Image 01 Image 03

Ahmaud Arbery Case: Propaganda, §1983, and Police Body Cam Video

Ahmaud Arbery Case: Propaganda, §1983, and Police Body Cam Video

Media and activist narratives aren’t relevant to the legal case, yet are pushed really hard to establish a presumption of guilt in the public mind.

Hey folks,

In this video about the Ahmaud Arbery case I touch on two closely related topics, and share a police body cam video with you.

First, we compare the photos preferentially used by the media in the Trayvon Martin case with the photos preferentially used by the media in this Arbery case.

Second, we look at 42 USC §1983 as a financial motive for such propaganda (e.g., ka-ching).

Third, we share a police body cam video of Ahmaud Arbery in an event independent of Arbery’s confrontation with the McMichaels. It’s probably not relevant for purposes of the trial of the McMichaels, but may well play a role in the propaganda wars currently being fought over this event.

Enjoy the show!

And remember: You can find ALL our Ahmaud Arbery coverage here:

So bookmark it!


Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


What crime were they stopping him for in this video?
Since it looks like nothing other than “this area is known for drug activity”, I would also be offended if I got this treatment in the middle of the day with no other reason.
This is presented as a reason to at Arbury in a less favorable light?
Missed the mark with me.

    No demonstrable crime is required for a stop.

    But keep playing, I’m sure you’ll get better at this.


    Attorney Andrew F. Branca
    Law of Self Defense LLC

      griffeydog in reply to Andrew Branca. | May 19, 2020 at 8:11 pm

      But some probably cause is needed to search. And when he said no they don’t get to pull out the tasers. Contrary to the belief in some old school Law Enforcement circles. Being Black in a Park is not in and of itself Probable Cause. I’m generally a huge proponent of the Police. I’ve worked with them in plenty of high stress emergency situations over the years. I understand their stresses and the dangers they face. But what we see here? That looks like pure unadulterated Bullshit. They are demonstrating the exact behavior that the Black Community has (understandable) issues with. Granted for all we know Arbery might have actually been there dealing drugs. But the Police Officers took no reasonable steps to ascertain that or make a legitimate arrest if that was the case. THEY PULLED A TASER ON A BLACK KID FOR SITTING IN THE PARK AND ELECTING TO LEGITIMATELY AND PROPERLY PROTECT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Let that sink in. He has no reason to let them search his car.

        “And when he said no they don’t get to pull out the tasers.”

        They get to pull Tasers when he reaches for the car, which has NOT been searched for weapons.


        Attorney Andrew F. Branca
        Law of Self Defense LLC

          Tom Servo in reply to Andrew Branca. | May 20, 2020 at 11:12 am

          I do expect you to come back and admit you were wrong, when both McMichael’s are convicted of Felony Murder.

          I agree that all of these videos and activists are just chum to throw to the media, and of no actual importance to the case against them.

          I’m still amazed that you hold it’s legal for a private citizen to attempt to stop someone else in public, while brandishing a weapon, and without having witnessed any crime themselves. That’s textbook aggravated assault, under any State’s laws.

          Massinsanity in reply to Andrew Branca. | May 20, 2020 at 1:41 pm

          I do not see him reaching for the car. He steps toward it but at no point does he reach for it.

        inspectorudy in reply to griffeydog. | May 20, 2020 at 12:18 am

        I can see why there are so many dead black men if they have the same reasoning power that you do. Hello! When a man with a gun and a badge tells you to do something do it. He is already nervous and edgy and you are going to verbally fight with him like this idiot kid did? The first cop needs to go back to the academy to relearn how to handle a toughy who will not comply with your orders. Arbery did not do one thing he was told to do until the cop with the TASER showed up. I was expecting to reach into his pocket at any moment. How do people get this stupid?

        CommoChief in reply to griffeydog. | May 20, 2020 at 12:37 am


        There are specific locations in every community where drugs are trafficked more heavily. If you are loitering in one of those areas you will likely have a brief PD encounter. The cop will likely ask a brief series of questions. What’s your name? What are doing here? Where are you going to or commuting from?

        The cop will explain the reason for his contact is the locations high drug traffic. The cop might ask if you have any outstanding warrant. Now, if you remain calm, with a relaxed posture and don’t give physical cues that there is more to investigate then they will likely end the encounter.

        If instead you are the opposite of calm and become verbally abusive and advance towards the cop…that’s when the cops tone will change from courtesy to commanding. You will now be given commands with which you must comply.

        Failure to comply will result in you being physically forced to comply. In the video, the second cop uses a taser and activates it which makes the sound. That is to inform you a taser is about to be used, as was his yelling taser.

        The tone or level of conflict in every encounter with the cops depends upon the person and their actions, mannerisms and behavior towards the cops. If you are polite they will be polite. If you choose to become belligerent and adopt an aggressive posture they will escalate to match that just enough for them to remain in control of the encounter.

        Are there bad cops who misuse their authority to needlessly hassle citizens? Sure. I didn’t seen that in the video. I saw Arbery, choosing to escalate the situation.

        If you feel like a particular crazy cop is hassling you needlessly then, make sure you survive the encounter by being docile, get their badge number and file a complaint.

          BierceAmbrose in reply to CommoChief. | May 20, 2020 at 1:43 am

          “The tone or level of conflict in every encounter with the cops depends upon the person and their actions, mannerisms and behavior towards the cops.”

