GoBuckeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2016
- Messages
- 4,314
- Reaction score
- 23,893
Thank you for the link.
GA - Ahmaud Arbery, 25, jogger, fatally shot by former PD and son, Brunswick, Feb 2020 #2
- Thread starter Cryptic
- Start date
New Posts
-
Deceased/Not Found TX - Kristen Galvan, 15, sex trafficked, Spring, 2 Jan 2020 *guilty*
- Latest: Unalienable Rights
- Status
Thank you for the link.
We'll see if their was any type of sufficient no trespassing notice. Personally, I think it's one thing to have to put up a no trespassing sign on property that's not obviously private (like the woods along a roadway) and another to have to put up a no trespassing sign on a single home under construction on a street in an existing community. That's just stupid, imo. Like the warning not to fold your baby up in a stroller.
Though I share your view and would consider myself trespassing if I went into a construction site, the over kill reaction of these three men towards selected trespassers warrants a full letter of the law application.
There seem to be three hurdles:
Hurdle one: Did AA actually commit a crime?
Hurdle two: If AA committed a crime, did any of the men have direct knowledge of it? None were the owner nor were they an agent of the owner (Perez was). Thus, it might be hard for them to know whether or not AA had permission to say, use a hose. English has already stated that they were not acting on his behalf.
Hurdle three: If AA committed a crime and if the trio had direct knowledge of it, the Georgia Supreme Court has ruled that those initiating a citizens arrest must use force proportional to the offense. Criminal trespass is a pretty low level offense.
My guess is that the three stumble badly right off the starter's blocks on the first hurdle. The race then goes up a very steep hill to the second hurdle before facing the very high hurdle. Heck, it seems that if they miss the first hurdle, the race is already over.
Last edited:
Thinking some more about Perez, both his credibility and his appearances on the day AA was killed, I went back over what happened (and did not happen) on February 11. Reviewing what is known, IMO it’s clear that Perez lied in his interview with the AJC about what happened that night, as did TM, (by omission, at the very least), while he was still on the scene, during his call to 911.
According to English, he texted Perez video shortly after the motion camera tripped, while the unknown male was still inside his unfinished house. So, the unknown male was already inside the structure when Perez, armed, left his home.
In the video, lights from a vehicle driving on Satilla can be seen, and what sounds like a loud truck driving by can be heard. The vehicle appears to be driving in the direction of the homes of Perez and the MMs-entering the neighborhood. An unknown black male (UBN) enters/appears from the left seconds later, strolling, showing no indication of worry or hurry. In fact, his movements inside the structure are precisely those seen of the UBM in the video of December 2019. The 2/11 video is approx. 1 minute long.
This was the video Perez received by text just before leaving his house, and it was the only video captured by English’s motion cameras that night. Meaning……the unknown male did NOT exit and return onto E’s construction site. .
-------------
FEBRUARY 11.
Perez’s account to the AJC: He armed himself, left his house, began walking up Satilla. (His house is halfway between the construction site and the MMs). As he walked, TM drove up from the opposite direction and stopped his truck.
By inference, as Perez gives a second hand account of what happened next (according to Perez), Perez and TM spoke. TM told Perez he had seen an UBM in the yard and stopped; that he had confronted the man halfway into the yard, at which point the point the man “reached for his waistband.” Next, according to Perez, “TM got spooked and went down the road. When TM returned, GM was with him and armed."(Note- Perez was standing in that road that TM "went down." So, did TM tell Perez he was going to fetch GM?)
According to Perez, after the 3 met up, GM then called the Glynn Co PD. (Police call logs don’t note receiving a call from GM. The only call on record made was by TM, to 911).
Perez also told the AJC that when LE arrived, he described the vehicle to the LEO he believes the man entered before it drove away.” (Neither Rash’s incident report or police call logs mention Perez at all, nor conversation(s) with any neighborhood witnesses, nor that Perez or any other person witnessed an UBM
“entering a car,” much less a description of that vehicle. The absurdity of this lie is laid bare by the fact that after LE arrived, they first searched the house. Why search the house if they’d been told by a witness the UBM had been driven away? Note also where TM said he was….)
--------------------
PEREZ, what he texted English that night: "The police showed up and we all searched for a good while. I think he got spooked and ran after Travis confronted him. Travis says the guy ran into the house.”
---------------------
ROBERT LEE RASH, first LEO on the scene Feb 11, from his police incident report:
“TM said as he drove down Satilla he observed the unknown male cut across the property of 218 and enter onto the property of 220 Satilla. MM said as he turned around and returned to the property, he observed the unknown male run back through the open house under construction toward the area of the backyard. MM watched the front of the property until LE arrived.” (Note, no mention of TM even getting out of his truck, much less confronting the UBM).
(Rash “searched the property and adjacent area” then called English).
