AHMAUD ARBERY: Georgia vs Greg & Travis McMichael & William Bryan for murder *GUILTY*

Mother seeks justice after son shot while jogging in Brunswick, pair involved in killing not arrested

It’s been over two months since a young black man jogging in Brunswick, Ga., was gunned down by two white men...

www.jacksonville.com

Mother seeks justice after son shot while jogging in Brunswick, pair involved in killing not arrested

It’s been over two months since a young black man jogging in Brunswick, Ga., was gunned down by two white men who said they thought he was a possible burglar.

Ahmaud Arbery’s mother wants to know where is the justice.

“I just think about how they could allow these two men to kill my son and not be arrested, that’s what I can’t understand,” Wanda Cooper told news partner First Coast News.

A police report states about 1 p.m. Sunday, Feb. 23, Glynn County officers responded to Satilla and Holmes drives where shots were fired. They found Arbery, 25, dead on the scene.

Gregory McMichael, who worked several years for the Brunswick Police Department before serving as an investigator in the Brunswick District Attorney’s Office, told police there were several break-ins in the neighborhood. He said he saw Arbery running down Satilla Drive and asked his son Travis McMichael to help him confront him.

McMichael and his son got a shotgun and handgun because they “didn’t know if Arbery was armed or not.”

The father and son got into their truck and drove down Satilla toward Burford Drive. Gregory McMichael stated when they arrived at Holmes Drive, they saw Arbery running down Burford, according to the report.

Gregory McMichael told police they attempted to cut off Arbery and shouted “stop, stop, we want to talk to you.”

McMichael pulled up next to Arbery, and Travis McMichael got out of the truck with the shotgun. According to statements, that’s when the father said Arbery attacked his son and the two men started fighting over the shotgun. Travis McMichael fired a shot and then a second shot.

After video appears to show black jogger gunned down by 2 white men in coastal Georgia, family demands arrests

The fatal shooting of a black man — apparently recorded on video in February and posted online Tuesday by a local radio station host — will go to a grand jury in coastal Georg…

ktla.com

After video appears to show black jogger gunned down by 2 white men in coastal Georgia, family demands arrests

The fatal shooting of a black man — apparently recorded on video in February and posted online Tuesday by a local radio station host — will go to a grand jury in coastal Georgia, according to a district attorney.

Elements of the disturbing video are consistent with a description of the shooting given to police by one of those involved in the incident.

Ahmaud Arbery, 25, was jogging in a neighborhood outside Brunswick on February 23 when a former police officer and his son chased him down, authorities said. According to a Glynn County Police report, Gregory McMichael later told officers that he thought Arbery looked like a person suspected in a series of recent break-ins in the area.

After they chased down Arbery, McMichael told police, Arbery and McMichael’s son Travis struggled over his son’s shotgun. McMichael said two shots were fired before Arbery fell to the street, the report said.


S. Lee Merritt, an attorney for the Arbery family, said in a statement that the two men involved in the chase “must be taken into custody pending their indictment.”

Gov. Brian Kemp said the Georgia Bureau of Investigation has offered resources to Durden for his investigation. “Georgians deserve answers,” Kemp tweeted.

Kemp also retweeted the GBI’s post that Durden “formally requested the GBI to investigate the death of Ahmaud Arbery.”

 

[GrandmaBear]

4 minutes: New video shows length of time Ahmaud Arbery was chased before being killed, lawyer says

Lee Merritt, the civil rights attorney representing Arbery’s family, confirmed to Fox News Monday that the footage exists. It has not been made public.

www.kiro7.com

4 minutes: New video shows length of time Ahmaud Arbery was chased before being killed, lawyer says

New video footage and other evidence from the day Ahmaud Arbery was gunned down as he jogged in a predominantly white neighborhood near his Georgia home shows that the three men following him, including one who filmed his killing, chased him for more than four minutes before the fatal confrontation.

Lee Merritt, the civil rights attorney representing Arbery’s family, confirmed to Fox News Monday that the footage exists. It has not been made public.