          That’s how it ideally works.

          The point is that’s not always how it works in fact.

          The question is which scenario was playing out this time.

          BierceAmbrose in reply to CommoChief. | May 20, 2020 at 1:46 am

          Yeah, there’s no increase in traffic stops, the third n fourth weekend of the month in NYState. By locals “enforcing” state laws. In towns n counties where “traffic enforcement” covers most of the budget.

          The bosses create the scam, n the operators get their cut for doing the leg work.

          Also, don’t be from out of state.

      Milhouse in reply to Andrew Branca. | May 19, 2020 at 8:27 pm

      Reasonable suspicion is required for the police to stop someone. There was none here. And once he declined the search that should have been an end to it.

      But here’s the thing. I didn’t watch the video here, but I’ve seen news reports about this, such as this one:

      Arbery said he was just relaxing and refused to allow police to search his car; after asking why the first officer was giving him trouble, backup was called for and a second officer arrived and ultimately attempted to tase Arbery.

      Note that word “ultimately”. I don’t know this for a fact, but I suspect that word is doing a lot of work there. I don’t trust it at all. Hands up anyone who would be surprised if it were to turn out that that “ultimately” stands for something like Arbery getting aggressive and attacking the cops.

        “Reasonable suspicion is required for the police to stop someone. There was none here.”

        I think you mean, “I didn’t see any reasonable suspicion in the snippet of video the Guardian released.”

        Because that’s a very different matter than the officer not having reasonable suspicion in fact.


        Attorney Andrew F. Branca
        Law of Self Defense LLC

          griffeydog in reply to Andrew Branca. | May 19, 2020 at 8:59 pm

          I don’t see anything that can be construed as reasonable suspicion in their rather horribly questionable police reports either. “Well we saw a bag of some weed like substance through the car window”. Uh huh! Sure! If they had in fact observed that, that would have been reasonable suspicion to in fact search the car, instead of just making him walk home. That they didn’t search means they knew they had nothing, and they knew they stepped in it when the Anger Management Counseling Candidate showed up and pulled the taser. Cops are many things. Often Brave, Heroic and Compassionate. But “Clever” is generally not in the job description. At least not in uniform below command rank. The “I saw a bag of leafy materials” is the oldest bullshit story in the book and everybody knows it. Even their crooked and compromised DA would bitch slap them if they had arrested him using that old scam. I don’t like all the narrative bullshit the media is pulling with this case. The dude clearly was where he should not have been. (Really? “Jogging”? In a Housing neighborhood 10+ miles from his home? Please tell me another one.) But he also should not have died. And understand I say this as a Georgia Resident, Brunswick is seemingly like some Twilight Zone Time Warp back to 1970 or so. And every rock you turn over just makes it look worse. There are no good actors at any point in this story. Just brainless idiots.

        Mac45 in reply to Milhouse. | May 20, 2020 at 12:51 pm

        Neither a LEO, nor anyone else, needs any reason to approach any person in a public place and ask them a question. A person sitting in a car in a place where such practice is not common produces a reasonable suspicion that something may be amiss or that a criminal act is occurring. It is very subjective. We know this from the infamous Terry v Ohio, where simply walking back and forth in front of a store provided sufficient RS to detain a person and where failure to answer a single question generated sufficient reasonable suspicion that the person, who failed to answer the question, was armed to justify a search for said weapon. Personally, I find the decision in Terry to be a horrific miscarriage. It was decided based on nothing more than the feelings of the LEO. But it is what it is.

        So, the police had every right to approach Arbery as he sat in his car and inquire as to his purpose for being there. Now, based upon the totality of the circumstances, including the training and experience of the LEO, the level of reasonable suspicion may be raised or lowered. If reasonable suspicion that a criminal act may have been committed, such as an odor associated with marijuana clinging to the subject or a bag of leafy material in plain view then a short detention may be justified. Also, if there is reasonable suspicion that a person is engaged in a criminal act, this may justify a frisk or search for weapons. Such a search has been held to include the immediate environs of the person, including all areas of his motor vehicle to which he has immediate access.

        Also, the officer with the taser did not attempt to shoot Arbey with it. It appears that he had it in drive stun mode, which does not discharge the darts, but makes the characteristic chattering sound associated with use of the weapon. This was probably done as a warning, as the officer could have made contact with Arbery at anytime, delivering a jolt of electricity. He did not.

    ConradCA in reply to NGAREADER. | May 19, 2020 at 10:23 pm

    I remember in the Freddie Grey case happened in a high crime area where the police could stop, question and frisk suspected criminals.

      Milhouse in reply to ConradCA. | May 20, 2020 at 10:43 am

      Not simply for being there. There had to be reasonable suspicion. Which most (but not all) judges say is satisfied when someone sees the cops and rabbits.

Yeah, I mean this escalated from a simple inquiry involving someone in a car parked on the grass to cops trying to taser him? With no clear indication of any crime? Or even probable cause to bother him? Part of the Police’s job is de-escalation. That’s the whole “keep the peace” part of the job description. If they thought he was dealing drugs, watch him until he does. If he’s illegally parked ask him to move or write him a ticket. Because damn this looks like the cops bothering the dude for sitting peacefully while being black.

