Ahmaud Arbery Trial: Join Our LIVE Coverage Starting Monday, October 18
Legal Insurrection has kindly sponsored me to cover this trial in real-time, as it occurs, with a daily LIVE post including live commenting by myself to keep you informed of events at trial as they proceed.
This Monday, October 18, 2021, the “Ahmaud Arbery” trial is scheduled to begin—a full 18 months after the shooting death of Arbery on February 23, 2020–and our live coverage of this trial, along with end-of-day summaries and legal analysis, will begin the same moment the trial itself begins.
Of course, it’s not the deceased Arbery who is on trial, but rather the three men involved in his pursuit following Arbery’s apparent felony burglary of a neighborhood home. Those three men include Greg McMichael and Travis McMichael (father and son, in the pursuing pickup truck), and William “Roddy” Bryan (whose video of the final confrontation would explode the case to national attention and prompt the charges against all three men).
Legal Insurrection has kindly sponsored me to cover this trial in real-time, as it occurs, with a daily LIVE post including live commenting by myself to keep you informed of events at trial as they proceed.
In addition, you can expect an end-of-day analysis post summarizing and explaining each day’s events prepared by me each evening, after court has recessed for the day, and presented right here in both text and video form.
Note that this “Ahmaud Arbery” trial is likely to still be in process when the Kyle Rittenhouse trial begins on Monday, November 1. Should that occur, and given that I’m only able to closely cover one trial at a time, I’ll be shifting my focus to the Rittenhouse trial, and perhaps providing ongoing superficial coverage of the “Arbery” trial as circumstances allow.
In that case, of course, you’ll continue to see my trial coverage and analysis, both real-time throughout the day and in the form of end-of-day summaries and analysis, but that coverage will be on the Rittenhouse trial beginning on November 1.
I recently produced a “What to expect from Ahmaud Arbery & Kyle Rittenhouse” content for our own Law of Self Defense membership, but the Legal Insurrection community can also enjoy this content in video form right here:
We’re also using this particular post as an opportunity to do a test of the live-commenting system we last used some months ago during the Derek Chauvin trial, mostly to ensure that we haven’t forgotten how to use it—so, hopefully you’ll see a few test-type posts immediately below:
OK, folks, that’s all I have for all of you at the moment, except to remind you all to lock a browser window right here on the morning of Monday, October 18, 2021, to start your real time viewing of the “Ahmaud Arbery” trial out of Brunswick GA.
Remember
You carry a gun so you’re hard to kill.
Know the law so you’re hard to convict.
Stay safe!
–Andrew
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The Rittenhouse trial will definitely be the more interesting one for the health of our justice system in general.
Arbery seems like much more of a case of a bunch of stupid people on both sides doing stupid things and one of them ends up dead. But it will still be interesting.
I look forward to Branca’s analysis, as always.
Incredible. ” Stupid people..” ??? A retired cop, who was asked by the local police he still knew to help keep a eye out… in his own neighborhood, as thefts had happened in the area before. We wouldn’t even know about this case except the perp was black and his Momma lied to the media and hired Crump. This is a political case. It was the best one for the 2020 election season riots, but then they got George Floyd and it had better video so they switched to that one.
Another kangaroo court “social justice
show trial.
Ahmaud Arbery was a one man crime spree in that area. “Out for a jog” was frequently his defense, Judge ruled defense is not allowed to mention it.
https://www.glynncounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/69162/114-Notice-of-Intent
Ahmaud Arbery was non compliant with his schizophrenia treatment at the time of the shooting. Defense is not allowed to mention it.
https://www.glynncounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/69585/Response-to-States-42-Motion-in-Limine-Character-of-Victim
The fact that Arbery was high on dope? Not allowed to mention it,
https://www.glynncounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/72990/Defs-Response-to-470-states-motion-in-limine-as-to-THC
That fact that Arbery was on felony probation? Not allowed to mention it.
https://www.glynncounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/72991/Defs-Response-to-471-States-Motion-in-Limine-Regarding-Probation-Status
However, the State is allowed to introduce irrelevant nonsense like one of the McMichael’s having a vanity license plate that had a confederate flag on it.
https://www.glynncounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/72912/States-REsponse-to-Defs-Motion-in-Limine-Vanity-Plate
It’s not possible for a white Christian male to get a fair trial in America anymore.
Nonsense. Come to Free Florida! 😛
Do you think Jews, Atheists, and agnostic white males are treated in a different manner?
Especially if also straight.
All of those decisions make perfect sense. Arbery is not on trial, so his state of mind is irrelevant. His criminal record, mental illness, and drug use are not relevant unless the defendants were aware of them. If the defense can show that they were, then it can introduce those things. A defendant’s vanity plate is relevant because it relates to his state of mind.
