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'.
It appears to me that is why they were charged with murder, rather than manslaughter.
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.
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.
All the video shows is them trying to ask the jogger some questions.
The victim, having swerved around the car to avoid the perpertrator trying to kill him from the tray of the ute...
turns to find the younger perpertrator who had gotten out of the passenger seat while the victim was running on the drivers side (and so is unlikely to have seen the killer getting out of the passenger seat, or realise that his killer was going to be standing there when he, the victim, turned left around the front of the car). The victim is shot within a split second of rounding the vehicle - this is indisputably evidenced on the video. It is again, likely in turning left, that the victim didn't even know his killer was going to be there.
There is clear space between the two when the first shot rings out.
Seems like a wild stab in the dark to me by you.
Three shots, three wounds - two to the chest.
ROFL. Hence why the victim tried both to zig zagged + stayed close to the vehicle so the perpetrator on the back of the vehicle (minimised the perps ability to shoot the victim from the back of the ute). Your explanation makes little sense by itself, but perfect sense if McMichael Snr was armed, pointing a gun at the victim.
The video does not show this. The video is too far away, and without sound to support your supposition. These nutbags might have said "stop right there, I want to talk to you", but your claim doesn't hold up - the grainy, almost soundless video is unable to show that.
Everything about your interpretation of how this went down speaks of your supporting one races 'claims' over anothers (rather than looking at the whole picture for what it is).... despite obvious problems with your versions (which makes such support worse).
What we do know, is the black victim was innocently going about this jog when he was hunted down by a group of white people and killed.
What we know is the McMichaels apear to have then made dodgy excuses in the aftermath.
racists never think their racist posts indicate they're racist.
...probably by someone he didn't even see before he was shot (as Jnr was in the passenger seat with door closed when the victim started running to the right of the Ute, and avoiding Snr would have consumed his attention)
No wilder than your own guess about the order of the shots.
The picture shows the jogger charging at Travis McMichael and not breaking off his attack until he receives a second shotgun blast to the chest.
I see no problem with this narrative.
Really? I haven't heard anything that has come from Travis and Gregory McMichael or their defense lawyers.
You have no evidence forof any conversation in the confrontation. By your own interpretation of the constitution Awbrey had every right to self defense to try to get the threat to himself removed.
/sineone earlier ub this thread cited Georgia law to the effect that brandishing a weapon is a felony, so the son was clearly guilty just by his armed presence.
it was murder.
The difference is that I phrased my conclusions according to the likelihood of it being correct.
Same goes for the reason 'why' the victim was zig zagging and running close to the car - that behaviour only makes sense if his life was being threatened. With Jnr on the left, the victim going to the right makes even more sense.
Which wrestle over the shotgun of course isn't in dispute. The difference is in perspectives of the leadup to that wrestle - you call an innocent black man being bailed up by firearm wielding thugs as the attacker "charging and attacking"...while I call him the black man a victim who tried to defend his own life by trying to get the firearm off his killer (and as I said previously - I completely understand anyone in his circumstance trying to do this)
You haven't criticised the killers idiotic decision making as far as I know.
But you have condemned the black man trying to defend his life (using the words 'charging' and 'attacking'). In this matter, Defending and attacking may be two sides of the same coin, but which word one chooses to use illustrates the views of the user.
They provided statements to the police. Any even moderate following of the case reveals this.
By the way - thank you for the correction on Jnr standing beside the vehicle - it is really difficult to see until you look for the black shape of the door (the vehicle itself being white) on the darkish background. The victims zig zag and running to the right of the vehicle makes even more sense now.