Skip to main content

tv   Your World With Neil Cavuto  FOX News  November 17, 2021 1:00pm-2:00pm PST

1:00 pm
>> i'd watch him run by. at this point, i know the police are coming now. i know they're coming from the front of the neighborhood. if he turns right, he's going out of the neighborhood. i could watch him, i could see him, see where he's going. he's no long area threat to that vehicle, no long area threat to my father or myself. if he turned left, i know which way he went. police come in, hey, right down there. or if he turns around and goes back the other way, that's where he's at. >> coming towards you, raised the shotgun to deter. now where does he go? >> he makes it to the corner of the road. he never goes into the grass. straightens up and starts running back straight to the truck where my father is. >> you've seen the video. i don't want to ask you to interpret what you've seen on the video. i want you to tell us what you saw at that moment. >> okay. >> when he runs up the right side of the truck, what are you
1:01 pm
thinking? >> that he's -- after i turned -- after i point the shotgun at him, he's coming back to the truck again. my father is in the back of the vehicle. >> so what? your dad is in the back of the vehicle? so? >> so he's -- the path he's making, he's going to make contact and be on the vehicle. he can jump up. still under pressure, might be armed, can run up and shoot. i'm not going to see him at this point. i have a vehicle between me and him. at this point, i leave -- i'm a little past my door. >> you are -- this is your door. this is the truck. at some point are you in the crux of the door? >> i was when he was running to
1:02 pm
me when i drew the weapon. i was outside the crux, at the edge of the door jam. when he turned and went to the passenger side, i went ahead and moved to the center of the road. >> outside of this -- why? >> i was gaining distance. obvious -- i thought it was obvious that he was going to glance and go through that yard. >> okay. >> that is what i was thinking was going to happen. >> you said your dad was in the back. stupid question. do you love your dad? >> yes. >> worried about him? >> yes, i was. >> so you come here and now what? >> so yeah, i on that side of the vehicle. he's running back. i'm losing -- i'm not going to see what he's doing, what he's capable of. i don't know what he's going to 0 do. >> what do you mean you're lose something. >> losing visual. >> because of what? >> because of my vehicle, my truck. >> where do you move to? >> i move to the front of my
1:03 pm
truck. at this point, i'm thinking either he's -- he's on my dad at this point or he's going to run by or he's going to see that i have gone to the front of my truck and he's going to finally turn and glance to go across that yard. i don't know -- he could -- he can try to jump in my truck from the passenger side, he can lay down, draw a weapon. this is the point that is critical that i think -- a critical point. >> to be deliberate about this, if this is the front hood of your truck -- >> which side? >> front right. >> okay. >> steering wheel is here. >> yes, sir. >> passenger side. you're back over here. >> that's correct. >> okay. you're saying you can't see what happened. is this in your mindset at all? >> it was, yes. >> what is this?
1:04 pm
>> hiding. hiding or -- being away from me, cover, concealment. >> cover, concealments? >> yeah. he's covered. i can't see him what he's doing. i can't see his hands, what he's got. still under the impression that he might be armed. i can't see what is happening. i need to see what's going on. he has access to my vehicle, which is still running, by the way. >> what do you do? >> guy to the front of my vehicle. >> front where? >> front left, quarter panel turning in to it going to the front of the hood. >> all right. so if we're here, this is the front left of the quarter panel and this is the right front quarter panel, here to here, where do you come to? the front of your car. >> right to -- >> right here. >> so i'm now standing at the front quarter panel. >> yeah. >> now back away from it. where are you? >> right at the light. right at the corner. >> right here. >> where is your gun? >> it's in my hands.