----------------------------------
Police call details reports for 2/11 note that TM’s 911 call originated at 7:27PM.
The CDR has several entries logged for the next minute, 7: 28: That “the male” was still in the house, that “Caller is sitting right across the street in his truck,” and, that “Caller just chased him.” (The call details are based on what TM told the 911 dispatcher. But…TM does NOT tell the dispatcher he chased the UBM).
---------------------
TM’s call to 911 (verbatim transcript of what TM said, paraphrased/shortened for dispatcher)
TM: " We’ve had a string of burglaries and I was leaving the neighborhood and I just caught a guy running into a house being built 2 houses down from me. When I turned around he took off running into the house.”
(Dispatcher asks about “the house”)
TM: “It’s vacant, being built, he is IN the house.” (panting heavily).
Dispatcher: (Where are you right now?)
TM: “I am sitting right across the street, in my truck, watching the house.”
Dispatcher: (Are you ok?)
TM: “Yah, it just kinda startled me. When I turned around and saw him and backed up, he reached into his pocket and ran into the house. So I don’t know if he’s armed or not, but he looked like he was acting like he was. So, be mindful of that.”
Dispatcher: (Which pocket did he reach into?)
TM: “Left, I believe.”
TM blurts out during pause by dispatcher (3.14 minutes into the call):
TM: “I guess he doesn’t realize we’re here, he’s got the lights on, he’s got a damn flashlight on looking through the house. “ (Note: the same UBM who just fled into the house after being caught by TM, possibly reaching for a gun, doesn't realize TM and others are outside??)
Dispatcher: (You just stay where you’re at so the officers will know…).
TM: “Will do.”
Dispatcher: (So you say he was a black male, did he have hair on his head, any other features you can tell me about? )
TM: “I couldn’t tell. He just looked like…short hair.”
Dispatcher: (Was he tall, short..)
TM: “He was tall. Probably about 6 foot.”
TM: “I guess one of the other neighbors saw him. There are about 4 of us around here right now. “ (still panting, less so).(Note: “one of the neighbors” and one of the 4 present is presumably Perez, who "saw him" on the video E texted, though TM doesn't explain that to the dispatcher.)
And one of the 4 there is presumably GM. So-how did he know to be there, and within minutes? Especially if TM supposedly never left his truck? IMO-TM lied about not running to fetch GM. If so, why?)
Dispatcher: (So what happened when you first saw him?)
TM: “He was trying to sneak behind a bush. He was coming through someone’s yard when I looked back, and uh, and uh, he was trying to sneak behind a bush, and when I drove on by he got behind (the red portapotty in front).” (Note: there are no bushes on the 218 (front) side of E’s property).
“And when I backed up he looked at me, and when I backed up, he reached into his pockets, I kinda watched him and then he ran off into the house, and he stepped out and then went back into the house, and that’s when I called, called y’all.” (Note: no mention of ever getting out of his truck, no fetching of GM, no chasing after/confrontation with unknown male. And only one, continuous video-the motion sensor didn’t trip a second time. And-the UBM in the video is not carrying/holding anything in his hands-neither gun or flashlight).
TM: “We’ve been having a lot of burglaries and break-ins around here lately, and I had a pistol stolen from me January 1, actually, and I’ve never seen this guy before in the neighborhood. We’ve been kinda keeping an eye you know, and sure enough, (there’s someone lurking through the yards?) you know.”
Dispatcher: (Can you see them {LE}?)
TM: (5:54 minutes into the call) “Yah, they’re pulling in now. Coming in hot…”
-------------------------------------------
BTW notes:
Rash, 2/11 incident report: “ After searching the property and adjacent area (I called English). English (said that the 2/11 male seen appeared to be the same male seen in 2019 videos). “Once again English stated it appeared the unknown male is only trespassing and plundering around as he has yet to see anything has been taken.”
Police CD report note: At 8:11 PM Rash makes “nature change” of the reported charge from “burglary” to “trespassing.”
Perez: at the scene immediately after AA was killed, said he recognized AA as the man “they had confronted (on Feb 11).
PEREZ: According to E’s attorney, Perez shared the texts and videos English sent him about trespassers with one or both the MMs. English began texting Perez in mid-October. English remembers that Perez heard about the unauthorized entry that month (the 1st) . English reported it to LE, but doesn’t know how Perez heard about it, or that English had “some videos, and that some different people had been on the videos.” English said Perez contacted him, told English he had some tools stolen from the back of his truck around the same time, and “let me know that if there were ever a situation or an instance that I need to call him."
English shared the October video with Perez (who gave him P’s number?) and Perez texted back:
"Goodness. If you catch someone on your cameras, let me know right away, I can respond in mere seconds. It’s totally up to you. Our yards connect in the back and I can go either way, through he front or back, with your permission.
