A Miscarriage of Justice

I think you are right and agree with your perspective on this.

This is an important insight for us to take away, which could very likely possibly help us understand this case.

Listening to the judge's closing sentencing statements, it seems to me much of what they were found guilty of were more like "thought crimes", with the judge using statements they had initially told police they had said during the incident as insight into what they may have been thinking.
If the judge was not punishing the defendants for this, why did he spend so much time dwelling on it during his closing statements right before sentencing?

 

Your correction is incorrect they were timberlands those are work boots.

 

His shoes can supposedly be seen here, in alleged crime scene evidence:
Ahmaud Arbery Murder Trial Day 8: State rests case, GBI medical examiner details autopsy (fox5atlanta.com)
They look like ordinary running shoes.
He does appear to be wearing regular low-rise shoes in the video taken from the construction site the same day.

 

I think it is relevant because we don't know for certain how Arbery had been behaving during that whole interaction, and so we have only the testimony of those three men to rely on. How Arbery was behaving may be relevant to how we would expect them to have reacted. To gain some insight into how he may likely have been behaving in that situation, it is very helpful to know how he had behaved before during interactions with law enforcement (specically the taser video from 3 years before).

 

This doesn't make it relevant. How he acted in some other incident months or years before will do nothing to change any amount of certainty of how he was behaving during this interaction.

It would only serve to let Juries which are idiots speculate.

How arbury was behaving in this indecent has nothing to do with previous incidents.

it wouldn't be helpful. All it would do would prejudice the jury which is an idiot.

 

I did find this:

Arbery was running back down Burford Road just as Bryan was pulling out of his driveway. Bryan pulled out into the path of Arbery, forcing Arbery into the ditch across the street with his pickup truck, Seacrist said.​

At one point, GBI agents said Arbery came in contact with the Silverado pickup as Bryan tried to block him, leaving a right palm print behind the driver’s side door. Gough has termed this contact as Arbery attempting to climb inside the truck, referring to it on several occasions as an “attempted carjacking.”​

So it seems this palm print evidence could be interpreted in different ways. Was it evidence of Bryan trying to hit his truck into Arbery, or did Arbery really go up to the truck and appear to try to "attack" Bryan or "get all over the truck" like Travis claims he saw?

That is an important bit of evidence and interpretation of the evidence which this case hinges on.

 

Murder is WAY harsh! Manslaughter is way harsh too. You can't manslaughter somebody who is attacking you. The proper term for that is self defense. Now the McMichaels may not have been legally in the right in trying to detain arbery. But when somebody acts guilty, as arbery did, that should be taken into consideration. Also, if the McMichaels had successfully detained arbery, in no way shape or form can that be viewed as kidnapping. When you kidnap somebody, that means you take them away and hold them someplace against their will. Arbery would have been taken nowhere. He would have just sat or stood there until the police arrived. The worst you could call it is unlawful detainment. Which with arbery being on felony probation, he wanted no part of. The McMichaels and Bryan should have had medals pinned on them. Not be found guilty of murder.

 

But Kyle didn't know that. You can only judge Kyle's actions in what he knew at the time. It wouldn't matter if Rosenbaum had just killed nine children or rescued a bus full of nuns. The actions that occurred would still be justified.

It was the decision on whether or not Kyle murdered somebody. Not if the people he killed deserved it. Im not shedding a single tear because there is one less pedophile in the world.[/QUOTE]

And why was arbery acting suspiciously? Because he was a criminal!

Straight out of opposite land. What I presumed was your unwillingness to hear the truth. Because I have ran across your sort before. Also, it isn't "my truth." It is the truth, period.

 

well if he had just committed a criminal act it wouldn't matter if it was his first criminal act or his 50th he would still be acting suspicious so the prior 49 don't matter because that's not known to the people who are confronting him it isn't relevant they don't care about that if he stole something from a job site that's what they care about and that's perfectly reasonable.

It's a trial of the McMichaels not arbury

 

Running from and/or attacking people who are trying to unlawfully detain you is not 'acting guilty' any more than it is 'acting scared.' Unlawful detainment is always the first step in kidnapping, so its not unreasonable to treat an attempt at unlawful detainment as an attempt at kidnapping, especially when its 3 on 1 and the 3 have a vehicle. Arbery, whether he was the theif or not, was justified in his belief that the three men posed an immediate threat to his life and health, and his acting in self defense as a response to their unlawful aggression was warranted. You can make the argument that the McMichaels were also acting in self defense when they shot Arbery and that it was reasonable to take action to prevent Arbery from obtaining one of their weapons... but thats only after they initiated the unlawful aggression that caused Arbery to act in his own self defense. Thus the McMichaels are in the wrong, and thus they are directly responsible for the death that resulted from their unlawful behavior. Thats very commonly and imo justifiably prosecuted as manslaughter.

