Facts About The Ahmaud Arbery Case: Racism? Seems Not.

[Faun]

Re-post without the juvenile vulgarity.

Run away on the feigned offense of vulgarity.

 

[jc456]

Exactly.

yep and wasn't what he recalled.

 

[jc456]

Really ? Even the police can’t arrest someone if they aren’t observed committing a crime, unless they have a warrant. You’re simply making up shit.

they can detain him without arresting him.

 

[jc456]

This isn’t from the 911 call.

accept, there's the 911 call of what was recorded as already explained.

 

[Faun]

they can detain him without arresting him.

Yeah, otherwise known as kidnapping.

 

[jc456]

So Greg lied about what he said to the cops?

yep

 

[Faun]

accept, there's the 911 call of what was recorded as already explained.

Which was from a different moment during that chase.

 

[jc456]

Did you just chose to ignore what the defense was fing.



Or the fact that they are actually guilty of murder. The defense coached Travis and tried to make him sound like he was a LE officer. The prosecutor made the case of exactly what these 3 did.

and then there's that damn video that just shows how wide open the area where arbry was for him to run away rather than confronting them. That doesn't look like a trap to me.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The lawyer I've quoted, continues: the judge's instructions....


"...I’ll cover the small portion of that instruction that’s the part that really matters here—the instruction on citizen’s arrest, §17-4-60. Grounds for arrest. And that instruction was an exercise in patent professional failure of duty on the part of Judge Walmsley.

This entire case essentially hinges on the question of the underlying citizen’s arrests. If the effort to make a citizen’s arrest of Ahmaud Arbery was lawful, then everything that follows was likely also lawful.

Conversely, if the effort to make a citizen’s arrest of Arbery was unlawful, then everything that follow was also likely unlawful.



The amount of ambiguity in the statute is really remarkable if only because of the statute’s brevity—it is only two sentences long. Those two sentences are:

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.



If the offense occurred in your presence or with your immediate knowledge you have a degree of certainty that’s vastly greater than mere probable cause—you know for certain that the offense happened. Probable cause is merely a probability that it happened. That’s less than certainty.



...we are going to leave the fate of these three defendants to however the jury decides to interpret an ambiguous statute that appears to befuddle even the experts."

Arbery Case Trial: Judge Walmsley Drops the Ball On Ambiguous Citizen’s Arrest Law

Apparently the jury is to figure out how to apply a citizen’s arrest law that befuddles the lawyers and judge.

legalinsurrection.com

Of course, the majority of posts in this thread ignore the elephant in the room: the milieu in America at this time makes the case about far more than the law.
You know what it is about.

 

[Faun]

and then there's that damn video that just shows how wide open the area where arbry was for him to run away rather than confronting them. That doesn't look like a trap to me.

Arbery was not compelled to run away anymore. He was legally allowed to stand his ground.

 

[Faun]

The lawyer I've quoted, continues: the judge's instructions....


"...I’ll cover the small portion of that instruction that’s the part that really matters here—the instruction on citizen’s arrest, §17-4-60. Grounds for arrest. And that instruction was an exercise in patent professional failure of duty on the part of Judge Walmsley.

This entire case essentially hinges on the question of the underlying citizen’s arrests. If the effort to make a citizen’s arrest of Ahmaud Arbery was lawful, then everything that follows was likely also lawful.

Conversely, if the effort to make a citizen’s arrest of Arbery was unlawful, then everything that follow was also likely unlawful.



The amount of ambiguity in the statute is really remarkable if only because of the statute’s brevity—it is only two sentences long. Those two sentences are:

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.



If the offense occurred in your presence or with your immediate knowledge you have a degree of certainty that’s vastly greater than mere probable cause—you know for certain that the offense happened. Probable cause is merely a probability that it happened. That’s less than certainty.



...we are going to leave the fate of these three defendants to however the jury decides to interpret an ambiguous statute that appears to befuddle even the experts."

Arbery Case Trial: Judge Walmsley Drops the Ball On Ambiguous Citizen’s Arrest Law

Apparently the jury is to figure out how to apply a citizen’s arrest law that befuddles the lawyers and judge.

legalinsurrection.com

Of course, the majority of posts in this thread ignore the elephant in the room: the milieu in America at this time makes the case about far more than the law.
You know what it is about.

"If the offense is a felony"

Arbery did not commit a felony. That makes them -- guilty as sin, according to you.

 

[surada]

"If the offense is a felony"

Arbery did not commit a felony. That makes them -- guilty as sin, according to you.

