Travis McMichael, Gregory McMichael, and William 'Roddie' Bryan Found Guilty of Murdering Ahmaud Arbery
The men were almost never charged, thanks to misconduct from the first prosecutor, who is now under a criminal indictment.

Gregory McMichael, 65, Travis McMichael, 35, and William "Roddie" Bryan, 52, have been found guilty of the murder of Ahmaud Arbery, a man who the younger McMichael shot and killed after the three cornered Arbery in a Georgia suburb and tried to perform a citizen's arrest.
All three men were convicted of felony murder, aggravated assault, false imprisonment, and criminal attempt to commit a felony, with the younger McMichael also convicted of malice murder.
The case drew national outrage, though it initially received little public attention. Former Brunswick Judicial Circuit District Attorney Jackie Johnson ordered police not to charge Travis McMichael and allegedly gave the father-son pair preferential treatment, as Gregory McMichael used to work for her. She eventually recused herself. But the prosecutor she recruited to replace her, Waycross Judicial Circuit District Attorney George E. Barnhill, also had a conflict of interest—his son had worked with McMichael on a prosecution against Arbery, and before him taking over, Johnson failed to disclose that Barnhill had already told police not to place the men under arrest. In September, she was indicted for violating her oath of office and obstruction of police, and an investigation into Barnhill was still ongoing.
The McMichaels and Bryan pursued Arbery in their trucks in February 2020 and told police they did so because they "assumed" he was behind a series of purported burglaries after seeing him trespassing on a construction site. There had been no such robberies in the weeks leading up to Arbery's killing.
After the men trapped Arbery, a struggle ensued, with Travis firing his shotgun at Arbery at close range. Arbery was unarmed.
But no real movement would happen on the case for almost 80 days, until cellphone footage showing Arbery's final moments made its way to social media, ultimately going viral and drawing renewed attention to the case. Barnhill stepped down from his role in April after Arbery's mother learned of his conflict of interest, and charges were finally brought against the men in June 2020.
The trial coincided with the proceedings against Kyle Rittenhouse, where a jury last week accepted that the teen acted in self-defense when he killed two men and wounded another during a night of civil unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Those proceedings were highly politicized along partisan lines, becoming a sort of microcosm for debates around the U.S. criminal justice system, particularly as they pertain to race.
But really, this trial was the trial for those conversations to take place. Arbery was black, and McMichael's claim that he acted in self-defense when he chased Arbery through a neighborhood and gunned him down appeared much less plausible than in Rittenhouse's case. That Travis McMichael was motivated by racial animus came from McMichael himself: Bryan told investigators that, after shooting Arbery, Travis McMichael called him a "fucking nigger" as he lay dying.
And while prosecutorial misconduct was rightfully at the center of the conversation around Rittenhouse—with Kenosha County Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger coming under fire multiple times for bending the rules—so, too, should that have been a main topic of discussion in this case, and even more so. For a prosecutor to face criminal charges for job-related malfeasance is remarkably uncommon. Yet that's what happened here. Had the public not learned about Arbery's killing via a viral clip, it's possible that Johnson and Barnhill would have prevented charges from ever being brought.
The three men face life in prison.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Good.
Good riddance.
Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month i have generate and received $19663 from this job by giving this only maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job are just awesome.XEh Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just follow instructions click on this site and visit tabs...
For more details.......... Visit Here
Hi) My name is Paula, I'm 24 years old) Beginning SEX model 18+) I love being photographed in the nude) Please rate my photos at - https://xurl.es/id378955
money generating way, the best way of 2021 to earns even more than $15,000 every month online. start receiving more than $15k from this easy online job. i joined this 3 months ago and in my first month i made $12749 simply doing work for 2 hrs a day. join this right now by follow instructions mentioned on this web.
===>>............ Visit Here
May they live long lives in jail, with a real Bubba.
"new meat in Cell Block C!"
Tried to mute the bot, somehow flagged your comment.
Hopefully, they'll ignore this like they ignore the other accidental flags - or the deliberate ones.
Fry the white trash.
And apparently the REAL source of the problem was a corrupt Prosecutor.
String them all 4 in series. 2 KV each ( 8 KV)
Cook till done
And of course, Fuck Joe Biden
Song appropos
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zmai9WT35ZY
Of course, black people can’t get justice, right?
Not when murdered in the streets by cops, deprivibg both them and The People of Due Process Rights.
FJB
If you were Searching for a supplemental source of income? This is the easiest way I have found to earn $5000+ per week over the internet. Work for a few hours per week in your free time and get paid on a regular basis.TFs Only reliable internet connection and computer needed to get started…
Start today...........Earn-Opportunities
Holy shit, the leftist reaction to this verdict is abominable.
Hint: they're not happy.
Because of what they imagine *would* have happened if reality were other than it is.
Wait what? Why would they be unhappy about this verdict?
Link me said idiots?
See downthread to link w/all caps
Two...*Click!*...Two...*Click!*...Two great verdicts in one week!
And all the more reason to heed the words of the meme:
Kyle delivered....Me, I just lay in wait!
This year do not worry about money you can start a new Business and do an online job I have started a new Business and I am making over $84, 8254 per month I was started with 25 persons company RBh now I have make a company of 200 peoples you can start a Business with a company of 10 to 50 peoples or join an online job.
For more info Open on this web Site............E-CASH
Now all the Republicans who support white supremacy will start protests all over America decrying this as an injustice.
. . . but only in the fevered dreams of progressives everywhere.
Will they even hear about this? This got virtually no play in the national mainstream media for the entire time. Too local, I guess.
No, they didnt get a slot to apply Social Justice. They dont care about Regular Justice bc they cant manipulate it.
Will they even hear about this? This got virtually no play in the national mainstream media for the entire time. Too local, I guess.
It didn't receive the coverage that the Rittenhouse trial did (it didn't support any of the preferred narratives), but it as absolutely covered by the national media. It also received a fair amount of coverage by local news media in the D/FW area, so I'd presume that it did elsewhere as well.
It doesn’t advance the Marxist narrative. If they were acquitted it would be all you would hear about. I’m sure the media is disappointed. An acquittal is what they wanted.
Considering there are like... 5000 KKK members right now? (I can't remember where I read the exact number, but it's vanishingly small) that one rally with 100 idiots somewhere actually will be all the republicans who support white supremacy.
Even though that's the case, somehow, if even 20 people show up somewhere (actual republicans who are white supremacists or not) it will be adequate evidence that all white people and all republicans are ardent racists. That's where the progressive mainstream media has gone these last few years.
I expect that shit in a comment section full of trolls and fifty centers. But that it happens amongst "professional" news media makes me very sad.
Considering there are like... 5000 KKK members right now?
Half of whom are FBI agents investigating the KKK.
And the other half are FBI agents from a different department investigating the KKK.
Hah, yeah. You guys got a laugh out of me.
I'm kind of waiting for a rally of four or five obvious plants carrying tiki torches like happened in the Virginia elections a few weeks ago.
You mean like how virtually everyone involved in planning and organizing the Whitney kidnapping were all FBI stooges?
And the one guy who actually is a KKK member is a blind, black man.
Named "Blind Melon Chitlin'"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZclLDlcXO0
Going downtown, gonna see my gal
Gonna sing her a song
I'm gonna show her my ding dong!
Also, speaking of blind black men...
If God is love,
And love is blind,
And Ray Charles is blind...
Ray Charles is God!
https://medium.com/@bill164/ray-charles-is-god-2db153daeda4
https://twitter.com/MrAndyNgo/status/1463629713818202114?t=jjbweVOXzmk2pSPjhTNjIA&s=19
#Waukesha massacre suspect Darrell Brooks had a previous conviction over threatening to bomb a casino in Nevada. [Link]
Half of whom are FBI agents investigating the KKK.----Bingo!
The KKK just got into schools to teach CRT and convince minorities to self segregate. Aka the dems. That is always their priority.
Just watch the lies and anti-Constitutional BS foaming from that Charlatan Sharpton's mouth.
