TexasCHLforum.com

03Lightningrocks wrote: ↑Fri May 15, 2020 5:56 pm Once again. A person chasing you down hops out of his truck brandishing a shotgun is doing far more than simply minding his own business open carrying. We can pretend these two were simply minding their own business while exercising open carry but we all know that is not what happened. Arbery was being pursued and then was cornered by a guy following from behind and two guys blocking his path. He is the person who was exercising self defense. He has the presumption of innocence. He had no way of knowing why two rednecks in a truck were chasing him down. Nothing proves he entered that construction sight with the intentions of committing burglary. We shall see but my bet is that there will be two racist rednecks headed to prison when this is all over with. Looking at the pictures of them, they will be just fine after joining up with the Aryan brotherhood once behind bars. It is no stretch to believe a black man living in a state with a strong history of rednecks killing black men for every reason from looking at a white woman to walking in the wrong neighborhood would fear for his safety in this situation and attempt to defend himself.

You must have watch a completely different video than I did.

bran·dish
/ˈbrandiSH/
verb
wave or flourish (something, especially a weapon) as a threat or in anger or excitement.
"a man leaped out brandishing a knife"

From the video, I didn't see anyone brandishing anything. "Holding" or "possessing" would be a better, and legal, adjectives. I see a man get out of the front seat of the pickup holding a shotgun; A perfectly legal act in Georgia (and Texas, for that matter).

And again, from the video, Arbery was neither pursued nor cornered. He could have turned around or gone in a tangental direction. No one was blocking his path in any way. He approached them. And then he initiated an assault by charging from the right-side of the pickup, across the front, and grappling for the gun. At least that is what the video is showing. From the evidence publicly available so far, there was no confrontational behavior or language from the McMichaels towards Arbery. Certainly nothing that rises to the level of threat where Arbery would need to defend himself against.

Your use of language in calling the McMichaels "rednecks", "racists", and saying that "they will be just fine after joining up with the Aryan brotherhood once behind bars" is evidence of your bias*; Not theirs. These things may or may not be true. I wouldn't know as I don't know the McMichaels or anyone involved in this case. All I can do is look at the evidence released so far and compare that with what the law actually says. That's all any of us should do. If\when new evidence comes out, I'll certainly reevaluate and revise my opinion as necessary. But for now, this is how it is and any non-evidence based opinions are just wishful thinking.

*NOTE: I'm not saying you're any of those things either; Just that you're obviously biased against the McMichaels for some reason. Why? I have no idea.

And once again I am not saying that what the [current] evidence shows that the McMichaels did was smart or prudent. I absolutely agree with everyone here who has said the exact opposite. And no, I would certainly never do that. But was it a criminal act? From the evidence so far, the answer would seem to be no. I look forward to any new\additional evidence.

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Thu May 14, 2020 11:57 amWell, maybe you’re right and I’m wrong. I can only call 'em like I see 'em, and in this particular case, it seems like both the McMichaels and Aubrey would have been better served if the McMichaels had simply tried to be good witnesses. But they clearly went beyond that line when they decided to chase him down and try to detain him, when they could have merely stayed in the daggum car, avoided direct contact, and tailed him and directed police to his location. I’m telling all of you right now, stuff like THIS is why I have insurance..... for those times when I’m not home to order someone off of my property, and he or she breaks into my house and takes something. But an empty, unfinished house in mid-construction in my neighborhood? Nah. Just call the cops and let them deal with it. That’s what they get paid for. I don’t.

And if I were the owner of that unfinished house, my answer would be, "I have property insurance. Thank you for your concern, but please don't put yourselves at risk on behalf of my property. If you see me getting a beat-down, then by all means help me if you can, and I’ll welcome any help you can give, and return the favor if the shoe's on the other foot. But for property crimes? let the police make the arrests, and my insurance company will make me whole if there’s any damage to or theft of my property."