Journalist and activist Shaun King, who has been working with Merritt on Arbery’s case, wrote on Facebook Saturday that he and Merritt had confirmed that the previously-seen footage of Arbery’s Feb. 23 shotgun death was just a snippet of the footage that had been recorded by William “Roddie” Bryan, one of the three men chasing the unarmed black jogger through the Satilla Shores neighborhood of Brunswick.

We haven't seen it but it makes sense that they have far more than we know. It clearly does not benefit the three men is my guess. Bryan's attorney claimed he was basically just a "witness", probably not a wise remark. When GBI came out and charged him some time after the first two, it seemed to show they had more to review than we saw and reason to say as they did, that he helped more than one time in cornering Arbery and was an active participant and not just a bystander (paraphrasing). Now we have the US DOJ looking at it, pretty darned serious, and at the DAs.

One thing that has not been said a lot but in the early days it was said they went around ahead, the McMichaels to cut him off and I thought Williams was behind to box him in. That is the snippet we saw I think but it sounds like much more is on tape.

Smh...

 

[Howell]

Where are you getting the information about Arbery having been in that house at night?

CCTV footage released by CNN.

Surveillance videos show multiple people had trespassed at the home Ahmaud Arbery visited. He was the only one killed | CNN

Ahmaud Arbery was shot and killed while jogging in Brunswick, Georgia, on February 23, 2020.

www.cnn.com

 

[Howell]

Why exit the vehicle if you fear for your life?

Again, they were trying to talk to him. They had no reason to fear for their lives until HE ATTACKED THEM.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Again, they were trying to talk to him. They had no reason to fear for their lives until HE ATTACKED THEM.

If they had no fear then why exit with a firearm? Of course they had no reason to fear they were holding firearms on him. He had the reason to fear and was trapped.

 

[Howell]

To my knowledge, whatever happened that night came straight from Mr. McMichael, and all there is was his word for it. It means very little to me and for all we know he was chasing him that night. I give it little credence. And I certainly disagree that it applies to the day they shot him.

As far as what I called them, no, it did not come from the media. What I did was something I rarely do, and that is to judge a book by its cover. I took one look at the mug shots, saw clips of the video and their behavior and judged them. The media does not sway me, in fact I have not had any news on in weeks and that is my usual way.

The jury is going to have the law explained to them. Like anyone, I guess they have to intuit their reasoning of why he was there, because there seems to be no proof of theft ever, etc. However, the judge will explain the law and tell them what must be found and what they can and cannot apply in their decision, as I am sure we are all aware of. I will say the McMichaels do have a chance if, no offense, they get a person or two on the jury like you, who no matter what, cannot see this as it apparently is. I think we should also keep in mind that no matter what the media says, this is not charged as a hate crime and Georgia does not have such a law. That is not what the jury will be determining imo. It wouldn't matter if they did the same thing to a young white man, a teenager, or an elderly woman of any race, it was still wrong. Maybe I should ask you what you think he was doing in there, but I think we know what you think, you have made that abundantly clear. It is odd to me if he was in there to steal and had been in there before, that no thefts ever occurred and why would he even think he would find anything in there if he had not prior and why would you think he was there to steal or vandalize when he had not prior?

The citizen's arrest law was created for retailers to hold/detain shoplifting subjects. Have you ever seen a shoplifter chased through a parking lot with employees in their cars with shotguns cornering him over a retail theft? And here we don't even have theft nor even breaking and entering. A shoplifter returns to the scene of the crime, the same store. An employee recognizes him and they likely watch him if not tell him to get out and escort him out or call LE. Do they chase him out with shotguns when this time he did not take anything yet? Of course not. Here with Arbery he never ever even took anything that we are aware of, so the shoplifting comparison I just gave is actually worse because again, Arbery took nothing.

