Guns: how much longer will it take ....

I think I describe the difference between murder and manslaughter in Georgia law pretty well in these posts:

https://able2know.org/topic/548125-2#post-7005138
https://able2know.org/topic/548125-2#post-7005431

**** happens, huh?

Actually what I said was:

It would depend on the level of threat that the jogger posed as he resisted them.

If the jogger's resistance posed no threat to them when they killed him, first degree murder.

If they feared for their lives, involuntary manslaughter.

So cowardice is seen as a extenuating circumstance in US law?

I don't remember that from Law and Order, but it expains a lot.

No. Being in fear for your life is not cowardice.

Fear is natural, but to let it command our behavior is cowardice. If you can't control your fear, my advice is to avoid confrontations with stangers, not seek them out.

I just relooked at the footage, and did some stop frames:

- the footage shows a person filming the victim just jogging on a road, with a normal jogging gate. I initially thought it was just dashcam footage that someone hadn't thought to turn in...but the owner of the footage is the neighbour of the McMichaels. Now that is simply beyond coincidence.

- it goes beyond coincidence when the victim approaches a Ute stopped in the middle of the road, with a man, the elder McMichael, standing on the back of the vehicle, in the tray.

- the footage then shows the victim, still casually jogging, approaching the stopped white utility. I did stop frames, and as the victim approaches the truck, in the space of a few seconds, while running - as the victim runs, the victim leans left, the victim leans right, the victim leans left, the victim leans right, and starts to runs (to the right) around the truck.

- the neighbour at this point in time decides he's going to fiddle with the footage, which had been perfectly filming the incident up until the confrontation, and would have captured the confrontation if it wasn't interfered with

- the neighbour turns the camera back just as the victim reaches the front of the the vehicle, and turns left

- there is almost the immediate sound of gunfire

- you see the younger McMichael backing up, behind the now open passenger door, with the victim not yet wrestling with him (there is very clear space between the two). As a note: the victim had one gunshot to the hand

- the victim reaches the younger McMichael and starts wrestling with the shotgun.

- the victim gets shot twice more by the younger McMichael, and dies.

...the victim very obviously, at no stage, had a firearm...and almost certainly (given both the timing, and the distance clearly between the two) did not physically attack the younger McMichael in any way before being shot the first time.

I have a number of further observations:
- the older McMichael was obviously armed, and almost certainly was pointing the firearm at the victim, or threatening the victims life (otherwise the victim wouldn't have started zigging and zagging)
- the McMichaels claimed they were conducting a citizens arrest...but the back of a Ute is just about the worst place to do this from...but its a great platform to shoot someone from (high, mobile if the truck moves, and fairly protected as the victim would have to try and climb up to get at the perpetrator).
- they told police they pursued him because he was 'hauling ass' past their place, with the older McMichael told his son that the victim was 'running'...but the victim was clear just jogging
- they told police he was a suspect in robberies (but the house under construction he went into - and wasn't seen stealing anything - was also visited by 11 other people, and no criminal complaint was made about it)
- the McMichaels told the police they were taking firearms because they had seen him reaching into his pants (given the rest of the circumstances, this seems rather self serving to me)
- they told police the victim evaded them twice (but again - just before being attacked by the McMichaels, he was just jogging)
- the neighbour allegedly tried to to intercept the victim, and also filmed the victim jogging, then being fatally attacked

Apparently there is a connection between the perpetrator and the victim. The victim had a teenage shoplifting charge. The older McMichael had helped prosecute this matter.:

https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/5/6/21249202/ahmaud-arbery-jogger-killed-in-georgia-video-shooting-grand-jury



There's also dispute over whether Georgia law even allowed for them to conduct a citizens arrest. And dispute over whether there was any series of breakins (as the McMichaels told police), and whether or not he was a suspect for an unreported one (which they of course wouldn't have been able to arrest him on).

...and all this in response to a black man out jogging...

...On the basis of this, I think there is very little doubt that this was just an outright race killing. It's not 100% certain, but it seems incredibly unlikely to be motivated by anything other than race.

If someone has been following you for several minutes in a truck while you're moving much slower at a jog, as they reportedly were, and then pulls around you and stops and gets out with a shotgun and confronts you as you jog past, and you're unarmed, and the state has a well-known racist history, and you're black and they're white, then ARBERY WAS JUSTIFIABLY IN FEAR FOR HIS LIFE AND HAD EVERY RE ASON TO ACT IN SELF-DEFENSE. You're a big believer in Stand Your Ground laws, Arbery was fully justified in his actions. It was murder.