There’s an obvious caveat here.... if someone is intent on going through me to get to my property, then self defense comes into play. But if I come home just in time to see someone go roaring out of my driveway with my lawnmower in the back of their truck, AT MOST I'd follow at a safe distance, dial 911, and direct officers to the location of that truck.

First, I apologize if I offended you. I have the utmost respect for you and 99% of the time I find myself agreeing with your position.

Second, I absolutely agree with you that what the McMichaels did wasn't prudent or smart. It was down right foolish in the extreme. But, as far as I can tell, wasn't criminal. If the McMichaels have a competent attorney, without any additional evidence or plea deal, I don't see how the prosecution can possibly win this.

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 9:56 pmYou’re welcome. I think that a lot of people are going to look back on how this plays out in the end, and realize that they hastily came down on the side of their passions, and not on the side of the law..... much like the men who killed Ahmaud Arbery did.

I don't normally make a practice of disagreeing with you, TAM. But I think you might be wrong in this case (subject to new evidence being brought forth). After watching Andrew Branca's piece on this (link above) several times, I have a different view.

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 9:56 pmThe whole think speaks to whether or not it is worth killing someone over theft or vandalism of property—PARTICULARLY someone else's property—unless that person is directly threatening you with use of force/deadly force. Armageddon isn’t here yet.

I completely agree that killing someone over property isn't worth it. However, being stupid or making bad choices is not itself a crime.

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 9:56 pm(1) Any previous criminal record of Arbery's is irrelevant to this case. It seems extremely unlikely to me that the accused father and son would have had any prior knowledge of any such record. But even if they’d had such prior knowledge, this event was in no way connected to any previous events. It was its own distinct event. A pattern of proven past behaviors is not the same thing as a newly committed crime, and possible trespassing aside (for all they knew, he might have had permission to be there), father and son had no such proof of any kind of serious crime having been committed. That’s how the law works.

Agreed; but that isn't how this went down. The McMichaels witnessed a man stop outside a home under construction, in a neighborhood that has had several break-ins\thefts, look both ways (possibly to see if he was being observed?), and then head into the house. He was there for a few minutes, left the structure, and then started running. That certainly does seem like suspicious behavior to me.

Additionally, in GA, the law doesn't require that the McMichaels had "proof of any kind of serious crime having been committed". GA law only requires Reasonable Suspicion of intent to flee from committing a felony burglary.

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 9:56 pm(2) Arbery threatened nobody, assaulted nobody. He was not armed. When somebody with a firearm threatened him, he fought for his life. Even people with criminal records are allowed to defend themselves from unprovoked attacks by armed men. That’s how the law works.

The problem is that there is no evidence (publicly available at this time) that the McMichaels threatened anyone. Open Carry is 100% legal in GA and cannot be used as an element of threat without some additional action ("stop or I'll shoot", pointing the firearm, etc.) and there is no evidence of any other such threatening action or behavior from the McMichaels.

What there is evidence (video) of is of Arbery running towards the McMichaels (he was not pursued by them), dodging to the right side of the pickup, and then charging at one of them across the front of the truck.

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 9:56 pm(3) If those two men hadn’t pursued Arbery, he’d be alive today, and they wouldn’t be in trouble. That’s how the law works.

This is, without a doubt, completely true and correct. What they did was foolish and stupid, but that is not a crime.

The Annoyed Man wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 9:56 pmWhen I was a kid, friends and I walked into LOTS of homes under construction to check them out. We never did any harm...we were just curious about what the house was going to be like. Thankfully, nobody had a wild enough hair up the wazoo to chase us down and confront us at gunpoint. I’d have run like heck too.....and maybe fought back too, depending on the demeanor and actions of my pursuers.

But would you have charged someone holding, but not pointing it at you, a firearm? They don't say anything threatening to you (from the video we can't even tell if words were even exchanged much less what was said). Would you have charged across 6-10 feet (Tueller Drill anyone?) and tried to grapple the gun away from them? Because that's what apparently happened in this case. Which, again, absent any additional evidence that may come to light, makes Arbery the aggressor and makes this a self-defense case.

I guess we'll have to see if something new comes out.