Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.

[oxmixmudd]

I posted this earlier. I f leon has me on ignore, could someone pleas give him this link?

https://www.11alive.com/article/news...0-02d7cf2970f1

[Leonhard]

I posted this earlier. I f leon has me on ignore, could someone pleas give him this link?

https://www.11alive.com/article/news...0-02d7cf2970f1

I don't have you on ignore.

Thank you for the link.

[Mountain Man]

The key part you seem to miss is that at the moment the video is taken, the victim is already under attack by the defendants. They have been pursuing him and cutting off his routes for some time already putting the victim in a threatened state. Thats why video supports the victim defending himself and not initiating the altercation.

Yep, so the prosecution will need to carefully frame the video before they let the jury see it, and even then, it's not guaranteed to lead the jury to the conclusion they want. I can see the video easily swaying an on-the-fence juror either way.

[Littlejoe]

Here is what I know - feel free anyone to correct or modify this with better facts, and sources where possible. In the following I describe what I know about the details of the incident, and what the possible explanations for those details might be. (?) indicates where there may be different or better information.


(1) Arbery trespassed by going into the house. That is a fact under Georgia law. That would be true whatever his skin colour. That is true even if no-one was in the house at the time. That is true even if people have done it elsewhere, or there, at whatever time, and whatever their skin colour is, and not been caught, or warned, or prosecuted.


Trespassing does not justify what then happened, btw.

But it does go to cast possible doubt that he was just jogging. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. Again, this would be true whatever race he was.



(2) On at least one occasion, security cameras captured footage of people, including in one case a black man, trespassing in the house at night. AFAIK the McMichaels and other neighbours were aware of this, and had been asked to keep an eye on the property.

Therefore the neighbourhood was on the lookout for trespassers at that property.



(3) A gun was stolen from a car on January. $2500 worth of fishing gear was stolen (I don't know when or from who).

The neighbourhood may have been concerned that there could be armed criminals prowling.

This may be why the McMichaels were armed. BTW, under Georgia law, if you are carrying a loaded long gun, you MUST have it out, in plain sight. I'm not aware that they broke any laws simply by being armed in the way they were.




(4) A neighbour saw Arbery come out of the house. They were on the phone to the police ( there is a transcript of their call). When Arbery saw them (?) he ran off. AFAICT he ran off at some speed. Perhaps someone has better info on this - did he run off at a jogging pace, or run off fast?

We don't know if Arbery heard what the neighbour was saying. We don't know if Arbery said anything to that neighbour. We don't know why he ran. Maybe he was scared. Maybe he didn't want any trouble.

Whatever the reason, by running off he made himself look suspicious. Unintentionally. Again, this would be true whatever his race. There had been (AFAIK) both black and white night prowlers at the house. A white person going in, coming out, and running off when spotted would attract suspicion too.



(5) At some time very soon after (4), the McMichaels and one other neighbour (Bryan??) got in their vehicles and followed / chased Arbery. The second vehicle driver filmed part of the incident, including the end, from some distance.



(6) There was at least one incident of contact between the second vehicle and Arbery, on the side of the vehicle.

The only way I can think of for this to occur (as opposed to the front or the back) is for the vehicle to 'cut off' someone on foot. It is possible that a pedestrian could deliberately contact the side of a vehicle.

This indicates a fairly close pursuit, where Arbery could possibly see the driver - but we don;t know if he could see the McMichaels ?? The senior McMichael is in the truck bed once it stopped, was he there when they were chasing Arbery?

IF he was, it is possible - but we don't know - that he recognised Arbery, or Arbery him, or both each other. That may play into what happened at the end,l since there had been some prior contact, in a law enforcement situation. It is possible that either party (or both) recognised the other, and this affected subsequent choices.

Arbery may have felt more scared or threatened if he recognised McMichael, or thought McMichael recognised him. The McMichaels may have felt concerned if they recognised Arbery and remembered his previous record for carrying a gun (?). Or not. We don't know.



(7) At some point the McMichael's vehicle got ahead, and stopped, some distance down the street. The second vehicle was following Arbery. In the last part of the video, at some distance, as Arbery ran/jogged away, towards the stopped McMichaels.