"My lynchmob is better and more Rightoius than your Whitey lynchmob and we swayed the Verdict."
https://fb.watch/9ukFDwC_QC/
"Considering there are like... 5000 KKK members "
... of 19 different families
". . . because they 'assumed' he was behind a series of purported burglaries after seeing him trespassing on a construction site. There had been no such robberies in the weeks leading up to Arbery's killing." Which were they, burglaries or robberies or both? They're vastly different kinds of felonies.
re: "Which were they"?
As it turns out, neither. The legal difference between burglary and robbery never came up in this case because the alleged crimes were ... fictional? mistaken? I don't have evidence about whether McMichaels' and Bryan's claims were fraudulent or sincere-but-wrong.
the alleged crimes were ... fictional? mistaken?
^this.
According to his transcript, Nohilly asked McMichael, "Did this guy break into a house today?"
"Well that's just it. I don't know," McMichael responded, according to the transcript.
If a citizens arrest was not justified, they were aggressors and not entitled to a self-defense claim.
The self defense claim rested on an ambigious statute that only required a preponderance belief he was guilty of a felony. Which burlary is. He was caught on camera multiple times in the house at night.
It also did not require them to see the felony take place but also included fleeing from a felony based on the statute.
but also included fleeing from a felony based on the statute.
Which McMichael confessed he didn't know. Oops.
His presumption earned his son and his friend life in prison.
The self defense claim rested on an ambigious statute that only required a preponderance belief he was guilty of a felony.
It also did not require them to see the felony take place but also included fleeing from a felony based on the statute.
The statute said that for the private party to be authorized to make an arrest the alleged felony had to have taken place "in his presence or within his immediate knowledge", which was not the case here.
It also did not require them to see the felony take place
the statute required a lawful citizen's arrest have 'immediate knowledge' that a crime had been committed, that would serve as the rpoximate cause for the arrest...the cMichaels had no such knowledge, and thus, their action was illegal from the word go...
The self defense claim rested on an ambigious statute
Not a smart thing to risk your freedom over. I suspect this had a lot to do with the elder McMichael's insider knowledge of law enforcement steering him wrong. He assumed he would be presumed to be within the bounds.
Apparently, the McMichael's at least were winding themselves up with fear in a local Facebook group similar to NextDoor.
The prior thefts didn't come up because they weren't germane to the actions on the day in question. They had no way to connect Arbery to a crime that day which is the only instance of Arbery being in the neighborhood that was relevant
The McMichaels testified that they never saw Aubery do anything illegal. I think Bryan was the one that called them. Which is why the whole citizen arrest thing fell apart - they had nothing o arrest him on. Apparently there is no statue as to citizen detainment.
Why are you focusing in on Billy Binion’s use of a slightly-off synonym? Is that what’s important here? Or are you dwelling on trivia to avoid something about this case?
Typical White Mike - "Your post does not indicate whether or not I should react with outrage. Tell me more so I know how to feelz!"
He is the epitome of the shitweasel concern troll.
Fuck off Mike.
And die.
Thanks, I didn’t mean to leave that out.
So, not that I'm objecting, but I thought prosecutors and their ilk enjoyed absolute immunity. So how is this going forward? Not objecting, just confused.
They enjoy absolute CIVIL immunity. Not criminal.
Hrm. Ok.
For all that I know the difference at some level, the things which fall into what camp can be pretty dang confusing.
Actually its easy. They are not accountable as agents of the state under its sovereign immunity. The are accountable as citizens of the state under its sovereign authority.
Does that enable arbitrary and capricious decisions? Absofuckinglutely.
While Vernon's point regarding the difference between civil and criminal liability is good, what both this and the Rittenhouse case show is government corruption in the DA's office in both cases.
In the Arbury case, it amounts to the government protecting government connected people, that also happens to have a racist element (just like for the KKK in the old South). In the Rittenhouse case, the government prosecuted an innocent stand up guy they never should have indicted, to further a political narrative of white supremacists and gun control. In a liberal city that apparently had their police stand down while the governor could have called the national guard if necessary, but didn't. Nor was he asked.
What's common in both cases, is the government screwing over innocent people rather than protecting them. The political class preys on the working class.
"But really, this trial was the trial for those conversations to take place. Arbery was black, and McMichael's claim that he acted in self-defense when he chased Arbery through a neighborhood and gunned him down appeared much less plausible than in Rittenhouse's case."
"How is it possible that one case was self-defense when the other case wasn't?", thought every idiot progressive at the same time.
No, the correct answer is not that race is the proper lens through which to look at everything. The correct answer is that one of them was clearly a case of self-defense.
This case wasn't about self defense. It rode on the concept of a citizens arrest. The self defense claims were only allowed post the concept of citizens arrest. Reason never bothered to read up on the trial.
This case was about redneKKKs acting like idiots and it ended with a dead young Black man. George Zimmerman behaved like an idiot and a Black teen ended up dead and Republicans took his side…and without the video Republicans would have taken the side of the redneKKKs because they believe the worst about young Black males. On the other hand a young white male Rittenhouse, on video punching a girl in the face, is seen in the best light by Republicans and he is showered with donations by Republicans. So all of this makes clear why the BLM movement is necessary.
Stunning legal acumen you have.
People who capitalize Black and not white while referring to race deserve nothing but scorn.
Yes, it's racist.
I watched the video, can't really say if it's Kyle or not. If prosecutors had actual evidence of assault aside from an anonymously posted video you can bet your ass he would have been charged. Not really relevant to his self defense defense in any case.
You nitwits are always willing to jump to conclusions when a young Black male ends up dead…Rittenhouse is such an assclown he can be seen accidentally punching his friends in the face.
Tell us all about the black guys Kyle shot.
He let a suicidal pedo borrow his bullet—best life choice of Rosenbaum’s pathetic existence.
Fuck off and die, asshole.
Sorry you're too much of a vagina to stand up for your relatives.
I think you're overwrought. Breathe slowly and try to collect your thoughts. There was no young black man killed in the Rittenhouse case. And I'm not sure what conclusion I jumped to.
Rittenhouse is an assclown. He should never have been there with that AR looking to prove what little manhood he has. Having a short sick is ok no need to try and compensate. Doesn’t mean he can’t defend himself. He tried to run away and they chased him down. Who the fuck chases a guy with a goddamn AR15? And then tries to take him out with a skateboard and fisticuffs?
Dick*
How ya know? You been suckin' on it?
I feel your pain, loser.
In thus case... A bunch of REAL criminals chased him down. That 17-yr old boy has more balls and common sense then a fool like u could ever obtain. Ass clowns like your sorry ass ARE the real problem in the world.
The Phucko Knows
"Rittenhouse is such an assclown"
"Give me your tears. They're delicious."
-Shane Hazel
BLM and Darrell Brooks thank you for your service.
In other words vigilantes seem to go looking for trouble or two wrongs don’t make a right. Burning private property and looting is wrong along with paramilitary no go zones, and should be denounced by Democrats. Vigilantes placing themselves in the middle of highly emotional race based riots is a poor decision and should be denounced by Republicans. Everyone loses.
Well yeah if Rittenhouse actually was a vigilante.
Vigilantes placing themselves in the middle of highly emotional race based riots is a poor decision
agreed; except I would have said 'mentally unbalanced' instead of 'highly emotional'...
I hope that if some 'protestor' decides to burn your house or business to the ground in the name of social justice you'll stand meekly aside and let it happen.
Rittenhouse made no attempt to apprehend or physically interfere with anyone else prior to being attacked. As such, he cannot be considered a vigilante.
"Vigilantes placing themselves in the middle of highly emotional race based riots is a poor decision and should be denounced by Republicans. "
I'll go along with that when Democrats denounce rioters. But, of course, they applaud them and bail them out of jail.
So fuck your sophistry.
You’re a raving Marxist idiot racist. Now go away, adults are talking here.
"...George Zimmerman behaved like an idiot and a Black teen ended up dead and Republicans took his side…"
SC really is full of shit, isn't he?
Don't be so insulting to feces everywhere.
Shit has SOME uses, pal. SC does not.
Lol, let me simply your racist comments. All White people are bad. White people do not deserve any rights. So racist groups like BLM are good.
“thought every idiot progressive at the same time.”
Is that a straw man, or do you have a cite of a progressive actually saying that?
You want a cite you won’t read?
Do you also need a cite that the sky is blue?