    NGAREADER in reply to griffeydog. | May 19, 2020 at 7:02 pm

    I agree.
    I hate to see the race hustlers that made a big deal out of nothing in many of the other high profile cases. But pretending this was in any way justified by the police based on this video, tests objectivity.
    Photoshop Arbery into a white guy 25 years old, with some earlier scrapes with the law into this video of the shooting video. No recent credible reports of criminal acts by him have been shown. Two guys chase him around the neighborhood with guns. They claim there were neighborhood burglaries, but there are none on record with the police except one.
    The McMichaels, I think it was the shooter, reported he left a handgun in a parked pickup that was parked on the street in front of his house, unlocked, and said it was stolen.

      tom_swift in reply to NGAREADER. | May 19, 2020 at 8:04 pm

      A car need not be locked for things to be stolen from it.

        NGAREADER in reply to tom_swift. | May 19, 2020 at 9:50 pm

        I’m not saying a gun was or wasn’t stolen from Mcmichaels truck. Just that there were no police reports of other claimed home burglaries in that neighborhood around that time, which was part of their narative supporting justification for chasing Arbery around.
        As to the stolen gun story, leaving a hand gun in your unlocked, unattended vehicle out on the street is carelessness in the extreme, if not a crime.
        Not a justification for someone to steal it, but this just shows what type of individual we are dealing with, by his own admission.

          Because if there’s no police report, that means a thing didn’t happen. Only things officially reported by the police actually happened. If the police don’t report it, then it didn’t happen. Trust the police absolutely to report what is reality, and anything not reported by the police simply didn’t happen.

          Like when the police didn’t immediately report the Arbery shooting as a murder. That means it didn’t happen, right? Or at least, that it couldn’t have been a murder? After all, there were NO POLICE REPORTS OF A MURDER!!11!1

          Also, the police are an institution riddled with racism, and should fry like bacon.

          Makes sense, right? 🙂


          Attorney Andrew F. Branca
          Law of Self Defense LLC

          NGAREADER in reply to NGAREADER. | May 19, 2020 at 10:47 pm

          Looks like things are going off the rails here as to how we each perceive things. I actually agree with many of the things you are saying, maybe didn’t express them in way that made that clear. Let’s start with the basics.
          Seeing Arbery in this video, as opposed to a high school yearbook photo, gives a much different impression.
          I also agree that there is a race-baiting group that tries to create a divisive incident out of anything they can for self promotion and their own enrichment. Al Sharpton stands out as an earlier version and Crump seems to have been handed the torch today.
          The Zimmerman case and others represent the blueprint they use. Show a sympathetic photo or two of the deceased that misrepresents his true image, paint anyone that disagrees as a racist to intimidate and discredit them, then go for a payday as the final part of the shakedown. No real consideration is given to the truth of the matter or who is harmed.
          This case is just starting to come out and we are mostly just speculating, based on partial videos and possibly incomplete or erroneous “facts”.
          Hopefully, once actual legal proceedings start to take place, we will get a clearer picture.

      DaveGinOly in reply to NGAREADER. | May 20, 2020 at 3:29 am

      Nobody chased Arbery “with guns.”

        Tom Servo in reply to DaveGinOly. | May 20, 2020 at 11:15 am

        The two trucks chased Arbery, as seen in their own video. The younger Mcmichael not only was carrying a shotgun, he brandished when he got out of the truck to confront Arbery. The elder McMichael was also carrying a handgun, I believe.

        The Mcmichaels chased Arbery with guns, and trucks. That’s a simple matter of fact, clearly documented on the video.

          MarkSmith in reply to Tom Servo. | May 20, 2020 at 1:06 pm

          So “brandishing” or “improper exhibition” or “defensive display” or “unlawful display” (or whatever your state and jurisdiction calls it) depends specifically on your state and jurisdiction. Very generally, however, for an operating definition “brandishing” means to display, show, wave, or exhibit the firearm in a manner which another person might find threatening. You can see how widely and differently this can be subjectively interpreted by different “reasonable” individuals and entities. The crime can actually be committed in some states by not even pointing a firearm at someone. In some states it’s a Misdemeanor crime and in others a Felony. So, focus, think rationally, know your state’s law, and be careful out there.

          ray in reply to Tom Servo. | May 20, 2020 at 3:36 pm

          You need to look up the legal definition of “brandishing” a weapon. It does not mean simply possessing or holding a weapon, even if that weapon is visible. I have seen no evidence that he was brandishing a weapon.

    Dejectedhead in reply to griffeydog. | May 19, 2020 at 7:27 pm

    I thought this case was supposed to be about how the McMichaels should have left law enforcement to police and that they had no right to confront Arbery.

      MarkSmith in reply to Dejectedhead. | May 19, 2020 at 11:34 pm

      Well based on the video, maybe McMichaels might have treated him better than the police.

      inspectorudy in reply to Dejectedhead. | May 20, 2020 at 12:24 am

      Have you watched the video? Did McMichaels point the gun at him? That’s right, not once. Did McMichaels attack him? That’s right Arbery attacked him. Gun or no gun citizens have the right to make citizens arrest if the suspect you committed an unlawful act. If Arbnery had just stopped and asked what is going on then it would have been over in five minutes. But he attacked a man and that cast his fate.

