Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Arbery Case VERDICT – All Defendants Guilty of Murder

Arbery Case VERDICT – All Defendants Guilty of Murder

Travis McMichael, Greg McMichael, and William “Ryan” Bryan are on trial on charges of murder and other felonies over the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery on February 23, 2020, in Brunswick, GA.

Welcome to our ongoing coverage of the Ahmaud Arbery case trial, in which Travis McMichael, Greg McMichael, and William “Ryan” Bryan are on trial on charges of murder and other felonies over the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery on February 23, 2020, in Brunswick, GA.   We are entering Day 2 of Jury Deliberations.

Andrew Branca is unavailable today, so Prof. Jacobson and I will cover if there is a verdict. When the verdict is read, you can follow along with the Counts from the Indictment at the bottom of this post. See here for prior coverage.

VERDICTS READ IN COURT

VERDICT

(Will mark up this list when announced)

COUNT l – MALICE MURDER, O.C.G.A. 16-5-1

TRAVIS MCMICHAEL  Guilty
GREG MCMICHAEL Not Guilty
WILLIAM R BRYAN Not Guilty

COUNT 2 – FELONY MURDER, O.C.G.A. 16-5-1 – Aggravated Assault

TRAVIS MCMICHAEL Guilty
GREG MCMICHAEL Guilty
WILLIAM R BRYAN Not Guilty

COUNT 3 – FELONY MURDER, O.C.G.A. 16-5-1 – Aggravated Assault

TRAVIS MCMICHAEL Guilty
GREG MCMICHAEL Guilty
WILLIAM R BRYAN Guilty

COUNT 4 – FELONY MURDER, O.C.G.A. 16-5-1 – False Imprisonment

TRAVIS MCMICHAEL Guilty
GREG MCMICHAEL Guilty
WILLIAM R BRYAN Guilty

COUNT 5 – FELONY MURDER, O.C.G.A. 16-5-1 – Criminal Attempt to Commit False Imprisonment

TRAVIS MCMICHAEL Guilty
GREG MCMICHAEL Guilty
WILLIAM R BRYAN Guilty

COUNT 6 – AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, O.C.G.A. 16-5-21 – Assault with firearm, deadly weapon, to wit: a 12 gauge
shotgun

TRAVIS MCMICHAEL Guilty
GREG MCMICHAEL Guilty
WILLIAM R BRYAN Not Guilty

COUNT 7 – AGGRAVATED ASSAULT, O.C.G.A. 16-5-21 – Assault with a Ford F-150 pickup truck and a Chevy Silverado pickup truck

TRAVIS MCMICHAEL Guilty
GREG MCMICHAEL Guilty
WILLIAM R BRYAN Guilty

COUNT 8 – FALSE IMPRISONMENT, O.C.G.A. 16-5-41 – Unlawfully confine and detain Ahmaud Arbery without legal authority, to wit: said accused did chase Ahmaud Arbery with a Ford F-150 pickup truck and a Chevy Silverado pickup truck through the public roadways of the Satilla Shores neighborhood and did confine and detain Ahmaud Arbery on Holmes Drive using said pickup trucks.

TRAVIS MCMICHAEL Guilty
GREG MCMICHAEL Guilty
WILLIAM R BRYAN Guilty

COUNT 9 – CRIMINAL ATTEMPT TO COMMIT A FELONY, O.C.G.A. 16-4-1 – In violation of the personal liberty of Ahmaud Arbery, unlawfully chase Ahmaud Arbery through the public roadways of the Satilla Shores neighborhood in pickup trucks and did attempt to confine and detain Ahmaud Arbery without legal authority on Burford Drive using a Ford F-150 pickup truck and a Chevy Silverado pickup truck.

TRAVIS MCMICHAEL Guilty
GREG MCMICHAEL Guilty
WILLIAM R BRYAN Guilty

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

If the nails aren’t clipped, you must acquit!


 
 0 
 
 0
TargaGTS | November 24, 2021 at 9:15 am

Verdict is in, apparently. Will be read before noon.

https://twitter.com/karol/status/1463509332771983364

I expect a verdict by 8:00 pm today at the latest. I expect a not guilty verdict or a hung jury. There simply is no evidence to support any of the charges and that is even without considering the defenses of citizens arrest or self defense. I just can’t believe that there won’t be at least one person on this jury with common sense and moral convictions.


     
     1 
     
     7
    REDACTED in reply to bigo. | November 24, 2021 at 10:12 am

    yeah, the McMichaels had plenty of chances to kill him but htey didn’t

    he only fired the shotgun when Ahmaud attacked him

    and Ahmaud gamed his attack by going arround to the right and taking a hard left, right into McMichaels

    those facts are undisputable


       
       3 
       
       4
      Char Char Binks in reply to REDACTED. | November 24, 2021 at 10:39 am

      All involved, including the entire city of Brunswick, will face a terror campaign if insufficient guilty verdicts are delivered.


         
         0 
         
         0
        Raven61 in reply to Char Char Binks. | November 25, 2021 at 12:43 pm

        That was never gonna happen. Frankly, that’s a truly civilized part of the country.


         
         0 
         
         0
        PersonofInterests in reply to Char Char Binks. | November 26, 2021 at 11:26 am

        Up. This will prove to be another example of “Just-us-by-Coercion” albeit the result won’t be a “Not Guilty Verdict” in the O.J. Simpson Trial. All the Black Racists have to do is motivate the usual cast of Race Huslters and Pimps with enough money to get out their Thugs to promise anarchy, arson, larceny, assault, and murder and the Jury will be intimidated to return a verdict that is based on fear instead of EVIDENCE.


     
     0 
     
     8
    BillyHW in reply to bigo. | November 24, 2021 at 10:16 am

    I don’t think this jury will decide based on evidence and the law, sadly. It’s going to be feelings that win the day.


     
     0 
     
     0
    JACOBUS1 in reply to bigo. | November 26, 2021 at 2:54 am

    the judge wrongly construed the citizens arrest stature he is a moron and a pro blm n pro felon pos

If isn’t resolved by tonight, it’s deadlocked

Hey folks, if you need some entertainment while waiting for the verdict to drop, have a look at this. Pure, unadulterated crazy.

https://youtu.be/8eJ5E_-GUGY

I didn’t watch the entire trial so I may have missed something, but I haven’t seen or heard anything in the testimony or arguments that suggests to me that Arbery was ever in fear for his life. He must have heard the neighbors yelling about him as he exited the English house, and he may have seen them gesturing to each other, and he obviously knew (at some point) that some of them were following him on the road, but he doesn’t seem to have tried to get away from them. Instead of running off across a field or into another’s house’s backyard (where the trucks wouldn’t have followed), Arbery stayed on the road and stayed in view of the pursuers. He even jumped up on the side of Bryan’s truck, on the driver’s side, for a while, which made Travis McMichael think he might be witnessing an attempted car-jacking in progress. That behavior doesn’t suggest Arbery was afraid of the person in the truck. And of course, after the McMichaels had lost sight of Arbery and parked their truck on the road, Arbery ran up to their truck and attacked Travis McMichael. Again, he could have run away from them (into someone’s yard, or across the field) but he chose once more to run at them.

Arbery’s behavior doesn’t seem like the behavior of somebody who was frightened. It looks a lot more like the behavior of somebody who was angry.


     
     1 
     
     9
    bigo in reply to Observer. | November 24, 2021 at 11:04 am

    Arbery had anger management issues. The court had already forced him to take anger management classes and go on medication for his mental problems. He was off his medication and very angry that these men were going to have him arrested, which would be a probation violation and result in him having to serve his felony prison sentences.


     
     2 
     
     2
    Char Char Binks in reply to Observer. | November 24, 2021 at 11:08 am

    Travis made a big mistake in testifying about arbery’s facial expressions and demeanor, and should have stuck with describing his actions. It’s okay to call Nick Sandmann’s expression smug, Derek Chauvin’s face evil, Amber Guyger’s or Kyle Rittenhouse’s tears crocodilian, but any claim that a black can show animosity or ill will through anything but an overt act is racist. The same goes for assertions of untidy toenails. If you’re going to play the game, you need to know the rules.


     
     0 
     
     1
    thetaqjr in reply to Observer. | November 24, 2021 at 6:30 pm

    Tldy
    Damn, son, look up why writers use paragraphs. Some of me is outright illiterate.

If the jury looks like that… they are done

I’ll be making my predictions after the verdict is announced. Thus far I’m getting it right.


 
 0 
 
 1
Juris Doctor | November 24, 2021 at 1:45 pm

Count 6 seems to be in error for Greg because he did not have a shotgun. Regardless, the inevitable appeal will be interesting.


 
 2 
 
 5
Juris Doctor | November 24, 2021 at 1:48 pm

I would put the odds of this coming back on appeal at greater than 50% based on instruction error and clarification about citizens arrest.

Now that these 3 hardened criminals with repeated offenses are off the street everyone in the area is feeling safer.


 
 0 
 
 1
Char Char Binks | November 24, 2021 at 1:51 pm

SOCIAL DISTANCING TODAY
SOCIAL DISTANCING TOMORROW
SOCIAL DISTANCING FOREVER


 
 6 
 
 12
Tom Morrow | November 24, 2021 at 1:55 pm

It’s difficult to avoid the fact that these men provoked the incident that led to the death of Arbery.

Remember, being chased and threatened with a gun led to a self-defense verdict for Rittenhouse, and I fail to see how it was any different for Arbery. What these men did is the definition of provocation, so Artery’s attack on one of the gun-wielders was completely justified as an act of self-defense.

That is the only viable legal viewpoint, IMO. And that is why they were convicted. This was the correct verdict.


     
     6 
     
     2
    alien in reply to Tom Morrow. | November 24, 2021 at 1:56 pm

    What’s your legal background?


       
       2 
       
       4
      Tom Morrow in reply to alien. | November 24, 2021 at 1:58 pm

      None, I just follow court cases and apply logic and common sense.


       
       0 
       
       1
      moshemo in reply to alien. | November 24, 2021 at 2:47 pm

      Who cares – respond to his arguments, not his credentials.


         
         0 
         
         0
        alien in reply to moshemo. | November 24, 2021 at 8:07 pm

        I’d like to know a little about the person’s background to help me decide if his arguments are valid based on the law.

        The opinions of various and assorted legal “experts” who have no experience in the law, aren’t convincing.


           
           0 
           
           1
          moshemo in reply to alien. | November 25, 2021 at 1:50 am

          Andrew Branca has been numerous day by day coverage of various high profile, self-defense cases here on Legal Insurrection. He has very clearly and in a very detailed way discussed and explained the legal issues in those cases and how they apply.

          Tom Morrow was taking some of those principles and applying it to this case (evidently after having closely followed the trial itself). It is that type of intellectual exercise that leads people to better understand issues and to have more informed opinions.

          His discussion of the issue of provocation is a direct result of Andrew Branca thoroughly discussing the legal significance of provocation in self-defense cases in the Kyle Rittenhouse case where the prosecution attempted to get Kyle convicted based on the argument that Kyle provoked the attack.

          Tom merely took that principle of provocation and made the intellectual argument that the same principle applies here. Others in the comment section disagreed. That is an enriching conversation.

          The second, though, that we question Tom’s credentials for making an intellectual point, we shut down the conversation and none of us learn anything.

          One final point – the entire jury system is based on the notion that 12 average people with NO LEGAL BACKGROUND can grasp the fundamental legal principles well enough to make a decision as to whether or not someone in a PARTICULAR CASE is guilty and innocent and should be punished or set free.

          I see no difference between those 12 people discussing those legal principles as apply to the particulars of a case in a closed room and people here attempting to do the same thing in a public comment forum.

          NOTE: I do NOT mean any of the above personally. I just think it is time people start spending more time discussing issues then discussing credentials. This is true about law, science and many other areas.

          Be well,

          Moshe


     
     4 
     
     7
    Tom Morrow in reply to Tom Morrow. | November 24, 2021 at 1:57 pm

    That said, Arbery would still be alive today if he had stopped or just kept running. His death was inevitable when he decided to try to take the gun from his pursuer. That doesn’t relieve these men of their culpability, though.


       
       0 
       
       3
      NGAREADER in reply to Tom Morrow. | November 24, 2021 at 4:35 pm

      Who knows if he would be alive today. Those guys were stupid enough to think publishing that video was a good idea, even after nothing had happened to them two months later.
      This was not the Rittenhouse case, which was clearly self-defense with lots of video to support that verdict.
      Lots of people will claim the protests outside, public pressure, and celebrity race hustlers in the courtroom let to this outcome. Actually, the facts did.
      If ever there was a correct verdict in a racially charged case, this is it.

