Critique of the judge's closing statements in Arbery case

I was listening to the judge's closing statements, summarizing the case, right before he was about to sentence the defendants in the Arbery case. I thought I might be able to at least glean some insight into why he imposed life sentences on them all. I wanted to see what his logic and reasoning was.
Rather what I have found is that his reasoning and logic do not seem to be rational.



Ga. judge gives powerful statement before sentencing Ahmaud Arbery killers to life, First Coast News, January 7, 2022


The judge makes numerous of the same type of overgeneralization fallacies as many members in this forum have debating this case, or what might be termed categorization fallacies.

So I decided to go over some of the select statements the judge made, one by one, and try to address them.


"As we all now know, based upon the verdict that was rendered in this court in November, Ahmaud Arbery was murdered."

The judge at this opening point seems to make the claim that the killing was a murder. Is he saying this just because the jury came to that conclusion? It's more likely he is implying that he, the judge, the evidence points to it being murder.
This seems to be a critical presumption. Let's read on to see if the judge actually gives any good argument for it being a murder in this sentencing hearing.

"As we understand it he left his home, apparently to go for a run, and he ended up running for his life."

Apparently is the critical word here. We don't really know for sure.
No, he wasn't necessarily "running for his life". It's just as likely he was running away to stay away from police, he didn't want to be around if they showed up.
Let's remember there is no solid evidence that the McMichaels threatened Arbery before or while he was running away from them.
The judge really seems to be insinuating something with these words that would be mostly a logical fallacy. Arbery was running from two trucks that were pursuing him, continuing to follow. I'm not exactly sure that is "running for his life". Seems like a very emotionally loaded set of words the judge is using here.

"He entered the English home (construction site) at approximately 1:04 pm and left that home at about 1:08 on that day. At 1:14, Greg McMichael calls 911 to let them know that there's a black male running down the street and within moments Ahmaud Arbery is shot and killed."

The judge seems to be making yet another emotional statement here. Notice how here he is emphasizing how quickly Arbery was killed, yet next in the dialogue you will hear how he emphasized how long Arbery was being chased. That seems to be a little inconsistent, like trying to have it both ways when the argument suites your intended purpose.

"The three men that are now before this court chased him in a residential neighborhood for at least five minutes in pickup trucks, armed with a shotgun and a 357 revolver." (The judge then emphasized how long a period of time 5 minutes was)

Yes, they continued to follow him. Is the judge trying to imply this was wrong or illegal here?
The judge doesn't specifically say what part of that chase was wrong.

"The chase that occurred in Satilla Shores occurred over about a five minute period and when I thought about this I thought from a lot of different angles and I kept coming back to the terror that must have been in the mind of the young man running through Satilla Shores."

Yes, he was terrorized. He knew that police were going to be arriving and he did not want to be there when that happened. He had had previous bad experiences with law enforcement. One of them was caught on a body cam video. The officer even tried to use the taser on him at one point because he was being so uncooperative.
Why was Arbery filled with terror from the two trucks that continued to follow him? Do we have any evidence to show any other reasons why Arbery may have been scared?
If not, it seems a little unfair and emotionally manipulative for the judge to say this.
Or is the judge conflating together events that happened later with events that happened earlier?

"The jury heard the evidence and returned a verdict and what a difficult job they had under the circumstances."

Is the judge recognizing the decision was not an obvious one?

"In discharging the duty this court is required to consider all mitigating and aggravating circumstances."

Of course this is what the judge is instructed to do, but his statement here could be insinuating things. Did the judge truly consider the mitigating circumstances and was he able to recognize them? From his later dialogue it doesn't seem so.
Is the judge counting things against the defendants as aggravating circumstances that are not fair to be counting against the defendants?
The problem here is this type of statement has a vague meaning, but given its context with the later statements that follow it, it seems to possibly imply and insinuate things that are unfair, which you will see in the following dialogue.

"I've also considered any lawful evidence which tends to show the motive of the defendants,
their lack of remorse, their general moral character, and any predisposition to commit other crimes."

But the defendants didn't even do anything that was obviously wrong. Yes, maybe let's suppose for the sake of argument they made mistakes and did things that constituted something illegal. It still was not obvious to them. And it's not necessarily fair to expect it to be. Especially not right after the incident when the police detective was taking statements.
The judge seems to be alternating between saying things, and then saying something else right after as if they are related. This is basically the judge insinuating things without explicitly saying it. This of course makes it difficult to argue with something we can not even be certain the judge was trying to imply. But nevertheless, it is fair to have to put up an argument against anything that it seems the judge was insinuating.
In fact the judge really offers very little logical reason for the imposition of the life sentences, unless we look at all these things his statements seem to insinuate.
Notice the vague connections here.

