tv Stephanie Ruhle Reports MSNBC November 23, 2021 6:00am-7:00am PST
true and honest. and capable. kids are capable of understanding contradiction. school groups are going to sand creek. they're looking at the word massacre, hearing this thing and going, that's too bad. how did that happen? we're just asking questions. nobody is saying this group is bad. this group is good. they're saying bad things happen amidst the extraordinary things that have occurred in the story of the united states, which has been my beef for 50 years. >> it has. and you've done it better than anybody in these documentaries. you know, i love this country so much, and that means i love facing down our failings. and celebrating our greatness and, ken burns, you help us do both. thank you so much. you can watch the new opinion documentary at washingtonpost.com. that does it for us this morning. stephanie ruhle picks up the coverage right now. ♪♪
hey there i'm stephanie ruhle live at msnbc headquarters here in new york city. it is tuesday, november 23rd. and we begin this morning's broadcast with breaking news. all eyes on brunswick, georgia, where closing arguments are resuming right now. in the trial of the three men accused of killing ahmaud arbery. this is the prosecution's rebuttal to the defense's closing argument from yesterday. let's listen in. >> so don't leave the house. here's an alternative. call the police. don't chase down strangers to confront them. don't go after pedestrians in your truck. common sense tells you, you go in a truck after a pedestrian, have you ever had a strange truck with people start yelling
at you? would that startle you? i don't know. we don't know what was in the mind of ahmaud arbery. i mean, what do you think? these strange men pulling up in a truck, then not relenting and not backing off. how about some empathy. remember, listen, emphasize. where is the empathy, where did they go, you know, wonder what i'm doing to this other person. i wonder what it looks like from their point of view. i wonder if we might be scaring or startling this person. i wonder if it may be so bad that they might react in a negative way. where's the empathy. how about don't bring a shotgun with you. this is really easy. call the police. where's officer ashe, remember
officer ashe, wants them to be witnesses. i mean, call police. followed behind ahmaud arbery at 2 miles an hour. where's he going to go. they could have followed him all the way back. on the phone, he's turning left, he's turning right. ooh. that was a really neat choice. did they choose to do that? no, they confront him. they chose to confront him. they didn't have to. they could have followed -- he's a jogger. how fast is he going? don't point a shotgun unless you're going to kill them? how do were know he intended to kill him? firing a shotgun at him. how about you stay on the driver's side of the truck. don't go around the front of the truck, real easy. all right. so, let's go ahead and look at this. this is really important. the law of citizen's arrest, okay? so, first off, the defendant
never said citizen's arrest. they never said we're making an arrest. so where do they come from? they come to the defendant on february 23rd, 2020, where do they come from? so it's the law, a private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence. what does that mean? right here, right now, i saw you commit an offense. okay? i saw you criminally trespass on my property right here, right now, february 23rd, 2020. i saw you commit a burglary. i saw you commit whatever crime it is that it's your immediate presence or immediate knowledge. we talked about that. the guy at walmart is not standing next to the shop lifter when she shop lifts, but in realtime, what's he doing, watching it? we're not talking videotape. you can't watch a videotape in
november and have it in your immediate knowledge. we can't tell you, synonymous, means the same thing in your presence, immediate knowledge. you immediately do know because you watched. that's what that means. it doesn't mean watching a videotape on february 11th with officer ashe. that's not what that means. a private person may arrest the offender if the offense is committed in the presence of the defendants? did ahmaud arbery commit any crime in the presence of any of these defendants? the answer is, no. the boom, citizen's arrest is gone. yes, i'm going to continue because there's more caveats. if the offense, the one that was just committed in your presence is a felony. with ahmaud arbery, that's all he's doing is going -- >> i don't like to interrupt
closings, but this is not an accurate statement of the law that the court is going to give this jury. the appear ren pair get parenth not accurate. >> the charge to the court, the charge is going to be provided to the panel. and with an explanation that i provided earlier, what the law is going to be. the court is going to provide you the law of the case. and counsel, you may proceed. >> thank you. the first sentence is a private person may arrest the offender if the offense is committed in his presence. okay. you can arrest if the offense is committed in his presence. if the offense. that's my parenthetical to remind you. if that offense, that offense,
just committed in your presence is a felony and the offender is attempting to escape right then and there. >> i'm not going to offer -- we've had this discussion. we would object. >> i join in that. >> denied. >> you'll understand this is argument. the judge is going to give you the law, right? he's going to have it written out and read it to you. this is the argument, the offender is attempting to escape. so the position is what that means is, i saw the crime. i just have to try and arrest them right there. if they're running away, i get to chase after them. i don't get to chase after them unless it's a felony and they escape. >> we have to object and have a conference with the court. we talked about this in the