1:05 pm
port arms. >> port arms is what? >> i got it down, both hands on it. handle grip. >> what are you doing? >> coming around. i get to it. i was going to get to the front, the center of the vehicle. at that point he's right there. he decided to turn to see he and continue running. >> what happened? >> i get to the front of the truck. by the time i get there, he's at the front quarter panel on the the right-hand side. he turns and is on me. he's on me. immediately on me. >> doing what? >> he grabs the shotgun and i believe i was struck on that first instance that we made contact. >> what were you thinking at that moment? >> i was thinking of my son. sounds weird. that was the first thing that
1:06 pm
hit me. >> what did you do? >> i shot him. >> why? >> he had my gun. it was obvious that he was attacking me. if he would have got the shotgun from me, it was -- this is a life or death situation. i'm going to have to stop him from doing this. so i shot. >> did he stop when you shot? >> he did not. >> can you remember everything, every hand, every movement? can you remember those things? >> no. i was know that i was -- i know i got hit. i know that i was -- the weaponry tension. we talked about it earlier. with a shotgun or rifle, it's
1:07 pm
called the push pull method. when somebody has a weapon, you go to port arms. you push out and you pull down is what you're taught. with everybody that was trained, that was my biggest feared. somebody would come up -- because a shotgun is in your happened. it would be easy for somebody to get it from you. i exclusively train people to do this push pull. it's natural for me. you know, it's trained, muscle memory. when i was in port arms, i got struck. i remember when i came down, i got hit in the top of the head. he had the weapon in his hands. i push and pulled. still getting hit. >> did you get it free from his grip? >> i don't believe i did. i don't know -- i don't know exactly when or where or if he continued grabbing. we were together. we were locked up.
1:08 pm
he was on that shotgun. >> you've seen the video and talked about where you see you're being pushed. do you remember that -- do you remember where your bodies were move something. >> i know that he was -- i didn't know where i was at but i knew he was on me. i knew that i was losing this. i knew that if i was getting tripped, if i would have tripped or if he would have got a lucky strike on my head or i lost that grip on the shotgun that i would have been shot or i would have been in serious trouble at that point. i knew that he was overpowering me. i didn't know which direction or what mechanics he was doing it to overpower me. >> at that time did you remember how many times you shot the gun? >> no, i didn't. i thought i shot twice. >> but you shot him. >> yes.
1:09 pm
>> do you remember how many times you did? >> i thought it was twice until later on speaking with the investigator that i realized it was three shots. i shot the first shot, i knew i shot. then the second shot i shot again because i was still -- i was still fighting. he was all over me. he was still all over that shotgun. he was not relenting. i shot again to stop him. that third shot, which i thought was second, the time shot, he disengaged. at that point he let go. he turned and continued to run down satilla. at that point i was in shock. i turned around. i don't know where i was going. my dad came out.
1:10 pm
he was yelling that he got his hand under him. i turn around. we got over there. pulled his hand out from under him. he was deceased. i looked up. the police were there. i stood up, realized that i have a gun here and that he's -- he's passed away. the police on the scene. so i walked over to the side and put my shotgun down. after that, it was a blur. it was a blur. >> do you remember speaking to the police on the scene? >> i do. >> do you remember going back and giving a statement to the officer? >> yes. >> did the officer give you an opportunity to reject talking to him? >> he did. >> did you agree to talk to him?
1:11 pm
>> yes. >> do you remember having to sign a form and all that technical legal stuff? >> yeah. he told me, gave me my miranda rights and i agreed to them and agreed to make a statement. >> what was it like sitting in the room with the detective trying to recall these specifics of this event? >> i struggled. i was trying to give him as much information as was possible. i thought that i did a good job until i read the statement. >> you thought you did a good job of what? >> at giving him a clear idea of what happened. reading statements now, i was all over the place. >> all over the place in what way? >> in describing what happened. giving the dates and the timeline of what happened. seemed that i was speaking --
1:12 pm
seemed like i was reliving the situation. i would go to one thing, say i saw him on burford and then we lost the phone. when i grab the phone -- you know, i was everywhere. i was under stress. this was less than two hours after -- after the shooting. i was not in my right mind. >> travis, you understand that you have been charged with having an agreement of sorts with roddy bryant -- >> objection. >> what is the objection? >> the way you're describing the charges. >> all right. travis, did you ever, ever coordinate with roddy bryant to box in ahmaud arbery?
1:13 pm
>> no, sir. >> did you ever use him as a beak end to corner ahmaud arbery? >> i did not. >> did you want to stop ahmaud arbery and talk to him? >> i did? >> did you want to hold him -- >> i did. >> not -- >> objection. leading. >> yes. >> don't answer. sustained. it's sustained. other than the time that you put your shotgun on your shoulder and the time that you had it in your hands, when mr. arbery grabbed it, did you ever pull out your gun. >> no, i did not. i had my gun out and was walking towards the dogleg on satilla and on holmes. he was already running away.
1:14 pm
>> fair enough. i think you explained this. did you leave the house that day with the intention to kill the guy? >> i did not. >> that your dad mentioned to you? >> i did not. >> did you leave the house -- >> objection leaving. i'm not telling him he did leave the house. did you leave. >> it's sustained. answer a yes or no question. >> it's not leading in the answer could be yes or no. but i'll -- >> debate it all you want. >> i understand. okay. give me a second, please.
