Jogging in Georgia while black.

[Emily's Cat]

A) Some people trespassed but did no damage and didn't take anything from a house that didn't belong to the McMichaelses.

B) ???

C) Therefore the McMichaelses are justified in chasing down Arbery with trucks, cornering him, aiming a shotgun at him, and then shooting when he tried to defend himself against an armed threat.

Can someone fill in the missing steps in a way that makes any kind of logical and reasonable sense?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

From the news report I saw, if I remember correctly, the police showed up after the 911 call by Travis McMichaels (on February 11) and Mr. English was being appraised of the situation by one of the neighbors.

You might want to look for this more recent news. I'll try to get back to you if I find I misremembered that.

If you missed other news before, Mr. English had contacted the police on two occasions himself about trespassers on the property.

But I think Babbylonian has a good point. If the basis for the citizen’s arrest was trespassing, the McMichaels were basing it on second hand information. A neighbor told them that the homeowner told him that he didn’t want the guy on the property.

And it was two weeks ago. They had no idea what might have transpired in those two weeks. English wasn’t talking to them.

To throw out a complete hypothetical: Maybe a couple days after 2/11 English gets a call from his brother. He tells him his good friend is very interested in his construction project and he told him he should stop by when he has a chance and see how it is developing. English realizes that the guy caught on the video tape isn’t some burglar but is his brother’s friend. He’s perfectly fine with him going onto the property. Maybe he even tells his neighbor what is going on. Maybe he even tells the police that this isn’t a problem. The McMichaels know nothing about this.

I’m certainly not saying that is what happened. The point is, when McMichaels see the guy running down the street, they don’t really know whether or not the guy was actually committing a crime. They don’t actually know whether or not he was currently authorized to be on the property.

If Arbery had been detained and not killed, I think the police would have ended up arresting him. But I think they would have had to contact English to verify that he was not authorized to be on the property to maintain that arrest, and maybe even before the arrest.

It could not be actually known whether or not Arbery was authorized to be on the property until the property owner confirmed that fact. Police have the power to detain and question and investigate. Private persons do not. Without some investigation, verification of the crime could not be confirmed. That would mean the McMichaels could not have known whether or not a crime had actually been committed, and therefore could not make a citizen’s arrest.

(This gets a bit more complicated when we get to the second part of the citizen’s arrest, which I will try to do a little later.)

 

[Babbylonian]

From the news report I saw, if I remember correctly, the police showed up after the 911 call by Travis McMichaels (on February 11) and Mr. English was being appraised of the situation by one of the neighbors.

You might want to look for this more recent news. I'll try to get back to you if I find I misremembered that.

If you missed other news before, Mr. English had contacted the police on two occasions himself about trespassers on the property.

Don't bother getting back to me because even if this guy was a daily trespasser and the owner had told everyone else in the neighborhood that he was sick and tired of it, and that he had repeatedly called the police, and that hundreds of dollars of tools had been stolen...there would still be no justification for civilians to grab their guns and ride down a fellow citizen in the street to threaten him with a shotgun.

I've said similar before: If it had turned out that Mr. Arbery had been jogging from a house where he'd left the bodies of a dozen nuns and babies, unless they'd actually seen the grisly murders, these hick morons would still not have been legally justified to do what they did, no matter how sick they were of black men running around in their neighborhood.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

A) Some people trespassed but did no damage and didn't take anything from a house that didn't belong to the McMichaelses.

B) ???

C) Therefore the McMichaelses are justified in chasing down Arbery with trucks, cornering him, aiming a shotgun at him, and then shooting when he tried to defend himself against an armed threat.

Can someone fill in the missing steps in a way that makes any kind of logical and reasonable sense?

Well, when you put it that way...

This is where a thread can go off the rails. There are arguments that can logically fill no those missing steps. But it is complicated. A short answer would just result in pages and pages of discussion and arguments about minor points in order to get to what those steps are.

The best defense I have found is in this video. The blog also has related videos on this case concerning use of force and further consideration of the case.

Each video is about one hour.

I do not agree with the conclusions of those videos. My posts here regarding legal issues are largely considerations and rebuttals of the issues raised in those videos.

