Ahmaud Arbery: Is this a strike against Citizen's Arrest, Gun Control, The Legal System, or All?

[ObsidianJones]

On February 23, 2020, a young man went on his usual run around his neighborhood. This neighborhood had a string of robberies, so when a ex police officer (Gregory McMichael) and his son (Travis McMichael) saw Arbery running, they grabbed their guns and jumped in their truck, chasing him down. The ex officer calls 911 to report on Arbery's actions.​

​

When the 911 operator asks if Arbery broke into a house, the elder McMichael said no. When pressed on what Arbery was doing, McMichael simply said running each time. Finally, when the 911 operator asked what was Arbery doing wrong, it was agreed that they would send a car to just check up on what was going on. Once that call ended, another came minutes later to just report "Black male running down the street ."​

​

The two armed individuals follow the runner down the street, yell for him to start, come at him with their firearms, and take Arbery's life.​

​

Apparently this incident was being swept under the rug until a video was shown of the incident. It has sparked outrage.​

​

Before being one of the few lawyers recusing himself due to a professional history with Gregory McMichael, Waycross Judicial Circuit District Attorney George Barnhill penned "It appears their intent was to stop and hold this criminal suspect until law enforcement arrived. Under Georgia law, this is perfectly legal."​

​

And this is where we get into the weeds.​

​

Because as stated by McMichael's own account, He did not witness Arbery breaking into a home or doing anything criminal. All McMichael had is suspicion. Under the Georgia law that Barnhill so blithely mentioned, there is no legal basis for defense here.​

​

​

TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS
ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS
§ 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest
O.C.G.A. 17-4-60 (2010)
17-4-60. Grounds for arrest


A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

McMichael witnessed no break-ins that day. He did not witness Arbery doing anything other than what a multitude of people do every day: Exercise. There is nothing here to even stop Arbery, let alone chase him down with guns in efforts to arrest him.

Yet the police did nothing for 2 months until this video came out.

And I, for the life of me, can not figure out what failed more.

When people find out I own shotguns, they are confused because I'm a progressive. When I tell them I support gun control, they are simply baffled. Succinctly put, not everyone is mature to handle responsibilities. I realize this. If I was judged deficient, I would go along with that. That's why I'm fine with reasonable gun control. This is also why I'm fine with Citizen's arrest when done fairly. When people understand their powers, their roles, and their limitations. Which is granted and entrusted by the Laws, which is supposed to be interpreted justly by our legal branch of government.

And Every One Of These Concepts Failed Ahmaud Arbery. Every. One.

Other than the obvious senseless loss of life and the seemingly inept handling of this case by the law enforcement, this is a reality that most black men think about and are told that they are over reacting. I don't run out here because I live in a 96% predominantly white neighborhood. I'm told I'm paranoid. In a time where things like this happen with more frequency, I'm told they are outliers.

The facts are that I can be an outlier to someone else.

And for the record, I hate making these threads. I don't want to be the guy who just talks about possibly injustice towards Black men. But I legitimately waited to see if anyone would mention it.

 

[lil devils x]

I found that video incredibly difficult to watch. Disgust, stomach turning, despair all at once does not even begin to describe how gut wrenching that truly was. As I mentioned before with the whole KKK taking over our local court house here and how they marched a family who had just lost their husband and father of 5 children to a drunk driver marched out into a field to go nowhere holding all that they own with no one offering to help them when they lost their home due to the loss of their head of household and having a new baby. I also remember growing up in this town, and the high school jocks screaming they were going " N- hunting" and jumping into pickups just like those men in that video did and then targeting and harassing black students as they walked home from school while knocking off their hats and making general overall asses of themselves. It is difficult to even type this through the tears for what this man was put through, for his life to be taken like that, for his family to have to go through this and that so many others have been put through because of blind ignorance, stupidity and hatred. This entire thing was so disgusting, and to make it worse, Georgia does not even have a hate crime law to prosecute this under. Everyone who has seen this sort of behavior like I have knows EXACTLY what that was and we know damn well that we have far right racist groups applauding it and making jokes to that exact extent as we speak. We need severe changes in this country, because the more we change, in the end it seems the more we stay the same.

