Posted on 05/10/2020 7:39:27 PM PDT by Widget Jr
He became an aggressor when he charged McMichaels. That changes the nature of the event from "Murder" to "Involuntary Manslaughter" - if that.
And yes, he ran about 60' up to the truck and took that hard left turn in front of the truck where he closed with McMichaels and attempted that shotgun grab. That is not a defensive move.
Remember that three shots were fired at close range after both men were wrestling with the shotgun and one man had a finger on the trigger. "Shots fired" is an expected result in such conditions.
Arbery seems to have been unaware that he has been shot until he brushes the shotgun barrel away, turns to run, and collapses from shock and blood loss.
What was he suppose to do, out run a hot head with a shot gun?
Yes. That would be the option with the best odds for success.
No, it's not my assumption. It's right there in the video. Open your eyes.
And you're obviously full of sh*t.
I meant the jogger. If he felt so threatened by the people following him from the house, why didn’t he call 911?
60’, I guess you think the truck is only 1 foot wide, it is all in aspect ratio of the capture, and it wasn’t a wide lens
Again, McMichaels was charge with aggravated assault, having the shot gun during his illegal citizens arrest/cop play time, got him that charge.
This was a defensive move, what else was an unarmed suppose to do when a stranger with a shot gun who just chased him down in his truck is demand that he “talks to him”? This is all self defense, you can not deny the man self defense just because you want to protect his hot headed wana be cop murderer.
It is that simple.
Murder
Pre meditated, because McMichaels grabbed their guns because they believe the man they were going to hunt down was armed and dangerous.
This scenario is exactly what the “citizen’s arrest” isn’t for.
Don’t go out play cop, and cry “self defense” when you shoot and kill your victim because your cop play time doing go as planned or was that the plan all along?
If so, they have serious civil rights violations
Did he have a phone?
Just asking
Elder idiot cop McMichaels did search the body for a gun, so his son, Little Fake Cop McMichaels could claim self defense. I am sure they were going to place the gun in his hands if he had one on him (speculation)
I would not expect much from a 911 call even if I were completely innocent of wrong-doing and in fear of imminent harm. Running away as fast as possible would get my first attention.
But criminals in assault cases have been known to call 911 to accuse their victims of initiating the assault. "Call" or "No-Call" won't be a reliable indicator of guilt or innocence.
The house has surveillance footage. He was busted IN there ON CAMERA at least twice. Once at night.
But you go ahead with your defense of thuggery
Doesn’t matter, still didn’t give McMichaels a license to murder that man
McMichaels could have just let the cops, you know the real cops, do their jobs and they wouldn’t be facing murder charges and aggravated assault charges right now.
You know, what normal people do.
Normal people have to suck it up and get stolen and robbed to death
Shut up.
With the immediate facts of the incident murky, the surrounding circumstances of necessity acquire increased interest. Apparently, the man who videoed the incident was in on it, so his testimony as to the McMichaels' motive and intent becomes important, perhaps even dispositive. Were they subjectively of good intent and motive? Or were they racists intending to provoke and video their shooting of a Black man?
So also will Aubery's background and character be searched for clues as to his motive and intent. Was he an innocent football star trying to keep in shape, or was his jogging a cover for theft or burglary? Why did he trespass into the house under construction? Did Aubery have a criminal record? Was he on drugs? Did he have violent tendencies?
I have no settled views as to the correct resolution of the case and want to hear more facts and actual testimony. By the way, why are supposed "career prosecutors" so credible in charging and pursuing General Flynn, but not to be credited when they did not promptly charge the McMichaels? As always, in politically or racially charged cases, the media's preferred narrative becomes a propaganda line that deliberately distorts the law and the facts.
"Aggravated Assault" is a pretty reasonable charge under the circumstances. "Involuntary Manslaughter" fits well as a companion charge, since the alleged criminal died during a struggle. "Murder" does not work except as a political show-trial. Into which this case has already devolved.
If the participants were all Whites, this would story have only made the local news and might have lasted a week. If the participants were all Blacks, this story would have lasted barely a day. If the deceased were White and the shooter Black, this story would have been immediately dropped by all major news media.
This scenario is exactly what the “citizen’s arrest” isn’t for.