1:15 pm
>> take a ten minute recess here. >> neil: all right. just to bring you up to speed here. welcome. i'm neil cavuto. this is "your world." you've been seeing the questioning back and forth of travis mcmichael. one of three defendants accused of right now in the death of the georgia jogger, ahmaud arbery in february 2020. the defense attorneys are trying to get an idea of the timeline here and whether this represented self-defense here and that they were protecting themselves a midst suspicious activity and behavior on the part of arbery. they're taking a ten-minute recess to continue this line of questioning right now. let's go to ted williams who has
1:16 pm
been following this closely, the d.c. detective, lawyer, what is happening at a trial like this while we're waiting word on the kyle rittenhouse matter. those deliberations are continuing. in this case of travis mcmichael who sees and responding to suspicious activity on the part of arbery at the time that this was a justified action taken to respond to a guy he said appeared to have a we on. i'm just wondering how this is coming together and the defense line of questioning here in your eyes. >> well, it's very interesting at this stage. because all we have at this stage are travis mcmichael, the actual shooter giving his rendition of what took place.
1:17 pm
i can tell our viewers -- what we heard is our young man was shot just for running. a young man was shot because he refused to answer any questions of travis mcmichaels. this is a young man running through a neighborhood, had looked in to a vacant house on several occasions, at no time had they been able to show that this young man stole or took anything. he's running through the neighborhood. all of a sudden, there's a truck with two men in it chasing after him. they catch up with him. they start questioning him. he moves away. he doesn't talk to them. he runs away from them. they go after him. they chase after him. he gets in to a confrontation with travis mcmichael over the gun. travis mcmichael wants to holler
1:18 pm
self-defense. let me say this to you. if you are the aggressor or if you are found to be an aggressor, you cannot hide behind self-defense. in this case, everything, everything that i've heard tells me that the mcmichaels and roddy bryant were the aggressors. this man, neil, this is such a tragedy. he was just running down the street. didn't have any stolen goods in his hands, didn't have anything he was doing that they could show that he had committed any kind of a crime. this man was killed. >> neil: mcmichael was saying -- by the way, he's in a pickup truck. it's not a police vehicle. so the question is how was he to think that this guy would think any differently, arbery would think differently. somewhat an attempt to try locals in the area to do something to him.
1:19 pm
mcmichael said here, it freaked me out. he went home, called 911 when he was seeing this suspicious activity. apparently this guy going in and out of homes under construction. once i realized what's going on, that he's doing this, i'm under the assumption that he's armed. i jump back in and he runs in to the house. there was no proof or indication that he was armed. he lifted his shirt at one point. but there was no way to know for sure so he seems to have acted based on arbery's behavior. the best i can place this. so what do you make of what case the defense is trying to build here? >> what they're trying to build is a case of self-defense. what they're saying here is that they had what they define as reasonable suspicion to believe that this guy "possibly was armed" or that he had possibly broken in to the one single home
1:20 pm
there. that he -- this guy, meaning arbery, was in fact a pest or crook in the neighborhood and this he had done something illegally in that neighborhood. there's no evidence of any of that. i think it's going to come back and haunt them. i think we need to wait until we see the cross examination here, which i believe will be very zealous. even if you suspected him of doing something, how dare you -- who in the hell are you to go and try to make a citizens arrest of a young black kid just running down the street? >> neil: now, this dated back a few days earlier, ten days earlier when he was jogging there were two homes under construction and wander through them. that was deemed to be suspicious
1:21 pm
activity. but enough for him to return, that is, you know, travis mcmichael here to come back and to try to talk to arbery. but what was interesting, on this issue of a gun, he said -- i'm again quoting from mcmichael here, he comes out referring to arbery and pulls up his shirt. goes to reach in his pocket or waist band area. in other words, he builds a case that he didn't know. maybe the kid had a gun. what did you make of that? >> you know, i think what travis mcmichael is doing and his attorney, they're playing to this jury. they started off by talking about him being in the coast guard and how the training that he had in the coast guard with weapons. they started out talking about the fact that they had had break-ins in that community. one of the things they didn't talk about, there were a lot of
1:22 pm
white people walking through the same identical homes, the same identical home, white kids, white men and women walking through there and they never chased after them. they only went off this black man. >> neil: so when he and his father jump into a pickup truck to pursue arbery, they did so after seeing him in the neighborhood a number of times going in and out of these homes 0, this one in particular unfinished house. but that was the catalyst for tracking him down. so there were no signs that he had a weapon on him at that time. there was nothing to indicate that he was a danger or threat to the area or whether he was even familiar in the area. it was the next week when they joined in a chase on the truck itself that it ratcheted up and others participated in the same case.
