Ex Cop and son kill unarmed black man jogging

[OneOfTheOutOfFocusGuys 2059]

what a lucky side effect of the nonsensical dual sovereign thing we do.

[Captainant 27497]

Bump - movement in court proceedings.

Fox 5 Atlanta: Ahmaud Arbery murder suspect requests court ban photo of Confederate flag license plate

Quote

SAVANNAH, Ga.. - One of the men accused of chasing and murdering Ahmaud Arbery is fighting to ban certain photo evidence from his upcoming trial.

Travis McMichael and his attorneys have requested that the court ban a photo of his old Georgia flag-theme vanity license plate, which includes a Confederate emblem.

In response, the state asked the court to deny the motion, saying the plates were on the truck at the time of the incident when Arbery was shot and killed.

Earlier this month, a Georgia judge ruled that Arbery's mental health records could not be used as trial evidence by the defense, ruling that his medical privacy, even in death, trumped the rights of the men standing trial to a robust defense. And he concluded that a registered nurse’s "highly questionable diagnosis" that Arbery suffered from mental illness during his first and only visit to a mental health services provider in 2018 could unfairly prejudice a trial jury.

"There is no evidence that the victim was suffering from any mental health issue, or had otherwise decompensated, on February 23, 2020," the date Arbery was killed, the judge’s ruling said.

In September, the judge dealt another setback to the defendants when he ruled that evidence of Arbery’s past run-ins with law enforcement, including two arrests, was also off-limits.

Prosecutors say Arbery was merely jogging in February when father and son Gregory and Travis McMichael armed themselves and chased Arbery in a pickup truck in their neighborhood just outside the port city of Brunswick, about 70 miles south of Savannah.

A neighbor who joined the chase, William "Roddie" Bryan, took cellphone video that showed Travis McMichael fatally shooting Arbery as he threw punches and grabbed for McMichael’s shotgun. Arbery was unarmed when he was killed by three shotgun blasts at close range.

The McMichaels and Bryan were arrested and charged with murder after the video was leaked online more than two months later, on May 5. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation took over the case the next day and swiftly arrested all three men.

Defense attorneys argue the McMichaels and Bryan committed no crimes. They say the McMichaels suspected Arbery was a burglar after he was recorded by video cameras inside a home under construction. Travis McMichael’s lawyers say he shot Arbery in self-defense.

The attorneys hoped to cast doubt on prosecutors’ contention that Arbery was an innocent jogger and to bolster their argument that the white men reasonably suspected Arbery had committed a crime when they chased him.

Prosecutors argued that defense lawyers were seeking to put Arbery on trial by making his criminal record and mental health part of the case. None of the three defendants knew Arbery, or anything about his past, prior to the shooting.

TL:DR - defense wants to withhold evidence from the scene of the crime of defendant's racism because it's bad for his case

[Gene Parmesan 3993]

[UT_OB1 2202]

Any charges or dismissals for the cops that didn’t arrest them on the spot?

[NorthLoop 14116]

10 minutes ago, UT_OB1 said:

Any charges or dismissals for the cops that didn’t arrest them on the spot?

You're adorable 

[TwiceHorn 31322]

27 minutes ago, UT_OB1 said:

Any charges or dismissals for the cops that didn’t arrest them on the spot?

I don't think the cops were charged because they were acting under the orders of the DA, who was charged.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/former-da-indicted-allegedly-showing-favor-men-accused-killing-ahmaud-n1278416

[TwiceHorn 31322]

On 4/29/2021 at 9:19 AM, NorthLoop said:

So are those backup charges for when the local yokel jury acquits the murderers? 

Usually, I think, those federal charges or somewhat similar violation-of-civil-rights charges, are brought after the state prosecution fails to secure a conviction (or indictment or what-have-you).  In those instances, very much "backup" charges.

I think it's fairly unusual to indict concurrently with state proceedings.  It will be interesting to see if the feds press ahead if the state convicts.

