Current Events > Ahmaud Arbery Murder Case

(+) Yeah! (+)

I was all for "Guilty" until I saw this video...now I think "Not Guilty"

https://youtu.be/sjCzJyFKoqo

---

What are the charges?
---

just cause the victim might have walked by a house under construction doesn't mean anything. I used to do that as a kid. people like to explore partially built houses. and he didn't take anything. their claims of him robbing are false. they didn't find any loot on him. he was just jogging, stopped to look at a house nobody was living in, then moved on. then got murdered.

St0rmFury posted...

What are the charges?

murder

the name in the topic title is the name of the victim. he was a black man jogging. 3 white guys chased him down in a truck with shotguns and then killed him

Brah, you've gotta warn me before I open YouTube pages of grifters
---

I think Georgia Law states that these men are "Not Guilty"

...but I don't like Gerogia Law. You shouldn't be allowed to just pull guns out on people for the purpose of citizen's arrest. If you arent confident that you can restrain the person w/ your hands, then just call the police.

---

Guilty.
Home owner says nothing was stolen. No crime committed. House was open, no doors to break open. No crime committed. No clearly marked trespassing signs. Open construction site not considered a dwelling. No crime committed. Mcmichaels did not immediately see him commit a crime so they had no right to apprehend according to Georgias own citizens arrest law. They are guilty of murder.

---

Zikten posted...

just cause the victim might have walked by a house under construction doesn't mean anything. I used to do that as a kid. people like to explore partially built houses. and he didn't take anything. their claims of him robbing are false. they didn't find any loot on him. he was just jogging, stopped to look at a house nobody was living in, then moved on. then got murdered.

Yea, I wouldn't have given chase. Doesn't seem to be a point to it.

But, Georgia Law basically outlines a certain set of circumstances that need to happen to justify killing somebody, and they all did. So it results in a "not guilty" verdict...but I do think the law needs to be changed. Citizen's Arrest can not include weaponized restraint. If you are going to pursue a potential criminal w/ the purpose of making a citizen's arrest...if you arent confident in your physical ability to use your hands...then don't do it.

Same thing w/ that racist rent-a-cop from Florida. He chased down some black teenager and tried to arrest him for "suspicious activity." The teen fought back...as he should, why should anybody just accept a random stranger attempting to forcibly place you under arrest...and the rent-a-cop shot him. He was found "not guilty" because the law outlines all the things that need to happen to justify homicide.

The crazy thing, is that in both situations had the victim actually gotten the weapon away from the "arresting citizens" and used it on them - that would also be justifiable homicide. As both could also claim self-defense - stranger (not a cop) pulled out a gun and attacked them.

The dude in the video actually talks about that. had Arbery successfully gotten the weapon away, he could have used it on the men and also claimed "self-defense" and it would have stood. So, it seems to me in a situation like this, when state give their citizens the power to maker arrests given "just cause" that a weapon should NOT be involved.

...if an arresting citizen chooses to bring a weapon with them, and somebody ends up dead, then it's their fault for bringing it because the law SHOULD state that if you can't sue your hands, then don't do it - just call the police.

EDIT: George Zimmerman was the Florida rent-a-cop's name.

---

ZEROWOLF posted...

Guilty.
Home owner says nothing was stolen. No crime committed. House was open, no doors to break open. No crime committed. No clearly marked trespassing signs. Open construction site not considered a dwelling. No crime committed. Mcmichaels did not immediately see him commit a crime so they had no right to apprehend according to Georgias own citizens arrest law. They are guilty of murder.

I agree, that it should be GUILTY. However, it can't be given Georgia Law. The men had more than enough reasonable suspicion to believe a crime was committed, so Georgia Law gave them permission to take out their guns and go make a citizens arrest.

In this stupid case, since the Father & Son duo believed Ahmaud had committed robbery, once he attacked them and tried to take the shotgun, they had reasonable cause to believe that a criminal was trying to kill them. Therefore, self-defense was justified. Vice versa, Ahmaud has reasonable cause to go after the weapon and indeed kill both the father & son duo because from his POV, there were two random hillbillies w/ shotguns trying to murder him. So basically, it didn't matter who died a killing from either party was legal under Georgia Law.