1:23 pm
the prosecution argued that was a targeted attack for no reason. that's what they're coming from. what do you think of their argument? >> i think the prosecution is on target here. if they had what we would define and i can tell you as a lawyer i defined as reasonable suspicion to believe this man had done something, there are times under georgia law where you can make a citizen's arrest. under the circumstances here of getting your gun, your father getting a gun, you're running and chasing after this man down the street, he's running away from you all, you're telling him, and you try to make the jury understand this and that is where i said to him, hey, look, the police is coming and he took off running. so what you're trying to convey there to the jury is that this guy has done something wrong.
1:24 pm
again, that in and of itself is not enough. that was not even reasonable suspicion. that wasn't reasonable justification for these men to take the law in their own hand, to act as though they were vigilantes, to act as though are that they had the right to arrest this man. because they couldn't arrest him for anything even if law enforcement would have come on that scene, there would have been no reason to arrest this man. this man was all they saw and all that he had on him was his clothes. he had no property belonging to anybody. there was no crime that had happened that they were cognizant of. all they knew is that there were people breaking in homes and that he fit the description in one of those occasions on february 11 of someone that had been in to one of those homes. but that was all. that in and of itself is not enough to murder somebody, this
1:25 pm
is what we've seen here and heard this afternoon. we've heard a murder, neil, a murder of a young black kid jogging through a neighborhood. >> neil: ted, if you can stay there. i want more legal analysis of what is going on here. i do want to alert you right now it appears the house has enough votes to censure representative paul gosar, the arizona republican who you might recall had offered a tweet depicting alexandria ocasio-cortez getting killed and swinging two swords at a cartoon version president president biden. in the censure that will happen here and looks likely now, it removes gosar from any committee assignments. they can take steeper actions against him.
1:26 pm
gosar said this is the same house same censure action would be done would be akin to what alexander hamilton experienced in the 1800s. i think there's significant differences there. but that not withstanding, he is going to be formally censured here. then the issue becomes what will become of him if he's off all key committee assignments and duties. how far does this go. we have not really seen it across the board. what we have seen is the only republican vote for censure appears to be that of liz cheney. the wyoming republican who has had troubles of her own within the wyoming republican party now saying she's not part of the party. we're watching this very, very closely. i do want to go back right now to andy mccarthy on this ongoing situation here in the arbery case. the role of some people who are
1:27 pm
sitting in that room, including the reverend jesse jackson. the defense said their presence was pressuring and giving the appearance of a lopsided, unfair courtroom. they wanted a mistrial declared because of that. i'm oversimplifying it here. the judge quickly dismissed that. what do you make of where this stands right now, andy? >> neil, i think that these defendants are very likely to be convicted so they're trying to make a record of things that they'll be able to raise on appeal. one of the things they'll want to say is there was an atmosphere of intimidation in the courtroom. in this country, you're allowed to attend a trial. if jesse jackson wants to go to the trial, he can go to the trial. if he's going to the trial to make a statement, i would
1:28 pm
respectfully suggest to him that, you know, the outcome that he wants would be easier to get and more secure if maybe he wasn't such a presence in the courtroom. but he has every right to be there. i wouldn't put much stock in it. the jury will decide the case not on the basis of who is in the courtroom but on the evidence and the evidence as ted was just laying it out to you is pretty strong here. >> neil: the prosecution rested i believe yesterday. they talked to two dozen witnesses. all seemed to say there was nothing suspicious or untoward about what arbery was doing at the time. the only reason i mention that in the context of we're waiting on the kyle rittenhouse jury decision. there the issue in the case of rittenhouse is that the prosecution was saying he asked for this. his behavior was provocative enough and intrusive enough to say that he was looking for trouble and he found it.