        Tom Servo in reply to inspectorudy. | May 20, 2020 at 11:17 am

        the proper legal term is “Brandishing”. If I am threatening you in a public place, not my house, and I hold up a firearm, the law does not require me to point it directly at you to be guilty of aggravated assault.

          Pillage Idiot in reply to Tom Servo. | May 20, 2020 at 1:20 pm

          Yes, we all know the proper legal term. However, you keep stating that “brandishing” is clearly established.

          I have no idea about the actual facts of the case, other than what can be observed in the video.

          Georgia law allows for open carry. The person in the street is holding a shotgun in clear view and then Arbery subsequently closes the distance to him.

          Being approached by someone while holding a legal weapon DOES NOT establish brandishing by the person holding the weapon!

          Further, I cannot hear or observe a threat in the video by the person holding the shotgun. You also keep stating that a threat has been clearly established.

        Massinsanity in reply to inspectorudy. | May 20, 2020 at 1:51 pm

        I am sure if you were walking in an urban area and 2 black guys with guns told you to stop and answer some questions you would do so with calm and respect. Sure you would…

      ConradCA in reply to Dejectedhead. | May 20, 2020 at 6:52 pm

      That’s what a lot of the racist liars said about Zimmerman and they were all wrong.

      Open carry is legal so when Arbery tried to take the shotgun away he broke the law and logically would have used it on the person who held the shotgun. That means the son was justified in shooting Arbery. They

    healthguyfsu in reply to griffeydog. | May 19, 2020 at 8:34 pm

    By your standard, the police should never try to stop lawbreaking criminals because it might escalate. Arbery was not within his rights to escalate to violence, even if the stop was illegitimate. He could have his day in court if that is the case.

      NGAREADER in reply to healthguyfsu. | May 19, 2020 at 9:57 pm

      There’s no evidence yet showing that Arbery knew these guys claimed to be police making a stop or citizens making a lawful arrest.
      Just two people stopped in the middle of the road and the younger advancing on him in front of the truck with a shotgun.
      No time really for him to make any other determination.

        Of course, what ARBERY might have known or believed is irrelevant to whether the McMichaels were lawfully justified, because their justification rests on what THEY reasonably believed.

        But you knew that, right?



        Attorney Andrew F. Branca
        Law of Self Defense LLC

          NGAREADER in reply to Andrew Branca. | May 19, 2020 at 10:57 pm

          Based on the stories we’ve seen so far, I think reasonableness could be the deciding factor.
          We’re still a ways from learning if there are other game changing facts we don’t know.

          MarkSmith in reply to Andrew Branca. | May 19, 2020 at 11:43 pm

          Yep, total agree, I will wait for grand jury results first. Right now I have McMichaels as the first aggressors. Until I have an answer to why they thought they were entitled to a confrontation with guns, I am on the fence. As for Aubrey, no surprise to find out he was not a saint.

          I still have not seen the fact that he was 10 miles from where he lived. Question is, was there a witness to a scout car that someone mentioned? Is that a fact? If so, how did McMichaels know that.

          CommoChief in reply to Andrew Branca. | May 19, 2020 at 11:55 pm


          Everything that happened prior to the moment where Arbery was stationary and the charges towards and grabs the shotgun is not relevant. At that moment Arbery is the aggressor.

          Could there be some secret footage? Sure. It doesn’t change the fact that Arbery chose to become the aggressor at that segment of this longer story.

          If you get knocked down and kicked by two guys in a parking lot and after 90 seconds of kicking they stop. They go inside the building. You can’t go to your car, retrieve a weapon, follow them inside, shoot them and claim self defense.

          The original incident, where you got kicked, if you were able to draw and fire during their assault sure that is self defense. You don’t get to ‘take a rain check’ on that assault and save it for later, when it is more convenient.

          NGAREADER in reply to Andrew Branca. | May 20, 2020 at 9:52 am

          “But you knew that, right?


          I do, because I buy and read your books and watch the videos when I can.
          Whatever I don’t know’s certainly not your fault.

          Scrape in reply to Andrew Branca. | May 20, 2020 at 2:42 pm

          Whether the McMichaels acted legally is one question, but not the only one that deserves our thought and attention. Keep in mind that slavery was legal, separate-but-equal was legal, Nazi extermination camps were legal, and Apartheid was legal. The mere fact that what the McMichaels did may turn out to be legal under Georgia law won’t be enough to satisfy me that they were in the right. YMMV.

          Mac45 in reply to Andrew Branca. | May 20, 2020 at 3:09 pm

          Scrape, what is “right”, exactly? WAs it “right” for Arbery to enter a house under construction? Was it right for him to attack McMichaels? Ws it right froe hiom toe be “jogging” 2 miles from his mother’s house and 10 miles from his house? If Abery had done NONE of these things, then it is unlikely that he would have had any confrontation with the McMichaels. Or was it only “wrong” that the McMichaels saw him, shortly after he had been in the house and recognized hikm as criminal who did not live in the area? Was it wrong for the McMichaels to arm themselves in case he [Arbery] was armed? Was it wrong of the McMichaels to attempt to ask Arbery questions about why he was in the area? If the McMichaels had not done those things, then there would have been no confrontation either.

