GA - Ahmaud Arbery, 25, jogger, fatally shot by former PD and son, Brunswick, Feb 2020 #2

[Matic]

Only if the accused killers had access to his records would they know if he was on probation or in violation of his probation. To my knowledge, the accused killers have stated that they did not know the name or identity of Mr. Arbery. According to them, they stated they were attempting a citizen's arrest.

Would this factor have change how Mr. Arbery reacted? We won't know. But, since the people chasing him were not LEO and did not identify themselves as LEO, I don't see Mr. Arbery linking the situation to any of his past encounters with LEO/record.

I am curious that many continue to look Mr. Arbery's past but are not suspect of one of the accused killers who had not done training necessary to continue to arrest others and, ultimately, was unable to continue his job based on his refusal to train. Is that not odd and concerning behaviors? To me, these behaviors are very concerning. If the accused killers knew who Mr. Arbery was and were acting based on his past, why was that not in the initial police report? What is the truth of their actions? At this point, they are much more suspect in their behavior. Mr. English has stated numerous times that nothing was taken. Mr. Arbery may have been guilty of a simple trespass and didn't deserve to have two vigilantes go after him with guns. He brandished no guns. In fact, the accused killers presented a greater threat to their neighbors by toting their guns through the neighborhood and approaching a person with said guns. They could have killed an innocent bystander or Mr. Bryan who was traveling behind them. As always, IMHO.

I've already expressed my disdain about the corrupt LE and judicial system in Glynn Co.
Including GM. I feel no need to keep driving that point.

 

[kaen]

He was trying to wrestle a loaded shotgun out of the owner's hand when he was shot.

Or, he was in fear of his life as a person approached him with a shot gun facing his direction. The actions can be seen from this perspective as well. I am not sure that anyone should be driving/walking around with their gun telling people to stop and come talk to them. And, if the person doesn't do as requested, begin a confrontation by getting out of the car with said gun. IMHO.

 

[MsBetsy]

Yes that will be the prosecution case. The defence will be that TM was defending himself from Arbery grabbing his gun.

Yes, I'm sure he will say that but the argument will be that Travis was the instigator. It's not self defense when the perpetrators went after the victim with intent to use deadly force in order to "detain" him.

Imo

 

[kaen]

I've already expressed my disdain about the corrupt LE and judicial system in Glynn Co.
Including GM. I feel no need to keep driving that point.

Mr. Arbery is the victim and many continue to dissect his life. And, while it is not specifically said, the implication is that his past is responsible for his death. It is not about any one person's disdain or issue with LE. I am not implying or suggesting I know all that you have posted or stated. Sorry, if you feel I am. It is just my observation. IMHO.

 

[Hope4More]

I think there must have been a TV at some point because Arbery twice claims to have a receipt for it. Both times he makes that claim he tries to get up off the ground and the cop tells him to sit back down. It's his second attempt to get up which prompts the cop to arrest him.

He also said it was in the store. And that he had money ( to buy the TV if he wanted one, maybe?). He said 3 different things. Fact is, he didn't have the TV in his possession, and LE didn't seem to have actual evidence that he had shoplifted one.

Why would he offer up 3 different replies? All 3 came after he told LE that he had not stolen a TV.

Maybe perhaps he thought it didn't really matter what he said. He was being accused of a crime on Dec 1, 2017, just over 3 weeks after LE had tried to taze him in a park, when his arms were clearly extended all the way out, after being questioned for the offense of being in a park where others allegedly did drugs. (Nov 7, 2017).

Does anyone really believe he wouldn't have had his probation revoked and been sent to jail if it could have been proven he ever had the TV in his possession outside the store?

 

[Matic]

Yes, I'm sure he will say that but the argument will be that Travis was the instigator. It's not self defense when the perpetrators went after the victim with intent to use deadly force in order to "detain" him.

Imo

With much respect MsBetsy.
I don't think they were just going to up and shoot this young man in cold blood just because he didn't stop when they wanted him to.

There's a little more to it than that.

 

[oviedo]

With much respect MsBetsy.
I don't think they were just going to up and shoot this young man in cold blood just because he didn't stop when they wanted him to.

There's a little more to it than that.

I believe they were going to shoot him and were just waiting for an opportunity and it was planned - IMO.

 

[Matic]

He also said it was in the store. And that he had money ( to buy the TV if he wanted one, maybe?). He said 3 different things. Fact is, he didn't have the TV in his possession, and LE didn't seem to have actual evidence that he had shoplifted one.

Why would he offer up 3 different replies? All 3 came after he told LE that he had not stolen a TV.

Maybe perhaps he thought it didn't really matter what he said. He was being accused of a crime on Dec 1, 2017, just over 3 weeks after LE had tried to taze him in a park, when his arms were clearly extended all the way out, after being questioned for the offense of being in a park where others allegedly did drugs. (Nov 7, 2017).

Does anyone really believe he wouldn't have had his probation revoked and been sent to jail if it could have been proven he ever had the TV in his possession outside the store?

Then can you explain why in the video I posted that it was said he was arrested and received 5 years probation?

Was the reporter just making stuff up on the fly For a news story? Because if that was false info, I would think the reporter and news station would have been sued for defamation of character. =Payday.

 

[Matic]

I believe they were going to shoot him and were just waiting for an opportunity and it was planned - IMO.

In the middle of the street, in a crowded neighborhood, in broad daylight for everyone to see. Sorry, I can't get on board with that.

 

[Cappuccino]

I believe they were going to shoot him and were just waiting for an opportunity and it was planned - IMO.