 

[lil devils x]

When people find out I own shotguns, they are confused because I'm a progressive. When I tell them I support gun control, they are simply baffled. Succinctly put, not everyone is mature to handle responsibilities. I realize this. If I was judged deficient, I would go along with that. That's why I'm fine with reasonable gun control. This is also why I'm fine with Citizen's arrest when done fairly. When people understand their powers, their roles, and their limitations. Which is granted and entrusted by the Laws, which is supposed to be interpreted justly by our legal branch of government.

And Every One Of These Concepts Failed Ahmaud Arbery. Every. One.

Other than the obvious senseless loss of life and the seemingly inept handling of this case by the law enforcement, this is a reality that most black men think about and are told that they are over reacting. I don't run out here because I live in a 96% predominantly white neighborhood. I'm told I'm paranoid. In a time where things like this happen with more frequency, I'm told they are outliers.

The facts are that I can be an outlier to someone else.

And for the record, I hate making these threads. I don't want to be the guy who just talks about possibly injustice towards Black men. But I legitimately waited to see if anyone would mention it.

After the whole "Armed people with swastikas and confederate flags intimidated lawmakers" and frightened a black lawmaker who spoke out about feeling unsafe, Armed, Black citizens actually escorted her to her job to protect her:
"One of Anthony’s constituents, a black firefighter, organized Wednesday’s capitol escort. While early reports focused on three black men with large rifles escorting Anthony, there were six participants, including two women, and some of them were armed with handguns, Lynn said. Five of the participants are black and one is Hispanic. Michael Lynn Jr, a Lansing resident, said he was frustrated to see his legislator being violently intimidated in her workplace. He said the escort was the first time he had ever chosen to openly carry his AR-15 rifle. "

Armed black citizens escort Michigan lawmaker to capitol after volatile rightwing protest

State representative Sarah Anthony says she wanted to highlight failure of policing after armed white protesters demonstrated

www.theguardian.com

Yes, it is a sad day when even our firefighters feel they must take up arms to escort a pro gun control lawmaker to her job due to armed men trying to intimidate her and make her feel unsafe. That is the reality though. The more we have things like this happen, the more average citizens whether they are trying to jog or go to work feel as they though they have to protect themselves regardless of how they feel about guns due to the severity of the problem we are facing.

I couldn't bring myself to make the thread, I honestly did not know how to even start it or find the words due to how much watching that video affected me. Thank you for making it though, you helped me find words through the difficulty to even process what I was seeing happen here.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

And this is exactly why "citizens arrest" shouldn't be a thing.

Normal people should not have the authority to enforce the law, nor should they have the authority to hold someone at gunpoint.

I'm for the ownership of guns (I have a few myself), but your responsibility as a gun owner is to only use your gun to defend yourself, and only when absolutely necessary. It is NEVER necessary to shoot someone who is fleeing and not an immediate threat.

This behavior is absolutely disgusting, and it's even more disgusting because someone who is an ex police officer should know better. Then again, the ex cop was 64, so clearly he is of the era were racism was still celebrated (especially in the south) and never grew out of it.

It'll be sad when once again there will be no justice.

 

[Agema]

snip

I would strongly suggest that the accused's prior job as a law enforcement official (especially if they had professional reputation) will have granted him substantial credibility with investigators.

I have a huge problem with citizens using guns this way. Being stopped by anyone holding weapons is likely to be extremely stressful and if someone believes their life is in serious danger, there's a fair chance in that moment of extreme stress and panic they will instinctively fight. At least at the hands of a police officer, despite the many incidents, it is much more likely the person being accosted will accept authority and not believe they face someone intending them harm.