It's funny, none of Rittenhouse's victims/attackers were black. The liberal MSM showed it's involved in gaslighting propaganda for the Democrats, rather than reporting the news.
I want a reporter to file FOIA requests to get the communications of liberal mayors regarding their orders telling police to stand down, and then perhaps we might get some questions as to why the government choose to let criminals run amok, rather than protect and serve law abiding citizens.
"But really, this trial was the trial for those conversations to take place. Arbery was black, and McMichael's claim that he acted in self-defense when he chased Arbery through a neighborhood and gunned him down appeared much less plausible than in Rittenhouse's case."
"How is it possible that one case was self-defense when the other case wasn't?", thought every idiot progressive at the same time.
No, the correct answer is not that race is the proper lens through which to look at everything. The correct answer is that one of them was clearly a case of self-defense.
"Bryan told investigators that, after shooting Arbery, Travis McMichael called him a "fucking nigger" as he lay dying."
I didn't watch this case. Was this in evidence at the trial? This was testified to in the courtroom? I thought I had read elsewhere that this didn't happen.
There was no evidence those words were said. Think they said it during opening but no evidence of it during the trial otherwise.
Reason’s reporting has gotten so lazy.
For me, the chaser-chasee dynamic is a very good indicator of who can claim self-defense.
unless its a cop chasing as innocent citizen to kill them. then its backwardd
For stealing a candybar
Wait, prosecutors can be prosecuted for failing to prosecute?
This is interesting, because there seems to be a bit of a problem nowadays with prosecutors not prosecuting.
He didn't just fail to prosecute. He ordered the sheriff not to charge them.
lie. Cops dont bring charges
Yes, they do. Prosecutors bring indictments.
I think it may vary depending on jurisdiction.
you stupid or lying?
You have a Media talking point
https://www.justice.gov/usao/justice-101/charging
Good verdicts in this and the Rittenhouse case. Anyone who wants to play cop should beware of doing so.
Except a few years ago Republicans sent money to George Zimmerman when he behaved exactly like these redneKKKs. Zimmerman instigated an altercation with a young Black male just like Rosenbaum and McMichael…Trayvon was not allowed to defend himself like Rittenhouse.
It is amazing how you leftists continue to get trials wrong. Whether it be Zimmerman or Rittenhouse. Facts don't seem to matter to you. Just the narrative beneficial to the left.
I’m a Trump supporter—I knew Rittenhouse was innocent and you can read my comments before the verdict saying I thought not only was he innocent but the prosecutor was unethical and should be disbarred.
In fairness, your comments are incomprehensible so it's not surprising that nobody noticed.
What’s amazing is that dumbass rednecks and leftist morons have the same understanding of the law.
Zimmerman was different, and if you'd paid any attention, you'd know it. He did not chase Obama's son. Obama's son jumped him and was bashing his head against the concrete sidewalk for no reason.
Zimmerman left his safe truck to chase a young Black teen walking and talking to his girlfriend—that’s pursuit and in fact the Sanford PD recommended manslaughter charges based on Zimmerman’s bizarre and threatening behavior leading up to the physical altercation. You believe Rittenhouse can use force to prevent an assrape but for some reason you don’t think young Black teens can use force to prevent an assrape…how convenient.
He did NOT chase Martin. He snooped at most, as part of the neighborhood watch. Martin escalated it to the point of trying to murder Zimmerman.
Rittenhouse didn't use force to prevent assrape; you just pulled that out of your ass, along with the rest of your fake facts and illogic. All Rittenhouse knew was that someone who had earlier screamed death threats right in his face was now chasing him and reaching for his gun. There is zero similarity.
Apparently you believe young Black males should submit to being assraped?? Trayvon didn’t use deadly force like Rittenhouse…but apparently you believe young white males can use deadly force for self defense but young Black males can’t use their fists to prevent an assrape…are you white?
Sarcasmic's fantasies are dark and racist. Stupid sock name too.
Long after Tulpa bragged about hijacking names using spaces, you still think I'm the sock runner? Considering all the other stupid shit you believe I shouldn't be surprised.
Most times I read you, you sound like a personally butthurt, passive-aggressive teen. Though I think what you are isn't so unique that that the Cremmington dipshit couldn't just be a "parallel carbon copy" straight out of the crypto-progressive whinery.
I didn't know assrape was an issue in either case. But for the record libertarians generally oppose assrape in all circumstances.
I'd like to come over and repeatedly bash your head against the sidewalk while you reassure me I'm not using deadly force. Interested?
Actually, it could be argued that Rittenhouse did use force to prevent assrape. He killed a convicted sex offender who was recently released from prison, having being sent to prison for sexually abusing 5 pre-teen boys. So Rittenhouse likely did prevent assrape, as we all know that pedophiles are so easy to rehabilitate.
Good points.
...some even become POTUS!
FJB
Rittenhouse was running for his life. Martin circled around and pounced on Zimmerman. Just as he told his girlfriend he was about to do. As he was going show that cracker a thing or two. If Martin kept heading home that night, nothing would've acured. If all those REAL criminals left Rittenhouse alone... None of that ordeal would've happened. PERIOD!!
The Phucko Knows
Zimmerman instigated an altercation with a young Black male
nope; he never confronted Martin, who initiated the actual confrontation himself by ambushing him...unlike the McMichaels, who did in fact instigate the confrontation...
"Trayvon was not allowed to defend himself like Rittenhouse."
Zimmerman physically assaulted him...when?
Yes, I know you're a rather lame troll, but I am deciding to play with you for now.
theyd better be right. These three were just an inbred redneck Lynch mob.
And I can talk about rednecks. Im one...
when hillbillies go borg.
Didn't follow this, since (unlike the Rittenhouse case), the media and the prosecutor weren't caught in blatant lies, but from what I've seen it looks like justice was served here also.
The prosecution was caught on blatant lies. During the close they told the juror to rule on preponderance of the evidence instead of beyond reasonable doubt. There is a case for appeal. And they might get it.
They pursued and approached Arbery, and did so while armed. That ended like you might expect it to, with someone getting shot.
If you want to make the argument that it's okay for neighbors to kill suspected burglars, go for it. I'm not going to immediately dismiss it.
But that's the argument you'll have to make. Guns aren't for show. You don't use them to scare someone, you use them to shoot things.
So the only legitimate argument for not guilty I can see is saying it's okay to shoot a fleeing suspected burglar. I'll listen to arguments for that position.
But it's not self defense when you try to apprehend someone at gun point and he tries to run away.
You want to apprehend a suspected burglar?
Ok, leave the gun at home. Or in the car. Or with someone whose #1 priority is maintaining a healthy distance from the suspect/target.
The question is whether you have the right to kill someone you suspect of a crime if you can't otherwise apprehend them.
this is as bad as multiple cops killing some one by shooting them. All them, 3, 4 , 5 of them are too incompetent to handle one man?
They should be fired.
Like the Deputies in N ID a few years back who murdered a woman having a psychotic episode. Just shot her dead instead of a blanket party.
A pregnant woman holding a fucking knife, while the deputies were behind cars. This didn't go over well locally.
I remember that.
Damn strait. Glad someone remembered. All it takes is someone behind...or two with a sheet.
That and they wanted the judge to clarify the meaning of the statute, which he then told the jury to decide on after originally indicating he would give guidance on it a different way. The combination of both these things makes for a good probability of remand for retrial. Which they will probably lose. Although... can you plea bargain after remand for retrial?
Oh snap, here come the mostly peaceful protests in the outer ring suburbs......
It's gettin' real in the Whole Foods parkin' lot....
The crime is IN Whole Foods, not outside.
Thieves. " Whole Paycheck"
FJB
Yay price controls!
naw"?, just collusion to fix prices.
I tried to buy in quantity from a large grocery. They refused.
Fact..they paid 1/5 th for a box if cereal....sold to a local food pantry manager friend...
"But really, this trial was the trial for those conversations to take place. Arbery was black, and McMichael's claim that he acted in self-defense when he chased Arbery through a neighborhood and gunned him down appeared much less plausible than in Rittenhouse's case. That Travis McMichael was motivated by racial animus came from McMichael himself: Bryan told investigators that, after shooting Arbery, Travis McMichael called him a "fucking nigger" as he lay dying."