charge conference. >> objection is noted. >> based on the incorrect statement, rejoin. >> ladies and gentlemen, if you could please just go ahead and take a step in the jury room. let's bring in nbc's cal perry in brunswick, c.j. hofstra and sarah lazaro. a criminal attorney in state and federal court. c.k., what's your reaction here? >> i think she's being very dynamic, very aggressive. hitting on all fronts. i think the defense making the objections, they're making the objections to really take her off her game. there's a way to object in closing, actually, the jurors
don't like it because they could have asked for a sidebar once. they shouldn't have announced the reasons why. but they did that simply to discredit the prosecution. but i've got news for them. that's not a good strategy to use in front of a jury. >> she's got news for you, bad news, guys. sarah, the defense doesn't have much to work with. how is the case looking right now? >> stephanie, the defense for the mcmichaels was factually bankrupt from the beginning of this case. and while the prosecution has really really heavily relied on the law, applying the laws to the facts of this case, they have completely ignored the law. they've essentially argued that, you know, travis mcmichael had a specific duty. there was crime on the rise in the neighborhood. he had a duty to protect the neighborhood. and just completely ignoring this idea that the facts -- that they're claiming the citizen's arrest but they know the facts
don't fit the elements of citizen's arrest. so, it's interesting, it's almost much like their clients think their above the law. the defense attorneys are ignoring the law. and then, of course, there was the highly despicable comments about the long, dirty toenails of ahmaud arbery's appearance. to me, stephanie, there's a real concern there beyond the racist idea about that. the idea that the attorney would make a risky comment to the jury. that means she knows this jury and that this jury will probably be -- this will resonate with this jury. that's what's scary to me, is that in a regular courtroom, this could change the verdict but in this courtroom, change things can happen. >> that is such an important insight. i want to dip back in. the defense is now trying to argue requesting a mistrial. >> -- by the state, so there's no way we can fix it.
we're asking the court to fix it not just by simply saying to the jury that it's going to come from the court, which it will but this is a misstatement of the law and the statement is improper. >> yesterday, the defense stood up here and argued their interpretation of the law. and i didn't object at all because i knew it was their interpretation of what they believed the law to be. they went through the whole problem of cause. they went through everything. state didn't object because i understand this was their position of the laws applied to the facts. i just made clear to this jury. i will again, this is what the law is and this is how you apply it to these facts. that's the state's interpretation of how you read the law. just like they gave their interpretations yesterday. so we ask you that deny the mistrial. >> no -- >> yeah, yeah.
are. >> you can't argue a misstatement of the law. the state never told the jury this is my interpretation of the law until we objected. >> i think that what was explained in the parenthetical. but the state doesn't -- i will -- i will state it needs clarified that this is the argument based on the law that will be charged. and the law that will be charged. to make sure we're clear about the law being charged, there was a debate about this on friday. i'm not going to reignite that debate in front of the panel. >> pardon me, we're fine with what the court's decision was on the contemporaneousness of it. the with it being flawed. >> just like the defense said the right to argue what escape means is escaping whatever this
temporal period is. i understand the state to be arguing the same thing in a much more limited temporal period. i think the state's got the right to do that. the state needs to be sure, though, it's clear that is the argument that is being made as opposed to what the law is. and i think the charge is very clear about that. so the request for mistrial is denied. >> i'd add that the state is argues that the felony for the second set has to just have occurred in the immediate presence of the person seeking to arrest the escaping felon. that is absolutely a misstatement of the law. even as the court agreed to charge it, that's not even correct. but the second sentence does not require a felony to have occurred within the immediate presence, contemporaneous with the escape and the chase. that is not the law -- that's not the law the court agreed to charge. >> your honor, you're charging
the statutes. and the statutes are those two sentences. if the offense, that is the offense has to be committed in your presence or immediate knowledge. if that offense is a felony, that's what it says, if that offense, applying to the first sentence and that interpretation is that means that person had to be escape right then and there. that's the state's argument. they never saw anyone escaping from a felony having been committed that day. >> that's not the court's charge. >> yeah, that's not -- the escape, the second sentence the court was charging which i understand was agreed to was, that if it's a felony and there's an escape. that's the temporal issue we're talking about, then those steps can be taken to retain or arrest
