Some things you need to know about the Ahmaud Arbery case

The three people who chased Ahmaud Arbery have now been found guilty of murder.
It seems even many conservatives in these forums are now willing to write these people off and recognize he was murdered.
(Under Georgia law, being found guilty of murder carries an automatic life sentence, with possibility of parole only after 25 years. Judges are not given any discretion over this)

But before you do that, you may want to look at some facts:

1. Arbery was "jogging" 10-12 miles away from his neighborhood.

2. Arbery had just been seen illicitly entering a house under construction.
The security system recorded him and the owner called the police). While this isn't really in itself hugely illegal, it is still a relevant fact.

3. At a certain point in the video, Arbery drops what to all appearances was a hammer on the ground (the camera pans to the right to show it). He probably took said hammer inside the house he entered, since it's not exactly jogging attire. Rewatch the video, it's clearly a hammer.

4. In the video, you can clearly see that Arbery was wearing khaki shorts and heavy shoes that look kind of like construction boots (which would not be "sports shoes" like many news sources reported). At the very least those are high top shoes, which are very fashionable among young African Americans, but would typically not be the easiest or most comfortable to jog in. This is another little detail that weakens the official jogging story and should not be omitted.

See picture:
https://imgur.com/pOlcCRA

close up of shoe here:
https://imgur.com/kMFd8cr​

All these facts indicate that the official story that he was "just jogging" is at the very least clearly unlikely. Yet, the story keeps being repeated as if it was proven fact, and keeps being overly dramatized for a political agenda.

Additionally:

5. Arbery had prior convictions of illegally carrying firearms and theft. No, I'm not saying that ex-felons can be freely murdered (sigh), I'm pointing out that omitting this fact means GIVING A FALSE IMPRESSION on his character and habits, and this is a POLITICALLY MOTIVATED DISTORTION OF THE SITUATION. When I first read the news I got the idea that he was a college kid out for a jog and senselessly killed by white rednecks just because racism. This is exactly the impression the news wants to give. And it's FALSE.

6. The DA that decided not to arrest the McMichaels for the shooting clearly explained that they hadn't violated any law in this document:

https://imgur.com/5ih48mI

I'll summarize:

1. The McMichaels could effect a citizen arrest, since there was SOLID SUSPICION on Arbery (he had just been seen entering a house he had no business being in), and in Georgia solid suspicion is enough. The law is clear.

2. They could carry their weapons with them, since they had all the relative permits.

3. And when Arbery decided to run against the (stationary) Travis McMichael, instead of avoiding him, and even TRIED TO GRAB HIS SHOTGUN, McMichael at that point had the right to use lethal force to defend himself. That's because if someone tries to grab your gun, you're allowed to assume they're going to use it against you with lethal intent, so you can use lethal force to stop them. That's not my opinion, it's what the law says.
​

The truth that nobody here wants to admit is that if Arbery hadn't done the WORST thing you can do when you see an armed man (run straight to him and assault him barehanded), none of this mess would've happened.

I've seen lots of people on this forum justify his assault by claiming that "he had a right to defend himself". This is a retarded statement. ARBERY DIDN'T NEED TO DEFEND HIMSELF. There was no actual fight, before HE provoked one.

And saying that even if Arbery hadn't assaulted McMichael, he would've shot him anyway because he's a white racist, so Arbery "had" to attack preemptively to save his own life, is both INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST and LEGALLY RIDICULOUS. Arbery's attack was NOT self defense in any sense of the term, because he had lots of ways to avoid danger. Instead, he chose to provoke it himself.

He could have stopped and asked what the hell they wanted.

He could've run any other way, left or right, away from the armed guys.

He could've stopped and screamed for help.

He could've done lots of things that wouldn't have had his death as a result.

It's mind-boggling that he chose the worst possible course of action. I don't know what he expected to gain from running against an armed man barehanded, punching him and going for his shotgun, but it was the stupidest possible decision and it had the obvious outcome.

 

important edit: He might have only been jogging 2 miles away
can anyone confirm?
Was his mother's house near 140 Boykin Ridge Dr?
(please do not reveal exact address for privacy considerations)
the incident supposedly took place near 220 Satilla Dr

Sorry to catch this after making the first post. If this is indeed true then this is a big piece of misinformation that is being spread around.

 

What felony did Arbery commit? His prior history has nothing to do with the facts of the case? Were the defendants aware of it? If not, then why does it matter?

If I drive drunk and hit some pedestrian killing him later finding out they were a criminal, should I get punished less?

 

What do you mean he didn't act in self defense? Are you aware they hit him with their truck and there is a dent to prove it?

He ran way from them, but because he didn't run left or right, you think he didn't do enough to get away? How long do you think this could on? If you see an opportunity to disarm your kidnapper, you take it.

 

I do not know if it is really true that they hit him with a truck. Many news sources are claiming it, but that doesn't automatically mean that it's true in this situation. An investigator for the court testified that he believed Arbery had been hit with a truck, but I do not know how speculative that is.

If it is true that they actually hit him with the truck, that would very much change the story.

(obviously the driver should be seriously charged for that, but I would not exactly be sure how that should factor into collective responsibility for the other two)

Do you want to start another thread, and link to it here, going over the evidence that Arbery was hit by the truck?
Or if it is very simply and can be done in just one post, you can do it here. But maybe you should start a new thread discussion if you think we are probably going to argue over it.

 

What does it matter how far away? I know people who will drive 20 to jog because it is prettier or the roads are wider or less chewing gum on the sidewalk or…….

 

And do you believe he had “long dirty toenails” like that lawyer claimed??

