Interested to hear some of the resident attorney views on this trial, but the defense opening statement was pretty compelling. Aubery was no "innocent jogger" as has been portrayed by the media. He was on camera more than 4 times prior taking things from the houses. On one occasion, he reached in his pocket like he had a gun. On that day, he was on the property once again. He fled when neighbors approached him in a 6 minute mile pace. He also fought with them prior to being shot. This is shaping up to be a Trayvon Martin verdict in my opinion.
Full disclosure - I haven't heard the opening statement. However, a decent lawyer's opening statement should always sound compelling. It's a summary of the evidence entirely with his or her spin on it. If it doesn't sound compelling, either that lawyer sucks or he just doesn't have much of a case to work with. Personally, I just assumed that the innocent jogger narrative was ******** - not because I knew anything about Arbery but just because the media lies about it so much that it's hard to imagine it being true at this point. Sounds like the media lived up to their usual fraud. Having said that, Arbery's previous bad acts don't dictate what happens here. He can be a thug, and it still doesn't give these guys the right to play Dirty Harry and blow him away. I'm not saying that definitely happened, but this case isn't clear cut one way or the other. We should all wait before assuming anything.
The narrative portrayed was that he was repeatedly doing this and always got away before police could arrive. They tried to surround him or detain him and he fought back. Then he was shot. It will be an interesting trial.
I need to catch up with this one. The optics of it are horrible for the defense but the facts need to be presented. I agree with Deez that I have to assume the media lies will be exposed yet again.
Haven't kept up with that one as much as Rittenhouse. However, the quickest way to tell a trial is NOT going the way the libs want is when it is NOT a trending topic on Twitter...
Prior theft and weapons charges. Ahmaud Arbery's criminal record cannot be used by defense in murder trial, judge rules
Even that article casts an unfair statement to the defense. They have him sprinting from the house. He was not a “jogger.”
Ok. None of that deserves a “citizens arrest” at gunpoint rising to the level of, you know, death. It’s a police matter. Ironically, if the one fool had not of videoed the murder there would be no trial.
Coach, NJ and I discussed this at length when this controversy started. Link. The citizens arrest law in Georgia is dicey Ave could give them an out. Personally, I'm totally unsympathetic to these guys. If they actually thought Arbery was burglarizing the area, they should have called the cops. Nobody was in immediate danger, and there was no reason for them to take the law into their own hands. I also don't blame Arbery for fighting them. If a couple of yahoos start chasing you with their guns drawn, what the hell are you supposed to do? It's not like they were police officers who presumably won't shoot if you cooperate.
It's one thing to kill an unarmed man in a conflict he initiated and quite another when the killer instigated it. Rittenhouse will walk and no doubt spend his life with some celebrity among gun lovers. The men in Georgia face real chance of serious consequences
In a Citizens Arrest there is zero room for error. Especially if you plan to use weapons, you must be 100% right legally and 100% tactically. While I'm of the strong opinion, that Aubery was a criminal and probably doing criminal things, these guys should have just taken pictures and called the cops. This is one of those situations where execution of their Citizens Arrest was so poor that it overshadows their intent. There is a reason we build specific forces to conduct this activity on our behalf. It takes a great deal of training and experience to do these things right.
I could even be more forgiving if they were stopping him in the act, but instead they were chasing him down. Just call the friggin cops. I think they face a more real chance than Rittenhouse does, but they still have a shot with the citizens arrest statute. It's a bad law. I'm far more sympathetic to Rittenhouse, and I don't understand why some lump these cases together. They're not similar. Rittenhouse shouldn't have been there, because he was a minor. However, I don't have a problem with somebody being there. There was a total breakdown of the rule of law. Law enforcement was knowingly allowing violent crime go unstopped and unpunished. When they happens, private citizens have a right and frankly obligation to maintain order.
He was caught trying to burglarize a house he was videoed doing four other times. He fled and they tried to hold him until the one police office that patrols the area could get there. Then he attacked the one with a shot gun who then fired on him. The media portrayal of an innocent black jogger being chased down and shot for being black is wrong.
Interesting article. Ahmaud Arbery Case: New Evidence Reveals Arbery Often Pretended to be a 'Jogger' to Commit Crime
Wasn't he on a construction site? Were they afraid he was going to steal a hammer? Again, as I explained in when this issue first arose, my reading of the citizens arrest statute may give these guys a way out. They could potentially walk. However, from a rational, common sense standpoint, what they did was nuts. Good thing they're on trial for murder rather than on trial for being stupid. All they had to do was let the police do their jobs, and they wouldn't be in legal jeopardy and Arbery might be alive. And if Arbery would be dead, it would be far more likely to be justifiable. Two things can be true at once. The media portrayal of Arbery as an innocent black jogger can be wrong (as expected), and the guys who shot Arbery ccan also have done a very foolish and dangerous thing that went very wrong.
The owner of the construction site already stated Arbery didn't steal anything based on their review of the video cameras on site. I have no idea whether he previously stole from these sites and withhold judgement until hearing all the evidence. Not going to leap based on right-wing news sources.
The "owner" is dumber than a bag of hair if he doesn't object to ANYONE being on his construction site stealing or not. Liability is huge.
I'll assume that he did steal for the sake of discussion. It has no bearing on whether or not he should have been chased down and shot on that day and at that time. You shoot someone based on what's immediately happening, not on what he did previously. OJ Simpson murdered two people in 1994 - even worse than trying to steal a box of nails. Do I get to go confront him about it today and shoot him if he resists? No.
Nail guns, saws, and other construction equipment can be quite expensive. Looks like he didn't take anything though.
You're right, and I don't mean to minimize what Arbery did if he was actually trying to steal (even if it was truly a box of nails). It's bad. However, there's a judicial process for dealing with that. Vigilante justice isn't appropriate if the police are doing their jobs and the suspect isn't imminently threatening them or others.
I've got a bias against vigilante justice. As mentioned earlier, law enforcement have training (to enforce the law and de-escalate if the situation requires). In this case to Ahmad these look like local yocals. As my Army bunkmate from SC told me in the 90's, it was common "fun" to get a bunch of white guys in a truck and look for a lonely black guy to beat up. He thought this was perfectly acceptable because if he, a white guy, saw a truckload of black guys coming down the street he knew to run. I'm sure that racist culture has diminished a bit but still, 2-3 armed white guys accosting a black guy it's very understandable why the latter would defend himself.
He didn’t take anything the day he was shot because he was confronted. Items were missing on previous occasions.
That's a red herring. He could have taken a $10,000 piece of jewelry. It's of no matter. Take pictures, follow him, wait on the actual cops. Death for suspected theft is the equivalent of a lynching. A rape or murder that one of the armed people witnessed happen is the only thing that would make this not a lynching.
Everybody should have a bias against vigilante justice. As I've pointed out, there are situations in which it is defensible. However, it should be a last resort, and the overwhelming presumption should be against it - even if a guy might get away with stealing something.