          The problem here is that you, and many others, want to blame someone for the results of this incident. You want someone to be punished for the results. Well, society has a means for punishing people for adverse results of their actions. They are called criminal laws. But, to use those laws to punish someone, that person has to actually violate those laws. Unfortunately, it is becoming commonplace to ignore that little fact and to punish people extra-judicially. And, unfortunately people want to choose who is at fault and who should be punished, not on the basis of facts, but on the basis of feelings. And, as the divorce rate shows, basing critical life decisions on feelings is not very reliable.

Oh my goodness!! I just took a second look at that top photo. No wonder he looks upset – somebody tried to pull his pants down.

Do a write up NOT a video. I can read way faster that watch a VIDEO.

I believe we may be getting trolled, Andrew.

I would suspect it may be Crum but I doubt that he knows that many big words.


    Olinser in reply to franker. | May 20, 2020 at 12:28 am

    Collecting trolls is a sign of success.

    Ask any big streamer or YouTuber, they have their own set of trolls that show up FASTER than their dedicated subscribers.

    I was talking to a big YouTuber who usually gets at least 100k views on any video he posts.

    He told me that the first 30 seconds after a video goes live he ALWAYS gets about 10-20 downvotes and only a couple upvotes. He doesn’t mind – he gets paid for it because it’s engagement that fuels him getting paid. His trolls are more dedicated than his superfans and make him more money.

A noncompliant subject deprives officers of the means to de-escalate. Some people want a little too badly to get on television.

healthguyfsu | May 19, 2020 at 8:32 pm

Some suspicious new posters have shown up as concern trolls here….interesting.

    franker in reply to healthguyfsu. | May 19, 2020 at 8:36 pm

    It’s Crump and his semi-literate posse. Andrew spoke of the propaganda and evidently those bastards (can I say bastards?) can’t stand push back.


    AlecRawls in reply to healthguyfsu. | May 19, 2020 at 9:09 pm

    They are paid en masse by Soros/ Media Matters and are a pestilence all over the internet.

    This started with Obama’s “regulatory czar” Cass Sunnstein who decided that what he most wanted to regulate was speech and originally came up with the scheme for hiring trolls to try to disrupt communication on non-leftist websites.

    Media Matters was the main Soros-funded private adjunct for that effort in the Obama years, with daily meetings between Media Matters and the administration to set their talking points and targets for the day.

    I don’t know how central Media Matters is these days. I presume there has substantial diversification of the paid-troll effort since then. In any case, it is certainly an ongoing effort.

    Cass Sunnstein is the most illiberal man ever to call himself “liberal,” and that’s a tall order. The only more illiberal people are the straight up communists like the Alinsky communist twins Obama and Hillary.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | May 19, 2020 at 9:09 pm

Barrack really shouldn’t let his boy friends run around half dressed like that.


Just looking at the comments, I think several on here are missing one of Branca’s main points: apart from the legal war there is a propaganda war. The “police stop” video is part of the propaganda war.

You can feel however you want about the police stop video. Justified, unjustified….what matters here is that the video is being shown to try and counter the viewpoint that Arbury was just an nice guy out for a run and got murdered by racists. If he can be portrayed as a “punk” instead of a nice guy, that’s a few punches landed by the defense.

Since the Zimmerman case, I don’t believe any first take on anything I read (I only read….no more tv news for years now). My first question, every time, is “I wonder what part of the story I’m not being told”. You can always bank on not being told things purposely.

    The Livewire in reply to jaudio. | May 20, 2020 at 11:23 am

    Respectfully, you’re half right. The ‘nice jogger out for a run’ is propaganda too.

Thanks for your posts Andrew. I was beginning to think I was the only one who was bothering to look at the video.

Here is the comment I posted at a very pro-self-defense pro-2A website the other day where the prevailing opinion was that Arbery was shot for jogging while black. Warning, it’s kinda long:

Anyone can see just by looking at the tape that Arbery attacked McMichael and grabbed his shotgun, at which point Arbery’s attack became an armed attack. McMichael then defended himself against this armed attacker. That much is simple fact, recorded right on the video.

It is very strange to hear people assert that Aubrey was murdered without even trying to come to grips with the fact that RIGHT IN THE VIDEO he can be seen perpetrating a full exertion/speed/aggression armed attack against McMichael.

This attack was after after Arbery had already evaded McMichael by running past the passenger side of McMichael’s pick-up truck (also in the video). McMichael made no move to interdict this evasion, staying on the driver’s side of the pick-up. But instead of running on by Arbery charged sharply back across in front of the pick-up to attack McMichael.

Maybe the people who are crying “murder” COULD make a case that Arbery thought he was defending himself and in this way make the case that Arbery was not necessarily committing attempted murder when he made his armed attack on McMichael. But even if Arbery did think he was defending himself (in the absence of any attack by McMichael), that would in no way weaken McMichael’s right to defend himself against Arbery’s armed attack.

As an aside, it seems pretty clear that the only thing Arbery was trying to defend himself from was a meeting with the police. He can’t have seen himself as defending against an attack by McMicheal for several reasons. The first is that McMichael did not attack him.

Further, Arbrey already KNEW that these neighborhood men were not trying to attack him, that were only trying to get him to stop and wait for police to arrive and that they were not using force in this effort. Arbery already knew all this because he had already evaded them a couple of times with them doing nothing but shouting for him to stop.