Well, "Citizens Arrest" is no good for pretty much any scenario that involves pursuing an alleged criminal. I would never attempt one. Again, the McMichaels chose - poorly.
The charge of "Civil Rights" violations has degenerated into a tactic used when one group is asserting privileges over another group. Like "Racism", it has become a smokescreen to hide unacceptable intentions.
McMichaels was charge with aggravated assault, having the shot gun during his illegal citizens arrest/cop play time, got him that charge.
“Aggravated Assault” is a pretty reasonable charge under the circumstances. “Involuntary Manslaughter” fits well as a companion charge, since the alleged criminal died during a struggle. “Murder” does not work except as a political show-trial. Into which this case has already devolved.
Felony Murder does fit
If the participants were all Whites, this would story have only made the local news and might have lasted a week. If the participants were all Blacks, this story would have lasted barely a day. If the deceased were White and the shooter Black, this story would have been immediately dropped by all major news media.
Sadly you are right, I ignored the race aspect because I was interested in the criminal/legal aspect. I really don’t care what color Arbery or the McMichaels are.
This scenario is exactly what the “citizen’s arrest” isn’t for.
Well, “Citizens Arrest” is no good for pretty much any scenario that involves pursuing an alleged criminal. I would never attempt one. Again, the McMichaels chose - poorly.
That they did
The charge of “Civil Rights” violations has degenerated into a tactic used when one group is asserting privileges over another group. Like “Racism”, it has become a smokescreen to hide unacceptable intentions.
I am not a fan of these type of charges, civil rights, hate crimes, etc because they get messy. However, the original DA on the case knew the McMichaels and worked with the elder McMichaels for decades in the DAs office, because he didn’t recuse himself until he was pressured and this case gained teeth in the media, there is a possible cause for a civil rights investigation since the rights of Mr. Arbery were violated by this man who tried to sweep it under the rug to save a friend of the DA’s office. Sure if this was a double parking ticket or speeding violation, he could get away with that type of nepotism crap but a murder charge? That really stinks. This man might end up resigning a couple months.
The law distinguishes an implied threat of force — a shotgun held at the ready — from the actual use of force in the form of physically attacking the man holding the shotgun. Granted, the McMichaels wrongly stopped Aubery, but it was Aubery who moved things to actual physical force when he attacked the younger McMichael. In that respect, it was Aubery who resorted to violence.
I have a feeling the Camera Guy is going to testify as to exactly what was going on here, this was in a neighborhood so might have witnesses in homes who heard what was was being said.
With the immediate facts of the incident murky, the surrounding circumstances of necessity acquire increased interest. Apparently, the man who videoed the incident was in on it, so his testimony as to the McMichaels’ motive and intent becomes important, perhaps even dispositive. Were they subjectively of good intent and motive? Or were they racists intending to provoke and video their shooting of a Black man?
I agree with this statement, in fact I was already thinking this as well. The 3rd man will get a deal, reduced sentence for spilling the bean on the McMichaels.
Also other witnesses might exist in those homes on that street. We have no idea who was listening in/watching from their homes, yards, garages, etc. Maybe even more cell phone videos or door bell videos.
So also will Aubery’s background and character be searched for clues as to his motive and intent. Was he an innocent football star trying to keep in shape, or was his jogging a cover for theft or burglary? Why did he trespass into the house under construction? Did Aubery have a criminal record? Was he on drugs? Did he have violent tendencies?
I have no settled views as to the correct resolution of the case and want to hear more facts and actual testimony. By the way, why are supposed “career prosecutors” so credible in charging and pursuing General Flynn, but not to be credited when they did not promptly charge the McMichaels? As always, in politically or racially charged cases, the media’s preferred narrative becomes a propaganda line that deliberately distorts the law and the facts.
Gradually, as the facts trickled out, it transpired that Brown had been stopped by the cop in order to clear him from interfering with traffic by walking down the middle of the street and to investigate if he was involved in a reported robbery. The supposedly peaceful Brown promptly attacked and injured the officer, going for his gun but dying because the officer retained control of it and fired as he was being beaten.
Why did Michael Brown act as he did? The kid had just robbed a shop by strong-arm tactics and was even carrying evidence of it in the form of small cigars that he stole. Similarly, in Sanford, Florida, troubled visiting Black teen Trayvon Martin attacked neighborhood watch volunteer and condo owner George Zimmerman, who followed Martin because he seemed to be casing units while walking through the complex.