How terrifying.

---

TC, the guy is a Trump-supporting conservative. Of course he's going to side with Ahmaud's killers.

Humble_Novice posted...

TC, the guy is a Trump-supporting conservative. Of course he's going to side with Ahmaud's killers.

The fuck are you talking about? I live in San Francisco w/ two gay roommates, and am currently engaged to an undocumented immigrant from Thailand - who I also happen to be supporting because Covid Protocols caused her to lose all 3 of her jobs, and she doesn't qualify for any aid.

You chose the wrong guy to try and paint "alt-right"

---

STEROLIZER posted...

The fuck are you talking about?

...The guy in the video you linked? You getting so overly defensive out of nowhere just painted a huge target on you lol.

---

2010 Georgia Code
TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS
ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS
17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest
O.C.G.A. 17-4-60 (2010)
17-4-60. Grounds for arrest

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

Nowhere does it say you can use a firearm. And I dont think they "believed" he committed a crime counts as a reason to kill someone.

---

https://thedispatch.com/p/a-vigilante-killing-in-georgia
---

STEROLIZER posted...

The fuck are you talking about? I live in San Francisco w/ two gay roommates, and am currently engaged to an undocumented immigrant from Thailand - who I also happen to be supporting because Covid Protocols caused her to lose all 3 of her jobs, and she doesn't qualify for any aid.

You chose the wrong guy to try and paint "alt-right"

lmao.

STEROLIZER posted...

The fuck are you talking about? I live in San Francisco w/ two gay roommates, and am currently engaged to an undocumented immigrant from Thailand - who I also happen to be supporting because Covid Protocols caused her to lose all 3 of her jobs, and she doesn't qualify for any aid.

You chose the wrong guy to try and paint "alt-right"

@STEROLIZER I was referring to the guy in the video: https://www.youtube.com/user/btcruiser34/about

This dude literally got lynched and it's gross how hard people are trying to justify the lynching

anyone voting not guilty needs to be ip traced and ip banned from the site

---

https://arcdigital.media/the-ahmaud-arbery-killing-and-georgia-law-72ebb5c7643b
---

Based on that video, if all the information is accurate, I'd agree with the video guy...they'll be found not guilty of anything but potentially manslaughter, and even then they will likely get off due to self-defense revolving around all of the evidence presented.

Personally, I think it looks like they were given a circumstance that allowed them to go gung-ho that legally they could get away with killing Arbery. Even if their intent was racially charged and inside they were like, "I get to kill that person!" the other circumstances get them off because from a legal perspective the justice system doesn't recognize what the intent may have been originally, but rather the reasons they are then allowed to do what they did.

If Arbery had just kept running, would we be talking about this? Would he still be alive? Those are things that at least would have caused them to be prosecuted for cut and dry murder. Or maybe they'd have been too afraid to take the first shot knowing they'd be the aggressors.

Everyone that says anything such as, "If two guys pulled up on you with guns and you were jogging down the road, wouldn't you feel threatened and do something as you'd feel like you're gonna get gunned down from the back?" The answer to that should be based on where you live, and it seems Georgia condones everything the men did up to the point of Arbery running back towards one of them and coming into physical contact. What they did under their suspicions as far as the chase, thought of citizens arrest, and carrying guns all falls under legal actions.

So if I were in that state knowing those circumstances, I'd probably just continue running down the side of the road away from them hoping they wouldn't be able to aim well if they decided to fire shots at me while unprovoked. Again, at least then they'd be sentenced for their crimes without excuse. Does that situation suck ass...hell yeah, but the opposite of that is choosing to confront them and possibly getting killed while also them getting off scott-free thanks to self-defense. Unfortunately, until someone fires (and you're possibly already dead) you can't do shit first or you're the aggressor.