 

What if I hit you on the toe with a hammer. And there were plenty of people around to witness it as well. It would be the truth to say that I hit you on the toe with a hammer. There are more real truths out there than you would be willing to acknowledge. Let alone try to comprehend.

 

None of that applies. Every person that witnesses you hitting my tow with a hammer will have a different perspective.

You really should try not to sound so <whatever the hell is wrong with you>. It doesn't paint the lie you're trying to sell as being intellectually superior to others very well.

 

OFGS. You have to have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed before you can make an arrest, citizens or otherwise. Note the underlined word. Their level of suspicion' didn't approach reasonable. Hell it didn't even approach plausible!

The best possible outcome for all concerned? They 'arrest' Aubery without incident. He then gets released upon being delivered to the Police and those three idiots promptly get sued by Aubery for false imprisonment/kidnapping and assault etc. Meanwhile on top of that they also get to face trial for the related criminal charges. Some of which potentially carry decades of time in jail.

Were the US to 'lower the bar' for reasonable suspicion to the level you think applies every citizen of the country would be taking their life in their own hands every time they decided to just walk down the street! Add to that the fact Aubery wasn't armed and many Americans do carry so what happens when people push back/object to OTT 'citizens arrests' and defend themselves?

Finally his prior criminal history, if any is not evidential. Unless unlawfully at large convicted felons have the same rights as any other citizen. Being convicted of a crime does not put an automatic target on the back that everyone else can take pot shots at. Especially as these idiots weren't even aware of his previous runs ins with Police when they decided to act. So they can hardly point to it afterwards as being a relevant when they made their fatal decision.

 

If the law were based upon your reasoning here, it would be a simple thing for people to go out and threaten their enemies into defending themselves in order to manufacture a self defense argument for killing them. I don't believe the McMichaels were intending to do this, but if they were, what they did would be a textbook case of how to do it. Not only would society not survive the precedent of people being able to get away with that, but one of the foundational concepts -innocent until proven guilty in a court of law- would be undermined by setting the precedent that people cannot defend themselves from others trying to unlawfully detain them with the threat of force. This is unfortunately one of the rare instances where the well-intentioned must necessarily pay an exorbitantly high price for their mere ignorance of the law, as I've no doubt the McMichaels felt they were fully justified in attempting to detain Arbery whom they were certain was their theif. Perhaps they didn't understand just how big of a gamble they were making ...but they should've.

One cannot use the argument of self preservation as a defense when one has first forced their adversary into that same position. If we can start doing that, everything falls apart.

Imagine yourself in this situation: you're walking along the road in a major city (maybe because you're car just died or something) and 3 gang bangers with pistols drawn pull up in their ghettocruiser and order you to stop and wait for the police whom they have called because they believe you just robbed their home. Do you do what they say?

 

Let me clarify something. I never claimed these men had the right to make a citizens arrest. They did not have the right to make a citizens arrest.
I would argue they never actually had gotten to the point of attempting to make a citizens arrest.

If you watch the video, it doesn't even appear that Travis tried to arrest Arbery. (Gregory never even got out of the back bed of the pickup truck) If they were actually going to attempt an arrest, one would think that would have been the point right there where they would have tried it. I don't see Travis chasing Arbery after he exited his truck.

You seem to be making the false presumption that the three men did not have the right to do what they did if they did not have the right to make a citizens arrest.

 

I see what you're saying. But the question can be asked, did any one of the three actually "threaten" Arbery? Did they actually threaten Arbery in such a way that would justify Arbery trying to run at one of them and take their gun?

They were continuing to follow Arbery, yes. They wanted to keep an eye on his current location. They had guns in their car, yes. So far this still does not constitute "threatening".

Travis did not even step outside of his vehicle with his gun until Arbery was running away from his direction.

How do we know Arbery had been running away from his direction? Because later when Arbery runs back towards the direction of Travis's truck, Travis's truck is not facing that direction. Also if you watch the video, Arbery is very far ahead in the road in the far distance. This implies that Bryan's truck had only just caught up with Arbery, and that Bryan was not actually in the process of chasing Arbery in the moments before that video began.

Also, Travis did not even take more than one step away from his vehicle until it seemed like Arbery was going to go in the opposite direction from him, taking a path around the right of the truck. At that point, Travis began slowly walking left. When Travis moved away from the vehicle, it was not towards the direction he expected Arbery to go.

(the story does not end there, but hopefully you'll agree that so far in the story he was not really trying to "threaten" Arbery)

When did Travis actually threaten Arbery? That's when Arbery unexpectedly swerves towards Travis's direction again, while Travis's back is turned to Arbery. Travis was slowly walking away in the opposite direction from where Arbery's location was at that point. Arbery might have seen a viable path beginning to open up in the middle of the road, or he may have seen an opportunity to jump Travis at that point and try to take his gun. When Travis realized Arbery was now running towards his direction, he stopped, and then turned and pointed his gun towards Arbery, screaming to "stop". I would guess Travis probably meant that Arbery should stay away from him and keep some distance or he was going to shoot.

