I don’t see any evidence of any illegal activity on anyone’s part before the confrontation. Arbery may have been looking to burglarize the construction site, but he didn’t actually do so. And there’s nothing illegal about asking someone what they’re doing out in public regardless of whether you suspect they’ve committed a crime or not.
The crux of this whole issue lies in what took place during the confrontation. Was Abery aggressive? Maybe; maybe not. We don’t know. We have one side of a story and video from a distance and a bad angle with a truck in the way that was apparently recorded using a potatoe. Was this an innocent misunderstanding? Maybe, maybe not, we weren’t there. Did the McMichaels confront Arbery with ill or hostile intent? No idea, I can’t look inside their heads and we don’t have any real evidence either way. Again, we have their side of the story and we have a guy who’s dead and we have a video that was apparently shot with the same camera that gave us the Zapruder film.
That’s why I think a trial is absolutely warranted here: we know a man is dead, but we don’t know exactly why. We have the stories of the McMichaels, but no clear and obvious evidence (like a clear video of the confrontation from start to finish with clear audio) to tell us who had what intent, who was provocative or aggressive, and who may have had the better claim to self defense. I can sit here and say that if I were lawfully holding a firearm and someone tried to snatch it away from me, I would certainly defend myself. I can also say that if I found myself unexpectedly faced with someone who was armed and I firmly believed (based on their demeanor, words, body language, etc.) that they were about to kill me with it, I would be doing everything I could to take it from them to prevent that. The video we have doesn’t tell us nearly enough about this situation to provide a clear case of self defense, so we need a trial.
The purpose of a trial is to lay out all the available evidence and see whether one or both of the McMichaels are guilty of any criminal action beyond a reasonable doubt. With what we have in front of us today, we don’t know that they’re guilty of anything and we don’t know they’re innocent either. A trial is the best way to establish the facts and apply the law. If the state can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the McMichaels violated Georgia law, they should walk.
By the way, there’s a pretty good breakdown of the video we do have of the confrontation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywenRJU0qdE
I think you’ve laid out the situation quite well.
A trial is not supposed to be an investigation. During a trial, lawyers only ask questions they already know the answer to. A trial is warranted only if the finished investigation gathered enough evidence that the likelihood of a murder conviction is very high.
The Police already decided that the McMichael's had broken no law and had reasonable suspicions to make a citizen's arrest. Now, 4 months later, because the DEMS are getting more desperate, they want to woo black voters and suddenly there was a national 'stir' and the two men were arrested (charges pending). The MSM got the memo, and the usual groups started gearing up, anticipating the upcoming financial rewards. Looting, rioting, all Trump's fault on the menu. Eat up.