Newly released Ahmaud Arbery video shows 2017 shoplifting arrest

The New York Post ^ | May 19, 2020 | Jorge Fitz-Gibbon

[tlozo]

Newly released police bodycam video shows Georgia slay victim Ahmaud Arbery being handcuffed and arrested for shoplifting in 2017.

The video, dated Dec. 1, 2017, shows Arbery and three teenagers being confronted by police in the parking lot of a Walmart shopping center, according to the footage posted on YouTube on Tuesday.

“Tell me about the TV,” a police officer asks. “TV? What? We don’t have any TV,” Arbery, wearing shorts and a parka, responds. “What about the 65-inch TV?” the cop says. “Sixty-five inch TV?” Arbery says. “Do me a favor,” the cop replies. “All of you take a seat.” “Take a seat for what?” Arbery snaps back. “I don’t know nothing about no TV…. I don’t steal no TV.”

Another man, presumably a Walmart employee, then approaches and the police officer tells him, “it’s that one right there with the fur jacket” — suggesting Arbery — and the man nods. “What TV?” Arbery says. “The TV is in there,” motioning toward the store. Arbery then claims he has a receipt and tries to get up from the ground, but is placed in handcuffs and put into a squad car. He’s driven back to the store, where he and the three teenagers are seen walking into the back of the store and into a rear office, where the video eventually ends. The outcome of the shoplifting arrest is not clear. The release of the footage comes one day after another bodycam video shows a confrontation between Arbery a month earlier at a local park...

[2aProtectsTheRest]

He hadn’t stolen anything on that day. Both the video at the construction site and the owner of the house under construction have shown that. Arbery is no saint, but on that particular day, in that particular location, we know he didn’t steal anything. The McMichaels may have thought that he did, but he hadn’t.

As for who threatened or attacked whom during the confrontation, that’s not really possible to say because the video a) is terrible quality b) cuts away multiple times c) is blocked by the truck at the moment of the initial encounter and d) has no audio of any words spoken.

On the video, we see the McMichaels stopped in the middle of the street with Travis standing on the driver side holding his shotgun. Nothing illegal about any of that (unless you want to nitpick about obstructing traffic). We also see Arbery jogging/running down the street at a steady pace. Arbery veers right to go past the passenger side of the truck. Travis McMichael moves around to the front of the truck. At this point, we have no video or audio of what takes place. The next thing we can see is the two men are already fighting. That’s what the video shows; nothing more. Anything anyone else is adding to that is their own personal speculation on what happened and why. It isn’t fact and it doesn’t matter unless they’re sitting on the jury.

This cases hinges on what happened when Arbery and Travis McMichael met at the front of the truck. If Arbery simply attacked Travis McMichael without justifiable reason, Travis had every right to defend himself. If Travis threatened Arbery and Arbery had reason to fear for his life, Arbery had every right to defend himself. We don’t know what took place at the front of that truck and anyone who says they do is either lying themselves or lying to others, because it certainly isn’t shown on the video. The investigation and the trial will piece things together as best as possible and it’ll be up to 12 jurors to decide whether one or both of the McMichaels acted criminally under Georgia law.

[Tommy Revolts]

what legal right did the redneck have to confront him with a shotgun...

Georgia's citizen's law arrest.

"When making a citizen's arrest, a person may not use more force than is reasonable to make the arrest. Deadly force is limited to self-defense or to instances in which such force is necessary to prevent certain felonies."

I would argue that when the thug jumped him it now becomes self-defense.

Georgia follows both the "Stand Your Ground" doctrine as well as the "Castle Doctrine."

[DiogenesLamp]

The shooters had no way to know that the victim had stolen anything from them or anyone else.

No. I reject that. They have a series of videos going all the way back to October of this same guy creeping into that house at night. They have $2,400.00 dollars in stolen fishing equipment, a stolen gun and a stolen purse, all from the neighborhood in this same period. They have this guy going between houses in the neighborhood during the daylight too. This man is a known criminal, and was indeed known to the Senior McMichael from his previous job as a police officer.

All of these things together make a reasonable man conclude this man is not only a thief, but is in fact *THE* thief. It is ridiculous to assert a second burglar, without any evidence to support this claim.

