GA: "Jogger" chased and murdered

[XDgal]

I'm only seeing one crime in the evidence presented. Nothing of what lead up to the shooting matters at all. They were all doing nothing illegal, except the insignificant trespass by Arbery. The only crime I've seen is when Arbery assaulted Travis and tried to take his shotgun. This is exactly the same in the Travon Martin and Michel Brown cases. They all three assaulted someone with a gun and got shot because of their own actions. Ianal, but that is what I'm seeing.

I am getting tired of hearing how the people protecting their own neighborhoods should have done this or shouldn't have done that, but nobody ever says that maybe the young man should have done this or shouldn't have done that.

By the way, Batman never used a gun. He was antigun.

[oljames3]

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.

This will play out until the actual finders of fact render their verdict. In watching the various lawyers work to explain the intricacies in ways mere lay-persons can understand, I am coming to a better understanding of how the system works, how to read the law and how it is applied, and how glad I am to have a pre-paid legal service and a lawyer I trust.

[03Lightningrocks]

I find it interesting that some folks don't seem to think they could be in Arberys shoes some day. Again, I ask anyone willing to give an answer. You are jogging down the road. Two guys in a truck start pursuing you. You try to evade them. They then pull up and stop, blocking your path. One gets out holding a shotgun. You are just going to roll over and find out what he has in store for you? I have read of people on this forum darn near drawing their guns because they were aproached by a "shady" looking character at the gas station. If Arbery did not know why he was being chased, when cornered by a guy holding a shot gun, he did what anyone with a lick of self preservation skills would do. Me? I would have opened fire on them from the corner of that pick up truck rather than go around and try to get the gun. I don't give a good golly darn if open carry is legal. It is laughable for people to act as if they would not have been very alarmed if said open carry person was chasing you down the road.

[Killadocg23]

I find it interesting that some folks don't seem to think they could be in Arberys shoes some day. Again, I ask anyone willing to give an answer. You are jogging down the road. Two guys in a truck start pursuing you. You try to evade them. They then pull up and stop blocking your path. One gets out holding a shotgun. You are just going to roll over and find out what he has in store for you? I have read of people on this forum darn near drawing their guns because they were aproached by a "shady" looking character at the gas station. If Arbery did not know why he was being chased, when cornered by a guy holding a shot gun, he did what anyone with a lick of self preservation skills would do. Me? I would have opened fire on them from the corner of that pick up truck rather than go around and try to get the gun. I don't give a good golly darn if open carry is legal. It is laughable for people to act as if they would not have been very alarmed if said open carry person was chasing you down the road.

Agreed. It boggles my mind with some of these post. "Arbery attacked them first etc" If I were jogging down the road and two men accosted me and one jumped out with a shotgun, I would obviously try and get the gun as well if I had no means of protection and was in close proximity. What was he suppose to do? Stop for two strangers with guns to talk to them and ask them what do they want? Have milk and cookies with them? Hopefully none of you who keeps claiming he attacked the guy( with a shotgun out and who just tried to block him on the road) live near the cypress area. I wouldnt want to be chased down by two folks that have firearms becasue they THOUGHT I did something wrong.WOW just WOW

[The Annoyed Man]

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.

No, I’m not offended in the least. Please don't worry about it for one minute. We’ve all got opinions about this story. Maybe time will prove me wrong, or maybe it won’t. I think we are all invested in our opinions with stories like this one because those opinions are informed by how we think we ourselves should or should not act in similar circumstances. In a sense, we’re gaming out in advance what we think our own actions should be if we ever find ourselves in such similar circumstances. Whether or not the law vindicates the McMichaels in the end, it will not change my opinion that they made an essentially immoral choice....immoral because their choice initiated a cascade of events that ended with Arbery's death. They could have chosen to avoid contact with Arbery and acted purely as witnesses. Sometimes, the law is not moral.

[RSX11]

By the way, Batman never used a gun. He was antigun.

Batman carried a gun, and used it, and other guns, in 1930 and 1940, in Detective Comics, and in his own title.

[K.Mooneyham]

https://www.redstate.com/jeffc/2020/05/ ... uDfX6oOeTw

From the above article, concerning Georgia citizens arrest law:

“A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.”

Do the actions of Arbery meet the standard in that quote? Do the actions of the McMichaels meet the standard in that quote? The article has distinct bias, the only reason I posted it was to substantiate the quote I pulled from it.

[FastCarry]

https://www.redstate.com/jeffc/2020/05/ ... uDfX6oOeTw

From the above article, concerning Georgia citizens arrest law:

“A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.”

Do the actions of Arbery meet the standard in that quote? Do the actions of the McMichaels meet the standard in that quote? The article has distinct bias, the only reason I posted it was to substantiate the quote I pulled from it.