(8) The senior McMichael was in the truck bed, looking towards Arbery. The junior was out of the vehicle, on the driver's side, with his shotgun clearly visible, pointed at the ground. (Note this is in compliance with Georgia law AFAIK). There was initially some considerable distance between them and Arbery - he was moving at a 'fast jog', and it takes around 8 seconds (?) in the video for him to come up to the truck.

We don't know Arbery's state of mind - he most likely was under stress, from running and from being chased by two vehicles.

Distance: initially, as Arbery comes around the corner in the video, something like 40 meters (?) or more, given the time it took for him to cover the distance.

Arbery was initially running down the middle of the road, but as he gets closer to the truck he moves to his right, away from the side the junior McMichael is on.

As Arbery gets up to the truck, he passes it on it's right, then cuts across the front to confront the junior McMichaels. We don't know if anything was said as Arbery came up.


It doesn't appear as if there was an exchange of words or threats in the sense of two people 'facing off', McMichaels moves quickly across the front of the truck, and there's a struggle over the shotgun.



(9) The gun discharges, twice (?), and Arbery is fatally wounded.




What I don't know, and don't understand, is why Arbery didn't just run on past. Was he very scared for his life at that point?


From what we know, he took the most immediately dangerous action there was - trying to wrestle a gun off someone, when they also have a friend close at hand.


IMHO, that is most times going to lead to you or them getting shot. Most probably you, because (a) they have the gun, hence more control; (b) they have a friend close by, who is presumably either armed, or willing to use a lot of force on you to stop you getting the gun.


What is the best case scenario here? Get the gun, and create enough distance from two people to point the gun at them and force them away. Escape.

Or get the gun, and throw it somewhere they can't quickly get it and use it on you. Unlikely given the environment (street, front yards) and they have vehicles and you don't. Then what? You vs two, one who is still possibly armed. Run off?


What is the worst case scenario? What happened. Or multiple people get shot, including you. Or you get the gun and shoot one or both of the other parties.

I think the most likely scenario is... ...you getting shot. Either in grabbing for the gun, or by the second person if you get the gun, and some space.

So I don't understand the reasoning here. Did the McMichaels threaten Arbery verbally in some way, that made him fear gravely for his life?


Once Arbery tried to grab the gun, what were the McMichaels thinking? Probably nothing, as there was no time. If they had time, probably - 'I can't let this person get this gun'. Grabbing for the gun is an escalation that forces a conflict where the outcome is serious violence on one or the other parties.

I think it was very unwise for the McMichaels to get into a situation where Arbery was faced with that kind of choice/opportunity, as we can see from the awful consequences. But I suspect they didn't consider seriously the possibility that he might get, or go for, the gun. They should have stayed in their vehicle and tracked him until the police, who were on their way, got there.

From what I have read and heard in the news, this is a pretty accurate assessment of the facts.

[Charles]

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/n...-violence.html

Pope Francis

[Leonhard]

From what I have read and heard in the news, this is a pretty accurate assessment of the facts.

[MaxVel]

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/n...-violence.html

Pope Francis

All the time I feel I must justify my existence - (Prince) Charles

[MaxVel]

Good points.

No, I think they wanted to stop him. If they wanted to kill him they could have done it with less risk to themselves... pull alongside, point the shotgun out the window... If you miss, speed off and try again.

Heck, even less risk is to just run him down in the truck and call it a traffic accident "He just cut right in front of me officer. Was he listening to music? It's like he didn't know I was there..." Or aimed down the street at him, or moved to track his movements and aim the gun at him.


From their behaviour they either wanted to talk or arrest him. Or talk and then possibly arrest.



The 'that guy' quote is interesting... maybe it means 'the guy we saw in the security camera footage previously'?

[MaxVel]

The key part you seem to miss is that at the moment the video is taken, the victim is already under attack by the defendants. They have been pursuing him and cutting off his routes for some time already putting the victim in a threatened state.