Judge Timothy Walmsley: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

Judge Timothy Walmsley is presiding over the Ahmaud Arbery murder trial in Brunswick, Georgia. Read on to learn more about the judge in Arbery's slaying.

heavy.com

 

[SavannahMann]

It wasn't me being quoted.

This is the author you are disputing:

Andrew Branca​

Andrew F. Branca is in his third decade of practicing law in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. He wrote the first edition of the "Law of Self Defense" in 1997, and is currently in the process of completing the fully revised and updated second edition, which you can preorder now at lawofselfdefense.com.



But, like you, the jury is not composed of lawyers.

We'll see.

Yeah. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Now, I haven’t been in school since the 1980’s. And it’s been a couple decades since I drove trucks across the country. But if memory serves, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is north of New York. I remember driving through it to make deliveries in New Hampshire. Of course, my memory could be faulty.

Now, Geographically speaking, Georgia is in the South. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a single border that the two states would share.

So this lawyer, residing in a state nearly a thousand miles from Georgia isn’t exactly the expert I would rest my feet upon. I believe I would listen to him if the question was concerning the laws regarding the state of Massachusetts. However, since the crime took place in Georgia, a thousand miles to the south, and the trial is being held in Georgia, using Georgia laws. I think I’d rather listen to a lawyer who practices law in Georgia.

Now, the arbiter of what Georgia Law says in a trial in Georgia is a Judge. IN this case, the Judge explained to the Jury what the laws said, and what decisions they had to make regarding this case.

EXPLAINER: What instructions did jury get in Arbery death?

Before the jurors in the trial of the three men charged in the killing of Ahmaud Arbery retired to the jury room to begin their deliberations, the judge read them specific instructions on the law that’s applicable to this case

abcnews.go.com

Now, you might think that this Judge is even now kicking himself for not consulting your expert on Georgia Law residing in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. But I doubt he is.

Read the article. Notice that the instructions indicated that a person who is being unlawfully detained from an unlawful citizens arrest has the right to resist such arrest.

Shall I quote it for you? Nah, you would quote the legal expert from Michigan who would explain how under Michigan Law the McMichaels were heroes. Or something.

When this crap all started, and you can look it up. I told people here that I had a CCW, and one of the things I wanted to be sure I had done was learn what the laws said, and what I could legally do. To that end I went to a course on the rights and responsibilities for the CCW. Not mandatory, but not too long. This course was taught by an off duty cop. He told us all not to do certain things. Guess what, the McMichaels literally did everything we were told was illegal.

To be sure I understood. I paid for two hours with an attorney who reiterated what the cop had told me, and included the phrase never talk to the cops if you do shoot someone. Call a lawyer. Do not talk to the cops. Do not talk to the cops.

Greg McMichaels called a lawyer. He called the DA and said he needed help. Hardly an action from a man who knew they had done nothing wrong.

I joined the USCCA, and they sent along a bunch of books and even state specific laws that I had to be careful of as a Concealed Carry Permit holder. In those assorted materials, the lawyers for the USCCA reinforced all the things that had been told to me by the Cop who taught the course. The Lawyer I paid. And common sense with my decades of experience living in Georgia.

Now, you claim they are all wrong, and the fellow from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is right. He’s a lawyer you say.

Not in Georgia I say. In Georgia, the lawyers who have watched the trial are saying that the defense was incompetent, and racist. How many mistrials have they asked for? Five or six? Hardly the actions of a team certain that they’re going to win. More like the actions of a group that hopes to have as many avenues open for appeal as possible. After the inevitable conviction of course.

The best chance the McMichaels had for a Not Guilty Verdict was staying in Brunswick. And judging from the actions of the defense requesting Mistrials about every day, I’m guessing the lawyers don’t really feel all that confident about their chances. Or do you see a different motive. I mean, if the defense is winning so handily, why are they requesting mistrials? Wouldn’t that give the prosecution a chance to do better in the next trial?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yeah. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Now, I haven’t been in school since the 1980’s. And it’s been a couple decades since I drove trucks across the country. But if memory serves, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is north of New York. I remember driving through it to make deliveries in New Hampshire. Of course, my memory could be faulty.

Now, Geographically speaking, Georgia is in the South. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a single border that the two states would share.

So this lawyer, residing in a state nearly a thousand miles from Georgia isn’t exactly the expert I would rest my feet upon. I believe I would listen to him if the question was concerning the laws regarding the state of Massachusetts. However, since the crime took place in Georgia, a thousand miles to the south, and the trial is being held in Georgia, using Georgia laws. I think I’d rather listen to a lawyer who practices law in Georgia.