Link: Video shows person at construction site 12 days before Ahmaud Arbery’s death
Link to video only: Security camera video captured Feb. 11 inside home under construction
Link: Suspects in Arbery shooting had earlier neighborhood confrontation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to English, he texted Perez video shortly after the motion camera tripped, while the unknown male was still inside his unfinished house. So, the unknown male was already inside the structure when Perez, armed, left his home.
In the video, lights from a vehicle driving on Satilla can be seen, and what sounds like a loud truck driving by can be heard. The vehicle appears to be driving in the direction of the homes of Perez and the MMs-entering the neighborhood. An unknown black male (UBN) enters/appears from the left seconds later, strolling, showing no indication of worry or hurry. In fact, his movements inside the structure are precisely those seen of the UBM in the video of December 2019. The 2/11 video is approx. 1 minute long.
This was the video Perez received by text just before leaving his house, and it was the only video captured by English’s motion cameras that night. Meaning……the unknown male did NOT exit and return onto E’s construction site. .
-------------
FEBRUARY 11.
Perez’s account to the AJC: He armed himself, left his house, began walking up Satilla. (His house is halfway between the construction site and the MMs). As he walked, TM drove up from the opposite direction and stopped his truck.
By inference, as Perez gives a second hand account of what happened next (according to Perez), Perez and TM spoke. TM told Perez he had seen an UBM in the yard and stopped; that he had confronted the man halfway into the yard, at which point the point the man “reached for his waistband.” Next, according to Perez, “TM got spooked and went down the road. When TM returned, GM was with him and armed."(Note- Perez was standing in that road that TM "went down." So, did TM tell Perez he was going to fetch GM?)
According to Perez, after the 3 met up, GM then called the Glynn Co PD. (Police call logs don’t note receiving a call from GM. The only call on record made was by TM, to 911).
Perez also told the AJC that when LE arrived, he described the vehicle to the LEO he believes the man entered before it drove away.” (Neither Rash’s incident report or police call logs mention Perez at all, nor conversation(s) with any neighborhood witnesses, nor that Perez or any other person witnessed an UBM
“entering a car,” much less a description of that vehicle. The absurdity of this lie is laid bare by the fact that after LE arrived, they first searched the house. Why search the house if they’d been told by a witness the UBM had been driven away? Note also where TM said he was….)
--------------------
PEREZ, what he texted English that night: "The police showed up and we all searched for a good while. I think he got spooked and ran after Travis confronted him. Travis says the guy ran into the house.”
---------------------
ROBERT LEE RASH, first LEO on the scene Feb 11, from his police incident report:
“TM said as he drove down Satilla he observed the unknown male cut across the property of 218 and enter onto the property of 220 Satilla. MM said as he turned around and returned to the property, he observed the unknown male run back through the open house under construction toward the area of the backyard. MM watched the front of the property until LE arrived.” (Note, no mention of TM even getting out of his truck, much less confronting the UBM).
(Rash “searched the property and adjacent area” then called English).
----------------------------------
Police call details reports for 2/11 note that TM’s 911 call originated at 7:27PM.
The CDR has several entries logged for the next minute, 7: 28: That “the male” was still in the house, that “Caller is sitting right across the street in his truck,” and, that “Caller just chased him.” (The call details are based on what TM told the 911 dispatcher. But…TM does NOT tell the dispatcher he chased the UBM).
---------------------
TM’s call to 911 (verbatim transcript of what TM said, paraphrased/shortened for dispatcher)
TM: " We’ve had a string of burglaries and I was leaving the neighborhood and I just caught a guy running into a house being built 2 houses down from me. When I turned around he took off running into the house.”
(Dispatcher asks about “the house”)
TM: “It’s vacant, being built, he is IN the house.” (panting heavily).
Dispatcher: (Where are you right now?)
TM: “I am sitting right across the street, in my truck, watching the house.”
Dispatcher: (Are you ok?)
TM: “Yah, it just kinda startled me. When I turned around and saw him and backed up, he reached into his pocket and ran into the house. So I don’t know if he’s armed or not, but he looked like he was acting like he was. So, be mindful of that.”
Dispatcher: (Which pocket did he reach into?)
TM: “Left, I believe.”
TM blurts out during pause by dispatcher (3.14 minutes into the call):
TM: “I guess he doesn’t realize we’re here, he’s got the lights on, he’s got a damn flashlight on looking through the house. “ (Note: the same UBM who just fled into the house after being caught by TM, possibly reaching for a gun, doesn't realize TM and others are outside??)
Dispatcher: (You just stay where you’re at so the officers will know…).
TM: “Will do.”
Dispatcher: (So you say he was a black male, did he have hair on his head, any other features you can tell me about? )
TM: “I couldn’t tell. He just looked like…short hair.”
Dispatcher: (Was he tall, short..)