"Conversations" around this case aren't happening because almost no one agrees with the defendants. Contrary to progressive fever dreams (thanks Ken), there isn't a racist around every corner, or behind every Trump vote. There is no "pro killing black people" side of the argument, so there is no conversation to be had.
We had a long discussion on this in May 2020 at a gun blog I frequent. I went back and reread the archives.
Commenters included lawyers, active police, retired police, and oridinary gun owners like.
Every angle of citizen's arrest, attempting to detain a suspected criminal, self defense, was examined. The lawyers cited case law.
Consensus was the McMichaels and even Bryan were in the wrong.
The original prosecutor's conduct on this case has been rightly called into question. Part of the problem may have been that Ahmaud Arbery was black. But a bigger problem may have been the relationship of the prosecutor and one of defendants. It seems to me that we need to have a check for this problem. Prosecutors must recuse themselves if they know a party in cases like this.
I also suggest it is time for legislatures to look at laws on citizen's arrests. We really cannot allow this type of confrontation and no one should end up dead in a citizen's arrest.
An amazingly vapid take. Stick to outrage. Inflammatory detracts from the stupid.
Ethical prosecutors will recuse themselves to avoid the mere appearance of impropriety.
Because of the Arbery killing, Georgia sharply curtailed citizen's arrest earlier this year. But the Arbery trial jury were briefed under the old citizen's arrest law, to avoid "ex post facto" issues.
(2) Georgia aside, citizen's arrest has some applications widely considered reasonable, eg a shopkeeper detaining a shoplifter and searching his bag for the store merchandise hidden there.
Good, but could someone inform me how you can be convicted of multiple counts of murdering one person?
if youre that stupid or lazy no point in trying to splain it.
So you cam kill someone 4 times? I live in the real world not CA where you can only die once.
Dude was possessed.
Three doppelgangers.
My only advice at this point is have your lawyer write out your statement for the sentencing and rehearse it and see if you can get parole in 20 years instead of 30.
[The Rittenhouse] proceedings were highly politicized along partisan lines,
The difference in treatment is that in this case Arbery is just a guy.
By contrast the media accepted Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz as protesters (although they were really rioters) which made them allies. Rittenhouse's alleged offense was thus taken personally by the left which largely explains why they created so much misinformation trying to ensure their team was perceived as the victim.
The difference is pretty revealing.
^^^^^^^^^ that
Trial by Media. Kangaroo Statist media
Interesting point, especially given the pretty flagrant racism that's actually a factor here...
Politik uber allus.
Encourage anyone who didn't pay attention to this trial to read at least these 2 links by Branca regarding the trial.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/arbery-case-state-closing-rebuttal-presents-as-frantic-pleading-desperate/
https://legalinsurrection.com/2021/11/arbery-case-trial-judge-walmsley-drops-the-ball-on-ambiguous-citizens-arrest-law/
The case is not as clear cut as is offered here.
Again. I dont agree woth what these people did. But I also do not agree with the prosecution violating the rights of the defense nor ambiguous laws being left to the jury. The 3 men were wrong to try the citizens arrest. And the self defense claim rested solely on that claim. Shots were fired only after the victim grabbed for the gun, same as Rittenhouse.
I am less in agreement as self defense due to these 3 initiating the conflict. But apparently the civil war era citizens arrest claims made this a questionable decision.
Shots were fired only after the victim grabbed for the gun, same as Rittenhouse.
If some rando on the street accosts me with a gun at close range and I feel like I don't have any other option, I'd be likely to try to grab the gun as well.
I think torturing a self-defense case out of this is a stretch.
Thats not how self defense works. If you pull a gun on an attacker and they reach for your gun then what?
In this case the claim came down to if the attempted citizen arrest was valid or not. The entire decision rests on it.
Then don't use the second event, your victim reaching for your gun, as an excuse for the first event, you pointing your gun.
So I haven't followed this case that closely, was Arbery an 'attacker'?
If you approach a criminal assaulting someone and you have a gun at your hip, and they reach for your gun, based on your assertion here thenperson would be guilty of murder for pulling his gun and firing. This is the Rittenhouse situation.
If the law is bad fine, but finding someone guilty due to a bad law is worse.
I encourage you to read the links.
If you approach a criminal assaulting someone...
...then you're in a situation that's not like either the Rittenhouse case or the Arbery case.
If you approach a criminal assaulting someone and you have a gun at your hip, and they reach for your gun,
Did you mean to assert Arbery assaulted McMichael before the gun was drawn?
Not the same as the Rittenhouse situation.
Not at all.
If that same rando was standing stationary, would you run toward him so you could grab the gun? Would you run 100 feet up behind a truck with armed men when you could easily turn or even just run past and turn toward the rando with the shotgun? I think the jury was desperate to get done and go home for Thanksgiving. There is no way they could decide beyond a reasonable doubt the number of charges against 3 different men in 11 hours unless they came in already convinced they were all guilty.
This verdict will be thrown out on appeal and the next trial may convict them of something but it won't be like this trial. One thing people seemed to be hung up on is the race of Arbery and the 3 men. No one is brave enough to admit if it had been a white guy they would have done the same and if that white man had attacked Travis there would have been no trial.
If you initiate the confrontation by running a guy down and pointing a gun at him, self-defense is one thing that absolutely cannot be claimed.
That's the difference between this gun grab versus Rittenhouse. Self defense was unsuccessful for this unarmed jogger.
A legally unjustified attempt at a citizen arrest that goes wrong is quite different from a premeditated murder. And filming such an arrest is not murder at all.
This should have been manslaughter for the shooter, and something lesser for the other participants. Elevating this to murder for all three was a political decision.
Definitely arguable. I am not in the legal field so the degree of nuance here was a matter for the courts.
But they were guilty of killing him, however you say it.
A legally unjustified attempt at a citizen arrest that goes wrong is quite different from a premeditated murder.
premeditation is not required in Georgia law for a murder charge, of which there are only two, malice and felony, conviction of either carries a minimum life sentence...
While I do think they are guilty of felony murder and aggravated assault charges I will say the malice charge was bullshit. Seriously bullshit. You had the prosecutor literally arguing that because he pulled the trigger quickly AFTER Arbery grabbed the gun that he shot him with malice. If somebody grabs my gun while its pointed at them because for some reason I've got it pointed at them, I am not gonna give them time to reposition it so if the trigger gets pulled it might hit me or someone else, I'm pulling the trigger immediately. If I don't then there is a good chance of injury to myself or others in the area not involved in the conflict.
Self defense is Branca's turf so I'll be interested in reading the links. I didn't follow the trial but my impression is the jury got it right. Could be wrong about that.
The jury got it right that they were guilty of something. Murder concoctions for all three seems excessive.
And libertarians usually speak out against "felony murder" convictions. Go read past articles on Reason.
Noy-Boy-Toy probably wants to say that "Qualified Immunity" should apply to hickabilly racists when conducting a "citizens arrest" (especially of dark-skinned inferior ones, brazenly jogging among their Superiors), but Noy-Boy-Toy just can NOT bring itself to say quite that much, in plain words!
TDS-addled spastic asshole gets flagged.
No, SQRLSY One, I think that people should receive the punishment that the law prescribes.
You, of course, prefer that an all-powerful fascist state lock people away based on race, class, and public sentiment. That’s because you, SQRLSY, are a racist and a fascist.
ARBERY FREQUENTLY USED “JOGGING” AS A COVER TO FACILITATE/EXCUSE THEFT ACTIVITIES
On August 21, 2018 Arbery was observed, and body camera recorded, in a neighbor’s backyard looking into her car windows. When police approached Arbery afterwards to give him a trespass warning he falsely claimed that he had simply been “running in the street.” He then became aggressive and confrontational with the officers, threatening that he would “whip the officer’s ass” if they didn’t leave him alone. He was not arrested.
On October 23, 2018 Arbery was confronted trespassing inside a mobile home by local Deputies. Arbery fled when approached by police. When later caught, he falsely claimed that he “was just out running.”
In 2019 and 2020 Arbery was repeatedly seen attempting to enter neighboring homes through their windows. Whenever confronted in the act, Arbery would “take off running.”