the individual. what i understand the state was arguing, that temporal period was stretched over time. what i understand the state was arguing the temporal period, the word escape, it was he was escaping from whatever occurred that day. >> yes, that is. >> okay, well, that's not what i'm hearing then. what i'm hearing -- well, if the state limits its argument to that. but that's what the second sentence refers to. that escape, that limited temporal period, that's permitted, that's what we talked about in the charge conference. >> i don't think it is -- we argued by email and all the rest, your honor, that's what i remember. that's what i'm saying. >> to step out of this for a
second, i would not disturb the jury when they get back. >> i also need a bathroom break. >> let's just take literally five minutes and then we'll get back into this. >> thank you, judge. c.k., translate, what just happened? >> well, what just happened is the motion for mistrial was denied. again. as i suspected it would have been denied. the defense was trying to just obstruct. the prosecution just like the defense has a right to tell the jury why they should convict the three defendants. what the law says and what it means, that's what is call closing arguments for a reason. you are arguing to the jury. the jury is going to get the instructions. because when you're talking about the law, you got to be careful because the judge is going to come back and instruct
the law. but they have the right to presence the evidence as see it, to take the law as they see it. the other side did it. it's common. this is nothing more to try to obstruct, take the prosecution off of her game. make the jury think maybe she's lying because she's scoring points with the jury. that's how i see it. >> sara, what do you think? >> yeah, i agree with her. often, which we don't have much to go by, we sort of grasp at every opportunity to distract and, you know, to try to throw the prosecutor off of her momentum. and i think some of this is what is going on. but with respect to the defense attorneys, i do think that roddie's attorney was very effective. i think he completely dismantled the charges after his client removed him and sort of distanced him from the mcmichaels duo.
he never should have been charged here, stephanie. i think he was a witness. you've got the two mcmichaels and you've got roddie. i think roddie is an acquittal, or at least it should be. the mcmichaels on the other hand i think really has to depend on this jury and whether they go to applying the laws and the facts. or are they going with the idea that these guys did a good job, they're heroes in the neighborhood. they have a duty, even though they think they're above the law. >> heroes in the neighborhood. c.k., look at this a different way, what if a black person tried to make a citizen's arrest of a white person on the street. cornered them on the street and shot them because that white person felt uncomfortable and didn't want to talk to them. wouldn't that be the most absurd argument? >> it would be absurd to the hundredth degree. first of all, a black person would not have survived. i daresay, a black person would not have survived.
i disagree. i think mr. bryant was culpable as well. he was part of the trapping of ahmaud arbery. they trapped him, using their words, like a rat. he was part of that scenario. i think he's guilty. maybe not as guilty as the mcmichaels. maybe not as guilty as travis who killed him with a shotgun. but he's still guilty. he was there. part of the three of them together. caused ahmaud arbery's murder. and you can't move away from that. but putting that aside, it would be absurd to think that a black man can do this, cornered someone. to even be a question of the innocence of the black man, in the tables were turned. >> cal, what's the time line for the outcome? could we get it before thanksgiving? >> reporter: we actually got something from the court. they will reinvestigate thanksgiving.
be back friday as well. verdict watch will continue. you have nine charges for the defendants it's going to be up to the jury to assign degrees guilt. interesting on the roddie bryant, the rebuttal went out of their way to single him out and talk about exactly what we're talking about here, his level of culpability by just being there on the scene. and this charge of false imprisonment. you had roddie bryant in the pickup truck. and that is what kept arbery in that street, where he went up and down that street four times. and the prosecutor making that point time and time again that there were any number of alternatives that the defendants could have taken. and now, we have what is this ongoing strategy by the defense to keep asking for the mistrials. yesterday, as the court adjourned, the defense was asking for a mistrial on the quote-unquote protests. it caused the defense attorneys to cry foul and ask for a
mistrial. that has been ongoing. >> but, sara, it's normal to ask for a mistrial, we see it all the time, don't we? >> do we do, stephanie, but there still has to be a basis otherwise you look like a jack ass, this motion to pull black people from a public trial, i lost count how many times he made that motion when he knew damn well it would be denied. it was frivolous, as a criminal defense attorney in the year 2021 your job is not to defend the client and uphold the constitution but you also have to participate in this movement for systemic change. and for a lawyer to make that kind of motion knowing it's a losing motion is a complete disgrace. but, yeah, i think, of course, they have to preserve the record for appeal. if there's a conviction, they want to make the motions, but there still has to be a basis for the motions. i think they're sort of shooting in the dark and hoping that something will stick.
