GA: "Jogger" chased and murdered

[RottenApple]

Well, 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.

[clarionite]

Well, 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.

I think you're absolutely correct with this TAM. I have to compare and contrast this to the Travon Martin case. I believed Zimmerman was correct in following and trying to be a good witness and was attacked simply for following Martin. This was supported with the prosecutions own witnesses.

In this case they attempted to play cop. They confronted him with guns drawn. Had it been any of us on this forum that had been the jogger who looked around a newly constructed home and were then accosted by someone blocking you with their vehicle and brandishing firearms, the story might have read a little differently for at least one of the father son duo. Had they waited for the police to arrive and were good witnesses, then when the race baiting stories came out that he was confronted because he was jogging while black came out I'd have dismissed them. I'd have seen this as residents of a neighborhood keeping an eye out for their community. I'm not saying I think the jogger was shot because of his race. But It does give credibility to the theory of why they decided he was guilty and had to shoot him.

As I tell all my students in my LTC class, they have the responsibility to avoid confrontation if at all possible. Fault and blame can't factor into it. Because they know they're carrying, and they know what the outcome of the situation can become if they allow the situation to escalate. I also tell them that although the law allows deadly force in defense of property in some cases, that I don't have any possessions worth the money it'll take to defend myself in the trial. And I definitely don't have anything worth taking another's life over and having to live with that for the rest of mine.
I don't know what possessions my neighbor has, but they're not worth my life or me taking another's life for. I'll be as good a witness as I can for him. And I'll even defend his life if I can. But I hope he's got good insurance. And if he doesn't, well that's something he'll have to evaluate after he replaces his belongings.

[srothstein]

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.

This has been one of the problems I have had when talking to people. Most want to judge the McMichaels based on what they "should" have done, not based on the law. I do not know Georgia law well enough to say that they were 100% legal, but from what has been posted on Georgia law, it appears to me so far that they probably are.

[oljames3]

Attorney Andrew Branca continues his discussion of the Arbery incident.
https://www.facebook.com/LawofSelfDefense/
https://www.facebook.com/LawofSelfDefen ... 727001133/

• GA law on Grounds for Arrest, what are the conditions required, and is it relevant? Justification as it applies to citizen's arrest.

• What use of force did the McMichaels threaten or use to attempt an arrest of Arbery?

• What are the charges against the McMichaels?

• What are the legal arguments behind the charges?

• Q&A

[parabelum]

Did you (srothstein) catch the video that TAM posted? Colion breaks it down nicely there. My opinion only, I detest what those two nimrods did and hope they get the punishment they deserve. I pray for the family of the man slain to find peace and justice. Actions of those two idiots is why we, the law obeying citizens and 2A supporters have to fight even harder to keep our 2A Rights in the light of their foolish and criminal (in my opinion) behavior.

[philip964]

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.

This has been one of the problems I have had when talking to people. Most want to judge the McMichaels based on what they "should" have done, not based on the law. I do not know Georgia law well enough to say that they were 100% legal, but from what has been posted on Georgia law, it appears to me so far that they probably are.

I agree what they did was not smart. One of the first things I learned here is that we are not Batman. No life was in danger. Call 911. That said. It is going to cost them a lot of money, time and gut wrenching before it is all done for playing Batman. They may get off, they may not.

To me it gets down to the number of shots from the shotgun. It is a lot like the guy in Florida. There is a large separation in age. He is pushed down, for being the Handicapped parking monitor and dissing a guys wife. On the ground, he draws his gun. The man backs off seeing the gun, and he fires once anyway killing the guy. He is in jail for the rest of his life.

Here the man goes for the shotgun. Is he shot struggling for the gun? Maybe. If that was the only shot. I see a not guilty. But there were two shots fired. Was he holding on for both and it was a two barrel shotgun or semiautomatic? Likely he was not holding on for the second. Was the shooter's life in danger after the first blast to the chest by the shotgun? Probably not. Guilty of murder. Other situation he grabs for the gun and lets go and backs off. The shooter then hits him twice with a shotgun. Guilty of murder. Lets say it is a pump action shotgun. Much worse for the shooter to get a not guilty. He had to pump the shotgun for a second shot. Plenty of time to see that the guy probably has a fatal wound in the chest from the first blast. Remember 98% of shotgun wounds are fatal. But he pumps and shoots again. Guilty of murder.

The son in the pick up truck. First one non fatal wound to the hand. Most likely he will say he fired when he saw his his father in danger. Not guilty. Now conspiracy to commit murder? I can see a good prosecutor making a case for this, especially if the Father has already been found guilty of murder. Guilty.