Also in 2019 and 2020, local convenience store owners began to refer to Arbery as “the jogger” for his repeated conduct of running up in front of convenience stores, going through stretching motions, and then entering the convenience store to seize items and then running quickly back out to flee with the stolen merchandise.
Abrey was an avid jogger. When committing crimes at least.
No they are all three murderers, they all chased him hoping to kill or severely injure him. I hope you’re not disappointed that lynchings are no longer ok in Georgia?
We know you are
It’s obviously you who calls for lynchings and mob rule. And no doubt, a century ago, you would have been part of the angry mobs.
Hey your good. Ok, concentrate...what am I thinking........Wow you are good that is exactly what I was thinking..........you are a moron.
Like I said I haven't followed the case. Having done some reading l agree they were overcharged and this was clearly, in part at least, a political prosecution. On the other hand prosecutors always overcharge. And juries usually over convict. And I actually don't read Reason much anymore beyond the headlines and the comments.
Shots were fired only after the victim grabbed for the gun, same as Rittenhouse.
Nope. Rittenhouse had already demonstrated a willingness to retreat in each instance. McMichaels never retreated.
Duty to retreat? In Georgia?
Aubrey was retreating. They hit him with a truck, and then blocked him with another one when he kept retreating.
His murderers were pursuing, and when he couldn't run any more and was forced to fight, they killed him.
Only difference between his case and Kyle is Kyle had a gun and he didn't. So he lost the fight. And his life.
Yes, but none should have been retreating in the above case. Anyway, the way I see it, Arbery made a wrong choice (in fact many wrong choices) that day. I don't know why he was visiting the construction site, a property of someone else. I don't know why he was running on that road. And I don't know why he thought it was a good idea try and wrestle with gunman. Chances are, he would still be alive had he given himself up (if it was a citizen's arrest, but even if it was not). This is the worst outcome: he's dead and because of dead everyone goes to prison (even the cameraman).
If three guys in pickup trucks--at least one armed with a shotgun--were chasing me, I would probably not assume that surrendering would end well for me.
Strange reasoning, especially knowing that shooting someone after that someone surrenders would be a clear-cut case, even more so than the above. I would say running away, running the other way, finding cover, and yes, even surrendering are all safer bets than wrestling with a shotgun. That is, if your goal is to not die from an accidental/intentional discharge from a dangerous weapon. This is the worst outcome, since he is dead, and the three other men goes to prison. Alternatively, he could have survived the encounter in which case the men would not spend their entire lives in prison.
Do you think if someone is intent on shooting you surrendering will encourage them to shoot? If their intent was to shoot him, they could have accomplished that anytime he was in range. I actually find it commendable when neighbors step up and attempt to protect their neighborhood from crime. There is a simple truth, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
It will never be known why Abrey was going to that particular house or why when trying to flee from the men in trucks he chooses to stay on the streets instead of going where the trucks could not go. There are more woods then homes in Satilla Shores and he could have easily gone through the trees and woods and walked out of the neighborhood.
" Chances are, he would still be alive had he given himself up (if it was a citizen's arrest, but even if it was not)."
This doesn't make any sense. Testimony during the trial indicates one of the McMichaels yelled "I'm going to blow your fucking head off" at Arbery. When someone who has a gun on them states that, you have to take them at their word.
It's also bizarre that you think " Arbery made a wrong choice" while you don't mention if you think the McMichaels and Bryan made any wrong choices.
All of them made bad choices that day, clearly. I wasn't aware of the whole testimony and I admit that the 'gonna blow of your head' sentence does sound bad (if it was indeed uttered). Then again, I still don't see any reason behind trying to wrestle out a shotgun from a man, especially seeing that another armed man was watching.
You didn't finish what was actually said. He yelled "if you don't stop, I will blow your head off" which doesn't help your narrative. It may just be me but if I thought someone had me in their sights and yelled stop, I would consider they had not shot yet but if I didn't stop, they may. I also would not have tried to avoid the trucks by running down the street and instead simply walked into the numerous woods in Satilla Shores and walked away and out of the neighborhood.
There is little doubt this verdict will be overturned on appeal because of the missteps by the prosecution and a good chance they will be tried separately. The jury may have been influenced with getting out of there for Thanksgiving to decide a case as complicated and with as many charges against 3 different defendants in 11 hours.
Again. I dont agree woth what these people did. But I also do not agree with the prosecution violating the rights of the defense nor ambiguous laws being left to the jury.
What ambiguous laws? The statute permitting private citizens to make arrests clearly did not apply in this case, making the three defendants criminal aggressors.
The 3 men were wrong to try the citizens arrest.
They weren't just wrong, they were violating the law...and Mr. Arbery's rights...by committing an assault and and false imprisonment.
And the self defense claim rested solely on that claim. Shots were fired only after the victim grabbed for the gun, same as Rittenhouse.
The fact that Arbery was grabbing for the shotgun held by one of his assailants does not even remotely make the scenario the "same as Rittenhouse". In the former, the one grabbing for the weapon was being assaulted. In the latter, it was the holder of the weapon who was being assaulted. That is a HUGE difference.
You're normally pretty level-headed in your commentary, and I usually agree with you. But you're way off here.
JesseBahnFuher "normally pretty level-headed"?
BA-HAH-HA-HA-BAH-HA-HA-HEE-HA!!!!! JesseBahnFuher never met an authoritarian or hateful action or policy that it did NOT like!
I wonder if the MSNBC and CNN pseudo-journalists who racialized the Rittenhouse case and who are convinced the US legal system is "systemically racist" will be eating crow for Thanksgiving instead of Turkey? Will Al Sharpton, Cori Brooks, Ayanna Pressley, BLM thugs and the rest of the race hustling community walk back their false statements about Rittenhouse? And in the light of the tragedy in Waukesha, where a black racist murdered 6 people, will the liberal media finally stop accusing every white person not aligned with its delusions of "white supremacy"?
No, no, no, no, no, and no.
I think that covers it.
the Lame Stream Media sure will have a lack of black commentators on it....
Except Lester
A Token
Damn White Arrogant Racist NorEasterners in the Mainsleaze Media.
No Colored folk wanted at ABCCBSNBCPMSLSD
No, they're going to come up with an alternate reality, a fantasy, which they will then talk about and tell their viewers to feel angry about.
They've already started, btw.
Didn't follow. Seemed pretty clear cut case of wrongful confrontation leading to needless death.
Good riddance.
theyre in for a bad time in Da House.
Bet...one dead the first month
Sorry, but What the HELL COULD HE HAVE STOLEN????
He was jogging with almost nothing for clothing!
Not a Hoodie and Backpack.
Dirty Harry movies are on. Coincidence?
Yeah I saw the video of him wandering around a house under construction. Might be technically trespassing but I've actually done that myself. Really not much to steal unless you want to carry a 2x4 home on your shoulder. Maybe he did other shit too but he was on foot and empty handed. Defense always seemed sketchy to me.
I’ve looked through homes under construction when I’ve been house hunting. Unless I’m missing something pretty big, these guys went way too far.
...scary to look at them and see the Garbage building materials...
"engineered trusses" with a foot and a half run out over 25.
Glue, wood scraps and sawdust.
OT: https://www.kob.com/albuquerque-news/estancia-requires-armed-meetings-in-response-to-new-roundhouse-rules/6311651/
Shockingly, the ACLU is suing, and blaming the city for "hurting itself" with the costs of defending against the lawsuit. They're not even pretending to not gaslight and victim blame anymore.
"You shouldn't have worn that short skirt. You *made* me rape you."
Last line, I saw that play out in college Psych class.
EVERY STUDENT except me blamed the woman for being attacked and killed, even the females. The Prof went O-F-F on them in class.
.There are some SERIOUSLY defective people out there. And these Retards could be called for Jury Duty!
If you ever get called for jury duty,
you will see worse.
was....fortunately in a higher educated area.
" Peers...." is the key word
After 3.5 decades of local, national and international news consumption, I have found that a disturbingly large number of categorized people, however precious their souls, can be considered thus treated as though disposable, even to an otherwise democratic nation. When they take note of this, tragically, they’re vulnerable to begin subconsciously perceiving themselves as beings without value.
