f death or stroke. call your doctor about fever, stiff muscles, and confusion, as these may be life threatening... ...or uncontrollable muscle movements, as these may be permanent. these are not all the serious side effects. now i'm back where i belong. ask your doctor about latuda and pay as little as $0 for your first prescription. hey there. i'm live at msnbc headquarters here in new york city. it's thursday, november 18th. and this morning we're watching two major trials playing out more than 1,000 miles apart. down in brunswick, georgia, any second now travis mcmichael, one of the three men accused of killing ahmad arbery will return to the witness stand. properors get to drill him on why he shot the fires after mcmichael said it was a act of

defense. in wisconsin, we could get a verdict at any moment in the kyle rittenhouse trial. the jury is set to return to deliberations after zeroing in on one video. we have teams to bring us the latest. i want to start ron allen with the ahmad arbery murder trial is about to resume at any moment. what are we expecting today? >> we're expecting travis mcmichael to return to the witness stand and face a very aggressive cross-examination. the prosecutors are trying to convince the jury that all the defendants who were white made all the wrong and worst assumptions about arbery who is black and they had no reason to shoot and kill him. >> i want to give my side of the story. >> reporter: taking the witness stand wednesday in his own defense, travis mcmichael telling the jury that arbery attacked him on the day in question. and he fired three shotgun blasts at close range killing

arbery in self-defense. >> i shot him. >> why? >> he had my gun. it's 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. >> fatal encounter coming after what prosecutors say was a five-minute chase in the pickup trucks by mcmichael, his father gregory and neighbor william bryan. all three charged with cornering and killing arbery. >> the final shot he disengaged. and at that point he let go. he turned and continued to run. >> through the trial, the defense highlighting home security videos that it says show arbery at least four times unside a neighborhood home under construction. arbery's family said he stopped at the construction site because he wanted to learn how to build a home. mcmichael telling the jury that he and his father us is spekded arbery was involved in a string of burglaries in a community on edge about crime.

>> you had no idea what he had been doing that day? >> at that time. >> under cross-examination, prosecutors trying to convince the jury there was no spike in crime and that arbery never stole anything. adding that the defendants were not trying to detaun him for police when they went after arbery, armed in their pickup truck. >> you didn't tell your dad this is a really, really bad idea that could go really wrong for us and we should just stay here and call 911. you didn't say that, did you? >> i did. >> reporter: arbery's mother saying she hopes all three men testify so she can hear each one of them explain what they were thinking that day. >> travis was on the stand wuping tears from his eyes. but again, travis is alive. i mean, the tears he shed today was no -- can you imagine the tears that we have shed? >> with testimony continuing in the courtroom out here, activists are gathering with what they say is hundreds of people to support arbery's family. they are beginning to gather right now.

including a number of black pastors who the defense tried to exclude from the courtroom saying they're only there to influence the jury. the comments, of course, have sparked a lot of outrage and brought a the lo of people here today. stephanie? >> all right. ron, thank you. let's dig in and joining us now, glen kershner. glen, good to see you in person. will travis mcmichael's testimony help or hurt his defense? >> as i watched it unfold, i couldn't believe how mcmichael seemed to be first aggressor, second aggressor and this the third aggressor. it really is a stark comparison to what we saw in the rittenhouse case. you have mcmichael admitting that he is suspicious of somebody in it his neighborhood because there is some testimony that this guy was from the other side of the neighborhood. kind of thinly veiled there. and then -- >> the other side, wink-wink, i hear you. >> then he begins chasing the young man in his truck. and he's kind of pulled up

alongside of him. what was the testimony? arbery turned around and ran in the other direction and mcmike am throws it in reverse and begins chasing him in reverse in his truck. arbery runs in a third direction. mcmichael chases him. ultimately mcmichael gets out of his truck with his shotgun and he is the aggressor throughout the incident. initially it's pretty clear that even under friendly questioning, from his own defense attorney, he did not paint a very compelling picture in support of self-defense and today, steph, he gets cross examined. cross-examination is the greatest engine ever invented for discovering the truth. he better hold on tight. he's in it trouble. >> c.k., your reaction to his testimony and what do you think the prosecutor needs to do today? >> my reaction is the same. i think the prosecutor today can annihilate him. what i think she should do is point out the inconsistencies