        The idea of releasing the video came from Greg McMichael. He believed that they would be exonerated and justified by their actions. I think that Greg and Travis still believe that they were justified and even righteous in doing what they did.


       
       0 
       
       0
      MarkS in reply to Tom Morrow. | November 24, 2021 at 6:02 pm

      If that were the case, what culpability to those three have….self defense?


       
       0 
       
       0
      JACOBUS1 in reply to Tom Morrow. | November 26, 2021 at 3:02 am

      it sure does. they were practicingself defense in an assault by aubruy


     
     2 
     
     4
    Juris Doctor in reply to Tom Morrow. | November 24, 2021 at 1:58 pm

    No, they did not.


     
     6 
     
     5
    bigo in reply to Tom Morrow. | November 24, 2021 at 2:43 pm

    Arbery was fleeing the sceen of a crime, so he had no right to self defense. Also, nobody was threatening Arbery with a use or imminent use of unlawful force when he attacked Travis, so again, Arbery had no right to self defense. Improper jury instructions and lack of enough common sense to figure out what the law and facts were is what resulted in a conviction. Of course the demonstrators threatening the city and the jury didn’t help anything either.


       
       1 
       
       0
      moshemo in reply to bigo. | November 24, 2021 at 2:51 pm

      Thank you for offering a thoughtful (and respectful) response. Again, as I noted above, I barely followed this trial, so I don’t personally have an opinion.

      My only question is whether or not one needs a threat of imminent use of unlawful force. From the Rittenhouse trial it sounds like one can PROVOKE an attack even without threatening force.


         
         0 
         
         1
        bigo in reply to moshemo. | November 24, 2021 at 5:15 pm

        To claim self defense there needs to be a use or imminent use of force against you before you are justified in defending yourself from (you can’t defend yourself from something that isn’t happening). To lose the right to self defense you don’t have to use or threaten the imminent use of force, it is enough that you intentinally provok another into attacking you with unlawful force. Normally when you have the right to use or threaten the use of force in defense of property, in prevention of crime, or to make an arrest and this is a lawful use of force and isn’t considered unlawful provocaton.


           
           1 
           
           4
          TheAbidingDude in reply to bigo. | November 24, 2021 at 6:40 pm

          Shotgun was leveled at Arbery. That’s a direct threat there.


           
           0 
           
           3
          henrybowman in reply to bigo. | November 24, 2021 at 10:34 pm

          You are describing a peculiar quirk in Wisconsin law that exists virtually nowhere else. This incident did not happen in Wisconsin.
          Your statement that “Arbery was fleeing the sceen of a crime, so he had no right to self defense” is also deadnutz wrong. Fleeing a burglary doesn’t surrender your right to self-defense by any means. It makes you subject to lawful arrest, which is an entirely different thing.


       
       0 
       
       1
      Sanddog in reply to bigo. | November 24, 2021 at 3:31 pm

      They suspected Arbery of crimes that had been committed in the neighborhood. They knew he had trespassed but had zero evidence of theft. When Greg McMichael saw him, got in his truck and went after him, he had not seen Arbery trespass that day. Did Arbery have a right to self defense when he was chased down and had a loaded weapon pointed at him?


         
         1 
         
         1
        bigo in reply to Sanddog. | November 24, 2021 at 5:25 pm

        Normally someone fleeing the scene of a crime can’t claim self defense. I didn’t ever see any evidence that anyone pointed a weapon at Arbery until the first shot hit him, and I think that was the second shot. I think the first shot was an accidental discharge when Arbery grabbed the shotgun which was pointing sideways (a 90 degree angle to him and Travis). I could be wrong, but I don’t think any evidence of a use or threatened use of force was offered into evidence, or at least any that was admissable evidence against Travis. There certainly wasn’t any evidence offered that was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the McMichaels did not have a reasonable belief that Arbery was fleeing the scene of a felony.


           
           0 
           
           0
          moshemo in reply to bigo. | November 25, 2021 at 1:57 am

          If I understand you correctly, if Bob (let’s say) robs a bank and is fleeing from Ted and Ted has his gun pointed at Bob to get Bob to stop, then Bob CANNOT claim self defense against Ted. Is that correct?

          If so, what if Ted has other, non-lethal options available?


     
     1 
     
     1
    moshemo in reply to Tom Morrow. | November 24, 2021 at 2:46 pm

    I have NOT followed this case closely. My understanding is that the POTENTIAL difference between this case and the Rittenhouse case is whether or not it was LEGITIMATE for the defendants to chase Arbery. That is to say, if that they thought he was involved in a crime and were trying to do a citizens arrest, then that may mean that they did not provoke the case.

    Again, I have not followed the case so I can’t comment on the specifics. I’m just noting that a lot depends on context.

    With that said, it seems that you have zeroed in on the key issue. Did they provoke the incident — and, if so, are they then legally liable for the consequences.


     
     0 
     
     6
    Char Char Binks in reply to Tom Morrow. | November 24, 2021 at 3:15 pm

    If rosenbaum, huber, and grosskreutz had given up the chase before confronting him up close and personal, Kyle would not have had justification to shoot them.


     
     1 
     
     8
    Observer in reply to Tom Morrow. | November 24, 2021 at 3:16 pm

    How did they provoke it? By following Arbery in their vehicles? That’s not illegal. Travis McMichael testified that he and his father didn’t show their guns to Arbery or threaten him until the point at which they’re parked and Arbery is running at Travis McMichael while McMichael, who is standing outside the truck, is yelling at Arbery to stop. A lot of people on social media (and other media) have characterized this case as trucks full of gun-waving rednecks chasing a frightened black man down the street, but that’s not what the evidence showed. Bryan didn’t even have a gun with him in his truck, and Arbery was so “fearful” of Bryan that he jumped up on the side of Bryan’s truck and tried to open the driver’s door. And when Arbery saw the McMichael truck parked on the road, he ran around the back of the truck and tried to jump Travis McMichael from his blind side and take his gun. Arbery would be alive today if he hadn’t attacked McMichael. Arbery had multiple opportunities to just turn and run away from both vehicles, but he chose not to. He chose instead to fight, and that turned out to be a very bad choice, for everybody.


     
     0 
     
     5
    Milhouse in reply to Tom Morrow. | November 24, 2021 at 3:30 pm

    What you’re missing is that provocation needs to be an illegal act (except, at least in Wisconsin, if the provocation is with the specific intent that the victim will attack and thus enable the provoker to kill him in “self-defense”). If their act of chasing him was legal, as they argue it was, and as the law seems to say, then they did not lose the right of self-defense when he attacked them.

    Now if he’d succeeded in killing Travis M, and he were on trial, he could argue that he didn’t know they were just trying to arrest him, and thought they were going to kill or injure him, so he was defending himself. Maybe he’d be right, too. But he’s not the one on trial, so his thoughts aren’t relevant; only the defendant’s are.


     
     1 
     
     0
    Massinsanity in reply to Tom Morrow. | November 24, 2021 at 5:44 pm

    Well said Tom and the jury agreed.


     
     1 
     
     5
    healthguyfsu in reply to Tom Morrow. | November 24, 2021 at 5:50 pm

    I know it’s not popular here, but I agree with him on this one.

    They chased him visibly with guns. It was a big mistake on their part. I don’t think they are the white supremacist villains they are being painted to be, but we’ve all become used to this BS flag waving by the left now.

    They lost because they chased him….citizen’s arrest is BS as a legal defense and my advice is don’t try it or you’ll end up with the same fate. If former law enforcement can’t get it right, then you stand no chance in the same situation. You can carry a gun to protect property but you can only pull a gun in defense of your own life.

    You can’t provoke and you can’t brandish (which is basically provocation by being “showy” with a gun). In Virginia (here), a bailbondsman that taught my CCW course told us about a conviction where a guy got out of his car in a traffic dispute and never unholstered his weapon. However, the state successfully argued that he displayed it on his hip and a threatening manner when approaching the other’s vehicle (he got out and did the approach) and waist level was at the driver’s eye level. Thus, he was guilty of brandishing.

    I’m sure no one likes hearing the story like I just told above but the point is to be careful and slow to do anything that could be interpreted as provocation because they will straight nail your ass to the wall just to further their careers. We need each other to keep Brandons out of office, so don’t get yourself put in prison!


     
     2 
     
     1
    n.n in reply to Tom Morrow. | November 24, 2021 at 6:10 pm

    Rittenhouse was putting out fires and offering aid to those affected by the Black Lives Matter violence, he withdrew, was pursued, and in the course of being assaulted, shot and killed his assailants.

    In this case, the initial contact was made by the defendants based on a probable cause that he was an outsider in a frequently burglarized area, then they withdrew, but the decedent pursued them, then in the course of assaulting them was shot and killed.


       
       0 
       
       0
      moshemo in reply to n.n. | November 25, 2021 at 2:05 am

      Well, if there initial contact was because they thought he was committing burgarly AND they withdrew before Arbery attacked, then how is that provocation. Is it provocation to follow somoene IF you have reasonable cause for believing they have committed burgarly (even if that is not true). Is your withdrawal afterwards legally meaningless?


     
     1 
     
     2
    JohnSmith100 in reply to Tom Morrow. | November 24, 2021 at 7:30 pm

    Anyone who dares to interfere with a B&E artist of color must be a racist, just ask them.

    As to Arbery, The minute he decided to assault and try to take the gun, he got what he had coming. All the rest of this is BS.


     
     0 
     
     2
    JohnSmith100 in reply to Tom Morrow. | November 24, 2021 at 10:37 pm

    So you are saying that anytime people object to crooks in their midst, that they are provoking the crook?

I certainly hope the defense is spending this time perfecting their motion for judgement NOV, because it is going to have to be a good fact specific motion that the court can not find any legitimate excuse to deny.


     
     0 
     
     7
    Juris Doctor in reply to bigo. | November 24, 2021 at 2:00 pm

    Verdict on count 6 is incoherent as to Greg, epecially as Roddy was found not guilty of the same. Greg never possesed, handled, or controlled a shotgun, did not drive or operate the truck, and did not get out until after the shooting. So how in the heck is he guilty of assault with a shotgun?

    The defense will go through the motions for a motion for judgment NOV, but it will be a pure waste of time. The trial was a “fair trial”, the law was correctly charged to the jury without material error, and the jury’s verdict was in all respects materially correct on the law and the facts. The McMichaels got what they deserved. Bryan got what he and his pre-trial lawyer’s incompetence asked for.


       
       1 
       
       4
      Milhouse in reply to garybritt. | November 24, 2021 at 3:41 pm

      The law was not correctly charged. The judge should have told the jury, “If you find that the defendants had a reasonable suspicion that Mr Aubrey had committed a felony and was now attempting to escape, then you must treat their attempt to capture him as lawful; if you find that they did not have such a reasonable suspicion, then their attempt to capture him was a felony.”


         
         1 
         
         2
        TheAbidingDude in reply to Milhouse. | November 24, 2021 at 3:47 pm

        Reasonable and probable suspicion, not reasonable suspicion. Otherwise it grants anyone authority to pull a Terry Stop.

        Basically, they needed probable cause, and all they had was reasonable suspicion. Daddy forgot he was retired.

        Milhouse, so many things wrong with what you wrote. Unlike you to a great extent. As far as I know in Georgia and I believe in almost every other state, even the Police may NOT shoot a fleeing felon unless the felon is an immediate and imminent danger of serious bodily injury or danger to another person. Texas has a law that allows one to use deadly force to prevent theft at night if the use of deadly force is reasonable in the circumstances. Most states do not have such a law.

        You state the second sentence has nothing to do with escape and doesn’t even mention the word escape. Obviously Milhouse you have not read the statute. Here it is so you can correct yourself:

        (Sentence 1) A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. (Sentence 2) If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

        The second sentence is ENTIRELY about “escaping or attempting to escape”. It is ONLY about WHEN does a citizen have the right to pursue and arrest an escaping felon.

        The first sentence covers the right to arrest whether the crime is a misdemeanor or felony. The second sentence carves out a limited right to pursue and arrest a person escaping or attempting to escape the scene of the crime. The limiting conditions of the first sentence are the general rule. The first sentence by negative implication from the second sentence does NOT grant the right to pursue an escaping criminal, whether the crime was a misdemeanor or felony. The second sentence grants the limited right to pursue and arrest a fleeing felon, but the limiting conditions of the 1st sentence still apply!!!!


