3 men charged in Ahmaud Arbery’s death convicted of murder

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  1stwarrior  •  2 weeks ago  •  61 comments

3 men charged in Ahmaud Arbery’s death convicted of murder

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Three men were convicted of murder Wednesday in the killing of   Ahmaud Arbery , the Black man who was running empty-handed through a Georgia subdivision when the white strangers chased him, trapped him on a quiet street and blasted him with a shotgun.

The February 2020 slaying drew limited attention at first. But when video of the shooting leaked online, Arbery’s death quickly became another example in the nation’s reckoning of racial injustice in the way Black people are treated in their everyday lives.

Now the men all   face a mandatory sentence of life in prison . The judge will decide whether their sentences are served with or without the possibility of parole.

As the first of 23 guilty verdicts were read, Arbery’s father   had to leave the courtroom   after leaping up and shouting. At the reading of the last criminal count, Arbery’s mother dropped her head and quietly pumped her fists.

“He didn’t do nothing but run and dream,” Marcus Arbery Sr. said of his son. Outside the courthouse, dozens of Black supporters hugged and cried.

The jury deliberated for about 10 hours before   convicting   Greg McMichael, son Travis McMichael and neighbor William “Roddie” Bryan.

The McMichaels grabbed guns and jumped in a pickup truck to pursue the 25-year-old Arbery after seeing him running outside the Georgia port city of Brunswick. Bryan joined the pursuit in his own pickup and recorded cellphone video of Travis McMichael fatally shooting Arbery.

The father and son told police they suspected Arbery was a fleeing burglar. But the prosecution argued that the men provoked the fatal confrontation and that there was no evidence Arbery committed any crimes in the neighborhood.

“We commend the courage and bravery of this jury to say that what happened on Feb. 23, 2020, to Ahmaud Arbery — the hunting and killing of Ahmaud Arbery — it was not only morally wrong but legally wrong, and we are thankful for that,” said Latonia Hines, Cobb County executive assistant district attorney.

Prosecutor Linda Dunikoski added: “The jury system works in this country. And when you present the truth to people and they see it, they will do the right thing.”

Travis McMichael, 35, stood for the verdict, his lawyer’s arm around his shoulder. At one point, he lowered his head to his chest. After the verdicts were read, as he stood to leave, he mouthed “love you” to his mother in the courtroom gallery.

Greg McMichael, 65, hung his head when the judge read his first guilty verdict. Bryan, 52, bit his lip.

Speaking outside the courthouse, Ben Crump, attorney for Arbery’s father, repeatedly said that “the spirit of Ahmaud defeated the lynch mob.”

Arbery’s mother, Wanda Cooper-Jones, thanked the crowd gathered for the verdict and   said she did not think she would see this day.

“It’s been a long fight. It’s been a hard fight. But God is good,” she said, adding that her son would now rest in peace.

Travis McMichaels’ attorneys said both he and his father feel that they did the right thing, and that they believed the video would help their case. But they also said the McMichaels regret that Arbery got killed.

“I can tell you honestly, these men are sorry for what happened to Ahmaud Arbery,” attorney Jason Sheffield said. “They are sorry he’s dead. They are sorry for the tragedy that happened because of the choices they made to go out there and try to stop him.”

They planned to appeal.

Bryan’s attorney, Kevin Gough, said his team was “disappointed with the verdict, but we respect it.” He planned to file new legal motions after Thanksgiving.

Superior Court Judge Timothy Walmsley did not immediately schedule a sentencing date, saying that he wanted to give both sides time to prepare.

In a statement, President Joe Biden said Arbery’s killing was a “devastating reminder” of how much more work the country has to do in the fight for racial justice.

“While the guilty verdicts reflect our justice system doing its job, that alone is not enough. Instead, we must recommit ourselves to building a future of unity and shared strength, where no one fears violence because of the color of their skin,” Biden said.

Though prosecutors did not argue that racism motivated the killing, federal authorities have charged them with hate crimes, alleging that they chased and killed Arbery because he was Black. That case is scheduled to go to trial in February.


The disproportionately white jury received the case around midday Tuesday.

Soon after returning to court Wednesday morning, the jury sent a note to the judge asking to view two versions of the shooting video — the original and one that investigators enhanced to reduce shadows — three times apiece.

Jurors returned to the courtroom to see the videos and listen again the 911 call one of the defendants made from the bed of a pickup truck about 30 seconds before the shooting.

On the 911 call the jury reviewed, Greg McMichael tells an operator: “I’m out here in Satilla Shores. There’s a Black male running down the street.”

He then starts shouting, apparently as Arbery is running toward the McMichael’s idling truck with Bryan’s truck coming up behind him: “Stop right there! Damn it, stop! Travis!” Gunshots can be heard a few second later.