[UT_OB1 2202]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't think the cops were charged because they were acting under the orders of the DA, who was charged.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/former-da-indicted-allegedly-showing-favor-men-accused-killing-ahmaud-n1278416

That is good news at least. However, I feel like the police should be held accountable too. Maybe they didn’t see cell phone video at the crime scene. Ok. However, as soon as they do see it, doesnt matter what the DA says. Do what is right. Arrest the murders. 

[Captainant 27497]

ABC News: One Black juror, 11 whites to hear trial over Arbery slaying

Quote

BRUNSWICK, Ga. -- A judge ruled Wednesday that he'll seat one Black juror and 11 whites to decide the trial of the men who chased and killed Ahmaud Arbery, despite prosecutors' objections that several Black potential jurors were cut because of their race.

Superior Court Judge Timothy Walmsley acknowledged that “intentional discrimination" by attorneys for the three white defendants charged in the death of the Black man appeared to have shaped jury selection. But he said Georgia law limited his authority to intervene.

Race is a central issue in the case involving the death of Arbery. Greg McMichael and his adult son, Travis McMichael, armed themselves and pursued Arbery in a pickup truck on Feb. 23, 2020, after they spotted the 25-year-old man running in their neighborhood in coastal Georgia. A neighbor, William “Roddie” Bryan,” joined the chase in his own truck and took cellphone video of Travis McMichael shooting Arbery three times with a shotgun.

A long, sometimes heated debate over the racial makeup of the final jury erupted in court Wednesday afternoon as lawyers wrapped up a jury selection process lasting more than two weeks.

Arbery’s death became part of the broader reckoning on racial injustice in the criminal legal system after a string of fatal encounters between Black people and police — George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and Rayshard Brooks, among others.

No one was charged in Arbery’s death until more than two months afterward, when the video of the shooting leaked online. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation took over the case from local police and soon arrested all three men on charges of murder and other crimes.

Minutes after the attorneys had finished narrowing a panel of 48 to a final jury of 12 on Wednesday, prosecutor Linda Dunikoski noted only a single Black juror made the panel.

She argued that defense lawyers had struck eight Black potential jurors because of their race. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that it is unconstitutional for attorneys during jury selection to strike potential jurors solely based on race or ethnicity.

Laura Hogue, an attorney for Greg McMichael, insisted those jury panelists were cut for other reasons — namely for expressing strong opinions about the case when questioned individually by attorneys.

“I can give you a race-neutral reason for any one of these,” Hogue said.

She noted one such juror had written on her juror questionnaire that Arbery was shot “due to his color” and had told attorneys she felt the defendants were guilty.

Superior Court Judge Timothy Walmsley denied prosecutors' request to reinstate those eight Black potential jurors, though he said: “This court has found there appears to be intentional discrimination in the panel."

The judge said his ability to change the jury’s racial makeup was limited because defense attorneys were able to give nonracial reasons for their decisions to strike the potential Black jurors.

“They have been able to explain to the court why besides race those individuals were struck from the panel,” Walmsley said.

The judge said the jury, along with four alternates, will be seated and sworn in Friday, when opening statements in the trial are expected. He did not give the races of the alternate jurors.

Arbery's mother, Wanda Cooper-Jones, told reporters outside the courthouse she found it “devastating” that only one Black juror will be seated. Still, she said of the final jury: “I’m very confident that they’ll make the right decision after seeing all the evidence.”

Her attorney, S. Lee Merritt, said he still believes the trial will end in a conviction, though defense lawyers had "created a jury that was more favorable for their defendants, an almost entirely white jury.”

Dunikoski noted that many prospective jurors questioned in open court expressed strong opinions about the case, but all who remained in the pool from which the 12 jurors emerged said they could be impartial and base a verdict solely on the trial evidence.

In Glynn County, where Arbery was killed and the trial is being held, Black people account for nearly 27% of the population of 85,000, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The judge said 25% of the pool from which the final jury was chosen was Black.