He also knew that they had good reason for wanting the police to question him because he had just been trespassing at a construction site. Now on their third attempt to get Arbery to stop the McMichaels were making it clear that, while they were not using force against Arbery, they WERE going to keep after him and maintain surveillance/contact with him until police arrived. If he kept evading they were going to keep cat and mousing him and police would be there shortly.

It seems pretty obvious that THAT is what prompted Arbery’s attack. He was trying to defend himself against police questioning and that is not a legal grounds for the use of lethal force.

Back to the main point: even if one is somehow sympathetic to the perverted racist idea that because Arbery was black he had some kind of right to defend himself from police attention, and hence from whites who are trying to keep eyes on him until police arrive, that in no way weakens McMichael’s right to use lethal force to defend himself against Arbery’s armed attack.

We’ve got people here cocking-up in their minds the idea that Arbery somehow had a right to use lethal force against people who were non-forcefully trying to get him to stop for questioning, but then these same people can somehow deny that the neighborhood men who tried to question Arbery have a right to defend themselves even from direct armed attack.

You see the slip between the cup and the lip here right? Somebody wants to question you: you can try to kill them in self defense against this questioning. Someone perpetrates a hyper-aggressive armed attack against you: you have no right to defend yourself.

Stinks of racial privilege.

    Sanddog in reply to AlecRawls. | May 19, 2020 at 10:15 pm

    You know, I just can’t get past the “two citizens following Arbery, yelling at him to stop and then confronting him on a public street while holding a shotgun”. Presuming that you are innocent of any crime and someone did that crap to you, would you be in fear for your life?

      Mac45 in reply to Sanddog. | May 19, 2020 at 10:54 pm

      So, let’s say that you are an innocent man, who has a truck with armed men in it pass you. let’s assume [something that I hate to do] that you are fearful that these men may wish to do you harm. Does turning around and running back down a paved street, away from the men in a motor vehicle sound like a good plan of evasion? After all the truck is faster than you are and can easily overtake you, which it does, in fact, do. Now the truck is back in front of you and the occupants are getting out. Again, does running past the truck then turning suddenly to launch an attack on a man with a shotgun, sound like a winning strategy to you? Would it not be much more tactically sound for you turn and run off the road and through yards or other property, where you not only have cover and concealment by the truck would either have a tough time following you, if it could even follow you at all? Fight or flight. The rule of thumb is fight when you have to and flee when you can. Remember, he who turns and runs away, lives to run another day.

      So, why, when in an open area with plenty of cover all around would an unarmed man run right up to an armed man and attack him? Arbery’s attack upon McMichael is an assault, if it places McMichael in fear. Arbery has a defense, self defense, if 1) McMicheal threatened him with the shotgun and 2) this placed Arbery in fear. Now, if McMichael did not overtly threaten Arbery, then Arbery most likely can not prove he acted in self defense. And, at the point where Arbery uses force to attempt to wrest the shotgun away from McMichael, he is now committing a strong arm robbery. And deadly force can be used to prevent the commission of a forcible felony in Georgia.

        MarkSmith in reply to Mac45. | May 20, 2020 at 12:01 am

        You are making an assumption that Aubrey can be a rational thinker. Based on the video, he might not be the smartest rock in the bag, but he is entitle to justice. I am betting that the Grand Jury does not come back with murder, but the good old boys are still in hot water.

          healthguyfsu in reply to MarkSmith. | May 20, 2020 at 2:01 am

          That is the assumption that penalizes both parties. All of these cases are tried well removed from the heat of the moment. How many times have we seen a heat of the moment self defense case (Theodore Wafer for example) that just doesn’t hold up in the comfort of the courtroom? “Couldn’t think clearly” is not a valid case for self defense (the law and the juries that reconcile that law have said as much multiple times), and it wouldn’t have been a valid case for Arbery if he had wrestled away the shotgun and shot the other party.

          Both parties acted aggressively, but both were of sound mind (unless one or the other was under the influence…not sure of tox screens on either party). No one was shot until there was a fight for the gun, and the guy who lost got shot. No one brandished until there was a clear and imminent threat. A rifle or shotgun need not be concealed or encased to avoid “brandishing” charges.

          Mac45 in reply to MarkSmith. | May 20, 2020 at 12:17 pm

          So, you are trying to use the old incompetent boob defense to justify Arbery’s actions, eh? Good luck with that. Also, this is NOT going to a grand jury. That is what Barnhill wanted to do with the case. Now the GBI has arrested the McMichaels and some other prosecutor has filed charges. No magistrate is going to set aside the arrest and refuse to file charges based upon lack of evidence, no matter how flawed the case is. So, it will end up going to trial, just as the Zimmerman case did.

          MarkSmith in reply to MarkSmith. | May 20, 2020 at 2:56 pm

          I am not trying to use the boob defense for Arbrey. I am trying to say that until it is ruled out that McMichaels were not banishing their weapons and “chasing” as the NTY indications, everything is on the table. I have zero facts here except for some conjecture that it was static (not likely since I doubt that the good old boys were just parked with guns).

          Ahmaud Arbery’s Killing Will Go to Grand Jury as Graphic Video Emerges

          Mr. Arbery, 25, was killed after two men pursued him in a South Georgia neighborhood, a confrontation that was caught on video.

