Image 01 Image 03

Men Convicted In Killing of Ahmaud Arbery Get Life in Prison, Plus Additional Time

Men Convicted In Killing of Ahmaud Arbery Get Life in Prison, Plus Additional Time

Travis and Greg McMichael got life without parole. William “Roddie” Bryan got life with the possibility of parole.

We covered as much of the prosecution for the killing of Ahmaud Arbery as we were able, given that that the Kyle Rittenhouse case overlapped.

Needless to say, the case was not as clear cut as the media would have it, and there were serious legal issues as to the jury instructions, but the guilty verdicts were not a surprise:

Here were the verdicts by Count:



COUNT 2 – FELONY MURDER, O.C.G.A. 16-5-1 – Aggravated Assault


COUNT 3 – FELONY MURDER, O.C.G.A. 16-5-1 – Aggravated Assault


COUNT 4 – FELONY MURDER, O.C.G.A. 16-5-1 – False Imprisonment


COUNT 5 – FELONY MURDER, O.C.G.A. 16-5-1 – Criminal Attempt to Commit False Imprisonment


COUNT 6 – AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, O.C.G.A. 16-5-21 – Assault with firearm, deadly weapon, to wit: a 12 gauge shotgun


COUNT 7 – AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, O.C.G.A. 16-5-21 – Assault with a Ford F-150 pickup truck and a Chevy Silverado pickup truck


COUNT 8 – FALSE IMPRISONMENT, O.C.G.A. 16-5-41 – Unlawfully confine and detain Ahmaud Arbery without legal authority, to wit: said accused did chase Ahmaud Arbery with a Ford F-150 pickup truck and a Chevy Silverado pickup truck through the public roadways of the Satilla Shores neighborhood and did confine and detain Ahmaud Arbery on Holmes Drive using said pickup trucks.


COUNT 9 – CRIMINAL ATTEMPT TO COMMIT A FELONY, O.C.G.A. 16-4-1 – In violation of the personal liberty of Ahmaud Arbery, unlawfully chase Ahmaud Arbery through the public roadways of the Satilla Shores neighborhood in pickup trucks and did attempt to confine and detain Ahmaud Arbery without legal authority on Burford Drive using a Ford F-150 pickup truck and a Chevy Silverado pickup truck.


Today was sentencing. Travis and Greg McMichael got life without parole plus 20 years for Aggravated Assault, to be served consecutively. William “Roddie” Bryan got life plus 5 years, with the possibility of parole, plus 10 years for False Imprisonment, which means he serves at least 30 years. They also all face federal hate crime charges.

The full hearing video is at the bottom of this post. Here are some select clips.



Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


It’s a proper show trial, at any rate.

I think it was a lousy verdict, but not at all surprising. In all 50 states it is illegal to use deadly force to protect property. And it is 100%raging stupid to chase anyone down and make a citizen’s arrest.

Carry a gun so you’re hard to kill. Know the law so you’re hard to convict. These three didn’t do the latter.

    Juris Doctor in reply to mbecker908. | January 7, 2022 at 9:20 pm

    No force was used to protect property.

    Keith_ in reply to mbecker908. | January 7, 2022 at 10:31 pm

    Travis did not fire his gun to protect property he fired his gun to protect his life. In the video we see Arbery decided to attack Travis and grab his gun. Arbery is to blame for his own fate. From what I have read and seen of this case the actions of the white men were lawful. If you encounter a suspicious person in your neighborhood there is nothing wrong with confronting them.

      Sanddog in reply to Keith_. | January 8, 2022 at 12:31 am

      Running them down in vehicles with firearms probably isn’t the way to go.

        rungrandpa in reply to Sanddog. | January 8, 2022 at 9:20 am

        When you are in pursuit of a suspect with a gun in your hand, it is difficult for law enforcement arriving on the scene to know who the bad guys are.

        Char Char Binks in reply to Sanddog. | January 8, 2022 at 2:58 pm

        How could they run him down in a PARKED truck?

        artichoke in reply to Sanddog. | January 8, 2022 at 10:39 pm

        What is the way to stop them and make a citizen’s arrest then? What do you do if the guy charges you and fights for your gun?

          CommoChief in reply to artichoke. | January 9, 2022 at 7:33 pm

          Respectfully, why did they need to attempt a citizens arrest? Why not simply video and call LEO? Turn over footage, make sworn statements and everyone goes home. IMO these guys got overconfident and over zealous and created a cascading series of events leading to their conviction.

          On my own property I feel confident in approaching someone and telling them to exit. If they demonstrate a threat then we can deal with that while on my property. That said, no way I am jumping into my vehicle to chase them down the road and confront them with weapons to detain them, too much can go wrong for zero reward.