Well presented message in that article. I firmly believe that this is one of the many cases where people have made up their mind and no one will be able to change it. Its a frustrating argument to make and better left to the justice system to decide. I dont understand people getting so worked up about their opinion and trying to project onto others. One thing is certain, its terribly and tragically unfortunate that in a case where a a person dies, we dont get to hear their side of the story. Its terribly upsetting. My head hangs low for both Arbery and the McMichaels, im sure this one they wish they could both take back and its such a shame to read what some are saying.

[The Annoyed Man]

https://www.redstate.com/jeffc/2020/05/ ... uDfX6oOeTw

From the above article, concerning Georgia citizens arrest law:

“A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.”

Do the actions of Arbery meet the standard in that quote? Do the actions of the McMichaels meet the standard in that quote? The article has distinct bias, the only reason I posted it was to substantiate the quote I pulled from it.

Well presented message in that article. I firmly believe that this is one of the many cases where people have made up their mind and no one will be able to change it. Its a frustrating argument to make and better left to the justice system to decide. I dont understand people getting so worked up about their opinion and trying to project onto others. One thing is certain, its terribly and tragically unfortunate that in a case where a a person dies, we dont get to hear their side of the story. Its terribly upsetting. My head hangs low for both Arbery and the McMichaels, im sure this one they wish they could both take back and its such a shame to read what some are saying.

This is what I was referring to previously.....nearly everyone's opinion, if they have one, is based on what they think they would do if placed in the same situation as the McMichaels, and they are seeking justification for those opinions in the law. That justification may or may not be there in the law. IANAL, have not passed the Georgia Bar, and all that. But even if an action is justifiable under the law, it does not automatically follow that one SHOULD take that action—because what is legal and what is moral are not always the same thing. For example.... abortion is legal, but IMHO it is highly immoral in nearly every case. And that is the view I take over use of deadly force in property crimes in which the property owner's health/life (my own included) is not being directly threatened by the perpetrator. Unless the perp is trying to go through the property owner to access/take/vandalize said property, in my book it’s not worth killing someone over it. And it’s even less worth it to kill someone over someone else's property.

These kinds of threads serve the purpose of helping us each, individually, game out what we think our own response would or should be, in similar circumstances. We are therefore invested in those opinions, and defending them vigorously. I am defending the proposition that the cascade of events initiated by the McMichaels' decision to chase after Aubrey proved that decision to be a really bad one. I’ll bet anyone here that, in hindsight, the McMichaels themselves have regrets about their decision....legal or not.

[oljames3]

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.

From my understanding, once a plea of self-defense is entered the burden is flipped - it's then on the defense to show that the actions were reasonable, etc, and all the prosecution has to do is sit back and pick that apart.

Unless some radically new evidence comes out, I believe these guys are toast.

I am not a lawyer and did not sleep in a Holiday Inn Express last night. Here is what the law firm Davis, Chapman & Wilder LLC said about burden of proof in criminal cases in GA on May 19, 2019.

Burden of Proof
In Georgia, the prosecutor’s office must prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If you can cast any reasonable doubt on the government’s case, then the jury cannot legally convict you.

https://dcwattorneys.com/defenses-crimi ... s-georgia/

[philip964]

Yesterday Dr. Phil on TV being interviewed went all ballistic on the guy driving up and making the video from his car.

Because he didn’t say things like “oh my god that guy got shot or how horrible” on the video.

It wasn’t a surprise and it was their “plan” to murder the guy and he was part of the conspiracy.

They are also hinting because things happened a week or so before regarding the home being visited before by maybe the same guy, it was premeditated.

Apparently the owner of the home under construction had a camera inside that alerted him and he would call the shooter who lived across the street to check it out. I have the same thing at my house, your phone blips that motion has been detected and starts recording. Owner lives about 70 miles away.

[Grayling813]

There was a shipmate I had in the Navy, constantly talked about his martial arts expertise, how “bad” he was and how he could handle any situation when accosted by criminals. Then one night on the island of Guam, four of us were robbed by three punks with one shotgun. The “bad” dude was the first one to drop to the ground and hand over his wallet when ordered.
He never had much to say after that about how tough he was.
The point of this story is that no one knows exactly what they will do when the time comes for action or inaction. Endlessly posturing online means nothing.

I have no opinions on the incident other than mind your own business and property you own is best protected by your insurance. Unless as TAM said, the criminals are intent on doing you or your family harm.

[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.

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/

I wasn't saying it would be different because of Texas law. It would have been different had the jogger been a LTC holder exercising his rights.
More than likely the shotgun wielder would not be alive to stand trial.

[srothstein]

Sometimes, the law is not moral.

I know this does not belong in this thread particularly, but I have to agree with this. Sometimes, the law is not only not moral, but actually immoral and must be resisted.

One of the hardest lessons I have learned in my life in law enforcement is that the law is not moral or immoral, not just or injust, not right or wrong, it is just the law. And that all courts are truly interested in, especially at the trial level, is the law. I do not want to side track this thread too far, but I will say that there is a lot of discussion in the police forums on whether police officers should enforce the law or do what is right.