How does an "armed encounter" get justified? Let me count the ways.
1. Gregory McMichael was a 35 year law enforcement veteran that arrested Arbery for shoplifting and was aware of this being a parole violation for his gun charge from 2013. Gregory McMichael probably also knew Arbery's piece of sh*t criminal brother who had a much longer criminal record.
2. Gregory McMichael was aware of numerous burglaries in the neighborhood, and especially concerning that specific house. He said that there was video showing this guy in the house at night, and we now know that there is video of Arbery from October of 2019.
3. Travic McMichael (son of Gregory McMichael) had a handgun stolen from his truck in January. As there is a good chance that Arbery is the thief, it would be foolish to believe he did not have that gun and was possibly carrying it.
4. Gregory McMichaels said that Arbery was seen putting something in his pants during one of the night videos in which he is captured on video. McMichael presumed it was a gun, which would be what any reasonable man would suspect.
5. As the video guy filming the incident drives towards the running Arbery, he focuses his camera on a hammer that has been dropped on the road. It appears that Arbery threw it down when he saw the McMichaels blocking his path with guns.
6. Arbery was a young athletic man and presumably stronger and more dangerous than a 34 year old tub of lard and a 64 year old tub of lard. Old tubs of lard would need some sort of weapon to prevent themselves from being beaten, potentially to death.
So there you go. Half a dozen valid reasons why the McMichaels should have been armed in an encounter with Arbery.
Bingo.
Now that you've brought this item into the discussion, do you suppose it will be admitted into evidence as a possible motive for the McMichaels' actions?
2-Gregory was concerned about crime in the neighborhood, and may have seen a video of Arbery last year. Perhaps that's significant, could contribute to the aforementioned bias. Has no bearing on the events of the day.
3-His son had a weapon stolen the prior month. I don't know if there's any actual evidence Arbery was the thief, I've only seen speculation. Bias on Travis' part though, leading to the incorrect assumption that Arbery was armed.
4-Arbery put something in his pants at night. McMichaels assumed it was a weapon? Zero evidence. Thus his and his son's actions on the day in question resulting in the death of an individual with no weapon, much less Gregory's .357. An aside, don't mean to be too critical of Freepers who keep weapons in their car, but consider investing in a safe. When I' can't carry in a particular location my weapon is always locked in a handgun safe in my locked car. Yes, a theif can still steal it, more likely the safe, but he won't be shooting me with my weapon as I return to the car. And if he left his handgun in his glove compartment in his driveway as is my impression, he's not only foolish but it brings into question his concerns about neighborhood burglaries.
5-I don't know how the hammer got there. If the video shows he threw it down before approaching the truck, a shame the McMichaels didn't notice he apparently disarmed himself. Obviously we don't know how it got there.
6-He may well have been in better physical shape than either of the McMichael's. As I understand it there's no question that the McMichaels were armed legally. The issue will be what they did with their arms which resulted in a death.
Half a dozen valid reasons why the McMichaels should have been armed in an encounter with Arbery. Largely irrelevant, the question will be Gregory's actions. I've no doubt being confronted by Arbery attempting to grab his shotgun he was in fear of his life. Which is irrelevant unless the McMichaels were legallly justified in stopping and attempting to detain Arbery. Which none of your points address. They'll go to jail or be set free on that. Whether they had probable cause to attempt a citizen's arrest. And although I know you're sympathetic to the McMichaels, every point you made simply establishes McMichaels probable bias. What will be important will be the facts of the day. All I get from all the posts is that he may have trespassed in a house under construction, and perhaps stole a hammer, which he dropped, though there's no evidence of that, and it wouldn't rise to criminal tresspass. I think they'll need a very good lawyer to establish it was a legitimate citizens arrest.
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. Should have let the police do their job.