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]

He covers the legality of many things and they're all really well done. He's really good at making things easy to understand for people who don't have law degrees.

Scott Reisch of Crime Talk is another good one for that. He is a Colorado defense attorney and when he can't see much for a defense in some cases, it says a lot. This guy you put up though yes, was extremely thorough, he covered every possible facet in this case!

 

[Howell]

Then why.are they saying it has only been confirmed that it was him seen ONCE on tape? You would think they would know better than you, wouldnt you?

Because they are not being honest, and are feeding you a narrative: "Racist whites murder innocent black jogger!". That's been my point from the beginning. You are being lied to. The media are not going to share/scrutinize information which doesn't support their narrative. You're welcome to believe what the media tell you if you wish. I would urge you to view the footage for yourself and draw your own conclusion.

 

[Cousin Dupree]

Because they are not being honest, and are feeding you a narrative: "Racist whites murder innocent black jogger!". That's been my point from the beginning. You are being lied to. The media are not going to share/scrutinize information which doesn't support their narrative. You're welcome to believe what the media tell you if you wish. I would urge you to view the footage for yourself and draw your own conclusion.

We all have. You are being lied to by your own beliefs. There are a lot of conservatives who see the problem here, and it's not with the black guy.

 

[Howell]

I believe reasonable people saw this footage and a whole lot more footage than we have, examined it all and far more closely than we can, and those people arrested and charged all three men.

Guess what as far as whether that was him or not? It doesn't matter to me as I have reiterated ad nauseum, as I don't think it gives them any just cause for what they did that day. My personal opinion is these men were flat out frustrated that they never could catch him at anything more than entering a house under construction and they assumed he was up to no good, as you are, but they took matters into their own hands without a single cause/right to do so in the way they did.

It may not matter to you whether it was him or not. I think it will matter to the jury. The question will be whether or not the McMichaels had information "within their immediate knowledge" and had "reasonable and probable grounds for suspicion". And yes, I assume Arbery was up to no good, and I've explained why. You've yet to offer any innocent explanation for him being in that house repeatedly at night.

As far as my remark calling them racist, I explained that before as well I said I did something I rarely do and judged a book by its cover because in my opinion that is what they had done with Arbery.

When you choose one person out of many seen in the house, and we don't even know that it was him that was in there on other occasions, and pick and single out just that black one, well it seems kind of logical to me that they just may be assuming a whole lot because he is black and that is racist.

Why do you think they singled him out? What information do you have to indicate that the McMichaels had seen all of the people who entered that house but singled out Arbery? Give it to us, please. You can't do that, because it doesn't exist. But that "seems kind of logical" to you?

 

[Howell]

We all have. You are being lied to by your own beliefs. There are a lot of conservatives who see the problem here, and it's not with the black guy.

Here again, you mention "the black guy". What does race have to do with it? There is no indication within the known facts of this case that the actions taken by the McMichaels were motivated by race. None whatsoever.

 

[GrandmaBear]

It may not matter to you whether it was him or not. I think it will matter to the jury. The question will be whether or not the McMichaels had information "within their immediate knowledge" and had "reasonable and probable grounds for suspicion". And yes, I assume Arbery was up to no good, and I've explained why. You've yet to offer any innocent explanation for him being in that house repeatedly at night.Why do you think they singled him out? What information do you have to indicate that the McMichaels had seen all of the people who entered that house but singled out Arbery? Give it to us, please. You can't do that, because it doesn't exist. But that "seems kind of logical" to you?

I suggest you watch the podcast above on the legal points that @Cousin Dupree posted. I could provide you with others by well respected attorneys, some of them defense attorneys even. I am not an attorney and I doubt you are.

Will your points be brought up to a jury? I suspect it will be tried and they may well be allowed as defense and the charged seem to be allowed a lot of latitude for concern of appeals.

As for your continuing circular arguments, there is no point as you do not look at things that do not support your opinion. You are taking your opinion and trying to make things fit it rather than the other way around. For the umpteenth time, it does not matter what they "assumed", as it does not fit nor give them the right to do as they did.

You are assuming what he was doing there (as they apparently did as there are no thefts nor vandalism that can be attributed to him nor that house under construction); you are assuming what they suspected were reasonable grounds to do as they did under the law, and that is not true. You are the only one who sees the video in the way you do here and seem to miss the first shot. I have seen a few various angles now and all it does is confirm more that the GBI has plenty of reason for arrest and prosecution. I saw a clip recently that shows the man in the back of the truck and it sure appears he has his gun raised before any struggle goes on.

