I actually think the two cases are quite comparable, and I’m a bit confused about the differing responses.
In the Zimmerman case, like in the Rittenhouse case, we heard so many times, “The only thing that matters is what was going on at the moment the trigger was pulled.” It didn’t matter whether it was smart or prudent or “right” for Zimmerman to get out of his truck and follow Trayvon behind the apartments, we were told. The only thing that mattered was that it was legal for him to do so.
I’m surprised that in this case the focus from the “opposition” was on attacking Ahmad’s character, insinuating that he really was a burglar, etc. Nobody seemed to take the position that it was perfectly legal for the McMichaels to grab their legally acquired guns and jump into their legally acquired truck and legally drive around their neighborhood trying to have a perfectly legal conversation with Arbery.
What, exactly, is the difference then between the Zimmerman case and this one? Was it just they pulled their truck sideways across the road? Legally speaking, that was the felony that fucked them all – it was blocking Ahmad in with their trucks that triggered the “false imprisonment” and created felony murder charges for everyone.
But that seems like such a thin line for their to be any appreciable difference in the response to this case and the Zimmerman case. If we had Zimmerman on video holding his arms out to block the sidewalk, would that have been enough for a false imprisonment charge?