Agreed, except that 'attack' is too far. "Under pursuit" is more accurate to the evidence, and not prejudicial either way. No doubt he felt threatened - that he was going to be stopped / arrested / held at gunpoint / whatever.

What we don't know (AFAIK) is what if anything was said to him during the pursuit. If anything was said, that may have had an influence on his behaviour. We don't know if he knew the McMichaels were armed until they stopped and got out of their truck. They didn't know if he was armed, or if had taken anything from the house (which would be a felony).


'Stop! Hey Stop! The police have been called. What were you doing in that house?' is very different from 'Come here! We don't let people like you just run around our neighbourhood!' ...etc.

Thats why video supports the victim defending himself and not initiating the altercation.

Except that he did initiate the physical altercation with the McMichaels. There appears to have been some contact between Arbery and Bryan's vehicle, on the side. I don't know of any contact with the McMichael's truck. McMichael senior is standing in the bed of the truck, talking on his phone (police?? if not, who?). It's not clear if he had a handgun out then (maybe?) or drew it as he got down from the truck later. McMichael junior is on foot, next to the truck, driver's side. It's also not clear whether he has the shotgun then - it looks like he may have been getting something out of the truck (??). I think I saw a still somewhere that showed him with the gun already out and pointed down, while Arbery was still a fair way away. (?)

He had at least 10 seconds - maybe as many as nearly 20 seconds - from when he came around the corner in view of the McMichael's truck, to when he first grabbed for the gun.


As he rounds the corner, there is a stand of largeish trees and brush (?) on his left. There are no fences, and there appears to be a ditch in front of the lawns of the houses on either side. IOW there is some immediate cover, or places he could get to where a vehicle can't follow. I don't get why he didn't cut through that, or use it to double back and gain some ground on his pursuers, break their line of sight, and possibly lose them altogether. If he was feeling under immediate (i.e. right then, that second) physical threat, then why continue on down the road for 10 seconds more, bringing himself closer to the people who he felt threatened by? Maybe his assessment of the immediate threat to himself changed as he got a bit closer to the truck... when he changed course to the passenger side?

Possibly McMichaels brought the gun into view / Arbery saw it as he got closer, and he changed direction, went around the truck on the other side, and then tried for the gun. I can't tell if the gun was presented at Arbery before he came around the front of the truck. However, once he was that close, and moving in, McMichael had to either present / aim the gun, or he may as well not have had it at all. He wasn't to know if Arbery had a gun or a knife. A reasonably fit person can close something like 10 yards or more before a person can draw and aim a pistol.


Comments:

(1) The McMichael's created an opportunity for a confrontation by stopping and getting out. I think a serious mistake, unwise. If they had stayed in the truck they have a physical barrier, and mobility, which makes it less likely for Arbery to try something. Which makes it more likely no-one gets hurt. Win-win.

(2) AFAICT, the McMichaels didn't break any Georgia laws by following and chasing Arbery (except maybe some traffic laws??); nor by having and showing a loaded shotgun (showing it clearly, if loaded, is required by law); nor (?) by defending themselves once Arbery tried for the gun and began throwing punches. Legal - maybe / probably, except for the last (?). Wise? No. Safe? No. Arbery died.

(3) A possible scenario is that Arbery initially intended to run past, or to confront McMichael junior; then as he got closer, saw the gun, got desperate, and tried to grab it.

(4) A proof of racism in this incident will rest on showing that the McMichael's had a racist motivation for their actions -e.g. showing that they would not have bothered to try to arrest a white person, or something like showing that they armed themselves only because they knew the race of the suspect (not because they knew the suspect).

I think it hard to see how this could be proven, barring the McMichaels incriminating themselves, or a clear history of similar events with different approaches to different races. Previous racist statements on social media don't by themselves prove that this incident was racist, especially if there was a significant time gap / few statements. It's not clear that (AFAIK) that they knew Arbery's race until after they lef their property to look for the trespasser (?)

[MaxVel]

Even if it can be shown that McMichaels had racist inclinations, or whatever, that doesn't show (in a legal sense) that this was a racially-motivated incident. AFAICT they acted legally, except possibly at the very last.

