Ahmaud Arbery; racist killing and attempted cover up.

[Cow Poke]

You don't accidently keep your finger on the trigger and fire it 3 times if you are just fighting for control of the shot gun.

You're not a gun guy, are you? When somebody is wrestling over a gun, the whole hand gets involved - unfortunately, people who are not REALLY well trained will, indeed, have their finger inside the trigger guard area, and as the whole hand grips to maintain control of the weapon, it's easy to discharge repeatedly.

MM - do we know if this was a semi-auto shotgun? (I [may or may not] have several)

[JimL]

You're not a gun guy, are you? When somebody is wrestling over a gun, the whole hand gets involved - unfortunately, people who are not REALLY well trained will, indeed, have their finger inside the trigger guard area, and as the whole hand grips to maintain control of the weapon, it's easy to discharge repeatedly.

MM - do we know if this was a semi-auto shotgun? (I [may or may not] have several)

But he obviously had his finger on the trigger prior to Arbery graabbing the barrel which means he was threatening Arbery. At that point it doesn't matter if the gun went off during the struggle because Arbery by grabbing the barrel of the gun was defending the obvious threat to his life that Travis posed.

[MaxVel]

I'd love to see you try and prove.

Anyway, the reason McMichaels lowering his weapon and retreating is significant is because that's the action I'd expect from someone with intent to stop and not intent to kill. If it was his intent to kill then I would have expected him to aim and fire one final shot to finish the job and not back away with his weapon lowered while the other guy was still moving.

I think it obvious that the McMichaels did not intend to kill Arbery. If they did, there were a whole lot of other ways to do it that would involve less risk to themselves. Such as...

Shoot him when he was still some distance away (why let him get close enough to grab the gun if you intend to kill from the start?).

Run him down in your vehicle and pretend it was an accident (if caught).

Follow him at some distance and do a drive-by shooting when there are no witnesses around.

Do nothing that day, and set up an ambush or trap in the property he was in.


Arbery jogging up fro distance and then being able to sprint around the front of the vehicle and get close enough to get hold of the gun, before there was any significant reaction from the McMichaels shows that they were not expecting him to do anything except either stop, or keep running. AFAICT neither of them was covering Arbery with his gun until he grabbed the shotgun.

They just hadn't thought it through well enough. Both should have been in the vehicle, or both should have been on foot, and close together.

[MaxVel]

But he obviously had his finger on the trigger prior to Arbery graabbing the barrel which means he was threatening Arbery.

Only if you want to parse things down into fractions of seconds. IF he threatened Arbery, it was only as Arbery came running around the front of the vehicle towards him, a few feet away. At that point he himself could argue (successfully, I think) that he had reasonable fear of immediate violence (from Arbery) and thus was entitled to defend himself.

McMichaels was in no way acting illegally by carrying and holding the shotgun as he did. At worst, one might question his actions after Arbery tried for the gun... ...but that act of Arbery's creates a immediate threat to McMichaels - Arbery might get hold of a loaded shotgun.

At that point it doesn't matter if the gun went off during the struggle because Arbery by grabbing the barrel of the gun was defending the obvious threat to his life that Travis posed.

Also, you are ignorant of the Georgia laws on self-defense. I think it's going to be quite hard to make a successful case that Arbery was (legally speaking) acting in self defense.

Grabbing for a gun is one of the most dangerous things you can do. Only try it if you know you have absolutely no other choices, and the other party is determined to kill you. Heck, people have been killed climbing over fences while hunting with friends, by their gun, or someone else's gun.

[JimL]

Only if you want to parse things down into fractions of seconds. IF he threatened Arbery, it was only as Arbery came running around the front of the vehicle towards him, a few feet away. At that point he himself could argue (successfully, I think) that he had reasonable fear of immediate violence (from Arbery) and thus was entitled to defend himself.

If McMichaels was in fear at that point, it was of his own doing. He chased Arbery down, He jumped out of the truck with the shotgun. That he didn't expect Arbery to defend himself is his own fault. If Arbery had killed him it would have been justified, but his killing of Arbery was a result of Arbery defending himself from the threat the McMichaels posed.

McMichaels was in no way acting illegally by carrying and holding the shotgun as he did. At worst, one might question his actions after Arbery tried for the gun... ...but that act of Arbery's creates a immediate threat to McMichaels - Arbery might get hold of a loaded shotgun.

That's just silly. For one thing they were acting illegally, they armed themselves, chased down, and threatened a manat gunpoint of whom they had no idea had committed a crime.

Also, you are ignorant of the Georgia laws on self-defense. I think it's going to be quite hard to make a successful case that Arbery was (legally speaking) acting in self defense.