with respect to, stephanie, if i may, mr. roddie bryant's defense, yes, he was there. yes, he was allegedly an aider and abetter, i think his attorney did a good job as a rubber necker to see what the heck was going on. he drove up to see what will was happening and then he started filming everything. the lack of knowledge on his part as to what was happening moving his truck out of the way helps him. this is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. that is not a low bar. >> sara, it may be despicable and absurd what the defense attorney tried to do, to ban black pastors, knowing it would get thrown out, what does that tell you about the mind-set of this jury, where we are in the country? >> yeah, it speaks volumes, stephanie that statement is exactly why we're in the
courtroom in the first place, right? you have a jury who does not represent the community. the community is 25% to a third black. you've got one black juror on this jury. it had the issue of peremptory challenges that got rid of a lot of black individuals and ultimately wound up with one. there was question whether this was based on race and whether there was some legitimate basis, cause to dismiss the jurors. yeah, we're in a part of the country, it is not new york, it is not l.a. and it's very scary. that's why i believe the comment about the ldt -- the long dirty toenails. that could go a long way, the boogie man in the neighborhood with the long dirty tone nails. he's a criminal. also because he's black. i think the prosecutor needs to play the race card. they've essentially argued that this guy is a criminal because
he's black and running. >> closing arguments are starting back up. let's listen in. >> cal perry, what are we waiting for here? >> reporter: so, we're waiting, i believe, for the jury to come back at which point we'll hear more on the closing arguments. it's interesting, fascinating, the conversation you were just having about race in the trial. the prosecution has in large part stayed away from it. there were certain things that were ghisable that the prosecution didn't talk about, the license plate which is the old quote-unquote battle flag for the state of georgia, half
the confederate flag. it was stayed away. a racial slur was stayed away by the prosecution. and it really has been the defense that continues to bring up race in this trial. i don't think there's any question we'll hear more about that when the prosecutor linda dunikoski will finish her arguments which will last an hour at which point we'll have key jury points, stephanie. >> they're bringing the jury back in the room. it continues, let's watch -- >> i encourage you to read it. let's get back to where we are, the loll of citizen's arrest. where we are, a private person may not act on unsupported statements of others alone, okay? what that means, what we're back to, did the offense happen in your immediate presence or your immediate knowledge? how did you get immediate knowledge? meaning immediately it happened, synonymous, right? so that doesn't rumor, gossip,
hearsay that a crime has been committed. or some other person thinks that person committed a crime. you can't base a citizen's arrest on stale information from unreliable sources. that's not what you can do, okay? you can't base an arrest on gossip alone. facebook does not alone give you probable cause to arrest somebody. rumors in the neighborhood do not give you probable cause alone to arrest somebody. that's not what immediate knowledge is. a private citizen's warrantless arrest must occur immediately after the perpetration of the offense, or in the case of felonies, during the escape. so, what that means, why is warrantless highlighted? because a citizen's arrest can be warrantless arrest. you don't have an arrest warrant that a law enforcement officer has sworn out before a judge. this is a warrantless arrest. so for the warrantless arrest
under citizen's arrest, that must occur immediately after the crime was committed. or in the case of a felony, during escape. that means the person escaping or chasing them, you have to arrest them right then and there. that's what that means. now, remember, the defense got up here and said, well, of course, how would a law enforcement officer ever arrest anybody if the crime happened over here and they arrest them later? well, everyone knows that law enforcement officers go out to get record warrants, okay? that's what they do. they go ahead and they go -- they know linda has been committing shop lifting. okay. they get called. they witness her. she runs out. okay. they don't arrest her that day. what does the officer do? he takes an arrest warrant for her, that's how she gets arrested later on the arrest warrant. she wasn't arrested by the law enforcement officer that day when she saw her shoplifting.