While the inhuman(e) devaluation of such people is basically based on their race, it still reminds me of an external devaluation, albeit a subconscious one, of the daily civilian lives lost in protractedly devastating war zones and heavily armed sieges. They can eventually receive meagre column inches on the back page in the First World’s daily news.
The ACLU defending the civil rights of the...ACLU?
Don’t miss a beat on trying to tear down one of the few organizations still fighting for liberty in the USA. Man Trumpinistas never fail to miss the forest for the trees.
What organization you referring to? Institute for Justice is the first one that comes to my mind.
In the links about two weeks ago it was asked, "Why is the ACLU transforming itself into a generic progressive advocacy group that cheers for all left-wing causes, regardless of whether they align with the stated mission?"
For some evidence of this, here's some ACLU-related headlines from the Reason archives over the past three months:
The ACLU Thinks Kyle Rittenhouse's Civil Liberties Got Too Much Protection
ACLU Thinks the Second Amendment Is a Threat to the First Amendment
ACLU Endorses Vaccine Mandates Without Religious Exemptions
ACLU Apologizes for Bowdlerizing Ruth Bader Ginsburg Quote
It’s difficult to trust the opinions of the author when he chooses to blur the facts to make the crime seem more clear cut. “[A] struggle ensued, with Travis firing his shotgun at Arbery at close range” does not convey reality, as anyone who saw the video knows. Arbery tried to take the shotgun from Travis and the gun went off as they struggled over it.
If you have confidence in the rightness of your opinion, you shouldn’t need to blur the details that conflict with that view of the facts.
In the end the author did fine and he was correct about justice being served. Just because you’re white and in the south you can’t freely run down and shoot your fellow Americans whatever their color. If you don’t want to go to prison for life stop being a fucking homicidal racist. It’s not cool any more, not even in the Deep South of Georgia. White supremicist cowards aren’t safe any longer and even almost all white juries won’t protect you.
There's that confession.
Excellent job ignoring his point.
Whining as an art form.
https://twitter.com/RichelleCarey/status/1463581028967141378?t=WjdVGpdTcEA80ygsdmKkNA&s=19
NEVER FORGET THE DA RECOMMENDED NO CHARGES AGAINST #AhmadArbery's KILLERS. AN ATTORNEY GAVE A TAPE TO LOCAL MEDIA. THAT'S HOW THE TRUTH CAME OUT.
AND THE KILLERS ACTUALLY THOUGHT THE TAPE WOULD SHOW THEY WERE INNOCENT. THE AUDACITY...THE WHITE MALE PRIVELEGE ????????????
"THE WHITE MALE PRIVILEGE" - really hard to make that argument when they were all found guilty. Just because one may believe they are deserving of some privilege does not actually show any privilege exists...
Reality is an enemy to be constantly attacked by the left
this.
and they'll go so far as to steal an election in broad daylight – or even stage a fake pandemic – to do it.
Nardz, don’t you know that white privilege will only end when the last white person is exterminated? Such is the BLM way.
Citation please!
TDS-addled spastic asshole gets flagged.
I have it muted. It posts nonsense. I can only hope that’s it’s owners finally see the wisdom of having it put down at the vet.
Beginning as a 10-year-old boy watching the original release of the 1977 TV miniseries 'Roots', I can recall how bewildered I'd get just by the concept of Black people being brutalized and told they were not welcome — while they, as a people, had been violently forced to the U.S. from their African home as slaves! And, as a people, there has been little or no reparations or real refuge for them here, since. In Toni Morrison’s novel Beloved, the narrator notes that, like the South, the Civil War era northern states also hated Black people but happened to hate slavery more.
You know Roots was fiction right?
I recently read an interesting article on modern sub sahara slavery (1300 to 1800s) and didn't realize modern slavery begun by the waring kings of west Africa for the importation of horses from the Arabs for their various wars between each other. Once their gold and silver mines played out they had nothing to trade and started to sell their captives for horses...this would destroy the 1619 narrative and indicate modern slavery started much earlier with the Portuguese taking advantage of the preexisting system.
Prog beliefs are always based on fiction. Facts never support their insanity.
"Fhupid Fhitheads"
Bender, Futurama
Fortunately they were that dumb..
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZvT2r828QY
The key takeaway for me is that in both cases - this and the Rittenhouse case - the justice system WORKED. Both of these cases arrived at the proper and just decision.
in both cases - this and the Rittenhouse case - the justice system WORKED
Despite the best efforts of some corrupt prosecutors.
"Oh my god she is being raped on the train in Philly"
Anonymous passenger, "No help here... and risk life in prison"
...which is why its called "Filthadelphia"
I understand the self-defense claim in law was ambiguous, but what about the actual facts of the case? Nobody disputed that Arbery wrestled for the shotgun before he was killed.
I'm fine with saying that you need more than intuition and experience to detain someone like Arbery, especially since the defendants aren't paragons of equality, but how do you reconcile the fight itself? Were they supposed to say "he's fighting back and trying to take my gun and while I have no intention of killing him, I cannot say the same for him" and just leave a life or death matter up to chance? Are we really going to punish people to the fullest extent of the law for putting themselves in stupid situations?
I feel the relation between this case and Rittenhouse is the conditioning of self defense. The prosecutors tried to argue Rittenhouse should have let his gun be taken and whatever happens, happens. Is the price of protecting your life a life sentence? Is that really fair? The Leftoids actually have a bit of a point here about double standards. Rittenhouse is somewhat likeable, the McMichaels are racists shitlords.
The law has to be followed as written, but I think self defense should be more clearly enumerated with fewer pre-conditions attached to it. Once a situation deteriorates, I don't think that your choices should be between death and a life sentence.
Also, I realize this same logic would apply in the opposite direction. Would we be trying Arbery for murder if he successfully took the shotgun and killed the McMichaels? I think that would be pretty screwed up, but that's my point. These life or death situations are devoid of facts and evidence. At some point fight or flight takes over, you pray to God that you get lucky, and then get blindsided by the law after the fact.
If this case is an argument against vigilantism, then I caution those who want to remove QI entirely from police and "legitimate" state actors. If we can't do anything at all because a jury might not like us, then the state should have nearly absolute immunity. After all, it's wrong for you to take action and the responsibility of the state, so why wouldn't they be allowed? They know best and you're just a serf.
Also, I realize this same logic would apply in the opposite direction. Would we be trying Arbery for murder if he successfully took the shotgun and killed the McMichaels?
Why would you "realize" something that is complete and utter nonsense? Why would anyone be trying Arbery for successfully defending himself against three assailants?
If this case is an argument against vigilantism
From what bodily orifice are you pulling this nonsense? This case was an argument against murder, aggravated assault and false imprisonment...you know...the crimes for which the defendants were charged and convicted.
It isn't nonsense at all. If you're going to charge people to determine if their citizen's arrest gone wrong was valid, then by necessity, you would also have to charge someone who kills three people who attempted to perform a citizen's arrest on you.
Unless you're suggesting that we treat people differently in the criminal justice system based on the level of racial outrage we can create, in which case you have made a very good point, although I doubt you intended to.
The vigilantism was the attempt to perform a citizen's arrest. That's what this case was actually about; three people tried to detain someone for what they suspected were crimes. The actual charges stem from that event.
“The vigilantism was the attempt to perform a citizen’s arrest… three people tried to detain someone for what they suspected were crimes.” No. You have totally missed this case. What you described is what the defendants claimed. But defendants can claim anything they want, whether or not it has any basis in reality. That’s irrelevant if the facts are determined to be otherwise. And in this case the jury determined otherwise. If someone walks up to you and out of-the-blue shoots you in the head, then claims that it was to prevent you from detonating the nuclear weapon he saw in your wallet, is the case about whether one is allowed to prevent a nuclear disaster?
That's a ridiculous hypothetical and irrelevant to this case. Arbery was "jogging" in hiking boots, miles away from his home, and repeatedly trespassing. Completely reasonable that they suspected he was up to no good.