The graphic video emerged two months later, and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation took over the case, quickly arresting the three men.

Defense attorneys contend the McMichaels were attempting a legal citizen’s arrest when they set off after Arbery, seeking to detain and question him after he was seen running from a nearby home under construction.

Travis McMichael testified that he shot Arbery in self-defense. He said Arbery turned and attacked with his fists while running past the truck where McMichael stood with his shotgun.

At the time of his death, Arbery had enrolled at a technical college and   was preparing to study to become an electrician   like his uncles.

Shaun Seals, a 32-year-old lifelong Brunswick resident, rushed to the courthouse to join the crowd cheering the verdict.

“We just came out to witness history,” said Seals, pushing his 10-month-old daughter in a stroller.

Seals, who is Black, called the convictions a victory not just for his community but for the nation.

“It’s not going to heal most of the wounds” from a long history of inequality, he said. “But it’s a start and shows people are trying.”


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
1  seeder  1stwarrior    2 weeks ago

Probably won't get a lot of comments - just some white guys who murdered a Black man in Georgia in cold blood.

Wonder if this would face the "racist" flag?  Nahh - probably not.

These three should be buried so far under the jails that even evolutionists in the future would have a hard time figuring who/what they are/were.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2  TᵢG    2 weeks ago

Difficult to imagine the level of racism built into these men to transform a man jogging into a 'black man fleeing the scene of a crime' and then take that to the point of killing the man.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
2.1  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  TᵢG @2    2 weeks ago

And to have their defense attorney emphatically state that Aubrey's fists were dangerous weapons which is why the three men used pistols/rifles/shotguns to defend themselves.

Yup - ain't no racism there ya know.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1    2 weeks ago

So you think the defense lawyers were racists?????

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

They were likely doing what defense attorneys do ... putting forth the best possible defense for their client.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.2    2 weeks ago
They were likely doing what defense attorneys do ... putting forth the best possible defense for their client.

Well, that is what I thought, after getting such a shitty case, what else could they do?

I damn sure don't consider it racism for lawyers to put on the best defense they possibly can to get their clients off.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.3    2 weeks ago
I damn sure don't consider it racism for lawyers to put on the best defense they possibly can to get their clients off.

Good.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
2.1.5  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.2    2 weeks ago

I would lump these defense lawyers in the same category as the Rittenhouse prosecutors; the bottom of the barrel- and giving all lawyers a bad name.

Some tactics are too low for even lawyers to use; or at least they should be.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.5    2 weeks ago

It is core to our system of justice to provide the best possible defense.   As long as the attorneys stick with the facts (i.e. do not lie), they are doing exactly what they should do if they present the most compelling case for their client's not-guilty plea.

Some tactics are too low for even lawyers to use; or at least they should be.

What tactics, in particular, do you think these attorneys used that you consider wrong?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.6    one week ago
What tactics, in particular, do you think these attorneys used that you consider wrong?

Well, 1st Warrior thinks they are racists.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.8  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.7    one week ago

Being racist is not a tactic.   It is wrong, but is not a tactic.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.8    one week ago
And to have their defense attorney emphatically state that Aubrey's fists were dangerous weapons which is why the three men used pistols/rifles/shotguns to defend themselves. Yup - ain't no racism there ya know.

That is his post.

Seems to me he thinks the tactics were racist.

Better now?

If not, take it up with him, it is HIS post.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.10  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.9    one week ago
Better now? If not, take it up with him, it is HIS post.

Looks to me like you are putting words in 1st's mouth.   Since you brought this up, you take it up with him.   Leave me out of it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.10    one week ago
Looks to me like you are putting words in 1st's mouth.

Not interested.

Since you brought this up, you take it up with him.  

Look back. I did that already.

Leave me out of it.

Leave yourself out of it. I responded to him, then you wrote to me, so I responded to you. If you don't expect responses, why are you posting?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.11    one week ago

Here is what I wrote to you:

TiG @2.1.2 ☞ They were likely doing what defense attorneys do ... putting forth the best possible defense for their client.

Texan @2.1.3 I damn sure don't consider it racism for lawyers to put on the best defense they possibly can to get their clients off.

TiG @2.1.4 Good.  

That string is finished by my post with the word 'Good'


Now I respond to Ronin (not you):

TiG @2.1.6 What tactics, in particular, do you think these attorneys used that you consider wrong?

And now you interject with this:

Texan @2.1.7 Well, 1st Warrior thinks they are racists.

Here you start speaking for 1st and then continue to do so.

Thus I repeat, take it up with 1st since you are the one putting words in his mouth.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
2.1.13  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.7    one week ago

And to have their defense attorney emphatically state that Aubrey's fists were dangerous weapons which is why the three men used pistols/rifles/shotguns to defend themselves.