Will a jury see it your way, sure, there may be one or two and that is who the defense has to try to get on the jury. I wouldn't count on it though as their bias will likely show through during the selection process. And even then, that is not an acquittal. I see no way all jurors will acquit because most will see it for what it is.

I personally think if they use the things you are trying to make "fact", which they very well may as it is the only defense they likely have, it is a very weak defense versus the evidence that will be shown and versus the prosecution case.

Just for starters, there are lies in the statements of the men all the way down to the 3rd guy whose attorney said he was just a "witness", per the GBI and the charges. That instantly leaves most jurors a little skeptical of their versions if lies are seen right off the bat. Alternatively, Ahmaud is not here to speak to what he was doing because he is dead.

By the way, in the Mpls. case, you say the vast majority of cops are dirty. Many people think that and I for one, think many are, though not all. You are going to have jurors with that opinion as well I suspect and McMichaels was a cop and it will be drilled in that he should have known better and some are going to see him as a dirty cop who abused power he no longer had and did it illegally and a man ended up dead. Imo. Unfortunately for the three men, this is not the wild west with citizens deputized and posses formed nor is vigilante justice allowed.

Jmo.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Here again, you mention "the black guy". What does race have to do with it? There is no indication within the known facts of this case that the actions taken by the McMichaels were motivated by race. None whatsoever.

He is simply differentiating between who is who. He made nothing about race, you are the one saying that.

Question: Which of the four men standing over there did you see rob the store?

Answer: The white guy (when the other three standing there are black).

It's called a description. You ignore his point and YOU made it about race with your response with all due respect.

 

[GrandmaBear]

Because they are not being honest, and are feeding you a narrative: "Racist whites murder innocent black jogger!". That's been my point from the beginning. You are being lied to. The media are not going to share/scrutinize information which doesn't support their narrative. You're welcome to believe what the media tell you if you wish. I would urge you to view the footage for yourself and draw your own conclusion.

I'll let you in on something. @Guess Who listens to media and believes them about as much as I do. In other words, hardly at all, you keep accusing people of going by it who are not doing any such thing, you have done it to me as well, repeatedly.

You appear to be the one who has not seen all of the video nor listened to it or if you have you have one eye shut or something or one ear plugged. No offense intended.

 

[Guess Who]

Because they are not being honest, and are feeding you a narrative: "Racist whites murder innocent black jogger!". That's been my point from the beginning. You are being lied to. The media are not going to share/scrutinize information which doesn't support their narrative. You're welcome to believe what the media tell you if you wish. I would urge you to view the footage for yourself and draw your own conclusion.

the homeowner stating that no crimes had been committed on his property is NOT the media speaking.

The 911 call where they can't state what crime is being committed is NOT the media speaking.

The prosecutor stating that there is MUCH more tape than what was posted by that idiot that got them charged is NOT the media speaking.

There is much more actual stuff that I am NOT basing from the media.

I draw my conclusions from actual happenings, NOT the media.

 

[Howell]

I suggest you watch the podcast above on the legal points that @Cousin Dupree posted. I could provide you with others by well respected attorneys, some of them defense attorneys even. I am not an attorney and I doubt you are.

Will your points be brought up to a jury? I suspect it will be tried and they may well be allowed as defense and the charged seem to be allowed a lot of latitude for concern of appeals.

As for your continuing circular arguments, there is no point as you do not look at things that do not support your opinion. You are taking your opinion and trying to make things fit it rather than the other way around. For the umpteenth time, it does not matter what they "assumed", as it does not fit nor give them the right to do as they did.

You are assuming what he was doing there (as they apparently did as there are no thefts nor vandalism that can be attributed to him nor that house under construction); you are assuming what they suspected were reasonable grounds to do as they did under the law, and that is not true. You are the only one who sees the video in the way you do here and seem to miss the first shot. I have seen a few various angles now and all it does is confirm more that the GBI has plenty of reason for arrest and prosecution. I saw a clip recently that shows the man in the back of the truck and it sure appears he has his gun raised before any struggle goes on.

Will a jury see it your way, sure, there may be one or two and that is who the defense has to try to get on the jury. I wouldn't count on it though as their bias will likely show through during the selection process. And even then, that is not an acquittal. I see no way all jurors will acquit because most will see it for what it is.

I personally think if they use the things you are trying to make "fact", which they very well may as it is the only defense they likely have, it is a very weak defense versus the evidence that will be shown and versus the prosecution case.

Just for starters, there are lies in the statements of the men all the way down to the 3rd guy whose attorney said he was just a "witness", per the GBI and the charges. That instantly leaves most jurors a little skeptical of their versions if lies are seen right off the bat. Alternatively, Ahmaud is not here to speak to what he was doing because he is dead.