Juries can think whatever they want, but they don't determine what actually happened. Facts and truth are not the same thing. Truths are what people colloquially refer to as facts. Truths are correct statements about reality. Facts are merely publicly recognized statements that attempt to assign truth status to said statements. Facts are not necessarily true as many of the facts we believe today turn out to be untrue upon later investigation, scientific discovery, etc. Some facts are not disproven until thousands of years later, which is a large part of why cynical people care so little for the truth. History is written by the victors, at least for the period of time where who is writing the history matters.
The problem is the citizens arrest looks bogus both legally and logically. If he had been actively raping or assaulting someone both the arrest and the self defense would be valid. But he was trespassing. In an unoccupied building. On foot and empty handed.
That's the debate that has to take place and ultimately didn't. There was strong evidence that showed he had a predisposition to theft with his priors, but the judge did not permit the defense to use this as evidence because he felt it would bias the jury to believe Arbery was a risk if he had been left alone.
Unfortunately, omitting evidence because you think the jury is bigoted will not serve this judge well, especially since probable cause was so important to the citizen's arrest law. If you believe certain predictors make someone suspicious and then omit evidence that proves their validity as predictors, it becomes almost impossible to argue they had any legitimate reason to suspect Arbery. Problem is that will never pass the smell test.
I haven't met anyone who really thinks he was just jogging. The common response is "they should have called the police," hence my musings above about why scapegoating the responsibility of use of force solely to the police doesn't really absolve us of the underlying moral issues that life and death scenarios create.
In this specific case though, the elder McMichaels, who recruited the others in the pursuit, stated to police that he had no idea if Arbery had committed a crime that day. His confession that he did not have probable cause to believe Arbery was fleeing a felony was testified to by police. That means the justification for citizens arrest did not meet the criteria and self defense cannot be claimed.
They tried to stop Arbery and he refused. The only right they had at that point was to fuck off, not to chase him down and confront him with a shotgun.
Should the recruits get the same sentence as the guy that instigated the pursuit if they were not aware of the lack of probably cause? Now that is something you can have a debate about.
BTW, they cover this stuff in gun safety courses. Ignorance of the law is not a a defense, especially for someone like McMichaels with a background in law enforcement.
Why did Arbery have to be shot? Couldn't these three grown men physically restrain one guy?
What do you think someone intends to do with a gun after wrestling it away from you?
Why not ask this same question of Huber, Rosenbaum and Grosskreutz?
Nobody disputed that Arbery wrestled for the shotgun before he was killed.
Nobody is disputing it because it doesn't alter the critical facts of the case, nor make the attempt at arrest justified. He was being unjustly accosted by three hostile men, one armed with a firearm. Was he supposed to just submit and hope they weren't trying to turn him into the next James Byrd?
Except it's the most critical aspect of all. After Arbery went for the gun, what were they supposed to do? Let him take it?
Your hypothetical is the exact point I raised which has apparently gone well over your head. What is ANYONE supposed to do in a life or death situation? The McMichaels didn't know, Arbery didn't know, you CANNOT know. That's why the circumstances are so tragic. They're being penalized for a choice that, if you were there, you would have made more often than not. You might not want to admit it because you think you're better than the McMichaels, but we're all animals. Don't let your human intelligence deceive you.
This is the same fight or flight response we hear from cops who shoot suspects.
Your lack of critical thinking is disappointing. NPC tier analysis that cannot even ask questions beyond whether or not a consensus was reached by a jury.
Seems to me that Arbery was acting in self-defense when he reached for the shotgun.
"Seems to me that Arbery was acting in self-defense when he reached for the shotgun."
Agree. Georgia is a stand your ground state, so it could be arguing that's what Arbery was doing.
"Seems to me that Arbery was acting in self-defense when he reached for the shotgun."
Agree. Georgia is a stand your ground state, so it could be argued that's what Arbery was doing.
We're torturing self defense to the point of no return, which is what I'm trying to critique here.
Why are we pretending that there's a more or less right answer to this situation? Once he was stopped with guns aimed at him, that's when this became a life or death scenario. Nobody in that scenario can possibly know what the other intended to do. It's completely reasonable for Arbery to think the McMichaels would kill him and it's equally reasonable for the McMichaels to think Arbery would kill them if he got the gun.
The whole situation was tragic, stupid and avoidable, but that's what I want people to think about a bit more. If you really think that the McMichaels deserve to be punished, then how do you reconcile that with our current laws? You're allowed to detain people suspected of crimes. Are we really going to put people in legal peril with such arbitrary standards? The arguments for convicting the McMichaels have effectively destroyed all citizen's arrest laws because nobody is going to be stupid enough to get involved with a suspected perp because the risk is too great.
Meanwhile, we're starting to see the bystander effect. Is nobody concerned about this? Libertarians constantly worry about the chilling effect of political persecution after lawful usage of a firearm, but crickets here. Think about the law a bit less and think about the reality of the situation a bit more. People are filming rapes and racially motivated assaults in public instead of stopping them.
We're torturing self defense to the point of no return
Not really. If McMichaels does not get out of the truck with the shotgun, the whole situation ends differently. He introduced a deadly weapon into a situation that did not warrant it. He is responsible for the ultimate outcome.
The lesson is this: if you try to illegally arrest someone and they die, regardless of the circumstances you will be held responsible. I can't see how that is a problem from a libertarian perspective. If you don't illegally arrest people your freedom cannot be put in jeopardy.
" They're being penalized for a choice that, if you were there, you would have made more often than not. "
I would not have chosen to pull a loaded gun on a person who was solely guilty of trespassing. That's the choice these morons are being penalized for.
So you support removing all rights and privileges for individuals to protect themselves because only the State should be permitted to use force.
There's a difference between making the wrong judgment and being unlucky. We wouldn't even be talking about this if Arbery didn't go for the gun.
They pursued Arbery and brought the gun to bear. They were never in danger from Arbery until they tried to prevent his flight. That's not self defense.
it.was a lynching.
It wasn't a lynching unless your perspective is so skewed by your own race essentialism that you see nothing else.
It was 3 neighborhood watch types who were overzealous and reckless in trying to catch someone they were convinced was a burglar who'd repeatedly robbed their neighborhood, and it turned into murder because they're dumbasses who violated one of the central tenets of responsible gun ownership.
Unjust killing, just verdict.
they're dumbasses who violated one of the central tenets of responsible gun ownership.
^this! Don't attempt to arrest someone unless you have proof of a crime and don't pull a gun unless you intend to use it. I have no problem with the murder charge.
Unless you want to bar everyone from doing anything except calling the police, don't you think it's a bit unusual that you're allowed to stop someone but get punished if the person you stop resists?
"don't you think it's a bit unusual that you're allowed to stop someone but get punished if the person you stop resists?"
You AREN'T allowed to stop someone, though. If you come up to me on the street and say, "Stop right there," I am fully within my rights to walk on by you. If you try to prevent me moving on, or in the case of these three idiots, you chase me after I move on, corner me to where I can no longer get away from you- if you do these things, you are committing aggression. It is called kidnap. And now that puts the burden on YOU to back off, and *I* am within my rights to do anything necessary to protect myself from you kidnapping me- including grabbing a gun off of you.
The only modification to this is GA Law giving you the power to detain me if you have reason to suspect I am in the process of committing a crime. But the defendants confessed that they had no knowledge of a specific crime. They knew "there had been burglaries in the neighborhood recently", but that is not immediate knowledge of a crime, and so they are not justified to stop the victim.
And by the way, while police have some more leeway (they are allowed to stop you and ask for identification), they are also in a similar position. If an officer does not have any probable cause to believe you are involved in a crime, they cannot compel you to stay and answer their questions. (Your rights to forcibly avoid wrongful detention from a cop are limited though. Really your recourse will be in a later civil complaint.) Every citizen should know the magic words, "Are you detaining me, Officer, or am I free to go?"
I don't think that your choices should be between death and a life sentence.
then explain why Travis felt it necessary to grab his firearm to 'talk' with Arbery...? when he knew his father was armed in the bed of the truck...? take the shotgun out of the equation, and Travis&Co. don't go to jail for at least 30 years...and if you don't like the life sentence, take it up with the Georgia lawmakers...
They thought having and showing their guns would be enough to get him to surrender w/o resistance.
I highly doubt they went out intending to shoot him. Otherwise why would they let it get to the point Arbery got his hands on one of their guns.