Yup - ain't no racism there ya know.

Where oh where did I say the attorney was a racist????

Using your tactics - PROVE TO ME I SAID THE ATTORNEY IS A RACIST.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.13    one week ago

Thanks for stepping in to deal with this nonsense.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
2.1.15  Nowhere Man  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.13    one week ago
Yup - ain't no racism there ya know. Where oh where did I say the attorney was a racist????

Pardon me for interjecting here....

It read to me that there is no racist argument to be made here which I completely agree with.... Somebody please correct me if I interpreted that wrong?

 
 
 
MsMarple
Freshman Silent
2.1.16  MsMarple  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.1    one week ago

--

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
2.1.17  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Nowhere Man @2.1.15    one week ago

That was my point - don't see how it could've been interpreted any other way.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
2.1.18  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.14    one week ago

Just can not believe some of the responses - just can not.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.13    one week ago

If you didn't think that, then your whole post is meaningless.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.12    one week ago

Do you want to be left out of this, as you profess, or do you have to have the last word. Pick one, because it ain't going to be both.

Don't pee on MY leg and try to tell me it's raining.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.21  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.20    one week ago

Here is a little clue for you Texan.    When you make an allegation, I will defend myself.   

You were wrong (just shocking).   Deal with it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.22  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.21    one week ago

the last word it is then!

 
 
 
Ronin2
PhD Quiet
2.1.23  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.6    one week ago

I have no problem with facts- if that is what lawyers stick to; but in both cases lawyers didn't stick to the facts- they played on politics, race, and emotions. In both cases the facts were against their positions- so they chose to ignore them or tried to severely alter them.

If you are talking about the defense attorneys- they made several statements that if they weren't outright racist; then they were hinting at it strongly. Maybe they were hoping a few racists in the jury snuck through. If they were smart  they would have advised their clients to throw themselves on the mercy of the court (Since the facts could lead to nothing else than their clients guilt). Not saying mercy would have been granted or deserved; but it would have been better than putting everyone through that trial with it's forgone conclusion.

If you are talking about the Rittenhouse prosecution. You can start with not properly vetting their witnesses/alleged victims. If they had no charges ever would have been brought. Withholding information by sending over drone footage so that it wasn't the best possible resolution. Pointing a weapon at the jury for dramatic affect (so many things wrong with this that he should be charging himself for breaking Wisconsin law). 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
2.1.24  TᵢG  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.23    one week ago
If you are talking about the Rittenhouse prosecution.

We are not, we are talking about the Arbery murder.

If you are talking about the defense attorneys- they made several statements that if they weren't outright racist; then they were hinting at it strongly.

I asked you to show me the tactics that the attorneys used.   You, in summary, tell me that they made statements that hinted strongly at racism.   That is pretty much saying nothing.   What, specifically, did they say that was a racist?   Deliver the statement.   

Look, Ronin, I am not saying you are wrong.   I am asking you to defend your claim with cold hard facts.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
2.1.25  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.19    one week ago

Maybe to you - which, believe me, I can understand, but, obviously not to the other's making comments.

You don't like what I say/post?  Don't read it and then try to argue invalid points.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  1stwarrior @2.1.25    one week ago

I'll respond how and when and to what I choose.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3  Sean Treacy    2 weeks ago

The system works, again. 

 
 
 
squiggy
Sophomore Quiet
4  squiggy    2 weeks ago

"He had enrolled at South Georgia Technical College, preparing to become an electrician, just like his uncles."

 - an absolutely sane reason to have a curiosity of construction. It's great that they hung themselves with their own video and a shame that good ole' boy networks still thrive.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
PhD Quiet
5  Ed-NavDoc    2 weeks ago

Justice prevailed and three racist murderers convicted who will receive their due punishment.

 
 
 
MsMarple
Freshman Silent
5.1  MsMarple  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5    one week ago

--

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
PhD Guide
6  Thrawn 31    2 weeks ago

Good, no way in hell what they did was anything but murder.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
7  Tacos!    2 weeks ago
“The jury system works in this country. And when you present the truth to people and they see it, they will do the right thing.”

Yep. I’ll say what I said after the Rittenhouse case: The jury has spoken. Time to move on.

What we shouldn’t say (as I have heard from some sources) is that somehow justice was served in this case, but not the other. The system is the same.

You may not like the outcome of a case, but you don’t get to claim “the system works!” on Wednesday after declaring that it’s broken on the previous Friday.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
7.1  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Tacos! @7    2 weeks ago

Great words Tacos - thanks.

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
7.2  Nowhere Man  replied to  Tacos! @7    2 weeks ago
You may not like the outcome of a case, but you don’t get to claim “the system works!” on Wednesday after declaring that it’s broken on the previous Friday.