Racism only comes in to play IF it can be shown that other people (white), who looked similar to people caught on security footage, were observed trespassing and were not pursued, even though the McMichaels knew about it, and were able to pursue.

IOW if a white person snuck in and left at night, and no-one knew about it until someone looked at the security camera, there was no opportunity to pursue them, so that case can't be compared to Arbery's, as it's significantly different.



IMHO - with the benefit of hindsight, and not knowing (as they did) the exact circumstances of the pursuit - their only mistake was stopping the truck and getting out. I think they acted legally; unless there isn't a stand your ground defense, or if it is legal for Arbery to try and take McMichael's gun, and was illegal for him to have it / hold it in the way he did). However, I quite expect them to go down on some charge or other, given the emotive nature of the case / present mood in America. If I was their lawyer I would be trying to get the trial delayed as long as possible, unless there are other negative facts that may come out.

[Leonhard]

Even if it can be shown that McMichaels had racist inclinations, or whatever, that doesn't show (in a legal sense) that this was a racially-motivated incident. AFAICT they acted legally, except possibly at the very last.

Possibly, but I believe it is worth investigating.

Racism only comes in to play IF it can be shown that other people (white), who looked similar to people caught on security footage, were observed trespassing and were not pursued, even though the McMichaels knew about it, and were able to pursue.

This is probably where the shoe is gonna tighten for the senior McMichael. If it can be shown that he was aware of or had access to the video recordings, and then he singled out Arbery and didn't pursue any of the white people, then he would have some explaining to do as to why he did that. My guess is that he'll cite prior experience with the victim.

IMHO - with the benefit of hindsight, and not knowing (as they did) the exact circumstances of the pursuit - their only mistake was stopping the truck and getting out. I think they acted legally; unless there isn't a stand your ground defense, or if it is legal for Arbery to try and take McMichael's gun, and was illegal for him to have it / hold it in the way he did). However, I quite expect them to go down on some charge or other, given the emotive nature of the case / present mood in America. If I was their lawyer I would be trying to get the trial delayed as long as possible, unless there are other negative facts that may come out.

I believe they acted without just cause, or if they did, then we can conclude that in the state of Georgie it is legal for anyone to chase down and confront anyone for the flimsiest of suspicions. They had not witnessed the crime, and they had no probable cause to suspect Arbery of having done anything. Furthermore we also know that IN FACT there was no theft done by Arbery at that house, and there is no evidence of him having stolen anything else.

I have no doubt they thought they were chasing down a robber, and were being "good citizens" making an arrest. However they can still be held accountable. You can't violate a traffic law and then claim that you were innocently unaware that red means don't go. There are situations were you're culpable for your ignorance.

There are so many situations where the McMichaels could have avoided killing an innocent person: They could have realized that all they had to go on was a security footage, and there were other people there. If they hadn't seen the recording, but only been told about it, then could one say they had just cause to pursue.

[Watermelon]

Agreed, except that 'attack' is too far. "Under pursuit" is more accurate to the evidence, and not prejudicial either way. No doubt he felt threatened - that he was going to be stopped / arrested / held at gunpoint / whatever.

What we don't know (AFAIK) is what if anything was said to him during the pursuit. If anything was said, that may have had an influence on his behaviour. We don't know if he knew the McMichaels were armed until they stopped and got out of their truck. They didn't know if he was armed, or if had taken anything from the house (which would be a felony).


'Stop! Hey Stop! The police have been called. What were you doing in that house?' is very different from 'Come here! We don't let people like you just run around our neighbourhood!' ...etc.







Except that he did initiate the physical altercation with the McMichaels. There appears to have been some contact between Arbery and Bryan's vehicle, on the side. I don't know of any contact with the McMichael's truck. McMichael senior is standing in the bed of the truck, talking on his phone (police?? if not, who?). It's not clear if he had a handgun out then (maybe?) or drew it as he got down from the truck later. McMichael junior is on foot, next to the truck, driver's side. It's also not clear whether he has the shotgun then - it looks like he may have been getting something out of the truck (??). I think I saw a still somewhere that showed him with the gun already out and pointed down, while Arbery was still a fair way away. (?)

