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

Jogging, running, hauling ass... I see nothing sinister in their use of this terminology.

He was going to confront him for this:

Jogging, running, hauling ass... I see nothing sinister in their use of this terminology.

ROFL...

- Jogging...nothing sinister can be found in this description

- Hauling Ass...he's fleeing (an interpretation of 'hauling ass away from here')
- Running...he's fleeing (an interpretation)

The inference is "He's guilty, so he's hauling ass, he's running, he's fleeing". It's reinforced by them chasing him, and calling to 911 to say that 'he's running' (so again, inferring he is fleeing)

This really shouldn't need to be explained.

What you posted wasn't the issue - the issue was that McMichael said he was a suspect for breakins. McMichael, being a former police officer and investigator, would know that he had no actual reason or evidence that would make the victim a suspect.

Being seen:
- walking through a construction site and not taking anything; and
- no complaint being made by the owner
... is quite different to being a suspect in break ins.

Georgia law for citizens arrests, from what I read, say you can only arrest someone if you directly witness the event, or have direct knowledge of their guilt. And again, McMichael was a former police officer & prosecutions investigator, so should know this. That he disregarded it

That he disregarded it goes further towards the malicious intent (as does the racist wording of a black man just jogging)...just like you can get malicious prosecutions.

(as does the racist wording of a black man just jogging)...

Intent can really only be inferred from a persons actions & words (don't remember where I heard that one, but it seems pretty accurate - except I'd add in background/knowledge), and Snr's intent seems malicious to me.

That reinforces my position that they honestly believed that the jogger was a fleeing burglar.

Except the victim was not a fleeing burlgar - he was a jogger, in jogging gear, moving with the gait of a jogger.

There was no reason for McMichael to describe the activity of jogging the way he did...except that he wanted to hunt the jogger down (and phrasing it the way he did, inferring the victim was fleeing a crime - which he was not, helps justify his hunting the guy down).

And again - this is a ex police officer & DA investigator we are talking about. This isn't your average citizen who doesn't understand the law, nor what makes a person a suspect. Nor what is required before you can arrest someone. And this ex officer maliciously acted outside of his authority as a private citizen, knowing:
- Had not witnessed the victim committing a crime in progress (Georgia citizens arrest requirement; Part A); nor
- Did this ex officer have direct knowledge of the victims guilt (Georgia citizens arrest requirement; Part B)

It goes further into maliciousness when you consider that McMichael knew the victim was a very tenuous suspect (all they have is footage of him looking under a house, not taking anything, then leaving. And that for an incident which the owner of the house didn't want to make any criminal complaint about)

These weren't the words or behaviour of someone who innocently believed he was doing the right thing - this was the actions of a guy who phrased things in the most negative, inaccurate light possible, so that he could engage in the malicious behaviour that he wanted to engage in, who then armed up with his son, hunted down an innocent man, and killed him.

That doesn't change the fact that Travis and Gregory McMichael believed it.

I'm still not seeing any evidence of malice in attempting a citizens arrest. Being legally in the wrong is not the same thing as malicious intent.

That isn't all they had. They also had the fact that there was an actual burglar operating in the area.

That doesn't change the fact that Travis and Gregory McMichael believed it.

And on what reasonable grounds would they have believed it? That was the point of my previous posts - he had no reasonable grounds for believing such, nor for phrasing it the way he did. So, Malicious intent.

We would agree...if that were the case. However, knowing you don't have the legal grounds/authority and going ahead and hunting a guy down and pulling a gun on him is malicious. That is the point of stating was in a position to know, and it is incredibly unlikely that Snr didn't know. So, malicious intent.

Uh, that was so obvious it shouldn't need to be stated (as it's impossible to have a suspect without a person committing a crime). I would think the existence of a perpetrator doesn't make a person a suspect - only the evidence / witness tying them to the crime can do that.

By the way - we aren't talking about 'might have done it, maybe, possibly' kind of suspect - we are talking about to a degree that would make the 'suspect' arrestable.

This is obviously why Georgia law wants citizens to either directly witness, or have direct knowledge of the guilt. I doubt police arrest at anything short of overwhelming evidence either - because of double jeopardy laws. And here we have an ex police officer / DA investigator who:
- knows these laws
- knows the standards of evidence required
- knows there's not enough for the victim to even be a true 'suspect'
- knows it will never stand up in court

...arming up with his son, and hunting the victim down, and killing the victim. So again - malicious intent.