"Now I think in this case the record speaks for itself and the defendant's own words I think guide this court with regard to sentencing."

Yes, I agree. The record should speak for itself. But is the judge actually referring to the actual facts of the case, or the prosecutor's interpretation and categorization of those facts?
Then the judge implies that he is going to punish the defendants because of their words? Is this a thought crime at work here? Punish them because they don't have the right attitude? Or does the judge mean their words revealed something about their intent during the incident? I don't think that's entirely fair either.

"I went back through my notes and other resources to pull some of the quotes that we have in this case. I'll start with Greg McMichael. In my opinion Greg McMichael very early on in this tried to establish a narrative. He made comments like Ahmaud Arbery was "trapped like a rat", "Stop stop or I'll blow your..." - and I won't repeat it again - "...head off." "

It's totally true Gregory tried to establish a narrative, and there is a possibility that narrative might not have been true.
Saying Arbery was "trapped like a rat" doesn't necessarily mean they were trying to trap him like a rat. That could just be a mean imaginative description, hoping for a visual imagery that didn't quite actually exist. This could just be tough talk on the part of Gregory.
Why did Gregory tell Arbery to "Stop stop or I'll blow your [...] head off"? Well, Arbey was running directly towards them, and was getting very close to the truck. They didn't want him near the truck. For one thing that would have created difficulty with line of sight.
But I will agree that it was wrong for Gregory to say this. It is possible that neither of the McMichaels had realized this, but their presence spread apart on the road had effectively created something of a road block. I believe Gregory should have totally had the right to threaten Arbery if Arbery was getting too close to Gregory, but not when that also seemed to be a threat that Arbery could not pass the road. At that point it was intimidation. Using the word "stop" was probably not the best choice of words. It is very possible Gregory did not actually mean that he was threatening to shoot Arbery if he did not stop, but rather meant he was threatening if Arbery did not stop running towards him. There would not have been a lot of time to think, or a lot of time to say more words. Arbery was running towards them and moving back and forth erratically so they could not know which direction he was going to take. First he seems to run towards the direction of Travis, then he seems to run towards the pickup truck with Gregory in it. Gregory did not want him to do either. So "stop" might have been what came to his mind in that situation rather than just "stay away from me".
Nevertheless, even though I think Gregory might not have intended the literal meaning of the words in his threat, this still could constitute a criminal threat and intimidation - possibly unintentional. We do have to remember what it is they actually wanted Arbery to do however, and that is just stop and wait for police, so that does make this less bad, though still illegal.
Gregory isn't even the one who shot Arbery though, and Gregory's threat pretty obviously turned out to be empty, as Arbery should have found out (or at least would have had strong reason to believe) when Arbery ran right along the truck with Gregory in the raised bed of the truck looming over him.
I will ask the question: What does Gregory's threat have to do with Arbery getting killed? How did Gregory's threat cause that? I don't think it did. The "felony murder" concept should definitely not apply to that threat, even if it is a crime.

"He effectively admitted that he wasn't sure what Ahmaud Arbery had done wrong. Quote: "I don't think the guy has actually stolen anything out there or if he did it was early in the process, but he keeps going back over and over again into this damn house again." "

Arbery didn't have to do anything "wrong". If you want to know what Arbery did that was "wrong" it was running at Travis and trying to yank the gun away. They were following him because he was running away, refused to talk, and they thought he was very suspicious.

"He told Travis, "You have no choice." "

Duh! Yes! Because Arbery ran at him and tried to yank away his gun.
What else was Travis supposed to do at that point in the situation?
But the judge is acting like he is holding this statement against Gregory.
That would be an error in thinking on the part of the judge if he is presuming this statement meant Travis had no choice with everything leading up to that point.

" He commented that he wanted Ahmaud Arbery "to know that we weren't playing". "

Well yes, of course. He viewed Arbery as a likely criminal and he didn't want him in that neighborhood. This statement by Gregory does not necessarily imply anything illegal. It could mean that he was going to let this suspect know that he was going to follow him and make sure the police could show up to stop him, and if the suspect was a criminal Gregory wasn't going to let him get away, that Gregory was determined to take action to prevent crime in his neighborhood.
The judge seems to be reading something into this statement, when in reality it might simply have been exaggerated hyperbolic tough talk by Gregory.