Oh, I beg to differ, I think that the fact that he was defending himself is an open and shut case.

Grabbing for a gun is one of the most dangerous things you can do. Only try it if you know you have absolutely no other choices, and the other party is determined to kill you. Heck, people have been killed climbing over fences while hunting with friends, by their gun, or someone else's gun.

So you think Arbery should have waited to see if McMichaels was intent on shooting him or not? How long should he have waited? Remember, they chased him for blocks, cutting him off and coming around again to block his path and jumping from the truck with a shotgun pointed at him. How long would you wait to see what their intent was after that?

[Leonhard]

If anyone is wondering I don't find it entirely implausible that at very least the first shot of Travis was by accident after Arbery grabbed the barrel.

[Charles]

You don't accidently keep your finger on the trigger and fire it 3 times if you are just fighting for control of the shot gun. But that was nice of Travis to lower the gun after killing Arbury.

And this is important as well:

At a preliminary trial hearing on 4 June, a judge determined that there was enough evidence to try all three men for murder. It also emerged that Travis McMichael used a racial epithet and an expletive directed at Mr Arbery as he lay on the ground. The three men have denied the charges. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52623151

I am not surprised that MM is more interested in telling us he lowered the gun after the fatal shot and is zooming in on any positve meaning it could have rather than telling us about what you see right above. It follows his usual pattern.

[MaxVel]

If McMichaels was in fear at that point, it was of his own doing. He chased Arbery down, He jumped out of the truck with the shotgun. That he didn't expect Arbery to defend himself is his own fault. If Arbery had killed him it would have been justified, but his killing of Arbery was a result of Arbery defending himself from the threat the McMichaels posed.

That's just silly. For one thing they were acting illegally, they armed themselves, chased down, and threatened a manat gunpoint of whom they had no idea had committed a crime.

Cite specific Georgia laws that support your claim, thanks.

Oh, I beg to differ, I think that the fact that he was defending himself is an open and shut case.

Great. Then I Look forward to you citing the laws, and explaining why.

So you think Arbery should have waited to see if McMichaels was intent on shooting him or not? How long should he have waited? Remember, they chased him for blocks, cutting him off and coming around again to block his path and jumping from the truck with a shotgun pointed at him. How long would you wait to see what their intent was after that?

(1) Read my earlier posts. Especially the ones referring to the relevant laws.

(2) Arbery was at least 20 metres away when he came around the corner, the McMikes were already parked. Arbery (at that point) came up to them, taking something like 20 seconds to do so. Ergo, there was no immediate threat.

(3) AFAICT, McMike was not pointing the shotgun at Arbery until Arbery was reaching for it, having come around the front of the truck. It was in plain view (as required by law) the whole time. Ergo, Arbery most likely saw it, yet still chose to move a LOT closer. He had other choices - stop, turn around, go off the road either way left or right. That would seem to negate the grounds for legal self-defense - an immediate threat of violence.

(4) AFAIK the chase wasn't blocks and blocks - two blocks or something? From McMike seniors testimony there was one attempt by them, and one by the second vehicle to cut off Arbery and (presumably) get him to stop.

(5) Arbery was fleeing the scene of a criminal trespass, and possibly a felony burglary. You only get to use self-defense against someone threatening unlawful force. If you have committed a crime (such as trespass) then citizens are legally allowed to make a citizen's arrest. IOW, they have a right under law for lawful use of force against you. You do not have a right to self defense against that force.

Otherwise, police could never make an arrest .

(6) The McMikes were unwise to do what they did - stopping and only one getting out, the other in the truck bed. That put them in a poor tactical situation, and gave them less flexibility to react to anything Arbery might do - -> more chance of someone getting hurt.

(7) Arbery made a very unwise choice to try and get the gun.

The only explanation I can think of is that he didn't realise there was a gun until he got closer - when he changed course. I think he was initially running toward the younger McMike (maybe to confront him??), saw the gun, changed course around the truck, then tried to grab the gun.

[MaxVel]

If anyone is wondering I don't find it entirely implausible that at very least the first shot of Travis was by accident after Arbery grabbed the barrel.

Yes, quite likely that. Subsequent shots may come under (legally) self defense by McMike.

Either way, it's going to be very hard for the prosecution to prove that they were deliberately fired, given Arbery and McMike were both holding the gun the whole time, with Arbery swinging punches as well.


I think the murder charges are just the prosection looking for something that will appease the public; and starting with a higher charge to bargain down to something more realistic.

The only area I can see the McMikes having some difficulty defending, possibly, is that they were justified in the start of the whole incident.

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.

The underlined parts are the key points.