and in some instances lies based on the video evidence that we have. we have video evidence and if she can actually do a frame by frame, stop the video and take his statements and demonstrate how he actually was lying on the stand, firstly. but reiterating that he was the aggressor the entire time. he started this. he inserted himself it in, he chased ahmaud arbery down and shot and killed him at close range. and at no point did he ever try to exercise other options. which he had plenty of options. at every stage of this. he didn't have to even leave his home. that was option number one. but yet, he pursued ahmaud arbery never once thinking maybe i should stand down and pursue other options:so what the prosecutor must do is completely destroy his credibility and show that he was also lying. and she has the evidence to do that. >> c.k., i know you have also

spoken with the arbery family. what is their opinion thus far of the trial? it's got to be hard for them to watch this. >> it is very hard for them to watch this. they had been completely devastated and disgusted, quite frankly, by some of the evidence that's been presented. when the pathologist talked about what happened to their child and son and ahmaud arbery, that had a profound impact on them. they begged, i don't know if people realize this, for weeks they were begging to find out what happened to their child. and so for them to see the photographs, the graphic photographs of where he was shot, the fatal shot, how it happened and the testimony and hearing travis mcmichael testifying is very difficult for them. but they are supported by faith. they are supported by so many people who are there to uplift them so they can go through this process. this is devastating for them as it would be for any family.

>> supported by faith and hopefully justice. glen, c.k., stay with us. i want to turn to wisconsin. the jury in the kyle rittenhouse trial is going to begin a third day of deliberations any minute now. i want to go right to gabe gutierrez at the courthouse. the defense again requesting a mistrial. what can you tell us? >> hi there. good morning. so that request, the latest request for a mistrial zeros in on that drone video that we had seen earlier in the trial. you might remember it. it's the drone video that shows the encounter between kyle rittenhouse and joseph rosenbaum. he is the first man that rittenhouse shot and killed. what is at issue here now is that the defense is claiming that the prosecution did not hand over a higher resolution version of that drone video until just two days before closing arguments. and the defense is trying to argue that it may have been even

intentional. the prosecution for its part says there is no ill intent here. they did not realize that during the final transfer process that they had given over a lower resolution copy. but at this point, that is why the defense is once again calling for a mistrial. the judge has yet to rule on that, stephanie. >> will the jury though, the jury is also asking the judge a question about video evidence. is it connected to this video? >> well, there were three questions the jury asked yesterday. first one was very basic. do we watch the video in public in the jury deliberation room? or in an open court? they were allowed to watch that drone video in open court as well as fbi surveillance video. but everyone had to be outside of the courtroom so we obviously couldn't see what they were seeing. but the jury spent about 45 minutes or so inside that courtroom looking that video. so stephanie, it's what we thought might happen.

video evidence in this case is apparently proving to be critical. of course, we don't know exactly what is going inside jury deliberations. the but as you mentioned, within the next hour or so they're expected back at the courthouse to start day three. >> which side is the question. glen, does the defense have a good argument in asking for a mistrial? >> in a word, no. late disclosures by prosecutors unfortunately happen. i've been guilty of that myself. because sometimes the details get lost. not an excuse. but it happens. the judge had a decision to make. once the evidence was turned over late. either refuse to let the prosecutors introduce it into evidence so there is no harm, no foul. but once the judge decided i'm going let the prosecution introduce it, it would be incongruous for the judge to then say, you know what? i got that ruling wrong. i'm going to grant a mistrial. so it doesn't make any sense for the judge to have ruled it was late but it goes before the

jury. but then i'm going to undo the trial because of that? so they do not have a strong argument for mistrial. i'll say during criminal trials, defense attorneys make motions for mistrial early and often. because if they think there is prejudicial error, they have to move for a mistrial. ordinarily these get rejected. they have to preserve the issue for appeal. they can't raise it on appeal if they didn't make the argument in the trial court. so this is not surprising. >> c.k., the jury is about to begin a third day of deliberations. what is the length of the deliberations tell you about how things may be going? >> probably a lot of disagreement in the jury deliberation room. i also think the fact that they asked to see the videos in that drone video is critical because that is the single most compelling evidence for the prosecution. that is the video that clearly in my mind demonstrates that