          It’s much safer to take a photo or video. Note the time and call LEO. Provide the description and route/direction of travel. Write out an outline of the events while fresh and use for your statement when LEO show up.

      civisamericanus in reply to Keith_. | January 8, 2022 at 3:47 pm

      This is actually the Kyle Rittenhouse situation in reverse, where Travis & Co. initiated the deadly confrontation the same way Rosenbaum initiated the confrontation in which Rittenhouse shot him. The difference is only, as I see it, that Rittenhouse had a gun and fired justifiably on his attacker while, in this case, Travis had the gun and initiated the confrontation whereupon Arbery tried to defend himself which he had the right to do.

      And no, if somebody is suspicious you cannot menace him with a deadly weapon. Suspicion is Condition Orange, i.e. you think he might be doing something illegal but you do not believe reasonably that he is a menace to your safety. If you run or drive after somebody while brandishing a gun, as the three individuals in question did, you are putting him into Condition Red which means he believes reasonably that his life is in danger whereupon he can legally use deadly force on you–especially if he cannot retreat in complete safety, and you cannot outrun a SUV. (Not legal advice but common sense.)

      If you watch the video it is clear that the guy with the shotgun got out of the vehicle to confront Arbery, which he didn’t have to do. In addition, the vehicle did not have to stop at all if its occupants really thought Arbery was a problem. It’s pretty clear that these three yahoos started the trouble and insisted on escalating it to a deadly confrontation.

      healthguyfsu in reply to Keith_. | January 9, 2022 at 4:57 pm

      Where they ran into serious legal trouble is with the framing of false imprisonment. Once that happens, Arbery’s right to self defense becomes reasonable while McMichael’s does not (he has been found to have legally instigated the incident). They aren’t cops (any more), even if they still wanted to be. McMichael’s decision to chase and point a weapon also becomes legal justification for Arbery’s attack in the context of that frame.

      I don’t think the McMichaels wanted to hunt down and kill a black man. I don’t think they ever just saw it as anything but a duty to society against criminal mischief.

      But the smart thing to do these days is to think about not just how you want it perceived but how others are likely to perceive it. Of course, in many instances, you don’t have the time to do that. The McMichaels actually did have that time but their blood was running hot, and they didn’t think about it. I wonder if they have any relevant and completely lawful convictions from their service records that now get an appeal.

    Colonel Travis in reply to mbecker908. | January 8, 2022 at 1:08 am

    It’s not illegal in Texas to use deadly force to protect tangible, moveable property, it is the only exception. You cannot kill anyone on a whim, there are limited circumstances, you better know the law. I live in Texas, there is no way I’m gonna shoot someone over a phone or TV, etc.

      mbecker908 in reply to Colonel Travis. | January 8, 2022 at 11:49 am

      With respect to the protection of personal property in Texas using deadly force, that law has a very long list of caveats. So many, in fact, that you’ll likely get charged if you try it.

      To be fair, no one got shot or even had a gun pointed at them here. The jogger ambushed the son and tried to disarm him . This whole case was Zimmerman all over again, except the acquittal. Media and SJW narrative overtook actual facts of the case and a show trial with prosecutors brought in from Atlanta to try the case. Entirely a show trial.

        artichoke in reply to RobM. | January 8, 2022 at 10:37 pm

        Are those jurors really country bumpkins down there, so easily pushed around by their betters from Atlanta? I used to think more of them.

        I expect to move south for retirement, but I sure as hell won’t be going to Georgia.

          healthguyfsu in reply to artichoke. | January 9, 2022 at 5:03 pm

          Jurors are prone to sampling error (skewed result based on limited sample size) considering the population of the area they represent.

          You shouldn’t generalize a great state like Georgia that needs more conservative support and voters after the Hollywood push and the threat of Stacy Abrams eating everyone that votes against her.

        healthguyfsu in reply to RobM. | January 9, 2022 at 5:01 pm

        This is night and day from Zimmerman.

        Zimmerman never brandished a firearm until he was having his head pounded in. His lawyers were effective at recreating the incident and pointing out that Martin actually reached for the gun first.

        Also, the prosecutors were unable to convince a jury that he followed Martin or did anything illegal in the prior events (which certainly seems like justice based on the evidence available).

        Now if you ask about whether Zim gets convicted if tried today? The answer is probably a sad yes, but it would be injustice unless there was evidence we didn’t see.