I will even be generous and let's say they were worried Arbery had a gun and would turn it on them and even thought (wrongly) that he took something and they had the right to do as they did going after him in such a way. Again to go back to the store owner, citizen's arrest, etc., an employee or two perhaps pursues a suspect in the parking lot, ON FOOT, not in vehicles, they cannot act in the way these men did. There never would be a struggle for a shotgun as one would not be raised. They also generally quit pursuing once a suspect leaves the parking lot and await LE. THERE ARE RULES about citizen's arrests. I will add, ad nauseum, to repeat for the umpteenth time, we also had a former career LE officer/investigator involved here who should KNOWN that very well.

Shots rang out before Arbery ever tried to fight back for the gun as far as I can see. But, sigh, I could repeat this until the cows come home or the sun comes up, and it would make no difference. We disagree.

If you want me or anyone to guess what Arbery was doing there, then we should also be able to guess what the intent was of these three men or of each or what if they had even more time they may have done further. It is no different, it is still assumption and not fact. You also wouldn't like the possibilities that come to my mind and they sure are not from the media...

You have said very little about the third man's arrest if anything at all. It is stated, not by media, but by authorities, that they have plenty of video evidence and proof that he more than once participated and used his vehicle to assist to put it nicely...

And just for the fun of it, since he now is under arrest and I consider him a perp (I am not on the jury, jmo, thus far), I will judge his haircut. He reminds me of Gilligan/Bob Denver or Captain Kangaroo with his bangs. That isn't even an insult to him, for all you know I had a crush on Gilligan.... (Not).

It's very telling that none of you will offer any reasonable explanation as to why he was in the house repeatedly at night. You can keep your head in the sand and believe he was just curious, or seeking water, or dreaming, or whatever. The neighbors who lived there, experienced break-ins, and had seen him before had a pretty good idea what he was up to, and that's why they wanted to talk to him. You just keep falling back on 'But he didn't steal anything!' This is a short-sighted point to make and I've already explained why.

 

[GrandmaBear]

It's very telling that none of you will offer any reasonable explanation as to why he was in the house repeatedly at night. You can keep your head in the sand and believe he was just curious, or seeking water, or dreaming, or whatever. The neighbors who lived there, experienced break-ins, and had seen him before had a pretty good idea what he was up to, and that's why they wanted to talk to him. You just keep falling back on 'But he didn't steal anything!' This is a short-sighted point to make and I've already explained why.

It doesn't matter, that's why. By law, it does not matter. They had no proof, they had no cause.

You could have seen me in a house a month ago, it does not give you the right to shoot me the next time you see me in it some time later. That makes no sense at all. So what?

On another note, I am curious if you have an opinion of the man dead and four cops fired in Minneapolis?

 

[Howell]

Make up your mind.

Again, already explained. Try to follow please. The repeated trespassing provided a "reasonable suspicion" that his intent was to commit a theft and is the justification for pursuing him. The shooting took place because HE ATTACKED THEM.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Again, already explained. Try to follow please. The repeated trespassing provided a "reasonable suspicion" that his intent was to commit a theft and is the justification for pursuing him. The shooting took place because HE ATTACKED THEM.

Why don't you remark on how many store owners have shot a shoplifter and killed him or the store employees? Or cornered a man with two vehicles and a shot gun as well as another firearm? Because they can't, that's why.

 

[Howell]

If they had no fear then why exit with a firearm? Of course they had no reason to fear they were holding firearms on him. He had the reason to fear and was trapped.

I said "fear for their lives". That is, an imminent threat to their lives. They likely brought the guns because, based on the previous encounter with him, they believed he might be armed. Nor is it accurate to say he was "trapped". He had several courses of action he could have taken rather than attacking them.

 

[Howell]

Why don't you remark on how many store owners have shot a shoplifter and killed him or the store employees? Or cornered a man with two vehicles and a shot gun as well as another firearm? Because they can't, that's why.

If an armed store owner or loss prevention officer were attacked by a shoplifter they had confronted, that owner/officer would be justified in using deadly force if in fear for his life.

 

[GrandmaBear]

I said "fear for their lives". That is, an imminent threat to their lives. They likely brought the guns because, based on the previous encounter with him, they believed he might be armed. Nor is it accurate to say he was "trapped". He had several courses of action he could have taken rather than attacking them.

