Ahmaud Part 6: The Recreation

The NYT has an interesting video recreation of the crime scene(s) which has a point that I was unaware of. You can watch it here: https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000007142853/ahmaud-arbery-video-911-georgia.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur

Of particular interest to me is the following:

The shooter's home is 230. That is well up the block from the trespass scene which is 220. It has 3 houses between it and the construction site and apparently has a huge amount of trees on the side of the house facing the direction of the construction scene. This means that the shooters could not have witnessed the trespass unless they were outside at the time and at the very front of their property.

So here is where the state can establish motive, or the defense provide reasonable doubt. Since the shooter is unlikely to have himself witnessed the trespass then why did he hop in the truck?

1)"The Black Man Running Down The Street" theory: This would be the theory that is currently favored by those seeking to prosecute the shooter. The shooter saw a black man running down the street, assumed he had done something wrong and pursued him. That's a plausible theory given the fact that the shooter could not have witnessed the trespass.

2)"I got a call from a/the neighbor": In this theory, the shooter was notified by the neighbor or a neighbor or otherwise was apprised of what was going on down the street from him. When Ahmaud ran past his property, the shooter decided to give chase to the suspect they had been told about in order to effect a capture.

3) The shooter was listening to the police scanner and knew something happened. Then the same set of actions occurred per theory 2.

4) The shooter was given access to the security cameras by the property owner and therefore knew what was going on at the time. If that is the case then the shooter thought he witnessed a crime and pursued the suspect per theory 2 Theory 1 is the only one that if proven gets the state it's guilty verdict. Theories 2 and 3 and 4 would provide reasonable doubt.

This recreation also goes to my "part 5" post. The video shows the two other incidences of trespassing. Since we know that the shooter could not have witnessed either of these two events given the distance between his house and the construction site as well as the set of trees that would also block the view to the construction site, it is not possible for the state to argue that the shooter had "allowed" other people to "get away" with trespassing (unless theory 4 is correct).

The recreation points out that Ahmaud had not taken anything (per the property owner's statements). I will repeat my position that it doesn't matter since Ahmaud is not the one on trial. Certainly had he been arrested and charged, this fact would weigh greatly in his favor but Ahmaud is not on trial. Also what I find confusing about the "nothing was stolen" is the claim that there had been thefts in the area. If there were thefts in the area than the residents would be in their right mind to be suspicious of persons entering private property. Which again would go to reasonable doubt.