    Showing your ignorance:

    Texas Penal Code:
    Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

    (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

    (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

    (A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

    (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

    (3) he reasonably believes that:

    (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

    (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

    Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

    Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON’S PROPERTY. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

    (1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

    (2) the actor reasonably believes that:

    (A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

    (B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person’s land or property; or

    (C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor’s spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor’s care.

      mbecker908 in reply to SDN. | January 8, 2022 at 11:52 am

      You’re right, there are very limited times in Texas where you can use deadly force to protect personal property.

      And in fact, this particular case was in Georgia and none of the Texas exclusions would have applied anyway.

      Not even close to a nice try.

        JohnSmith100 in reply to mbecker908. | January 8, 2022 at 6:32 pm

        As I see it, the punk got what he deserved, more punks like him, as in with similar mentality, need the same treatment.

    Char Char Binks in reply to mbecker908. | January 8, 2022 at 2:56 pm

    Did you watch the video? Nobody was chasing the jogger.

star1701gazer | January 7, 2022 at 10:09 pm

Actually, in Texas, it is legal to use deadly force to protect property. By statute after dark and by case law during the day (re: Joe Horn)

    Char Char Binks in reply to star1701gazer. | January 8, 2022 at 2:59 pm

    Irrelevant. This was in Georgia.

      JohnSmith100 in reply to Char Char Binks. | January 8, 2022 at 6:34 pm

      Georga should be adopting similar laws, that is what is relevant.

        artichoke in reply to JohnSmith100. | January 8, 2022 at 10:35 pm

        They won’t. They’ve gone woke. A jury in SE Georgia, hundreds of miles from Atlanta, outdid the wokeness I could have expected from Atlanta itself.

        An all-black Atlanta jury probably would have been more reasonable. They wouldn’t have been trying to absolve their white guilt at least.

He wasn’t in Texas and didn’t have anyone’s property.

    healthguyfsu in reply to NGAREADER. | January 9, 2022 at 5:10 pm

    Sorry to downvoters but this is actually true.

    Anyone can try to speculate on his motives, but it’s seems at most he would only have been guilty in the eyes of the law of trespassing at the time when the McMichaels went after him…and there is no state (or country) where it’s legal to shoot anyone over just trespassing, even if it is on your own property.

Another travesty of justice and another reminder that if you are white you will be lynched if you have the misfortune of being in the vicinity of a black man who dies doing something stupid. We saw this with Kim Potter and Derrek Chauvin.

I watched the video of the incident over and over and it is clear that the black “jogger” attacked the younger McMichael man. In the video we see Arbery running alongside the right side of the truck. When he gets to the front of the truck instead of continuing to run away he makes an abrupt left-hand turn and ATTACKS Travis McMichael lunging for McMichaels rifle. In an obvious act of self-defense Travis then shot Arbery. This would be no different than someone lunging at a cop and trying to grab a cops gun.

Did the defense not make these clear arguments? I did not follow the trial the only thing I recall was an incredibly stupid remark by the defense lawyer complaining that “black pastors were in the courtroom”. The defendants should have fired him right on the spot. And what is it with the “assault’ by pickup truck” charges? The trucks were stationary. And what did the poor guy who recorded the incident do to deserve life in prison? Where are the voices defending these men? People are afraid to speak out lest they be labelled “racist”.

The real villian is the judge. He knows a life sentence without parole is an obscene miscarriage of justice. Just like the judges in the Potter and Chauvin case he only passed these life sentences so as to appease the angry black mob.

The contrast between how whites are treated by the “justice” system compared to blacks is very stark. Today it was announced that two black men who shot and killed a 21 year old pregnant women in Portland Oregon with on serve 10 and 7.5 years in prison! They fired 40 rounds into the women’s apartment!

    Sanddog in reply to Keith_. | January 8, 2022 at 12:37 am

    You know they were trying to set a trap to detain him, right? You point a firearm at me in the middle of the street and you’d damned well better pray I’m not armed.

      CommoChief in reply to Sanddog. | January 8, 2022 at 10:20 am

      Agreed. These 3 guys were not engaged in defense IMO, rather they undertook offensive actions to pursue and maneuvers to detain. The subject didn’t want to be detained and took action to prevent his detention on the public streets by non LEO, which is hardly surprising. I sure as hell wouldn’t let myself be detained by 3 yahoos.

        txvet2 in reply to CommoChief. | January 8, 2022 at 1:49 pm

        Then you’d probably end up just as dead as he did. After that, it wouldn’t matter to you what happened to the yahoos. Prudence would have dictated that he let the yahoos detain him and then sue them later.

          CommoChief in reply to txvet2. | January 9, 2022 at 7:13 pm

          Do you tell your kids to get in the car with strangers or to run like hell away from them? They KISS principle definitely applies here.