" "If i could have gotten a shot at the guy, I would have shot him." "

Okay, this is pretty damning. But I think that was actually just tough angry talk from Gregory. We can see in the video that Gregory does seem to have a very clear opportunity to have shot Arbery if he had wanted to. So we should not take the statement literally. Does it show Gregory had no sympathy for Arbery and didn't care much about his life? Yes. But is it fair for us to hold that against him? I mean, for that, we would have to look at what Gregory actually did. I mean Gregory individually, not the others. It is not right to punish someone simply for having an attitude or thoughts, when it is beyond and out of proportion to what they have actually physically done.


"Travis claims he was in shock. But it's interesting because he talks about his concern for his child and his own well-being. Part of this was while the victim was actually laying there in the street. Commented "This is the worst day of my life." Well i think it's been touched on here today there were other individuals that were impacted."

The judge is saying this here as if the judge is holding this against Travis. Well that may be very unfair if he is! Of course Travis was concerned for himself and the possibility he might go to prison, after having just killed a guy. (A possibility that exists even for someone who did not break the law)
The judge seems to be implying that he is holding it against Travis that Travis was not thinking about Arbery or feeling sorry for Arbery, right after Arbery was killed. Well why would Travis have, at that time? Arbery had ran at Travis, and as far as Travis was concerned, Arbery was totally responsible for his own death due to his stupid actions.
If the judge actually factored what he said here to add extra punishment onto Travis, that would be wrong. But the fact the judge even brought this up during the opening of the sentencing hearing suggests that he may have done so.

(will be continued in subsequent posts)

 

"I look at the video of this incident - when I say the video I think everybody knows we're talking about - but there was one part of it that struck me as absolutely chilling and that is - I believe it's in the enhanced video provided by the GBI, there's a frame where I believe Ahmaud Arbery - it looks to be if he's 20 yards out that may be close 30 yards out -
it's the frame of Travis McMichael lifting the shotgun to fire at Ahmaud Arbery - and you watch that with context - I want to say context after hearing the evidence in this case again, thinking about a young man that had been running at that point for almost five minutes and it is it is a truly disturbing scene..."

This seems to be just lots of emotion from the judge.
I am not sure exactly which video the judge is referring to, but I assume he is referring to the main video, in which Arbery was killed.
Explaining why Travis raised his shotgun at that point in the video to point it at or towards Arbery requires a little bit of context.
Supposedly, according to Travis's version of events (we can't be entirely sure if this is true), Travis was first following Arbery in the forward direction with his truck. This seems reasonable to assume, based on the orientation of the truck. Then Arbery suddenly turned around and ran backwards and Travis stopped the truck in the road and at that point got out. After this is where the video begins.
Arbery runs (presumably runs back) towards the direction of the truck Travis is standing next to.
First it appears Arbery is going to go left, but then he sees Travis is there and swerves as if he is going to go to the right.
In response to that, Travis slowly starts backing away moving to the left.
If Travis thinks that Arbery is going to take the path around the right side of the truck, which seems reasonable at that moment, then him moving slowly to the left does not represent trying to create a roadblock. Rather he is trying to create distance between him and Arbery and step back to get a better wider view of the truck and Arbery running behind it.
But then Arbery, maybe seeing an opening beginning to form, swerves back as if he's going to go to left. As Arbery rapidly gets closer, this change suddenly catches Travis off guard, since he was facing towards the left slowly walking away, and he suddenly stops to keep an eye on Arbery and see what he's doing.
Travis is only stopped for a few moments, and it is at this point that Travis aims his gun towards Arbery to try to keep him away, since it seems to him like Arbery may be running towards him.
Let me repeat this again. Arbery seems to have been running towards the direction of Travis, with Travis's back mostly turned to Arbery, and this seems to be unexpected to Travis. Of course Travis is going to aim the gun towards him, and maybe say "Stop" to try to keep him away.
Let's keep in mind this is not the moment when Travis actually shot Arbery.
It seems to me from the video there's a small chance that maybe Arbery was going to try to run at Travis and tackle him and try to take away his gun at this point. If that was the case, Travis would have been fully justified raising the gun towards him. It is also very possible Arbery may have actually been trying to run between Travis and the pickup truck, in which case it might have only seemed to Travis that Arbery was running towards his direction, rapdily closing distance. Remember, Travis was slowly walking away at that moment in time, had his back partially turned, and did not expect Arbery to take that path so close to him, because Arbery had just swerved his direction of running as if he was going to go towards the right of the truck.
Was the judge able to see this? Were these events, moment by moment, even as they happened so fast in the blurry video with the camera repeatedly swerving out of view, pointed out by the defense?
The judge claims we need to watch that with context. Yet he seems to be ignoring critical context here.
Then the judge seems to insinuate that because Arbery had been running for 5 minutes before that, it justifies why Arbery had to try to ambush Travis to take his gun, and thus Travis is to blame.
Arbery did not have to run though! He could have indeed only continued to jog. Or he could have walked. And as far as we know, those who were following him would have kept some distance behind him, only following him to keep a visual line of sight on his current location. Arbery was only chased because he was running. And obviously Arbery should have known it is impossible to outrun a vehicle. They were only following him as fast as he was going.
What other "context" is the judge referring to? The judge seems to be insinuating vague undefined things.


