Ahmaud Arbery shot while jogging in Georgia - shooters not arrested *ARREST*


1588813454918.png 1588813480378.png
Mother seeks justice after son shot while jogging in Brunswick, pair involved in killing not arrested

It’s been over two months since a young black man jogging in Brunswick, Ga., was gunned down by two white men who said they thought he was a possible burglar.

Ahmaud Arbery’s mother wants to know where is the justice.

“I just think about how they could allow these two men to kill my son and not be arrested, that’s what I can’t understand,” Wanda Cooper told news partner First Coast News.

A police report states about 1 p.m. Sunday, Feb. 23, Glynn County officers responded to Satilla and Holmes drives where shots were fired. They found Arbery, 25, dead on the scene.

Gregory McMichael, who worked several years for the Brunswick Police Department before serving as an investigator in the Brunswick District Attorney’s Office, told police there were several break-ins in the neighborhood. He said he saw Arbery running down Satilla Drive and asked his son Travis McMichael to help him confront him.

McMichael and his son got a shotgun and handgun because they “didn’t know if Arbery was armed or not.”

The father and son got into their truck and drove down Satilla toward Burford Drive. Gregory McMichael stated when they arrived at Holmes Drive, they saw Arbery running down Burford, according to the report.

Gregory McMichael told police they attempted to cut off Arbery and shouted “stop, stop, we want to talk to you.”

McMichael pulled up next to Arbery, and Travis McMichael got out of the truck with the shotgun. According to statements, that’s when the father said Arbery attacked his son and the two men started fighting over the shotgun. Travis McMichael fired a shot and then a second shot.




After video appears to show black jogger gunned down by 2 white men in coastal Georgia, family demands arrests

The fatal shooting of a black man — apparently recorded on video in February and posted online Tuesday by a local radio station host — will go to a grand jury in coastal Georgia, according to a district attorney.

Elements of the disturbing video are consistent with a description of the shooting given to police by one of those involved in the incident.

Ahmaud Arbery, 25, was jogging in a neighborhood outside Brunswick on February 23 when a former police officer and his son chased him down, authorities said. According to a Glynn County Police report, Gregory McMichael later told officers that he thought Arbery looked like a person suspected in a series of recent break-ins in the area.

After they chased down Arbery, McMichael told police, Arbery and McMichael’s son Travis struggled over his son’s shotgun. McMichael said two shots were fired before Arbery fell to the street, the report said.


S. Lee Merritt, an attorney for the Arbery family, said in a statement that the two men involved in the chase “must be taken into custody pending their indictment.”

Gov. Brian Kemp said the Georgia Bureau of Investigation has offered resources to Durden for his investigation. “Georgians deserve answers,” Kemp tweeted.

Kemp also retweeted the GBI’s post that Durden “formally requested the GBI to investigate the death of Ahmaud Arbery.”
 

Attachments

  • 1588813857428.png
    1588813857428.png
    101.5 KB · Views: 2

Cousin Dupree

Double Platinum Member
You are so welcome my non-problem emu :)

Seriously though, he I feel is a good one to watch. He stays on the cases that are current and his podcasts are generally somewhere from 25 to 40 minutes. 40 is LONG. I love his dumb criminal of the day and week. He does not gossip just gives a defense attorney's opinion of what is known generally.

Same with the guy I posted.
 

Howell

Active member
his attorney is the one that posted it.
Where are you getting this from? Can you quote a source? I could be wrong, but my understanding is that Alan Tucker, the atty who released the clip, was not representing Bryan nor anyone else in this case.
 

Guess Who

Well-known member
Where are you getting this from? Can you quote a source? I could be wrong, but my understanding is that Alan Tucker, the atty who released the clip, was not representing Bryan nor anyone else in this case.
Posted in the article posted right before this one you just quoted. His own words NOT the "media" saying he did.
 

kdg411

Administrator
Staff member
The video — which by Friday officials had described as “a very important piece” of evidence in moving forward with criminal charges — was first posted by WGIG, a local radio station in Brunswick, Ga., which said it had obtained the footage from an anonymous source.