           
           0 
           
           0
          thetaqjr in reply to garybritt. | November 24, 2021 at 6:49 pm

          Nullification every damn time when Advantage =defendant. See FEE


           
           0 
           
           1
          thetaqjr in reply to garybritt. | November 24, 2021 at 10:02 pm

          “the Police may NOT shoot a fleeing felon unless the felon is an immediate and imminent danger of serious bodily injury or danger to another person.”

          Can that be true? Anywhere?


           
           0 
           
           1
          henrybowman in reply to garybritt. | November 24, 2021 at 10:42 pm

          It’s settled law. Read Tennessee v. Garner.
          Millhouse says it applies only to police. That is because an even more stringent rule applies to civilians — they have no right to use any lethal force when their attacker has broken off, and a fleeing anybody has broken off by definition.
          The only exception for both is the same — when the felon fleeing does something like jump into a car and escape by aiming it into a parade of dancing grannies, then either one can take him out.

        Your proposed charging instruction doesn’t reflect the statute or the case law interpreting the statute. Its like you have no idea what you are talking about.


 
 0 
 
 2
UserPeabody | November 24, 2021 at 2:02 pm

Okay, now it’s time for looting. Oh wait. Can’t use that word. Never mind!

Jury saves Atlanta form burning again.


     
     0 
     
     0
    thetaqjr in reply to Elzorro. | November 24, 2021 at 10:19 pm

    Good form, that. Twice is too many, but I thought Brunswick was on the coast and YT.

    Course, BLM/ANTIFA hate YT so bad, they burn the slave qtrs with the slaves qrtd, course BLM/ANTIFA prefer Baltimore and Ferguson, low-density YTs


 
 1 
 
 2
Steven Brizel | November 24, 2021 at 2:11 pm

I think Rittenhouse was a far more attractive defendant than these three defendants whose description of the victim was not helpful There might be grounds for an appeal as to a possibly inconsistent verdict and improper instructions to the jury on citizens arrest but at best those are grounds for a retrial not an acquittal

Over on the ASP channel there’s a theme of never following as a civilian.

1. Those fights are optional. Why risk losing a fight that was optional?
2. The other reason is because this is where it will get you.

If you live in a place where “Arbery” is a problem, you live in a place where there’s a reason why “Arbery” is a problem. The same prosecutor who refuses to prosecute “Arbery” and keep him from serially victimizing people is the prosecutor who is going to prosecute YOU when “Arbery’s” mayhem starts wrecking your world. Arbery wasn’t the problem, the problem was at the prosecutor’s office.


 
 0 
 
 9
TargaGTS | November 24, 2021 at 2:17 pm

We will hear about this verdict ad nauseam for the next week – maybe more – while the corporate media memoryholes a black nationalist running over four-dozen white people killing at least six of them, one of them a little boy.

But, there’s no agenda. Really, they promise.


 
 2 
 
 2
Paul In Sweden | November 24, 2021 at 2:22 pm

All I have to say at the moment is that I have just taken the three inch thick William Techumseh Sherman In The Service of My Country book out of my to be read pile. I will be putting postIT notes all over his time in Georgia.

I will continue to hold my tongue lest I in anger post something that will put me on a No-Fly-List.


 
 1 
 
 7
Juris Doctor | November 24, 2021 at 2:23 pm

The party to a crime theories against Greg and Roddy are specific intent offenses which the state produced no evidence for.


     
     0 
     
     7
    Juris Doctor in reply to Juris Doctor. | November 24, 2021 at 2:36 pm

    Same is true about the attempt offenses. No evidence of the required specific intent to commit a felony.


     
     0 
     
     0
    stevenJ in reply to Juris Doctor. | November 24, 2021 at 11:22 pm

    Agreed on Bryan. I think he should have at least gotten his case severed from the McMichaels’. Let a separate jury decide if he acted intentionally to support them in committing a crime. My gut would say ‘No’, implying he is innocent of the murder and assault w/ gun charges. He probably would still be guilty of the other charges–don’t think seeing a chase would provide probable cause (or whatever the proper qualifier is)–but, again, separate of whatever the McMichaels’ did.

    For Greg, I think he qualifies as a party to the crime(s) that led to Arbery’s death. Either from initiating/causing the original pursuit or encouraging Ryan once in the car. (Pick your poison.). At least that’s how I read this definition: https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2020/title-16/chapter-2/article-2/section-16-2-20/


 
 4 
 
 4
Laser Beam | November 24, 2021 at 2:26 pm

Honk honk, all aboard clown world.

There needs to be an amendment to “double jeopardy” law that says if a determination is made by law enforcement / DA that no charges are appropriate, charges cannot later be brought. That decision needs to be final, absent some new evidence. “new evidence” does not include “MSNBC and Twitter found out about it, and they’re upset.”


 
 1 
 
 0
TheAbidingDude | November 24, 2021 at 2:27 pm

If they’d actually tried to effect a valid arrest, they’d be in better shape.


     
     2 
     
     5
    Juris Doctor in reply to TheAbidingDude. | November 24, 2021 at 2:32 pm

    They did. The intructions given to the jury were wrong.

    Merneigh’s argument ignores the fact that the crime did occur within the presence of the food manager, one of the two persons attempting the arrest, and it occurred within the immediate knowledge of the store manager. HN4 O.C.G.A. § 17-4-60 provides, in pertinent part, that a private citizen may arrest an offender “if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.” 10 It does not distinguish between misdemeanor and felony [***10] offenses. The term “within his immediate knowledge” enables a private citizen to use any of his senses to obtain knowledge that an offense is being committed. 11 A private citizen is not required to actually be present when a misdemeanor offense occurs.

    In Williams, a panel of this court upheld a private citizen’s lawful arrest, finding that the misdemeanor offense was clearly committed within the presence and within the immediate knowledge of the private citizen and that the arrest was effected immediately after the offense occurred. 12 Language in the Williams decision cited by Merneigh, which in isolation appears to suggest that a citizen’s arrest in a misdemeanor case may be made only when the offense was committed in his presence, is simply an application of O.C.G.A. § 17-4-60 to the particular [***11] facts in that case. [**157] This language is mere dicta. It was not only unnecessary to the holding in Williams because the private citizen was actually present when the offense occurred, but it directly conflicts with the clear language of the statute and cases decided both before and after Williams.( Merneigh v. State (2000) 242 Ga.App. 735, 739 [531 S.E.2d 152, 156-157].)


       
       1 
       
       4
      Juris Doctor in reply to Juris Doctor. | November 24, 2021 at 2:41 pm

      O.C.G.A. § 17-4-60 provides, in pertinent part, that a private citizen may arrest an offender “if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.” It does not distinguish between misdemeanor and felony offenses. The term “within his immediate knowledge” enables a private citizen to use any of his senses to obtain knowledge that an offense is being committed. A private citizen is not required to actually be present when a misdemeanor offense occurs. State v. Pinckney (2002) 255 Ga.App. 692, 694 [566 S.E.2d 325, 326].


     
     0 
     
     0
    Char Char Binks in reply to TheAbidingDude. | November 24, 2021 at 3:35 pm

    Irrelevant. They didn’t effect ANY arrest.


       
       0 
       
       2
      Milhouse in reply to Char Char Binks. | November 24, 2021 at 3:52 pm

      But they were attempting one. If it was unlawful, then it was a felony, and the death occurred in the course of that felony. You can’t arbitrarily cut off the felony at the moment when they parked, because Arbery was not on notice that the attack was over. So to defend them you have to establish that the attempted arrest was lawful — and it seems that that has indeed been established.


         
         0 
         
         1
        TheAbidingDude in reply to Milhouse. | November 24, 2021 at 5:27 pm

        No, they didn’t attempt to make an arrest. Travis dismounted with weapon at the ready and did not articulate a legal reason to do so.

        At that instant, a CCW holder could’ve domed Travis and Papa, and the video would show that all three elements for self defense were met.

        Details like clearly stating that you are making a citizen’s arrest are not “magic words.”

        They’re vitally important elements of the law.

The verdict is out and it pretty much follows exactly what I predicted. I argued with Andrew about this case and the citizen’s arrest statute from the time the case first came to public attention. I posted here to Andrew the McMichael’s were going down, and he and I would see who was right after the trial. Now we know. As I’ve said the citizen arrests statute didn’t apply and the McMichael’s had no legal basis for trying to stop and detain Arberry, much less doing so while armed. The McMichael’s were just wanna be cops playing tough guys with real guns, and as a result a person was wrongfully killed. They deserved to be found guilty.

An Ironic note is that the video tape that got all of them convicted and got Bryan convicted was released by Bryan’s attorney in an attempt to show that the killing of Arberry was self defense. The exact OPPOSITE reaction happened all across the nation, and the release of the video tape is what got them all indicted. Bryan’s attorney was an idiot for releasing the video tape. He should have gone to the DA’s office and negotiated an immunity deal for Bryan in exchange for Bryan’s testimony and video tape. Now Bryan through his and his attorneys incompetence will spend the rest of his life in prison along with his McMichael’s buddies.


     
     5 
     
     3
    Juris Doctor in reply to garybritt. | November 24, 2021 at 2:34 pm

    It doesn’t follow your jabbering at all. You were wrong on counts 1, 2, and 6.


     
     0 
     
     2
    randoPerson23 in reply to garybritt. | November 24, 2021 at 3:45 pm

    “… he video tape that got all of them convicted and got Bryan convicted was released by Bryan’s attorney in an attempt to show that the killing of Arberry was self defense …”

    I was thinking about this fact a little while ago. Was it released after the initial decision by the DA to not prosecute, or after they switched prosecutors and went ahead with prosecution? In either case it seems that the old adage of not speaking to the police should be expanded to include not speaking to media. I’ve seen the video — it’s blurry and jumps around and the key moment is obscured. As the Rittenhouse prosecutors proved, people can read anything they want into a smudge. In any event Roddy’s attorney should retire — he’s clearly a poor judge of just how vindictive the media and a large swathe of society is, and he really should have understood that anything you say will be used against you.

      As I recall, this is the timing. Nobody was charged and the local DA was trying to cover up for her friend Greg McMichael. The Arbery family continued to rightfully press for charges. National attention and pressure for charges was just starting to build, but no charges had been filed. Bryon’s then incompetent attorney decided that everyone would look at the video tape he had and conclude Arbery was at fault and it was rightful self-defense because Arbery charged the guy pointing a shotgun at him. So thinking it would help not hurt, the incompetent attorney released the video tape to the media. The result was everyone in the USA saw the video tape and the wanna be cop vigilantes and felt they witnessed a murder. National outrage was immediate, and the state of Georgia took over the case. After a short investigation new prosecutors were appointed, the local good old boy network was ignored, and indictments followed. It is quite possible if the video tape had been handled differently Bryan at a minimum would not have been indicted, and the McMichaels might have gotten away with murder.

One more thing. The verdict in this case will NOT be overturned on Appeal by the McMichaels. The verdict was correct, and if anything the jury instructions on citizen’s arrest were not as clear as they could have properly been IN FAVOR of the prosecution.

As I said before the citizen’s arrest statute just FLATLY DID NOT APPLY to the facts of this case.


     
     2 
     
     5
    Juris Doctor in reply to garybritt. | November 24, 2021 at 2:34 pm

    ROFLMAO….. uh WRONG. The jury instructions had a glaring error.

    Merneigh’s argument ignores the fact that the crime did occur within the presence of the food manager, one of the two persons attempting the arrest, and it occurred within the immediate knowledge of the store manager. HN4 O.C.G.A. § 17-4-60 provides, in pertinent part, that a private citizen may arrest an offender “if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.” 10 It does not distinguish between misdemeanor and felony [***10] offenses. The term “within his immediate knowledge” enables a private citizen to use any of his senses to obtain knowledge that an offense is being committed. 11 A private citizen is not required to actually be present when a misdemeanor offense occurs.

    In Williams, a panel of this court upheld a private citizen’s lawful arrest, finding that the misdemeanor offense was clearly committed within the presence and within the immediate knowledge of the private citizen and that the arrest was effected immediately after the offense occurred. 12 Language in the Williams decision cited by Merneigh, which in isolation appears to suggest that a citizen’s arrest in a misdemeanor case may be made only when the offense was committed in his presence, is simply an application of O.C.G.A. § 17-4-60 to the particular [***11] facts in that case. [**157] This language is mere dicta. It was not only unnecessary to the holding in Williams because the private citizen was actually present when the offense occurred, but it directly conflicts with the clear language of the statute and cases decided both before and after Williams

    ( Merneigh v. State (2000) 242 Ga.App. 735, 739 [531 S.E.2d 152, 156-157].)