claim of self-defense by kyle rittenhouse is shaky. and it is not consistent with his testimony and with the evidence that has been laid by the defense. so i think at this point the defense is feeling very uneasy. they should be fighting very hard for a mistrial. i don't think the judge will grant it. i agree with my colleague. i think it will be completely inconsistent and inconceivable for the judge to grant a mistrial at this point. but this judge has had a very different judicial temperment. so anything is possible. but i think the fact that jury is deliberating this long shows that they take their responsibility seriously. they want to look at the evidence and there is probably some disagreement and they want to look at the video evidence to either persuade some jurors or to clear up any disagreement among themselves. >> incongruous, inconsistent, inconceivable. you two win the s.a.t. words of the day. i want you two to stick around. we're keeping an eye on both of these trials throughout the

hour. i want you to come back as we have any breaking development has. i need to turn now to our nation's capitol where the house could, could, could start debating the human infrastructure bill as early as this afternoon. the move comes a day after president biden touted the newly signed the trillion dollar law at a detroit car factory. new this morning, president biden preparing to meet with leaders of both canada and mexico in a few hours for the north american leader summit at the white house. the house could start debate on the build back better act today. do you think that's going to happen? how is it going to play out? >> they could, steph. that's the plan. but, of course, anything can be derailed up here. we have seen it derailed multiple times before as far as this build back better plan is concerned. but i will will say that speaking with sources and lawmakers up here, democrats feel a lot more optimistic than

they did a couple weeks ago on the prospect of passing this build back better plan. we know we're waiting on a few more analysis by the congressional budget office, cost analysis of this bill. the reason is because there is a handful of moderates that want that cost analysis before they're willing to vote. they held off on debate that could have taken place yesterday because they are still waiting on these cost analysis. they got a big one last night. a big one talking about a lot of the family care and childcare provisions. but there is still more that is outstanding. this debate could start today. there is a chance that -- in the most optimistic assessment they would vote late, late tonight. >> shannon, what is on the agenda when the president meets with leaders of canada and mexico? >> a lot, steph.

this is the first time they got together since 2016. they have everything from a coordinated response to the pandemic, supply chain issues, of course, immigration issues at the southern border. all that the president and the administration officials hope to tackle here. there is the america first mentality of the trump administration. there is tension that's remain. no the all the poll suz from the trump administration have gone away, particularly on trade and immigration. a couple specific announcementeds, one on vaccines. so vaccines back in march can when there was supply chain issues. mexico and canada are expected to pay those forward and donate them to other countries. and we also expect an announcement on reducing meth and emissions from oil and gas by 60% to 70% by 2030. >> all right.

shannon and leanne. thank you so much. thank you for ilg us in on what is happening in washington. we're keeping an eye on brunswick, georgia. one of the men accused of shooting and killing amaud ash i have expected to take the stand any minute now. we'll bring it you to live when it begins. also, censured and bars from committees after he tweeted a video -- a cartoon video essentially, showing him killing alexandra cortez. we're going to take you to one republican who voted not to punish him. that's next. voted not to punish him atth's next.

(tiger) this is the dimension of imagination. ♪ ♪ >> man: what's my safelite story? my truck...is my livelihood. so when my windshield cracked... the experts at safelite autoglass came right to me... with service i could trust. right, girl? >> singers: ♪ safelite repair, safelite replace. ♪ - san francisco can have

criminal justice reform and public safety. but district attorney chesa boudin is failing on both. - the safety of san francisco is dependent upon chesa being recalled as soon as possible. - i didn't support the newsom recall but this is different. - chesa takes a very radical perspective and approach to criminal justice reform, which is having a negative impact on communities of color. - i never in a million years thought that my son, let alone any six-year-old, would be gunned down in the streets of san francisco and not get any justice. - chesa's failure has resulted in increase in crime against asian americans. - the da's office is in complete turmoil at this point. - for chesa boudin to intervene in so many cases is both bad management and dangerous for the city of san francisco. - we are for criminal justice reform. chesa's not it. recall chesa boudin now.

