The murder of Ahmaud Arbery

#1,576
#1,576
volfanhill said:
How do you know that when fleeing armed men chasing you in trucks?
Click to expand...
If I'm on foot I'm going where trucks can't. If I'm in that situation I'm going to make them chase me on foot. Jump a fence, cut through a back yard or park, or look for an area with trees.
 
#1,579
#1,579
37L1 said:
Here's my problems with the local prosecutor. They "sat" on this for weeks. They did not involve GBI in February when this incident occurred. The GBI did not get involved until just before the arrests. I wonder why?

Most jurisdictions, when they find themselves in a situation that involves a serious homicide case, that involves ex-LEO/DA Investigator/whatevers, usually refer to the State/impartial investigator to take the case or at the very least assist.

Why didn't that happen here?
Click to expand...

That’s more or less what I was getting at in my post where I mentioned they were figuring out how to “handle” this case. I had the same question. Something doesn’t look right wrt the prosecutor sitting on this for so long.

Edit: Makes sense now. McMichael Sr worked for the DA as investigator for 20 years.
 
Last edited:
#1,580
#1,580
Vol8188 said:
Huh? Based on what?
Click to expand...
Based on the fact that reasonable people would be afraid they’re about to get shot and run away.

What clearer evidence of an aggravated assault do you need?

Would a reasonable person fear death or serious injury due to their actions?
Was the act that causes the fear (the chasing) intentional?
Did it involve a weapon?
Did the person die?

That’s felony murder. For both of them. You don’t have to prove intent to kill. Only the intent necessary to commit an assault. Carries the same sentence as premeditated murder in most places.

(Post is not legal advice. Don’t shoot people. If you do, hire a lawyer.)
 
#1,582
#1,582
Weezer said:
Which, IMO, would lead the runner to think they're more likely to shoot. He might be able to outrun them. He's not outrunning a bullet.
Click to expand...
Yea. Running at the guy with a shotgun and trying to take it away while he has an armed friend standing right there in the truck bed seems to be much more favorable than trying to keep distance.

They already called the cops. I'm not sure how they could explain shooting the guy simply because he ran away.

If you think they were going to shoot him no matter what, I'm not sure what else can be said. If they intended on shooting him from the start why didn't they do it earlier? Or anytime when he wasn't physically fighting for control of the shotgun?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#1,583
#1,583
RockyTop85 said:
Based on the fact that reasonable people would be afraid they’re about to get shot and run away.

What clearer evidence of an aggravated assault do you need?

Would a reasonable person fear death or serious injury due to their actions?
Was the act that causes the fear (the chasing) intentional?
Did it involve a weapon?
Did the person die?

That’s felony murder. For both of them. You don’t have to prove intent to kill. Only the intent necessary to commit an assault. Carries the same sentence as premeditated murder in most places.

(Post is not legal advice. Don’t shoot people. If you do, hire a lawyer.)
Click to expand...

Without there being any evidence of intent to harm, you’ll have a hell of a time making that case.

Honestly taking your advice is the worst thing a prosecutor could do. Overcharging=acquittal
 
#1,585
#1,585
Vol8188 said:
Without there being any evidence of intent to harm, you’ll have a hell of a time making that case.

Honestly taking your advice is the worst thing a prosecutor could do. Overcharging=acquittal
Click to expand...
Lol. No.

People get convicted of felony murder all. The. Time. If the jury follows the instructions, it’s an easy case. So in a case like this, where everybody agrees that what they were doing was wrong or stupid, it’s not that difficult.

A jury is going to have to have sympathy for these guys to ignore the law.
 
#1,586
#1,586
Vol8188 said:
Without there being any evidence of intent to harm, you’ll have a hell of a time making that case.

Honestly taking your advice is the worst thing a prosecutor could do. Overcharging=acquittal
Click to expand...
No it's not. A lot of things can happen before a trial. They can plead and/or the DA can amend the charges. So throwing the book at them now, is not the bad move you think it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Behr, GreyWolf1129 and RockyTop85
#1,587
#1,587
RockyTop85 said:
Lol. No.

People get convicted of felony murder all. The. Time. If the jury follows the instructions, it’s an easy case. So in a case like this, where everybody agrees that what they were doing was wrong or stupid, it’s not that difficult.
Click to expand...