In exactly the same way, the criminal histories of Rittenhouse’s attackers won’t be admitted because he wasn’t aware of them at the time of the attack, so they can’t have affected his state of mind. But anything that relates to his attitudes would be relevant and admitted.
No they do not
They omit 99% of the explanation of why the encounter happened in the first place, All of that goes to justification and wholly supports the defendants story about what happened and what had been happening. Furthermore, the kind of cherry-picking of the facts is exactly what enables Benjamin Crump, Shaun King, and Al Sharpton to do what they do.
No, it does not go to justification. How can it, unless the defendants were aware of it? They can’t have relied on facts they had no idea were true. They had only the facts they were aware of, and they have to defend themselves based on those facts alone. That is how the law has always worked, and how it works in every civilized country. If you shoot some random stranger and it turns out by coincidence to be a mass murderer, you did the world a favor but you’re still guilty of murder.
The defendants were well aware of the thievery that was going on in their neighborhoods. The JURY should be made aware that Arbery has a very long history of thievery.
However, the guy above that posted all those links doe NOT SHOW THAT ALL THIS WILL BE HIDDEN FROM THE JURY. All those links are merely the statements of what the defendants lawyers want to include. Nothing in the links shows how the judge ruled on it. I seriuosly doubt that all will be excluded. Some of it will come in, if it is relevant.
except… Arbery was KNOWN by the ex-cop Dad. He KNEW Arbery was a habitual criminal and in trial, it would likely come out that the cop knew Arbery was not mentally stable either. But whatever. This is a political theater trial… was useful until Geo Floyd tried to pass a fake twenty..
Why is the vanity plate relevant? Does the state issue such plates with the intent to promote racism or white supremacy? Does it issue such plates with an understanding that only racists and white supremacists will purchase them? Can the inference be generally applied to everyone who has such a plate? If not, why can it be inferred here? Because a black man was shot? Can the plate not have been purchased merely to show pride in the heritage of the South, even when purchased by a racist and white supremacist? Or is pride in the South’s heritage inseparable from racism and white supremacy, and, if so, why does the state sell such plates?
Great comment–in fact, I’ll probably build a blog post around it, if you don’t object. Happy to give a “hat tip” for the catalyst. 🙂
All these documents are requests of the defense lawyers. Nowhere does it say they are not allowed to mention any of this. Why didn’t you link to the judge rulings on their motions?
Defense is also probably not allowed to mention that Arbery had threatened Travis the week before
https://www.ajc.com/news/crime–law/just-startled-travis-mcmichael-dialed-911-days-before-shooting/cW9EyvfTBkwv6n16B4GT7I/
WTH are you talking about? There’s nothing in that report about any threat. All it says is that McMichael called 911 to report having seen a trespasser.
What are YOU talking about dummy? What EXACTLY do you interpret reaching for his waistband as if he had a firearm to mean?
It could mean anything at all, or nothing. It was certainly NOT a threat, and there is no way any reasonable judge could allow the jury to be told that it was one.
Reach for your waistband in many situations with cops and you’d find out real quick about the significance of such an act, whether you meant it as a threat or not.
All these documents are requests of the defense lawyers. Nowhere does it say they are not allowed to mention any of this. Why didn’t you link to the judge rulings on their motions?
From the video that was shown, what I see is that Arbery initiated an attack on the man holding the gun and was trying to take it from him. At no time do we see that gun pointed at Arbery, btw. That is what directly led to Arbery being shot, which happened during the struggle he initiated. At any time Arbery could have stopped to talk to these men, or could have approached any of the houses he ran by and asked them to call the police.
The only criminals in either of these trials are the prosecutors who are bringing false, perjured, wholly ideological charges and the judges who have allowed these travesties to occur.
This trial is more interesting than Rittenhouse, and more important for our right to self defense.
Kyle stands a better chance of acquittal than the McMichaels or Bryan; he’s young, likable, and Northern, while his victims were all white and largely unsavory.
The Arbery trial will be a repeat of Chauvin. The defendants will be presumed guilty, great public pressure will be exerted, including blatant jury intimidation, and any inculpatory evidence or argument, however convincing or not, refuted or not, will be latched onto by the jury, while they ignore or hand wave any exculpatory evidence.
The Left has learned a lot since Zimmerman, and has had success with Allen Scarsella, Michael Slager, Drejka, Ronald Gasser, Amber Guyger, and Jake Gardner, eroding our self-defense rights further each time. Guilty verdicts for the McMichaels, Bryan, or Rittenhouse will effectively end the right to self defense.
I don’t doubt that you’re right. Analytically, I wonder what they’ve learned. And of course, what we can do about it.