developing on capitol hill, they decided to censure congressman after he posted a cartoon depicting him killing another congressman. they are supporting the vote with a third vote present. the first censure from the house in more than a decade. we've been all over this story. now that the vote happened, what happens next? he becomes member of congress without any appointment. now this resolution came after paul gosar refused to apologize for posting this video.

he did speak on the floor before the vote happened and said he took that video depicting him culling aoc and attacking president biden down not because he regrets doing it, but because it was misunderstood. listen to what he said and the congresswoman's response. >> it was not a threat. but because some thought it was. >> what is so hard about saying that this is wrong? >> now it's worth keeping in mind that this resolution was not just a condemnation of paul gosar, it's a condemnation in the text us self of the leadership of the republican party for refusing to criticize him and saying that depictions of violence can enrage people and cause actual violence. >> he didn't just not apologize. after the vote took place, he then retweeted the video that

someone else had posted. so clear will you no regrets. thank you. joining us now is someone who voted against censuring gosar, nancy mace. she is a republican from the state of south carolina. congresswoman, thank you so much for joining me this morning. the video depicting him killing a member of congress, why are you okay with that? >> i'm not okay with that. the video is disgusting. it is reprehensible and should have already taken responsibility for it and apologized. not only to aoc but every member of congress. someone is going to get hurt. i'm someone who gets threats from the far right and the far left. i also respect the constitution and the constitution says that we got to follow the rules of the house and the house rules say there has to be an investigation. and has to have involvement from the ethics committee and the office of congressional ethics. that hasn't been done yet. and i also, if this were

strictly a condemnation vote or a sure vote, the outcome would have been different. there would have been more republican support. because it included shifting the assignments this is different. it hasn't been done except for one time before earlier in this section. it's disgusting and no one should condone this thing. the divisiveness is not okay. it shouldn't be accepted by anyone on the left or the right. >> and if it was a censure vote only, you would have voted yes? >> certainly i would have condemned him and the censure would have been more appropriate i think. a more appropriate response. but also the ethics committee needs to be involved with it as the oce. that's what the rules of the house say.

this is an important thing. this does spill over into our neighborhoods or communities and someone showed up at my house and spraypainted. i had my car keyed. i have to carry a concealed weapon in south carolina because of the threats, just because of the things i believe in. and no one should have to do that. on the other side of the aisle, we see members that spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on private security. there is a reason for that. you know, the rhetoric is so awful. and it's incumbent upon members of democrats and republicans to turn down the volume but it's incumbent upon every american to take a step back and think about the words that we're saying. they truly do have meaning. and i do believe that these things can lead to real violence and it's not okay. >> seeing that he then retweeted that very video after the vote took place, do you feel compelled to call for that

ethics investigation that you mentioned? >> we should. this is disgusting that he did that. this is a human people. people will take words and action and turn night real life. we saw that a few weeks ago when someone was shot at a baseball game. there is more violence now between the rights across the country and violence this year. it is incumbent for us to tone it down, turn down the volume and to stop this kind of rhetoric that does and can lead to violence in the future. my children, all of our kids don't deserve it and we can do much p better. >> turning down the volume and trying to find a way to will have your neighbor is a good answer for all of us h liz cheney and adam kin singer.

. that does give these rioters that violent movement a wink and a nod to do it again. what place do you have in the gop that is full of that? >> federal agencies are investigating january 6th. you have dhs, fbi, secret service, department of justice. there are committees in the house and senate that are investigating january 6th. so those things are happening. i was in a -- but in addition to january 6th, there is violence across the country as well. i'm the ranking republican on the civil rights subcommittee within the oversight committee. we had a hearing a couple weeks ago with the fbi and i learned that we don't track cases of violence of antifa. there is lots of violence, domestic terrorism and foreign terrorism in this country. >> but antifa is this bogeyman word we hear on the other side. you can clearly see --