1:29 pm
two people are dead, one injured as a result. the defense countered saying no, no, this was self-defense. he did nothing that an average person wouldn't do facing those threats. of course, the issue of the ar-15 rifle not withstanding, the judge removed that even as a misdemeanor charge. but i'm wondering, the difference in the case is there where the prosecution here seems to be focusing on an unfair activity versus in the rittenhouse case, one that was justified. what do you think? >> the difference comes down to who is the aggressor. who is the assailant. they tried to use lawful behavior and spin it as it was provocative and criminal almost because they don't have good evidence that he did anything in the way of being the aggressor
1:30 pm
or the assailant in any of the confrontations that he had with people that were shot ultimately. so they talk about showing up in a neighborhood that they say he didn't belong in and carrying a long weapon and, you know, contending that he wanted to be a medic when he didn't have medical training. they try to lay this out as if it shows that he was looking for trouble because they can't prove that he was looking for trouble when it gets down to who was the aggressor in these exchanges. whereas in the arbery trial, the trial that we're looking at now, you have a situation where the people that shot this man clearly were the assailants in the situation and their conduct in basically arresting someone uncircumstances where they didn't have grounds to make a -- an arrest, citizen's arrest around then being the ones that
1:31 pm
introduced not only an assault, a holding of somebody but introduced lethal force in to the equation. it's almost a diametrically opposed situation. >> neil: hold that thought. i do want to go back to the well of the house of representatives where representative paul gosar, the arizona republican has been censured by the house right now. that will remove him from key committee assignments. you might recall this after this tweet that seemed to show him killing alexandria ocasio-cortez and swinging two swords at joe biden. nancy pelosi is weighing on this. let's go to washington. >> paul gosar of arizona be
1:32 pm
censured, tha, that representat paul gosar be censured with the public reading be the speak and he's remove from the committee on natural resources and the committee on oversight and reform. >> neil: all right. liz cheney voted to censure gosar. let's go back. i want to go to chad pergram and how the process goes. he's ben censured. what else happens? >> well, this is pretty much it.
1:33 pm
paul gosar now is the 24th member in the history of the house of representatives to be censured. the last was charlie rangel, the democrat from new york who was censured over a panoply of ethics violations, this is one of the modes of disciplines in the house. it lies between reprimand and expulsion. the variety of things ranges from cursing out the speaker of the house in the 19th century to also selling appointments to military academies. so this is rare. what just happened on the house floor here is that pelosi read the pronouncement, gosar presented himself in the well of the house chamber here and i'm looking here to see if there's something else going on the floor. this doesn't happen very often. there's not a back here. he presents himself in the well of the house chamber and the speaker reads the censure resolution and he's formally rebuked.
1:34 pm
i should note this didn't go through the ethics process. if you follow the charlie rangel situation 11 years ago, that went through a lengthy ethics investigation. it doesn't have to go like that if the house votes, which is how the house voted today to censure you. the vote was 223 to 207. all democrats voted in favor of this. there were two republicans, both members of the 1-6 committee that voted against the republican colleague. it was liz cheney and adam kinzinger. and there was david joyce a republican from northeast ohio. i want to contrast this vote to what happened earlier this year when the house of representatives voted to remove marjorie taylor green, the republican from georgia from her committees. there were 11 republicans that voted in favor of that, this is different at this point in time. again, he has been censured. they didn't go through the
1:35 pm
ethics committee. if the house votes to rebuke you in this fashion, it happened. it played out this afternoon. it was very interesting to watch the tenor of debate on the house floor. it was intense. an exchange between both sides. you had kevin mccarthy trying to pivot and talking about inflation and gas prices, saying the democrats were trying to distract from shows issues. you had alexandria ocasio-cortez, the democrat from the bronx that obviously was the target of this video. you know, speaking out against this. she was given a big long chunk of time saying this is code when they go after women. that was something that jackie speier a democratic congress woman from california, that's what she alluded to her. the other thing that i thought was interesting and surprises that the democrats didn't do this, you have to keep your language during floor debate within the decorum and parliamentary language within the house. that did not happen at certain times and you didn't have