Imminent thread by an unarmed man in shorts and a shirt? What did he have in broad daylight a gun in his shorts, loaded too? What did they see that he stole? That had not shot at them year the three or four minutes they had already tried to corner him. I guess he could have run and risked getting shot in the back at that point of being cornered? These were not cops, for all he knew they were hunting him with intent to kill. At least one shot rang out before he ever tried to get the gun away. That is obvious in the video. That right there, imo, seals the deal.

 

[GrandmaBear]

If an armed store owner or loss prevention officer were attacked by a shoplifter they had confronted, that owner/officer would be justified in using deadly force if in fear for his life.

But sweetie, they would not have had a shotgun held on him to begin with or be in a vehicle chasing him, with help.

 

[Howell]

It doesn't matter, that's why. By law, it does not matter. They had no proof, they had no cause.

You could have seen me in a house a month ago, it does not give you the right to shoot me the next time you see me in it some time later. That makes no sense at all. So what?

On another note, I am curious if you have an opinion of the man dead and four cops fired in Minneapolis?

Again, they don't need "proof", and they didn't shoot him just for being in the house. I'm done explaining this to you.

I don't want to get off topic, but the Minneapolis case appears to be murder imo.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Again, they don't need "proof", and they didn't shoot him just for being in the house. I'm done explaining this to you.

I don't want to get off topic, but the Minneapolis case appears to be murder imo.

Well we can agree on that one, I just watched the video.

Well, most do not agree with you on this one and you don't follow others' logical reasoning at the same time you say people don't follow yours. I think having the law redefined is more in line with your thinking because it does not fit the way your are looking at this. If actualy law enforcement officers did this, they would be looked into over this as well. Honestly, what they did is probably going to end up getting it the citizen's arrest law abolished, just another effect of it. Imo.

 

[Howell]

But sweetie, they would not have had a shotgun held on him to begin with or be in a vehicle chasing him, with help.

Well first, using condescending terms like "sweetie" is an ad hominem and does not make you appear wise. Second, a shoplifter who tries to flee is likely going to be chased, with help. Third, the shotgun wasn't being "held" on Arbery.

 

[Guess Who]

Again, they don't need "proof", and they didn't shoot him just for being in the house. I'm done explaining this to you.

I don't want to get off topic, but the Minneapolis case appears to be murder imo.

You might want to read the actual Georgia law on this because it disagrees with your interpretation of it.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Well first, using condescending terms like "sweetie" is an ad hominem and does not make you appear wise. Second, a shoplifter who tries to flee is likely going to be chased, with help. Third, the shotgun wasn't being "held" on Arbery.

I only used "sweetie" after you condescended in your post to another. It also does not make you look wise, telling people to try to follow along. It makes you look like a condescending arse. I explained the shoplifting far above and what does not happen, I am not going to do it again.

Yes, I am sure no gun was held on Arbery by either man

 

[GrandmaBear]

You might want to read the actual Georgia law on this because it disagrees with your interpretation of it.

I have posted some of those laws. He ignores them.

 

[Howell]

You might want to read the actual Georgia law on this because it disagrees with your interpretation of it.

I understand you interpret it differently. It's going to come down to how the jury interprets it. And unlike yourself and others here, I believe they are going to seriously consider the repeated night time entries by Arbery when trying to determine what his intent was.

 

[Howell]

Imminent thread by an unarmed man in shorts and a shirt? What did he have in broad daylight a gun in his shorts, loaded too? What did they see that he stole? That had not shot at them year the three or four minutes they had already tried to corner him. I guess he could have run and risked getting shot in the back at that point of being cornered? These were not cops, for all he knew they were hunting him with intent to kill. At least one shot rang out before he ever tried to get the gun away. That is obvious in the video. That right there, imo, seals the deal.

Lots of people carry loaded guns in their pockets every day, even in "broad daylight". I'm not sure why you think that's so unusual.