Defense attorneys say the McMichaels and Bryan committed no crimes. They say Arbery had been recorded by security cameras inside a nearby house and they suspected him of stealing. Greg McMichael told police his son opened fire in self-defense after Arbery attacked with his fists and grappled for Travis McMichael’s shotgun.

Investigators have said Arbery was unarmed and there’s no evidence he had stolen anything.

The slaying dominated news coverage and social media feeds in Glynn County, about 70 miles (110 kilometers) south of Savannah. That caused court officials to take extraordinary steps in hopes of seating an impartial jury.

They mailed 1,000 jury duty notices, and nearly 200 people were questioned by the judge and attorneys at the courthouse during jury selection.

 

TLDR: Superior Court Judge Timothy Walmsley acknowledged that “intentional discrimination" by attorneys for the three white defendants charged in the death of the Black man appeared to have shaped jury selection. But he said Georgia law limited his authority to intervene.

Defense attorneys say the McMichaels and Bryan committed no crimes. They say Arbery had been recorded by security cameras inside a nearby house and they suspected him of stealing. Greg McMichael told police his son opened fire in self-defense after Arbery attacked with his fists and grappled for Travis McMichael’s shotgun.

Edited November 4, 2021 by Captainant

['stache 21778]

Was the question raised earlier why some people wanted a federal law on this type of case? I'm pretty sure a federal judge would not admit that a jury was based on intentional discrimination and say "oh well, sowwy." That's local yokel elected judge type shit.

Edited November 5, 2021 by 'stache

[Pato del Muerto 52365]

So it’s illegal to hire based on race, but it’s not illegal to “hire” jurors based on race?  Or is the devil in the proof?

also the USA needs to have some gmen sitting in the viewing area when this verdict is read, so they can go ahead and arrest them right after the gavel bangs on the not guilty. 

Edited November 5, 2021 by Pato del Muerto

['stache 21778]

11 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So it’s illegal to hire based on race, but it’s not illegal to “hire” jurors based on race?  Or is the devil in the proof?

also the USA needs to have some gmen sitting in the viewing area when this verdict is read, so they can go ahead and arrest them right after the gavel bangs on the not guilty. 

It's complicated and since I don't practice criminal law and have never tried a case with any racial elements, I've always wondered how it works in practice. In general, each side is given a set number of prospective jurors they can strike for any reason, or no reason, and they generally cannot be questioned. The Supreme Court eventually made an exception where it appears that the strikes are based solely on race, in which case, there has to be a non-racial reason given for the strike. I always figured that would be the rub. "It's not because they're black its because their job makes them biased." Is that good enough? I don't know. But it becomes plain as day that they are trying to exclude black jurors and I think a federal judge would have more backbone to say "that's a stupid explanation, I won't allow it" whereas this idiot nobody of an elected judge says "they said a reason, I guess my hands are tied."

[Johnny Sack 8397]

54 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So it’s illegal to hire based on race, but it’s not illegal to “hire” jurors based on race?  Or is the devil in the proof?

also the USA needs to have some gmen sitting in the viewing area when this verdict is read, so they can go ahead and arrest them right after the gavel bangs on the not guilty. 

Dude, these guys are going down.  They had zero right to confront him with a weapon. He had a right to defend himself.  They cannot shoot him for defending himself. 

Both the state and the defense will want jurors empaneled based on their race.  The state wants certain races on it and certain off.  Just like the defense.  

[Johnny Sack 8397]

54 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

So it’s illegal to hire based on race, but it’s not illegal to “hire” jurors based on race?  Or is the devil in the proof?

also the USA needs to have some gmen sitting in the viewing area when this verdict is read, so they can go ahead and arrest them right after the gavel bangs on the not guilty. 

Dude, these guys are going down.  They had zero right to confront him with a weapon. He had a right to defend himself.  They cannot shoot him for defending himself. 