Second, the video clearly shows the rifle aimed at the victim when he rushed his assailant.

Aimed at the ground. If it were aimed at the *VIOLENT THIEF* he would have killed him with the first blast.

The position the man is holding the *SHOTGUN* is called the "Low Ready" position.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2012/4/27/the-low-ready-position/

Also, the man holding the gun was not the *ASSAILANT* He was the victim of an attack from the *ASSAILANT* which was the *VIOLENT THIEF*.

You've got so many English words mixed up in their meaning that I can see why you have gotten so much wrong.

The attacker is the *ASSAILANT* The attacker was the thief.

[DiogenesLamp]

As a CCW holder in FL, I would not have put myself in the position to confront this POS.

I wouldn't have done it either. Nothing that guy can steal was worth the kind of crap it could cause someone if confronting him went bad.

This was a no win situation. While I have no doubt these two white guys saved the taxpayer from having to support this future convict, it was not a good shoot.

Call me crazy, but I’m not gonna chase down a thief and draw my weapon. It’s too difficult to defend in court.

The problem is in the courts, not in the actions taken by these individuals. The courts are unreasonable and silly nowadays, too driven by politics and emotion.

The men are clearly within the letter of the law, and I believe they were within the spirit of the law as well. They simply didn't reckon with a thief foolish enough to try to take on a man with a shotgun.

That's a level of crazy no one would expect.

They will eventually win in court, but it's going to cost them far more than that piece of sh*t was ever worth.

[DiogenesLamp]

He hadn’t stolen anything on that day.

Firstly, we don't know that, and secondly, it's immaterial to the fact that he was the thief who had previously stolen property from the area.

Arbery is no saint, but on that particular day, in that particular location, we know he didn’t steal anything.

The "holding him for questioning" was about the possible stealing. The shooting was about the violent attack.

As for who threatened or attacked whom during the confrontation, that’s not really possible to say because the video a) is terrible quality b) cuts away multiple times c) is blocked by the truck at the moment of the initial encounter and d) has no audio of any words spoken.

A reasonable man will not run into an encounter with a shotgun. They will give a man with a shotgun a very wide berth. It is clear this man ran at the holder of the shotgun, and the holder of the shotgun couldn't bring it up fast enough to defend himself, hence the subsequent struggle.

A man threatening another man with a shotgun at the distances involved would have shot him dead on the first shot if he had been aiming the gun at him.

This cases hinges on what happened when Arbery and Travis McMichael met at the front of the truck. If Arbery simply attacked Travis McMichael without justifiable reason, Travis had every right to defend himself.

There you go. That's what I saw too.

We don’t know what took place at the front of that truck and anyone who says they do is either lying themselves or lying to others, because it certainly isn’t shown on the video.

Have you ever fired a shotgun? Do you know the effect of a shotgun on a human body?

If Travis had aimed at Arbery, Arbery would have been dead instantly. From the fact that Arbery was first shot in the palm, we can realize that Travis McMichael was not aiming the gun at Arbery.

What we can see of the video informs us that Travis was holding the shotgun in the "Low Ready" position, which is normal for people used to hunting with shotguns.

Had it been in the aiming position, Travis would have blown him in half with the first shot.

[UCANSEE2]

I think he was an ex-leo, but did he, in fact know about Arbery’s record?

Mr. McMichael was the INVESTIGATING DETECTIVE who was assigned to Avery Arbery's case. Mr. McMichael knew that Arbery case was dismissed by the court due to 'mental issues'. Mr. McMichael knew that Arbery was on probation when he allegedly committed the theft crime. Mr. McMichael knew all about Avery's brother and his criminal record. I would suggest that Mr. McMichael was very will informed. What do you think ?

[UCANSEE2]

Only an insane fool will try to take on a man with a shotgun.

Oh, come on. All the movie stars and TV stars perform this act without ever getting shot. Plus they have that really cool karate move where they hit someone on the back of the neck and the person drops to the floor paralyzed.

; )

[UCANSEE2]

Pointing a gun at a passing stranger and then shooting him when he objects

I don't know where you get your info from, but that statement is incorrect. Didn't happen that way.

[UCANSEE2]

This is a show trial. The outcome will hinge entirely on the sort of people they put on the jury, not the facts.