he takes out a warrant and arrests her later. that answers that question that the defense brought up. law on citizen's arrest, if the observer fails to make the arrest immediately after the commission of the og fence or during escape in the case of felony, his power to do so is extinguished, okay? so, you're in the store. and a woman is shoplifting. and you go to do a citizen's arrest, you have to do it right then and there. she comes back in the store four days later, you can't arrest her. you can't do a citizen's arrest four days later. if you fail to make that arrest immediately after the commission of the offense, you have no power to do a citizen's arrest. in other words, i mean, this is what we're talking about, we're talking about an emergency
situation. >> judge -- >> i'd object to this interpretation which is a misstatement of the law. >> we join in that objection. >> it's noted. this is the argument that's being made. i've already addressed that. >> except that it says law on citizen's arrest, not the inference that the court was making clear to the state. not their interpretation, but the law. >> okay. this may be semantics for this line, i don't know. the law of the case will be provided by the court. all right. this is argument. this is the state's argument, concerning what should be the facts of the case and how to apply them to the law. this line, to the extent that it indicates that this is the law on citizen's arrest is, again,
and my understanding, demonstrative. the court is going to provide that. miss dunikoski. >> thank you. this is the state's argument, you all understand that, right? this is just the state's argument. and the state's argument is that citizen's arrest is for emergency situations when something happens, they're right in front of you you want to go ahead and citizen's arrest the person because you just saw the crime happen. that's what it's for. so, what we have is the law enforcement, this is one again the slide done by the state. this is the state's argument to you. crime committed in your presence. immediate knowledge is not the unsupported states of others alone. a private citizen's warrantless arrest must occur immediately after the offense. and if it's a felony and the offender is escaping, you can
chase them and make the arrest. that's it in a nutshell. all right. so, we're going to apply that law to the facts of this case, right? so what crime are we talking about that they thought he had committed? was it clear to you all, based only the closing arguments what they were talking about? go back to october 25th, 2015, because ahmaud was on the dock and hadn't taken anything. so, what do we have? there's criminal trespass, criminal trespass is when you enter on the property of someone else to do an unlawful act. you decide. does he enter on 220 scintilla drive. look at the video. didn't touch any of that stuff
on the dock, wandered around on the talk. let's talk about larry english, larry english wasn't concerned with people there in the daytime. sally, yeah, i saw him on the doorway. we don't know if it was december or january. larry english couldn't have cared less. there might have been incidents of other people during the day, he couldn't remember, because he didn't care about people coming on the property during the day. what did he tell you? he told you he can remember that his subcontractors were there, his kids came over there, and mr. billy. he would sometimes shut off the video cameras and not turn them on for days. remember, his deposition, yeah, i'd shut them off because they kept going off and people were there and i forgot to turn them on. he's concerned about liability. he didn't want people falling off the dock.
larry english is a contractor. by the way, larry english is the one who will referred to it as a construction site, remember, during his deposition? he called it a construction site. and this experience is very common as a general contractor that people come in and out of the construction site. and what did he tell you? he told you this in his deposition, nothing has ever been stolen from the construction site in all of 2019 and the first months of 2020. let's be really, really clear. this whole boat thing, that's a red herring, all right? total red herring. nothing has been stolen from the construction site. and you can see how much stuff is in there he's got lumber, he's got all of this. mr. arbery never shows up with a bag. doesn't back a u-haul to it and start load up that big saw or anything like that. what does he do, he wanders around inside for a few minutes and leaves. that's all he did. but during late october beginning of 2019, we have no
idea what the actual date is, larry english climbs up a ladder and looks down in a boat that's parked there and said, oh, my gosh, my stuff's missing. he noticed it sometime beginning of october, end of november. he couldn't tell you what date that was. he calls rash, okay, rash, what do i do? he talks to rash about this, and says i don't know when the stuff was stolen. i don't know who stole it. i think it was my subcontractor who stole it. they're the first suspect. but he also notes that the boat has been back and forth to douglas before he lives. larry english during this time frame, i don't know who stole it, i don't know where the boat was, he decides to not even get the police involved. what did rash do? call the nonemergency number and the investigator will come out and take a report from you, interview and figure out where everything is. what is the suspect -- the white
couple with the bag. that's the 911 call. he thinks they're the people and arrived at the four teenagers in douglas. so, it can't be sometime in october/november when larry english noticed the items from the boat, okay. we don't even have enough from larry english to even do an investigation in this because he doesn't know where the boat is, much less what they say, an allegation took place. never told travis mcmichael, never spoke to roddie bryant about any of this. travis mcmichael knew the boat think from daca. an unreliable source -- who told him -- his mother. greg mcmichael knew about this,
what did rash tell him? yeah, i talked to him and he suspects his contractor. he knew better. what was the intent? officer rash told you my intent here was for greg mcmichael to be a good witness for the police. he's supposed to be a good witness. if he sees the guy over there again, he's supposed to call 911. and then he's supposed to go, hey, he went this way, he went that way. that's what will he's supposed to do. be a good witness. greg offers his contact information to officer rash to give it to larry english. but larry english never gets his text. totally ignores it. never authorizes that on his behalf at all. and larry english is completely unreasonable. look at this, this is what the actual owner of the property wants to have happen. this is what the owner wants. find him, talk to him, and tell
him not to come back, okay? that's a totally reasonable response. completely reasonable. officer ashe, just tell the young man to stop coming on the property. so what happens, my alarm goes off i have to call the police and this is a hassle. he never steals anything. just tell him not to come back any more. what did officer rash tell you on camera? well, if larry english had been called to report items missing from the boat what would have happened? an officer would have been assigned to investigate the case, meaning he would have interviewed larry english. what would he have said to larry english -- sir what was taken? when was it taken? well larry english wouldn't be able to say when. and who took it. well, it was my subcontractor. i think.