Both the state and the defense will want jurors empaneled based on their race.  The state wants certain races on it and certain off.  Just like the defense.  

['stache 21778]

34 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Dude, these guys are going down.  They had zero right to confront him with a weapon. He had a right to defend himself.  They cannot shoot him for defending himself. 

Both the state and the defense will want jurors empaneled based on their race.  The state wants certain races on it and certain off.  Just like the defense.  

Wasn't that Trayvon Martin's story too? Zimmerman stalks him with a gun, Martin freaks out not knowing what his intentions were and defends himself, Zimmerman then shoots him and claims "self defense." It'll be the same argument in the Rittenhouse trial (the victims weren't black but supported the blacks so it's basically the same to billy bob the juror). It's becoming pretty clear that there is an easy way to legally kill black people. Confront them with a weapon, and when they defend themselves, shot them dead and claim it was you in fact acting in self-defense. It's truly sickening. These guys will walk as will that little shit Rittenhouse.

Edited November 5, 2021 by 'stache

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13555]

10 hours ago, 'stache said:

Zimmerman stalks him with a gun,

...defying Law Enforcement orders not to...aaaand.....

free. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

10 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Dude, these guys are going down.  They had zero right to confront him with a weapon. He had a right to defend himself.  They cannot shoot him for defending himself. 

Bravo sack. Bravo. I’ll withdraw some of my comments about you. Would take too long to be specific.

[JimmyJames 12271]

11 hours ago, 'stache said:

It's complicated and since I don't practice criminal law and have never tried a case with any racial elements, I've always wondered how it works in practice. In general, each side is given a set number of prospective jurors they can strike for any reason, or no reason, and they generally cannot be questioned. The Supreme Court eventually made an exception where it appears that the strikes are based solely on race, in which case, there has to be a non-racial reason given for the strike. I always figured that would be the rub. "It's not because they're black its because their job makes them biased." Is that good enough? I don't know. But it becomes plain as day that they are trying to exclude black jurors and I think a federal judge would have more backbone to say "that's a stupid explanation, I won't allow it" whereas this idiot nobody of an elected judge says "they said a reason, I guess my hands are tied."

Here’s how it works.

One side objects jurors are excluded based on race. 
 

The other side knows this is coming so has race neutral answers base on juror questions that they then claim have nothing to do with race.

what happens next is the most important part and which most judges are not capable of handling, the other side has to prove the race neutral answers are BS, usually given minutes to spare.

It simply don’t work and needs reform. One solution I have is to eliminate peremptory strikes in criminal cases. Those are strikes of jurors for no reason. It’s really not necessary. 

[TwiceHorn 31322]

22 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Here’s how it works.

One side objects jurors are excluded based on race. 
 

The other side knows this is coming so has race neutral answers base on juror questions that they then claim have nothing to do with race.

what happens next is the most important part and which most judges are not capable of handling, the other side has to prove the race neutral answers are BS, usually given minutes to spare.

It simply don’t work and needs reform. One solution I have is to eliminate peremptory strikes in criminal cases. Those are strikes of jurors for no reason. It’s really not necessary. 

Probably worth noting that this is basically how all race discrimination claims are proven:  the plaintiff claims adverse action (jurors stricken, fired, demoted, etc.) because of race; respondent comes forward with race neutral reasons for the action; and, plaintiff has to prove that those race-neutral reasons are bs, or a pretext.  In all but the most bs/pretextual cases, that is a really hard burden to sustain.  Too hard, really.  And there are some procedural aspects that have been ginned up by the courts of appeal, notably our own 5th Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, where there are no racial problems and never have been, and the states didn't secede because of slavery) that have been adopted by the Supreme Court, that make it that much more difficult.

On the one hand, you can't sustain a claim of racism every time a minority or protected class suffers an adverse action, but this has gone beyond the pale.

[TwiceHorn 31322]

11 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Dude, these guys are going down.  They had zero right to confront him with a weapon. He had a right to defend himself.  They cannot shoot him for defending himself. 