I don't believe he would have been shot if he hadn't tried to grab the shotgun.

There are gun owners posting in this thread, so maybe they could offer an opinion here - how many of them would have allowed Arbery to take their gun off them in that situation?

 

[firebird]

I believe they were going to shoot him and were just waiting for an opportunity and it was planned - IMO.

I believe the opposite. If they wanted to shoot him, they just would've shot him in the four minutes of "chase" in the video the arbery family attorney referred to. Plus, I don't believe they wanted to shoot him for any reason in the first place. I think they just wanted him to stop trespassing at the house in their neighborhood so they could quit worrying what he was up to. And for some strange reason, Arbery wouldn't stop doing that. jmo

 

[ilovewings]

At 01:10.

He was arrested, plead guilty and received 5 years probation.

Which means he was on probation at the time of the February incident. IMO, that changes things up a bit.

MOO.

He was someplace he should really not have been. Then, the shoplifting situation comes out, so it makes him look bad. I am not saying he deserved to be killed.

Where was he that he should not have been? He walked into a home under construction- my husband has done that numerous times: no one has ever chased his a-- with a freaking gun!!! he was jogging and apparently was curious about this house under construction-- so does that warrant the death penalty? as far as the shoplifting, that was in the past: it has not one shred of relationship to the incident involving this poor man's death. Oh, it will be used to dirty the decedent up- this is defense 101-

 

[MsBetsy]

With much respect MsBetsy.
I don't think they were just going to up and shoot this young man in cold blood just because he didn't stop when they wanted him to.

There's a little more to it than that.

I never suggested they were going to go up and shoot him in cold blood just because he didn't stop when they wanted him to.

And yes, there is more to it than that. They reportedly chased him for several minutes, blocking him with their vehicles before finally stopping and waiting for him.

What we don't know is exactly what proof they had that Arbery was a "burglary suspect" and was responsible for the "rash" of burglaries in the area.

My point was that one can't claim self defense when they themselves were the instigator.

At no point in any of my posts in this thread did I ever suggest that they shot him in cold blood "just because he didn't stop when they wanted him to."

Imo

 

[ilovewings]

Yes that will be the prosecution case. The defence will be that TM was defending himself from Arbery grabbing his gun.

That defense is freaking twisted: the decedent was grabbing the gun from a man who was pointing it at him- the decedent was trying to DEFEND HIMSELF FROM BEING SHOT- Obviously that didn't work out so well because he is dead but here is the twisted part: him defending himself from a couple of yahoos with guns, will be used against him--- terrific.

 

[ilovewings]

I never suggested they were going to go up and shoot him in cold blood just because he didn't stop when they wanted him to.

And yes, there is more to it than that. They reportedly chased him for several minutes, blocking him with their vehicles before finally stopping and waiting for him.

What we don't know is exactly what proof they had that Arbery was a "burglary suspect" and was responsible for the "rash" of burglaries in the area.

My point was that one can't claim self defense when they themselves were the instigator.

At no point in any of my posts in this thread did I ever suggest that they shot him in cold blood "just because he didn't stop when they wanted him to."

Imo

 

[ilovewings]

The way I see it they did shoot him in cold blood

 

[Cappuccino]

That defense is freaking twisted: the decedent was grabbing the gun from a man who was pointing it at him- the decedent was trying to DEFEND HIMSELF FROM BEING SHOT- Obviously that didn't work out so well because he is dead but here is the twisted part: him defending himself from a couple of yahoos with guns, will be used against him--- terrific.

As far as I can see, TM's gun was pointed at the ground and GM's gun didn't leave it's holster until after the shooting started.

Again, I'm curious to hear the perspective of people here who own guns - how many would have allowed Arbery to take their gun in that situation?

 

[SaguaroSpirit]

Where was he that he should not have been? He walked into a home under construction- my husband has done that numerous times: no one has ever chased his a-- with a freaking gun!!! he was jogging and apparently was curious about this house under construction-- so does that warrant the death penalty? as far as the shoplifting, that was in the past: it has not one shred of relationship to the incident involving this poor man's death. Oh, it will be used to dirty the decedent up- this is defense 101-

He was on private property. Whether or not any of us or our relatives has done the same thing is not important. He had no business being on private property out of curiosity or any other reason, good or bad. He did not deserve to be killed for it, but the fact is he did not belong on that property. JMOO

 

[MsBetsy]

The way I see it they did shoot him in cold blood

I can see why people would see it that way. The GBI certainly made it clear that within 36 hours they had more than enough probable cause to charge the two men with murder.

Some might say that they were looking for an excuse to shoot him, and by chasing him down and cornering him they encouraged him to be aggressive, giving them what they thought would be a justified reason to kill him.

I do think they were the instigators, and by their actions, provoked Arbery to assault them. So if anyone was defending themselves, it was the victim.

Imo

 

[Cappuccino]

I can see why people would see it that way. The GBI certainly made it clear that within 36 hours they had more than enough probable cause to charge the two men with murder.

Some might say that they were looking for an excuse to shoot him, and by chasing him down and cornering him they encouraged him to be aggressive, giving them what they thought would be a justified reason to kill him.

I do think they were the instigators, and by their actions, invoked Arbery to assault them. So if anyone was defending themselves, it was the victim.

Imo

Their actions consist of spending approximately four minutes driving down the road after him, repeatedly calling out to stop because they wanted to talk to him, and then TM getting out of the truck holding a shotgun pointed away from him.

Does that really "invoke an assault"?