"... and we got there because Travis McMichael's father saw Ahmaud Arbery hauling down the street, and calls out let's go; at that point Travis McMichael - despite whatever may have been going on in his life at that time, regard to family or otherwise, just goes, grabs a shotgun and goes, because he assumes that it is the right thing to do."

And here it is. The raison d'être of the judge's reasoning. Travis is responsible because he chased Arbery in the first place.
The only issue with this is that what Travis did up to that point was not really beyond his rights or illegal.
The judge is making a judgement that Travis should not have done that and is judging him for it, it appears from this statement.
The judge is holding Travis responsible for something that should not be illegal.
But I'll give the judge the benefit of the doubt here and assume maybe he means that what Travis did before, he had the right to do, but it very much affects what he has the right to do later; that the two go in conjunction with each other.
The judge doesn't really seem to expand on this concept very much. Would the judge claim that if Travis followed Arbery, Travis does not have the right to use self defense later when Arbery runs at him and tries to take his gun? Is that what this boils down to?
It's not like Travis choosing to chase Arbery was absolutely completely unreasonable, given the circumstances of what Travis saw and heard. Some might be able to argue he should not have chased him, and certainly there was inadequate evidence for people who were not police to conduct an arrest or physically stop Arbery, but it is not like there was no justification whatsoever to chase him. The prosecution tried to argue that Travis had very flimsy or no adequate cause to chase Arbery, but the judge does not actually explicitly say that in his closing statements. Is the judge insinuating this? That's not really entirely clear.

As for Travis choosing to bring a shotgun with him in the truck, let's keep in mind Travis had seen a black male suspect (which we now know was almost certainly Arbery) from right outside the construction site 12 days before, where Travis claims - as confirmed on a recording from the 911 call he made at the time - that the suspect had reached into his waistband as if he might have a gun, probably trying to scare Travis off.
On his way out of his house, Travis was in a rush out the door and just grabbed the first gun available to him, it just happened to be the shotgun.
Was it unreasonable for Travis to bring a shotgun with him, when he thought the suspect he was going to follow might be armed with a gun?

Is the judge really putting together all the pieces to this story here? Is he really looking at the context, like he claims? It seems to me he's only focusing on certain contexts.


"Ahmaud Arbery was then hunted down and shot and he was killed because individuals here in this courtroom took the law into their own hands."

What a logical fallacy! Or at least it really seems the judge is saying something to make an insinuation that is not true.
The judge seems to be blaming the men for chasing Arbery, viewing them as responsible for the outcome of Arbery being killed, because they chased him.
But what exactly did Travis specifically do wrong? The judge doesn't seem to be able to go into details. And why? Maybe because if he did he wouldn't be able to form any logically consistent connections. He just seems to be describing vague generalities. The judge's closing statements does not really constitute any sort of rational logical argument for why Travis is guilty. (Well, at least not so far)

We all know that if police had done what these three men had done, most people would not be saying they were guilty. So is the judge insinuating that these men are being punished because they are not police? Does that even entirely make logical sense? If police had the right to chase Arbery, then the right existed to chase Arbery.
I think it's fair to assume it is extremely unlikely Arbery would have stopped for police, in fact he probably would have run away even harder. (A prior video exists from 3 years prior to this incident to confirm what his reaction is to police)

The judge seems to be putting the blame on those three men for Arbery's death. But what about the part Arbery played in his own death? Running at a man with a gun to try to grab that gun away. At that point in time, what would Travis be expected to do?
Let's realize that if Arbery was truly acting out of self defense, it is highly likely Arbery would have immediately shot Travis's father, who was standing in the back bed of the raised pickup truck holding a gun. Disarming one man makes no sense when there is still another man with a gun who can shoot you.

Travis obviously did not hunt down Arbery with the intent to kill him. In fact it can be argued that Travis did even not intend to leave Arbery with no possible path to escape. Nor can it be proved, that Travis intended to perform a citizens arrest. Nor do I think it is even really relevant, even if that had been Travis's intention. Arbery was killed before that point, and some reason still existed for Travis to do what he did.

The judge seems to be using "hunted" as a loaded word, loaded with insinuation that does not constitute a logical argument.