Both the state and the defense will want jurors empaneled based on their race.  The state wants certain races on it and certain off.  Just like the defense.  

I don't trust the jury pool in Glynn County, Georgia.  I don't know much about demographics or attitudes there, but you had TWO district attorneys trying to cover for these assholes.  That's a very bad omen.

I did read an article where one of the defense attorneys, probably deflecting from the racial bias demonstrated in jury selection, was grumbling about not having enough "bubbas" on the jury:  uneducated white men age 20-40 or something.  And apparently, only about half of the jury pool initially called even showed up.

Edited November 6, 2021 by TwiceHorn

[JimmyJames 12271]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Probably worth noting that this is basically how all race discrimination claims are proven:  the plaintiff claims adverse action (jurors stricken, fired, demoted, etc.) because of race; respondent comes forward with race neutral reasons for the action; and, plaintiff has to prove that those race-neutral reasons are bs, or a pretext.  In all but the most bs/pretextual cases, that is a really hard burden to sustain.  Too hard, really.  And there are some procedural aspects that have been ginned up by the courts of appeal, notably our own 5th Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, where there are no racial problems and never have been, and the states didn't secede because of slavery) that have been adopted by the Supreme Court, that make it that much more difficult.

On the one hand, you can't sustain a claim of racism every time a minority or protected class suffers an adverse action, but this has gone beyond the pale.

All,this is accurate. The problem with a racial based Batson challenge against a jury strike is you condense all of this that usually takes years to develop into a matter of minutes. It doesn’t work.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13418]

6 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't trust the jury pool in Glynn County, Georgia.  I don't know much about demographics or attitudes there, but you had TWO district attorneys trying to cover for these assholes.  That's a very bad omen.

I did read an article where one of the defense attorneys, probably deflecting from the racial bias demonstrated in jury selection, was grumbling about not having enough "bubbas" on the jury:  uneducated white men age 20-40 or something.  And apparently, only about half of the jury pool initially called even showed up.

This. I would shocked if these 2 are convicted in GA. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

If those two backward, inbred fucks don't get convicted, the feds will hopefully step in with federal hate crime charges.  The local DA should already be fired, but this is Ga. so not gonna be holding my breath on the initial conviction.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13418]

I predict something like the following will be sincerely posted on this thread in a few weeks: “you can’t blame the good white people in GA if their county DA couldn’t present a competent case.”

[DigglerontheHoof 21081]

50/50 these scumbag cunts walk b/c...reasons.

[Brisketexan 104744]

50/50 these scumbag cunts walk b/c...reasons.

Correct. Their defense is “he was a dangerous criminal, we were just protecting the neighborhood.” The second part of that is understood, but won’t be said out loud: “just look at him!”

50/50 shot, at best.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

50/50 these scumbag cunts walk b/c...reasons.

That would be bad... really bad, but not holding my breath.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Correct. Their defense is “he was a dangerous criminal, we were just protecting the neighborhood.” The second part of that is understood, but won’t be said out loud: “just look at him!”

50/50 shot, at best.

Time to use the reverse Time to kill defense... "now imagine........ he was white..."

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19096]

6 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Time to use the reverse Time to kill defense... "now imagine........ he was white..."

Shouldn’t have to be used.  However, racists gonna racist.  

[scottsins 1954]

If those two backward, inbred fucks don't get convicted, the feds will hopefully step in with federal hate crime charges.  The local DA should already be fired, but this is Ga. so not gonna be holding my breath on the initial conviction.

He can’t be fired. He’s an elected official.

[Brisketexan 104744]

He can’t be fired. He’s an elected official.

And he’s also EXACTLY what the majority of the voters there wanted, and still want.

This is our concern, dudes. The DA is not an outlier. He’s a perfect representative.

[immortal13 4059]

I hope they fry

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

37 minutes ago, scottsins said:

He can’t be fired. He’s an elected official.