But in a twist emblematic of the small-town politics that have defined the case, that source turned out to be a criminal defense lawyer in town who had informally consulted with the suspects.

The lawyer, Alan Tucker, said in an interview on Friday that the video had come from the cellphone of a man who had filmed the episode and that he later gave the footage to the radio station. Mr. Tucker’s role was confirmed by Scott Ryfun, who oversees the station’s programming.

Asked why he had leaked the video, Mr. Tucker said he had wanted to dispel rumors that he said had fueled tension in the community. “It wasn’t two men with a Confederate flag in the back of a truck going down the road and shooting a jogger in the back,” Mr. Tucker said.

“It got the truth out there as to what you could see,” he added. “My purpose was not to exonerate them or convict them.”
 

Guess Who

Well-known member
Iguess i was mistaken that it wasn't HIS attorney, but A criminal defense attorney that thought it would dispel rumors, but opened up an entire other can of worms. My point that it wasn't the "media' that edited it still stands.
 

kdg411

Administrator
Staff member
*(Many outlets shared the video on social media including S Lee Merritt.)

Video of the incident has been widely shared on social media this week, including by the family’s attorney, S. Lee Merritt. In a statement, Merritt, said a “false narrative” had been created that the video disproved.
 

Howell

Active member
Iguess i was mistaken that it wasn't HIS attorney, but A criminal defense attorney that thought it would dispel rumors, but opened up an entire other can of worms. My point that it wasn't the "media' that edited it still stands.
Fair enough, we all make mistakes, but what evidence is there that the video released was "heavily edited"? Can you quote your source for that?

And again, the media chose to show you the shooting video without showing you the video of Arbery in the house. Why? That's not an "edit" per se, but it's a framing of the narrative.
 

Guess Who

Well-known member
Fair enough, we all make mistakes, but what evidence is there that the video released was "heavily edited"? Can you quote your source for that?

And again, the media chose to show you the shooting video without showing you the video of Arbery in the house. Why? That's not an "edit" per se, but it's a framing of the narrative.
You are the one that has stated over and over that the "media" heavily edited it. Nobody else has stated that. The GBI has basically said it was, too when they stated that that clip was by far not the only thing recorded during that incident.
And again, the media posted the video that the attorney gave them to post. Maybe the "media" didn't know of any video taken in the house to even be able to post it at the time. That appears to have surfaced after the video of the shooting itself was posted. The Nextdoor app is designed to where not just anybody can post/share video posted on it, so somebody would have had to get the video off of it and give it to the media to post or the owner of the video would have to give it to the media to post. The media can't retrieve video from the Nextdoor ap if they are not part of that neighborhood or surrounding neighborhoods that are a part of that group.
 
Last edited:

GrandmaBear

‘We Have Nothing to Fear Except Fear Itself'
Fair enough, we all make mistakes, but what evidence is there that the video released was "heavily edited"? Can you quote your source for that?

And again, the media chose to show you the shooting video without showing you the video of Arbery in the house. Why? That's not an "edit" per se, but it's a framing of the narrative.
Why would you think a video provided to an attorney by Bryan means the videos of Arbery in the house were also provided at the same time or by the same person? Bryan had taken the chase/shooting video and the video from the house under construction was not taken by him.

The point here was some of us do not form our opinions by the media, no matter how they frame things nor what their narrative is. In fact, things like the LE charges and now the preliminary provide far more facts, just as do full videos which only make the defendants look even worse by far anyhow. Imo.
 

Skitt

Well-known member
Why is it so hard to believe anyone would walk into a home under construction and look around? Particularly if it is being done by a construction company. We have a lot of home construction in our area and people will quite often walk around peeking inside, or if it is unlocked they will enter. It is interesting to see new construction from the beginning to end, and the progress as it is made. Were there "no trespassing" signs posted?
 