TM: “He was tall. Probably about 6 foot.”
TM: “I guess one of the other neighbors saw him. There are about 4 of us around here right now. “ (still panting, less so).(Note: “one of the neighbors” and one of the 4 present is presumably Perez, who "saw him" on the video E texted, though TM doesn't explain that to the dispatcher.)
And one of the 4 there is presumably GM. So-how did he know to be there, and within minutes? Especially if TM supposedly never left his truck? IMO-TM lied about not running to fetch GM. If so, why?)
Dispatcher: (So what happened when you first saw him?)
TM: “He was trying to sneak behind a bush. He was coming through someone’s yard when I looked back, and uh, and uh, he was trying to sneak behind a bush, and when I drove on by he got behind (the red portapotty in front).” (Note: there are no bushes on the 218 (front) side of E’s property).
“And when I backed up he looked at me, and when I backed up, he reached into his pockets, I kinda watched him and then he ran off into the house, and he stepped out and then went back into the house, and that’s when I called, called y’all.” (Note: no mention of ever getting out of his truck, no fetching of GM, no chasing after/confrontation with unknown male. And only one, continuous video-the motion sensor didn’t trip a second time. And-the UBM in the video is not carrying/holding anything in his hands-neither gun or flashlight).
TM: “We’ve been having a lot of burglaries and break-ins around here lately, and I had a pistol stolen from me January 1, actually, and I’ve never seen this guy before in the neighborhood. We’ve been kinda keeping an eye you know, and sure enough, (there’s someone lurking through the yards?) you know.”
Dispatcher: (Can you see them {LE}?)
TM: (5:54 minutes into the call) “Yah, they’re pulling in now. Coming in hot…”
-------------------------------------------
BTW notes:
Rash, 2/11 incident report: “ After searching the property and adjacent area (I called English). English (said that the 2/11 male seen appeared to be the same male seen in 2019 videos). “Once again English stated it appeared the unknown male is only trespassing and plundering around as he has yet to see anything has been taken.”
Police CD report note: At 8:11 PM Rash makes “nature change” of the reported charge from “burglary” to “trespassing.”
Perez: at the scene immediately after AA was killed, said he recognized AA as the man “they had confronted (on Feb 11).
PEREZ: According to E’s attorney, Perez shared the texts and videos English sent him about trespassers with one or both the MMs. English began texting Perez in mid-October. English remembers that Perez heard about the unauthorized entry that month (the 1st) . English reported it to LE, but doesn’t know how Perez heard about it, or that English had “some videos, and that some different people had been on the videos.” English said Perez contacted him, told English he had some tools stolen from the back of his truck around the same time, and “let me know that if there were ever a situation or an instance that I need to call him."
English shared the October video with Perez (who gave him P’s number?) and Perez texted back:
"Goodness. If you catch someone on your cameras, let me know right away, I can respond in mere seconds. It’s totally up to you. Our yards connect in the back and I can go either way, through he front or back, with your permission.
Link: Video shows person at construction site 12 days before Ahmaud Arbery’s death
Link to video only: Security camera video captured Feb. 11 inside home under construction
Link: Suspects in Arbery shooting had earlier neighborhood confrontation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited:
I generally agree if the citizens arrest angle is the angle they pursue, but I’m thinking this case will go down the route of false imprisonment v self defense. Jmo
I am thinking the opposite.
People (AA, in this case) have a very broad right to defend themselves against false imprisonment. Likewise, I think it would be too hard for defendants to claim:
Well, we started chasing this man for no reason, repeatedly attempted to corner him, and...advanced towards him with weapons- then we hmm..... "defended ourselves".
Rather, my guess is that the defendants need to present a legal reason to try to detain him: "We were attempting a citizens arrest...."
That defense has a lot of very high hurdles with 'Citizens Arrest gone bad'- but from the defense POV, at least they get to try to run the race.
Last edited:
sds71
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 13,097
- Reaction score
- 143,180
sds71
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 13,097
- Reaction score
- 143,180
BRUNSWICK, Ga. (AP) — He was at a crossroads, his life stretching out before him, his troubles largely behind him. He had enrolled at South Georgia Technical College, preparing to become an electrician, just like his uncles. But first, he decided, he would take a break. College could wait until the fall.
To help keep his head clear, he ran, just about every day. Off he’d go, out of the doors of his mother’s house, down the long street toward Fancy Bluff Road. Then would come the right turn onto the two-lane road lined by oak trees draped with Spanish moss.
About a mile and a half into his usual route, Ahmaud Arbery would cross the four lanes of Jekyll Island Causeway into the subdivision of Satilla Shores.
Three months ago, at the age of 25, he ran through Satilla Shores for the final time...