Not to mention vikorr's post pretty thoroughly discredits the McMichael defense.

Which is why the racists on A2K support them.

Apply this to the current pandemic and economic ruin taking place across the world.

Emotional state is of absolutely no concern to a virus. Prudence and sound medical epidemiological knowledge are the best hedge against avoidable death years prematurely.

This actually gets much worse:

https://www.insider.com/ahmaud-arbery-shooting-killed-jogging-travis-gregory-mcmichael-georgia-justice-2020-5

Cooper-Jones recalled the police telling her that her son was shot dead by a homeowner during a home burglary. (I mean what the ****? They KNEW this wasn't the case. And this story is virtually repeated by DA's below, so it is 100% what they told her)
-----------------------
Two Glynn County commissioners — Allen Booker and Peter Murphy — said on Friday that responding officers wanted to arrest the McMichaels, but were blocked by Johnson (a DA that McMichael had worked for).
-----------------------
But Johnson shot back at the accusations, calling the pairs' claims "baseless and false," WJAX-TV reported. She also denied having conversations with policemen about the Arbery case.

In a conversation with the Associated Press, Johnson then said that police presented Arbery's shooting as a "burglary case with a self-defense issue," and sought "guidance on how to proceed and whether to make an arrest. Our office could not advise or assist them because of our obvious conflict."

Glynn County's Public Information Officer Matthew Kent, however, later said that the district attorney's office told detectives that the McMichaels didn't need to be arrested because they weren't flight risks.

So, no we didn't tell them not to arrest them, yes we did tell them not to arrest them...
------------------------
The case was passed off to George Barnhill, the district attorney for the neighboring Waycross Judicial Circuit, but he stepped aside as well because his son also worked for Johnson, he said in a letter to Glynn County Police Capt. Tom Jump and obtained by The New York Times.

In it, Barnhill said that there were "no grounds for an arrest."

The McMichaels were "following, in 'hot pursuit,' a burglary suspect, with solid first-hand probable cause, in their neighborhood, and asking/telling him to stop," he wrote. "It appears their intent was to stop and hold this criminal suspect until law enforcement arrived. Under Georgia Law, this is perfectly legal."

"Just as importantly, while we know McMichael had his finger on the trigger, we do not know who caused the firings," Barnhill wrote. (on this last line - I mean - what the ****? He's suggesting that the victim might have pulled the shotgun trigger to kill himself)

Self defense does not mean that someone is being controlled by their fear.

Regarding 'self defence'- in most places 'ignorance of the law is no excuse'. In most places you can't use 'self defence' as an argument against a 'lawful assault' (which is why punching a police officer who is arresting you is illegal).

On the facts known, it doesn't look in any way that the McMichaels engaged in 'lawful assault' (and even if it was found that their basis was lawful, I daresay that there are other issues, like proportionality). If found not to have engaged in lawful assault (or some similar lawful activity), then they have unlawfully threatened the life of the victim . The victim then would be within his lawful right to defend his life. And the McMichaels would then not have the right to 'self defence'.

I've little doubt such legal argument will play a big part in the trial (as will their stories)

It appears to me that is why they were charged with murder, rather than manslaughter.

The video sways back and forth widely all throughout the footage. The guy was filming this while he was driving.



It's also pretty clear that he is running directly at Travis McMichael when the first shot is fired.



It's hard to tell which gunshot is which, but I think maybe the hand gunshot was the second of the three gunshots.



He was running directly at Travis McMichael when the first shot was fired however.



I didn't notice him point a gun at the jogger. It looks to me like the jogger was trying to decide which way to go around the truck.



I've heard a prosecutor say that their motive was to detain the jogger. I've not heard anything to that effect from Travis or Gregory McMichael or their defense attorneys. All the video shows is them trying to ask the jogger some questions.



I have considerable doubt. They looked to me like they were only trying to ask the jogger some questions and Travis only opened fire when the jogger charged at him.

Having someone who is holding a shotgun say that they'd like to ask you some questions does not justify violently attacking them.

Had this jogger lived, it would have been appropriate to prosecute him for battery. Had the jogger killed Travis or Gregory McMichael for trying to question him, that would have been involuntary manslaughter.



That is incorrect. Deaths connected to a misdemeanor are involuntary manslaughter under Georgia law.

The jogger was clearly running directly at Travis McMichael when he opened fire.

Falsely accusing everyone of racism makes you look silly.

He is saying that the trigger could have been pulled incidentally when the jogger yanked on the shotgun.