      Char Char Binks in reply to Sanddog. | January 8, 2022 at 3:02 pm

      No, they gave up pursuit, and arbery doubled back (unless you believe joggers have no agency).

    Char Char Binks in reply to Keith_. | January 8, 2022 at 3:03 pm

    Incompetent counsel, for sure.

    Char Char Binks in reply to Keith_. | January 8, 2022 at 3:22 pm

    Only one of the trucks was stationary, parked because the McMichaels had abandoned pursuit. That’s why the prosecution had to pretend that Bryan was part of the hunt, an absurdity for several reasons — Bryan and the McMichaels had no coordination of action or communication between them, Bryan didn’t cut off arbery and force him to turn, but had to turn around to follow him after arbery abruptly doubled back to run to the gun.

    civisamericanus in reply to Keith_. | January 8, 2022 at 3:52 pm

    Why did Travis leave the safety of his vehicle if he wasn’t looking for trouble?

    I think the guy who recorded the video did more than record the video, he may have encouraged the others. If ALL he did was make a video, without any other participation, he should not have been convicted but my understanding is that he did a lot more, and enough to make him a party to a felony.

    Kim Potter is another matter. A fellow officer was in apparent danger and she had to react in the space of a couple of seconds. Having said this, I think all police departments should require Tasers to be worn on the opposite side of the body as a firearm to make this sort of thing impossible in the future. This is not the first time this happened but it should be the last.

      artichoke in reply to civisamericanus. | January 8, 2022 at 10:32 pm

      Don’t worry about police departments, at least not in Minneapolis. There won’t be many people willing to staff them, and those that are will just be staying out of trouble and going for their 20 years.

      You don’t get to negotiate how they can do better. Mpls. cops have been quitting, saying “you’re on your own”.

    healthguyfsu in reply to Keith_. | January 9, 2022 at 5:18 pm

    Travis was brandishing a weapon. Many people don’t know this but brandishing is not defined as “pointing”. It’s holding a gun in a menacing or threatening manner. A guy in Virginia got convicted of brandishing in a traffic dispute where his gun never left the holster (because he used his hand on it to threaten someone about consequences).

    Also, this is very different from cops because they have legal rights to brandish and use deadly force in ways that regular citizens do not. Rittenhouse is lucky and smart that he had the presence of mind not to threaten anyone with his weapon or hold onto it in a menacing manner.

    Taking the video, admitting to its existence, (and releasing it in public no less) is what most likely led to their downfall. Although if their story went as it did, they might have fallen apart there as well depending on when they lawyered up.

    One thing that the race hustlers don’t realize (if they are craving more of these cases) is that most of their evidence against convicts has come from these people having a false sense of security and taking liberties in interviews or video that they shouldn’t and wouldn’t if they had retained a lawyer before they were even charged. The “delay for justice” as it were may actually be improving their chances of getting convictions…wonder if they realize it or not.

This verdict and penalty is an abject lesson in where the constraints on the power of the people are. The narrative and the verdict firmly seat the power to attempt to address wrongdoings lies solely with the government. If they don’t do so, you have to just live with it or else you will be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    Dr.Dave in reply to kermitrulez. | January 8, 2022 at 8:20 pm

    It was on the opposite side. This is why it was an action error.

    artichoke in reply to kermitrulez. | January 8, 2022 at 10:30 pm

    Yeah, that angry, brittle, hateful reaction (and conduct of the trial) by the judge reminds me of the angry, brittle, hateful reaction of almost all of the Senate on J6 when some commoners presumed to enter their chamber and upset their day.

    But the jury should have used their discernment to know they were being played. That’s what I don’t understand, the stupidity or venality of the jury.

E Howard Hunt | January 7, 2022 at 11:12 pm

A smart cop told me if I were ever forced to kill someone in self defense, with no witnesses, to dig a deep hole and hope not to get caught.

    Paul In Sweden in reply to E Howard Hunt. | January 8, 2022 at 4:48 am

    That is smart advise and is clearly demonstrated to be the prudent action based on court cases over the years. The #RaceHateMongers of the DNC fundraisers, the MSM and the money grubbing family of the longtime criminal have too much potential financial gain to not exploit you. That is where we are in the USA today.

    Char Char Binks in reply to E Howard Hunt. | January 8, 2022 at 3:05 pm

    Only a very stupid person would follow that advice.

I’m not a lawyer by no means but I am bewildered as to how a whole trial took place only to have the judge read the statute to the jury on citizens arrest so the jury can decide what the law means at the end of the trial. Shouldn’t there have been a clear concensus at the beginning of the trial with the known jury instructions. What was the purpose of the trial if there is no clear meaning of the law that was or was not broken?