In his final days, Ahmaud Arbery's life was at a crossroads
To help keep his head clear, he ran, just about every day. Off he’d go, out of the doors of his mother’s house, down the long street toward Fancy Bluff Road. Then would come the right turn onto the two-lane road lined by oak trees draped with Spanish moss.
About a mile and a half into his usual route, Ahmaud Arbery would cross the four lanes of Jekyll Island Causeway into the subdivision of Satilla Shores.
Three months ago, at the age of 25, he ran through Satilla Shores for the final time...
In his final days, Ahmaud Arbery's life was at a crossroads
Nadi
Former member.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2015
- Messages
- 96
- Reaction score
- 795
SBM
going from your post and the repeated posts about "Criminal Trespass", I don't see how this qualified as Criminal Trespass based on the definition of Criminal Trespass in Georgia as outlined here:
Georgia Code Title 16. Crimes and Offenses § 16-7-21 | FindLaw
From the above link the requirements for it to be Criminal Trespass seem to be as follows:
- intentional damage to the property and the damage is under 500.00
- enters for an unlawful purpose (to commit burglary etc)
- enters property after receiving notice not to enter from the owner of the property or an authorized representative (who provides proper identification prior to giving notice)
- remains on the property after receiving notice not to enter from the owner of the property or an authorized representative (who provides proper identification prior to giving notice)
I 'm in total agreement with your assessment about the hurdles. I don't think they even made it past the first one.
Sunshine99
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2018
- Messages
- 90
- Reaction score
- 336
Routine Activity Theory has been used in court to prove a certain member of a certain group of people in a certain area can reasonably be expected to become violent and commit criminal violence.Routine activity theory - Wikipedia
- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 38,809
- Reaction score
- 115,279
<rsbm>
Nadi, with regard to #3, there are images online of a No Trespassing sign posted. Pretty sure that would constitute "notice". I'm just not convinced the sign was there prior to this incident though. In the video where Ahmaud goes past the portable toilet, a tree blocks precisely where the sign would have been visible in that video. (ETA: Based on lack of shadow where the sign would have been however, I suspect it was NOT there when the video was taken)
Video
This comes up in this google image search but for some reason I can't get it to load by clicking on the CNN link underneath the pic. You'll have to scroll down about 15 clicks depending on your resolution.
IMO, even if the sign was posted prior to Ahmaud's killing, the fact that others were known to trespass without incident would seem to indicate he was targeted while others were not.
Last edited:
Good find on the actual law. As you stated, one of the four prongs must be applicable to AA- and apparently none are.
English has stated emphatically that the MMs and presumable W were not acting on his behalf as representatives Thus, they apparently cant climb the second hurdle either (direct knowledge of crime- even if there was one).
In short, the defendants appear to be sunk on the first hurdle (Did AA actually commit any crime?) and also the second hurdle (If a crime was committed, did they have direct knowledge?). Thus, they cant even attempt the third hurdle (Was force proportional to the offense?).
Though apparently a moot point if they cant even clear hurdle one, the defendants may counter that E had, in fact, made them representatives in regards to hurdle two. In his recasting of himself, E has appears to have withdrawn the 2K theft claim and also claims that he never truly talked to the MMs.
Though it is possible that E has also recast whether or not the MMs were representatives, my bet is that the MMs must actively prove it. This maybe hard- espescially if E currently denies it.
Nadi
Former member.
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2015
- Messages
- 96
- Reaction score
- 795
<rsbm>
Nadi, with regard to #3, there are images online of a No Trespassing sign posted. Pretty sure that would constitute "notice". I'm just not convinced the sign was there prior to this incident though. In the video where Ahmaud goes past the portable toilet, a tree blocks precisely where the sign would have been visible in that video. (ETA: Based on lack of shadow where the sign would have been however, I suspect it was NOT there when the video was taken)
Video
This comes up in this google image search but for some reason I can't get it to load by clicking on the CNN link underneath the pic. You'll have to scroll down about 15 clicks depending on your resolution.
IMO, even if the sign was posted prior to Ahmaud's killing, the fact that others were known to trespass without incident would seem to indicate he was targeted while others were not.
While many other States have clear language in their laws regarding trespass and signage, Georgia does not and the language regarding Notice is open to interpretation, especially since the wording specifically states the the person has to "receive Notice" and not that "Notice has been given". I work in a law firm in Canada and the requirements of Notice given/received changes depending on the circumstance. In some circumstances it has to be served in person, for other purposes it has to be sent by registered mail etc.
Even IF a sign does meet the definition of "Notice", I would agree that the tree blocking the location the sign might be and that there is no shadow extending to the right of the tree indicates that there was no sign at that location. In order for a sign to qualify as Notice based on Georgia law, the sign would have to be prominently displayed at the front perimeter of the property in order to fulfill the requirement that the person entered the property "after receiving Notice". The Notice (sign) would have to be visible before someone stepped foot on the property.
tlcya
Old and Re-Tired Websleuth
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 42,277
- Reaction score
- 66,162
"The mother and father of Ahmaud Arbery and their legal team met with officials from the Dept. of Justice late last week, including Bobby Christine, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District.