A show trial that has been in 'production' for a few months. The plan is to use it to turn black voters AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP. The plan is to use it to foment protests and riots to use AGAINST PRESIDENT TRUMP.

[UCANSEE2]

He hadn’t stolen anything on that day.

Why did Mr. Arbery enter the construction site wearing white, low-topped and untied raggety tennis shoes and leave the site wearing high-topped steel-toed leather construction boots ?

[hanamizu]

“I would suggest that Mr. McMichael was very will informed. What do you think ? “

---

If what you’re saying is true, and I’m not doubting you, then Mr. McMichael will no doubt bring it up during his defense. I’ve seen the video from the park and I’ve read about the gun at school and the TV at Walmart. Arbery did move toward the armed officer at the park, but stopped before bad things happened to him. I can certainly imagine his charging someone with a shotgun and I guess that will be up to a jury (or judge) to decide.

[AnotherUnixGeek]

All of these things together make a reasonable man conclude this man is not only a thief, but is in fact *THE* thief. It is ridiculous to assert a second burglar, without any evidence to support this claim.

You're talking about evidence as if the two shooters were a jury. They weren't. They were two men with guns who tried to detain a citizen going about his business - whether that business was legal or not was not something they had any way of knowing, whatever detective skills they might have been blessed with.

Aimed at the ground. If it were aimed at the *VIOLENT THIEF* he would have killed him with the first blast.

No, the first look we get of these two shows the shooter standing on the ground with his rifle raised. The victim rushing him caused him not to shoot, and I would assume that's what the victim was hoping to achieve to preserve his life when accosted by two armed men.

You've got so many English words mixed up in their meaning that I can see why you have gotten so much wrong.

The problem here isn't English comprehension - the problem is the logical contortions needed to defend this shooting. Dragging out the victim's history, claims of seeing things that simply aren't there on the video - it takes a lot to defend the indefensible.

[2aProtectsTheRest]

No idea, maybe just to look around like people do every day. Maybe to steal something. But he didn’t, in fact, steal anything. His entire time spent in the construction site was on video and both the video and the owner of the home being constructed confirmed he didn’t steal anything.

It doesn’t matter why he entered. What matters is what he did. And he didn’t steal anything. Again, not saying he was a saint. Not saying he didn’t walk in there to see if anything was worth stealing. I don’t know what his specific intentions were there. But he didn’t steal anything and all evidence and witness testimony demonstrates that clearly.

[UCANSEE2]

Thank you for the response. Just remember, the only reason this became a NATIONAL ISSUE is that the DEMS/MSM (same thing) decided to make this an issue to foment racism and use that to keep the blacks mad at Trump so they won't vote for him.

Much like the DEMS(Comey) going after Flynn. Much like the Judge refusing to drop the case after the DOJ dropped it.

This case was a 'nothing burger' for 4 months. Then suddenly it gets the attention of all the MSM. The MSM uses partial videos and partial info to help 'spin' the public's opinion. Well paid lawyers get involved. The Black Caucus gets involved. The Sharpton types get involved. Organized from the top with guarantees of plenty of "back end" for the playas. The case is officially a "political football".

[2aProtectsTheRest]

Firstly, we don't know that

Yes we do. The video from the construction site and the owner of the home being constructed both confirm nothing was stolen. Nothing was stolen by Arbery from the construction site on the day in question.

it's immaterial to the fact that he was the thief who had previously stolen property from the area.

Assumes facts not in evidence. Arbery had never been charged nor convicted of theft of any items from that neighborhood. There may be suspicions about what Arbery may have done there previously, but he has never been arrested or charged, let alone convicted, of any theft of any item in that neighborhood from all the information released to the public so far.

The "holding him for questioning" was about the possible stealing. The shooting was about the violent attack.

Well, he didn't steal anything, and citizens don't get to detain people for questioning. Only when they directly witness or have direct knowledge of a felony being committed can a citizen prevent someone from fleeing the scene of a crime. And we still don't know what happened at the front of the truck.

A reasonable man will not run into an encounter with a shotgun. They will give a man with a shotgun a very wide berth.

You mean like veering hard right to the opposite side of the pick up truck away from the man holding the shotgun while attempting to leave the neighborhood? You're right! That DOES sound pretty reasonable!