the developments prior to the altercation don't seem to be particularly relevant to the question of whether or not it was murder

but the question of who was in the right to defend themselves during the altercation seems to be the mother of all gray zones based on the analysis of this video, at least without the context of audio

in the video with audio however (or at least the version published on the american conservative), the first shot was fired prior to the struggle over the shotgun as arbery ran around the truck - and thus into the gunman standing on the road, who was heading in arbery's direction

this suggests that the self-defense argument is in arbery's favor with respect to the struggle over the shotgun, and the remaining question is whether it is ever permissible to shoot someone running in your direction - and whether it occurring within the context of a citizen's arrest would affect that, and even then, whether it was made clear that the confrontation was a citizen's arrest

yeah, mother of all gray zones

the prosecution probably ought to go for manslaughter charges

---

emblem boy posted...

https://arcdigital.media/the-ahmaud-arbery-killing-and-georgia-law-72ebb5c7643b

. Its murder or nothing

Georgia does not have meaningful degrees for the murder of adults. If you intend to kill someone, or if you are committing any felony at all when you kill them, it is capital murder. And that list of felonies includes, bizarrely enough, aggravated assault. That means that in any case where you have a weapon, and the victim is aware of that weapon, and the victim dies, you are guilty of murder. Malice murder is basically vestigial, because in Georgia, prosecutors never need to prove intent to kill.

And of course, even where malice is an element, a jury is entitled to find that you intend to kill a person you shoot three times. They can infer that you intended the natural consequences of your actions.

I want to be clear that this felony murder workaround is kind of terrible. I often talk to jurors who believe that a defendant was not fully culpable for a killing and think they have cut him a break by opting for felony murder, rather than malice murder. Little do they know that its a life sentence either way.

Because the McMichaels pointed guns at the victim and the victim was aware of those guns, they committed aggravated assault. And because the victim died in the course of that felony, its felony murder. There is also an argument for false imprisonment or aggravated battery as felony murder predicates, albeit weaker than for aggravated assault.

But voluntary manslaughter is unlikely to be the result at trial because Georgia reserves that reduced charge exclusively for sudden, violent, or irresistible passion, which frequently means a suspicion that someones significant other is cheating on them. It would more accurately be called womanslaughter, because that is its major purpose.

For instance, when a defendant was shot in the leg and then killed his assailant, the Supreme Court of Georgia said he was not entitled to a voluntary manslaughter instruction because the provocation necessary to support a charge of voluntary manslaughter is markedly different from that which will support a self-defense claim. There are dozens more cases in the same direction, helping to establish, for instance, that Fighting prior to a homicide does not constitute the type of provocation that would warrant a charge of voluntary manslaughter.

A cautious judge might charge the jury on voluntary manslaughter just to avoid having the issue on appeal. But typically, the fear that someone might grab a weapon that you are pointing at them is not enough for that reduction. If the trial court opts not to give the charge of voluntary manslaughter, that decision will almost certainly be upheld.

If someone suggests second-degree murder they are clueless

Georgia does have a second-degree murder law, but it applies solely to people who negligently kill children:

A person commits the offense of murder in the second degree when, in the commission of cruelty to children in the second degree, he or she causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice.

If you see a legal commentator mention second-degree murder, you should immediately disregard everything else they say about this case. And most other cases too. Anyone who googles murder statute Georgia will have a better understanding of this law than whomever thinks second-degree murder could apply here.


---

STEROLIZER posted...

Humble_Novice posted...

TC, the guy is a Trump-supporting conservative. Of course he's going to side with Ahmaud's killers.

The fuck are you talking about? I live in San Francisco w/ two gay roommates, and am currently engaged to an undocumented immigrant from Thailand - who I also happen to be supporting because Covid Protocols caused her to lose all 3 of her jobs, and she doesn't qualify for any aid.