1:36 pm
neither democrats nor republicans flagging the other side. one thing that caught my attention that went by the wayside, you could have your language striken from the record here. the republican from colorado came up and talked about ilhan omar and called her a quote member of the jihad squad. that is something that a lot of republicans said the democrats had not been sanctions some of their own. kevin mccarthy, the minority leader talked earlier this year when you had the derek chauvin verdict that maxine waters, the chair of the financial services committee went to minnesota and made some pretty stark comments depending how the verdict goes, you should go in to the streets. he said the democratty leader should have flagged maxine waters. democrats are saying where are the republican leaders not taking on their own members in particular here. paul gosar or maybe marjorie
1:37 pm
taylor green. >> neil: so the republican leaders with kinzinger and cheney, they didn't think this action, whatever it is, on the part of gosar was elevated to necessarily censuring him. they condemned his remarks and said he apologized. he should have apologized. but they left it at that. that became the tussle and the debate as to if this isn't the kind of thing that gets you censured, nothing should. back and forth. so in the meantime, i'm curious, chad, how long is someone censured for and how -- obviously you're put on legislative equivalent of a time-out chair. but how long are you there and what can't you do? >> a censure is permanent. that's it. charlie rangel, the way the resolution was written, he was allowed to keep his committee assignments. he was the chair of the tax writing committee. but this one formally removes
1:38 pm
paul gosar from the oversight committee and the natural resources committee. let's say republicans win control in 2022 and take charge in 2023. republicans could decide -- that's a new congress, could decide to put him back on committees, but the censure remains on his record. something else i want to address here. at the end of paul gosar's remarks, he spoke in his own defense here. he said, you know, if i am censured like alexander hamilton was, so be it. i should note that alexander hamilton was not censured by the house of representatives. there was an attempt to do that over a banking issue when he was a treasury secretary but they could never garner the votes. alexander hamilton did not serve in the house of representatives. you had instances sometimes especially in the late 18th and early 19th centuries where they went after cabinet officials and private citizens. that was the censure then. the constitution is clear that
1:39 pm
that -- congress can sanction its own members in the house and senate. that's what happened today. this goes on paul gosar's permanent record. something that will be in his obituary, same with charlie rangel ten years ago, december 2 of 2010. that's when he was censured. again, this doesn't happen very often. prior to that you have to go back to the 1980s to find a member that was censured. three in the last 40 years, neil. >> neil: if he's re-elected, does the censure carry on? >> yeah. it's on your record. the key thing there is even if democrats let's say -- let's say democrats hold on to the house. they could make a decision to allow him to serve on committees, this is the bridge too far that a lot of members on the republican side of the aisle thought was different about this censure resolution with paul gosar. they didn't like the idea that
1:40 pm
they were precluding him from committees. that's the key part. if you go to the wrangle resolution, talked about resolution and other types of sanctions for charlie rangel. this was very specific. you saw quickly it happens. i remember with the rangel censure because -- i've been around here a long time. i had never seen one. he walked very dolefully down the center aisle. his head was hanging down. nancy pelosi read the citation and very gently tapped the gavel. that was it. everybody left. you could have heard a pin drop in the house chamber, this went fast but a little more animated this time around where you have a republican speaker -- a democratic speaker admonishing a republican. the democrats are very displeased sending out this
1:41 pm
video, which they believe depicted alexandria ocasio-cortez. >> neil: indeed. thanks for that, chad. just to wrap up. we're waiting to hear from paul gosar on this. he will appear before the house to hear his fate. he has been formally censured. that is something that will stick with him forever. i guess congress under either party can lift some of those committee crackdowns where he can't serve on any participating committee. he's on two as we speak. whether in the future they allow him to join committees or join in the normal an raises of the house that is something to be decided down the road. i want to take you back to the trial involving travis mcmichael. he's one of the defendants we're talking about a used in the death of a georgia jogger, ahmed arbery. now the prosecution is getting a crack at him and holes that they say are obvious for everyone to see in his story.