I don’t think you full understand this. You’re using the language of manslaughter while arguing for murder. “Wrong or stupid”=manslaughter
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#1,588
#1,588
37L1 said:
No it's not. A lot of things can happen before a trial. They can plead and/or the DA can amend the charges. So throwing the book at them now, is not the bad move you think it is.
Click to expand...

If they go to trial with 2nd degree murder only (manslaughter off the table), it’ll be a mistake and they’ll be acquitted
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#1,589
#1,589
Vol8188 said:
I don’t think you full understand this. You’re using the language of manslaughter while arguing for murder. “Wrong or stupid”=manslaughter
Click to expand...

You don’t understand what I’m saying:
The law says it’s felony murder.

A jury would have to feel bad for them to ignore the law.

Juries don’t tend to feel bad for people who were doing things that are universally regarded as stupid or wrong.
 
#1,590
#1,590
Vol8188 said:
If they go to trial with 2nd degree murder only (manslaughter off the table), it’ll be a mistake and they’ll be acquitted
Click to expand...
If, is the operative word. Meanwhile they are being squeezed. They wouldn't be advised to take this to trial so both sides start talking deal.
 
#1,592
#1,592
TheDeeble said:
Yea. Running at the guy with a shotgun and trying to take it away while he has an armed friend standing right there in the truck bed seems to be much more favorable than trying to keep distance.

They already called the cops. I'm not sure how they could explain shooting the guy simply because he ran away.

If you think they were going to shoot him no matter what, I'm not sure what else can be said. If they intended on shooting him from the start why didn't they do it earlier? Or anytime when he wasn't physically fighting for control of the shotgun?
Click to expand...

Imagine if the guy who "just wanted to talk" got out of the truck without a shotgun, knowing his dad in the bed of the truck had a gun if things got hairy? Or, even if he was intent on the intimidation factor, not have the shotgun loaded? The victim would never have known.

And the victim had no idea they had called the cops. Despite what some have said, I've seen no mention of the two men actually saying they told him that. They ordered him to stop(and I say ordered because when it comes from two armed men they aren't asking) and said they wanted to talk, while brandishing guns. Strange to be brandishing guns if you "just want to talk".

Everyone reacts differently. Some run, some fight. If I think I'm about to be killed I'm going down swinging. But that's just me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vollygirl and BreatheUT
#1,593
#1,593
RockyTop85 said:
You don’t understand what I’m saying:
The law says it’s felony murder.

A jury would have to feel bad for them to ignore the law.

Juries don’t tend to feel bad for people who were doing things that are universally regarded as stupid or wrong.
Click to expand...

To be felony murder you must show intent. Where are you finding intent to kill or harm in this video?

Or are you using a different definition? If so can you provide it
 
#1,594
#1,594
TheDeeble said:
That's probably true. As I said I don't know Georgia law on where responsibility starts.

I'm just saying dude would be probably be alive if he didn't rush the guy with the shotgun. That's when things actually got violent. But I'm guessing the son will be found guilty of something.

My guess is they had a shotgun in case he was armed but probably mostly just for intimidation to get him to stop till the cops arrived. They probably didn't expect him to close distance unarmed and actually physically attack the guy with a shotgun. I don't think it looks good for them either way.
Click to expand...

How could they not? They cut him off.
 
#1,596
#1,596
RockyTop85 said:
Which is why it’s potentially felony murder.
Click to expand...
Might be true. I've not said otherwise.

My position all along was responding to a post that suggested Arbery was going to be killed by them even if there was never a physical struggle for the shotgun.
 
#1,598
#1,598
TheDeeble said:
If I'm on foot I'm going where trucks can't. If I'm in that situation I'm going to make them chase me on foot. Jump a fence, cut through a back yard or park, or look for an area with trees.
Click to expand...

It's not that simple. Then he is in people yards, he's in the woods, who knows.
 
#1,599
#1,599
RockyTop85 said:
Lol. No.

People get convicted of felony murder all. The. Time. If the jury follows the instructions, it’s an easy case. So in a case like this, where everybody agrees that what they were doing was wrong or stupid, it’s not that difficult.

A jury is going to have to have sympathy for these guys to ignore the law.
Click to expand...
Honestly, that would be my concern. I'm not above thinking a GJ in GA might have some bias or sympathy for these two. If I were the DA, I'd be concerned with the make up of the panel.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top