 

[Ranb]

This might have been covered earlier, but I think I got it all wrong. Arbery seems to be the victim of some guys who wanted to gun down a person on the street during the day, get it on video, tell the police they did it, then just walk away like they were swatting a fly. I think the "arrest" they were attempting to make was just an afterthought.

Is the social-political climate down there the kind that allows this behavior with hardly any forethought on the part of the perps? Did the police and prosecuting attorneys just think they could let it slide and no one would notice?

I suppose that some people are just annoyed that they can't simply kill those they find objectionable.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

This might have been covered earlier, but I think I got it all wrong. Arbery seems to be the victim of some guys who wanted to gun down a person on the street during the day, get it on video, tell the police they did it, then just walk away like they were swatting a fly. I think the "arrest" they were attempting to make was just an afterthought.

I don't think that was what happened at all.

Is the social-political climate down there the kind that allows this behavior with hardly any forethought on the part of the perps? Did the police and prosecuting attorneys just think they could let it slide and no one would notice?

Apparently so. This slid for many weeks and may well have slid completely if the video had not been released by a private party causing an outrage.

 

[Babbylonian]

This might have been covered earlier, but I think I got it all wrong. Arbery seems to be the victim of some guys who wanted to gun down a person on the street during the day, get it on video, tell the police they did it, then just walk away like they were swatting a fly. I think the "arrest" they were attempting to make was just an afterthought.

Given that they were recording the event, I think what you describe is very possible. They can't have believed anything would come of turning him over to the police since they hadn't witnessed him committing a crime and nobody else was accusing him of committing one. Even if a cop could be convinced to make the arrest, he'd be released as soon as anyone took a second look at the facts.

I think at the very least they thought it would be hilarious to chase down and frighten a black man with their gun(s) while getting it all on video.

And, yes, I maintain that Arbery's skin color almost certainly factored into how far these hick morons were willing to go. As evidence I present the fact that they almost got completely away with it.

 

[Checkmite]

But I think Babbylonian has a good point. If the basis for the citizen’s arrest was trespassing, the McMichaels were basing it on second hand information. A neighbor told them that the homeowner told him that he didn’t want the guy on the property.

Firstly - I agree.

I only want to interject here, that the initial basis that the McMichaels reportedly gave for the alleged citizen's arrest was a burglary, or a series of them. I suggest this more or less proves bad faith and an intent to deceive the police on their part, because their (second-hand) information alleged trespassing, not burglary. They instinctively knew that chasing down a "trespasser" with guns for blocks was not a good look and they had to concoct a more severe allegation.

 

[Robin]

It would be really interesting to see how this same thread would unfold if mentioning "racism" was simply not allowed.

I don't think I have mentioned race or racism in this thread, so for me it wouldn't have gone differently.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Firstly - I agree.

I only want to interject here, that the initial basis that the McMichaels reportedly gave for the alleged citizen's arrest was a burglary, or a series of them. I suggest this more or less proves bad faith and an intent to deceive the police on their part, because their (second-hand) information alleged trespassing, not burglary. They instinctively knew that chasing down a "trespasser" with guns for blocks was not a good look and they had to concoct a more severe allegation.

I addressed this in previous posts that the police report says there were "break-ins" not "burglaries". It was in Travis's 911 call on 2/11 that he referred to a "string of burglaries". But in the police report Greg says it was "break-ins". Of course you can't break into an open construction site, so he obviously meant the trespassing...or the gun theft, or maybe burglary. It is difficult to address exactly what he meant.

I'm still trying to write up a post about the second sentence in the citizen's arrest law where burglary could be relevant, but I have to do some more research to make sure I cover everything correctly.

 

[I Am The Scum]

It's a murderer struggling to make excuses for his actions. This isn't complicated.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again I'm amazed at how little we've advanced beyond "Well we asked the guy who shot him twice in the chest if he's thinks he's a murderer and he said no, so I don't really know what else you expect us to do..."

 

[Robin]

I am reading that McMichael lost his arrest powers because he failed to do his training.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Given that they were recording the event, I think what you describe is very possible.