1:42 pm
that's going to be their line of questioning. let's go to see if they succeed. >> we walked up on the guy. once we investigated, saw there was somebody there and what was happening, yeah, we called to let the police know what was going on. >> you took it upon yourselves to go ahead and investigate it, correct? >> yes. yes. >> so let's go ahead and talk about your time in the coast guard. so in the coast guard, when you first started out, e 1, e 2, e 3. >> yes, ma'am. >> and then a petty officer, e-4. in the pay officer category, it goes up to e 9. >> e 9. >> you can go up to warrant officer, >> yes. >> all right. and you had been in for about
1:43 pm
nine years? >> nine and change. yes, ma'am. >> right. so you had to do standard recruit training in 2007. >> yes. >> and then machinery technician training from april 14 of 2008 to july 3 of 2008. >> that sounds right. >> and then july 13 through august 13 of 2009, basic officer, correct? >> yes. >> the basic border officer, do you take that when you become an e 4 or before that? >> no. after you become an e 4. if the commanding officer decides that you would be a good candidate. it's not mandatory. >> and then in 2010 from august 2, 2010, you had air conditioning and refrigeration classes during that period of time. >> i did. >> so when you left the coast
1:44 pm
guard, your rank was still e right? >> yes, ma'am. >> that is a machinery technician. >> that was the right -- yes. that was the rank. yes, ma'am. >> so in 2009 when you had taken your basic boarding officer classes, you understood what the fifth amount was, right? >> yes, ma'am. >> the right to remain silent. >> yes. >> you heard jason seacrest testify that law enforcement could not force anyone to speak with them. >> that's right. >> so you learned as part of your time in the military that you can't force people to speak with you. >> that's correct. >> if someone walks away, you have to let them walk away. >> yes. >> in fact, you were trained that displaying a weapon may be
1:45 pm
considered a psychological coercion which is prohibited by the courts and as a law enforcement officer may be grounds for suppressing evidence. is that what you were taught? >> under certain situations, yes, ma'am. >> in addition you were also taught the best weapons retention technique is to not make your weapon accessible to anyone, right? >> under certain situations, yes, ma'am. >> and you're also taught about the deadly course triangle, correct? >> yes. and you were ought to that deadly force was only to be used
1:46 pm
as a last resort, correct? >> that's correct. >> is this in evidence? >> no. i can tender it. >> if you want to show it to the jury, follow the rules of procedure. i object, your honor. i apologize. >> is that it? >> that's it. >> do you intend to mark it? >> yes. i was showing it to him. >> thank you. >> mark it as 414. >> i'm going to show you what has been marked as 414.
1:47 pm
you recognize that? >> i do. >> at this time the state will tender state's exhibit 414. >> no objection. >> this is one of the power point slides that you were shown as part of the deadly force triangle and deadly force was only to be used as a last resort, correct? >> that's correct. >> you were also trained never to point a firearm at someone unless you intended to use it. is that correct? >> under certain circumstances. yes and under certain situations it could be used as a deterrent.
1:48 pm
>> all right. let's talk about what happened on the 23rd of february of >> yes, ma'am. >> all right. so let's go ahead and start at the moment your dad came running into the house. he was yelling for you, correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> he yelled the guy from the other night was running down road. >> yes. >> and you understood that he was talking about the black man that you had seen going into the open unsecured construction site 12 days beforehand on february 11th. >> the guy that had been breaking in to the houses ran by. yes. that was what i was thinking. >> and your father ran in to his bedroom to get his 357 magnum resolver. >> yes, ma'am. >> and i want to be real clear.
1:49 pm
he didn't said he had seen the man breaking into the house. >> no. >> just that he had seen the man running down the street. >> that had been breaking in the houses. that's what he said. yes, ma'am. >> and you hadn't seen the black man in the 12 days between february 11th and february 23rd, had you? >> i did not. >> at the time you were working. >> i was. >> and your hours were early in the morning until 5:00 p.m.? >> depends what was going on. usually 5:00 to 1:00 or 2:00 in the evening. could change. >> i want to be clear. 5:00 a.m. to 1:00 or 2:00 in the afternoon? 5:00 p.m. to -- >> 5:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. sometimes. >> so on february 23, 2020 when your dad came in and yelled for
1:50 pm
you, you didn't know where the black man was coming from. >> i had an idea of -- he said running down the road. him breaking in. i had never seen him before. kind of had an idea that maybe he's coming from 220. but i wanted to check it out. >> your dad said he was running down the road, correct? >> yes. >> you didn't know where he was going when he was running down the road. >> i did not. >> and you had no idea what he had been doing that day. >> not at the time, no. >> what you did know at that point in time is mr. arbery had been at the open unsecured construction right? >> yes. >> and you knew about two other teams, that's correct? >> i knew that he had been there
1:51 pm
several times. two of the times. and that stuff had been stolen out of there and the way that he reacted to me on the 11th was the thought that was in my mind. >> now, you didn't suspect him of having stolen your hand gun out of your car 54 days earearl, did you? >> i had no idea who did that. >> did you tell diego who it? >> no. >> did you tell diego perez that there was a suspect in the neighborhood? >> to diego? no. >> did diego show you videos from the house to see if anybody was going up and down cars or -- >> on the first? >> yes. >> so i walked around. i saw that diego's house had cameras while i was waiting on the police to make the report.