Right now thats how I see it but I have not closely watched the video to see if it shows the fatal shots. I have seen a blow up where Ahmaud has his hands on the shooters shotgun.

Don't be Batman. Protect yourself and your family.

[oljames3]

Did you (srothstein) catch the video that TAM posted? Colion breaks it down nicely there. My opinion only, I detest what those two nimrods did and hope they get the punishment they deserve. I pray for the family of the man slain to find peace and justice. Actions of those two idiots is why we, the law obeying citizens and 2A supporters have to fight even harder to keep our 2A Rights in the light of their foolish and criminal (in my opinion) behavior.

Attorney Andrew Branca, in his multipart Facebook LIVE discussion of the incident, comes to different conclusions than did Colion Noir.
https://www.facebook.com/LawofSelfDefense/

[philip964]

.....Actions of those two idiots is why we, the law obeying citizens and 2A supporters have to fight even harder to keep our 2A Rights in the light of their foolish and criminal (in my opinion) behavior.

[Archery1]

This has been one of the problems I have had when talking to people. Most want to judge the McMichaels based on what they "should" have done, not based on the law. I do not know Georgia law well enough to say that they were 100% legal, but from what has been posted on Georgia law, it appears to me so far that they probably are.

The problem they face is that the GA law on this has already been up to the GA Supreme Court on similar claim of citizens arrest involving a shooting. I believe more than once. Two factors of the GSC's rulings are not good for these guys. One, there's no allowance for use of unreasonable force to detain, and two, once LE is responding, there's no allowance to pursue to detain.

[parabelum]

Did you (srothstein) catch the video that TAM posted? Colion breaks it down nicely there. My opinion only, I detest what those two nimrods did and hope they get the punishment they deserve. I pray for the family of the man slain to find peace and justice. Actions of those two idiots is why we, the law obeying citizens and 2A supporters have to fight even harder to keep our 2A Rights in the light of their foolish and criminal (in my opinion) behavior.

Attorney Andrew Branca, in his multipart Facebook LIVE discussion of the incident, comes to different conclusions than did Colion Noir.
https://www.facebook.com/LawofSelfDefense/

Thanks, I’m not attached to FB but I’ll try to catch his viewpoint.
If these two get to walk from this based on something like this “... reasonable suspicion of felony burglary...” etc., that would be a shame and injustice. I mean, one could really stretch the “reasonable” part to the umpteenth degree of ridiculousness. It becomes a reductio ad absurdum at that point.

[oljames3]

Did you (srothstein) catch the video that TAM posted? Colion breaks it down nicely there. My opinion only, I detest what those two nimrods did and hope they get the punishment they deserve. I pray for the family of the man slain to find peace and justice. Actions of those two idiots is why we, the law obeying citizens and 2A supporters have to fight even harder to keep our 2A Rights in the light of their foolish and criminal (in my opinion) behavior.

Attorney Andrew Branca, in his multipart Facebook LIVE discussion of the incident, comes to different conclusions than did Colion Noir.
https://www.facebook.com/LawofSelfDefense/

Thanks, I’m not attached to FB but I’ll try to catch his viewpoint.
If these two get to walk from this based on something like this “... reasonable suspicion of felony burglary...” etc., that would be a shame and injustice. I mean, one could really stretch the “reasonable” part to the umpteenth degree of ridiculousness. It becomes a reductio ad absurdum at that point.

Andrew Branca has Facebook LIVE discussions each week on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. I have found it worthwhile, despite my chronic aversion to Facebook. He also has a blog where you can currently see the most recent discussions. Seeing more requires memberhip. https://lawofselfdefense.com/blog/

[parabelum]

Thank you Sir

[oljames3]

Well, 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.

I think you're absolutely correct with this TAM. I have to compare and contrast this to the Travon Martin case. I believed Zimmerman was correct in following and trying to be a good witness and was attacked simply for following Martin. This was supported with the prosecutions own witnesses.

In this case they attempted to play cop. They confronted him with guns drawn. Had it been any of us on this forum that had been the jogger who looked around a newly constructed home and were then accosted by someone blocking you with their vehicle and brandishing firearms, the story might have read a little differently for at least one of the father son duo. Had they waited for the police to arrive and were good witnesses, then when the race baiting stories came out that he was confronted because he was jogging while black came out I'd have dismissed them. I'd have seen this as residents of a neighborhood keeping an eye out for their community. I'm not saying I think the jogger was shot because of his race. But It does give credibility to the theory of why they decided he was guilty and had to shoot him.