If the McMikes can defend those sufficiently, then they were acting lawfully in attempting to make a citizen's arrest. I could see it being argued that they had reasonable and probable grounds to suspect Arbery of a felony (burglary). I can't see anything else they did being illegal under the law IF they were legally making a citizen's arrest.

Doesn't mean that they were wise to do what they did, of course.

[Watermelon]

Cite specific Georgia laws that support your claim, thanks.









Great. Then I Look forward to you citing the laws, and explaining why.





(1) Read my earlier posts. Especially the ones referring to the relevant laws.

(2) Arbery was at least 20 metres away when he came around the corner, the McMikes were already parked. Arbery (at that point) came up to them, taking something like 20 seconds to do so. Ergo, there was no immediate threat.

(3) AFAICT, McMike was not pointing the shotgun at Arbery until Arbery was reaching for it, having come around the front of the truck. It was in plain view (as required by law) the whole time. Ergo, Arbery most likely saw it, yet still chose to move a LOT closer. He had other choices - stop, turn around, go off the road either way left or right. That would seem to negate the grounds for legal self-defense - an immediate threat of violence.

(4) AFAIK the chase wasn't blocks and blocks - two blocks or something? From McMike seniors testimony there was one attempt by them, and one by the second vehicle to cut off Arbery and (presumably) get him to stop.

(5) Arbery was fleeing the scene of a criminal trespass, and possibly a felony burglary. You only get to use self-defense against someone threatening unlawful force. If you have committed a crime (such as trespass) then citizens are legally allowed to make a citizen's arrest. IOW, they have a right under law for lawful use of force against you. You do not have a right to self defense against that force.

Otherwise, police could never make an arrest .

(6) The McMikes were unwise to do what they did - stopping and only one getting out, the other in the truck bed. That put them in a poor tactical situation, and gave them less flexibility to react to anything Arbery might do - -> more chance of someone getting hurt.

(7) Arbery made a very unwise choice to try and get the gun.

The only explanation I can think of is that he didn't realise there was a gun until he got closer - when he changed course. I think he was initially running toward the younger McMike (maybe to confront him??), saw the gun, changed course around the truck, then tried to grab the gun.

So if you see a stranger in your neighbours yard or coming out of their house, do you have the right to chase him down using force?

[MaxVel]

So if you see a stranger in your neighbours yard or coming out of their house, do you have the right to chase him down using force?

If you see a person coming out of a neighbour's unoccupied house, which is under construction, and which has had problems with prowlers; and the person resembles one of the prowlers seen on security camera footage; and the person immediately runs off at some speed on realizing they have been observed; and there is no building work going on, so no site visitors; do you have the right to chase him down using force in making a citizen's arrest?

[Cow Poke]

But he obviously had his finger on the trigger prior to Arbery graabbing the barrel which means he was threatening Arbery.

I don't dispute that.

At that point it doesn't matter if the gun went off during the struggle because Arbery by grabbing the barrel of the gun was defending the obvious threat to his life that Travis posed.

Jim stop saying stuff you can't back up, and subsequently saying, "well, that doesn't matter because...."

Try sticking with the facts.

[JimL]

I don't dispute that.

Great.

Jim stop saying stuff you can't back up, and subsequently saying, "well, that doesn't matter because...."

Try sticking with the facts.

Those are the facts. Arbery was minding his own business, The McMichaels, as far as Arbery was concerned, were a threat to his life, a fact which you just agreed to in the above..

[Cow Poke]

Those are the facts.

As always, you move swiftly and skillfully from facts to conjecture....

Arbery was minding his own business,

Absolutely false. Going into a house under construction on private property is none of his business. That's just an outright lie.

The McMichaels, as far as Arbery was concerned, were a threat to his life which you just agreed to in the above..

I did - but you seem to have a profound inability to separate actual fact from supposition.

Now, the loonyleftnutters can rant and rave about how I'm "blaming Arbery".

[JimL]

As always, you move swiftly and skillfully from facts to conjecture....

Actually I didn't move at all, so have no idea what you mean by that. The facts are that Arbery was under threat, and he reacted to it, whether ultimately in his best interests or not, in the way he thought best.

Absolutely false. Going into a house under construction on private property is none of his business.

That was his business, not the McMichaels business, and he was simply jogging, minding his own business, when the McMichaels began their pursuit of him.

That's just an outright lie.

I understand you feel you have immunity, but you really ought to stop breaking tweb rules, CP.

I did - but you seem to have a profound inability to separate actual fact from supposition.

Now, the loonyleftnutters can rant and rave about how I'm "blaming Arbery".

So you agree, but you still want to argue the fact?