      You keep saying I’m wrong, but the results in court keep agreeing with me. “Wrong”, ‘ you keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means. ‘ (Princess Bride).


         
         0 
         
         2
        randoPerson23 in reply to garybritt. | November 24, 2021 at 3:52 pm

        The appeal won’t be about a factual disagreement within the purview of the jury, it will be about a statutory construction issue where the instruction left the jury with no choice other than to convict under these facts. In other words, the jury’s decision isn’t really at issue here, rather, the law governing these circumstances is. I find it difficult to believe that if an appellate court finds the jury instruction legally incorrect, it would find also find it to be harmless error when the instruction as read to the jury, require conviction.

      There is no material error in the instructions you quoted. The second sentence of the statute is about WHEN can a citizen pursue a fleeing felon. The first sentence of the statute is the general limiting conditions, and the second sentence on carves out WHEN can a citizen pursue a person to arrest them. First sentence and second sentence when read together says: 1. In general no pursuit to arrest is ever authorized; and 2. Except that, if its a felony and the limiting conditions of first sentence are met, then pursuit to arrest can be done if citizen also has probably cause to believe they are pursuing the right person.


         
         1 
         
         6
        Juris Doctor in reply to garybritt. | November 24, 2021 at 3:01 pm

        Yawn. The cited cases prove you wrong. The immediate presence instruction was legal error.

        O.C.G.A. § 17-4-60 provides, in pertinent part, that a private citizen may arrest an offender “if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.” It does not distinguish between misdemeanor and felony offenses. The term “within his immediate knowledge” enables a private citizen to use any of his senses to obtain knowledge that an offense is being committed. A private citizen is not required to actually be present when a misdemeanor offense occurs.

        ( State v. Pinckney (2002) 255 Ga.App. 692, 694 [566 S.E.2d 325, 326].)

          You keep quoting things without notice they don’t apply to this case and are irrelevant to the immediate discussion. The language you quote does NOT authorize pursuit of a person in order to arrest them. The language of the second sentence of the statute governs when a person may pursue a fleeing felon. From your quote: “obtain knowledge that an offense IS BEING COMMITTED”. It does NOT say obtain knowledge that an offense WAS COMMITTED. Being Committed refers to an immediacy in relation to the actual commission of the crime. It does NOT refer to watching a 2 week old video tape of a person that can not be positively identified from the video and then a week or two after that going “hey that guy looks like the guy on the video tape. Let’s get our guns and arrest the sob”.

          When your own quotes don’t support your argument, your reading comprehension comes into serious question.


           
           0 
           
           0
          stevenJ in reply to Juris Doctor. | November 25, 2021 at 12:10 am

          If I am reading this correctly, the facts of State v Picknet state the arrest was made as an immediate result of the officer (technically a private citizen @ the time) observing the misdemeanor speeding. The relevant part of the opinion is meant to clarify that even though the offense was not in the citizen’s presence (presumambly impossible for speeding!), the arrest was still lawful because the citizen “observed” the car speeding (i.e. using one of his sense of sight).

          I actually found this case (https://casetext.com/case/johnson-v-jackson-22) to be enlightening. From my reading, the opinion links the two sentences pretty clearly: the felony (burglary) was not committed in his presence but there was clear evidence that it had just occurred. When the citizen attempted to detain the offender (by taking his id), the offender fled which gave the citizen the right to stop him (by shooting).

          Anyways, just my two cents.


         
         3 
         
         3
        Milhouse in reply to garybritt. | November 24, 2021 at 4:08 pm

        Gary, you’re outright lying, because the second sentence says not one word about pursuit. Not one word. It speaks only of “arrest”, which is exactly the same word as in the first sentence. So you cannot pretend that the two sentences regulate different things.

        The only possible interpretation is that the first sentence lays down a general rule that to arrest someone you must have either personally have been there when the crime was committed, or have “immediate knowledge” of it. The second sentence adds to that, by saying that if you merely have “reasonable and probable grounds for suspicion” but no direct knowledge then you can still arrest him, but only if (1) the crime was a felony, and (2) the person is trying to escape. If the crime you reasonably and probably suspect him of is not a felony, or it is a felony but he is not trying to escape, then you may not lay hands on him. Call the cops and wait for them to come.

        Note that unless Georgia has changed its law, if you have direct knowledge of a felony and the guy is fleeing you are entitled to shoot him. That’s the common-law fleeing felon rule. In the case of policemen and other state actors, the Supreme Court limited it to dangerous felons, which probably doesn’t include someone burglarizing construction sites; but the decision was based on the fourth amendment, which only binds state actors, so for private people the common law rule remains in place, so long as the state hasn’t changed it. I don’t know whether Georgia has, or had before this happened.


     
     3 
     
     1
    alien in reply to garybritt. | November 24, 2021 at 2:34 pm

    Pardon, may I ask your legal background?

These guys are getting what they deserve. The same can be said for the Rittenhouse case.


     
     5 
     
     1
    TheAbidingDude in reply to oldschooltwentysix. | November 24, 2021 at 2:40 pm

    Wrong. They did not actually say they were making a citizen’s arrest. That is a fundamental requirement.

      The jury heard the evidence and decided. Just as in Rittenhouse, they did their job. People can second guess, but common sense says each case was rightly decided.


       
       1 
       
       4
      Juris Doctor in reply to TheAbidingDude. | November 24, 2021 at 3:02 pm

      Wrong. There are no magic words required.


         
         0 
         
         0
        TheAbidingDude in reply to Juris Doctor. | November 24, 2021 at 3:51 pm

        Actually, there are. You must make it plain to a reasonable person that you are making an arrest. They didn’t.


           
           1 
           
           1
          Milhouse in reply to TheAbidingDude. | November 24, 2021 at 4:12 pm

          Which they did. They didn’t use any magic words, because there are none.

          Next you’ll be claiming that Congress has not declared war unless it uses the magic words “We declare war”.


         
         2 
         
         2
        Ben Kent in reply to Juris Doctor. | November 24, 2021 at 4:14 pm

        True.

        Aubrey had other options. He chose to charge at Travis and grab for the gun. People are getting all caught up with “citizens arrest” – to me that is irrelevant.

        Consider this – you come across a guy standing on the side of the road and holding a gun. You’re 30 feet from him. Do you charge at him and grab for the gun ?
        > What if he says “stop or I’ll shoot” – are you more or less inclinced to charge at him and grab for the gun ?

        I would not charge at a guy with a gun and try to grab it.
        Race of the guy holding the gun would not matter to me.
        I would run the other way.

        Aubrey made a decision to grab for the gun. We will never know why he did it – because he is now dead.

        REASONABLE DOUBT occurs when you ask yourself – would I or any reasonable person attack a man with a gun.


       
       1 
       
       0
      Char Char Binks in reply to TheAbidingDude. | November 24, 2021 at 3:37 pm

      Whatever they SAID can’t change the fact that they didn’t arrest anyone.

    Can’t say that I agree with that. In 2019 my rural neighborhood was getting ransacked daily by tweakers while people were at their day jobs. It was pretty clear a substantial number of passing cars were casing. Occasionally I would notice a vehicle doing this and I’d call it in and sometimes if I were driving I would just follow them and get their license plate and physical description. They would get wise to me following them and start to do cagey stuff. I’m packing and I could envision them getting angry and coming at me without my provocation. I live in a liberal hell hole, so I could see it potentially going badly if I got attacked and defended myself.

    At this point we’ve got locked gates, dogs and fences- so if the tweakers want to burglarize my moron liberal neighbors screaming to defund the police… go right ahead. They don’t have locked gates, dogs nor fences… but be sure to smile at their worthless camera that shows their stuff getting ripped off. They’ll know the face of the person who violated the safety and sanctity of their house and belongings.


 
 3 
 
 9
Kreemerz | November 24, 2021 at 2:39 pm

They just threw the book at these guys.

This seemed like a simple ‘citizens arrest’ matter. But the verdicts are entirely based on politics, resentment and revenge.

And that’s horrible.


     
     2 
     
     0
    TheAbidingDude in reply to Kreemerz. | November 24, 2021 at 2:47 pm

    The last time I saw someone using power of arrest this badly, he got a dishonorable discharge and his name became a verb meaning to screw up in truly spectacular fashion.


       
       0 
       
       0
      henrybowman in reply to TheAbidingDude. | November 24, 2021 at 10:48 pm

      So then, you were personally familiar with Sergeant Klustafock?


         
         0 
         
         0
        TheAbidingDude in reply to henrybowman. | November 24, 2021 at 11:44 pm

        It was a Lance Corporal and he ended up busting caps at an off-duty South Carolina state trooper because Lance Corporal Numbnuts didn’t notice that he was over 100 feet beyond the federal property line, even though he’d been trained on that post, and he also screwed up the rules of engagement for that post even if he HAD been on federal property. Thankfully, he could shoot about as well as he understood the romeos and the boundaries of the post, so nobody got hurt.


     
     0 
     
     0
    Elzorro in reply to Kreemerz. | November 24, 2021 at 2:59 pm

    And thats the way it is.


     
     0 
     
     2
    Tom Servo in reply to Kreemerz. | November 24, 2021 at 3:41 pm

    I think that Andrew has pointed out that because the wording of the Citizens Arrest statute is confusing and open to several interpretations, there is no such thing as a “simple” citizens arrest matter.

If the Heathans attack your down the street neighbor or building site just mind yer own bizness, Fortrify your own property and post it. Just call 911 every ten minutes.


 
 1 
 
 4
Juris Doctor | November 24, 2021 at 3:04 pm

     
     0 
     
     3
    Milhouse in reply to Juris Doctor. | November 24, 2021 at 4:27 pm

    Cuomo is an idiot. But he’s 100% right that the prosecutors represent the state, and not the victim or his family.

    And if Gough’s objection to Sharpton being there had nothing to do with his race (which I think is probably true), he should have said so, instead of beating all around the bush with irrelevancies, and referring to supreme court decisions (that the audience has not read) without describing them.

    So on both points Cuomo’s idiocy does not come out, because Gough is a bigger idiot than him.

I wasn’t on the jury. So on the face of it, I would give the jurors the benefit of the doubt.

That said, I hope and pray that each juror decided the case sincerely based on the evidence in the Courtroom and not on based on the media and the mob.


     
     1 
     
     6
    Juris Doctor in reply to xnycp. | November 24, 2021 at 3:16 pm

    I don’t think anyone who disagrees with the verdict is faulting the jurors. They are faulting bad instructions and several clear failures by the judge.


     
     1 
     
     2
    murkyv in reply to xnycp. | November 24, 2021 at 3:23 pm

    Jesse and Al and Benjamin staring at you throughout the trial would sure feel intimidating. Everybody there knows who they are and what they can do


 
 4 
 
 0
civisamericanus | November 24, 2021 at 3:17 pm

From what I have read, they did to Arbery what Kyle Rittenhouse’s pursuers tried to do to him. If Arbery had had an AR-15 and had shot his pursuers (noting that they had a firearm along with disparity of force), he would have probably been justified in doing so.

Maybe they thought he was doing something wrong. That was Huber’s and Grosskreutz’s, and maybe Jump Kick Man’s, excuse as well. This is why you call the police instead of trying to do their job for them.


     
     1 
     
     5
    jhkrischel in reply to civisamericanus. | November 24, 2021 at 3:21 pm

    But, none of Arbery’s pursuers attacked him. Kyle was hit several times, even before he had a gun pointed at him.

    Two trucks followed a guy. The guy got so mad at that he attacked one of the people from the truck who had a shotgun.

    At worst, the guys in the trucks wanted Arbery to stop and wait for the cops. The guys after Rittenhouse wanted to kill him.


       
       1 
       
       3
      Kreemerz in reply to jhkrischel. | November 24, 2021 at 3:29 pm

      And instead of waiting for the cops, he chose to attack the man with a gun. That was very dumb.


         
         1 
         
         3
        Tom Servo in reply to Kreemerz. | November 24, 2021 at 3:39 pm

        Remember all the talk about “provocation” in the Rittenhouse trial? Kyle was able to prove that he *never* did anything to provoke the attacks on him in any way. But in this case, the defendants chased him on the road (Rittenhouse was being chased, remember) and then brandished weapons.

        Clearly the jury decided that they provoked the incident, which means all of their self defense claims go out the window. I’m not sure they have much of a chance on appeal, either.


           
           1 
           
           0
          Kreemerz in reply to Tom Servo. | November 24, 2021 at 3:44 pm

          no comparison to Rittenhouse. So irrelevant.