Oh yeah, forgot about that,well the voters get what they vote for 

[Brisketexan 104744]

Oh yeah, forgot about that,well the voters get what they vote for 

100%. So does that perhaps give you an indication of what the problem here might be?

[williemackgarza 1826]

Scumbag Dirty cops shoot an innocent= all cops are shit bag racists
But
Scumbag dirty lawyers do racist lawyer shit= its the systems fault not all lawyers are shitbag racists
Yeah ok / jlaw

[Cheeseweasel 26437]

On 11/5/2021 at 12:35 PM, Johnny Sack said:

Dude, these guys are going down.  They had zero right to confront him with a weapon. He had a right to defend himself.  They cannot shoot him for defending himself. 

100%. Shocked if they didn’t try a plea agreement and The State told them, nah, we’re gonna fry you. 

[MrBig 5290]

On 11/5/2021 at 12:35 PM, Johnny Sack said:

Both the state and the defense will want jurors empaneled based on their race.  The state wants certain races on it and certain off.  Just like the defense.  

Can’t we just empanel jurors based on their voice responses like the Dating Game? 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

48 minutes ago, MrBig said:

Can’t we just empanel jurors based on their voice responses like the Dating Game? 

[TwiceHorn 31322]

On 11/6/2021 at 7:29 AM, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I predict something like the following will be sincerely posted on this thread in a few weeks: “you can’t blame the good white people in GA if their county DA couldn’t present a competent case.”

Well, that is one saving grace here.  Because of the shenanigans of the Glynn County DA and the neighboring DA she tried to enlist to shelter her buddies, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and an appointed prosecutor working under the AGs office are prosecuting.  So it's not up to the locals.

[Underdog 28460]

GDit, Twice Horn. 

Edited November 7, 2021 by Underdog

[Underdog 28460]

9 minutes ago, Bravo said:

His childhood had to be the worst ever. BTW what is "gift sales"? Dildos? 

Like you don’t know. 

[Chopper 17173]

On 11/5/2021 at 11:11 PM, TwiceHorn said:

On the one hand, you can't sustain a claim of racism every time a minority or protected class suffers an adverse action, but this has gone beyond the pale.

It has. But also, generally, it hasn't.

[Captainant 27497]

Reuters: Ahmaud Arbery appeared 'tired of running' before he was shot, jury hears

Quote

 

BRUNSWICK, Ga., Nov 8 (Reuters) - One of the three white men in pickup trucks who pursued Ahmaud Arbery through their southern Georgia neighborhood told police the Black jogger appeared tired from the chase before he was shot dead, a jury heard on Monday at the men's trial.

Police body-worn camera footage of the first moments following Arbery's killing was played, giving jurors a glimpse of the demeanor of defendants Gregory McMichael, 65; his son Travis McMichael, 35; and their neighbor William "Roddie" Bryan, 52.

"You had no choice," Gregory McMichael could be heard telling his son, hands on his shoulders, as the first police officer on the scene walked over. Arbery's body lay in a pool of blood in the middle of the road a few steps away.

Jurors were also shown graphic police photographs showing close-ups of large gaping shotgun wounds in the center of Arbery's chest, below his left armpit and in one of his wrists.

The three men have pleaded not guilty in Glynn County Superior Court to charges of murder, aggravated assault and false imprisonment. They face life in prison if convicted on the most serious charge by the jury, which is composed of 11 white people and one Black person.

The men say they thought Arbery might have been fleeing from a crime when he ran through Satilla Shores, a quiet cluster of family homes outside the small coastal city of Brunswick, on a Sunday afternoon in February 2020.

Prosecutors say they had unfairly assumed the worst about a 25-year-old Black man out for a Sunday run.

The men pursued Arbery in pickup trucks for several minutes before the younger McMichael opened fire with his shotgun as Arbery ran toward him and appeared to reach for the weapon.

