No amount of theft or trespassing makes chasing someone down and murdering them legal. How hard is this to understand.

Check his ear. CHECK HIS EAR

Not for me, no. For yourself, since some of your key points don't jibe with what's been reported of the case so far. And you don't need to go far to do your research, there have been plenty of articles posted in this thread.

He was being herded into the gunner who was to the left of the pickup, he attempted to flee around to the right to avoid him.

Your redneck buddies know how to drive game.

You'd think that if they were so worried about the thefts they might have mentioned them to the police at some point rather than creating a vigilante group to sort it out themselves. The only theft reported to the police in the months leading up to the murder was the gun taken from the McMichaels' truck.

Basically either they are lying about the thefts or they chose not to go to the police in favour of trying to seek justice themselves. In either case the only reasonable conclusion is that they were not in any way justified in their actions and the shooting was felony murder.

In these sorts of Georgia neighborhoods where everyone lives in a house with a yard and garage, people steal stuff from yards and garages all the time. It's usually some kid in the neighborhood but residents always blame the crew (all black or Hispanic) that takes care of someone else's yard.

Citing the Daily Mail as if it were some source of investigative journalism and then repeating it over and over again does bad things for your credibility (even for yours).

That is how this works, so why are you surprised?

If you say it is not your job to source your statements then the simple counter to your statement then becomes anyone just making up what they want as a counter, stating it, and then when you say ' source that please', they say 'not my job'.

There are multiple reasonable conclusions one can make ranging from self defense to manslaughter to felony murder based upon the incomplete, known evidence. From everything I have read, I am not sure aggravated assault can be proven or even if they were “brandishing” weapons. I doubt any mens rea beyond “catch this thief black guy” can be proven, ie., I doubt they had intent to shoot the guy before the chase. With the bad camera work and lack of sound, it looks like Arbery could be reasonably viewed as an aggressor as well when he veered towards the guy and grabbed at the gun. Whether Arbery was the neighborhood thief or not will certainly play out in the media before a trial, and may be admissible in court for other reasons or exceptions under rules of evidence regarding character.

Not that reasonable conclusions matter anyways because the burden of proof is much higher.

This isn't relevant to whether a crime was committed (although maybe it is relevant to the exact charge?) but generally property crimes are not something police even try to solve in US#170, and everyone knows it. Very few property crimes are ever reported, and a tiny percentage of those reported are ever solved. I am guessing of the cases that are solved, most are because the victim knows exactly who stole it. Basically, if you have something stolen by an unknown party there is almost zero chance reporting it to the police will serve any practical purpose, other than possible insurance reasons or liability (you definitely want to report a stolen gun or license plate for obvious reasons). ON top of this, actually trying to report a property crime is a big pain in the ass. Police will try to convince you not to bother and intentionally make it difficult for you, because it is a waste of their time. There is a nonzero chance if there had been burglaries in the neighborhood someone actually called the police at some point, and the police convinced them not to bother filing a formal report.

And for this reason, very few property crimes are ever reported. So your binary either or suppositions aren't very accurate. I have had stuff stolen before, and never bothered to report it. It certainly wasn't because I decided I would rather be a vigilante. I am sure most people have similar experiences. It is what it is.

I had a friend who had a bike stolen out of his garage and he called the police and they blew him off. Then he went on Craigslist and found someone trying to sell his bike, and he again called the police and they blew him off again. They just weren't interested. He actually arranged a meet up with the guy himself to ostensibly buy the bike and stole it back. Definitely way more ballsy move than I would have ever done. He said when he saw the guy he saw it was just some skinny junkie kid so he wasn't too concerned with his personal safety.

I'm guessing the fact that they went chasing him with guns is going to imply an intent to shoot him legally.

That's really splitting hairs there. lol

I don't consider these reasonable conclusions based on the evidence available though. In the 911 call it's clear that they hadn't witnessed any crime (trespassing is not a crime unless there is proven malicious intent), which is the only thing that would justify performing a citizens arrest, so pursuing him with that intent was already illegal:

False imprisonment is also considered a felony in Georgia which means that from that point onward the law doesn't care about intent, if someone dies you are liable to be charged with felony murder:

I don't even agree with the laws, in particular the felony murder law is awful, but given the laws as they are and the evidence available I still think the only reasonable conclusion is that they are liable for felony murder.

It's one thing for police not to be aware of a specific case of property theft, it's another for a spree in the same neighbourhood to never be reported.