He had at least 10 seconds - maybe as many as nearly 20 seconds - from when he came around the corner in view of the McMichael's truck, to when he first grabbed for the gun.


As he rounds the corner, there is a stand of largeish trees and brush (?) on his left. There are no fences, and there appears to be a ditch in front of the lawns of the houses on either side. IOW there is some immediate cover, or places he could get to where a vehicle can't follow. I don't get why he didn't cut through that, or use it to double back and gain some ground on his pursuers, break their line of sight, and possibly lose them altogether. If he was feeling under immediate (i.e. right then, that second) physical threat, then why continue on down the road for 10 seconds more, bringing himself closer to the people who he felt threatened by? Maybe his assessment of the immediate threat to himself changed as he got a bit closer to the truck... when he changed course to the passenger side?

Possibly McMichaels brought the gun into view / Arbery saw it as he got closer, and he changed direction, went around the truck on the other side, and then tried for the gun. I can't tell if the gun was presented at Arbery before he came around the front of the truck. However, once he was that close, and moving in, McMichael had to either present / aim the gun, or he may as well not have had it at all. He wasn't to know if Arbery had a gun or a knife. A reasonably fit person can close something like 10 yards or more before a person can draw and aim a pistol.


Comments:

(1) The McMichael's created an opportunity for a confrontation by stopping and getting out. I think a serious mistake, unwise. If they had stayed in the truck they have a physical barrier, and mobility, which makes it less likely for Arbery to try something. Which makes it more likely no-one gets hurt. Win-win.

(2) AFAICT, the McMichaels didn't break any Georgia laws by following and chasing Arbery (except maybe some traffic laws??); nor by having and showing a loaded shotgun (showing it clearly, if loaded, is required by law); nor (?) by defending themselves once Arbery tried for the gun and began throwing punches. Legal - maybe / probably, except for the last (?). Wise? No. Safe? No. Arbery died.

(3) A possible scenario is that Arbery initially intended to run past, or to confront McMichael junior; then as he got closer, saw the gun, got desperate, and tried to grab it.

(4) A proof of racism in this incident will rest on showing that the McMichael's had a racist motivation for their actions -e.g. showing that they would not have bothered to try to arrest a white person, or something like showing that they armed themselves only because they knew the race of the suspect (not because they knew the suspect).

I think it hard to see how this could be proven, barring the McMichaels incriminating themselves, or a clear history of similar events with different approaches to different races. Previous racist statements on social media don't by themselves prove that this incident was racist, especially if there was a significant time gap / few statements. It's not clear that (AFAIK) that they knew Arbery's race until after they lef their property to look for the trespasser (?)

[MaxVel]

Possibly, but I believe it is worth investigating.



This is probably where the shoe is gonna tighten for the senior McMichael. If it can be shown that he was aware of or had access to the video recordings, and then he singled out Arbery and didn't pursue any of the white people, then he would have some explaining to do as to why he did that. My guess is that he'll cite prior experience with the victim.

Or just say "I wasn't made aware of that prowler until the next day." or "It was three a.m. I was asleep in bed."

One difference is that Arbery went in during the day, was observed going in and coming out by a neighbour. IIRC the others were captured at night on camera (not an alarm).

I believe they acted without just cause, or if they did, then we can conclude that in the state of Georgie it is legal for anyone to chase down and confront anyone for the flimsiest of suspicions. They had not witnessed the crime, and they had no probable cause to suspect Arbery of having done anything. Furthermore we also know that IN FACT there was no theft done by Arbery at that house, and there is no evidence of him having stolen anything else.

See my post here on Georgia law. I think the McMichaels were asked to keep an eye on the property as there had been prowlers there. Arbery was seen entering and leaving by a witness, who phoned the police. Not sure how the McMichaels knew - if it was the witness who told them, and he maintained visual contact with Arbery that seems pretty solid.

Arbery committed a crime - criminal trespass by going in to the property (misdemeanor). If he went in with intent to steal, or intent to come back later to steal, that is a felony. That we know Arbery didn't steal anything is knowledge no-one at the time had. I think they would (and probably could) successfully argue that they wanted to talk to Arbery and ask what he was doing in the house - this would be how you would establish intent (and hence a felony).