According to Mr. Christine, his office is investigating why it took so long to arrest the individuals responsible for Mr. Arbery's death. This would involve the consideration of both civil and criminal charges against state officials and other conspirators involved in the murder of Ahmaud Arbery.
We left that meeting feeling satisfied that the DOJ would do their part to fully investigate all players involved in this murder and that they would hold those responsible accountable."
U.S. Attorney considering charges against state officials in Arbery case, family's lawyers say
“They wanted us to know they had already been involved in the investigation," Merritt said.
Barry Paschal, a spokesman for Christine, declined to confirm or deny whether the meeting happened.
“Our office does not discuss active investigations, including addressing whether or not those investigations exist,” Paschal said.
Arbery family lawyer: Feds looking into how case handled
S. Lee Merritt, an attorney for the family of Ahmaud Arbery, told CNN on Monday that the US Department of Justice is investigating the shooting death as a hate crime.
Merritt said he learned about the development after meeting with United States Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia Bobby Christine on Thursday.
Ahmaud Arbery killing being investigated as federal hate crime, family attorney says - CNN
According to Mr. Christine, his office is investigating why it took so long to arrest the individuals responsible for Mr. Arbery's death. This would involve the consideration of both civil and criminal charges against state officials and other conspirators involved in the murder of Ahmaud Arbery.
We left that meeting feeling satisfied that the DOJ would do their part to fully investigate all players involved in this murder and that they would hold those responsible accountable."
U.S. Attorney considering charges against state officials in Arbery case, family's lawyers say
“They wanted us to know they had already been involved in the investigation," Merritt said.
Barry Paschal, a spokesman for Christine, declined to confirm or deny whether the meeting happened.
“Our office does not discuss active investigations, including addressing whether or not those investigations exist,” Paschal said.
Arbery family lawyer: Feds looking into how case handled
S. Lee Merritt, an attorney for the family of Ahmaud Arbery, told CNN on Monday that the US Department of Justice is investigating the shooting death as a hate crime.
Merritt said he learned about the development after meeting with United States Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia Bobby Christine on Thursday.
Ahmaud Arbery killing being investigated as federal hate crime, family attorney says - CNN
This applies to GM only, if his case goes to trial, and on the current charges.
DA Barnhill’s recusal letter may or may not be entered into evidence, but the original police report, written on the day AA was killed, almost certainly will be. That report was written by Glynn County LE, the same PD that had responded to each of the 4 prior calls involving an UBM on E’s construction site.
The same county LE who had in every instance been informed by English that nothing had been taken, the same LE that had noted in their reports the involved offense was TRESPASSING, a misdemeanor (onto an OPEN construction site, as opposed to INTO a finished vacant structure, a legal distinction made each time by responding LE)
And perhaps most crucially, the same PD of Robert Lee Rash, who on February 11, while still at the scene (8:11PM), perhaps with GM also still on the scene, explicitly changed the incident charge from burglary, a felony, to trespassing, a misdemeanor.
What GM told LE on the 23rd, hours after AA’s death, about WHY and HOW he pursued AA will matter. IMO, the fact that GM is ex-LE might well count against him at trial, given that he can be presumed to have knowledge of GA law, including the difference between a “break-in” and trespassing.
----------------------------
THE WHY : From the Feb 23 police report: “GM stated that there had been several break- ins in the neighborhood and further the suspect was caught on surveillance video.” He stated he was in his front yard when “he saw the suspect from the break-ins ”hauling a-ss down Satilla Drive towards Burford Drive. They grabbed their guns because “they didn’t know if he was armed or not” and took off in pursuit. No mention here or anywhere else in the report that GM’s intention was to make an arrest.
THE HOW: (according to what GM told LE, and given other videos not yet public, their actions are likely even more incriminating)
1. Travis tried to “cut him off” with their truck.
2. Roddy tried to “block him” with his truck.
3. GM jumped in the bed of the truck and he and TM drove to Holmes to “try to intercept him.” (leaves out Roddy).
4. They saw him on Holmes and shouted “stop, stop, we want to talk to you.” (If that even happened, according to GM’s narrative, it was the first time any of the 3 said anything to AA, after about 3 minutes into their chase/trying to trap him with trucks. And, “talking to” isn’t notification of an intent to arrest.).
5. GM told LE they pulled up beside AA and shouted stop again, at which point TM exited the truck with his shotgun. (Lies. Caught on videotape. And, GM and TM each had seconds to yell “stop” or their intentions as AA ran towards them, BEFORE he reached their truck parked in the middle of the road. Neither did).
