Ahmaud Part 4: Clearing Up Misconceptions

So a lot of people are watching the various security camera footage and declaring that Ahmaud wasn't trespassing and therefore everything after is a crime committed by the shooter. Let's clear this up.

Whether Ahmaud actually committed trespassing as stated under GA law is not relevant. Why? Ahmaud is not on trial. Say that Ahmaud survived the shooting and was charged with trespassing on the word of the shooter. Once he got to court, the defense would argue that since there was no "no trespassing" signage and that Ahmaud was never explicitly told not to enter the property, he could not have committed trespass as described in GA law. If I were on that jury, I'd likely accept that argument as grounds for reasonable doubt. That's under the law. In common practice it is not acceptable to wander up into someone's property whether there is construction going on or a door open or not. Most of us know this and there are currently a lot of liars out there claiming they do so on a regular basis.

So since Ahmaud is not the one on trial. It doesn't matter whether he actually trespassed. What actually matters is the state of mind of the shooter. I will again go back to the Sean Bell and Trayvon Martin cases. Zimmerman stated that he thought Martin was up to no good. I have repeatedly called BS on that claim since there is nothing Trayvon did prior to Zimmerman confronting him that could remotely be considered criminal or criminal pre-indicators. Zimmerman got away with shooting Trayvon because his legal team established that Zimmerman thought Trayvon was a threat to him.

Similarly in the Sean Bell case, the officer who shot 2 clips worth of bullets again was able to convince a judge that he feared for his life and had no criminal intent when he confronted Bell. I thought that was bullshit, but that's how it works. What is the mental state of the accused not the mental state of the dead.

So we go back to Ga. The defense will show that the shooter had been aware that someone was trespassing on the property in question. He had reason to believe it was trespassing. This may be due to [currently not reported] conversations with this property owner or of other property owners. That those owners never made police reports doesn't mean that no thefts or broken items had been done before. In either case, the shooter can and will establish that he believed a criminal trespass was occurring and since he claims to have recognized Ahmaud from previous incidents, which are also confirmed.

When confronted, Ahmaud didn't simply say "oh sorry" and move on. He broke out and ran down the street as fast as he could. This is a universally accepted sign of guilt (not proof of guilt). So the defense will argue that the totality of the circumstances can lead to a reasonable suspicion that Ahmaud was in the process of committing a crime.

Once that is established, then we fall into the citizen's arrest. The defense will argue that having reasonably established that a crime was likely to have occurred in their presence,the citizens acting under Ga law had every legal right to try to detain Ahmaud for the authorities.

The defense will argue that under Ga law, the shooter was within his rights to have a open loaded weapon while attempting to detain Ahmaud.

The defense will argue that in the struggle with Ahmaud, the gun was discharged three times.

The defense will argue that the felony murder charge requires that some other crime was being committed at the time that resulted in the homicide. What was the crime? Pursuing someone they thought committed a crime? Even if they were mistaken in the understanding of what constitutes trespassing, such a mistake does not constitute criminal intent.

What about the assault charge? Again, felony assault in Ga requires intent to kill. The shooter had plenty of opportunities to kill Ahmaud By his own account, they had caught up to him 2 times prior. They could have shot him or run him over at those points if the intent was simply to kill.

So all that to point out that all the talk about whether Ahmaud actually trespassed or burglarized is not relevant. It's whether the shooter had reasonably thought they witnessed a crime. The simple fact that anyone is even debating whether or not Ahmaud was trespassing or not is exactly why reasonable doubt has already been established.