You chose the wrong guy to try and paint "alt-right"

That's a yikes from me, dawg.
---

TheMikh posted...

the developments prior to the altercation don't seem to be particularly relevant to the question of whether or not it was murder

but the question of who was in the right to defend themselves during the altercation seems to be the mother of all gray zones based on the analysis of this video, at least without the context of audio

in the video with audio however (or at least the version published on the american conservative), the first shot was fired prior to the struggle over the shotgun as arbery ran around the truck - and thus into the gunman standing on the road, who was heading in arbery's direction

this suggests that the self-defense argument is in arbery's favor with respect to the struggle over the shotgun, and the remaining question is whether it is ever permissible to shoot someone running in your direction - and whether it occurring within the context of a citizen's arrest would affect that, and even then, whether it was made clear that the confrontation was a citizen's arrest

yeah, mother of all gray zones

the prosecution probably ought to go for manslaughter charges

I didn't see a video with audio and showing the first shot. That would definitely change things. Did the OP video leave that out or just not know about it? Hmm...

SexCEman posted...

I didn't see a video with audio and showing the first shot. That would definitely change things. Did the OP video leave that out or just not know about it? Hmm...

www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/ahmaud-arbery-just-a-runner

---

Innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of our entire justice system.

Anyone who votes guilty is a monster.

It looks fucking bleak for them though and the fact they weren't arrested outright is pathetic
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of our entire justice system.

Anyone who votes guilty is a monster.

It looks fucking bleak for them though and the fact they weren't arrested outright is pathetic

so was the victim innocent until proven guilty too?

thats right, you dont actually care about this youre just trying to stir the pot.

---

TheMikh posted...

www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/ahmaud-arbery-just-a-runner

Oh, I saw this...I thought there was some other video showing the first shot fired while Arbery was just running by the truck.

The problem (not legally for Georgia it seems) to me from a general observation, is that the video doesn't have a good look at that first shot and it seemed to be at the same time he ran back towards the truck (but again, it's not fully viewable from the video). It makes it look like he may have chosen to confront the guy with the gun at which he then pulls the trigger. That could be argued self-defense. It's just too hard to tell when the first shot was fired, which based on these Georgia laws probably doesn't matter anyways and post #23 law seems to indicate they'd still be considered to have murdered him.

Zikten posted...

just cause the victim might have walked by a house under construction doesn't mean anything. I used to do that as a kid. people like to explore partially built houses. and he didn't take anything. their claims of him robbing are false. they didn't find any loot on him. he was just jogging, stopped to look at a house nobody was living in, then moved on. then got murdered.

He was 26

Zeeak4444 posted...

so was the victim innocent until proven guilty too?

?

Yes obviously.

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. That's the point.

I'll let Our Lady Peace explain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Z89zW-8sY

*Until proven guilty
---

STEROLIZER posted...

But, Georgia Law basically outlines a certain set of circumstances that need to happen to justify killing somebody

This is completely and utterly false. They claimed they were doing a citizens arrest, under Georgia Law a citizen arrest can only be made if the crime is personally witnesses by the "arresting" party.

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-17/chapter-4/article-4/17-4-60/

The two men did not witnesses this, they only suspected he looked like someone who they thought was committing robberies. However there are no police reports of any break-ins in the area, the only police report found was one from last year (I believe, it might have been from earlier this year) of a hand gun being stolen from one of the suspects' truck.

Also he did not "attack" them, they tried to illegally detain him with shotguns, under Georgia code you are allowed to use equal force when defending yourself, you however cannot create a confrontation and then claim self-defense. By their own admission they created the confrontation, they were the only armed party. Everything they did was illegal.

So basically, it doesn't matter that he was in the construction yard, he stole nothing, damaged nothing, at most he was trespassing which the men did not personally witness, they had no legal ground to try and stop him, they created a situation that forced him to defend himself and then they murdered him when he tried to do just that.

STEROLIZER posted...

The fuck are you talking about? I live in San Francisco w/ two gay roommates, and am currently engaged to an undocumented immigrant from Thailand - who I also happen to be supporting because Covid Protocols caused her to lose all 3 of her jobs, and she doesn't qualify for any aid.

You chose the wrong guy to try and paint "alt-right"

It's 2020 and reading is still hard

---

Guilty

---

Cops and ex-cops don't go through the same justice system as the rest of us. Different set of rules.

---

PacerCoin posted...