          They were attempting to conduct a citizen’s arrest. Sometimes the perp tries to run off. He could have run off but chose to fight a man with a gun. Very dumb.


           
           0 
           
           4
          Milhouse in reply to Tom Servo. | November 24, 2021 at 4:33 pm

          Yes, remember all that talk? “Provocation” there had to be an illegal act. Following someone is not illegal. Not when it’s Little Saint Trayvon, and not when it’s Mr Arbery.


         
         1 
         
         0
        TheAbidingDude in reply to Kreemerz. | November 24, 2021 at 3:55 pm

        Actually, there are. You must make it plain to a reasonable person that you are making an arrest. They didn’t.


         
         1 
         
         1
        Ben Kent in reply to Kreemerz. | November 24, 2021 at 4:16 pm

        Aubrey had other options. He chose to charge at Travis and grab for the gun. People are getting all caught up with “citizens arrest” – to me that is irrelevant.

        Consider this – you come across a guy standing on the side of the road and holding a gun. You’re 30 feet from him. Do you charge at him and grab for the gun ?
        > What if he says “stop or I’ll shoot” – are you more or less inclinced to charge at him and grab for the gun ?

        I would not charge at a guy with a gun and try to grab it.
        Race of the guy holding the gun would not matter to me.
        I would run the other way.

        Aubrey made a decision to grab for the gun. We will never know why he did it – because he is now dead.

        REASONABLE DOUBT occurs when you ask yourself – would I or any reasonable person attack a man with a gun


       
       0 
       
       0
      stl in reply to jhkrischel. | November 24, 2021 at 3:53 pm

      Arbery wasn’t very bright if he kept being filmed where he shouldn’t be in the middle of night. What was he supposing would happen? We don’t know because he attacked men who simply wanted the cops to speak to him. On the other hand In this day and age, better to not pursue even if law is on your side. People itching to legally sock it to “whitey”


       
       1 
       
       1
      TheAbidingDude in reply to jhkrischel. | November 24, 2021 at 5:02 pm

      No, Travis just pointed a gun at Arbery without clearly stating a lawful reason for doing so.


       
       0 
       
       1
      healthguyfsu in reply to jhkrischel. | November 24, 2021 at 5:59 pm

      Arbery is not required to guess the motives of the pursuers or believe them if they state as such.

      Should a white guy jogging stop and wait for the cops that three gangbangers claim they have called when they say they want to talk to him? Not if you have any survival instincts.

      The truth is they probably caught Arbery in a crime, but they took it too far and didn’t realize they crossed that threshold. That will cost them dearly.


         
         0 
         
         1
        Milhouse in reply to healthguyfsu. | November 24, 2021 at 7:51 pm

        If Arbery were the one on trial for killing TM, I’d probably agree with you. We’d have to see things from his perspective, and believe that he acted in self defense. But he wasn’t on trial, they were, so what he was thinking is irrelevant; what matters is what they were thinking, which is that they were legitimately attempting to arrest a likely fleeing felon, so TM still had the right to defend himself when the suspect attacked him.


           
           0 
           
           0
          TheAbidingDude in reply to Milhouse. | November 24, 2021 at 8:57 pm

          You’ve already said that at this point, they were no longer attempting to make a citizen’s arrest, which means we’re now into unlawful detention, and the McMichaels lost any pretense of self-defense.

          There is no clause that grants immunity from prosecution for being too stupid and/or ignorant to understand that you’re breaking the damn law.


           
           0 
           
           0
          healthguyfsu in reply to Milhouse. | November 24, 2021 at 11:42 pm

          It is relevant to the question as to whether he had any legal justification in going for the weapon. While this legal justification doesn’t negate a right to self defense, it does explain why he does not have to be psychic and interpret the motives of the citizen’s arresters….it’s the same reason Kyle Rittenhouse is not required to figure out whether antifa medic boy is going to shoot him or try to treat him. It’s why GG’s testimony didn’t amount to squat in Rittenhouse’s trial.

GUILTY! They did what they did and Justice has done what it does.

Albeit… Bubba Roddy got a raw deal.


     
     1 
     
     0
    Ben Kent in reply to NotKennedy. | November 25, 2021 at 10:15 am

    “Ruddy got a raw deal”

    THIS SHOWS HOW WRONG THIS VERDICT IS

    Guilt BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT is a high bar. There is no way any rational jury would convict Ruddy – because there is a TON of reasonable doubt about his actions. He was little more than a BYSTANDER.

    The fact that this jury convicted him illustrates that the jury was not applying facts to the law. They were heavily influenced by emotion and by the screams of “racism”.


 
 1 
 
 2
JohnSmith100 | November 24, 2021 at 3:41 pm

I doubt that there are any jurors who are not aware of the mob, and I think that has neutered effectiveness of our legal system.


 
 0 
 
 2
Bill West | November 24, 2021 at 3:48 pm

Only one person was killed. How do we have so many, seemingly identical, murder charges?


     
     0 
     
     2
    Milhouse in reply to Bill West. | November 24, 2021 at 4:30 pm

    One for each felony they were allegedly committing, in the course of which the same death occurred.


       
       0 
       
       0
      henrybowman in reply to Milhouse. | November 24, 2021 at 10:59 pm

      Waitaminnit. I thought I understood the felony murder rule, but I never heard of this.
      If I rob a bank and my method involves four separate felonies, and somebody gets killed as a result, I should expect to be sentenced for four felonies plus a murder — not four felonies plus four murders.


     
     0 
     
     0
    ugottabekiddinme in reply to Bill West. | November 24, 2021 at 4:55 pm

    “Malice murder” requires intent to cause death. The other counts are “felony murder” where, during the commission of a felony, a death occurs, thus it is elevated to murder. Here there were alleged several different underlying felonies, such as aggravated assault, unlawful imprisonment, and so on. The elements of each count are thereby rather different, and all elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for conviction on any given count.


 
 1 
 
 3
REDACTED | November 24, 2021 at 3:50 pm

so peeps in the burbs are left with caling the cops

good fucking luck with that


 
 2 
 
 1
Smooth23 | November 24, 2021 at 3:57 pm

Three men’s lives ruined for taking out the trash. Political mob ‘justice’

    No. Three men’s lives ruined because the idiot son tried to unlawfully stop Arbery with a shotgun and then killed that person unlawfully. Bryan’s incompetent pre-trial attorney sealed his and the McMichaels’ fates by releasing the video tape evidence of the unlawful killing.

Andrew mentioned something about the DA’s rebuttal.. that she pretty much told the jurors that they didn’t really have to abide by the whole beyond a reasonable doubt thing…. I guess, when you don’t have to consider that.. a decision is much easier. Hopefully he will have time later to comment.


 
 4 
 
 3
Ben Kent | November 24, 2021 at 4:18 pm

REASONABLE DOUBT

Aubrey had other options. He chose to charge at Travis and grab for the gun. People are getting all caught up with “citizens arrest” – to me that is irrelevant.

Consider this – you come across a guy standing on the side of the road and holding a gun. You’re 30 feet from him. Do you charge at him and grab for the gun ?
> What if he says “stop or I’ll shoot” – are you more or less inclinced to charge at him and grab for the gun ?

I would not charge at a guy with a gun and try to grab it.
Race of the guy holding the gun would not matter to me.
I would run the other way.

Aubrey made a decision to grab for the gun. We will never know why he did it – because he is now dead.

REASONABLE DOUBT occurs when you ask yourself – would I or any reasonable person attack a man with a gun

    Your definitions of prudent behavior and reasonable doubt are just not what the law is. Your analogies aren’t relevant to this case or what the law is. If you point a gun at somebody without lawful reason to so do you are committing armed assault. If the person you are pointing the gun at reacts in an imprudent or to you illogical way is irrelevant. You pointed the gun without legal authority, you are the aggressor, and you are unlawfully threatening the use of deadly force. If as a result of your unlawful actions someone is killed, YOU are responsible. Reasonable doubt has NOTHING to do with it.


       
       3 
       
       1
      Ben Kent in reply to garybritt. | November 24, 2021 at 5:24 pm

      You assume he was “pointing the gun” at Aubrey. From the video it looks like the gun is pointed to the ground.

      So, guess you think its reasonable to attack a man holding a gun – so long as the gun is pointed at the ground ?

      Personally, I think it is reckless and unreasonable to attack a person with a gun and grab at the gun – no matter where it is pointed. I would take any other course – such as run away as fast as possible.


     
     0 
     
     2
    TheAbidingDude in reply to Ben Kent. | November 24, 2021 at 4:58 pm

    You could not have gotten it any more wrong if you tried.

    Would a reasonable man, without clearly stating a lawful reason, approach someone while presenting a firearm at the ready?

    No.

    You have just given every armed robber a self-defense argument.


       
       1 
       
       0
      Ben Kent in reply to TheAbidingDude. | November 25, 2021 at 11:06 am

      @ dude – CHECK THE LAW.

      Under Georgia’s open carry law you can approach anyone while carrying. It is not unreasonable or illegal to approach someone while carrying. The thing you cannot do is to point a gun at someone unless you have “legal justification”. If you point it as someone WITHOUT legal justification you can be charged with a misdemeanor misconduct.

      So your statement about “presenting a firearm at the ready” is demonstrably false.

      Furthermore, there is no evidence that Travis pointed his gun at Aubrey. In fact, a portion of the video shows him pointing the gun down to the ground. Any statement that Travis was threatening Aubrey with the gun is simply an assumption with zero evidence. What we do know is that Aubrey charged at Travis and grabbed for the gun. We will never know why Aubrey did that rather than run the other way.

      NOW MY OPINION. I believe that the gun was pointed to the ground and Aubrey made an instant calculation that he could get to the gun before Travis could raise it and fire. Think about it. The gun must have been pointed to the ground – allowing Aubrey to believe that he could reach the gun without injury. If the gun were pointed at Aubrey – he would not have charged at Travis – unless he was suicidal. Travis is also smaller than Aubrey and Aubrey must have believed he could overpower Travis quickly. That’s why Aubrey decided to attack rather than run the other way. It is the only scenario that makes sense within the set of facts.

      Once the fight for the gun started – it was a matter of life-or-death for both men. Regardless of what happened prior to that fight. The guilty verdict essentially says Travis lost all right to defend himself and should have just handed the gun to Aubrey. No reasonable person can accept that the right of self-defense is abdicated in such a way. The fight for the gun was due to Aubrey’s choice to charge at Travis and grab for the gun.

      Travis never fired before the fight for the gun. I believe Travis acted in self-defense. More importantly – I do not believe any jury could convict BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT given that Aubrey made the decision to attack rather than run away and Travis never fired before the fight for the gun.

      FYI – Friendly advice. There is a lot of people with emotional arguments in a case like this. They assume FACTS NOT IN EVIDENCE and make uninformed statements about the law. Such uninformed and half-cocked opinions do not add much to the discussion – in fact they detract from the discussion. It’s better to take those view to your local bar and shoot the shit with your buddies. LI is a place for people who want to have a higher level of discussion with people who they might learn something from in future. Please refrain from posting until you have done some actual research and know what your talking about.

      I’m thankful there is a place like LI for serious discussion. I learn something new every week at LI.


         
         0 
         
         0
        TheAbidingDude in reply to Ben Kent. | November 25, 2021 at 11:06 pm

        “Any statement that Travis was threatening Aubrey with the gun is simply an assumption with zero evidence.”

        Because it’s perfectly legal to shout “Stop, I’ll blow your f—ing head off” in Georgia while carrying a weapon?


     
     1 
     
     0
    James B. Shearer in reply to Ben Kent. | November 25, 2021 at 12:20 am

    “REASONABLE DOUBT occurs when you ask yourself – would I or any reasonable person attack a man with a gun”

    When the James gang tried to rob the Northfield bank the cashier, Joseph Lee Heywood, refused to open the safe for them. This may not have been reasonable but it was still murder when they killed him.


 
 0 
 
 1
wehereforyou | November 24, 2021 at 4:55 pm

The jury might have found the claim that they were chasing Arbery to effect a citizens arrest to be unconvincing.. if that’s the case then it’s hard to see how they could have come back with a n/g verdict. They’re the final arbiters of what is believable and what isn’t.


     
     2 
     
     1
    Ben Kent in reply to wehereforyou. | November 24, 2021 at 7:11 pm

    What would make the jury think they were not acting to arrest Aubrey ?

    The jury would have to buy the narrative that these men were just out to hunt-down and kill a black man who peacefully jogged down the road. THAT IS INSANE. There is nothing in these men’s past that would support such a kooky narrative based on emotion and supposition. My god – this a trial with LIFE in prison if convicted. It’s important to get it right. Of course they wanted to arrest / detain him. If you think otherwise – provide evidence – otherwise, you may just be a racist.