Now that I can 100% agree with, the system works, it is not always right or just, but it does work as long as everyone tries to make it work... The results are the results, agree with them or not, the outcome is nothing to judge the efficacy of the system on especially when you do not know all the facts....

Errors are made yes, but provable errors are rare and the system although slow usually corrects it's errors...

Now the last two cases had irrefutable video evidence establishing what happened, these cases were the exception, not the rule... Justice was plain the outcome entirely predictable...

Wether you like the outcome or not, the results fit the plain facts... Arguing about the outcome in the face of the plain facts only embarrasses the arguer...

 
 
 
Kavika
Professor Principal
8  Kavika     one week ago

The system worked in the end but it seems that the case was being swept under the rug according to the reports that I've seen until the video was leaked. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.3  Dulay  replied to  Kavika @8    one week ago

Yet the fact is, the two first prosecutors had the video in evidence all along but STILL told the police that there was NO probable cause to prosecute. HOW any prosecutor could have watched that video and make that call is beyond me. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
8.3.1  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Dulay @8.3    one week ago

What I believe in Dulay, is that the DA was way too comfortable in bed with the McMichael family and she "thought" she would be doing them a favor - as an old friend, ya know?

Could be wrong - but that's what struck me with the initial report in Feb.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
8.3.2  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @8.3.1    one week ago
What I believe in Dulay, is that the DA was way too comfortable in bed with the McMichael family and she "thought" she would be doing them a favor - as an old friend, ya know? Could be wrong - but that's what struck me with the initial report in Feb.

Though all DA's work closely with local LEO's, Jackie Jackson has a record of being way too buddy buddy with the Glynn County Police Dept. When they called her, one would think that she would have told them to call a lawyer. Instead she told them to destroy evidence and told the LEO's on scene to let them go. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
8.3.3  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Dulay @8.3.2    one week ago

Absolutely friggin' sad - a definite travesty.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9  JohnRussell    one week ago

Some would like to reach the conclusion that the guilty verdict proves racism has waned in America. 

While I would agree the verdict is a good sign, a hopeful sign, let's not get carried away. 

1. Three white men thought it was perfectly alright to hunt down a black jogger and harrass him with a shotgun . This was in 2020, not 1920.  

2. The original law enforcement response in that county was to sweep the thing under the rug. 

 
 
 
GregTx
Sophomore Participates
10  GregTx    one week ago
Johnson, who had been the community's top prosecutor at the time of the Arbery murder in 2020, was indicted by a grand jury last week. She faces a felony charge of violating her oath of office and a misdemeanor count of obstructing police work.

Ex-district attorney charged in Ahmaud Arbery case booked at Georgia jail (msn.com)

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @10    one week ago

Amazing.

 
 
 
GregTx
Sophomore Participates
10.1.1  GregTx  replied to  TᵢG @10.1    one week ago

What is?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  GregTx @10.1.1    one week ago

That Johnson was motivated to put her career on the line for this case.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
10.1.3  Ender  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.2    one week ago

More of the protecting their own, it looked to me.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @10.1.3    one week ago

I just have a hard time comprehending such a mind.

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
PhD Guide
10.1.5  Thrawn 31  replied to  TᵢG @10.1.4    one week ago

I get it to a degree, but not when it is something this serious and this blatant. I will be sworn in 2 weeks, but I’ll be damned if I look the other way at a blatant murder, whether it was done by an officer or former officer. 

There is no justifying this, and no defending it. And for a prosecutor to look the other way, when their job is to bring people like this to justice, is absolutely unacceptable. She needs to never work in law enforcement again. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
Professor Guide
10.1.6  seeder  1stwarrior  replied to  Thrawn 31 @10.1.5    one week ago

Thrawn - best of luck in your new career.

Semper Fi.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
10.1.7  charger 383  replied to  Thrawn 31 @10.1.5    one week ago

Be safe and good luck

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
10.1.8  Nowhere Man  replied to  Thrawn 31 @10.1.5    one week ago
I will be sworn in 2 weeks, but I’ll be damned if I look the other way at a blatant murder, whether it was done by an officer or former officer. 

Good Luck and thank you for your future service..

 
 
 
shona1
Sophomore Participates
10.1.9  shona1  replied to  Thrawn 31 @10.1.5    one week ago

Morning Thrawn...good luck, stay safe and best wishes from across the Pacific..

I have always supported our Cops, Ambos and Firies...have the greatest respect for them and at times the rotten job they have to do..

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
PhD Guide
10.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  GregTx @10    one week ago

Being friendly with local LEOs and dereliction of duty are very different things. Fuck her, she gives all law enforcement a bad name. 

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Participates
10.2.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  Thrawn 31 @10.2    one week ago
Fuck her, she gives all law enforcement a bad name. 

Amen!

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Nowhere Man


30 visitors