Larissa Ollivierre, a prosecutor from the Cobb County District Attorney's Office, sought to undermine the defense argument that the men were trying to detain Arbery under a citizen's arrest law, which requires a person to have reasonable suspicion that a felony has just been committed.

Bryan told county police officer Ricky Minshew, the first officer to arrive at the shooting, that he never heard a word from Arbery, but he heard one of the McMichaels call out to Arbery: "What'd you steal? What'd you do?"

"Did he ever say that he told Ahmaud he was under arrest for anything?" Ollivierre asked Minshew.

"No, ma'am," Minshew said.

Later, Bryan's lawyer, Kevin Gough, asked Minshew about Bryan's reason for pulling out his cellphone to record the shooting.

"Well, I thought he was going to get away," Bryan told Minshew at the scene, "so that was the reason."

'SUSPICIOUS BLACK MALE'

Minshew said he was checking out a report of a "suspicious Black male" in a white T-shirt in Satilla Shores when he heard gunshots as he drove into the neighborhood. He found the McMichaels and Bryan "pacing" near Arbery's body.

Bryan told the officer that he recognized neither Arbery when he ran by Bryan's driveway, nor the McMichaels as they drove by in pursuit in their pickup truck, Minshew testified.

"He said he hollered at the truck: 'Y'all got him?'" before jumping in his own truck to join the chase, Minshew said, referring to a transcript of the body-camera video.

"Should I have been chasing him? I don't know," Bryan told Minshew minutes after the shooting, a few steps away from Arbery's body in the road. Bryan noted he never put on his seatbelt, and could have been "thrown through the damn windshield trying to chase this joker," according to the transcript.

Bryan noticed Arbery stop to catch his breath.

"When I rounded the corner out there, it was almost like the Black guy was tired of running," Bryan told Minshew. Bryan also told the officer that Arbery tried to open his truck door at one point.

 

TL:DR - the fatal confrontation happened after Arbery was pursued to exhaustion by mcmichael et al under suspicion of theft. Arbery was chased and killed because he "was going to get away".

The defense has also established that Arbery tried to open the truck door at one point during the pursuit, so inb4 self defense justifying the killing

Edited November 9, 2021 by Captainant

['stache 21778]

Even if they had caught him redhanded stealing something from a home, isn't it illegal to kill in defense of property? And being unarmed, there is no self-defense argument that I can see, especially if they admit he was tired when the caught up to him. Jury nullification is the only way out here, and it's a distinct possibility, not just in Georgia, it seems that these assholes are dominating everywhere. It's truly horrifying.

[atomheartbevo 89471]

3 hours ago, 'stache said:

Jury nullification is the only way out here, and it's a distinct possibility, not just in Georgia, it seems that these assholes are dominating everywhere. It's truly horrifying.

I could be wrong, but they don't have to dominate anywhere, they just have to get a few on the jury.

[JohnnyRage 1617]

9 hours ago, 'stache said:

Even if they had caught him redhanded stealing something from a home, isn't it illegal to kill in defense of property? And being unarmed, there is no self-defense argument that I can see, especially if they admit he was tired when the caught up to him. Jury nullification is the only way out here, and it's a distinct possibility, not just in Georgia, it seems that these assholes are dominating everywhere. It's truly horrifying.

Georgia at the time had a loose Citizens Arrest law that they have since repealed.

[DigglerontheHoof 21081]

On 11/7/2021 at 4:54 PM, Bravo said:

Even Vidor residents think they're guilty. 

You should know, the typical redneck Vidor resident is your kind of people.

[DigglerontheHoof 21081]

Not worth the time. 

Edited November 10, 2021 by DigglerontheHoof

[DigglerontheHoof 21081]

51 minutes ago, Bravo said:

It was worth the drive by insult time but run away like an antifa larper. 

Not going anywhere, snowflake. 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

Guys are going down.  Even had they witnessed him committing some sort of theft I think they go down.  They did not.  And Arbery wasn't stealing anything.