then it was the white couple, i think. and then under the bridge, i don't know. but he never does anything. so this idea that ahmaud would be a suspect. he's a suspect along with a whole bunch of other people, okay? so, here's the problem. if you're a suspect and you're a suspect, so please don't -- i'm going to arrest him. i mean, that's not what will they do. that's to be investigated, right. like a law enforcement officer. so, the idea would be that the officer would go and look into it. that's exactly what rash said on the stand, remember this? he said ahmaud might be a suspect, but he would look into it. we don't even know when the stuff was stolen. ahmaud would not have been automatically arrested just because larry english made contact with the police. there would have been an investigation. that's what rash would do. rash, an actual law enforcement officer with a badge in a marked
patrol car. then we got the white couple with the bag. he calls police on december 2nd. they're the suspected boat thief. remember, december 1st he calls police. i want you to go and check them out. larry english called the police and said, please go check out the white couple, they're homeless living under the bridge. he did not go himself to confront the people under the bridge. compare and contrast that, what do we know about greg and travis mcmichael at this point in time? july 13th, they went down, they confronted the homeless man under the bridge with their gun. and then called the police to tell him about they're shady looking guys. february 11th, travis mcmichael runs home, tells his dad. they get their gun and they head back down to 220. he said i'm parked in front of
220. all right? where's greg mcmichael at that time? he's inside with his gun about to run into jacob with the flash light and gun. and then they tell officer rash they'd both been inside already on february 11th with their gun -- did they? nope. and you'll note, the 911 operator stayed on the phone with travis mcmichael the entire time until officer rash arrives. that's important. stayed on the phone the entire time so travis could keep recording what he was seeing. so, now, november 18th, 2019. they don't know anything about november 18th, 2019. until they're shown some videos
on february 11th, 2020. they don't even know about this. it didn't be december 19th, 2019, because nobody knew about that at all. even larry english -- i don't know, i found these on my phone. i never pay attention to them. police weren't called. nothing happened. all right. but what do we know? okay? a couple of things. let's look at this. i want you to watch this. what's mr. arbery doing? more importantly, what's mr. arbery not doing? here's the thing. i'm going to do this. i'm really scared. i'm going to do it. it's pitch black. i'm in the house, i can't see.
i know there's a table. there it is. okay. did you see mr. arbery do that? did you see him run his shin into anything? did you see him run into any of this furniture, they claim it's pitch black in there, does he look like it's pitch black? no. i don't know how he's seeing, i don't know if it's a street light. the moonlight, a combination of those things but for him, he can see what's going on inside. how about here. just skirted that lawnmower. didn't back into it. here's what mr. arbery did on december 17th, after he went in there a few minutes, looked around, didn't take anything, didn't damage anything. this is what he did.
here we go. so. so can't be february 11th, 2020. that's not the crime we're talking about that they're trying to do a citizen's arrest for. because a private citizen's warrantless arrest must occur immediately after the event. if you fail immediate arrest, you can't arrest later. and what do we have here? well, we know what we have here. we have criminal trespass at the moment according to law enforcement officer rash who will then said it was loitering. but first up, i want to address this. empathy once again. where is the empathy from travis mcmichael. travis mcmichael's point of view is i got up and got out of the car and i had a confrontation with this guy and about to say what are you doing here but he put his hand in his pocket and i got back in my car. okay.