>> i don't think it is. >> you can see on january 6th, what specific event are you talking about that you believe antifa committed that should be investigated because i can tell you january 6th, we all saw it. we know it. what event you are talking about? >> 100%. we've all seen the cities that have been destroyed by violence and by rioting in my own district in charleston, north carolina, may 2020 we had riots that destroyed millions of dollars of businesses down king street in charleston. we have seen it in cities across the country. we want to make sure that all violence is held to the same standard. >> i read about antifa and them organizing these events. i he don't want to say it's a bogeyman. they have a -- i guess symbolism that they use. some was used on must house when spraypainted this summer. violence in this country shouldn't be partisan. it shouldn't be left or right. of these are things we all

should be advocating for, peaceful protests and not violence. it is something i'm very strong on condemning when i've seen it on both sides of the aisle. >> i've been a strong vous on the ush use. >> violence should never be accepted anywhere by anyone. you said you read about this antifa, can you give me specifics? where did you read it? what was it specifically? >> mainstream media and press. >> where? >> i learned about how they organized -- >> where? >> you'll send you links afterwards. this was months ago or last year. this is something we've seen over the last year and a half to two years really since covid-19, since george floyd incident as well. this violence is happening from portland -- from the east coast to the west coast. >> we condemned it on both sudz of the aisle. >> i look forward to seeing. that we want to condemn violence across the country. i do want to ask you the hard infrastructure bill. south carolina is getting $6

billion and you certainly got rural communities in your state that could use some better faster wifi, why did you vote against it? >> well, i promised when i was running that i wouldn't raise taxes or add to the deficit. the infrastructure bill, we all need infrastructure. it is a popular issue that i ran and on the transportation infrastructure committee. there are 42 new taxes in that bill. it will add $250 billion to the deficit. and i was someone who put some appropriations requests into the legislation. those were stripped out in the senate. this really was a senate transportation bill without any input largely from members of the house. and i do believe we could have done more with less. that we could have done it without some of the tax provisions in there that raise taxes on chemicals and mineral companies and then, you know, having that kind of deficit with inflation where it is. i would love to see it be

bipartisan. this was a historic transportation bill. we didn't get any input. >> all right. we have to head back to the trial in georgia. i want you to am come back. i want to talk about the legalization of marijuana soon. but i have to leave it there. >> thank you so much. >> thank you so much. right now, the prosecutor is cross examining the man that shot and killed ahmaud arbery. let's listen in. >> that came through. i haven't seen the neighborhood before. and after looking at the video, i thought it may be teenagers i saw on that part of the county. it was a neighbor on the other side. the and that was as far as -- that i went with that. >> who is david soros? >> i have no idea. >> really? >> he's not a facebook friend of yours? >> not that i believe. >> would it help to reflect your recollection if you looked at

your facebook post. >> absolutely. >> take a look at this. >> take a look at the yellow

highlighted part. >> yeah. i wrote that. >> do you know who david soros is? >> i do not. he must have been on the neighborhood page. i can remember the message now. and i believe he must have saw it on the neighborhood facebook page. >> all right. so on january 1st, he says he is sorry about your your gun being stolen out of the car. >> yes. >> then you indicated that you had a pretty good feeling about who stole it. >> yes, ma'am. >> and you found out where he lived, is dlaekt? >> yes. >> and you've been watching him for several days? >> yes. >> that was not mr. arbery? >> no that, was truck i was telling you about. >> okay. >> and you then indicated that

this may be the same individual who has been causing trouble in the neighborhood. >> yes, ma'am. >> okay. but that's not mr. arbery? >> no, ma'am. >> so why in your written statement two hours after the homicide do you put down the very first sentence on january 1st of 2020 between 9:00 and 10:30, i had my vehicle broken into and my smith & wesson gun stolen out of my truck? >> because i was aware of things -- of burglaries and vehicles being broken into the neighborhood. and then on top of seeing what i saw on the 11th that there are things being broken into. i was concerned that mr. arbery could be a suspect in this or could not be. but like i said, prior, he is the one that i had seen and he's the one that has been in that house several times. so of course i'm thinking he is a suspect.

i don't know if it was him or the other people that they have seen or heard about. >> okay. >> you don't know who stole your gun. there is it no probable cause to arrest mr. arbery for theft of your handgun? >> no, ma'am. >> you also didn't know who stolen the items out of the boat, mr. english's boat, did you? >> no. but i had a probability. i was thinking the probability who have was doing that was the one that continued to go into

this house. that has been caught in this house several times which was mr. arbery. >> you have no evidence he ever taken anything off of mr. english's boat? >> other than stuff stolen out of that house and that he has been in that house several times. >> so you have stolen items on boat. and you got that from your mom? >> yes. and then you got him inside the construction site, right? insight 220? >> yes, ma'am. >> and at the point in time on february 23rd, you knew about october 25th. >> yes. >> november 18 snj. >> yes.