 
 0 
 
 0
wehereforyou | November 24, 2021 at 4:59 pm

And I mention that because there is a lot of statutory interpretation here but if the jury doesn’t believe the defendants had any intention of detaining Arbery, you wouldn’t even vet to that point.


 
 1 
 
 0
Ben Kent | November 24, 2021 at 5:27 pm

Open carry is legal in Georgia.

If someone with a gun approaches you in GA – you cannot just attack them – grab for their gun – and void their right to self-defense.

    Open carry is NOT permission to point a gun at someone. Once you point it at someone you are likely committing armed assault.


       
       4 
       
       1
      Ben Kent in reply to garybritt. | November 24, 2021 at 7:01 pm

      @ garybritt – you replied to my post saying “Open carry is not permission to point a gun”

      Where in my post did I say anything about pointing a gun ? Open carry allows a person to carry a gun responsibly.

      And by the way, you may a huge assumption that Travis pointed his gun at Aubrey. The video indicates the gun was pointed down to the ground until Aubrey grabs for it. That matters. Because attacking a man with a gun is not something a rational person does. It is dangerous and reckless. Maybe Aubrey thought he could overpower Travis (who is smaller than Aubrey) – we will never know what Aubrey was thinking because he is dead – the unsurprising consequence of attacking a man with a gun. Aubrey could have run the other way – he chose to attack.

      REASONABLE DOUBT – you cannot ever know WHY Aubrey charged at Travis and grabbed the gun. But you CAN KNOW that (A) no reasonable person would charge at a man with a gun; (B) Aubrey had other options (like running the other way); and (C) Travis feared for his life as they struggled for control of the gun.

      Anything more than that is just adding facts not-in-evidence – including emotion (and I think emotion and assumptions are what resulted in this verdict rather than facts and law).


       
       0 
       
       0
      Milhouse in reply to garybritt. | November 24, 2021 at 8:38 pm

      No person trained in gun safety points a gun, even one constructed out of toast, at another person.

      I don’t get this. A toasts gun is no worse than a water gun or any toy gun, and people point those at each other all the time. So why wouldn’t you point a toast gun at someone? (Or a Pop-Tart™ gun, but that one wasn’t even a gun, the kid said it was supposed to be a mountain; only the paranoid teacher thought it was a gun.

    But if the Ga citizens arrest statute received unfavorable treatment by the jury, then the element of innocence is lost and self-defense with it.

    I did a very shallow dive into the statute on Google Scholar. This is no substitute for annotated statutes but the few cases I read all the defendants lost.


     
     0 
     
     0
    civisamericanus in reply to Ben Kent. | November 25, 2021 at 11:41 am

    There is a huge difference between “approach,” as in walk past you on the street, and “pursue.” Pursuit indicates hostile intent and the weapon constitutes the immediate means of causing death or serious bodily harm.


 
 0 
 
 0
PaterNovem | November 24, 2021 at 5:28 pm

Can someone explain how each defendant is charged with 5 counts of murder for the death of one person? Not trying to nitpick this; I just don’t understand how they killed one person but got charged 5 times (1 malice, 4 murder).


     
     0 
     
     0
    traderjoe91 in reply to PaterNovem. | November 24, 2021 at 5:33 pm

    I think each murder count represents a different theory of murder. As I recall counts 2-5 are felony murder…so one theory of felony murder is for the false imprisonment, another theory of felony murder is for the aggravated assault (which apparently occurs at multiple junctures).


     
     0 
     
     2
    wehereforyou in reply to PaterNovem. | November 24, 2021 at 6:03 pm

    Agree. They weren’t just hanging out, armed. They were chasing him, armed. The defendants said they were doing it to arrest him. The jury thought otherwise.


       
       3 
       
       0
      Ben Kent in reply to wehereforyou. | November 24, 2021 at 7:04 pm

      What would make the jury think otherwise ?

      They would have to buy the narrative that these men were just out to hunt-down and kill a black man who peacefully jogged down the road. THAT IS INSANE. There is nothing in these men’s past that would support suck a kooky narrative. Of course they wanted to arrest / detain him. If you think otherwise – you may just be a racist.


         
         0 
         
         1
        wehereforyou in reply to Ben Kent. | November 24, 2021 at 8:37 pm

        Why would I be a racist? I wasn’t on that jury and for that matter it seems unlikely anyone else here was, either, so none of us are responsible for that decision. And I doubt the jurors are. I think they probably felt after hearing the evidence that this was a lynch mob and not a citizens arrest. It is a guess. But not exactly insane to conclude when three armed men chase down an unarmed man with no apparent means to really detain him.


     
     0 
     
     0
    TheAbidingDude in reply to PaterNovem. | November 25, 2021 at 12:32 am

    Georgia law attached a felony murder count to each felony count. So, if you commit five felonies and death results in the end, that’s five felony murder counts. Weird. But, at the same time, the sentence is going to be life in prison for one count of felony murder or five.


     
     0 
     
     0
    CoyoteKeith in reply to PaterNovem. | November 27, 2021 at 3:52 pm

    Go here for detailed explanation.

    file:///C:/Users/keith/Downloads/Arberyindictment.PDF


     
     0 
     
     0
    CoyoteKeith in reply to PaterNovem. | November 27, 2021 at 3:55 pm

    Go here for detailed explanation.

    file:///C:/Users/keith/Downloads/Arberyindictment.PDF


     
     0 
     
     0
    CoyoteKeith in reply to PaterNovem. | November 27, 2021 at 4:57 pm

    Oops! I posted wrong link earlier. Duh!

    This link presents court document, in detail.

    https://glynncounty.org/DocumentCenter/View/66861/Indictment


 
 0 
 
 0
REDACTED | November 24, 2021 at 6:07 pm

if you live in a rural area, the value of your home just went way up

cause white flight to the subs just got canceled


 
 0 
 
 1
REDACTED | November 24, 2021 at 6:11 pm

my dad always told me

“stay out of the system, cause it is bad. Be it legal, health care, whatever “


     
     0 
     
     0
    CoyoteKeith in reply to REDACTED. | November 27, 2021 at 4:00 pm

    My dad said:

    If he has a gun or knife RUN – because both are hard to fight.

    If you have to fight bare knuckles, look around for anything you can pick up and use as a weapon.


 
 0 
 
 3
Camperfixer | November 24, 2021 at 7:39 pm

The lesson here is – with the current judicial system that affords deference to the victim regardless of criminal history or perceived intent – to leave them alone unless they are breaking into your house or lurking on your property. It’s prudent to watch but do not engage them as the law can be sliced and diced as lawyers tend to define reality in their own terms then argue forever of the meaning of those terms….a very bad risk when prison is a strong possibility.

I expect an appeal based on the marginal judges orders to the jury.


 
 2 
 
 0
CoyoteKeith | November 24, 2021 at 8:22 pm

Georgia law as you quoted:

“A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.”

I researched Arbery’s criminal history. I watched video of him giving cops crap. However, in this case, Arbery did not commit a crime in the presence of any one of the defendants. If a “No Trespassing” sign was properly displayed on the home under construction, then, yes, a crime (misdemeanor) was committed in their presence. A really bad mistake by defendants.


     
     1 
     
     3
    Juris Doctor in reply to CoyoteKeith. | November 24, 2021 at 9:19 pm

    Presence is not required under Georgia law.

    “O.C.G.A. § 17-4-60 provides, in pertinent part, that a private citizen may arrest an offender “if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.” It does not distinguish between misdemeanor and felony offenses. The term “within his immediate knowledge” enables a private citizen to use any of his senses to obtain knowledge that an offense is being committed. A private citizen is not required to actually be present when a misdemeanor offense occurs.”

    ( State v. Pinckney (2002) 255 Ga.App. 692, 694 [566 S.E.2d 325, 326].)


       
       2 
       
       2
      CoyoteKeith in reply to Juris Doctor. | November 25, 2021 at 1:33 am

      No theft or destruction of property was observed by defendants. “No Trespassing” sign was NOT posted. Arbery was not told by owner or lawful representative to stop entering the property. Thus, no trespass was committed under Georgia law. No evidence of any crime was evident.


         
         3 
         
         1
        Ben Kent in reply to CoyoteKeith. | November 25, 2021 at 11:15 am

        @ Coyote – your statement displays complete lack of knowledge of Georgia law. Doubling down on the first ignorant statement does not make it any better.

        There is no need for a sign to be posted. It is still illegal trespass. There is also no need for anything to be stolen from the property. It is still illegal.

        Many have posted that they have gone to homes that were under construction. But just because they did so and suffered no negative consequences – does not make it legal or make it right.

        Please do some research on the law and/or facts before posting. LI is a great blog because people typically bring knowledge to the LI community.


           
           0 
           
           1
          CoyoteKeith in reply to Ben Kent. | November 25, 2021 at 12:39 pm

          Georgia law:

          Section 16-7-21. Criminal trespass.

          I read it before I posted. As I stated above:

          No theft or destruction of property was observed by defendants. “No Trespassing” sign was NOT posted. Arbery was not told by owner or lawful representative to stop entering the property. Thus, no trespass was committed under Georgia law. No evidence of any crime was evident.

          Please tell me what crime Arbery committed.


           
           1 
           
           0
          Ben Kent in reply to Ben Kent. | November 25, 2021 at 10:02 pm

          TRESSPASS
          See https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/581397-georgia-officer-testifies-he-was-going-to-give-arbery-a-trespass-warning

          “A Georgia police officer testified on Friday that he was going to give Ahmaud Arbery a warning for trespassing in the unfinished property he was seen running from before he was fatally shot last year while jogging.

          Glynn County Police Officer Robert Rash said he was looking for Arbery after the owner of the unfinished home shared security camera footage of him entering the home five times between October 2019 and Feb. 23, 2020, when he was shot, The Associated Press reported.

          Rash said that when people trespass, which in Georgia is a misdemeanor, he tells them that the homeowner does not want them there.

          “Once we make contact with the person on the property, we explain to them the homeowner does not want them there, they have no legal reason to be there,” Rash said, according to the AP. “I explain to that person, if you ever come back onto this property for any reason, you will be arrested.””


           
           0 
           
           0
          markm in reply to Ben Kent. | December 2, 2021 at 10:50 am

          The police officer would have issued a warning if he had found Arbery, not arrested him. Apparently Georgia trespass law is like everywhere else – there’s no violation until the trespasser is put on notice, either by a sign or by someone telling him to leave or to stay off the property. If observing Arbery on the property was the reason the three were chasing him, that was not justification for a citizen’s arrest because there was no crime – and if arrest wasn’t justified, neither was blocking Arbery’s path with a truck or getting out of the truck with a weapon. It might be reason for the property owner to chase Arbery and tell him to stay out (without brandishing a shotgun!), but did any of the three have any connection to the property so they could do this?

          Finally, if they were chasing because Arbery resembled a shoplifter on a security video from two weeks earlier,

          1. Did all 3 of these men view that video? Any who didn’t lacked personal knowledge of the crime.

          2. Was the identification from a blurry video sufficient?

          3. I always thought that citizen’s arrest had to follow directly upon observing the crime – you can arrest the shoplifter when he leaves the store, but if you think you’ve found him two weeks later you call the police. Is this incorrect?


         
         0 
         
         0
        CoyoteKeith in reply to CoyoteKeith. | November 26, 2021 at 10:39 pm

        We must go by Georgia law. Via the evidence presented, Arbery did NOT commit a crime prior to defendants trying to “arrest” Arbery.

        Georgia law:

        Section 16-7-21. Criminal trespass.

        (a) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she intentionally damages any property of another without consent of that other person and the damage thereto is $500.00 or less or knowingly and maliciously interferes with the possession or use of the property of another person without consent of that person.

        (b) A person commits the offense of criminal trespass when he or she knowingly and without authority:

        (1) Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person for an unlawful purpose;

        (2) Enters upon the land or premises of another person or into any part of any vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving, prior to such entry, notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant that such entry is forbidden; or

        (3) Remains upon the land or premises of another person or within the vehicle, railroad car, aircraft, or watercraft of another person after receiving notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or, upon proper identification, an authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant to depart.


 
 0 
 
 2
Juris Doctor | November 24, 2021 at 8:47 pm

If you go into Lexis or Westlaw and search “attempted false imprisonment” you will not get a single hit. That theory of felony murder relied on by the State has never been recognized in Georgia.