And regarding the vigilante part, I was replying to a person who had claimed that there was evidence that people were organising to try to catch whoever was committing the alleged thefts. If there are repeated thefts in the same area and you suspect that there will be more in the future but opt to try to catch the perpetrator yourself without even notifying the police then I have no issue with calling that vigilantism.

I don't think there is any defensible argument to a Self Defense plea by the McMichaels.

There also is not any defensible arguments for a Stand Your Ground argument by the McMichaels.

I think the only play the defense lawyer can and will make will become a play on old racial under currents, trying to get the jury to sympathize with the McMichaels while 'other'izing' Arbaury while hoping for a sympathetic jury to nullify the justified conviction.

They will paint the picture of 'imagine this being your neighbourhood and you know this unknown (black) guy does not belong. Can you not understand, given our history with them (blacks), how this could happen and could you not see this guy (McMichaels) being your son, trying to do the right thing? Is it really worth putting your son (McMichaels) in jail over someone like him (black)'.

Jury nullification for citizens and police who have killed minorities unjustly has been the main defense weapon and very successful in the past. You ask the jury to make a value judgment of 'what was really lost (just another black guy who seemed suspicious'), and 'do you want to put in jail our sons (McMichaels), for that?'

Can any lawbros chip in on whether they think it's likely the prosecution will ask for a change of venue, and if so, whether such a motion would be likely to be granted?

They called the police while they were chasing Arbery. All indications are they were just trying to hold him up to give the police time to get there. Whatever crime you think occurred, your interpretation of what happened and why doesn't really match the evidence at hand.

Also, who said the police weren't aware? Everyone is in "protect your own ass mode" right now. It is in no one's best interests to offer any information that would be perceived as protecting or supporting the McMichaels right now. It could literally be career suicide. If you think you are getting straight answers and the stone cold truth at this point you are approaching the situation naively IMO.

NYT and WaPo definitely fall in the left wing propaganda category.
NYT and WaPo definitely fall in the left wing propaganda category.
NYT and WaPo definitely fall in the left wing propaganda category.
NYT and WaPo definitely fall in the left wing propaganda category.
NYT and WaPo definitely fall in the left wing propaganda category.
NYT and WaPo definitely fall in the left wing propaganda category.

Between this and your constant, vigorous defense of the Daily Mail, I can't take you seriously anymore. NYT and WaPo lean left of center and are highly fact based sources of information. The Daily Mail is a TABLOID. Your brain is broken, and half your posts care way too much about media narratives. You're basically Luckbox Inc, incapable of nuance, and half your posts are stuck in a repetitive cycle of sheer nonsense. Just because you decided to stop using the phrase "ideologically possessed" from old Kelhus to new Kelhus doesn't mean the way you think is any less flawed. I tried to give 100 the benefit of the doubt, but I give up. You're getting ignored just like 999

"...All indications are they were just trying to hold him up to give the police time to get there...."

The law is specific. You CANNOT detain someone based on suspicion. The only way to detain someone until the police come is to execute a Citizens Arrest and they met none of the legal criteria to do that.

If Arbaury was a 2A proponent and armed, he would have legally been able to shoot and kill the McMichaels under Stand your Ground laws. And if they fired back and killed him they would be guilty of murder.

Students should be taught to question The Economist more than they question a random youtube crackpot who is promoting the health benefits of the colloidal silver. Makes perfect sense.

That is fine. Wiild was making an argument the McMichaels were vigilantes who decided to take the law into their own hands and deliver street justice, and the evidence doesn't support that at all.

Nailed this forum in one post.

The whole purpose of the mainstream media is to propagandize. The purpose of random youtube crackpots is to educate. So yes. It does make perfect sense.
I'll take random people over constantly propagandizing media outlets any day.

Can you distinguish between someone wanting to foolishly confront a burglar in the act of stealing from them and a group of guys driving around town hunting black people?

Hahahaohwow.png

Nobody is arguing that nothing was stolen.

The fact that stuff was or wasn’t stolen is entirely irrelevant to what happened in this case where three white guys drove around and hunted down and killed a black guy.

You act like it is some gotcha. Please demonstrate where anyone was saying nothing was stolen. Still not evidence the victim stole anything. And even if he saw the murder victim steal from him with his own eyes t would not change the racist, heinous act of hunting him down in cold blood.

I am sure team racist will assign you a merit badge for your effort though.