let's think about this, empathy. do ahmaud's actions afterwards look like he's getting in a confrontation when he walked in the house on february 11 jth ? he walked around a few minutes and was gone by that time. so, what do we got? does it look like he gets out of the car in front and it's no big deal to him? i don't know. i don't know what he's thinking i have no idea. you saw the video. what does it look like from the video? is he in there hiding or crouched down? remember, no one had ever told him to not be on that property. so, the thing is what you're saying to me, you're going, but, linda, the defense got up here and said he's a burglar. he's a burglar, and he committed all of these burglaries. why are they saying that? well, because they want the
burglaries to be the felony. but from that felony that he committed, that burglary, they can chase him down. but they didn't know he had done anything that particular day february 23rd, 2020. what's burglary? when without authority and with the intent to commit thefts therein that persons enters the domains of the dwelling of another. okay. criminal trespass. when that person knowingly and without authority enters into the premises of another for unlawful purpose. so, what do you got? sounds really similar. one's a felony, one's a misdemeanor, right? criminal trespass. a midemeanor so what's really important what did the defendants know on february 20th, 2020. >> there's some black -- in
there, as a matter of fact, we have some kids that age around that house. >> well, i've been there for an actual report of an alleged assault or whatever, and the kids they have are only females. i don't know if it's one of them's boyfriends, they only have daughters there. it could be, unless somebody's moved in or whatever. nobody seems to know who this kid is, where he's coming from. like, he's always -- all the time on the video that mr. english sent me, it's he's always in there plumbing around, not that he's actually taken anything. criminal trespass. >> yeah, yeah. >> i had a report is right down the road. now, we did have -- i took a report down the road here on the house in the corner, the guy where that is, he had guns
stolen. we got on video, the car that people came in and stole them. they were from another neighborhood. >> yeah. >> what did they know? travis mcmichael, greg mcmichael specifically says to officer rash, this is criminal trespassing, a misdemeanor. why is it criminal trespassing? he's never taken anything, he's never stolen anything. nothing had ever been taken from the construction site. officer rash says it's loitering and prowling. so on february 11th, 2020, 7:30 at night, travis mcmichael and greg mcmichael know there's absolutely no evidence that mr. arbery has committed any felony or theft from the construction site, from the owner himself, and from a police officer. this is what they know on february 11th.
what was officer rash's plan? this is important. officer rash, glynn county police officer, what as his plan when it came to mr. arbery, inform him this was private problem. call larry english in front of ahmaud arbery, put him on speaker phone, let the owner, the owner, larry english, make the decision to either just ask ahmaud not to come back, or to have the police trespass him. meaning i'm giving you an official trespass warning, if you ever come back here again, you'll be arrested. this was officer rash's plan. reasonable. this is what larry just wanted. just somebody just tell him not to come back, please. that's all. that's all. robert rash took the stand, he said a couple more things that were very important in this case. how do you identify a burglar? he was asked by the defense. what did he say?
caught taking something from a house. this is your glynn county law enforcement, he's on the case, talking with larry english constantly, knows all about this. what did he say to the defense? how do you identify a burglar? because they get caught. then asked, wait a second, isn't burglary the attempt to commit a theft therein. what did he say? how do i know what his intent was? right. right. how would officer rash know what ahmaud arbery's intent was, right there. said it right on the stand. but the defense, of course, says, well there are things of value in there. okay, but those things of value have been in there. they were in there all of 2019. they were in there october, november, december, january and february. and they were never stole on are taken. ever. by anyone. including mr. arbery. it's not a burglary.
okay. so how do you analyze this case? well, looking at citizen's arrest. you decide. but if they were not conducting a lawful citizen's arrest, not still may if you want to, but you really don't have to consider self-defense, because if it's not a lawful citizen's arrest, they were the first unjustified aggressors and they were committing felonies against mr. arbery, and therefore they don't get to claim self-defense. and you can go directly to the charges in the indictment. all right, so it's not a citizen's arrest. this is the state's argument. no crime. not a burglary, not criminal trespass, committed in the defendant's presence. none whatsoever. the suggestion that the defendant committed a burglary in 2019, you can't arrest him now, because he's not escaping from those things. think about those things. how is someone escaping from
october 25th out on a dock. how is somebody escaping from february 1th, 2020? that is irrational. wanting to question the victim demonstrates their uncertainty on what he had done that day and wanting to question the victim demonstrates a lack of immediate knowledge, which is required for a lawful citizen's arrest. they didn't see him commit any crime that day. and the state's not saying that he wasn't in -- you know, 220 sitila drive. he came in there and ran off down the street. we all knew that. they didn't know that. so let's go ahead and take a look at the evidence in the case. so first off, once again, where are we? scitila shores. fancy bluff. that's where ahmaud arbery lives. there's u.s. 17 ahmaud arbery.
yesterday, laura hogue got up here and she gave you criminal defense 101. usually criminal defense 101 is no crime actually took place. now, the crime is on video. my client didn't commit the crime. well, yeah, your client is on video committing the crime. criminal defense 101, it's the victim's fault. standard, standard stuff. malign it will victim. i know you're not going to buy into that. it's offensive. he livid 1.8 miles away. there's his residence, there's the house under construction.
