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


1588813454918.png 1588813480378.png
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 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.”
 

Attachments

  • 1588813857428.png
    1588813857428.png
    101.5 KB · Views: 2
If true, one almost has to assume the mother of Arbery approved her family attorney giving this info to the news of a requested plea deal. It is logical because the prosecution is going to put a deal for her thoughts and even say or recommend whether to consider it or not.

It came from her family attorney. I'm not knocking it and these men deserve everything they are going to get but I don't think either that talking to the media and saying things like Bryan is worried the state's case is strong is really wise when one already considers the publicity factor in this case, motions for mistrials and a most definite likelihood the appeals will start immediately after things end in this courtroom or close to it.

It brings me to a thought though of how would that work in a trial of more than one defendant? If a deal was struck, I assume the jurors would not deliberate about a verdict for Roddie. Yet if the jurors are told he struck a deal, isn't that going to look to the jurors he may feel he is guilty of at least some things and then figure of course the other two must be guilty then too....? I mean I wonder how it would be handled so one plea deal does not affect deliberations etc. about the guilt of the other two...

These multi defendant trials we see so rarely that how that would work who knows...?
 
The Judge has taken a 15 minute recess because counsel has just "argued his brain into mush".

For reference, the argument is regarding
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.
 
The Judge has taken a 15 minute recess because counsel has just "argued his brain into mush".

For reference, the argument is regarding
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.
:) None of the defendants even told LE they were doing a citizen arrest.
 
The Judge has taken a 15 minute recess because counsel has just "argued his brain into mush".

For reference, the argument is regarding
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.
so what felony did he commit? I mean the dude was in running shorts and t-shirt. What in the world could he even have on him from a construction site that would be a grounds for a felony? This seems like an non argument to me.
 
I don't suppose it is surprising that they need to argue and try to use this in the defense. It has long been though imo clear that it DOESN'T apply to the circumstances in this case.

I suppose at best they can claim maybe to not have known the details and letters of this particular law and THOUGHT they had a right to detain or arrest someone. That would be at best and is really no defense other than saying they thought they had the right but now realize they didn't... Well, if you don't know, you don't do it.

And as stated above, they never claimed it was what they were doing anyhow although they would probably like to use it now...

You know if they saw someone snatch a child and took off after that person, they'd be in a different boat all together. But nope, these guys didn't even have a felony, no crime, nothing but suspicion...

I suppose the Judge after facts of the case have been tried and heard has to listen to the argument. At first I thought this should have been hammered out before trial but all witnesses wouldn't have testified yet nor all facts been presented so it makes sense it would come at this point near the end.

The law does not fit this situation from what most of us can see or tell anyhow, and I believe experts through the last year or more have said the same or most have... Meaning lawyers, etc...
 
Not one of them was current LE. Again, the defendants never told LE or anyone else that they were doing a citizen arrest. Travis said the same thing when he testified.
but my point was that even as a former LE he would know what a felony arrest would consist of and should know the citizens arrest rule that a felony was being committed.
 
My brain is mush now, lol. The Judge adjourned until 9am Monday to review the final jury charges & 'hopes' to get started with closing arguments.

Here is the 2nd part of this afternoon's conference.

 
The only thing I can think of with carjacking is did he attempt to find a car or take a car or get inside a car when he was trying to get away from them? It can't count unless it was on that occasion/on that day I don't think.

I know the case but didn't watch the trial? Was there more video or something we hadn't seen or a witness's testimony or neighbor's or door cam or somethiing?

I don't know where it came from either and I'd like to know...
 
The only thing I can think of with carjacking is did he attempt to find a car or take a car or get inside a car when he was trying to get away from them? It can't count unless it was on that occasion/on that day I don't think.

I know the case but didn't watch the trial? Was there more video or something we hadn't seen or a witness's testimony or neighbor's or door cam or somethiing?

I don't know where it came from either and I'd like to know...
The only two cars involved were those driven by the McMichaels and the neighbor
 
The only two cars involved were those driven by the McMichaels and the neighbor
Thanks. Yes, I know in general but I am just wondering where the mention of an attempted carjacking is coming from, they must think they have some basis, well maybe, and I sure never have seen anything to indicate that in the videos nor anything else...
 

Forum statistics

Threads
3,006
Messages
240,515
Members
965
Latest member
tanya
Back
Top Bottom