Anyway, I think under Georgia law, trespass would enough for someone to make a citizen's arrest if "...the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge." That might be the case here if an eyewitness immediately informed the McMichaels. Was Bryan (in the following vehicle) the person who saw Arbery and made the call??

"If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion." IOW they don't have to see him doing it, or have immediate knowledge of it. I can see their attorney arguing that they suspected Arbery of burglary in the first degree (note for this offense it is NOT required that anything actually be stolen, the offender's intent is sufficient) and wanted to talk to him / get him to wait so the police could talk to him. Or even that they had grounds to suspect him of intent to steal, i.e. burglary in the first degree, and thus were legally making a citizen's arrest (holding someone and truing them over ASAP to the police)

I have no doubt they thought they were chasing down a robber, and were being "good citizens" making an arrest. However they can still be held accountable. You can't violate a traffic law and then claim that you were innocently unaware that red means don't go. There are situations were you're culpable for your ignorance.

There are so many situations where the McMichaels could have avoided killing an innocent person: They could have realized that all they had to go on was a security footage, and there were other people there. If they hadn't seen the recording, but only been told about it, then could one say they had just cause to pursue.

See above.

I agree that they made some poor choices. Some of those are obvious to us, because we know things they could not have known. I don't think we can judge them for that. I think that they can argue quite strongly that they were in compliance with the law.

What they did wrong (but not illegally, IMHO) was stopping and getting out of the truck.

[MaxVel]

Common law assault includes situations where a person feels an imminent threat of physical harm. Once physical force is used it becomes actual bodily harm i.e aggravated assault. I don’t believe it’s going too far to claim that the pursuit was an attack since the victim was being assaulted under common law.

That’s why I believe the defendants can’t claim self defence since that initial assault makes them the aggressors.

The lawyers will no doubt argue over that. I think they would reply that they were making a legally justified citizen's arrest, and therefore use of force is OK. Also they would probably argue that the pursuit wasn't an attack. If only Bryan's vehicle came close to or in contact with Arbery that would support that argument.

Georgia law

(a) A person commits the offense of simple assault when he or she either:

(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another; or

(2) Commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.

Looks like section (2) is the relevant one here. The argument would have to be made that Arbery was "in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury." IF McMichaels pointed the shotgun at Arbery, that may meet the criteria,


However, see here on self-defense

(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:

(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;

(2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or

(3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.

I think the McMichaels will argue that Arbery comes under section (b) (2) (he attempted criminal burglary), or at least that they had reasonable grounds to believe that.

Also note the bolded: It would have to be shown that the McMichael's were acting unlawfully (if they can satisfy the court that they had grounds for a citizen's arrest then this whole line of Arbery acting in self-defense fails)

[Leonhard]

Or just say "I wasn't made aware of that prowler until the next day." or "It was three a.m. I was asleep in bed." ... Arbery was seen entering and leaving by a witness, who phoned the police. Not sure how the McMichaels knew - if it was the witness who told them, and he maintained visual contact with Arbery that seems pretty solid. ... Anyway, I think under Georgia law, trespass would enough for someone to make a citizen's arrest if "...the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge." That might be the case here if an eyewitness immediately informed the McMichaels. Was Bryan (in the following vehicle) the person who saw Arbery and made the call??

Something here stinks, at least in the way you're laying it out. It can't both be the case that the senior McMichael was informed immediately prior to chasing down Arbery, and at the same time being something he is informed about in the middle of the night and then dizzily remembering the day after.

"If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion."

But as you say all they have is a misdemeanor, he was trespassing on a construction site.

I agree that they made some poor choices. Some of those are obvious to us, because we know things they could not have known. I don't think we can judge them for that. I think that they can argue quite strongly that they were in compliance with the law.

Every action they made was a poor choice. A better use of their time would be to sit put and make a phone call to the police. Or to sit in their car, watch him run by and call the police, and do nothing after that.