re: Facts from district attorney (Georgia shooting)

quote:

---

Call 911. Get behind the dude and follow til the Po Po show up

---

THIS. This is what any reasonable person would have done and what they should have done.

This is going to a very messy situation. Thank God I don't live anywhere near that place in the next few months.

Link?

Front page of AJC

If it’s not new I hadn’t seen it. Shows man believed to be him going into the construction house and exiting while neighbor apparently calls 911

quote:

---

The video appears to be from a home security camera installed at a house about a block from the shooting.

A former Fulton County prosecutor who reviewed the video on Saturday said it doesn’t appear to alter the criminal questions facing the two men arrested in the case.

---

quote:

---

The video shows a man wearing a white shirt and shorts, who appears to be Arbery, 25, walking down Satilla Drive on that Sunday afternoon. It shows the man walk into the garage of a house under construction and then walk around back of the house. The tape indicates that man was on the construction site less than five minutes, much of the time out of view of the camera. He did not appear to take anything from the house.

---

quote:

---

The surveillance video appears to describe what a witness reported to police on a 911 call. At 1:08 pm that Sunday, the Glynn County 911 center received report that a man was in the house under construction.

The dispatcher responded: “And you said someone is breaking into it right now?

“No,” the caller said. “It’s all open, it’s under construction. And he’s running right now! There he goes right now.”

“OK,” the dispatcher asked. “What is he doing?”

“He’s running down the street.”
The dispatcher said she would send police.

---

quote:

---

The security video shows a person, who appears to be Arbery, continuing down Satilla Drive. Former Fulton prosecutor Manny Arora, who reviewed the video, said entry of a construction site is not necessarily a crime. At most, it may be a misdemeanor, unless anything was taken, he said.

Georgia law allows for a citizen’s arrest in a felony crime committed in one’s presence, said Arora, who is currently a criminal defense attorney in Atlanta. But a citizen can only use reasonable force to detain a person and deadly force cannot be used unless it’s to prevent a forcible felony or for self-defense.

Since the McMichaels initiated the confrontation with the weapons it will be difficult for them to claim self-defense and what appears on the security video doesn’t justify their actions, he said. The footage also demonstrates that police were not far from the neighborhood when the incident occurred, he said.

“If you initiate an assault you don’t get then claim self-defense if the other person reacts to them to be assaulted,” Aurora said. “From the information we have right now, this video doesn’t change the basis for the arrest.”

---

Video is in the link

LINK

No grounds for use of deadly force whatsoever....there was no lethal threat present to defend with deadly force

quote:

---

“If you initiate an assault you don’t get then claim self-defense if the other person reacts to them to be assaulted,” Aurora said. “From the information we have right now, this video doesn’t change the basis for the arrest.”

---

A lot of people need to read this.

And this guy wasnt just out for a fricking jog. Hes snooping that house. Still they cant kill him for that.

And I didn't know what the video showed. I envisioned a guy running through a construction site. I didn't envision a guy spending 5 minutes in an under construction house.

I've done the latter, so I'm not making accusations. But I previously have some consideration to the idea that the theft thing was fabricated pretense entirely. I don't think that's the case now, although I'm not going to pretend this takes race out of the equation.

quote:

---

If you recuse, you shouldn’t offer an opinion. If you can reasonably and fairly offer an opinion, you shouldn’t recuse.

---

How is this not obvious to everyone? I’m no attorney, but it IMMEDIATELY threw up a red flag to me. The whole point of recusing yourself is because you either have a bias or have a connection that could be perceived as a bias, and as an elected public oficial, want to make sure everything is clearly above board. I would think if anything, you would go out of your way to NOT give your opinion. This Barnhill clown did the exact opposite.

This letter was clearly a feeble CYA move because he knew he was about to be fricked. Forgetting the utter inappropriateness of almost every sentence after the 1st, his motivation for writing it is embarrassingly transparent. He begins almost immediately to try to distance himself when he admits that his son worked in the same D.A.’s office as McMichael but has to throw in the completely unnecessary qualifier that he “retired some time ago.” Why the vagueness? Did their employment together overlap or not? Surely he has access to the hiring and retirement dates. I honestly don’t think it matters, but it shows this guy’s mindset very early on.

He goes on to blame the mother of the deceased for his recusal, saying she “believes there are kinships between the two parties [there are not]”—why feel it necessary to include the bracketed?—“and has made other unfounded allegations of biases.” Again, why address these allegations biases at all, but if you do, why not be specific?

Then there’s the ridiculous paragraph summarizing his resume that absolutely screams guilty conscious. But I love that he has to throw in “Plus, I have attended countless schools, classes and seminars on criminal prosecution and criminal acts and evidence.” Countless? It reminds me of that scene in The Three Amigos when El Guapo is asking his man if he has a plethora of horses. “Classes? You’ve taken classes? Would you say you’ve taken countless classes?” And I’m sure the good taxpayers of the various counties in Georgia he worked for would appreciate it if they could be counted, being that they paid for them.

And he finishes that paragraph by letting him know that “Myself and one of my Senior Trial Attorneys...concur on all points.” 1) Who fricking cares? You were the one elected to the D.A.’s office, 2) This may be the only time I’ve ever seen a sentence begin with the word “Myself,” 3) his capitalizing “Senior Trial Attorneys” as some formal title is delicious and 4) he uses “attorneys” plural, yet only says that he and “one of” them “concur.” Why mention just one if there were more than that? Did they not concur or were they not even consulted? Neither answer is sufficient.

Then, attempting to justify the citizen’s arrest, he bizarrely says the 3 men were in “hot pursuit.” WTF is “hot pursuit?” He even pastes the statute he’s referring to below that, and it includes neither the word “hot” nor “pursuit.” He then contradicts himself and continues to show his ignorance of the law he cites by justifying their actions, referring to the deceased from their perspective as a “burglary suspect.” Well, the statute says you have to either be “in the presence of” or have “imminent/immediate knowledge” of—“suspicion,” no matter how strong, is not the standard. They had to “KNOW” that he, not only committed and offense, but that that offense was also a felony. And they did not.

Then there is the “hey, look over there” red herring when he brings up their right to open carry that I’ve seen absolutely zero people question. And finally, he closes with my favorite part—the perfect cherry to top his embarrassingly conspicuous, self-serving, and self-saving sundae of a letter—he blames the victim, classily stating his “mental health records & (seriously? a fricking ampersand?) and prior convictions help explain his apparent aggressive nature and his possible thought pattern to attack an armed man.” Do fricking what? Besides the fact that his mental health and prior convictions should have absolutely zero to do with this particular case, is he too fricking stupid to that the most glaringly obvious thing to explain “his possible thought pattern” was the 3 redneck retards chasing him with 2 trucks and at least 2 guns? Maybe?

i see it now, it happened so fast when that other car was coming. I assume those cops were in pursuit?