>> and february 11th? >> yes. >> you also knew the white couple had gone in on november 17th, right? >> i did. you also knew there was a shady looking guy under the bridge, correct? >> i did. and you also suspected this guy in the neighborhood with the truck may be the one that stole your handgun. he may have also been someone stealing things in the neighbor as you said to mr. soros? >> for a couple days. i decided that was not -- that was not the person that had the

truck. i thought it was a different truck. >> is that rob way? >> i don't know who rob way is? >> so kim balisteros said she suspected rob way as the one that stole the purse out of her car january 30th. >> not that i recall, no, ma'am. >> and you're telling this jury that your mother never told you that larry english suspected his contractors? >> no, ma'am. >> all right. so about february 11th, i want to make sure yesterday, yesterday when he testified did you testify that mr. arbery actually came towards you and started lifting up his shirt? >> yes, ma'am. >> okay. but you never said that before to anyone, did you? >> i put it in the statement.

>> the statement snt handwritten statement? >> the written statement, i believe i did. >> let me give you a copy of your handwritten statement. >> is that marked as an exhibit? >> no. >> i said reached into his pants. >> okay n your statement, you indicated that i was getting out of my car to ask him what he was doing. >> this is written statement? >> correct.

>> okay. >> and he turned toward my vehicle and reached into his pants which led me to think that he may have a weapon. >> yes, ma'am. >> reach like that into his pants? >> no. >> and then you caughted i immediately put my car in reverse and the individual went into the house under construction. correct? >> yes, ma'am. >> and that was -- [ inaudible ] >> okay. . can everybody see now?

okay. >> and that was the publishing of state's exhibit 120, the video clip entitled video mp 4. is that your car pulling down? >> it is, yes, ma'am.

>> and right here -- mr. arbery have anything in his hands? >> not that i can see, no, ma'am. >> have a backpack with him? >> he did not. >> any sort of bag with him? >> not at that time, no. >> no.

wearing a big long t-shirt, isn't he? >> yes. >> and shorts cut off at the knees. >> i think they were cargo shorts. >> he's got running shoes on? >> i can't tell. >> you see the nike logo in the reflection? >> no, ma'am. >> okay. that's fine. see it then? >> no, ma'am. that was state's exhibit 117 that i just published.

>> that particular evening, you saw the body cam of the officer? >> yes, ma'am. >> and offer rash told you and told your father that larry english said mr. arbery had never taken or stolen anything from the open unsecured construction site. is that correct? >> my understanding is never seen, saw him take anything from there, yes, ma'am. never saw anything taken. >> okay. and larry english never had anything stolen from the open unsecured construction site. >> yes, he had stuff stolen out of his boat that was unside that house, yes, ma'am. >> but you didn't investigate that crime as lachlt officer, correct? >> no, ma'am. >> because you weren't a law enforcement officer, were you? >> that's correct. >> all right. and your father wasn't a law enforcement officer either. >> he was not. >> okay. so you're basing your probable cause on something that was rumor that your mother told you about things being stolen off the boat. >> i was basing it on the 11th

seeing him in there again and hearing that his stuff was stolen off that boat and then hearing it from the other neighbors and then from -- the scene on the 11th. so, yes, it happened. and then seeing him come in multiple times, everything that followed up on the 23rd, yes. that's -- >> you were here when officer rash testified. >> i was. >> you heard officer rash under cross-examination answer the defense attorney's question about if mr. larry english had filed a police report about items stolen off of his boat, correct? >> yes. >> and he said the officer assigned would have investigated it, right? >> yes. >> and that means interviewing larry english, correct? >> yes. >> and so an officer who is investigating the theft of items off the boat would have found out from larry english that the boat had been moved back and forth to douglas, correct? >> objection.