This is completely and utterly false. They claimed they were doing a citizens arrest, under Georgia Law a citizen arrest can only be made if the crime is personally witnesses by the "arresting" party.

https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-17/chapter-4/article-4/17-4-60/

The two men did not witnesses this, they only suspected he looked like someone who they thought was committing robberies. However there are no police reports of any break-ins in the area, the only police report found was one from last year (I believe, it might have been from earlier this year) of a hand gun being stolen from one of the suspects' truck.

Also he did not "attack" them, they tried to illegally detain him with shotguns, under Georgia code you are allowed to use equal force when defending yourself, you however cannot create a confrontation and then claim self-defense. By their own admission they created the confrontation, they were the only armed party. Everything they did was illegal.

So basically, it doesn't matter that he was in the construction yard, he stole nothing, damaged nothing, at most he was trespassing which the men did not personally witness, they had no legal ground to try and stop him, they created a situation that forced him to defend himself and then they murdered him when he tried to do just that.

I don't get this defense either

Surely "Citizens arrest" doesn't justify chasing someone in a truck with a gun?

If the guy has run away, he's gone. Let the police handle it.

I mean what if the dude ran home and went to sleep? Could they burst down his door and claim citizens arrest?
---

Guy who defended George Zimmerman posted...

Innocent until proven guilty is the cornerstone of our entire justice system.

Anyone who votes guilty is a monster.

It looks fucking bleak for them though and the fact they weren't arrested outright is pathetic

you don't say mr. UnfairRepresent
---

muchdran posted...

He was 26

Just to clarify, that was absolutely a horrific crime. No excuses for what they did.

SexCEman posted...

Oh, I saw this...I thought there was some other video showing the first shot fired while Arbery was just running by the truck.

The problem (not legally for Georgia it seems) to me from a general observation, is that the video doesn't have a good look at that first shot and it seemed to be at the same time he ran back towards the truck (but again, it's not fully viewable from the video). It makes it look like he may have chosen to confront the guy with the gun at which he then pulls the trigger. That could be argued self-defense. It's just too hard to tell when the first shot was fired, which based on these Georgia laws probably doesn't matter anyways and post #23 law seems to indicate they'd still be considered to have murdered him.

ah, good point.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

It looks f***ing bleak for them though and the fact they weren't arrested outright is pathetic

I'm seeing something different. There's surveillance footage of Arbery trying to enter the house from 2 different positions minutes before the shooting. And there was surveillance footage of him (or someone who) there at night. These videos, including the video of the shooting corroborate with the reasoning the DA gave when he wrote a memo regarding him stepping down from the case due to a conflict of interest and the two fellows not being arrested in the first place. The case is gonna get dropped as there's nothing going in Arbery's favor.

---

Anyone notice that uncle tom has fallen out of fashion, and now black people with the wrong opinions are grifters?

---

Sad_Face posted...

looks f***ing bleak for them though and the fact they weren't arrested outright is pathetic
I'm seeing something different. There's surveillance footage of Arbery trying to enter the house from 2 different positions minutes before the shooting. And there was surveillance footage of him (or someone who) there at night

so?
---

Guilty of probably manslaughter. Anything more would be injustice.

---

Im scared of the outcome of a not guilty verdict. I remember the L.A. riots those were crazy times.

---

shnangyboos posted...

Anyone notice that uncle tom has fallen out of fashion, and now black people with the wrong opinions are grifters?

grifter is not a word with a racial connotation and most right wing youtube people are identified as that these days

---

Dusk_ posted...

Guilty of probably manslaughter. Anything more would be injustice.

so what exactly would be considered murder by your standards if it doesn't include literally hunting someone down with shotguns and threatening them until you shoot them to death
---

Humble_Novice posted...

@STEROLIZER I was referring to the guy in the video: https://www.youtube.com/user/btcruiser34/about

He has very low reading comprehension

---

America.

The only country you can walk into an empty house and get gunned down.

---

those two should be in jail for 40 to life

---

ThisGuyAreSick posted...

anyone voting not guilty needs to be ip traced and ip banned from the site

This is like a child's take on things.

---