Jogger shot in Georgia for being Black

Post Reply New Topic

My guess is the McMichaels defence lawyers are using the "stand your ground law" states that a person who is being threatened by another person's use of force does not have a duty to retreat or back down before he or she can legally use force against the attacker.

This whole case pivots on McMichael's testimony that Arbery threatened him and he reacted within the law to defend himself. I have watched a couple of videos from the dashcam of McMichael's friend where the footage conveniently blacks out when Arbery approaches McMichael. But even then McMichael is on very shaky ground because the use of the "stand your ground" law applies to protecting your home not to stalking somebody with a weapon outside.

I think the Zimmerman case is closest to this case where the victim is unable to testify so the perpetrator (defendant) can frame the incident through lawyers to give the impression of self-defence. The morality of Arbery is irrelevant as the correct procedure was explained by the dispatch to leave Arbery alone (exactly like the Zimmerman case) but they chose to pursue him despite the victim not being a threat to anyone!

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that:
The dispatch call by Mr McMicheal, where he is asked to leave the suspect alone was approximately 2 weeks prior to the shooting.
The 911 call on the day of the shooting was made by another person and Mr McMichael was not a party to the call.
The McMichael's at no point intentionally pointed their weapons at Mr Arbery, however, by Mr Arbery's actions trying to remove a weapon from one of the McMichaels, one ended pointed in his direction.

You may find it interesting to look at the video I linked earlier from around 9:48, as it explains a bit more, and covers the likely laws related to what happened.

The TL:DR version:
Laws allow for "citizen arrest" - if you have "reasonable suspicion" of a felony and the suspect is fleeing they are permitted to detain them.
Laws allow for "citizen arrest" - if you have "immediate knowledge" of a misdemeanour.
Law requires "open carry" of firearms (hence them not having them holstered).
The "stand your ground" provisions in the states laws.
Trying to take possision of a firearm clasifies a person as an "armed threat", which would affect how a claim of "self defence" is treated

Trespass, in this case would relate to entry onto the site of the house under contstruction where there are signs indicating "no trespassing" or similar, and is a misdemeanour.

Burglary, in this case refers to entry onto the site of the house under construction with the intent to commit a theft or crime, and is a felony.

At this point the issue would come down to whether the entry onto the site was classed as trespass or burglary (likely by trying to determine "intent") and as such the appropriate "citizen's arrest" powers available and if they were exceeded. Coupled to this would be the fact that the shooting appears connected to Mr Arbery's actions in attempting to take a gun from Mr McMichaels, not Mr McMichael intentionally taking aim to fire at Mr Arbery, which may likely fit within self defence laws. The fact that while running (according to the complete video) he suddenly turned and rushed at one of the McMichaels would also impact on this.

The unfortunate matter here is that for almost everyone looking at this, they can see how likely the actions are/were under the laws in their personal situation and their own personal biases, but fail to consider the fact that these actions may be perfectly legal/required in the location at which events occurred. This being the case, it would be more appropriate to complain about the applicable laws in that location than to make what seem erroneous statements of someones guilt using inapplicable laws as a basis. I'd also suggest you look at the video from 58:05 through approx 1:04:06, which may help you (or others) understand how what happened can be wrong, yet still within the law.

Real justice will occur regardless of how the legal system handles it. If acquitted they'll never sleep soundly again for fear of justice finding their home at three in the morning with a bottle of gelled gasoline and a rag. If convicted, real justice will be waiting in general population with a pointy toothbrush handle. Either way the murderers won't be long for this earth.

So, what you're indicating here is that you condone vigilante justice rather than justice through the rule of law? Interesting.

After all, what could possibly go wrong should this become common practice.

When rule of law consistently fails or consistently fails to be applied fairly there comes a point where a community is obliged to defend themselves rather than simply tolerate being hunted like game. Make all the excuses you like, but people notice a pattern, especially when it's existed for several hundred years. If George Zimmermans keep being acquitted eventually people will start dealing with them because the justice system leaves them no other choice if they wish to no longer be terrorized by racially motivated murderers.

How many more decades should this be tolerated?

I think he was referring to natural justice rather than condoning vigilantes, come to think of it weren't the McMichael boys or Zimmerman vigilantes? weren't you providing oxygen for their actions?

Would it not make more sence, rationally speaking, to work to change the laws that you disagree with and which were not broken (hence acquitals). As to "inconsistent application" of laws, bearing in mind each state has different laws, could it be that it is YOUR view of a law in a juristiction which you do not reside that is the factor causing the outrage you feel? The facts you see in the media, while important, may not be the only facts available (or may have been altered through removal of "inconvenient" portions), and when shown more complete footage/other, unreported facts, events are different from how portayed in the media?

It's the difference between a mob of school children walking up to, and surrounding, a person of a different racial background, and a group of school children waiting at a location specified by their parents/teachers and having a person of a differnt racial background walk into the middle of the group banging a drum...Once more facts become available, a completely different understanding of events takes place.