Suddenly, Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman, getting on top of him, pounding him MMA style, and then going for the concealed handgun that Zimmerman was legally carrying. Zimmerman won that contest and fired a single lethal shot at Martin.
Arguably, as defendants, the McMichaels are on shakier legal ground in their initial stop of Aubery than Darren Wilson or George Zimmerman were in their conduct. Yet the similarities are still striking: in all three instances, a Black teen who has done something wrong attacked a white male who challenged them. With lethal consequences involved, a hyped-up racial hue and cry is soon raised, stirred in all three cases by Tallahassee lawyer Ben Crump.
After the full facts emerged though, both Wilson and Zimmerman were cleared of criminal responsibility. The McMichaels defendants have a good chance of also being cleared, at least as to criminal charges.
Keep in mind that, as criminal defendants, they will get the benefit of the reasonable doubt standard, meaning that a jury must unanimously find that, taken in the light most favorable to the defendants, the facts and all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from those facts cannot add up to a valid defense. That is a tough standard in both concept and application.
Again, after a criminal trespass, Aubery was stopped by a white male carrying a shotgun, and, in response, Aubery initiated a physical attack. This moved the confrontation from an implied threat of force conveyed by a shotgun to actual violence, which resulted in Aubery's death. As in the other two cases, the dead Black teen was of a large and powerful build.
The McMaster defendants will get the benefit of criminal discovery and of a defense at trial that does its best to develop and present facts and law for a claim of self-defense. Can one really say at this point that a jury will unanimously conclude that there is an absence of reasonable doubt in the McMasters' favor?
I can’t compare a uniform officer giving legal commands of compliance to an individual who then decided to attack the officer to a bunch of vigilante wanna be fake cops doing everything wrong and illegal. Sorry, do dice on that.
The only way way McMichaels can claim self defense is if Arbery was the aggressor/initiator, but that isn’t the case here.
Of course McMichaels is going to create a defense, that is their right to do so. They can try to present as much legal evidence they can. In some cases past violations of the victim can’t be evidence because it would be irrelevant. McMichaels are not uniform police officers, the shooter has zero law enforcement experience but he took it upon himself to play cop. He is responsible, he put Arvery in that situation and McMichaels had zero experience on how to control that situation. That is why police work should be left to the police, not vigilantes wanna be cops.
And honestly, race has nothing to do with this. The race hustlers are trying to sell that this man was some sort of angel, be we all know that. However, his past doesn’t give McMichaels the right to execute him.
YOU assume he attacked the man holding the shotgun
No, it’s not my assumption. It’s right there in the video. Open your eyes.
Doesn’t matter, Shot gun idiot had zero right playing cop and giving order to Arbery while holding a shot gun. Sorry if a cop did that, he would have been fired.
No, it’s not my assumption. It’s right there in the video. Open your eyes.
Doesn’t matter
Sure it does. A man ended up dead for that behavior.
The man was defending himself against a rag tag gang of vigilantes, he had every right to attack, in fact, it could have been his only way out.
We have no idea what was being said, that part isn’t in the video
We have no idea what was going on in front of the truck since that view was blocked
For example, the elder McMaster was a former cop and former investigator for the local District Attorney. Even in retirement, he may have had some sort of colorable law enforcement authority. Also, either or both of the McMasters might have been trained and credential as reserve deputies or members of the local sheriff's posse.
There may also be some obscure aspects of South Carolina law and yet unknown facts that suggest a rationale on which to stop and question Arbery. Due to the South's history as a predominantly rural and unsettled region, state and local law and practice tend to accommodate self-defense, self-help, and even some forms of vigilantism. Since the McMasters had a handgun stolen from a vehicle parked at their home, they were crime victims and may have stopped Arbery to ask if he had taken the gun.
Moreover, although the McMasters were armed, there is a right to openly long guns in South Carolina. Stopping Arbery while openly armed with a shotgun was provocative, but, without more, it did not in itself justify violence by Arbery. And, beyond question, Arbery was the aggressor and initiated physical violence, not the McMasters.
If that point is ignored, then all sorts of things can be used to justify attacking and killing another person. Until Arbery went after the McMasters, no one had suffered any physical injury. He was the aggressor, not the McMasters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.