What you continue to call an "assumption" is actually called a reasonable inference. What would you think if you saw someone going through a neighbor's vacant house at night with a flashlight? How about prying at a window with a crowbar? Would you make any "assumptions" about that behavior? Of course you would.

There's really nothing left for us to say on the matter, GB. I think the McMichaels had enough information within their immediate knowledge to justify a reasonable suspicion. They had the right to be armed, and they certainly had the right to go try and talk to Arbery, which is what they did. His being shot was a direct result of him attacking them. I understand you and others disagree. The jury will hear ALL of the legally pertinent information(not just what the media share) and make their decision.

By the way, in the Mpls. case, you say the vast majority of cops are dirty. Many people think that and I for one, think many are, though not all. You are going to have jurors with that opinion as well I suspect and McMichaels was a cop and it will be drilled in that he should have known better and some are going to see him as a dirty cop who abused power he no longer had and did it illegally and a man ended up dead. Imo. Unfortunately for the three men, this is not the wild west with citizens deputized and posses formed nor is vigilante justice allowed. Jmo.

With no condescension intended, please be more careful when quoting or paraphrasing what I've said. I believe the vast majority of cops will lie and cover for their fellow officers when necessary. That's different from being "dirty".

 

[Howell]

He is simply differentiating between who is who. He made nothing about race, you are the one saying that.

Question: Which of the four men standing over there did you see rob the store?

Answer: The white guy (when the other three standing there are black).

It's called a description. You ignore his point and YOU made it about race with your response with all due respect.

No, it's not that simple. The choice of words has meaning. I'm not making this about race; the media and you guys are. He could have simply said "Arbery" or even "the shooting victim". That would've been a more clear description. He said "the black guy" for a reason. And frankly, given your posts on the matter, you're in no position to be defending another's words with regard to race. You've yet to tell us how you came to think the McMichaels were "racist idiots". You say you 'judged a book by its cover'. Which cover? What about the appearance of the McMichaels led you to believe they're "racist idiots"?

 

[Howell]

the homeowner stating that no crimes had been committed on his property is NOT the media speaking.

The 911 call where they can't state what crime is being committed is NOT the media speaking.

The prosecutor stating that there is MUCH more tape than what was posted by that idiot that got them charged is NOT the media speaking.

There is much more actual stuff that I am NOT basing from the media.

I draw my conclusions from actual happenings, NOT the media.

The lies began with the word "jogger". Arbery wasn't jogging in the video, but was clearly running. No one you or I know wears sub-knee cargo shorts to go jogging, but these are just secondary pieces of information you would probably rather ignore.
What if the headline had read "Convicted Thief And Repeated Trespasser Shot After Fleeing And Attacking Good Samaritans"? They could've written that, and it would've met every tenet of journalistic integrity. Might that have swayed your opinion at all?
The media didn't bother to show you the footage of Arbery in the house at the same time they showed you the shooting video, even though it was available to them. Why not? Ask yourself.
All of these choices by the media influence and shape your view of this case, whether you're aware of it or not.

 

[Guess Who]

The lies began with the word "jogger". Arbery wasn't jogging in the video, but was clearly running. No one you or I know wears sub-knee cargo shorts to go jogging, but these are just secondary pieces of information you would probably rather ignore.
What if the headline had read "Convicted Thief And Repeated Trespasser Shot After Fleeing And Attacking Good Samaritans"? They could've written that, and it would've met every tenet of journalistic integrity. Might that have swayed your opinion at all?
The media didn't bother to show you the footage of Arbery in the house at the same time they showed you the shooting video, even though it was available to them. Why not? Ask yourself.
All of these choices by the media influence and shape your view of this case, whether you're aware of it or not.

One, heavily edited piece of video. If you recall, LE stated that there is much more video and is how they ended up charging the person that made the video, but I guess you would probably rather ignore that.

 

[Guess Who]

The lies began with the word "jogger". Arbery wasn't jogging in the video, but was clearly running. No one you or I know wears sub-knee cargo shorts to go jogging, but these are just secondary pieces of information you would probably rather ignore.
What if the headline had read "Convicted Thief And Repeated Trespasser Shot After Fleeing And Attacking Good Samaritans"? They could've written that, and it would've met every tenet of journalistic integrity. Might that have swayed your opinion at all?
The media didn't bother to show you the footage of Arbery in the house at the same time they showed you the shooting video, even though it was available to them. Why not? Ask yourself.
All of these choices by the media influence and shape your view of this case, whether you're aware of it or not.

