. Trials should be for the few where the facts need tto be determined. Unfortunately, for political reasons, several cases where it’s clear cut self defence go to trial anyway because of political pressure.

589

Does that apply any time someone is killed, or only in those cases? Do you think it’s impossible that someone who’s a victim of a violent crime can ever defend themselves?

It’s no wonder the Speaking Out movement took so long to happen when people are so predisposed to ignoring victims. Hint - if you attack someone, you’re not a victim. Martin attacked Zimmerman, and Zimmerman had the wounds to prove it. Both Rittenhouse and Arbery were attacked, and we have video to prove it. All three victims, fortunately two of them were able to defend themselves.

590

Do you think it’s impossible that someone who’s a victim of a violent crime can ever defend themselves?

591

Well, you might not accept those things, but it’s a person’s right to say they believe someone is a murderer. You aren’t the Opinion Police.

It’s entirely possible for a person on a jury who votes to acquit a murderer to believe the defendant is a murderer, but to feel that it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

592

How do you simultaneously believe that someone is guilty and not guilty? If there’s reasonable doubt, they are not guilty, they are not a murderer.

It is possible to prove someone guilty of murder outside of a court if the trial was unfair, the example I often use is the murderers of Emmett Till. But as that hasn’t happened here, Zimmerman and Rittenhouse retain their presumptive innocence. Simply casting doubt on that innocence doesn’t remove it.

People can of course have whatever opinions they want. But if those opinions contradict reality, they should be abandoned, and people should say that they should be abandoned. The opinions that Zimmerman or Rittenhouse are murderers are false and should be abandoned by those that hold them, as was shown at fair trials.

593

No, I’m not like you. Why don’t you believe victims like Zimmerman?

594

Why don’t you believe Martin is a victim?

595

I’m not sure what the confusion is here. I can believe someone is guilty but feel the prosecution did not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.

If I think Smith is 95% likely to be a murderer, I believe he is a murderer, but must vote to acquit. The fact the law presumes Smith to be innocent does not mean I can’t believe he murdered someone. I believe OJ Simpson is a murderer, but he was acquitted.

You are confusing “disagreement with a verdict or the substance of the law” with “disagreement with reality.”

596

He was armed with skittles of mass destruction!

597

Because of the lack of evidence that he was, and the evidence that he initiated the violence. We have a report of Martin’s words, and he at no point claimed to be threatened or attacked before he decided to return to find Zimmerman. Plus, you know, the whole trial that concluded that he wasn’t, and so on. This was made explicit in the Rittenhouse trial, where his attackers could not be described as “victims” as the whole point of the trial was to determine if that was the case.

If Martin were a victim, Zimmerman would have been convicted - unless you know of some evidence that wasn’t presented to the trial. If so, please share it. I ask that a lot, but no-one ever has any.

598

Reasonable doubt. There is legal guilt and then there is opinion guilty. I served on a jury in a very long white collar criminal case where I can say that I was probably instrumental in getting the accused acquitted of one of the two charges against them. I believe that person was probably guilty of that crime. But the prosecutor didn’t prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. It rested almost entirely on the testimony of a single witness who was distinctly compromised and highly evasive under questioning (that and a philosophical question on where ultimate responsibility lies). I couldn’t in good conscience convict someone on that. We did convict on the other.

But do I think that person was very likely guilty of that first charge? Yes, I do.

599

And, more importantly, his fists and they rest of his body, which he used to injure Zimmerman’s head. As far as we know, based on the evidence, before he had any reason to know Zimmerman was armed, and when Zimmerman had not threatened him in any way.

600

How can you believe someone is guilty of a crime and also have reasonable doubt that they are guilty? That is a contradiction. If you actually believed it, you would have voted to convict.

You may well believe he committed certain acts - I mean, I believe that Zimmerman shot Martin for example - but that doesn’t make him guilty of a crime. Only conviction does that, and then only if the trial was fair.

601

No, there is no contradiction. My opinion is that that individual was probably guilty. But my opinion does not rise to the level of legal certainty.

I was not on the juries, so cannot say for certain. But I think it is quite possible I would have voted to acquit Rittenhouse and I might even have voted to acquit Zimmerman. But I think Zimmerman absolutely and Rittenhouse partially created the situations that resulted in deaths. And judging by everything I have learned about Zimmerman I think he is quite likely to have done something very similar to what the McMichael’s/Bryan did in the Arbery case only we’ll never know because there is no video evidence or direct eyewitness other than Zimmerman himself. Zimmerman positively reeks of scumbag and none of his actions since suggest anything other than that.