stipulation. she's asking him to assume what officer rash would have done had he been asked to make a report about thefts by larry english and then how he would follow up on that. so all speculation on the witness' part. >> what rash would have done, sustained. >> i'll ask a better question, your honor. on cross-examination, do you remember officer rash testifying that the officer assigned if mr. english had filed a report would have investigated that? >> yes. >> okay. and that officer rash, you heard him testify, that that would have included interviewing larry english, correct? >> yes. >> all right. and you heard larry english testify that the boat had been moved back and forth between douglas, correct? >> he learned that, yes. >> he didn't learn that. he knew it. he moved the boat back and forth, right? >> you're talking about rash --

>> i'm not sure what the relevance is asking him what he heard people testify in court if he didn't know with his own personal knowledge on particular dates. hearing what people later come and testify about in court is asking him to comment on the testimony before the jury. it doesn't seem to be relevant inquiry. what he did, what he knew at particular times i think, sure. but what they testified about in court and how that may change his thoughts about dates in the past doesn't appear to be relevant. >> overruled. go ahead. >> okay. you heard him testify. >> okay. you heard him testify he told that to officer rash? >> yes. >> and you heard officer rash testify he told that to your

father? >> yes. >> all right. so let's go ahead and talk about what was happening on february 23rd, 2020. so you first saw -- you personally first saw ahmaud arbery as he was running in front of you? >> that's correct. >> and you were driving behind him in the white f-150 pickup truck. >> yes, ma'am. >> all right. and at that time, when you first saw him, he didn't have a bag. did he? >> no, ma'am. >> didn't have a backpack? >> he did not. >> wasn't carrying a box? >> wasn't. >> okay. and you could see his hands as he ran. >> yes.

>> all right. and you could see that he was wearing the cargo shorts and the t-shirt. >> yes, ma'am. >> all right. and you didn't know who he was. i mean, you didn't know hum personally. >> i didn't know him personally. >> you didn't know his name in. >> no, ma'am. >> didn't know anything about him? >> nothing. >> he didn't know you. >> not that i'm aware of. >> you just knew he was the guy who was on video at the open unsecured construction site. >> and that i saw on the 11th. >> and at this point in time when you first see him on the street, he's not reaching into his pockets? >> no, ma'am. not running, no, ma'am. >> and he never yelled at you guys. >> no, ma'am. >> never threatened you at all? >> no, ma'am. >> never brandished any weapons? >> let him finish his answer. >> he did not threaten me verbally, no, ma'am.

>> didn't brandish any weapons? >> no, ma'am. >> didn't pull out any guns? >> no, ma'am. >> didn't pull out a knife? >> no, ma'am. >> never reached for anything, did he? >> no. >> he just ran. >> yes, he was just running. >> so at this point in time you catch up to him on burrford by pulling up next to him. >> yes, pulling alongside him, keep him with my window right there. >> so as he's running down the street -- say this is the street, he's on this side of the road, consistent with someone driving forward or on that side of the road looking at on coming traffic? >> on coming traffic. >> okay. so he's on the side of on coming traffic? >> that's correct. >> so you pull up next to him. is that right? >> yes. >> you startled him. >> no. >> are you a mind reader? >> i'm not. but i could see his actions, the way that he was -- he didn't veer, he didn't run off. i came up to him slow will you. just like i would anybody else

and i never startled anybody doing that before. anybody walking or jogging or running. i never had anybody become startled on that. >> i mean -- sorry. i didn't mean to cut you off. how many times have you pulled up on strangers that don't know in a pickup truck to ask them what they're doing in your neighborhood? >> i don't think i have in that situation, but i have pulled up on people that are running behind, coming up behind them, but if you could be startled from somebody coming up behind you, could you tell if somebody is, but he -- i didn't startle him. i didn't, didn't come up on him hard or fast or blowing the horn or anything. i pulled alongside him on my side of the road, right at the yellow line and once he acknowledged me, and saw that i was there is when i came a little closer and stayed with him.