1:52 pm
that's the first day that i met diego. i asked him if there was any -- if he had any footage from this morning. i had a pistol stolen. i asked him if i could have his thumb drive. i got his thumb drive and looked through. i didn't see anybody. i saw a couple of trucks that i had never seen before that had me wondering. i didn't see anybody on there. >> so you're saying that diego perez gave you a thumb drive with these videos on them. >> yes. >> okay. is it true that you stood there with diego perez and looked at the videos at the same time? >> no. i took it home with me. >> so while watching -- with diego perez watching the videos, when you said to diego perez i think i know who did this -- >> i never said that to diego
1:53 pm
perez. >> all right. let's go ahead and go back to february 23, 2020. okay? so when you set out with your father, your goal was to go ahead and talk to mr. arbery. >> yes. to verify if it was the same person i saw. >> you wanted to id him. >> i wanted to id him, yes. >> at that point in time when your dad came running in, he was all excited. there goes the guy running down the street. you didn't call 911. >> i did not. >> all right. did you tell your dad to call 911? >> i asked him if he did. i thought he was already on the phone with him. he was outside. he said yes.
1:54 pm
so i assume that the police had been called at that point. >> all right. you made a statement to the detective hours after this incident, correct? >> i did. you never told him that you thought your dad had already called 911. >> i told him that i believe 911 was called. i don't know exactly what i said. but i believe i did tell him that i was under the impression that my father had called 911. f the transcript that mr. is running, stop right there and he said, call the cops, you know coming there he is? >> yes, if i can have a second. >> page nine and ten, i don't think --
1:55 pm
>> let's take a look at it. >> i see the transcripts and exactly what i said. >> if you recall he's getting a transcript. >> the first couple of lines.
1:56 pm
>> yes, i did say that. >> at this point in time, and it's fair to say that you are in the car on the phone with your dad and instructing him at this time to call the cops. >> like i said earlier, i was all over the place in this statement. i said that to -- at the time, i was still -- i was still under the influence of what happened. that was only two hours after the most traumatic experience in my life. i'm trying to give him as much information as i can so from reading the transcripts come i
1:57 pm
realize i was scatterbrained everywhere. when i said in the paragraph "so pull up to him and say, hey, you know, what's going on? he's running, he won't stop. i said stop, call the cops. and he takes off running. i'm all over the place. i'm trying to explain what is going on. yes, i said it, but i don't think i intended to say, there he is, call the cops. it was the same situation kind of mold together. mold together. >> let's go back to the house. >> yes, ma'am. >> your father grabs his
1:58 pm
.357 magnum and you automatically grab your shotgun. speak with the closest up and i had, yes, ma'am. >> with that particular shotgun we have been evidence, you saw and you were here with brian to testify. >> i was. >> it was loaded with seven shotgun shells, correct? >> yes. >> all you had to do was take the safety off and pull the trigger to shoot someone? >> to shoot it was all i had to do, i can't recall my shotgun actually was disengaged, the action halfway down and on safety. for protective safety. so, it was loaded if that is what you are asking. >> i was asking, all you had to do was shoot and kill someone is take the safety off and pull the trigger. >> no, take the safety off and push the active bar of. >> and you did those things in order to kill mr. arbery.
1:59 pm
>> when he was on top of me i disengage the safety and pulled the trigger, yes, ma'am. >> when your dad comes running in, all excited, you didn't stop him and told him to calm down, did you? >> no. >> go ahead. >> no, but i was trying to figure out what was going on. trying to figure out the situation. i walked outside and i did not see the neighbor and i was aware the guy suspected of being at this house several times ran by and was pointing down the road and yes, that is a bad call now. a bad call now, but the circumstances and everything that happened knowing that there was stuff stolen out of the house and he had been continually breaking into the house and he just ran into the neighborhood with a neighbor pointing down the road. that led me to believe that
2:00 pm
probable cause that something had happened down there. something happened with this guy again. let me make sure -- let's see what happens and make sure he's okay. >> you just said, based on everything you think something had happened. >> yes, ma'am. >> but you had no idea what happen. >> at that time i didn't. >> and -- ♪ ♪ >> greg: hi come i'm greg gutfeld greg gutfeld, katie pavlich, jesse watters, and a bowl of sugar. dana perino, "the five." ♪ ♪ >> president biden's fbi using a tool meant for isis and al qaeda to target parents. the whistle-blower claims the criminal and counterterrorism with a threat tag to log incidents of school board officials allegedly facin

36 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on