The trick, which can be difficult, is for a person to be able to understand their personal biases and to learn to set these aside so as to look at things objectively...For some this can be easy, whereas others are incapable of it.

It's not an either or issue. Of course I would support a broad-based push for reforms and improvements.

That said, I have no problem if George Zimmermans or murders with badges get caught by some hitter so long as no innocent people are harmed as a result. Should someone who is already in that line of work consider George Zimmerman's life more important than that of the rival dealer he sprayed three weeks ago? Of course not, that's ridiculous.

That would depened on your point of view (and the law in the respective location).

In this case, based on what I have read of the laws (and heard regarding them) in this most recent case it was a case of two people, aware of a tresspaser/potential burlar/thief running from the site of a potential crime, and seeking to detain them (citizen's arrest) on behalf of the police. The example I was referring to was where the previous poster had wished physical harm on 2 people who they felt "deserved" it, whether or not they had been acting legally in regards to a situation, which can lead to all sorts of unintended consequences. If they feel a law is wrong, it's better to work to change it than to condone further\other crimes occuring in order to "balance" things.

I thought I was quite clear, I have no moral issue whatsoever with 'some street soldier' putting any of those three in a big bag. Since I also ultimately believe in rule of law, if the perpetrator were to be apprehended he (or she) should face whatever legal ramifications result and I assume they would be severe. That doesn't mean I wouldn't also consider putting money on their commissary account, because I'm sure they've repented adequately.

So, with limited access to an incomplete set of facts, you have already decided that people are guilty of murder...I honestly hope you are never selected for Jury duty.

As I have been stating, as more information comes out (and based on reading some of the applicable laws), it is obvious that they had not set out to kill this person, and in fact the first time force entered this event, it was instigated by Mr Arbery, and NOT the McMasters. Admittedly, having exposed firearms (as required by law in the location) and seeking to stop him, there was the implication that force could be applied, but up until Mr Arbery rushed to try and take the firearm away from the McMichaels, neither had pointed the firearms in his direction, nor was there any indication of their wish to do so. Had he not attacked either of the McMichaels, either by staying where he was, or running, it is almost certain that he would still be alive today.

That is almost exactly the same sentiments I would have expected from a white citizen in the southern US states during the 1950's and 60's, as portrayed in the media... I thought the US had outgrown that way of thinking regarding law and order.

You can't chase someone for several minutes then pull a gun on them and expect them to not respond like they're about to be murdered, especially given that racial dynamic and where it occurred. If the victim had of shot them both this would be done with because it would be an obvious stand your ground case and you're perfectly within your rights to use force against armed assailants.

You're insisting something that cannot objectively said to be true. You believe it, because you don't believe that the video depicts a lynching, clearly the prosecutor disagree with you. I'm sure the defence would love to insist that your framing is accurate but I don't believe the jury will agree with you.

Arbery's motives for trying to disarm McMichael is not established, that is for a jury to decide.

What is undisputed even without video/audio is that Arbery was i) minding his own business on public land ii) he was unarmed.

The defence have a fairly uphill battle to convince a jury there was some redeeming motive behind the McMichael's actions putting aside the hate crime aspect.

Similarly, the prosecution will need to be able to show either a reason why the McMichaels had no legal reason for trying to detain Mr Arbery following his unathorised visit to the house under construction, or that the McMichaels applied unreasonable force in trying to detain him, which similarly could be an uphill battle.

Whatever the result, it has been enlightening to see how people still try to bring race into the fore where there is no indication it was a contributing factor. The sad part about that, is that should it be shown in court that it was not a factor, those pushing the racial side of the crime will be setting back the process of racial equality and making it hard for future juries to believe race could be a cause based on the number of high-profile cases which were reported as racially motivated, yet found to not have been.

Either way, the McMichaels should be presumed innoncent until proven guilty, not pre-judged by people based on incomplete knowledge and personal biases\feeling about what should have happened.

Similarly, If being chased by someone for 4 minutes in an area where they regularly jogged, you would expect the person to have crossed a park, approached someone\entered a store to request help. Likewise, having been chased for such an extended period of time and seeing multiple people exit a vehicle with firearms which they do not point in your direction, and which they have not fired at you with in the preceeding 4 minutes, what reason would you have to try to rush one of the people and take possesion of their weapon. Run from them, yes. Stay and wait for police to arrive, yes. Charge an armed person when there is another in close proximity...I REALLY don't think so.

If you remove your race-coloured glasses, there are plenty of things (on both sides) that contributed to this, and I cannot imagine how changing the race/colour of any of the participants would have changed the events which occurred. Just because the people involved were of different races does not make it automatically a crime related to race. Implying otherwise only encourages division rather than inclusion. Sadly, too many people would prefer to judge anothers actions on the colour of their skin, rather than waiting on facts to be presented.