Roddy was the one recoding it. He says he doesn't know the McMichaels and wasn't involved. I think that is likely true.

I think the claim that they intended to create a video of killing a black guy is absolutely absurd.

They can't have believed anything would come of turning him over to the police since they hadn't witnessed him committing a crime and nobody else was accusing him of committing one. Even if a cop could be convinced to make the arrest, he'd be released as soon as anyone took a second look at the facts.

English called the cops more than once to complain about the intrusions. I think he would have wanted to press charges.

I think at the very least they thought it would be hilarious to chase down and frighten a black man with their gun(s) while getting it all on video.

I don't think they wanted a video. I don't think they thought it was hilarious. I think they thought Arbery must be the guy that stole Travis's gun and if they chased him down before he heard the police sirens they could at least give him a good scare and be the neighborhood heroes and probably even catch him carrying the stolen gun.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I am reading that McMichael lost his arrest powers because he failed to do his training.

Training in firearms. And use of force. Whodathunk?

 

[Bob001]

This might have been covered earlier, but I think I got it all wrong. Arbery seems to be the victim of some guys who wanted to gun down a person on the street during the day, get it on video, tell the police they did it, then just walk away like they were swatting a fly. I think the "arrest" they were attempting to make was just an afterthought.

Is the social-political climate down there the kind that allows this behavior with hardly any forethought on the part of the perps? Did the police and prosecuting attorneys just think they could let it slide and no one would notice?.....

In fact that is what the police and local prosecutors did, until the released video forced the state to take over. Without the video the would have gotten away with it.

 

[Bob001]

Roddy was the one recoding it. He says he doesn't know the McMichaels and wasn't involved. I think that is likely true.
....

He did say he didn't know them in his CNN interview with Chris Cuomo. What he hasn't explained is why he followed them and made the video in the first place. I wonder if the McMichaels made a lot of noise about what they were going to do "to that *****" as they grabbed their guns and jumped in their pickup, and Roddy wanted to document it.

 

[Babbylonian]

He did say he didn't know them in his CNN interview with Chris Cuomo. What he hasn't explained is why he followed them and made the video in the first place. I wonder if the McMichaels made a lot of noise about what they were going to do "to that *****" as they grabbed their guns and jumped in their pickup, and Roddy wanted to document it.

If he didn't know them, then how was the video not released day and date with the murder? I smell smoke and I suspect it's related to the very high temperature of his pants.

 

[bruto]

A) Some people trespassed but did no damage and didn't take anything from a house that didn't belong to the McMichaelses.

B) ???

C) Therefore the McMichaelses are justified in chasing down Arbery with trucks, cornering him, aiming a shotgun at him, and then shooting when he tried to defend himself against an armed threat.

Can someone fill in the missing steps in a way that makes any kind of logical and reasonable sense?

You'll no doubt see a bunch of clarifications and yesbuts and nobuts and maybes, but I think the missing steps can be reduced to shorthand, by inserting between each of your letters: A_n;B_n; and C_n.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

He did say he didn't know them in his CNN interview with Chris Cuomo. What he hasn't explained is why he followed them and made the video in the first place. I wonder if the McMichaels made a lot of noise about what they were going to do "to that *****" as they grabbed their guns and jumped in their pickup, and Roddy wanted to document it.

I don't know.

Just some complete speculation: Roddy was driving down Holmes. He saw the McMichaels setting up a road block. Arbery turned around and ran the other way. Roddy opened his window and said "What the heck is going on?" McMichael said "That's the burglar! We've got to get him!" And they take off in the truck. Roddy follows and makes a feeble attempt to cut off Arbery because he thinks this is a real burglary suspect. Arbery runs around him. So Roddy follows and turns on his phone camera to capture images of the suspect.

I would think that the police would have checked the McMichaels cell phone records by now and if there were any calls to Roddy at that time then Roddy would already be under arrest.

But not necessarily. Roddy lives on Burford. The most direct route coming in is Satilla. So it would be somewhat odd that he was coming in on Holmes. Not really odd. It is about the same distance either way. But not the probably expected route.

But there has been no evidence that Roddy was a conspirator in this event.