They were meant to address the reason as to why these two men would want to be armed in a confrontation with Arbery, and I think they did that splendidly.
And although I know you're sympathetic to the McMichaels, every point you made simply establishes McMichaels probable bias.
I'm not sure "sympathetic" is the right word. Part of me feels they were foolish to do what they did, and to some extent deserved the blood lust baying after them now. Pretty much anyone knows you have to treat black criminals as a "special case". Treating them equally as you would a white criminal will get you in trouble.
So no, not "sympathetic", more like seeing them as a bone of contention in a larger societal problem.
And "bias"? I'm not sure of your point here. I don't see how any personal animosity directed at this individual would have been likely to have changed their response. I suspect they would have done the same no matter who the trespasser\probable thief turned out to be.
I think they'll need a very good lawyer to establish it was a legitimate citizens arrest.
Presumably the DA (Barnhill) was a "very good lawyer" and he said it was legitimate. Freeper "Bort" has said he is over 30 years a criminal lawyer in Georgia and he insists they had legitimate cause to detain Arbery. I'm sure if you talk to Benjamin Crump he will disagree, but from what i've seen of him, I don't think he is a very good lawyer. He's an exploiter.
I have some sympathy once Travis was attacked, but I won't be surprised that in the end it's determined he had no cause to attempt the detention.
Show me the jury and I will tell you the likely verdict. I don't think this is about law. It was about law back in February, now it is a political show trial.
You’re right that it’s a show trial. And like other show trials like this they’ll be overcharged with no lesser alternatives. It all depends on whether their attempted arrest was legal as determined by the jury. If not they’ll be doing significant jail time.