I think the justice system needs to take this into account and place a very heavy burden on civilians who choose to stop other civilians in the name of the law. I felt this way about the Matin-ZImmerman case years ago: with some leeway if a serious crime is in process, if a citizen chooses to initiate a confrontation whilst armed, they need to bear some responsibility if the confrontation ends up in severe harm.

 

[gorfias]

In an earlier thread someone described a matter as such that I thought s/he was asking for new laws while existing laws are being ignored. I'll write here again, as TC notes, the Georgia law was NOT obeyed. Enforce the laws that are there.

 

[09philj]

And this is exactly why "citizens arrest" shouldn't be a thing.

Citizen's arrest is a necessary component of the law enforcement system in order to allow members of the public to intervene in crimes in progress and apprehend offenders at large. However, it needs to be restricted to cases where there are reasonable grounds to identify a person as having committed an offence. The issue in this case was that the murderers' judgement of whether Ahmaud Arbery was likely to be guilty of an offence was compromised by racism. Their decision to shoot him was also motivated by racism. This is a very open and shut case demonstrating why racist people cannot be allowed to own guns. If a person is likely to have heavily impaired judgement in regards to whether it is suitable for them to use a deadly weapon on another person, they shouldn't have the deadly weapon. If they hadn't been armed, they may still have assaulted Arbery, but there is a much higher chance he would have survived.

 

[tstorm823]

To the mild, mild defense of those who might have at one point attempted to justify some action, Arbery did allegedly run into a partially constructed house that day, and there had been burglaries in the neighborhood. I'm certainly not one to condemn attempts to see multiple perspectives on an event, or to consider the possibility it's reasonable citizen action gone wrong.

But to the no defense of the murderers, you can't just point a gun at people, you can't citizen's arrest someone for a crime not currently being committed, and you definitely can't shoot somebody for trying to escape your false imprisonment. They committed multiple serious felonies on camera, and should be convicted on at least those 3 charges, and as an ex-cop with no excused ignorance of the law, should get the maximum allowed sentence (which I assume is either life or close to it).

And then to flip to the other extreme perspective, they should probably be investigated for the burglaries too. They chased a guy down with intent to get him arrested, and ended up shooting him. They obvious lack conscience, it's not an unreasonable suggestion that they might have robbed people, and then seen a black guy in their neighborhood and decided to try and pin the crimes on him. Like, this could actually be worse than racists suspecting a black guy for being black.

Edit to answer the title: biggest strike is against the legal system for going easy on an ex-cop instead of exceptionally harsh. It's one thing to go easy on a cop in the line of duty because they're in the line of duty. We tell cops to go out with weapons and protect us from criminals, it's not unreasonable to be less upset when they use those weapons than when a citizen does. When they aren't in the line of duty, the standards should be much, much higher, and the legal system failed for not acting as such.

Unless these two had a history of violence, it's not a failure of gun control. Peaceful people should be allowed to own shotguns, and they broke existing laws with the gun before pulling the trigger.

It's not a failure of citizen's arrest because this wasn't a citizen's arrest. Holding someone by force is, to my knowledge, only allowed in cases of ongoing crimes or to prevent an imminent crime, neither of which was the case. And to my knowledge, lethal force is never justified in a citizen's arrest. They were felons for even aiming the gun.

 

[lil devils x]

To the mild, mild defense of those who might have at one point attempted to justify some action, Arbery did allegedly run into a partially constructed house that day, and there had been burglaries in the neighborhood. I'm certainly not one to condemn attempts to see multiple perspectives on an event, or to consider the possibility it's reasonable citizen action gone wrong.

But to the no defense of the murderers, you can't just point a gun at people, you can't citizen's arrest someone for a crime not currently being committed, and you definitely can't shoot somebody for trying to escape your false imprisonment. They committed multiple serious felonies on camera, and should be convicted on at least those 3 charges, and as an ex-cop with no excused ignorance of the law, should get the maximum allowed sentence (which I assume is either life or close to it).