6. GM said that AA began to violently attack TM…….
--------------------------------------
IMO, there isn’t much doubt that what GM describes (and what’s seen on the video) are attempts to corner AA in order to DETAIN him, whatever GM intended to follow after (or if) they managed to detain him.
According to GA law, detaining follows a lawful arrest, not the other way around, and to detain a fellow private citizen, the arresting citizen must have, bare minimum, REASONABLE grounds to suspect the fellow private citizen he wants to detain has committed a FELONY.
“ A private person may arrest an offender, if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge; and detain him, if it is a felony, upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion. Code §§ 27-201, 27-211; Long v. State, 12 Ga. 293 (4); Moore v. State, 128 Ga. App. 20 (195 SE2d 275).”
Link: Cash v State (GA Court of Appeals) Link: Cash v. State
-------------------------------
BTW, one more likely reason why DA Barnhill likely didn’t even try to argue misdemeanor trespassing as justification:
“A private person may make an arrest for a misdemeanor offense only when that offense occurs within his presence and moreover, the arrest must occur immediately after the perpetration of that offense.”
Link: Williams v State (GA Court of Appeals) 320 S.E.2d 546 (Ga.App. 1984), 65806, Williams v. State
DA Barnhill’s recusal letter may or may not be entered into evidence, but the original police report, written on the day AA was killed, almost certainly will be. That report was written by Glynn County LE, the same PD that had responded to each of the 4 prior calls involving an UBM on E’s construction site.
The same county LE who had in every instance been informed by English that nothing had been taken, the same LE that had noted in their reports the involved offense was TRESPASSING, a misdemeanor (onto an OPEN construction site, as opposed to INTO a finished vacant structure, a legal distinction made each time by responding LE)
And perhaps most crucially, the same PD of Robert Lee Rash, who on February 11, while still at the scene (8:11PM), perhaps with GM also still on the scene, explicitly changed the incident charge from burglary, a felony, to trespassing, a misdemeanor.
What GM told LE on the 23rd, hours after AA’s death, about WHY and HOW he pursued AA will matter. IMO, the fact that GM is ex-LE might well count against him at trial, given that he can be presumed to have knowledge of GA law, including the difference between a “break-in” and trespassing.
----------------------------
THE WHY : From the Feb 23 police report: “GM stated that there had been several break- ins in the neighborhood and further the suspect was caught on surveillance video.” He stated he was in his front yard when “he saw the suspect from the break-ins ”hauling a-ss down Satilla Drive towards Burford Drive. They grabbed their guns because “they didn’t know if he was armed or not” and took off in pursuit. No mention here or anywhere else in the report that GM’s intention was to make an arrest.
THE HOW: (according to what GM told LE, and given other videos not yet public, their actions are likely even more incriminating)
1. Travis tried to “cut him off” with their truck.
2. Roddy tried to “block him” with his truck.
3. GM jumped in the bed of the truck and he and TM drove to Holmes to “try to intercept him.” (leaves out Roddy).
4. They saw him on Holmes and shouted “stop, stop, we want to talk to you.” (If that even happened, according to GM’s narrative, it was the first time any of the 3 said anything to AA, after about 3 minutes into their chase/trying to trap him with trucks. And, “talking to” isn’t notification of an intent to arrest.).
5. GM told LE they pulled up beside AA and shouted stop again, at which point TM exited the truck with his shotgun. (Lies. Caught on videotape. And, GM and TM each had seconds to yell “stop” or their intentions as AA ran towards them, BEFORE he reached their truck parked in the middle of the road. Neither did).
6. GM said that AA began to violently attack TM…….
--------------------------------------
IMO, there isn’t much doubt that what GM describes (and what’s seen on the video) are attempts to corner AA in order to DETAIN him, whatever GM intended to follow after (or if) they managed to detain him.
According to GA law, detaining follows a lawful arrest, not the other way around, and to detain a fellow private citizen, the arresting citizen must have, bare minimum, REASONABLE grounds to suspect the fellow private citizen he wants to detain has committed a FELONY.
“ A private person may arrest an offender, if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge; and detain him, if it is a felony, upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion. Code §§ 27-201, 27-211; Long v. State, 12 Ga. 293 (4); Moore v. State, 128 Ga. App. 20 (195 SE2d 275).”
Link: Cash v State (GA Court of Appeals) Link: Cash v. State
-------------------------------
BTW, one more likely reason why DA Barnhill likely didn’t even try to argue misdemeanor trespassing as justification:
“A private person may make an arrest for a misdemeanor offense only when that offense occurs within his presence and moreover, the arrest must occur immediately after the perpetration of that offense.”