Now, the arbiter of what Georgia Law says in a trial in Georgia is a Judge. IN this case, the Judge explained to the Jury what the laws said, and what decisions they had to make regarding this case.

EXPLAINER: What instructions did jury get in Arbery death?

Before the jurors in the trial of the three men charged in the killing of Ahmaud Arbery retired to the jury room to begin their deliberations, the judge read them specific instructions on the law that’s applicable to this case

abcnews.go.com

Now, you might think that this Judge is even now kicking himself for not consulting your expert on Georgia Law residing in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. But I doubt he is.

Read the article. Notice that the instructions indicated that a person who is being unlawfully detained from an unlawful citizens arrest has the right to resist such arrest.

Shall I quote it for you? Nah, you would quote the legal expert from Michigan who would explain how under Michigan Law the McMichaels were heroes. Or something.

When this crap all started, and you can look it up. I told people here that I had a CCW, and one of the things I wanted to be sure I had done was learn what the laws said, and what I could legally do. To that end I went to a course on the rights and responsibilities for the CCW. Not mandatory, but not too long. This course was taught by an off duty cop. He told us all not to do certain things. Guess what, the McMichaels literally did everything we were told was illegal.

To be sure I understood. I paid for two hours with an attorney who reiterated what the cop had told me, and included the phrase never talk to the cops if you do shoot someone. Call a lawyer. Do not talk to the cops. Do not talk to the cops.

Greg McMichaels called a lawyer. He called the DA and said he needed help. Hardly an action from a man who knew they had done nothing wrong.

I joined the USCCA, and they sent along a bunch of books and even state specific laws that I had to be careful of as a Concealed Carry Permit holder. In those assorted materials, the lawyers for the USCCA reinforced all the things that had been told to me by the Cop who taught the course. The Lawyer I paid. And common sense with my decades of experience living in Georgia.

Now, you claim they are all wrong, and the fellow from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts is right. He’s a lawyer you say.

Not in Georgia I say. In Georgia, the lawyers who have watched the trial are saying that the defense was incompetent, and racist. How many mistrials have they asked for? Five or six? Hardly the actions of a team certain that they’re going to win. More like the actions of a group that hopes to have as many avenues open for appeal as possible. After the inevitable conviction of course.

The best chance the McMichaels had for a Not Guilty Verdict was staying in Brunswick. And judging from the actions of the defense requesting Mistrials about every day, I’m guessing the lawyers don’t really feel all that confident about their chances. Or do you see a different motive. I mean, if the defense is winning so handily, why are they requesting mistrials? Wouldn’t that give the prosecution a chance to do better in the next trial?

I never said either side was winning.

Let's wait and see.

How's that?

 

[SavannahMann]

I never said either side was winning.

Let's wait and see.

How's that?

You also said it wasn’t racist. And I think we now know it was. In addition to the plate with the confederate flag, we have the statements where Travis and Greg called Arbery a N****r. Hardly the phrase uttered by a person who views Blacks as equals.

Then we have the fact that the only suspects for thefts in the neighborhood were White. Yet they set off in pursuit of a black.

You say a lot. And nearly everything is wrong.

 

[Muhammed]

I never said either side was winning.

Let's wait and see.

How's that?

The jury just requested to see the video evidence of when Arbery ran up and attacked Travis again. That's the same thing that they jury did in the Rittenhouse trial just before his acquittal.

The video shows Arbery attack Travis and get shot while trying to steal his shotgun. It proves that Travis fired his weapon in self defense.

This is a good sign for Travis.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You also said it wasn’t racist. And I think we now know it was. In addition to the plate with the confederate flag, we have the statements where Travis and Greg called Arbery a N****r. Hardly the phrase uttered by a person who views Blacks as equals.

Then we have the fact that the only suspects for thefts in the neighborhood were White. Yet they set off in pursuit of a black.

You say a lot. And nearly everything is wrong.

"You also said it wasn’t racist. And I think we now know it was.".

1. I bet you can't quote where I said that.

2. We know no such thing.
This is a quote from the lawyer in post #1: . "There have not been any racial sluts (slurs) toward Arbery....they called him a joker and a rat...on body cam footage....."


It appears that your desires centers on claiming race, in some sort of virtue-signaling attempt.


Isn't that the case?


Or.....what is your response to this:

Hogue hit hard on the notion of community, neighborhood, and safety—how we all wanted to live in a place like that, and how all of those qualities were being destroyed by criminal predation in that particular neighborhood.

She also spared no punches in noting that Arbery was very much part of that criminal predation.