And then to flip to the other extreme perspective, they should probably be investigated for the burglaries too. They chased a guy down with intent to get him arrested, and ended up shooting him. They obvious lack conscience, it's not an unreasonable suggestion that they might have robbed people, and then seen a black guy in their neighborhood and decided to try and pin the crimes on him. Like, this could actually be worse than racists suspecting a black guy for being black.

Edit to answer the title: biggest strike is against the legal system for going easy on an ex-cop instead of exceptionally harsh. It's one thing to go easy on a cop in the line of duty because they're in the line of duty. We tell cops to go out with weapons and protect us from criminals, it's not unreasonable to be less upset when they use those weapons than when a citizen does. When they aren't in the line of duty, the standards should be much, much higher, and the legal system failed for not acting as such.

Unless these two had a history of violence, it's not a failure of gun control. Peaceful people should be allowed to own shotguns, and they broke existing laws with the gun before pulling the trigger.

It's not a failure of citizen's arrest because this wasn't a citizen's arrest. Holding someone by force is, to my knowledge, only allowed in cases of ongoing crimes or to prevent an imminent crime, neither of which was the case. And to my knowledge, lethal force is never justified in a citizen's arrest. They were felons for even aiming the gun.

no burglaries were reported weeks before fatal shooting

Men accused of killing Ahmaud Arbery thought he was a burglary suspect; no burglaries were reported weeks before fatal shooting

The two white men arrested Thursday evening in the fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery told police they believed he was a suspect in a series of break-ins. But no such string of crimes was reported in …

ktla.com

It looks like McMichaels was inventing the burglaries claim and had repeatedly called the police on him just because he was jogging, because a black man jogging is some how something to repeatedly call the police about and then chase him down and murder him in this man's mind.

Police debunk accused killers’ claims Ahmaud Arbery was burglary suspect

Police debunk accused killers’ claims Ahmaud Arbery was burglary suspect

The two men accused of fatally shotgunning unarmed jogger Ahmaud Arbery told police they believed he was a suspect in a recent string of break-ins — but no such crimes were reported to cops in the …

nypost.com

Which makes you really wonder how many times did he invent reasons to arrest or attack people while he was on the force.

 

[ObsidianJones]

In an earlier thread someone described a matter as such that I thought s/he was asking for new laws while existing laws are being ignored. I'll write here again, as TC notes, the Georgia law was NOT obeyed. Enforce the laws that are there.

To the mild, mild defense of those who might have at one point attempted to justify some action, Arbery did allegedly run into a partially constructed house that day, and there had been burglaries in the neighborhood. I'm certainly not one to condemn attempts to see multiple perspectives on an event, or to consider the possibility it's reasonable citizen action gone wrong.

But to the no defense of the murderers, you can't just point a gun at people, you can't citizen's arrest someone for a crime not currently being committed, and you definitely can't shoot somebody for trying to escape your false imprisonment. They committed multiple serious felonies on camera, and should be convicted on at least those 3 charges, and as an ex-cop with no excused ignorance of the law, should get the maximum allowed sentence (which I assume is either life or close to it).

And then to flip to the other extreme perspective, they should probably be investigated for the burglaries too. They chased a guy down with intent to get him arrested, and ended up shooting him. They obvious lack conscience, it's not an unreasonable suggestion that they might have robbed people, and then seen a black guy in their neighborhood and decided to try and pin the crimes on him. Like, this could actually be worse than racists suspecting a black guy for being black.

Edit to answer the title: biggest strike is against the legal system for going easy on an ex-cop instead of exceptionally harsh. It's one thing to go easy on a cop in the line of duty because they're in the line of duty. We tell cops to go out with weapons and protect us from criminals, it's not unreasonable to be less upset when they use those weapons than when a citizen does. When they aren't in the line of duty, the standards should be much, much higher, and the legal system failed for not acting as such.