>> so he's running. you pull up. he looks at you, and you say to him what? >> i said "hey, what's going on? hold on a second." >> and he didn't say anything back to you? >> no, ma'am. >> he kept running? >> he stopped, turned and went backwards. that was the first time, that was the one call on mr. roddy's or mr. brian's video was the turn for the first. >> okay, so hold on. you pull up next to him. he stops. and he turns and starts to run back down? >> yes. >> and then you back up, is that right? >> i did. >> so you back up the truck to follow him and at some point in time, what do you say to him? >> i'm asking him, what are you doing? what's going on? what happened down there?

why is there -- i asked him why somebody pointed down the road, as i'm talking, that's when he turns and runs back down burrford. >> so now you're asking him, hey, why is somebody pointing down the road? that's what you're asking him? >> i was trying to ask him why there's people pointing down the road. >> let's back up. not asking for generalities and what's in your head. i want to know exactly what you were saying to the man jogging down the street. do you understand? >> yes. >> what exactly did you say to him the first time you pulled up to him? >> "i want to talk to you." >> and he turned around? >> he stopped, yeah, turned and then went the other direction. >> and that was indication to you that he didn't want to talk to you? >> yes. >> that was an indication he was not going to stop for you >> yes. >> and at that point in time,

you chose to put your truck up in reverse and back up at him. >> back up along with him. >> so he's trying to get away from you. doesn't want to stop. doesn't want to talk, and you're backing up to go along with him. >> that's correct. >> and at some point in time then, he turns to run up burrford, right? >> yes, i asked him again, or asked him that i wanted to talk to him. i don't know exactly what i said but it was to the effect i want to talk to him and what happened down the road. >> at this point in time, you're not wearing any sort of uniform. >> no ma'am. >> don't have any patrol car or

badges on your sleeves? >> no, ma'am. >> when you told the police, you were talking to them about -- let me make sure i get this right -- do you remember telling the police i pull him tell him hey, what's going on. he's running. he won't stop. i said that's him. stop right there. i'm at the bottom of page 8, top of page 9. stop right there, stop where you're at. do you remember telling the police that's what you said? >> that's what's on here, yes.

you want me to read it. >> that's what you said, you said that's him, stop right there. >> yes, that's part of it. >> all right. so at this point, you're ordering him to stop. is that correct? >> i wouldn't say ordering. i was asking him. >> like nicely and politely, please, sir, stop? >> at first. it was not please, sir, but hey, could you stop. yes, stop for a second. stop for a second. voice inflection and tone, i was trying to stay, trying to keep the situation calm. >> this is the time he's already decided he doesn't want anything to do with you and run back down burrford? >> yes. >> all right.

and then we see -- is that what happens next? >> yes, during that time.

i apologize, your honor. something's not right. >> your honor, we have no objection if the state would like a recess.

>> thank you. state's exhibit 194 first video ending in 261 is this what we have? >> yes. >> you backing up and then he's running away from you. >> yes, ma'am. >> and then this is your truck pulling forward, after? >> it is, yes, ma'am.

>> so at this point in time, you could have just stopped. >> i could have. >> you could have just let him run, correct? >> i could have. but i also wanted to make sure that everything was okay down the road, see what was happening. i wanted to at least ask him what was happening and see what he would say and go from there. >> despite the fact that you know about the fifth amendment, you know that no one has to talk to anyone they don't want to talk to, right? >> that's correct. >> you said you wanted to know what happened and you saw matt albenzi out in the street when you came out with the shot gunfrom your house. >> right. >> you didn't ask mr. albenzi what was going on? >> i did not. >> at one point you thought somebody had been hurt, something broken into. larry english was down there. >> that's correct. >> you didn't head down that way

to see what happened. did you? >> i did not, mr. albenzi was pointing down the road. he need to go that way, something happened and tried to ask him to see what was happening. what happened. >> something had happened? >> something has happened. >> all right, so at this point right here, where he's running, you're still yelling at him stop, i want to talk to you, stop. >> no, ma'am. once i watched him run and pull alongside again is when i engaged with him again. >> going all the way down burrford? >> no, ma'am, another 100 feet, maybe 200 feet. there's a wooded area