re: Prosecutors are going to struggle to find anything the 'necks did that breaks a Ga law.

So the armed man is going to claim self defense against the unarmed man?

Was AA the aggressor? I would say following someone with a truck and two guns would make them the aggressor, particularly if a gun was pointed at AA (I’m not sure that it was)

quote:

---

So the armed man is going to claim self defense against the unarmed man?

---

from the position of the gun during the tussle the gun doesn't appear like it was shouldered but in a resting position, so there was not obvious intent he ws going to shoot, i`m not sure any of that matters but if the mcmichaels aren`t caught verbally threatening the victim, it becomes a battle with both men fearing for their lives, again you have every right to stand on the roadside with a loaded gun and AA is running toward them and they are stopped, i`m not arguing who was right i`m saying i agree with the former officer this one is not a sure thing either way.

quote:

---

Nothing they had done up to the point that shots were fired, was illegal in the state of Georgia

---

I disagree. Because what they did did not meet the standard of a legal citizen’s arrest (they were neither “in the presence of” nor had “immediate knowledge of” a felony being committed), then by default, their attempt to illegally detain him becomes assault. Since they were armed, it makes it aggravated assault—a felony(which, by Georgia law, makes what they did murder regardless of their intent). However,

quote:

---

I don't know what Georgia calls brandishing but in Louisiana I'm pretty sure brandishing a firearm also includes the requirement of "in commission of a crime". In other words, it's a tack-on charge if you're already committing another crime and you're doing it while openly exposing a firearm and or pointing it at the public in a threatening matter

---

what you say here is interesting. I think it’s clear the defense is going to wind up focusing on the son, who at some point lost his ground and felt his life was in imminent danger, and thus had the right to use lethal force to defend himself. Again, I don’t buy this, but it
will be the defense’s only argument. And that argument may hinge on how both men were holding their guns, specifically the son. And it’s almost impossible to tell by the video. So, at what point is the gun to be reasonably perceived as “threatening,” allowing the deceased to invoke his right to defend himself?

If a gun pointed straight down is 0 degrees and pointed at someone’s head is 90 degrees, is there a certain degree threshold that comes into play? Or if it’s simply moving from anywhere towards the 90 degrees position? Or is it completely subjective, based on what the unarmed person “reasonably” perceived to be threatening, thus leaving it up to the jurors to decide how they interpret the word “reasonable?” I don’t mean this to sound rhetorical, I literally don’t know. Which brings me to:

quote:

---

Bureaucrats aren't necessarily that great at writing law. There's a lot of internal conflict and vagueness even within the same set of law. That's where case law and courts come into play.

---

This is a great point, and one I’ve been thinking about more and more. I can look up the Georgia statutes for trespass, citizen’s arrest, aggravated assault, unlawful detainment, and murder and interpret those to reasonably conclude that the father and son are both guilty of both aggravated assault and murder. However, I will certainly concede that others may interpret them differently as some of the vagueness of the language in the laws demands interpretation. So Georgia case law and precedent will likely wind up playing a huge factor as you say, and I am 100% ignorant regarding those.