Travis McMichael says in his murder trial that he felt threatened by Ahmaud Arbery

I think that creating the danger nullifies a self-defense claim, as opposed to provocation.

 

The law says provocation, but in McMichaels case they really did both, - they provoked and created the situation. If you stick a shotgun in someones face and he grabs it, then who is defending himself when the shot it fired? McMichael argument is that the gun owner is defending because the person grabbing the gun can take it away and use it against the gun owner.

 

Yeah there's several police body cam videos of this guy out there also. Acting belligerent in a park, being arrested at a Walmart for stealing a TV, etc.

There's no sense in reading 3 pages of responses since so far no one has posted the actual law that applied in this situation. The law permits a citizen's arrest. This thug went after the gun. No matter how you slice it, it becomes a potential kill or be killed at the point Aubry goes after the gun. If I'm on the jury, they walk. If thugs quit doing ignorant **** this wouldn't happen.

You an expert on East Texas? The judge interprets the law, not the jury. The jury determines the facts. Juries don't make legal decisions, just factual decisions.

 

If a cop points a gun at you, do you think they provoked the situation and you have a right to lunge at the cop and grab the gun? Then if the cop shoots you during the struggle, the cop commits murder?

This is how ****ing stupid all this is. If a citizen can arrest....and they could....case closed.

 

The judge killed the citizens arrest as null. One cannot try a citizens arrest days after an alleged occurrence. That was the defenses main defense.

 

Except the occurrence was just minutes before the attempted arrest/shooting. That's a point on appeal. They ought to just tell us how many blacks are on the jury and then we'll more than likely know the outcome....facts be damned. Seems as though these days people make their minds up before testimony starts.

 

His past infractions / crimes do not justify the killing.

No doubt you would vote "not guilty". Given the scenario I seriously doubt they will walk. Rittenhouse had a much better claim for self defense than these guys. The concept of citizens arrest in Georgia has been repealed, but was still effect when this happened, and his defense if trying to use it, but it will likely fail.

 

True.

Not relevant, since neither McMichael nor the other two idiots were aware of that. The prosecution should properly file a Motion in Limine to exclude those videos.

You're deceitfully ignoring the fact that they are not cops and they did not identify them as such.

No, it is not.

If two cherry-ass rednecks came to screeching halt in front me while I was jogging down the road and one of them stuck a shotgun in my face, I would attempt to disarm them.

There logic fails miserably, because it's basically:

1) There's been some break-ins in the past
2) A Black man is jogging down the road
3) All Blacks are criminals
4) Ergo, this Black man must have committed those crimes

That wouldn't even survive a grand jury.

 

In Texas, defending yourself from rogue police is perfectly fine. Even deadly force is allowed. There is no exemption for police in Texas. And, yes, the rogue policeman will be prosecuted and likely convicted for murder.

https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Rogue-cop-gets-20-years-in-killing-2064331.php
https://kingsvillelawyer.wordpress....ng-back-against-rogue-cops-is-legal-in-texas/

I'm unfamiliar with all of the particulars of Georgia Law, but I do know the Judge in the case ruled that in the Arbery case, a Citizens Arrest did not occur. And yes, that is effectively a directed verdict to the jury.

The case is over. As I said on another forum over a year ago, the lawyers for the defense were horrible at their job.

1. They released the video tape thinking that it would "cool things down".
2. They never sought plea deals.
3. They were illiterate and couldn't comprehend the law.
4. They stupidly asked that no more black pastors enter the gallery.
5. They never informed the defendants that they would be convicted at trial.
6. They had to admit in court that a robbery hadn't occurred that day and the defendants hadn't seen a crime that day. The defense attorneys should have known this was coming.

Only thing the defense can hope for is a rogue juror who will hang the jury and allow the defendants to plea out.

Just curious, do you think that Texas law allowing people to defend themselves from rogue police to be stupid?

 

Travis McMichael says in his murder trial that he felt threatened by Ahmaud Arbery

Imagine how Arbery felt.

 

That's not the way I see it. These guys rolled up on Arbery in pick up trucks, armed, and demanding that he stop. If I were in that situation, I would view those guys as the attackers, not the victims. In that case, I would view whatever means necessary, including jumping their guns, as a legitimate way to get out of that situation.

 

Does the law not distinguish between creating danger by firing a gun, and provocation? It seems that an active shooter who has killed people and is still on the run is doing a hell of alot more than merely provoking.

Is that what happened? The video doesn't show him sticking it in his face.

 

These guys appear to have provoked Arbery; therefore, it is totally different than the Rittenhouse case.

 

Arbery was acting in self defense. It's hard to come up with a better example of legitimate self defense.

 

Not that you are wrong, but do we know what the Defendant did that made Arbery fear for his life? I honestly don't know.

 

The defendants threatened to kill him if he didn't stop. He had no legal obligation to stop and had no reason to believe his life would be safe if he stopped. He had every right to keep running. They had no right to try to run him off the road. They had no right to threaten to kill him. They had no right to block his path with their truck. They had no right to come out, weapons drawn. He had every right to defend himself. If the violent criminal who had threatened him "feared for his life" when the guy did nothing but act in self defense, people are free to be dumb enough to buy his act. By the way, he hasn't be consistent about that testimony. The victim ran toward the guy and maybe grabbed the barrel of his gun. Which is totally called for given the circumstances. His only options at that point were to fight back the only way he could or to obey the people illegally threatening and detaining him.

 

If he really felt threatened by Arbery, he would have stayed in his vehicle. So, if you feel threatened by someone, obviously you run him down, block his escape (he was trying to excape) and jump out of your vehicle, with a gun, and point it at him, all the while verbally threatening him.
Sure sounds like he was feeling threatened! (heavy sarcasm)
Put him away for a long time! I'm sure he'll find some new friends in prison.

 

heh, I can think of one!

 

It is practically impossible to win with self defense strategy in this case.

 

Possibly, but not likely.

I agree that it would be practically impossible for the shooter to claim self defense. I'm saying the victim was acting in self defense.

 

Don't forget that you should also threaten to "blow [his] ****ing head off" if he doesn't comply with your illegal demands to really synch that self defense argument! I can't conceive of how anyone is deluded enough to defend this shooting.

 

I meant the shooter too.

 

I'll need to go back and look at previous posts, but I'm pretty sure you need to be able to articulate a specific crime and a reasonable suspicion of that crime. So, not just "I think he maybe stole something" (the defense's argument), but "This specific item is missing and I had reason to believe that he was the one who stole specific item" (not what the defense has been able to argue).

 

I think we probably agree here. It's practically impossible to argue that the shooter was acting in self defense. It's practically impossible to argue that the victim wasn't acting in self defense.

 

Defendants seem really screwed here.
https://www.reuters.com/legal/gover...-trial-over-killing-ahmaud-arbery-2021-11-22/
And it's a tragedy. I don't doubt these guys thought this guy was up to no good, but it sounds like they acted outside of the laws allowing for a citizen arrest. I'm sure McMichael feared for his life when fighting with Arbery. If you rob a bank, and cops start chasing you, guns drawn, that would be scary too. But we don't license that fear into a right to act. It sounds like Arbery had a right to self defense here. I would not have chosen it. I would have put up my hands and asked, "WTF?" But that doesn't detract from Arbery's right to act as he did.