     
     0 
     
     0
    Mark in reply to Juris Doctor. | November 25, 2021 at 1:37 am

    What about actual false imprisonment. Found any convictions wherein someone merely (at worst) obstructed a path of egress or movement as “false imprisonment”?


       
       2 
       
       1
      Ben Kent in reply to Mark. | November 25, 2021 at 11:18 am

      Imprisonment ?

      Aubrey had other directions he could have run. He decided to charge at the man holding the gun and then tried to take it from him.


         
         0 
         
         1
        Mark in reply to Ben Kent. | November 25, 2021 at 7:05 pm

        I’m not asking about Aubrey. I am curious about how broadly this statute is used in prior cases. My own guess is that no one, until this case, has ever been charged or convicted of false imprisonment based on blocking a single route of egress while others are available. BUT I’d like that verified through a case search by someone who has axis to Lexis/Nexis. (a for pay service).


         
         0 
         
         0
        markm in reply to Ben Kent. | December 2, 2021 at 11:09 am

        Aubrey had other directions he could have run – but even if he could have run to cover before the shotgun was fired, he could not outrun two trucks. Or he could have and should have stood still and _talked_ to the men chasing him, but that wasn’t a safe course either if any of the three looked sufficiently outraged to shoot him down, run over him, or lynch him. Sometimes charging at the man with a gun is your only chance. Studies have shown that a police officer cannot get a shot off at a man charging from 21 feet, and 30 feet might be close enough if the man with a gun is a little slower than a trained cop.

After reading the comments, the core disagreement is definitely the different interpretation of the citizens arrest law thus determining if the defendants were in lawful pursuit or not. This confirms to me the law is ambiguous and required the judge to provide instructions.


 
 1 
 
 4
texansamurai | November 24, 2021 at 10:52 pm

regardless of the law, believe the intent of the parties is paramount here–do not believe the state proved that the mcmichaels(and certainly not bryan) intended to kill/murder arbery–they were acting to protect themselves and their neighbors from a known prowler/burglar by running him out of the neighborhood–to me, a reasonable act given the lack/failure of any police effort to do the same

incredibly, arbery returns and attacks an ARMED travis and attempts to take travis’ weapon away–what would you do if you were travis? know what i would do

if were on the jury myself, could simply not convince me that arbery wasn’t responsible for his own death–he had “escaped”–“fled” whatever, the mcmichaels did not pursue, and by returning and attacking(as evident from video evidence)he was the one that escalated the event


     
     1 
     
     2
    ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to texansamurai. | November 25, 2021 at 4:02 am

    It’s very clear that they intended to arrest the guy and things got out of hand. Murder is a ridiculous charge in this case. And 5 separate counts of murder smells more like “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” …


 
 0 
 
 3
James B. Shearer | November 25, 2021 at 12:23 am

The citizen’s arrest defense was always high risk because it involved admitting they had attempted to detain Arbery at gunpoint. You do that without legal authority and the guy ends up dead as a result you are going to be in big trouble.


     
     0 
     
     1
    CoyoteKeith in reply to James B. Shearer. | November 27, 2021 at 12:26 pm

    I agree. Citizen’s arrest always high risk.

    In this case, there was no evidence that Arbery committed trespass or any other crime. Thus, no justification for citizen’s arrest.

    The killing did not appear planned. Or was it?

    I can’t out run a bullet or a shotgun blast. Can anyone?

    If Arbery tried to run away, would he have been shot?

    I remember reading that one of the defendants
    threatened to blow off Arbery’s head if he didn’t stop. I read that another defendant used the shotgun as a deterrent, which caused Arbery to change course.

    The threat of being shot, or having one’s head blown off, if one does not stop and yield possession of one’s body, constitutes imprisonment.

    Arbery chose to stand and fight in defense of his right to be there. His choice to rush a man armed with a shot gun was a poor choice. He should have run away. Even so, Arbery acted in defense of his right to be there.

    Perhaps negligent homicide would have been more apt than a charge of murder.

    I suspect there will be an appeal of some of the charges by all three defendants.

    Arbery had a long criminal history. But none of the defendants new his name or criminal history on the day in question. Arbery could have been just another lookie-lue looking at the home under construction.


 
 0 
 
 2
ThePrimordialOrderedPair | November 25, 2021 at 4:00 am

5 separate count of felony murder for the a single death? That”s beyond ridiculous. It would make more sense to charge someone who stole a diamond necklace with one count of theft for every individual diamond and one count of theft for every pennyweight of gold. Totally ridiculous.

And that’s on top of the fact that they didn’t murder him, to start with. It was some sort of manslaughter, at worst, though even that would be a stretch. But this crap with hitting people with multiple counts of the same basic charge for the same event for the same single person … that is the sort of stuff that banana republics do – and only the really stupid ones, at that.

I know we just went through this same crap with the Chauvin trial but it is even more infuriating to see this stuff all over again. This is all a form of double jeopardy – though worse.


 
 0 
 
 2
ThePrimordialOrderedPair | November 25, 2021 at 4:50 am

So … I think I am beginning to understand this idea of multiple charges, now. If you are speeding at 50 mph on a 35 mph road and the cop can show that you were going under 35 mph at some point on that road then he can give you a ticket for every single mph over 35 (since you had to accelerate through those speeds to get to your top speed), so you would get 14 separate tickets for speeding (from every speed from 36 mph up to 50 mph) and have to cough up something like $7,000 for fines, court costs, processing, etc. Pretty nifty. And a really diligent and ambitious cop could probably write you up for individual tickets for speeding on individual sections of that road. You could get 50 tickets for the one speeding violation and the county would be awash in cash. Sure … sounds fair and decent.

    Not quite. The state’s theory of the crime was that four distinct felonies were committed, each of which independently led to the death of Arbery. For example, both felony assaults, one with the cars & one with the shotgun, led to Arbery fighting with TM over the gun which in turn led to his death. Since TM was guilty of the two separate assaults, he is guilty of both felony murder counts. The same would then apply to the other two straight felony charges.

    On the other hand, there was only one malicious murder charge because the state argued that the only time there was malicious intent to kill was when TM pulled out his gun and stepped out of the truck (I believe).

    The four felony murder charges come with the same penalty guidance so it might seem redundant but the State needs to cover their bases if, as it happened in this case with Bryan, the jury decides to acquit on any of the underlying felony–or if guilty verdicts get overturned on appeal.

I find the citizen arrest hard to believe. I’m not law enforcement so I can’t imagine chasing down a suspect who isn’t carrying stolen items. That may be what the jury was thinking too..


 
 0 
 
 2
texansamurai | November 25, 2021 at 10:12 am

Since TM was guilty of the two separate assaults, he is guilty of both felony murder counts. The same would then apply to the other two straight felony charges.
____________________________________________________________

understand your point but don’t see it in this case–arbery, who did not live in the neighborhood and, according to other testimony, was known to have frequented the house under construction(at night, no less), was in the area with the dubious explanation of “just jogging,” exercising, whatever–arbery’s presence is what instigated this entire chain of events and arbery’s return(and subsequent attack) after he had “fled,” escaped, whatever (which, to my mind, speaks to the mcmichael’s intent, as they could have shot him beforehand if they indeed wanted to)escalated to the struggle over the weapon–that the mcmichaels stuck to the “citizen’s arrest” line also speaks to their intent(they intended to arrest him and hold him for the authorities, not summarily murder arbery)–believe arbery would be alive if he had not(of his own volition)returned to confront two armed men in their own back yard/neighborhood

In response to Moshemo:

You directed two comments towards me but I was unable to respond directly, as the “Reply” button is missing on both posts. (I’m not familiar with how this particular forum works — is it possible to block responses to posts? The Reply button is missing from several others’ posts as well.)

I asked two posters (I referred to them as “personalities”) about their legal backgrounds after they wrote long, detailed analyses of the verdicts. Gary responded by advising me of his credentials, allowing me to further consider his comments considering his experience — as did Tom, who admitted to having no legal background, just as I have none. At the time, he was embroiled in an intense discussion with Juris Doctor. Note that I didn’t question J.D. on his background? His postings made it seemingly apparent to me that he has extensive legal knowledge, and I judged (SWIDT?) that he had the better grasp of the particulars of this case.

You: “The second, though, that we question Tom’s credentials for making an intellectual point, we shut down the conversation and none of us learn anything.”

Not at all. Although, considering the number of downvotes applied to my questions (and the offhand ad hominem attack on my intelligence by someone who has since deleted their comment “What’s YOUR IQ?”), others may agree with you. Thats’ fair — as was my inquiry.

You: “I see no difference between those 12 people re: {jury of ordinary people with no legal background} discussing those legal principles as apply to the particulars of a case in a closed room and people here attempting to do the same thing in a public comment forum.”

I can go to any public comment forum (I frequent several) and read what ordinary people think of this case. I’m on this forum because I value the opinions of those who have experience in the legal profession over those who do not because of their experience and particular knowledge.

That’s based on my experience of following the Rittenhouse trial closely by reading the opinions of experts such as Andrew Branca on his site and this one, and becoming so engrossed in the live commenting of the panel on Rekieta Law that my wife wondered where I had been for the last week.


 
 2 
 
 4
VioletJanes | November 25, 2021 at 10:23 am

The silence about this case has been deafening because they’re Southern men. Ofay, cracker, redneck. No widespread analysis and discussion of District Attorney shopping, District Attorney intimidation and persecution, venue change (or lack thereof), etc. These three Men never laid a hand on Arbery. Because of police and judicial ineffectiveness in their community, they stepped up as Men are supposed to do. Had Arbery not grabbed the barrel of the shotgun, he would be alive; that’s his own fault he’s not. The abandonment of these Men belongs to the people who fight when it’s convenient, but not when it would be valiant.


 
 2 
 
 3
panamapat | November 25, 2021 at 10:27 am

This verdict was coerced from an intimidated jury who not only would have to fear for their lives and safety but witness and bear responsibility for the horrendous destruction of their neighborhood and any place where blacks dwell.

Has anyone considered the possible differences in the verdict had it been tried in Brunswick rather than Atlanta?

The jury pool candidates in Atlanta is significantly different in its outlook and attitudes than those of rural Brunswick — and I’m not inferring anything about the racial makeup of the jury, since it shouldn’t make a difference.


     
     1 
     
     2
    VioletJanes in reply to alien. | November 25, 2021 at 11:27 am

    Coastal Georgia used to be “low country” or quaint or elegant. Savannah was a beautiful city. Now, it’s thug life. Brunswick produced Jenelle Evans of MTV’s Sixteen and Pregnant infamy. So just WTH? Would her contemporaries seriously consider charges, evidence, videos, etc. and applicable laws to arrive at a competent verdict the day before Thanksgiving? Rhetorical.

ONCE THE FIGHT FOR THE GUN STARTED – EVERYTHING PRIOR TO THAT WAS IRRELEVENT.

GUILTY VERDICT EFFECTIVELY SAYS TRAVIS HAD NO RIGHT TO DEFEND HIMSELF FROM A MAN WHO CHARGED AT HIM AND GRABBED HIS GUN AND FOUGHT FOR THE GUN.

Fact – Aubrey charged at Travis and grabbed for the gun. We will never know why Aubrey did that rather than run the other way.

NOW MY OPINION. I believe that the gun was pointed to the ground and Aubrey made an instant calculation that he could get to the gun before Travis could raise it and fire it. Think about it. The gun must have been pointed to the ground – allowing Aubrey to believe that he could reach the gun without injury. If the gun were pointed at Aubrey – he would not have charged at Travis – unless he was suicidal. Travis is also smaller than Aubrey and Aubrey must have believed he could overpower Travis quickly. That’s why Aubrey decided to attack rather than run the other way. It is the only scenario that makes sense within the set of facts.

Once the fight for the gun started – it was a matter of life-or-death for both men. Regardless of what happened prior to that fight. The guilty verdict essentially says Travis lost all right to defend himself and should have just handed the gun to Aubrey. No reasonable person can accept that the right of self-defense is abdicated by any prior actions. The fight for the gun was due to Aubrey’s choice to charge at Travis and grab for the gun.

Travis never fired before the fight for the gun. I believe Travis acted in self-defense. More importantly – I do not believe any jury could convict BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT given that Aubrey made the decision to attack rather than run away and Travis never fired before the fight for the gun.


     
     0 
     
     2
    civisamericanus in reply to Ben Kent. | November 25, 2021 at 11:38 am

    Except the fact the three men were chasing Arbery put him in reasonable fear for his life (my opinion) because they had a weapon and disparity of force. Sort of like Rittenhouse in reverse, where Rittenhouse had the weapon and fired it but the difference was that he was (like Arbery) originally trying to retreat while Rosenbaum (like these three individuals) was pursuing.