          Not sure if anyone remembers the case of the guy that house got broken in to so many times that he rigged a shot gun to go off if they broke in again. I think he lost his case when it went off and killed on of the intruders.

          Mac45 in reply to MarkSmith. | May 20, 2020 at 3:37 pm

          Mark, you are way off-base here.

          First, the NYT article was written before the McMichaels were arrested by GBI. In fact there is an update in the article which acknowledges that. Since then charges have been filed WITHOUT the case being heard by a grand jury.

          So far we have seen NO evidence that the McMichaels threatened Arbery. We know they followed him,, in an attempt to have him stop and either wait for police or answer questions. We have no evidence that they made any attempt to illegally compel him to stop. We also have rather compelling evidence that, by not taking flight and going out of his way to attack Travis McMichaels, he was not in any significant fear of either man. We also know that the physical attack upon McMichaels, by Arbery, would be a criminal act, or acts, unless Arbery was acting in lawful self defense. And, there is no clear-cut evidence that he was acting in self defense.

          See the problem with this case is that there is NO evidence that the McMichaels violated any laws in the lead-up to the confrontation with Arbery. There is clear evidence that Arbery initiated the physical confrontation, by attacking McMichaels. There is no clear evidence that Arbery was acting in self defense, when he attacked McMichaels. And, if he was not, then McMichaels was defending himself from a battery and attempted strong arm robbery. Finally, there is no clear evidence that McMichaels intentionally shot Arbery, as Arbery’s actions could have cause the weapon to discharge, wounding him.

          See the problem? This is why Barnhill wanted to take the case to a grand jury. If the grand jury handed down a true bill, Barnhill would have prosecuted. But, that was not allowed to happen. The state could have waited until the judicial system was open and a grand jury empaneled. The McMichaels were not a flight risk. But, instead the Governor decided to buckle to media pressure and have the GBI investigate and make an arrest and another prosecutor prosecute. Barnhill then notified the Governor as to his misgivings about that course of action. This places the Arbery family in a good position to obtain civil settlements, before the trial commences [as happened in the Zimmerman case], but does little to assure “justice” for all.

          ConradCA in reply to MarkSmith. | May 20, 2020 at 7:08 pm

          He got justice and justice put him 6 ft under.

    CommoChief in reply to AlecRawls. | May 19, 2020 at 11:39 pm


    To state that ‘we know that Arbery thought…’ is false. Can we infer his line of reasoning based on his actions within the totality of current evidence? Sure, but that isn’t the same thing.

    The bottom line here is that it doesn’t appear based upon the publicly available objective evidence as of today that the McMichaels committed a crime. Maybe there is new footage of the encounter that has better audio, a longer duration taken from a better angle.

    Even so, the fact is that once Arbery charged forward towards a man holding a shotgun and tried to wrestle it away the very best than can be said for Arbery is that both men could be presumed to be in fear of imminent death. Thus both equally justified in use of force.

    The video is not pleasant to watch and the whole scenario gives me a bad vibe. But how I feel isn’t the law nor is it relevant that the video makes me want to shower.

    Do I agree with the McMichaels actions. No. Would I have pursued a guy off the property limit and down the street for trespassing? No. Would I try to soft detain/trick someone into agreement to wait for PD? No

    The reason I wouldn’t have done those things is that those kinds of choices lead to the possibility of a bad outcome even if those choices were lawful. Which is exactly where the McMichaels find themselves.

‘Ahmaud Arbery was just out jogging and getting exercise…’

My arse.

Mr Branca has provided useful information.

It is really a shame that Trolls like NGAREADER (I guess he thinks we are too dumb to understand phonetics) have invaded the site.

Prof, I would highly recommend that you ban all fools like this.

And Crump, too, with his mouth full of marbles, if he hasn’t posted here already!


    NGAREADER in reply to franker. | May 19, 2020 at 11:17 pm

    Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what phonetics has to do with this?

    MarkSmith in reply to franker. | May 20, 2020 at 12:15 am

    Nah, let him stay. We have had our share of trolls and had fun with them. Even some cat lovers that were not trolls, just obnoxious. As for franker, not seen you around here, but then maybe I have been spending too much time at TreeHouse chasing down spygate to notice.

    I think I found LI with the Zimmerman case. Same time I found Treehouse and Stately McDaniel. Lucianne is probably what linked me to them both. Maybe Drudge (what a joke now). There was a blogger that had great insight in the Zimmerman case. Forgot who he was. Operated similar to reddit.

    Personally wish these cases would just go away; this is election year and distractions like this are not good.

    Massinsanity in reply to franker. | May 20, 2020 at 1:58 pm

    Please don’t attempt to turn this into a site where differing opinions are discouraged. That is the hallmark of the left. Vigorous debate should be encouraged.

The Arbery case has moved out of the criminal justice arena and into the civil damages arena. The narrative is being circulated that Arbery was just out for a leisurely jog when he was accosted and threatened by two men with firearms. The innocent Arbery was then gunned down in cold blood, possibly for racist motives. The whole purpose of this is, as Mr. Branca so ably points out, to force an arrest of one or more of the men who were involved in the incident, so that successful, wrongful death lawsuits can be filed.