Legally? Legally he is innocent with all the formal privilege that implies. In the courthouse of my opinion he is a murdering (or at least “manslaughtering”) lowlife.

602

Here’s another version of the transcript that I found. This portion seems to make clear that Martin didn’t double back.

“UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Miss Jeantel, you mentioned – what happened next. Tell me what happened next.

JEANTEL: OK.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We need the last question after – after you started talking about the all-star game, you started to say what Mr. Martin said to you on the phone. Could you please repeat it slowly and loudly.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: After Mr. Martin said the “n” word and said he’s following me, what happened then?

JEANTEL: And then he just told me and then I just told him, run. And he said –

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You told him to run?

JEANTEL: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what did, if anything, did Mr. Martin say?

JEANTEL: He said, no, he almost right there.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He said?

JEANTEL: He almost right by his daddy’s fiancee’s house.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So Mr. Martin, you told him to run, and he said, no, he’s almost by his daddy’s –

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Your honor, I object. It’s a misstatement of the witness’s testimony.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Please sit down. Could you please give your answer again? You have to say it slowly and loudly. OK?

JEANTEL: Yes.”…

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And when you called him back, were you able to, again, start talking to him on the phone?

JEANTEL: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did Mr. Martin then when you called him back, did you say something to Mr. Martin or did he say something to you? Take your time when you’re answering.

JEANTEL: He said he from – I asked him where he at. He told me he at the back of his daddy fiancee house like in the area where his daddy fiancee – by his daddy fiancee house. I said, you better keep running. He said, no, he lost him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Just stop a second. This lady’s got to take everything down. Make sure you’re – OK. So after he said he lost him, what happened then?

JEANTEL: And he say he by the area that his daddy house is. His daddy fiancee house is. I told him, keep running. And he said, no, he’ll just walk faster. I could still hear him breathing hard.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What happened after that?

JEANTEL: And then a second later – yes – that the – behind me –

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: – at that time.

JEANTEL: I told him, you better run. And he had told me he already – he almost by his daddy fiancee house.”…

“UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are you still talking to him at this point?

JEANTEL: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. Tell us what happened then.

JEANTEL: And then I say, Trayvon. And then he said, why are you following me for? And I heard a hard breath man kind of saying, what you doing around here?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: And then I said Trayvon, and he said why are you following me for and then I heard?

JEANTEL: A hard breathing man say what you doing around here.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: A hard breathing man say?

JEANTEL: What you doing around here.”

The testimony does not ever indicate that Martin decided to double back to find Zimmerman. Zimmerman eventually reaches Martin.

Now, the salient issue is what happens next, but that is entirely conjecture.

Yes, we know that Martin eventually gets on top of Zimmerman, and is banging his head on the street, but it is impossible to know with any absolute certainty who initially threw the first punch/grab.

The defense was essentially that, regardless of whether Zimmerman started the confrontation, Martin escalated it, allowing Zimmerman to use deadly force.

The frustration, however, is that no escalation would have happened if Zimmerman had not been tracking and confronting Martin. That, in my opinion, is why so many people find that case so distasteful.

And that is what makes it seem similar to Rittenhouse. Don’t go looking for trouble, and than don’t claim that you were just defending yourself when you found it.

Arbery’s case is potentially similar, in that the defendants wanted to rest on self defense. The difference, in my opinion, was that there was no credible evidence that Arbery was retaliating, let alone escalating, the encounter. Sadly, if he had been armed, and raised his gun to try to get these vigilantes to back off, or started throwing haymakers at one of his assailants in an act of desperation, they’d probably have gotten away with then shooting him.

Of course, it would have just underscored the issue in the other cases, which is that a person shouldn’t be able to initiate a confrontation than claim the right to use force to end it. It would seem to me that a more fair legal standard would be that you are responsible for the reaction you cause; you don’t want somebody to go ballistic, maybe you should avoid the confrontation altogether.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1306/26/cnr.10.html

603

Especially since it’s pretty likely, IMO, that both Zimmerman and Arbery’s murderers felt confident enough to initiate confrontations only because they carried firearms. (I’m less confident that Rittenhouse initiated the conflicts which resulted in his shooting three people, although it’s a safe bet IMO that he wouldn’t have had the balls to be within a mile of that location without his borrowed AR-15.)

604

IANAL, but in my understanding for a jury, “guilty” means guilty beyond any reasonable doubt. “I think he’s probably guilty but I’m not certain” means not guilty.