Guess Who

Well-known member
Why is it so hard to believe anyone would walk into a home under construction and look around? Particularly if it is being done by a construction company. We have a lot of home construction in our area and people will quite often walk around peeking inside, or if it is unlocked they will enter. It is interesting to see new construction from the beginning to end, and the progress as it is made. Were there "no trespassing" signs posted?
As a person that has worked in new construction for years, it is NOT uncommon at all to have people coming in for a peek. We sold houses to people that became interested in them from a walk through. We had people that were thinking about buying or remodeling come through a lot and especially we had neighbors coming through looking at progress on their walks/runs. You leave the site each evening knowing that it will inevitably happen by making sure as many hazards and things that tend to be easy to take are all taken care of.If your trades or your forman are too lazy/irresponsible to do that, you get rid of them
 

Howell

Active member
You are the one that has stated over and over that the "media" heavily edited it. Nobody else has stated that. The GBI has basically said it was, too when they stated that that clip was by far not the only thing recorded during that incident.
And again, the media posted the video that the attorney gave them to post. Maybe the "media" didn't know of any video taken in the house to even be able to post it at the time. That appears to have surfaced after the video of the shooting itself was posted. The Nextdoor app is designed to where not just anybody can post/share video posted on it, so somebody would have had to get the video off of it and give it to the media to post or the owner of the video would have to give it to the media to post. The media can't retrieve video from the Nextdoor ap if they are not part of that neighborhood or surrounding neighborhoods that are a part of that group.
I've never claimed that the media edited the video. What I've said is that they've shown you what they wanted you to see. You just stated, one page back: "They tought(sic) they were protected and they were until their own attorney(sic) posted the heavily edited video thinking it would clear them"[emphasis mine]. That's what you stated. So again I'll ask, what evidence is there that the video was "heavily edited"? That's your claim, not mine. Do you want to retract it?
 

Guess Who

Well-known member
I've never claimed that the media edited the video. What I've said is that they've shown you what they wanted you to see. You just stated, one page back: "They tought(sic) they were protected and they were until their own attorney(sic) posted the heavily edited video thinking it would clear them"[emphasis mine]. That's what you stated. So again I'll ask, what evidence is there that the video was "heavily edited"? That's your claim, not mine. Do you want to retract it?
No. Did the video the attorney post show them hitting him? Did it show them chasing him until he could run no longer? Here we also have a direct quote from GBI themselves "Reynolds also said that state investigators had found "a number of pieces of video" that linked Bryan to the case." Did it show any of that? So yes, most people that are capable of individual thought, will safely come to the conclusion that it was heavily edited. You have stated that the media posted only what they chose to with it, which implies editing in this case. They posted what was given to them already edited by either one of the charged or the attorney.
 
Last edited:

daisy7

Supreme Member
As a person that has worked in new construction for years, it is NOT uncommon at all to have people coming in for a peek. We sold houses to people that became interested in them from a walk through. We had people that were thinking about buying or remodeling come through a lot and especially we had neighbors coming through looking at progress on their walks/runs. You leave the site each evening knowing that it will inevitably happen by making sure as many hazards and things that tend to be easy to take are all taken care of.If your trades or your forman are too lazy/irresponsible to do that, you get rid of them

The house I grew up in was one of the first completed houses in my neighborhood. Houses were under under construction for several years after we moved in. All kinds of peeps would come wander around at night for the reasons you said above.

The adults told us kids to stay away and of course, we didn't listen:) I'll never forget one time, my sis, cousin and I went to go investigate houses. Snow had recently melted so lots of mud. My sis' boot got sucked down into the mud like quicksand and we couldn't get her out. I had to run home to get my Dad to rescue her (he was not happy!). He got her out, but couldn't get the boot and he carried her home.

