Security video from construction site may show Ahmaud Arbery was getting water, lawyer says
There is also video of a white couple entering the construction site on the same day Arbery was shot.
Doesn’t matter if Arbery murdered a family of five in there. The McMichaels had no idea what Arbery did or did not do in that property, so they had no justification for performing a citizen’s arrest.
Not to mention murder is not a citizen’s arrest anyway.
Maybe we will get another thread asking “Does Georgia law permit people to just TAKE water from a construction site? Just asking”
:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Winning post of the thread. Nice!
For crying out loud, people, how can you be so blase about this? He took water! Our most precious bodily fluid! Human beings are like, 99% water. If you take water without permission, you’re practically killing another human being. That makes this a clear case of self-defense. Checkmate.
It’s not straight-up murder when you’re defending yourself from a jogger who attacks you.
However, the felony murder rule can be invoked if the jogger is defending himself because you first committed felony assault with a deadly weapon by brandishing a gun at him without provocation.
I doubt the McMichaels set out from home that day with the intention of killing a black man. But their actions were feloniously stupid and created the circumstances that resulted in a hand-to-hand battle for control over the shotgun, at which point it was kill-or-be-killed for both of them. The felony murder rule isn’t perfect, but ISTM this is the sort of situation it was made for.
It wasn’t kill or be killed for the killers - there’s no evidence Arbery intended any harm beyond self defense.
If you were threatening someone with a gun, and that person tried to take the gun from you, wouldn’t you reasonably fear for your life?
The white man with a gun always has precedence in America. Darker skinned people must defer and assume he is acting in society’s greater good.
No, not reasonably. You don’t get to be all reasonable with violence after doing something extremely unreasonable!
Shit-fer-brains, can you not keep two posts of mine in your thought process at the same time? Here, I’ll put them together for you:
When Arbery went for McMichael’s gun, any reasonable person in McMichael’s circumstance would fear for his life. Do you agree with this? If so, then when McMichael shot Arbery, it was’t simple murder.
HOWEVER:
In the course of first committing felony assault with a deadly weapon (i.e. by brandishing a shotgun toward Arbery), McMichael created the circumstances in which Arbery felt compelled to defend himself by attempting to take control of the gun. The homicide of Arbery, even though committed in self defense by McMichael, was a direct result of McMichael’s felonious AWADW on Arbery, and therefore constitutes felony murder.
Do you agree with this, or do you think a different legal theory is applicable?
Lynchings aren’t reasonable. No part of them are. Once they have a black man tied up, it’s still not reasonable fear to kill him if he breaks free and reaches for their gun. Reasonableness just doesn’t apply.
IANAL, so I don’t know. I’m just speaking on how a moral and decent society should approach this IMO.
I think the word “reasonable” carries with it an unspoken presumption of justification for one’s actions. At a minimum, when the law discusses a “reasonable” person, it is not generally the person you intend to convict of a major felony.
It is certainly expected that a person struggling with another person over possession of a loaded shotgun would fear for his life. Whether or not that person should be considered “reasonable” in the eyes of the law is a separate matter.
I would also suggest that felony murder, while potentially a valid charge, is not necessarily intended to apply to a situation where you point a gun at someone, then kill them with it. I’m ok with it because it’s a full fledged murder rap, but it sure seems like a weird end around, as though the killing was some bizarro unintended consequence of drawing down on someone in the middle of a street.
Yeah if you’re armed and hunting a person, it’s not reasonable to respond with violence when that person reacts fearfully and tries to protect his own life. If you are armed when you burgle my home it is not reasonable that you shoot me when I react to your provocation.
The “reasonableness” I have been discussing refers only to what a typical person would expect from Arbery once Arbery went for the gun. That is, a reasonable person in McMichael’s circumstance, after Arbery has put hands on the gun, would fear for his own life.
This does not in any way excuse McMichael from killing Arbery. it was not in any way a justifiable homicide, since McMichael started the whole shit show.
ISTM this is exactly what the felony murder rule is for: you do something so dangerous that it rises to the level of a felony, then you get a felony murder charge tacked onto whatever you original felony was. Run over a pedestrian during a high-speed chase? Felony fleeing/evading, plus felony murder on top of that. Shoot someone after threatening them with a gun? felony AWADW, plus felony murder, even though you may have had good reason to believe your life was in danger when your victim tried to take your gun from you.
It sounds like you got into a potentially mortal situation that was more than you could handle, by your own volition, and by threatening the life of someone.
What you are “thinking” about at that moment is the projection and externalization of your own violence onto that other person, and what it means for it to be turned back on you.
You aren’t reasoning at all and can’t be said to be reasonably doing anything. You made your choice.
You appear to be relying on self-defence in support of that statement. That may be the case if you’re just walking down the street and a jogger suddenly attacks you with murderous intent.
However, that’s not what happened here. The jogger was running down the street. The McMichaels, for reasons of thier own, pursued him in their half-ton, pinned him in to restrict his movement, and then pulled a gun on him
It does not appear that the Georgia law would allow self-defence in this case. According to Findlaw: Georgia Self-Defense Laws:
Further, the Georgia stand-your-ground law would appear to be on the jogger’s side:
Since the McMichaels were the initial aggressors, threatneing Arbery with deadly force, his response appears to have been within the law, and they cannot cite self-defence in response to his attempt to defend himself from them.
Here’s where I think you’re losing iiandyiiii (and me) with your analysis. Mr. McMichaels the Younger’s fear for his life when Arbery struggled to take his shotgun is not relevant; McMichaels preempted any consideration of self-defense by precipitating the violent encounter. It was entirely elective on the part of the McMichaels to arm themselves, pursue and confront their victim. Neither of those white men, at any point in their encounter with Arbery, were victimized or assaulted.
Yes, the younger McMichaels was physically endangered when Arbery responded, in the same way that I’d be physically endangered if I jumped over the ropes at a boxing match and took a swing at Mike Tyson. But I would not be acting in self defense if I shot Mike when he responded; I’d just be changing the nature of my assault.
I can only assume that McMichael’s attorney’s main focus will be getting people like Darren Garrison, Machine Elf, Ultra Vires, and Shodan on the jury.