Ask yourself why the person that made the video chose such a small piece of what he filmed if it was supposed to show what supposedly really happened. The media had nothing to do with that. The media had nothing to do with LE stating that there was a LOT more video of the incident and that is what led to charges.

 

[kdg411]

The lies began with the word "jogger". Arbery wasn't jogging in the video, but was clearly running. No one you or I know wears sub-knee cargo shorts to go jogging, but these are just secondary pieces of information you would probably rather ignore.
What if the headline had read "Convicted Thief And Repeated Trespasser Shot After Fleeing And Attacking Good Samaritans"? They could've written that, and it would've met every tenet of journalistic integrity. Might that have swayed your opinion at all?
The media didn't bother to show you the footage of Arbery in the house at the same time they showed you the shooting video, even though it was available to them. Why not? Ask yourself.
All of these choices by the media influence and shape your view of this case, whether you're aware of it or not.

The media headlines are a very interesting point here. Sensationalism sells, correct? The headline as posted above wouldn't have garnered as much attention, in my opinion. As far as facts of the case thus far, specifically the below excerpt from the initial police report;

Upon my arrival I observed Officer Minshew (184) setting up a perimeter . I began speaking with Gregory McMichael who was a witness to the incident. McMichael stated there have been several break-ins in the neighborhood and further the suspect was caught on surveillance video. McMichael stated he was in his front yard and saw the suspect from the break-ins "hauling ass" down Satilla Drive toward Burford Drive. McMichael stated he then ran inside his house and called to Travis (McMichael) and said " Travis the guy is running down the street lets go". McMichael stated he went to his bedroom and grabbed his .357 Magnum and Travis grabbed his shotgun because they "didn' t know if the male was armed or not". Michael stated "the other night" they saw the same male and he stuck his hand down his pants which lead them to believe the male was armed.

Where I take issue with is Gregory McMichael stating he was in his front yard. He didn't live at the same home of Travis McMichael on Satilla Drive per arrest reports. Next, he says he saw the suspect from the break-ins however there were no break-ins reported, unless I missed that detail.

While I don't believe the McMichael's actions were premeditated, they made the choice to involve themselves instead of letting the legal authorities handle the situation accordingly.

 

[Guess Who]

Ask yourself why the person that made the video chose such a small piece of what he filmed if it was supposed to show what supposedly really happened. The media had nothing to do with that. The media had nothing to do with LE stating that there was a LOT more video of the incident and that is what led to charges.

and btw, before you go off on me stating that I am being influenced by the media, what media do you speak of? I have no cable and I watch very little tv and I don't troll "media" on the web. So what are you calling "media"?

 

[Guess Who]

The media headlines are a very interesting point here. Sensationalism sells, correct? The headline as posted above wouldn't have garnered as much attention, in my opinion. As far as facts of the case thus far, specifically the below excerpt from the initial police report;


Where I take issue with is Gregory McMichael stating he was in his front yard. He didn't live at the same home of Travis McMichael on Satilla Drive per arrest reports. Next, he says he saw the suspect from the break-ins however there were no break-ins reported, unless I missed that detail.

While I don't believe the McMichael's actions were premeditated, they made the choice to involve themselves instead of letting the legal authorities handle the situation accordingly.

The owner of the home under construction has stated that no crimes have been committed at that house.

 

[Guess Who]

The media headlines are a very interesting point here. Sensationalism sells, correct? The headline as posted above wouldn't have garnered as much attention, in my opinion. As far as facts of the case thus far, specifically the below excerpt from the initial police report;


Where I take issue with is Gregory McMichael stating he was in his front yard. He didn't live at the same home of Travis McMichael on Satilla Drive per arrest reports. Next, he says he saw the suspect from the break-ins however there were no break-ins reported, unless I missed that detail.

While I don't believe the McMichael's actions were premeditated, they made the choice to involve themselves instead of letting the legal authorities handle the situation accordingly.

and a 911 call was made right before this incident and action was denied because the caller couldn't state the crime that was being committed. They then somehow thought 3 of them chasing a guy down with loaded shotguns was a good idea.

 

[kdg411]

The owner of the home under construction has stated that no crimes have been committed at that house.

And to add to that, Larry English didn't know the McMichaels (per his attorney) and had never shared his surveillance videos with them. Correct?

 

[Guess Who]

And to add to that, Larry English didn't know the McMichaels (per his attorney) and had never shared his surveillance videos with them. Correct?

I think he shared them on the Nextdoor ap, if I remember correctly and put it out to the neighborhood. It could have been the Neighbors ap which is very similar, but more private on who posted it.