 

It's sad to say, but as I've been investigating this it is surprising how much of this story hinges on little details that I cannot really confirm through news sources.

For example, I am looking right now at claim that one of the men, William Bryan, said that Travis McMichael said the N-word as Arbery lay dying.
Is that really true? Was that actually presented in the court to the jury? Apparently William Bryan did not give this information until about a week after Travis McMichael had already been arrested. Did maybe the prosecutor try to trick him and offer him some sort of plea bargain if he could give something that could be used to convict Travis McMichael, giving him some incentive to lie? That just doesn't seem realistic that he would have said that in that situation, knowing all too well that he would most certainly be accused of racism after the unplanned killing of a black man, but it would certainly have heavily biased the jury.

I'm thinking some of the officials may have lied and exaggerated to create enough evidence to proceed with the murder trial and allow it to be tried in front of a jury, since there did not seem to be enough adequate evidence.
It is not an uncommon prosecutorial tactic to use their position to use fear to exert pressure on witnesses to lie, if they really want to win a case.

This would have been a great lie. From the standpoint of logic, it should not really matter whether the defendant used a racial slur after the death of the victim, but in reality it would very much hugely matter in front of a jury. So even if it was later determined it had been a lie, the amount of punishment would probably not be very much, because had the judge and jury been acting entirely logically it should not have really mattered.

The prosecutor might have even suggested something like this, like saying "Did he say anything that might give any indication of racial bias?". The prosecutor could have suggested the type of lie without explicitly saying it.

I know this is totally super speculative, but it is the type of thing that totally could have happened and would fit the facts well.

 

Three idiots reaped the rewards of their idiocy.... oh, and what mitigating factors you have, Arbery wasn't wearing "proper" jogging shoes.... he didn't have a cell phone.... Arbery could have been wearing hip waders and carrying Ma Bell on his back.... it doesn't excuse these 3 Bozos...just WHAT do you propose they SHOULD have been charged with, parking in the street illegally? I'd give them some sympathy but I just can't remember where I laid it.

 

Don’t be obtuse. The guy was a petty thief stealing from construction sites. Anyone who isn’t being dishonest is fully aware of that by now. As the other guy pointed out he even had a hammer he took from there. Unless you think he moved multiple miles holding a hammer in khaki shorts.

The problem is that Georgia law doesn’t allow them to engage in a citizens arrest unless it was a felony.

 

It’s not mitigating factors. It’s logic.

How many people do you know that go jogging in shoes that aren’t runners and in khaki shorts? Especially young black kids? I’ve never seen any. Except this guy. And how many joggers run around carrying a hammer? None. The guy was a thief.

Now the other three guys overreached. But let’s not pretend like Arbrey was some innocent black jogger who got murdered because he was black. He was a thief that should have been in prison. And if our justice system worked like it was supposed to and wasn’t worried about being woke, he would be alive (albeit in jail) and those three men would still be productive citizens.

 

Investigating what ???

Now we have internet detectives.

 

If the reason they had been chasing him turned out to be correct - and this is totally just a hypothetical - would it have changed anything?

 

No because Georgia law requires it to be a felony and to have personal knowledge of the fact before engaging in a citizens arrest.

While that piece of trash Arbrey was a career criminal (albeit young), was robbing construction sites and belonged in prison... the other two men had no right to engage him in the manner they did. Which is why they were convicted.

It’s sad though because if they had witnessed this young criminal engage in his criminal enterprise on a different night we could be rid of one trashy criminal and still have three otherwise productive citizens on the street.

 

But police would have, correct?

 

He was running after leaving the building before anyone even started to chase him. So, yes he was "jogging". Makes no difference what he was wearing.

 

Yes the police have a right to detain him for questioning. Unfortunately these three didn’t.

 

If police killed him in the exact same circumstances, it wouldn't be murder, that seems to be what you're saying.

 

That’s true but that’s because of the legal right they have to detain him. Legally they can detain you and question you and then let you go. A private citizen cannot do so. So when the private citizen engaged in that act they were doing so illegally.

And then they ****ed up by doin so at gunpoint. When they stop someone at gunpoint with no legal right to do so after threatening their life... he has a right to defend himself (stupid as it was) and if you kill him you have done so while committing a felony and you’re going to prison.

 

I think there is a huge difference between holding guns and pointing them.

I don't think they got pointed until very late into the chase, when the victim ran close to the truck and close to one of the men. (A situation which was kind of the fault of both sides, and also neither side's fault, it just turned out that way)

They weren't really pointing the guns while they were chasing the victim while he was moving away.

 

It sucks because they probably stopped a life long criminal who, as a human being, would produce nothing but hardship and misery to his victims.

But if you’re going to own a gun and more importantly use one, you must be fully aware of the law regarding the circumstances. Otherwise you could be the one getting hammered by the law. Now there are some circumstances where I’d rather be judged by 12 than carried by six (such as Kyle) but this wasn’t one of them.

 

That’s true but honestly they should have just called the police and have him arrested. Or just chase him in their truck down the road and out of the county like in Gump but with guns lol

 

Didn't they have to follow him to maintain an eye on his position so police would know where to meet them?

Kind of hard to do while someone is trying to run away from you as fast as they can.

I suspect he wasn't anxious to wait around for police to arrive. That may have been the main reason he ran.

 

Well I said chase him with their trucks lol

That’s what they used to do. If you were somewhere you didn’t belong they chased you out. I miss the good ole days where they would have chased him down and let the biggest guy there give him a good ole fashioned asswhoopin and let him know to not come back.

 

Might as well lynch him at the same time?