It was wrong for them to put him, and unbelievably stupid themselves, in that position, and their poor choice led to murder.
Oh so now you have to put yourself in peril going in unarmed and hope your dad can shoot him if he tries to grab you or something.
You do realize this sounds just like the Rittenhouse prosecutor telling Kyle he should have let them take his gun and beat him up, right?
"The Leftoids actually have a bit of a point here about double standards. Rittenhouse is somewhat likeable, the McMichaels are racists shitlords."
They don't have a point at all.
The text messages retrieved from the phones of Travis McMichael and Roddie Bryan contain numerous usages of the N word. These were disallowed in court by the judge, but the media was able to report on them. The closest thing anyone could say about RIttenhouse being racist is that he was at a bar with some Proud Boys. And even labeling someone racist because of that is a stretch.
Rittenhouse was chased by the people he ultimately shot, while McMichael and Co chased Arbery down.
The only similarities between Rittenhouse and the three defendants in this case is that they are caucasian.
There's more similarity than that, you just don't want to admit it because it causes problems.
Rittenhouse put himself in a dangerous situation by attending a riot. Even if his intent was to do good, he came there with a gun. Sure, he made a more visibly apparent effort not to shoot, but that's because he actually had more opportunities.
McMichaels didn't have to run Arbery down, but they did. There wasn't a chance to retreat once he grabbed the gun. It was either get him off or take the risk of him having the gun.
You're failing to see the forest because of the trees. The law has a major contradiction that it doesn't want to address. Both Rittenhouse and the McMichaels were allowed to enter a tense situation, but one was set free and the others jailed because Rittenhouse was believable and the McMichaels weren't.
You make some interesting points, but the key factor is that (as the jury has ruled) the McMichaels and Bryan had already committed felonies against Arbery in the events which preceded and directly led to the struggle for the shotgun.
Imagine that during the course of a liquor store robbery, a clerk grabs for the robber's gun. At that moment the robber may very well fear that the clerk will try to shoot him with his own gun, but if he kills the clerk he has no legal self-defense claim.
One cannot commit a crime, and then claim self-defense for shooting a victim who legitimately fights back.
The issue I take with this comparison is that robbery is very clearly a crime and citizen's arrest is not. The nature of the arrest was given to a jury for their consideration because of the outcome of the arrest and it just doesn't sit well with me that there are so many stipulations placed upon private citizens interfering in suspicious behavior.
I don't think I was very clear before but I don't like what the McMichaels did. I would have called the cops and I think they were total idiots and probably racists. My concerns are only about whether the punishment fits their stupidity and if the reasons used have negative repercussions for the rest of us. I'm worried that the ruling has a chilling effect on any private citizen involving themselves in any matter that could be delegated to police. All it takes is an activist prosecutor to get you charged and then the jury, which could be very anti-2A, could say you were in the wrong for pointing a gun at a trespasser. Didn't that just happen a few years ago in Missouri to that husband + wife duo? I can't remember their names.
I hope I'm just worrying unnecessarily like I usually do, but it feels like society is starting to say 2A only covers ownership and not usage.
I think the big difference is that they initiated the conflict with Arbery. In Kyle's case it was reversed.
Didn't follow this case very close though.
Between this and Rittenhouse I have had my faith restored a bit with the jury system, as flawed as it is.
Juries really do get it right most of the time, something that gets ignored for some reason. Of course they're not perfect, nobody and no system is or ever could be. But yes, these guys are lowlife murderers and the convictions were right and the punishment will be as well.
Rittenhouse's actual guilt or innocence notwithstanding, whenever I hear people express their relief upon learning that someone has been charged with a reviled crime — ‘Did they catch him? They did? Well, that’s a load off the mind!’ — I mentally hear the phrase, ‘We’ll give ’im a fair trial, then we’ll hang ’im.’ If I point out the person may be wrongly accused and is being railroaded, I could receive the erroneous refrain, ‘Well if he’s truly innocent, he has nothing to worry about.’ It’s why I strongly feel the news-media should refrain from publishing the identity of people charged with a crime — especially one of a repugnant nature, for which they are jailed pending trial (as is typically done) — until at least after they’ve been convicted. Considering the serious flaws, even corruption, in the law-enforcement and justice system — great injustices committed, both hidden and exposed — no one should have their name permanently tarnished and life potentially ruined because the news-media insists upon immediately running a breaking story. I find that it epitomizes an unjust presumption of guilt.
Right? What is this warm and fuzzy feeling? How do I get rid of it, I want to be cranky and cynical again.
just tune in cbs...thatll do it..
Had the victim been white it's unlikely anything else would have happened.
I disagree.
"Wheres your other hand?"
"Between two pillows."
"THOSE ARENT PILLOWS!"
Pete Ballgags favorite scene, Planes, Trains and Automobiles.
"He says were going the wrong way."
" Hes drunk."
"How would he know where were going!"
FJB
LGB
Biden will immediately be flying to Georgia to comfort the community.
Fuck Joe Biden.
Never-mind that he just instructed the IRS to go after them for MORE money to chase those imaginary green unicorns... He's not just criminal he's a gifted scam artist that'll rub that money right out of them with limited objection.
Where's Tony claiming all these Trump supporters are white supremacists and entirely racist....... Oh whoops; Since the claim is 100% a lie and entirely held to as such in this thread there is nothing to gain (i.e. be entitled from) here.
Maybe tomorrow Tony.... 🙂 No open cookie-jars in this thread.
If you're going to live near avid joggers like the Aubreys, you need to live in a gated neighborhood. The government can't/won't protect you, but they won't let you take matters in to your own hands when they fail.
As they've shown in Ferguson and Kenosha, they'll let the mob run wild -- even in the case of imaginary injustices against deadbeats like Michael Brown and Darrell Brooks.
I would also add that if you have such tiny genitals that a guy walking through a construction site bothers you, and you can't attack an unarmed person with your hands, you are probably better off in jail.
Travis McMichael was 35 and lived with Mommy and Daddy. Things have greatly worked in his favor. He was able to rid his neighborhood of a black guy, and he now will be treated as royalty by the Aryan Brotherhood and millions of other rightwingers for the rest of his days. As an added plus, he is free to pick as many fights as he wants in prison.
numbnuts, the racists are Democrats.
KKK started as a beneficial org till democrats git hold of it
You mean a guy who repeatedly prowls through neighborhood and construction site at night?
Your narrative sucks. Here's your gentle jogger.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChcvBmLCgGE
Your gentle jogger also don't steal no TV, because he has a receipt for it, other there somewhere....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAfA7OJIH0E
This is better than some of Billy's recent reporting. Just one question: why not hang the murderers?
The last execution by hanging took place in Augusta in 1931 for a murder committed in 1924. Georgia's General Assembly passed a law in 1924 that abolished hanging and introduced electrocution, to be carried out at the state penitentiary.
In 2000, lethal injection was signed into law as the new legal method of execution in Georgia. The first execution by lethal injection was carried out in 2001 and a total of 30 executions by that method have been carried out.
It is now regarded as uncivilized to make a public entertainment spectacle out of an execution. Hanging is closely associated with that ugly practice. Today we prefer cold scientific methods that aren't supposed to be fun for spectators nor make a "performer" out of the condemned.
While the Biden regime continues to destroy the lives of Americans and people struggling to make ends meet now are facing a dark winter of covid raging and being forced to choose between heating and eating due to inflation and rising energy cost the media distracts with two cases people normally would not have the consuming interest in if not for the propaganda and lies by the left. Meanwhile countries are locking down their borders in fear of infection of the new super variant Omicron with even the Biden regime announcing restrictions on travel with African nations although he is keeping the southern border open allowing free entry of hundreds of thousands from over 150 different countries and transporting them throughout the country to ensure even spread. Like sheep we must keep our eyes on the shiny thing the msm shakes in front of us and disregard that Americans are still abandoned in Afghanistan, the terrible cost of inflation and energy cost on lower and middle class incomes that is growing worse daily and the consequences we will face because of the open border.
Paranoid, dispirited, delusional right-wing clingers are among my favorite culture war casualties. Better Americans can't shove more progress down these whining bigots' throats fast enough.