 

They were the initiators.They approached him, armed and then blocked his forward progress, preventing him from continuing on his way and leaving the scene. That's what started the confrontation. The fact it escalated so quickly they didn't get the change to clarify why they were attempting to do what they did doesn't change anything. They certainly didn't enunciate their intentions before approaching him.

 

If their guns were in their car, I don't see how they could have feared that Arbery would be able to take one. I suppose this may boil down to 'brandishing.' Were they carrying their guns, were their guns in their hands, and were their guns pointed at or near Arbery? Were they really 'just following' Arbery and never made an attempt to prevent him from travelling? The video in the OP appears like they stopped in front of Arbery and at least one of them got out of the vehicle with their weapon. I don't know what that is, but its not 'just following.'

 

Keep in mind that Travis never actually pointed his gun towards Arbery until Arbery was running towards Travis's direction.

It is true that Travis and the pickup truck (with Gregory in the back raised bed) together in the road formed somewhat of a roadblock, but I don't think it was entirely intentional. It's understandable that Gregory wanted to keep Arbery away from the truck. From each of the McMichael's perspective, Arbery was trying to run towards them. From Arbery's perspective, there were two men with guns standing apart in the road forming a barrier to him.

And remember, Travis did not start spreading out into the road away from the truck until it seemed like Arbery was going to take the path around the other opposite side of the truck, away from Travis.

 

Was Travis outside his vehicle when Arbery started running in his direction? In the video, it appears that the driver's side door was open and someone was standing outside near it... that doesnt seem like 'just following.'

 

Yes. Travis was already only a single step right outside the driver's side door of the vehicle, and holding his gun.

As I explained before. Travis had been following Arbery before. But Arbery changed course and ran in the reverse direction. At that point, Travis stopped the truck. The front of the truck was no longer facing Arbery at that point, and Arbery was moving away from the truck. At that point Travis stepped right outside the vehicle.

The video on Bryan's truck seems to start right after the very moment when Arbery realizes that Bryan's truck is coming, and reverses direction was again, running back towards the direction of Travis's truck again. So when Arbery first comes into view on the video, Arbery is already running away from the direction of Bryan's truck.

 

That doesn't sound to me like 'just following.'

 

Arbery was moving away from the Travis's truck at the moment when Travis stopped the vehicle and stepped out. Travis's truck was not facing the direction Arbery was running at the point. Travis was not trying to chase Arbery on foot.

The prosecution argued that what Travis was doing was setting up a "roadblock" trying to "box in" Arbery, and that Travis knew that Bryan's truck was coming from that direction to "chase" Arbery back towards Travis's direction where the roadblock was.

But it seems to me, that may not be exactly what Travis was trying to do. If Travis was really trying to "catch" Arbery, it doesn't look like he made any attempt to chase him on foot, in the video.
There's a chance the prosecutor's theory might be right, but I just do not see solid evidence for it.

 

It sounds to me like an attempt to prevent Arbery from travelling or 'getting away'. Which in the eyes of the law (or, in an objective sense) isn't meaningfully different from an attempt at detainment, which they did not have the legal right to do unless they personally witnessed Arbery commit a felony, which as I understand, they didn't.

I've used this analogy before, possibly even to you ( I don't remember), but not yet in this particular thread, so here goes-

It seems similar to me as when someone tries to use their own body to block someones car into a driveway and prevent them from leaving, such as in a domestic dispute where one party wants to leave and the other wants to make them stay. If the party trying to leave actually hits with said vehicle the party trying to block them in, it is most often not treated as assault with a vehicle because people have the right to freedom of travel, especially when trying to remove themselves from perceived danger.

 

Look, I totally understand what you are saying, and understand your perspective on this.
But I think if we actually look a little more carefully at the details and facts of the events, it is a little more complicated than this.

You seem to be using vague generalities in your logic, but can we look a little more at the specifics?

Looking at the video, it seems to me that "blocking his forward progress" was likely not intentional, or may not have been entirely intentional, in that situation.

Remember, Bryan's truck (the one with the camera) was not actually chasing Arbery all that way. I believe Arbery had just come from the direction of Travis's truck, been running away from it for a short period of time, and then turned around and begun running back towards it at the time that the video begins, right after he realizes Bryan's truck is far ahead on the road coming towards him.

(jumping forward in the story a little bit)

And Arbery had gone around the right side of Travis's pickup truck, by the side of the road, and Gregory had obviously been unwilling to shoot at him. So Arbery could have continued to run forwards on the road. Maybe when he saw Travis positioning himself towards the front right side of the truck, Arbery interpreted that as Travis trying to intercept him, even though I really do not think that was Travis's intent, looking at the video.