It is clear this man ran at the holder of the shotgun, and the holder of the shotgun couldn't bring it up fast enough to defend himself, hence the subsequent struggle.

It is NOT clear that's what happened at all unless you can see through trucks on video. What we see is Arbery running down the center of the street. He encounters the McMichaels who have parked their truck in the middle of the road. Travis McMichael is standing at the driver side of the truck holding his shotgun. Arbery veers right to run past the passenger side of the truck. As he does so, Travis McMichael moves to the front of the truck toward the passenger side.

Have you even watched the video? Because it doesn't seem like you've watched the video. Here's a frame-by-frame breakdown of the video with analysis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywenRJU0qdE

Have you ever fired a shotgun? Do you know the effect of a shotgun on a human body?

Let me tell you what I've seen. I've seen men get shot multiple times who were so hopped up on adrenaline they didn't even notice the pain or injury until they saw their own blood everywhere. At that moment, the realization hits, the blood pressure drops, and they drop. Whether Arbery was the aggressor or defending himself, I have no doubt his adrenaline was through the roof since he would have immediately realized this was a life and death struggle. That's why it took multiple shots. That's why he didn't go down immediately.

Watch the video. You're creating a lot of imagined facts about what took place in the front of the truck. Look at 1:13 in the frame-by-frame video I posted. Neither Travis McMichael or Arbery are visible at all. The truck completely blocks both of them from the moment Arbery passes the front of the truck. The next time we see them is seconds later, already engaged in a struggle. You may choose to believe the narrative provided by the McMichaels, but the video absolutely does NOT provide ANY view of what took place when Travis McMichael and Arbery first came face to face.

Watch the video and tell me where, exactly, you see anything more than that. Arbery veers right, moves past the passenger side of the truck, Travis moves from the driver side to the front of the truck, both Travis and Arbery are out of sight for a period, and the next we see either of them they're already engaged in a fight to the death. I don't know what exactly happened in the front of that truck and neither do you.

[UCANSEE2]

. Second, the video clearly shows the rifle aimed at the victim when he rushed his assailant.

Did that video show the part where Avery punched the younger McMichael in the face ? Because, if it didn't, then you are seeing only a partial(edited) video. The question would then be, why would they leave this out ?

[UCANSEE2]

They were two men with guns who tried to detain a citizen going about his business - whether that business was legal or not was not something they had any way of knowing, whatever detective skills they might have been blessed with.

So.... you then believe that George Zimmerman had no business following Trayvon and calling the police ?

[UCANSEE2]

The purpose of a trial is to lay out all the available evidence and see whether one or both of the McMichaels are guilty of any criminal action beyond a reasonable doubt. With what we have in front of us today, we don’t know that they’re guilty of anything and we don’t know they’re innocent either.

The Police already decided that the McMichael's had broken no law and had reasonable suspicions to make a citizen's arrest. Now, 4 months later, because the DEMS are getting more desperate, they want to woo black voters and suddenly there was a national 'stir' and the two men were arrested (charges pending). The MSM got the memo, and the usual groups started gearing up, anticipating the upcoming financial rewards. Looting, rioting, all Trump's fault on the menu. Eat up.

[2aProtectsTheRest]

The district attorney and the local police both requested state assistance on May 5th. Following that request, the investigation materials were reviewed by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. Shortly thereafter, charges were filed and arrest warrants issued.

The police didn’t decide anything. They requested assistance in the case. The district attorney requested assistance in the case. The evidence was reviewed. Charges were filed. If the state cannot prove illegal action by the McMichaels beyond a reasonable doubt, then the McMichaels will walk free. Otherwise, one or both of them will serve time commensurate with Georgia state law.

I believe the police and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation are doing their jobs to the best of their respective abilities. And based on the videos and statements released in this case thus far, I think a trial is absolutely warranted. A man is dead and it isn’t at all clear why. The best available video we have fails to show the initial confrontation, and absolutely does not exonerate anyone on its own. A jury trial is the best way to sort out what took place and apply the law.

Also, it wasn’t “4 months”. The incident took place Feb 23, 2020. The GBI was asked to assist on May 5, 2020. That’s 72 days, or 2 months 11 days.

[DiogenesLamp]

+1.