Unlike what we saw in the defense closing gin Rittenhouse, however, Hogue expressed genuine sympathy for Arbery’s tragic fate, as well as for his family. In his teens, she acknowledged, he’d apparently been a lovely boy with great potential. But in his 20s he went off the rails, and by the time of his encounter with Travis McMichael, he’d simply become a criminal thieving and plundering his way through life.

She noted that it was incontestable that it was Ahmaud Arbery returning night after night, repeatedly caught on camera, at the same time thousands of dollars worth of property was disappearing. Did we have a picture of Arbery walking off with the property? No. But the only reasonable inference of someone skulking around another person’s home at night, with valuable property found missing the next day, is that the person skulking was plundering that property, and engaged in felony burglary under Georgia law.” Arbery Case Trial: Based On Closing Arguments, Not Guilty Verdicts A Real Possibility


To me, this is a case of criminality not race.

And the cause of death, as we have seen far too often, is 'resisting arrest.'

 

[SavannahMann]

The jury just requested to see the video evidence of when Arbery ran up and attacked Travis again. That's the same thing that they jury did in the Rittenhouse trial.

The video shows Arbery attack Travis and get shot while trying to steal his shotgun. It proves that Travis fired his weapon in self defense.

This is a good sign.

I don’t think so. The video shows Travis position himself to stop Arbery. It shows Arbery cut right to go around the truck and then Travis move to again intercept Arbery.

 

[SavannahMann]

"You also said it wasn’t racist. And I think we now know it was.".

1. I bet you can't quote where I said that.

2. We know no such thing.
This is a quote from the lawyer in post #1: . "There have not been any racial sluts toward Arbery....they called him a joker and a rat...on body cam footage....."


It appears that your desires centers on claiming race, in some sort of virtue-signaling attempt.


Isn't that the case?


Or.....what is your response to this:

Hogue hit hard on the notion of community, neighborhood, and safety—how we all wanted to live in a place like that, and how all of those qualities were being destroyed by criminal predation in that particular neighborhood.

She also spared no punches in noting that Arbery was very much part of that criminal predation.

Unlike what we saw in the defense closing gin Rittenhouse, however, Hogue expressed genuine sympathy for Arbery’s tragic fate, as well as for his family. In his teens, she acknowledged, he’d apparently been a lovely boy with great potential. But in his 20s he went off the rails, and by the time of his encounter with Travis McMichael, he’d simply become a criminal thieving and plundering his way through life.

She noted that it was incontestable that it was Ahmaud Arbery returning night after night, repeatedly caught on camera, at the same time thousands of dollars worth of property was disappearing. Did we have a picture of Arbery walking off with the property? No. But the only reasonable inference of someone skulking around another person’s home at night, with valuable property found missing the next day, is that the person skulking was plundering that property, and engaged in felony burglary under Georgia law.” Arbery Case Trial: Based On Closing Arguments, Not Guilty Verdicts A Real Possibility

The thread title claims it wasn’t racist. The facts show it was.

 

[surada]

"You also said it wasn’t racist. And I think we now know it was.".

1. I bet you can't quote where I said that.

2. We know no such thing.
This is a quote from the lawyer in post #1: . "There have not been any racial sluts (slurs) toward Arbery....they called him a joker and a rat...on body cam footage....."


It appears that your desires centers on claiming race, in some sort of virtue-signaling attempt.


Isn't that the case?


Or.....what is your response to this:

Hogue hit hard on the notion of community, neighborhood, and safety—how we all wanted to live in a place like that, and how all of those qualities were being destroyed by criminal predation in that particular neighborhood.

She also spared no punches in noting that Arbery was very much part of that criminal predation.

Unlike what we saw in the defense closing gin Rittenhouse, however, Hogue expressed genuine sympathy for Arbery’s tragic fate, as well as for his family. In his teens, she acknowledged, he’d apparently been a lovely boy with great potential. But in his 20s he went off the rails, and by the time of his encounter with Travis McMichael, he’d simply become a criminal thieving and plundering his way through life.

She noted that it was incontestable that it was Ahmaud Arbery returning night after night, repeatedly caught on camera, at the same time thousands of dollars worth of property was disappearing. Did we have a picture of Arbery walking off with the property? No. But the only reasonable inference of someone skulking around another person’s home at night, with valuable property found missing the next day, is that the person skulking was plundering that property, and engaged in felony burglary under Georgia law.” Arbery Case Trial: Based On Closing Arguments, Not Guilty Verdicts A Real Possibility


To me, this is a case of criminality not race.

And the cause of death, as we have seen far too often, is 'resisting arrest.'

His acquittal would be a real travesty of justice.