If the above narrative were, in fact, anywhere close to the facts in the case, then an arrest would have been made swiftly. This was, after all, a rather high profile case, locally, with definite racial overtones [white man shoots black man]. But, there were NO racial overtones, as evidenced by the charges eventually filed. The charges are aggravated assault and felony murder. If the shooting was intentional, even as an after thought, the charge would have been either 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. But, either of those charges would have required that the prosecution prove the elements of them, separate from any lesser charge such as aggravated assault. By charging felony murder, all the prosecution has to prove is the aggravated assault and a conviction for felony murder would follow almost automatically, even if Arbery caused his own injuries. There is absolutely NO reason why this case can not be taken before a grand jury, except that there is a very strong possibility that a grand jury would not return a true bill against either of the McMichaels. So, just as with the Zimmerman case, a probable cause case is filed to guarantee an arrest, for political reasons.

Some people have called this bs the Black Grievance Industry.
I guess they were hurting for a new case, until this showed up.

Ty for wading through the deep weeds on this Mr. Branca.

    ConradCA in reply to amwick. | May 20, 2020 at 7:16 pm

    The real reason for this case is that it’s an election year and the progressive fascists need to motive blacks to vote. This case will allow them prey on the racist and victimhood of blacks with lies about this shooting.

Undewear hanging out of pants is a felony.

Or should be.

inspectorudy | May 20, 2020 at 12:34 am

I have read over and over that releasing the video was really stupid. I watched it several times and I vehemently disagree. It showed me two really obvious things. One, Arbery was not cornered or trapped. He could have walked in any direction away from the truck. Two, McMichaels did not point the shotgun at him ever. Arbery ran around the front of the truck and hit McMichaels in the head with his fist and grabbed the barrel of the gun. If he was in fear of his life would he do that? Would any of you do that? I don’t think so and I don’t believe any jury will believe he was in fear for his life. I believe this video will save the day for the McMichaels.

    Massinsanity in reply to inspectorudy. | May 20, 2020 at 2:01 pm

    Don’t know about you but I have never been confronted on a public street by 2 strangers with firearms so I cannot say how I would react now or back when I was in my early 20s and neither can you.

I read from this site almost everyday for the last 6 years. I seldom post. I am intrigued as to how most people are so emotionally invested in this case that they can’t even process the facts in front of them in a video. The next level is those who say they are awaiting the facts to come out before the make judgment. Unless there is some past recial history, or video/audio of McMichaels actually pointing there guns at Ahmaud or verbally threatening him with force what do you expect to come out? I’m unsure where rational has gone.

    MarkSmith in reply to Dr.Dave. | May 20, 2020 at 11:31 am

    I am intrigued as to how most people are so emotionally invested in this case that they can’t even process the facts in front of them in a video.

    Well geez, then you should understand why we would not jump to any conclusion after “just” see a few videos, if you have been watching for 6 years!

    If you follow Stately McDaniel, you would understand that things don’t always go down as they appear to be.

    I am on the fence right now. I struggle with 3 people having a confrontation (2 with guns and 1 with a camera)going against the local thug. Might be justified, but there is more to this story than a simple trespass.

    Geez, look at the Thomas Stone shooting.

He jis be turning he life around and BOOM, long come two cracka wit dey guns a’blazin! /sarc

Had shotgun shorty not had a shotgun in his hands he would not have engaged with the decedent without having his ass handed to him for trying. This was a matter for law enforcement, crimes against property and no one’s life was in peril before shotgun shorty introduced peril.

Georgia Senate Bill 224 would require someone who displays or pulls a gun to aim that weapon at the person — or otherwise use it “in a threatening manner” — before he or she could be charged with felony aggravated assault.

The bill has not passed yet, from what I read, so McMichaels might have more problems to deal with than Andrews claims.–regional-govt–politics/georgia-panel-approves-bill-aiming-make-legal-brandish-gun/Oe2x0xPUTKP99PueauFWdI/

Might have to wait for a trail to get all the information (or misinformation) like in the Zimmerman case.

    Mac45 in reply to MarkSmith. | May 20, 2020 at 3:58 pm

    Here the current applicable statutes:

    GSS 16-5-21 [Aggravated Assault]

    ” (a) A person commits the offense of aggravated assault when he or she assaults:

    (1) With intent to murder, to rape, or to rob;

    (2) With a deadly weapon or with any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in serious bodily injury;

    (3) With any object, device, or instrument which, when used offensively against a person, is likely to or actually does result in strangulation; or

    (4) A person or persons without legal justification by discharging a firearm from within a motor vehicle toward a person or persons.”

    GSS 16-5-20 [Simple Assault]:

    ” (a) A person commits the offense of simple assault when he or she either:

    (1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another; or

    (2) Commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury.”

    GSS 16-5-1 [Felony Murder]:

    “(c) A person commits the offense of murder when, in the commission of a felony, he or she causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice.”

    To have an aggravated assault, in this case one has to commit a simple assault with a deadly weapon. To commit the simple assault the person has to commit an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury. And, of course the aggravated battery has to be proven before a charge of felony murder can be substantiated. Does simply holding a firearm and approaching another person produce “reasonable” apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury? All you need is one juror who says no and you lose the whole case. See the problem for the prosecution?

Winter coat over no shirt, 2/3rds of underwear showing.

Mr. Branca, some of your non law based comments here are pure savage. Tonight, I will drink a toast to your repertoire and highly educated snark. Salude!