As I tell all my students in my LTC class, they have the responsibility to avoid confrontation if at all possible. Fault and blame can't factor into it. Because they know they're carrying, and they know what the outcome of the situation can become if they allow the situation to escalate. I also tell them that although the law allows deadly force in defense of property in some cases, that I don't have any possessions worth the money it'll take to defend myself in the trial. And I definitely don't have anything worth taking another's life over and having to live with that for the rest of mine.
I don't know what possessions my neighbor has, but they're not worth my life or me taking another's life for. I'll be as good a witness as I can for him. And I'll even defend his life if I can. But I hope he's got good insurance. And if he doesn't, well that's something he'll have to evaluate after he replaces his belongings.

Yes, clarionite, the result under Texas law would be different because GA law is different from Texas law. In particular the law on carrying openly. Attorney Andrew Branca did a good job of explaining GA law during a Facebook LIVE discussion today. https://www.facebook.com/LawofSelfDefen ... 727001133/

[srothstein]

To me it gets down to the number of shots from the shotgun. It is a lot like the guy in Florida. There is a large separation in age. He is pushed down, for being the Handicapped parking monitor and dissing a guys wife. On the ground, he draws his gun. The man backs off seeing the gun, and he fires once anyway killing the guy. He is in jail for the rest of his life.

Here the man goes for the shotgun. Is he shot struggling for the gun? Maybe. If that was the only shot. I see a not guilty. But there were two shots fired. Was he holding on for both and it was a two barrel shotgun or semiautomatic? Likely he was not holding on for the second. Was the shooter's life in danger after the first blast to the chest by the shotgun? Probably not. Guilty of murder. Other situation he grabs for the gun and lets go and backs off. The shooter then hits him twice with a shotgun. Guilty of murder. Lets say it is a pump action shotgun. Much worse for the shooter to get a not guilty. He had to pump the shotgun for a second shot. Plenty of time to see that the guy probably has a fatal wound in the chest from the first blast. Remember 98% of shotgun wounds are fatal. But he pumps and shoots again. Guilty of murder.

The son in the pick up truck. First one non fatal wound to the hand. Most likely he will say he fired when he saw his his father in danger. Not guilty. Now conspiracy to commit murder? I can see a good prosecutor making a case for this, especially if the Father has already been found guilty of murder. Guilty.

Right now thats how I see it but I have not closely watched the video to see if it shows the fatal shots. I have seen a blow up where Ahmaud has his hands on the shooters shotgun.

I have been very puzzled by the shots fired myself. I want to know more about the type of shotgun just so I can better understand the mechanics of the shooting. I find it hard to believe it was anything other than a semi-auto shotgun to get two shots off during the struggle. The flip side of that is that it almost guarantees multiple shots while the struggle is going on (especially with poor trigger discipline). I am very curious about the third would and it it is really a separate shot or is it maybe separated pellets or even the casing cut his hand from the ejected shell or a pinch type wound of some type. I have not seen it explained yet, and we probably won't until an autopsy report is released.

I think the whole think still comes down to what was known at the time of the incident by the McMichaels. Did they really have reason to believe he was stealing something? Did they really know he was a burglar involved in other burglaries in the area? The third part I posted in my original post on this was if Arbery had really attacked them when they tried to stop him, but I think that is a given now.

And I 100% agree that this is why you don't act like a Batman. I think that on this board, there is very little controversy over if they should have taken any direct action like this. I do not recall (though I might have missed it) anyone saying they acted in a correct fashion to be emulated. The discussion is all over whether they acted legally or not. It is interesting how experts that I generally regard highly are disagreeing on this point. I will introduce a slightly different point of view here now. I think that if they can prove in court that they knew Arbery was a burglar and they had a reasonable belief that he had just committed another crime, they could convince a jury to let them go. That is not to say it would actually be legal, but it is what will really count in the end. Will a jury convict them after they see all of the evidence?

[dlh]

There is still quite a bit we do not know about this case. I assume the McMichaels gave detailed statements about the shots, where they and Arbery were located, what was going through their mind, what Arbery was doing, etc. All of that will be in the offense report that the police have not released.

If the case is true-billed and tried then after hearing all the evidence (we don't know all the evidence) the judge will give a written charge to the jury with questions for them to answer under Georgia law. Neither Noir nor Branca know how that charge will be worded at this point though I do appreciate their opinions and analysis.

I am going to hold off my opinion on this case until it is tried, we see the charge language, and the resulting verdict from the jury.