Link: Williams v State (GA Court of Appeals) 320 S.E.2d 546 (Ga.App. 1984), 65806, Williams v. State
Last edited:
casesensitive
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2012
- Messages
- 1,280
- Reaction score
- 8,470
The death of George Floyd on Sunday has added to the public outrage of Ahmaud's death. (I can't watch the video of GF's arrest and death). When "detaining" unarmed black men for non-violent crimes results in their deaths, I welcome a s**t storm of public protests.
Hopefully the Ahmaud and George's cases (trials) will have an impact on putting certain members of society on alert---"you don't have the right to cause the death of a non-violent, unarmed black person". These two cases demonstrate a lack of regard and caring of what the end result of detaining these black men would be...and that is putting it nicely.
"We all watched the horrific death of George Floyd on video as witnesses begged the police officer to take him into the police car and get off his neck," Crump said in a statement. "This abusive, excessive and inhumane use of force cost the life of a man who was being detained by the police for questioning about a non-violent charge."
"The death (GF's) came amid outrage over the death of Ahmaud Arbery, who was fatally shot Feb. 23 in Georgia after a white father and son pursued the 25-year-old black man they had spotted running in their subdivision. More than two months passed before charges were brought. Crump also represents Arbery's father.
eta link
Four Minneapolis police officers fired after death of black man
Hopefully the Ahmaud and George's cases (trials) will have an impact on putting certain members of society on alert---"you don't have the right to cause the death of a non-violent, unarmed black person". These two cases demonstrate a lack of regard and caring of what the end result of detaining these black men would be...and that is putting it nicely.
"We all watched the horrific death of George Floyd on video as witnesses begged the police officer to take him into the police car and get off his neck," Crump said in a statement. "This abusive, excessive and inhumane use of force cost the life of a man who was being detained by the police for questioning about a non-violent charge."
"The death (GF's) came amid outrage over the death of Ahmaud Arbery, who was fatally shot Feb. 23 in Georgia after a white father and son pursued the 25-year-old black man they had spotted running in their subdivision. More than two months passed before charges were brought. Crump also represents Arbery's father.
eta link
Four Minneapolis police officers fired after death of black man
kaen
Trying to be a good human.
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2014
- Messages
- 6,648
- Reaction score
- 47,969
I think it is interesting that the headline states "death" when in reality what happened to Mr. Floyd was murder. He was murdered. He was killed. The word "death" dulls the point. Just as in Mr. Arbery's case, key words are used to dull the point. The point must stop being dulled or these men (and women, far fewer in numbers) will continue to be killed in barbaric and increasingly sneaky ways so the perpetrators can be absolved. If there was no video of either of these cases, there would be no arrests and the calls from many would be about bad actions and not following the directions of authorities.
tlcya
Old and Re-Tired Websleuth
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2009
- Messages
- 42,277
- Reaction score
- 66,162
Self-defense — one of the legal options open to the men charged with murder in connection with Arbery's killing — can feel like a common-sense standard, discernible by Americans who believe they know the law and how it functions. But, the Arbery case and the way it has been handled, experts say, is an example of the way that concepts such as danger and fear, even who is the aggressor and who has a right to self-defense, are often manipulated or blurred in real life by race. In fact, what happened on that Brunswick street was not totally unheard of, but part of a documented 21st century pattern.
[SNIP]
"Let's say Arbery was a 19-year-old cheerleader named Lily White, running down the street," Patillo said. "Two or three black men hopped in a pickup truck and the chase ended when they shot Lilly White down on tape. I ask you, who among us believes seriously we would be having a conversation, any kind of debate, about whether they should be charged, will be tried or convicted?"
Arbery case exemplifies abuse of 'stand your ground,' but the damage is broad and systemic
[SNIP]
"Let's say Arbery was a 19-year-old cheerleader named Lily White, running down the street," Patillo said. "Two or three black men hopped in a pickup truck and the chase ended when they shot Lilly White down on tape. I ask you, who among us believes seriously we would be having a conversation, any kind of debate, about whether they should be charged, will be tried or convicted?"
Arbery case exemplifies abuse of 'stand your ground,' but the damage is broad and systemic
sds71
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 13,097
- Reaction score
- 143,180
@Brunswick_News
https://twitter.com/Brunswick_News/status/1265731767727783936
The three men accused in the Feb. 23 shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery are scheduled to appear June 4 before Chief Magistrate Judge Wallace E. Harrell at the Glynn County Courthouse, 701 H St in Brunswick.
https://twitter.com/Brunswick_News/status/1265731767727783936
The three men accused in the Feb. 23 shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery are scheduled to appear June 4 before Chief Magistrate Judge Wallace E. Harrell at the Glynn County Courthouse, 701 H St in Brunswick.
oviedo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2008
- Messages
- 17,591
- Reaction score
- 167,162
- Status
DNASolves
Staff online
-
WS AdminAdministrator
Online statistics
- Members online
- 140
- Guests online
- 3,709
- Total visitors
- 3,849