Unless these two had a history of violence, it's not a failure of gun control. Peaceful people should be allowed to own shotguns, and they broke existing laws with the gun before pulling the trigger.

It's not a failure of citizen's arrest because this wasn't a citizen's arrest. Holding someone by force is, to my knowledge, only allowed in cases of ongoing crimes or to prevent an imminent crime, neither of which was the case. And to my knowledge, lethal force is never justified in a citizen's arrest. They were felons for even aiming the gun.

And these are the exact reasons I've added the Legal system as a part of the failure. Specifically, DA Barnhill.

To the majority of citizens (when it comes to other people), they believe in the sanctity of Law Enforcement. We venerate them more than we do our super heroes. So when anyone from Law Enforcement labels someone something, it sticks.

DA Barnhill calling Arbery a 'criminal suspect' is highly prejudicial. That is stating to the lowest common denominator (e.g. most of the population) that he was guilty of something. That's failing number two. The biggest failing is that an actual District Attorney has gone on record stating that the law is with the McMichaels when it certainly isn't. Again, the Lowest Common Denominator mostly tuned out when Barnhill called Arbery a criminal suspect. But after that, Barnhill said the law was with them. Those people are now sated.

A wide population of Jury candidates were tainted with that. You hope some people will come around when they see the video, but still a good chunk of them will believe a DA stating that this was by the book. That single move ripped the chance of justice out of the hands of this family more than anything else.

 

[gorfias]

... if a citizen chooses to initiate a confrontation whilst armed, they need to bear some responsibility if the confrontation ends up in severe harm.

Normally, as above, I see asking for new laws when existing laws are being ignored as a dodge of responsibility. A diversion that has people talking about new laws rather than do their responsibilities under existing laws but that isn't a half bad idea. It may even be the law now. See below.

And these are the exact reasons I've added the Legal system as a part of the failure. Specifically, DA Barnhill.

...

DA Barnhill calling Arbery a 'criminal suspect' is highly prejudicial...

A wide population of Jury candidates were tainted with that. You hope some people will come around when they see the video, but still a good chunk of them will believe a DA stating that this was by the book. That single move ripped the chance of justice out of the hands of this family more than anything else.

Still, as citizens, I think a good job is being done: shine a light on the failures, no doubt in part due to the dad's special position that likely is the root of why these deranged yahoos weren't busted on the spot. And now, in that light, the perps have been busted. We'll see what happens from here.
And you know you're going to have people taking the sides of the yahoos.
Even with everything this guy says below, for instance, is it really legal in Georgia to drive up to an unarmed man you have no direct knowledge of having done anything, with firearms at the ready, accosting him? Don't you have an assault with a deadly weapon charge against you at a minimum? And if you even defend yourself, do we license that? I don't think we do. (have it legal to defend yourself from someone you are criminally victimizing).


As for tainted jury's, anyone that knows of the DA's statements can possibly be dismissed from the Jury. Expect any trial to have a ton of objections.

Be interesting to see what civil case rights the family has against those who have so willingly dropped the ball.

 

[tstorm823]

no burglaries were reported weeks before fatal shooting

Which does not necessarily mean they didn't happen, only that they weren't reported. Not that it matters, an innocent victim was killed. The killer could have been personally told about robberies and decided on vigilante justice against the first black person he saw. The killer could have made up the burglaries to justify the killing of a black man, just like historical lynchings. Or, wildly speculating, the killer could be a burglar trying to pin his crimes on a black man, even though his crimes were actually never reported. Racist kills innocent black man is the common undercurrent of all those possibilities, but I want to say the third one, because posturing plausible explanations that others aren't in advance of evidence is sort of my schitck.

 

[Houseman]

After seeing the video, it doesn't seem wise to approach and grapple with an armed man.

 

[SupahEwok]

After seeing the video, it doesn't seem wise to approach and grapple with an armed man.