february 23rd, 2020, at 1:08 p.m. mr. arbery walks up to the open, unsecured construction site. we have our olson video. remember, it's off by an hour and five minutes. per the video from inside 220, he doesn't take anything, does what he always does and leaves. it's not a burglary, okay. how would you know what his intent was? well, did he steal anything? no. did he leave like he always does? yes. i said to him, why didn't you call 911? because this was not an emergency. it wasn't an emergency. mr. albenzi is just another guy over at that house, again, the house that's unsecured, doesn't have a fence, doesn't have no
trespassing signs on, he'll send someone out when it's convenient. not an emergency. gregg mcmichael is? front of 230 scitia drive alone and sees him running down the street. how do we know he didn't wants any crime. but the whole thing started when i saw this guy running down the street. he does not know that mr. arbery was inside 220. he only sees him running down the street. travis mcmichael certainly didn't know anything. he's inside, on the sofa. greg mcmichael assumed the worst. and so i thought we believe, you know, he's running from somebody. he's just done something. you know, he might have hurt somebody or whatever, because, you know, this guy has been in and out of that one house over and over and over again, got him on video and everything. that is not sufficient for a citizen's arrest. this is not probable cause. this is, i don't know what in the world this guy is doing, but he's running down the street
real fast. that's what this is. and remember, he's talking to the police about what he believed ahmaud arbery had done that day. he must have done something today. he's running down the street. let's chase after him with guns. that's what happened. driveway decision, greg mcmichael chooses to arm himself with a handgun. travis mcmichael chooses to arm himself with a pump shotgun. travis mcmichael had his cell phone, but greg mcmichael does not take his cell phone to him. all right. this is really important, ladies and gentlemen. on february 11th, the 911 operator staid on the phone with travis mcmichael the entire time, right? if greg mcmichael had actually made contact with a 911 operator, what would have been happening inside the truck? he would have been on the phone with that 911 operator, going, yeah, he's going this way, he's going this way, he's going that way, okay?
the fact that greg mcmichael was not on the phone with 911, giving them a play by play, tells you that travis and greg knew they weren't -- they had not called 911. travis knew his dad hadn't called 911. neither one of them called 911. they had no intention of calling 911. just like they went and confronted the homeless guy under the bridge and then called 911. just like they ran back down on february 11th, 2020, to the house, and then called 911. what do they do? go to do a confrontation, and then they call 911. greg mcmichael didn't even bother to take his cell phone with him. obvious to travis, he did not call 911. travis mcmichael, 60 seconds after mr. arbery has run past 230 scitila drive, he makes his driveway decision. doesn't tell his dad to calm down. doesn't tell his dad, that, no, he's not getting his shotgun and running after somebody. doesn't tell his dad, this is a really, really bad idea, we
shouldn't do this. no, what does he do? his white f-150 pickup truck backs out of the driveway and heads in the direction that mr. arbery was running. this happens after he gets his shotgun and getting into his pickup truck. travis mcmichael testified that he went to the end of the driveway and he saw mr. albenzi point one time down the street, there was no verbal communication with mr. albenzi with the mcmichaels. that was a lie. i'm going to focus your attention up here, ladies and gentlemen. what we have here is 2:13:25.
can you all see this okay? so what we have here is mr. albenze, all right? here's the black car. remember, the black car goes by and mr. arbery runs the other way, down this way. so let's go ahead and play. there goes the black car. mr. albenze is there. there goes ahmaud. do you see him? right there. ahmaud's running, running, there he goes, right there. you see him? down the street, and there he goes. all right? then what happens? see the white trauk right here? you're looking at it. somebody comes out, goes to the door of the truck. mr. albenze is still right here underneath tree. somebody else comes out. you see the second person come out and go around the front of
the truck? that's mcmichael. greg mcmichael is sitting in that car seat, right? second person comes around. then what happens? then mr. albenze walks down the street. he's walking, he's walking, he's walking, he's walking, truck pulls out. wow, truck pulls out, mr. albenze does his pointing when the truck is already pulled out and going down the street. want to see it again? back it up. there's mr. albenze. here's the black car. there goes ahmaud. running down the street.
there he goes. this is the white truck. he's still underneath here. there comes somebody in the truck. he's right there. there comes greg mcmichael. he comes around, he gets in. and then mr. albenze starts walking down the street. truck pulls out, there goes his arm. there goes his arm. where is the truck? already pulled out. already pulled out and heading down the street. all right. should you trust the statements of travis mcmichael? well, let's go ahead and f