    Paul In Sweden in reply to Dr.Dave. | January 8, 2022 at 4:53 am

    Yes, the clear definition of citizen arrest and self-defense should have been made clear right after the charges were read in the beginning of the trial and the prosecution should have been admonished and the jury re-read the clear definitions each time the prosecution misrepresented the laws.

One person dead and the other is charged and convicted of multiple murder counts?

This is on the news now. Forever after he will be jogger Arbery. A sainthood ala George Floyd will not be far behind. I am not surprised.

Justice is out the door, along with truth and reason.

They also all face federal hate crime charges

call it what it is, thought crime laws.
talk about charge stacking.
they deserve prison but my God there is some stacking here.

    artichoke in reply to dmacleo. | January 8, 2022 at 10:26 pm

    Not even sure they deserve prison. All the burglar had to do was not attempt to burgle, or when caught, not charge and fight for the weapon.

Guilty for being White

Aren’t these sentences terribly stiff? As I remember from years ago, doesn’t a murder conviction typically get 20 years, of which the person typically serves 7 years with good behavior?

    RobM in reply to OldProf2. | January 8, 2022 at 3:20 pm

    They’re sending a message. It’s ALL politics. Even if local DA and cops think you’re good to go, we’ll bring in SJW prosecutors from woke-Atlanta to prosecute and we , the state, will ensure we railroad you based on media narrative and misreading actual law on the books. it was a show-trial with political sentencing to make sure whitey, everywhere in the south gets the message… We, the state, have decided that certain members of the community, get special dispensation to commit crime and citizens actually thinking they will defend their own neighborhood or friends from the lawlessness that is now permitted will face the full weight of the woke justice system.

      artichoke in reply to RobM. | January 8, 2022 at 10:23 pm

      All true. But they got the JURY to go along.

      It’s past the point of politics. The body politic is, by my estimation, poisoned.

    Paul In Sweden in reply to OldProf2. | January 9, 2022 at 12:03 pm

    No, that is how they do it in Georgia. No Joke.

There was great public pushback about the sentence in the truck drivers sentence in Colorado to the point where the governor reduced the sentence, I have a feeling there won’t be similar public uproar after the results in this case and the governor does nothing especially in an election year.

    RobM in reply to buck61. | January 8, 2022 at 3:23 pm

    They over-charged to get a plea. Went to trial and got convictions on all and the jury didn’t know there was mandatory minimums involved. They convicted without knowing just how FUBAR that prosecution was. They wanted to send a message but didn’t know they were putting a guy in jail for over 100 years for a accident.

    The idea he should even get 10 years ( 4 years with early release ) is still insane. Another political prosecution because the driver was Cuban, not one of the protected races.

      Tim1911 in reply to RobM. | January 8, 2022 at 6:55 pm

      He passed a runaway truck ramp he could have have easily taken and probably hoped to ride it out once got to the bottom. He would have made too if there had not been a backup on the interstate. I live nearby. The scene looked like it had been napalmed.

        RobM in reply to Tim1911. | January 8, 2022 at 10:15 pm

        I know all that. It was a horrific accident. Correct me since you live there, but I heard early on that this driver was relatively inexperienced and to add to that, had never driven I-70 out of the mtns into the area before and wasn’t either trained on using the emergency off-ramps or was too scared to. It was awful what happened and the video of the accident were horrifying. I don’t mind suing the trucking company for a few million or their insurance, but throwing the driver into jail for a accident just doesn’t make things right with me. It’s ruining this guys’ life and I don’t think the State even was asked to prove he knew the consequences, knew how to use the emergency brake lanes or had ever driven that route ever before.

      artichoke in reply to RobM. | January 8, 2022 at 10:20 pm

      It’s normal that the jury doesn’t know the punishments. It’s hidden from them. I might agree that it should not be hidden, but they want to disempower the jury and limit them to the role of factfinder.

      That’s our system such as it is. Many other defendants of less social justice significance have also lost decades of their lives in prison for the same reason. Why is this one special?

    artichoke in reply to buck61. | January 8, 2022 at 10:22 pm

    Great pushback? By some, but by no means universal. There was also significant public support for the guy not getting a break. I think you’re creating a narrative after the fact here.

But will Governor Abrams commute their sentence?

These verdicts don’t make sense. The Chauvin and Potter verdicts also don’t make sense. I don’t know my countrymen anymore.

Heartened by seeing reasonable, objective minds that can think about this with their rational brain rather than their emotional one.