It was scary as kids at the time, but now we laugh about it. What did the construction crew think when they came Monday and saw a boot in the mud? :floorlaugh:
 

daisy7

Supreme Member
I've never claimed that the media edited the video. What I've said is that they've shown you what they wanted you to see. You just stated, one page back: "They tought(sic) they were protected and they were until their own attorney(sic) posted the heavily edited video thinking it would clear them"[emphasis mine]. That's what you stated. So again I'll ask, what evidence is there that the video was "heavily edited"? That's your claim, not mine. Do you want to retract it?
Again, not an assumption. If you've seen the footage, any reasonable person can determine that it's Arbery. I really don't think this is a race case at all. You are the one who called the McMichaels "racist", without a single indication that they are. Only the media have pushed that narrative. But of course, as you told us, your opinions don't come from the media...
Because they are not being honest, and are feeding you a narrative: "Racist whites murder innocent black jogger!". That's been my point from the beginning. You are being lied to. The media are not going to share/scrutinize information which doesn't support their narrative. You're welcome to believe what the media tell you if you wish. I would urge you to view the footage for yourself and draw your own conclusion.
Here again, you mention "the black guy". What does race have to do with it? There is no indication within the known facts of this case that the actions taken by the McMichaels were motivated by race. None whatsoever.
No, it's not that simple. The choice of words has meaning. I'm not making this about race; the media and you guys are. He could have simply said "Arbery" or even "the shooting victim". That would've been a more clear description. He said "the black guy" for a reason. And frankly, given your posts on the matter, you're in no position to be defending another's words with regard to race. You've yet to tell us how you came to think the McMichaels were "racist idiots". You say you 'judged a book by its cover'. Which cover? What about the appearance of the McMichaels led you to believe they're "racist idiots"?
The person who made the video made no such choice. He didn't choose what was released to the media. What on earth are you talking about?!
The media chose to show you what they wanted you to see. If LE states that they have a lot more video, it is incumbent upon the media to demand that footage; that's their job. Let us all see it. Let us see this video that is so incriminating. You haven't seen it. Nobody has seen it. Again, ask yourself why.
I've never claimed that the media edited the video. What I've said is that they've shown you what they wanted you to see. You just stated, one page back: "They tought(sic) they were protected and they were until their own attorney(sic) posted the heavily edited video thinking it would clear them"[emphasis mine]. That's what you stated. So again I'll ask, what evidence is there that the video was "heavily edited"? That's your claim, not mine. Do you want to retract it?
 

GrandmaBear

‘We Have Nothing to Fear Except Fear Itself'
@Howell

With all due respect, you tell some of us continually the media narrative is influencing us whether we realize it or not... You seem well aware of the narrative so are you saying you watch it continually to know the narrative so well but it does not influence you? However, some of us are clueless(??) and zombies who are subconsciously believing it but not you? We can't see through it but you can??? We tell you we don't decide from that but you tell us we are subconsciously influenced but not you? WOW, not sure how you came to that conclusion. You assume what we watch and what influences our opinions whether we realize it or not? But not you who is the one who continually brings up media, it influences us, you watch it and it doesn't you? Oh wise one to assume that? Yet you ignore Bryan's arrest and now the preliminary hearing and under oath statements as well as evidence that is not MEDIA, hardly a comment. Do you argue about media with the media, maybe that is where it should be directed. Some media certainly deserves it.
 
Last edited:

Guess Who

Well-known member
The house I grew up in was one of the first completed houses in my neighborhood. Houses were under under construction for several years after we moved in. All kinds of peeps would come wander around at night for the reasons you said above.

The adults told us kids to stay away and of course, we didn't listen:) I'll never forget one time, my sis, cousin and I went to go investigate houses. Snow had recently melted so lots of mud. My sis' boot got sucked down into the mud like quicksand and we couldn't get her out. I had to run home to get my Dad to rescue her (he was not happy!). He got her out, but couldn't get the boot and he carried her home.

It was scary as kids at the time, but now we laugh about it. What did the construction crew think when they came Monday and saw a boot in the mud? :floorlaugh:
Oh, the foot traffic/lookie loos was definitely greater in what is known as "pocket lots" - the individual lots that are either left over from previous building on subdivisions (usually problem lots that need some creative thinking in how to get a home built on it), vacant lots in older neighborhoods or a previous home had to be demoed for some reason - than the traffic in areas where there is a lot of building going on.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,564
Messages
54,695
Members
303
Latest member
Mysticmechelle
Top