What else can you do if you think you're going to be shot? Standing still and turning around to run both mean you're dead. At least trying to get the gun is a fight.

 

[Houseman]

What else can you do if you think you're going to be shot? Standing still and turning around to run both mean you're dead. At least trying to get the gun is a fight.

That assumes he thought he was going to be shot. Unfortunately we can never know for certain what he thought.

 

[tstorm823]

That assumes he thought he was going to be shot. Unfortunately we can never know for certain what he thought.

Pretty sure he was thinking "I'm gonna get shot". If someone brandishes a weapon at you, that's what you should think. Nobody should ever, under any circumstances, aim a weapon at someone without the intent to shoot. If you are aimed at, it means the person with the weapon is trying to shoot you or insanely negligent, either way your life is in immediate danger.

Edit for tangent: this is where the gun proponents and gun control proponents totally agree. The only even defensible time to point a gun at any person is self-defense. Period. You point a gun at someone who isn't an immediate threat to others, you should be arrested on the spot.

 

[SupahEwok]

That assumes he thought he was going to be shot. Unfortunately we can never know for certain what he thought.

If we can't know what he thought (and guesses on the order of 90+% likelihood are not good enough), I don't see how we can judge his actions as wise or not at all. Was it wise for the ex-cop and his sons to entrap a random black man and point their guns at him?

 

[Houseman]

Pretty sure he was thinking "I'm gonna get shot". If someone brandishes a weapon at you, that's what you should think

Police point their guns at people. People generally understand "If I do what the officer is telling me to do, I might not get shot".
Muggers point guns at people. People generally understand "If I give what he wants, I might not get shot".

Sometimes a gun is used to control behavior or as a deterrent. Part of the reason why gun safety classes teach "only pull out your gun if you intend to kill" is because doing anything else will be used against you in a court of law. If you have time to cock back the hammer, for example, then it could be argued that the threat was not immediate, and what you did wasn't in self-defense, but was premeditated murder. Part of gun safety is "how not to do illegal things with your gun".

The point is, someone pointing a gun at you doesn't always mean "you're going to die", so engaging them in unarmed combat is inadvisable.

If we can't know what he thought (and guesses on the order of 90+% likelihood are not good enough), I don't see how we can judge his actions as wise or not at all

I don't see how any mindset can justify "two armed men are several feet in front of me. I'm going to jog up to them and engage one of them in unarmed combat" as wise, but that's just my opinion.

 

[tstorm823]

I don't see how any mindset can justify "two armed men are several feet in front of me. I'm going to jog up to them and engage one of them in unarmed combat" as wise, but that's just my opinion.

It doesn't have to be wise. It's literally human instinct. Fight or flight.

Not pointing a gun at people isn't about court issues, it's about not killing people. Sheesh.

 

[lil devils x]

Police point their guns at people. People generally understand "If I do what the officer is telling me to do, I might not get shot".
Muggers point guns at people. People generally understand "If I give what he wants, I might not get shot".

Sometimes a gun is used to control behavior or as a deterrent. Part of the reason why gun safety classes teach "only pull out your gun if you intend to kill" is because doing anything else will be used against you in a court of law. If you have time to cock back the hammer, for example, then it could be argued that the threat was not immediate, and what you did wasn't in self-defense, but was premeditated murder. Part of gun safety is "how not to do illegal things with your gun".

The point is, someone pointing a gun at you doesn't always mean "you're going to die", so engaging them in unarmed combat is inadvisable.



I don't see how any mindset can justify "two armed men are several feet in front of me. I'm going to jog up to them and engage one of them in unarmed combat" as wise, but that's just my opinion.

History has shown us when aggressive men pull up in a pickup like that in the south, it isn't going to end well for you whether they are going to kidnap you to murder you elsewhere or murder you on the spot. They weren't there to rob him, and they were not enforcing the law, they were there to hunt him. His defense mechanisms were understandably triggered and he felt he had to fight for his life.