re: Justice Department indicts 3 men on federal hate crime charges in death of Ahmaud Arbery

quote:

---

Would they have chased him and tried to detain him if he was white? I would say with a high degree of certainty that they wouldn't have.

---

Would you, or anyone, care if the McMichaels were Black? I would say with a high degree of certainly that you wouldn't.

quote:

---

If they had a right to detain Arbery then yes Arbery was the aggressor.

---

It sounds like this is certainly what the defense will argue - that the McMichaels were attempting a lawful citizen's arrest and shot Arbery in self-defense. But even that isn't entirely clear as a legitimate defense.

I remember doing some reading on this back when the Arbery stuff first came to light. From what I can tell, Georgia courts have found that use of deadly force is not permissible during a citizen's arrest. Any use of force has to be "reasonable," and the courts have concluded on multiple occasions that deadly force is, in fact, "unreasonable" as part of a citizen's arrest.

Note that if they were running him down with trucks, it's possible that they used unreasonable force before the shooting even happened. E.g. if someone bumped him with a vehicle or threatened to hit him with a vehicle.

So now we get to the interesting part - the "stand your ground" law. The McMichaels have the right to open carry, and they can legally use deadly force (without a duty to retreat) if they have a reasonable belief that the force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury. However, this goes out the window if they were the aggressors, if they were committing a felony, or if they provoked Arbery's use of force (charging Travis McMichael) as a pretext to use deadly force against him.

Using the stand your ground law as a defense hinges on the idea that they were simply open carrying while attempting a citizen's arrest - not carrying firearms to facilitate a citizen's arrest. I think it's going to wind up being an important distinction. If Travis McMichael had a holstered pistol on his belt that he always carries in public, attempted to detain Arbery, and pulled his pistol when Arbery charged him - that's a very different scenario than chasing Arbery down while carrying a shotgun in his hands. It might sound like semantics but I think that's what it's going to come down to.

We all know you can't shoot a fleeing burglar in the back. If Travis McMichael's actions were justified, it's the equivalent of chasing a fleeing burglar down with a gun, forcing him to engage, and then shooting him in the chest as soon as he turns around to face you. I just find it hard to believe that a jury is going to buy that he was using the shotgun in self-defense vs. using the shotgun as a show of force to detain Arbery.

What this boils down to is that I think they will have to show that ALL of the following are true in order to skate:
1. They were attempting a lawful citizen's arrest,
2. They did not use any unreasonable force outside of the shooting itself,
3. The use of deadly force was independent of the citizen's arrest, and
4. The McMichael's didn't do anything else that would qualify them as the "aggressors" under the stand your ground law.

That seems like an uphill battle to me.

Excellent post.

Your analysis is spot on IMO

I don’t think they meant to kill Arbery, but I won’t feel bad for them when they are convicted because I think they were way out of line trying to take the law into their own hands.

quote:

---

At the same time, it’s hard to feel bad for Travis McMichael. Especially after his alleged comments immediately after the shooting, and during his calls from jail (doing the world a service and whatnot). Doesn’t sound like he has shown the level of remorse you would expect from a normal, level-headed individual after a terrible incident.

---

He’s definitely unhinged and we don’t need people like that running around trying to arrest people.

The cops aren’t perfect but this case is an example of the alternative.

quote:

---

That’s why it’s a stupid law.

---

I think hate crime laws are ridiculous as well, and this case should be cut and dry no need to add the extra work of trying to prove the aggravating factors. The hate crime indictments are very likely just a bargaining chip for a plea.

My point was in response to a person claiming this had no underlying racial motives, and of all the high profile cases in the last few years, this one seems to be the only one that comes close to having actual racist motives.

quote:

---

would think it was murder and that they should fry. I'm not some woke SJW who cares about race over everything, it doesn't matter what the races involved were, those three assholes murdered the guy

---

Can you link me any posts you made in regard to a year old non-SJW case? I'm just pointing out the selective outrage that's currently happening.

They're 45 murders a day... each and every day on average. I'm sure you have others with your concern about murders and people frying.

quote:

---

Career criminal

---

That's a stretch. At worst he was a petty criminal.