    It’s very difficult to be in the right when you are the pursuer because you have the opportunity at every stage to end the confrontation by desisting. The same applies to the mob that chased Rittenhouse; they brought whatever happened to them on themselves.


       
       2 
       
       1
      VioletJanes in reply to civisamericanus. | November 25, 2021 at 12:05 pm

      Arbery wasn’t competent. He was off prescribed medication and imbibed illicit drugs, so reasonableness doesn’t apply to his mental acuity. Had all the LEO and attorneys and others who supported KR (no disparagement to him from me) applied all their training, skills, experience, and abilities to support these three Men (and the Charlottesville civil defendants), this wouldn’t be a conversation. You say, “Southern,” and everybody accepts that for assigning penitence for historical white guilt. Kunta Kente wasn’t captured during a hunt by white men; that would have been cost prohibitive. He was sold as a prisoner of war or trophy by a conquering African tribe, probably to Portguese or Arab wholesalers.


       
       2 
       
       1
      Ben Kent in reply to civisamericanus. | November 25, 2021 at 1:06 pm

      @civisamericanus – We will never know what Aubery was thinking. Making assumptions about his state of mind is the home of reasonable doubt. You assume his state of mind to be that of an innocent jogger – while some other person could assume his state of mind was of a person who is aware of his acts of criminal trespass.

      But let’s assume you are right. He feared for his life when he saw the gun. If you see someone with a gun – do you charge at them full speed and grab for the gun ? Or do you run the other way ? I would run away and I do not know anyone who would charge at an armed man.

      The bottom line is that by assuming the state of mind of any of the people involved – you bring all your bias with those assumptions. That why its best to limit assumptions and look at facts. If you look at just the facts in evidence. And the evidence must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Travis did not fire in self defense or had no right to claim self defense. I do not believe that as shown beyond a reasonable doubt.

      If there were evidence that Travis had mal-intent – such as evidence that he was a racist – I would have a different view. But there is no such evidence in this case. News reports that make assumptions to smear people as racist is not evidence.

If you watched all or even most of the trial, the verdicts are not surprising at all, save perhaps the third guy. The entire citizens arrest defense was more a meme than a factual and legal defense. No reason for a shotgun to have been present or brought out. No reason, none at all for those yokels to have tried what they did. Possible petty property crimes result in a killing when the victim showed some backbone. They killed him. Wrongfully killed him. I’ve been a practicing trial lawyer for 39 years, law clerked for a federal judge in the Midwest. This was not a surprising verdict at all on the facts and law. I would have been gobsmacked had a jury let them off, save maybe the third guy.

Citizens arrest my ass. Self defense my ass. You reap what you sow and those boys reaped the legal whirlwind.


     
     1 
     
     1
    VioletJanes in reply to DrNo76. | November 25, 2021 at 12:25 pm

    Boys? What boys? Yokels. Ofay? Crackers? Rednecks? For which federal judge in the Midwest were you a clerk? Which opinions did you author? What have you been up to since then?

    “Possible petty property crimes result in a killing when the victim showed some backbone.” Please describe.


       
       0 
       
       0
      alien in reply to VioletJanes. | November 25, 2021 at 12:34 pm

      I’ve been advised that asking a poster for his legal background is akin to shutting down the conversation.

      Oh, wait — in this case, the OP brought up his own legal background, didn’t he?

      I would have preferred to read his commentary pointing to the specifics of the laws rather than a screed against us white southern crackers. But maybe that’s just me.


     
     2 
     
     2
    Ben Kent in reply to DrNo76. | November 25, 2021 at 12:50 pm

    You are making huge assumptions based on your bias.

    By agreeing with the guilty verdict – you agree that Travis should have relinquished his gun to the person grabbing it.

    Prosecution did not show any evidence that Travis was there for any reason other than a citizens arrest. Okay, you may say it was a flawed plan. But the point is – Travis was not there will mal-intent. You are saying that Aubrey assumed mal-intent – but that does not negate Travis’ right to defend himself.

    You opine that Aubrey was in fear for his life – you try to get into Aubrey’s state of mind. But there is a TON or reasonable doubt about his state of mind. WE WILL NEVER KNOW WHAT AUBREY WAS THINKING. All we do know is that he decided to charge at Travis and grabbed for his gun. He could have run away from Travis – run the other way – he chose to charge. Once it because a fight for the gun – it was a life and death struggle.

    How do you explain the fact that Travis did not fire before the the fight over the gun?? You cannot. Because if Travis had mal-intent – he would have fired as soon as Aubrey charged at him or even before being charged at.

    You, and many others, want so desperately for Travis to be a KKK card-carrying Racist white supremacist. But there is nothing in his background to support that narrative.

    Jury’s have to reach a verdict BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. This jury was influenced to apply a lower standard. We know this because there is a TON of reasonable doubt in the case of William Bryan. He seemed to be little more than a bystander. Yet he was convicted and faces LIFE in prison. LIFE. It shows that the jury was swayed by the emotion of the case and did not apply the law to the actual FACTS in EVIDENCE.


       
       1 
       
       2
      VioletJanes in reply to Ben Kent. | November 25, 2021 at 1:12 pm

      “All we do know is that [Arbery] decided to charge at Travis and grabbed for his gun.” And Southern Men got convicted of protecting their neighborhood from a diagnosed mentally ill, violent thief, Because it’s easy and acceptable to dispose of Southern Men although they’re the only ones left with balls enough to reject the Western replacement. Yet you assholes keep moving here, That won’t work out the way you think it will.


         
         1 
         
         1
        Ben Kent in reply to VioletJanes. | November 25, 2021 at 1:43 pm

        BIASED ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHITE MEN IN SOUTHERN STATES

        I have seen and heard many comments about white men in the south.

        Nearly all these commentators are biased. They assume all men in the south must be racist against blacks.

        I live in the northeast but spent 5 years in the south. There is a wide-spread view in the northeast that most white southerners (men and women) were members of the KKK at some point and if they are not members today – they are closet members.

        It is a terrible assumption that distorts their opinion. Even in the comments of this blog – a blog that tries to deal in facts and law – you see people write about “crackers” and “KKK”.

        NEWS FLASH TO NORTHEASTERNERS — This is not the 195o’s South. The modern south is not what you think. Modern southern whites are not their grandparents or great grandparents. It’s time for Northeasterners to realize they are biased and ignorant of the modern south.

        Unfortunately, this anti-white southerner bias infects all the national news rooms. Editors, producers and reporters promote this bias. It affects their coverage and has an adverse impact on America.


       
       4 
       
       1
      DrNo76 in reply to Ben Kent. | November 25, 2021 at 8:20 pm

      The defendants had nothing. Not a damn thing. And they killed a man. No crime had been committed in their presence that day. No crime ever had been committed in their presence on some prior day. They had no probable cause to take any action against that citizen or any citizen exercising his rights to be on a roadway, a street, running, jogging, skipping, walking, singing, breathing, picking his nose and if he cared to, flipping off those three Gomer Pyle dopes who, at the time, did not advise the soon to be dead guy that they were in fact trying to effectuate a “Citizens arrest! Citizens arrest!” And it wouldn’t have made any difference if they had so stated clearly that they were taking him “into custody”. They had no legal right or justification to do so. They had “suspicions” about some maybe, possible crime. F that. They had not actually seen with their own eyes any misdemeanor immediately in their their presence, nor a felony. If they had a videotape of THEIR own showing him on someone else’s property ‘lookin’ suspicious, tresspassin’ where he’d ought not be’, then take the video to the Mayberry Sheriff Andy Taylor and let him and Barney handle it from there. Instead they stalk him down the road in their pickup truck, one of them threatens to kill him and when a wrestling match starts the son shotguns him down. That man was unarmed. They come upon him. Without the slightest probable cause. They had nothing but ‘suspicions’. And when the guy showed some backbone , the son blew him away. Now they can take their ‘suspicions’ to the pen with them and ruminate on them and their their so-called self defense for a very long time. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for them. Or at least two of them.

      As for me, I haven’t a clue what all of your legal backgrounds are. Who’s a lawyer, who isn’t. Doesn’t matter. This website was started by a guy who’s a law school professor somewhere. The website presents interesting articles, columns on the intersection of politics and the law. I enjoy many of them. When I read Branca’s take on self defense on the facts presented at trial and the final arguments, I thought, what is he smoking? Two of the three defendants brought firearms with them. One of them threatened to kill the guy. Anyone surprised the guy tried to take the immediate gun away? Then the son blasted him. Doesn’t seem close to a self defense claim. I’ve represented companies in cases all over the country. Midwest, out East, out West and down South. Mostly civil ,but with a decent intersection with criminal aspects over the years. I’ve sat through criminal trials and observed first hand hearings in criminal cases. I’ve appeared before hundreds of judges over 4 decades. What the defense was trying to sell the jury was BS. They had bad facts and bad law. It made for just convictions or mostly just. They weren’t doing an citizens arrest. They just wanted to do some good old boy policing based on suspicions. And a guy ends up shotgunned by one of them. I listened to enough of the trial to be satisfied that a just verdict was rendered. And I said they’d be convicted before the jury came back.


       
       0 
       
       0
      markm in reply to Ben Kent. | December 2, 2021 at 11:29 am

      “By agreeing with the guilty verdict – you agree that Travis should have relinquished his gun to the person grabbing it. ”

      Or that Travis should not have got out of his truck with the gun.

      Running from one man on foot with a gun would be reasonable, but it’s unlikely that anyone can escape on foot from three men with pickup trucks. Sometimes fighting is the only chance you have, even if it’s a poor chance.

      Nor should you assume that everyone is capable of being reasonable – especially after you and your friends chase him down the street in pickup trucks. Panicking people are often amazingly stupid.

    Amen!


 
 2 
 
 5
texansamurai | November 25, 2021 at 1:28 pm

No reason, none at all for those yokels to have tried what they did.
______________________________________________________

you’re dead wrong–no law requires a citizen(s) to tolerate a trespass/theft/burglary (or numerous such incidents as described by other witnesses)–due to police malfeasance/indifference, etc.–these men attempted to apprehend/prevent the known perpetrator from continuing his activities, to protect their neighborhood/themselves–whether they effected a proper citizen’s arrest seems open to debate–one thing seems crystal clear to me, though: no prosecutor (and truly, no duly-licensed “officer of the court” )has the right to deliberately twist / subvert the law and (at least to me) appparently outright lie about the legal standard necessary to contemplate a conviction on these particular charges–believe the verdict(s) are truly flawed as they likely stem from this prosecutor’s deliberate misstatement/mischaracterization of the law’s requirements/standards

am amazed that the judge himself did not intervene–what judge worthy of the title(and especially when a man’s(men’s)life is on the line, would allow the blatant/deliberate attempt to re-write the legal standard necessary for a valid conviction? in his court? in his presence?

lord, it’s disgusting.
result of


     
     4 
     
     1
    DrNo76 in reply to texansamurai. | November 25, 2021 at 8:28 pm

    I’m not dead wrong. Only Aubrey is dead.

    You should contemplate your first run on sentence and consider some real hypotheticals of your taking some guy’s life for a trespass on someone ele’s property that you didn’t see first hand or have first hand knowledge about, and then come back and give us the facts of your hypotheticals and how you killed the guy and see how many here raise their hand in support of your tough guy post.


       
       2 
       
       0
      alien in reply to DrNo76. | November 25, 2021 at 9:40 pm

      Well. I, for one, have to thank you for your detailed analysis, your point-by-point explanation of the particular legal precepts involved, your respect for the peers that have performed yeoman’s work in setting up and running this site, and your sense of fairness and even-handedness in passing judgement on the yokels, Gomer Pyle dopes, good ole boys, Mayberry Sheriff Andy and Barney.

      I promise not to ask your legal background. In fact, I promise not to ask you anything at all.


       
       3 
       
       4
      Ben Kent in reply to DrNo76. | November 25, 2021 at 9:42 pm

      @ DrNo – you write as though the intent was to kill Aubrey. Prove it. There was zero evidence presented that they intended to kill him and none of their actions (actions matter) prior to Aubrey’s grabbing the gun would lead anyone to believe they intended to kill Aubrey.

      If you have to make up, or assume, any of the participant’s “state of mind” – in order to achieve a narrative that can result in conviction – you have ventured far into the land of REASONABLE DOUBT.

      Try to just look at facts in evidence and the law.

      If you genuinely do not think you are assuming or making up the “state of mind” of participants – you have are so biased that you have lost all chance of being objective.

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.
Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend