Ahmaud Arbery Shooting

[Abhorsen]

-Did they initiate the conflict in the sense of initiating a physical fight?

Yes, in the sense that had Arbery had a gun, he would have been totally justified in shooting them. I would have shot them, in his situation. They initiated contact with him, with drawn weapons, yelling at him to stop. Trying to detain someone, with the implied threat of force, is detaining them. This is false imprisonment, unless they can justify it using citizens arrest.

Crucially, False imprisonment is a felony, as the minimum jail time is 1 year, so that means that a conviction of false imprisonment would imply felony murder.

-Did they even get to the stage of physically attempting a citizen's arrest (rather than just planning that), whether screwed up or justified? The audio in the video is not good, but other sources suggest they were yelling at him to stop and talk... That's not a felony, and not a citizen's arrest either.

They better have. If they didn't, then it becomes false imprisonment straight up, and they are screwed by the felony murder law.

Essentially it boils down to them using excessive force while trying to make a citizens arrest. The elder McMichael allegedly saw video of a burglary the day before and ID’d Arbery from that (being a retired cop with prior cases involving him, he’d know him well enough to correctly ID him). So he sees Arbery out jogging the next day and rushes to make the arrest, which is legal in GA.

They don't hit the requirements of a citizens arrest on a number of points. This lawyer has a good summary of it:


Two major takeaways: First, we have no evidence (currently) that Ahmaud even violated the law (even the video of him entering the house isn't breaking the law). Second, the citizens arrest claims fail on a number of points.

Anyway, my point is, it appears to be a bit more complicated than “two white rednecks gun down random black man in cold blood.” It’s still wrong, but there’s a bit more to the story.

It's actually worse. It's a lynching. A bunch of people think they know what justice is, take it into their own hands, and a person dies because of it. I'm not claiming racism, but I wouldn't be surprised by it.

 

[Airedale260]

Yes, in the sense that had Arbery had a gun, he would have been totally justified in shooting them. I would have shot them, in his situation. They initiated contact with him, with drawn weapons, yelling at him to stop. Trying to detain someone, with the implied threat of force, is detaining them. This is false imprisonment, unless they can justify it using citizens arrest.

Crucially, False imprisonment is a felony, as the minimum jail time is 1 year, so that means that a conviction of false imprisonment would imply felony murder.

They better have. If they didn't, then it becomes false imprisonment straight up, and they are screwed by the felony murder law.


They don't hit the requirements of a citizens arrest on a number of points. This lawyer has a good summary of it:


Two major takeaways: First, we have no evidence (currently) that Ahmaud even violated the law (even the video of him entering the house isn't breaking the law). Second, the citizens arrest claims fail on a number of points.

I'm just going by the news reports I found as well as digging through the Georgia code and my own professional experience -not in LE but I deal with them, both active and retired) on a daily basis- so while I respect differing analyses I'm going to wait on the results from the GBI and the DA overseeing the case.

Understand that in no way do I find what they did acceptable. I don't. But I also tend to be a bit suspicious of claims that a random white person gunned down a random black person because they were jogging through a neighborhood. There are people psychotic enough to do that, but I don't think that's what happened here. What I think happened in this case is a retired cop with a beef against the victim decided to try and relive his glory days while taking down a "known bad guy." And when things went to shit, he figured he'd be able to say the right things and count on his buddies to brush it under the carpet.

Fortunately, that didn't happen. My concern is that they go for felony murder and it winds up getting thrown out on account of them having a reckless disregard but having a valid reason for the attempted stop (although I think said reason is idiotic).

 

[Abhorsen]

Understand that in no way do I find what they did acceptable. I don't. But I also tend to be a bit suspicious of claims that a random white person gunned down a random black person because they were jogging through a neighborhood. There are people psychotic enough to do that, but I don't think that's what happened here. What I think happened in this case is a retired cop with a beef against the victim decided to try and relive his glory days while taking down a "known bad guy." And when things went to shit, he figured he'd be able to say the right things and count on his buddies to brush it under the carpet.

This seems like a fair analysis of what happened. I would consider such an action a lynching.

Fortunately, that didn't happen. My concern is that they go for felony murder and it winds up getting thrown out on account of them having a reckless disregard but having a valid reason for the attempted stop (although I think said reason is idiotic).

I doubt it will fail. The video goes into why the citizens arrest isn't valid, at 9 minutes in.

 

[Airedale260]

This seems like a fair analysis of what happened. I would consider such an action a lynching.

I doubt it will fail. The video goes into why the citizens arrest isn't valid, at 9 minutes in.

That's fair, and I wouldn't disagree per se, just that I think it's less racism and more this particular guy had a prior history with this kid and decided to "teach him a lesson" without intending to kill him.

I would hope the prosecution does its job, and I'm sure they'll do their best. It's more potential jurors being unwilling to convict that worries me. Less because the suspect is white and the victim black but because Georgia is a place where it's considered OK to take the law into your own hands in the course of 'justice.'

Which, frankly, is partly what motivated those doing lynchings back in the day too. So I wouldn't disagree with your assessment, just that I think race was less of a factor than it was McMichael wanting to go after Arbery in particular.

I admit I could be wrong, that's just my gut. Either way, the McMichaels do need to go to prison for this.

 

[Marduk]

Yes, in the sense that had Arbery had a gun, he would have been totally justified in shooting them. I would have shot them, in his situation. They initiated contact with him, with drawn weapons, yelling at him to stop. Trying to detain someone, with the implied threat of force, is detaining them. This is false imprisonment, unless they can justify it using citizens arrest.

You are taking a ridiculous position in interpreting the law. Yelling at someone to stop and talk is not an attempted arrest, if it was so then i was falsely imprisoned countless times by friends and strangers alike over the course of my life, and so were you. Doing so while open carrying in a place where it's legal doesn't make it one either. According to the video he wasn't aiming the shotgun, just holding it in a ready position, pointing it at the ground or side.

If he was aiming the shotgun at Arbery and\or yelling "stop or i'll shoot", that would have been a very different matter. But we have video evidence that he was not doing that.

It's actually worse. It's a lynching. A bunch of people think they know what justice is, take it into their own hands, and a person dies because of it. I'm not claiming racism, but I wouldn't be surprised by it.

Their defense will attempt to make it a self defense case. Just because a dude who happens to be open carrying asks you to stop and talk doesn't give you a right to run up to him, assault him, and try to take his weapon.

As i said, it has potential to be a nasty case, because defending Arbery's actions on video seems like a near impossibility - what he did was probably illegal, and in practice suicidally stupid (proving so by the fact that he died because of it in the end), which makes it an unreasonable course of action.

And then there is the fact that we aren't arguing an either-or case, it is quite possible for both parties to be in the wrong legally. The citizen's arrest question will be pretty contentious i agree, but even if they technically screwed that up, it doesn't exactly take away their right to self defense in a life or death situation, which a hand to hand fight over their shotgun definitely is.

 

[Abhorsen]

Which, frankly, is partly what motivated those doing lynchings back in the day too. So I wouldn't disagree with your assessment, just that I think race was less of a factor than it was McMichael wanting to go after Arbery in particular.

I also agree that racism quite easily couldn't have been a factor. I'm calling it a lynching because of the vigilantism ending in death.

You are taking a ridiculous position in interpreting the law. Yelling at someone to stop and talk is not an attempted arrest, if it was so then i was falsely imprisoned countless times by friends and strangers alike over the course of my life, and so were you. Doing so while open carrying in a place where it's legal doesn't make it one either. According to the video he wasn't aiming the shotgun, just holding it in a ready position, pointing it at the ground or side.

It's not the yelling, it's the cars chasing him down, combined with the demand to stop. In addition, from the position of the truck, we can see that they pulled in front of the person running, trying to obstruct him. All of this combines for a false imprisonment.

Only yelling allows a reasonable person to run away, which is one defense against false imprisonment. But pulling up ahead of the guy in a car, with guns in a ready position, means that there is no reasonable way to escape (running at the guy with the guns is not reasonable, and there is case law that backs this up. Specifically, in another case a guy escaped out a window, but the defendants were still convicted because that wasn't a reasonable way out). It is illegal to intentionally force someone to stop, using threatened force. The guns aren't the threat (that's from the cars chasing him down), they make it impossible to escape.

More damning than the video, though, is their statements to police:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6915-arbery-shooting/b52fa09cdc974b970b79/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

Upon my arrival I observed Officer Minshew ( 184) setting up a perimeter. I began speaking with Gregory McMichael who was a witness to the incident. McMichael stated there have been several Break - ins in the neighborhood and further the suspect was caught on surveillance video. McMichael stated he was in his front yard and saw the suspect from the break - ins "hauling ass" down Satilla Drive toward Burford Drive. McMichael stated he then ran inside his house and called to Travis (McMichael) and said "Travis the guy is running down the street lets go". McMichael stated he went to his bedroom and grabbed his .357 Magnum and Travis grabbed his shotgun because they "didn't know if the male was armed or not". Michael stated "the other night" they saw the same male and he stuck his hand down his pants which lead them to believe the male was armed.

McMichael stated he and Travis got in the truck and drove down Satilla Drive toward Burford Drive. McMichael stated when they arrived at the intersection of Satilla Drive and Holmes Drive, they saw the unidentified male running down Burford drive. McMichael then stated Travis drive down Burford and attempted to cut off the male. McMichael stated the unidentified male turned around and began running back the direction from which he came and "Roddy" attempted to block him which was unsuccessful. Michael stated he then jumped into the bed of the truck and he and Travis continued to Holmes in an attempt to intercept him.

McMichael stated they saw the unidentified male and shouted "stop stop , we want to talk to you". McMichael stated they pulled up beside the male and shouted stop again at which time Travis exited the truck with the shotgun. McMichael stated the unidentified male began to violently attack Travis and the two men then started fighting over the shotgun at which point Travis fired a shot and then a second later there was a second shot . Michael stated the male fell face down on the pavement with his hand under his body. McMichael stated he rolled the man over to see if the male had a weapon.

You can see a clear intent for them to stop him and make some sort of arrest. They were following him in cars, trying to get him to stop. This is from their own admission. And whoever Roddy is must be hating them for mentioning him, as he's on the hook for felony murder too, as an accomplice.

Their only way out of this is avoiding the false part of false imprisonment. And that is incredibly unlikely, given that they don't mention seeing him having committed a crime.

EDIT: I added full video here, so all the evidence would be in the same threadmark. This is the full video released to the public, but apparently not the full video the police have, which is about 4 minutes long.

Spoiler: GRAPHIC: A MAN DIES

 

[Marduk]

I also agree that racism quite easily couldn't have been a factor. I'm calling it a lynching because of the vigilantism ending in death.

It's not the yelling, it's the guns, not in a carry position (i.e. holstered, on a sling, etc), combined with the yelling. You don't have to aim to brandish.

Brandishing is a separate potential offense with its own definition.
What if the gun had no sling?
Georgia is an open carry state, so i don't think merely holding the gun low ready would be considered brandishing. FFS some people do exactly that on public protests with cops present.

In addition, from the position of the truck, we can see that they pulled in front of the person running, trying to obstruct him. All of this combines for a false imprisonment.

LMAO...
The truck was not physically capable of obstructing him, it was stationary, without a driver, in an extremely wide area... on the road, in the middle of the right lane. Which technically a pedestrian should not even be on.
Besides, he was running on the left lane, and then adjusted his course specifically to head for the truck.

Only yelling allows a reasonable person to run away, which is one defense against false imprisonment. But pulling up ahead of the guy in a car, with guns in a ready position, means that there is no reasonable way to escape (running at the guy with the guns is not reasonable, and there is case law that backs this up. Specifically, in another case a guy escaped out a window, but the defendants were still convicted because that wasn't a reasonable way out). It is illegal to intentionally force someone to stop, using threatened force.

As we see on the video, it is a very open residential area, so he definitely wasn't "cornered in". There is a fundamental difference between forcing someone to stop and verbally asking someone to stop. You could argue that he could have felt threatened, but you know how it is with feelings, they aren't objective. And his further course of action (run at the guy with the gun over a considerable distance of open road while fearing that he's only looking for an excuse, or worse, just an opportunity to shoot you) is kinda inconsistent with that.

It is, however, consistent with the theory that Arbery knew that he was in trouble with the law, and any course of events that may have lead to cops arriving and IDing him would end up poorly for him, leading to a desperate attempt to close in, grab the shotgun, shoot or scare off the wannabe posse, and disappear from the area before cops arrive, now without a "tail" following him and relaying his location to the cops.

More damning than the video, though, is their statements to police:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6915-arbery-shooting/b52fa09cdc974b970b79/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

You can see a clear intent for them to stop him and make some sort of arrest. They were following him in cars, trying to get him to stop. This is from their own admission. And whoever Roddy is must be hating them for mentioning him, as he's on the hook for felony murder too, as an accomplice.

Intent is a fickle thing.
Secondly, "stop" or "obstruct" =/= citizen's arrest. Driving like an asshole is not citizen's arrest for example, even if obstructive.

Their only way out of this is avoiding the false part of false imprisonment. And that is incredibly unlikely, given that they don't mention seeing him having committed a crime.

They do mention seeing him trespass through CCTV. The only question remains if it was immediate enough.
Besides...

False Imprisonment | Georgia Criminal Lawyer

www.georgiacriminallawyer.com

False Imprisonment Defenses

There was a reasonable way out: If the victim knows of a reasonable means of escape, then there was no confinement. An example of this is if the victim was locked in a room on the first floor of a building and there was an open window.

The victim was not confined: Not letting someone go where they want to go is not enough to prove false imprisonment. There must be some sort of confinement. For instance, if a road was closed due to a parade and the victim wanted to go down the road but the police made her go another way, there was no false imprisonment.

Considering what we see on the video these two points very effectively.
For example, if some asshole parks in your driveway so that you can't drive out, that's not false imprisonment, but a much lesser offense at most, because you can leave your car and walk out.
This isn't anything like the window example, as this isn't one and dangerous way out, it is a pretty open area that's pretty much impossible to turn into confinement without a lot more people and equipment than were involved.

What you are referring to with the window example:
What are Not Defenses

There was one way to escape: If there is one way to escape but it involves jumping from a high height or another dangerous way, then that is not considered an escape route. The escape must be one a reasonable person would consider taking.

Clearly not the case here. You can find the area on google maps. That confirms what we know about the area from the video - it's well spaced housing, with no fences around, and lots of trees.

What does a reasonable person in extreme fear of attack or kidnapping from two dudes with a pickup and a shotgun do?
a)run through the middle of a road right towards the guy with the shotgun
b)bolt into the tree filled areas neighboring the road

 

[Abhorsen]

Intent is a fickle thing.
Secondly, "stop" or "obstruct" =/= citizen's arrest. Driving like an asshole is not citizen's arrest for example, even if obstructive.

The Police Report clearly shows intent. If they had locked a building without knowing someone was inside, that would be without intent. Here, they went after a specific person, and intended to stop him. Specifically asking him to stop shows intent.

Clearly not the case here. You can find the area on google maps. That confirms what we know about the area from the video - it's well spaced housing, with no fences around, and lots of trees.

No, it clearly IS the case. The danger is the guns. Both of your two proposed ways would be considered dangerous by a reasonable person, as you might be shot. Telling someone to stay still, or you will shoot them is false imprisonment. Here, I'm claiming that was implied by the way they tried to chase him down with cars.

So there was no reasonable way out. In addition, Arbery was confined, as he was threatened to stay still.

They do mention seeing him trespass through CCTV. The only question remains if it was immediate enough.

It's not immediate enough. It has to stop a crime immediately happening. From David French's article:

A 2000 Georgia Court of Appeals opinion states that “the term ‘within his immediate knowledge’ enables a private citizen to use any of his senses to obtain knowledge that an offense is being committed.” (Emphasis added.)

Emphasis added by French, not me.

Second of all, legal trespass didn't actually happen. Entering the house, then leaving, is quite legal, unless a number of other things apply (none of them do). The Colion Noir video above goes into those.

 

[Marduk]

The Police Report clearly shows intent. If they had locked a building without knowing someone was inside, that would be without intent. Here, they went after a specific person, and intended to stop him. Specifically asking him to stop shows intent.

Asking him to stop shows intent to stop him...
But citizen's arrest is more than just "intent to stop", or the deed itself.
Trying to stop someone by merely asking him to stop, for example, is never a crime in itself.
For example journalists and marketers do it all the time.

No, it clearly IS the case. The danger is the guns. Both of your two proposed ways would be considered dangerous by a reasonable person, as you might be shot.

Kinda... But of all options, assuming it was even reasonable for him to expect getting shot at
for no reason at all, it would make shooting at him and pursuing him the hardest.
These options, even "stand still and put hands up" would be less dangerous than running few dozen meters of open road towards the armed person, to the point where if the shotgun guy was intending to kill him, he would have plenty of opportunity to shoulder the shotgun, aim it, and fire it at most optimal distance.
But that's not what happened...

If he was intending to detain him at gunpoint, legally or not, he would be aiming the gun at him(legally an important distinction) and saying something more threatening than "stop, let's talk".
But that's not what happened either.

Telling someone to stay still, or you will shoot them is false imprisonment. Here, I'm claiming that was implied by the way they tried to chase him down with cars.

Then it would have been simple.
They didn't tell him to stay still or else, they were yelling something quite different.
The "or i'll shoot" part is missing according to all evidence, you can only try to imply it from circumstances.
That's what makes it not simple at all - the threat wasn't explicitly made, nor in the commonly understood non-verbal way of pointing the gun at the person.

As i said before, the way he held the gun was probably no different than how some people hold guns on public protests, in full view of police.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/bThCdIE5uNE/maxresdefault.jpg

https://d2gg9evh47fn9z.cloudfront.net/thumb_COLOURBOX4628592.jpg

Can you spot the difference?
One is a clear threat, one isn't.

So there was no reasonable way out. In addition, Arbery was confined, as he was threatened to stay still.

He was not confined. He could have felt threatened, but it's very dodgy whether the actions or communications of the group constitute a threat beyond reasonable doubt.

It's not immediate enough. It has to stop a crime immediately happening. From David French's article:



Emphasis added by French, not me.

Second of all, legal trespass didn't actually happen. Entering the house, then leaving, is quite legal, unless a number of other things apply (none of them do). The Colion Noir video above goes into those.

As i said, its possible both sides are legally in the wrong in some way.
A questionable execution of citizen's arrest on one (that might end up digging into the definition of it vs what actually happened), and assaulting a guy with a shotgun under questionable (and suicidally stupid) circumstances on the other.
For one they can't be charged with false imprisonment if there was no confinement involved, so there is also that.

 

[Abhorsen]

Asking him to stop shows intent to stop him...
But citizen's arrest is more than just "intent to stop".
Trying to stop someone by asking him to stop, for example, is never a crime in itself.

Yes, but it does show intent to stop, which fulfills that part of the crime's definition. Note that it doesn't matter at this point whether they wanted to stop him for a citizens arrest, to rob him, or just to say hi. Intent to stop has been met by their own admission. This in itself isn't a crime, but when combined with the other facts, this does create a crime. I have been on a jury that voted to convict for a crime requiring intent with less evidence than this. And the jury here will be given even more evidence than I already see.

So did the McMichaels et al. arrest/try to confine Arbery?

Yes. The car chase they had shows this. They cut him off, blocked his way forward, and told him to stop. Being chased down by cars makes the threat, not the guns. They weren't just trying to stop him from going in a particular direction, but stopping in general (that's the parade objection). If there had been no guns, the guy can definitely escape safely. With the guns, he can't. All of this creates confinement.

Kinda... But of all options, assuming it was even reasonable for him to expect getting shot at
for no reason at all, it would make shooting at him and pursuing him the hardest.
These options, even "stand still and put hands up" would be less dangerous than running few dozen meters of open road towards the armed person, to the point where if the shotgun guy was intending to kill him, he would have plenty of opportunity to shoulder the shotgun, aim it, and fire it at most optimal distance.
But that's not what happened...

It doesn't matter which is more or less dangerous. What matters is if there a reasonable person could have found no safe way to escape.

A questionable execution of citizen's arrest on one (that might end up digging into the definition of it vs what actually happened), and assaulting a guy with a shotgun under questionable (and suicidally stupid) circumstances on the other.

Arbery's attack was totally justified under Georgia's Stand Your Ground Law. He was in a position a reasonable person would consider threatening, and tried to resist.

In contrast, the citizens arrest doesn't seem to hold up, as Arbery committed no crime. This makes it a false imprisonment.

 

[Shadepen97]

Arbery's attack was totally justified under Georgia's Stand Your Ground Law. He was in a position a reasonable person would consider threatening, and tried to resist.

Maybe it would seem reasonable in New York or if the Ex-Cop was showing/ wearing iconography identifying him as part of a gang that the idiot Arbery was in some way in debt to, otherwise it looks like an idiotic thug charging a normal dude wanting to talk and stop him from doing something stupid. Unless you are a well know gang member, paranoid, or a politician seeing a regular citizen with a shotgun pointed safely away from anyone shouldn't be threatening at all.


Edit: It would be relevant to know if the neighborhood watch (if it exists there) open carries firearms, if only because it would help flesh out the context of whether or not the actions of the two guys were mundane or abnormal.

 

[ShieldWife]

Every single time some high profile case arises where a black person is allegedly the victim of white people, the media always tells huge lies about it that completely distorts popular perception of the case. If the dead guy wasn't black and the people who made him that way weren't white, does anybody seriously think that the president of the USA would be mentioning one particular killing? We saw this with George Zimmerman, Michael Brown, Jussie Smollette, Eric Gardner, the list could go on. We even get lies about Nick Sandman.

Unless there is very strong evidence that arises to the contrary, I am forced to assume that the mainstream media is lying about this case to make the killers look worse and the "victim" look innocent. Now, it could be the case that the shooters should go to jail, but I can't trust any information that comes out about this case either.

I want a fair impartial investigation and if necessary a fair trial. I don't know if that is even possible now. The initial decision from the police and prosecutors may have been not to press charges, but that has been subverted because of political pressure. Can these guys possibly get a fair trial when there is so much political pressure to convict them for murder, when the president of the US himself condemns them and the entire mainstream media does all that it can to villains them? I doubt it.

 

[Abhorsen]

Maybe it would seem reasonable in New York or if the Ex-Cop was showing/ wearing iconography identifying him as part of a gang that the idiot Arbery was in some way in debt to, otherwise it looks like an idiotic thug charging a normal dude wanting to talk and stop him from doing something stupid. Unless you are a well know gang member, paranoid, or a politician seeing a regular citizen with a shotgun pointed safely away from anyone shouldn't be threatening at all.

No. Not really. A car coming up from behind, then blocking you off, telling him to stop, then the people come out of the car with guns? That's puts him in reasonable fear of his life, which, adding the stand your ground laws, allows Arbery to invoke self defense.

The issue really isn't the gun, that just raises the threat level. The problem is what was done by the cars and how they tracked him down and ordered him to stop. That is what provides the reasonable threat.

I want a fair impartial investigation and if necessary a fair trial. I don't know if that is even possible now. The initial decision from the police and prosecutors may have been not to press charges, but that has been subverted because of political pressure. Can these guys possibly get a fair trial when there is so much political pressure to convict them for murder, when the president of the US himself condemns them and the entire mainstream media does all that it can to villains them? I doubt it.

The initial decision was suspect because of the DA personally knowing the defendant. He should have recused himself. The next DA who recused herself did the right thing, and now he is indicted.

I'm usually someone on the other side of this, but this seems pretty clear cut. I could see the guys escaping felony murder (arguing the confinement wasn't successful), but I doubt it.

 

[Marduk]

Yes, but it does show intent to stop, which fulfills that part of the crime's definition. Note that it doesn't matter at this point whether they wanted to stop him for a citizens arrest, to rob him, or just to say hi. Intent to stop has been met by their own admission. This in itself isn't a crime, but when combined with the other facts, this does create a crime.

What other facts turn it into a crime and how?

So did the McMichaels et al. arrest/try to confine Arbery?

Yes. The car chase they had shows this. They cut him off, blocked his way forward, and told him to stop.

Once i had a car do exactly that to me when i was driving.... because i was driving with a semi-flat tire. I've stopped, thanked them, and replaced it with my spare wheel.
Somewhat stressing situation, had no idea what are they stopping me for and if it's not any kind of criminal purposes, but no excuse to just assault people before even finding out.

Being chased down by cars makes the threat, not the guns.

And as i said, he could have went off the road, and cars couldn't follow him between the trees.

They weren't just trying to stop him from going in a particular direction, but stopping in general (that's the parade objection). If there had been no guns, the guy can definitely escape safely. With the guns, he can't. All of this creates confinement.

The only confinement here is in his head, in his perception of threat. Whether his perception was reasonable and justified is a separate question.
If he tried to escape and one of the guys aimed a gun and him, saying "stop or i'll shoot", you would have been right. But without "testing" this situation to such a point, attacking just on a loose prediction of that happening is not justified. Open carrying doesn't make assault legal just on a hunch that the person being in possession of a firearm is a threat.

It doesn't matter which is more or less dangerous. What matters is if there a reasonable person could have found no safe way to escape.

But he had a safe way to escape the perceived threat, and what he did was the opposite of escaping - charging right at the perceived threat, which still didn't vindicate his perception - that only happened after he has assaulted the shotgun's owner.

Arbery's attack was totally justified under Georgia's Stand Your Ground Law. He was in a position a reasonable person would consider threatening, and tried to resist.

Resist what? The plain meaning of "stand your ground" should give you enough of a hint that it doesn't apply, as the only person standing at the moment was the person he has attacked - and that person had as much of a right to be in this public space as he did.

Georgia Self-Defense Laws - FindLaw

FindLaw's overview of self-defense laws in Georgia.

statelaws.findlaw.com

Justifiable Use of Force

You can use force when you reasonably believe that the force is necessary in order to protect yourself or a third party against another person's imminent use of unlawful force. The scope of the force that you can use depends on whether you reasonably believe that the type of force is necessary to defend yourself or a third party. You may use deadly force only if you reasonably believe that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to you, or to another, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

When the Use of Deadly Force is Not Justified

If you're the initial aggressor You're committing, attempting to commit, or leaving after you have committed/attempted a felony

From Arbery's perspective "imminent use of unlawful force" is unlikely to be fulfilled, as "threat" is only his personal impression at most. If he believed that they will imminently shoot at him, why weren't they aiming their guns at him as he charged at them, and why did he charge at supposedly threatening armed people at all for good few seconds and considerable distance? Any reasonable person would consider this a suicidal action if convinced that imminent use of unlawful force will happen from the people to charge at.
This makes no sense.
This only makes sense if he believed that they won't use the firearms until he closes into h2h distance and tries to wrestle the shotgun away, which would in fact be a vindicated belief, as that's what probably happened on the video.

In contrast, the citizens arrest doesn't seem to hold up, as Arbery committed no crime. This makes it a false imprisonment.

Do we know for sure that he has committed no crime?
Do we know that he was well aware of the above being true?
We do know that he has a quite interesting rap sheet (including being caught on probation violation), and he was doing involved in fairly suspicious activity at very least... These factors could combine into belief that even if the guys just want him to talk, police is on its way, and even if they are just trying to track and delay him, he will be in legal trouble once police does arrive and take over.

 

[Abhorsen]

What other facts turn it into a crime and how?

The rest of it, which I wrote below. Lack of intent means a genuine accident.

Once i had a car do exactly that to me when i was driving.... because i was driving with a semi-flat tire. I've stopped, thanked them, and replaced it with my spare wheel.
Somewhat stressing situation, had no idea what are they stopping me for and if it's not any kind of criminal purposes, but no excuse to just assault people before even finding out.

And if you had acted violently (but not lethally), you might have had a self defense case. Self defense is based on the defender's reasonable perception. I wouldn't bet on it, as you were in a car, and so you were much safer than Arbery, but one could have been made.

But he had a safe way to escape the perceived threat, and what he did was the opposite of escaping - charging right at the perceived threat, which still didn't vindicate his perception - that only happened after he has assaulted the shotgun's owner.

He didn't have a safe way to escape (not that complying/talking doesn't count, as that includes being detained). There were guns.

If he tried to escape and one of the guys aimed a gun and him, saying "stop or i'll shoot", you would have been right. But without "testing" this situation to such a point, attacking just on a loose prediction of that happening is not justified. Open carrying doesn't make assault legal just on a hunch that the person being in possession of a firearm is a threat.

For the last time, the open carry doesn't matter, it's the use of the cars to chase that makes the case.

Resist what? The plain meaning of "stand your ground" should give you enough of a hint that it doesn't apply, as the only person standing at the moment was the person he has attacked - and that person had as much of a right to be in this public space as he did.

The unlawful force would be him being falsely confined.

From Arbery's perspective "imminent use of unlawful force" is unlikely to be fulfilled, as "threat" is only his personal impression at most.

His personal perspective is exactly what matters. Would a reasonable person in his situation feel in threat of his life? I would have.

Do we know for sure that he has committed no crime?
Do we know that he was well aware of the above being true?
We do know that he has a quite interesting rap sheet, and he was doing involved in fairly suspicious activity at very least... These factors could combine into belief that even if the guys just want him to talk, police is on its way, and even if they are just trying to track and delay him, he will be in legal trouble.

In general? No, he could have committed crimes. But immediate crimes? We do know he committed none. The Colion Noir video debunks the trespassing violation. And they need immediate crimes for the arrest to be lawful.

You don't even need the video of the shooting to make the case. By their own admission, they made a citizens arrest attempt. Only there was no crime, as nothing was taken from the house. That's a felony. When we add the felony murder statute, they are all screwed. Oddly, self defense doesn't really matter. If two groups rob the same bank, and one group shoots another in self defense, because it happened during a felony, they are guilty of felony murder, and can't use the defense of self defense.

 

[Marduk]

For the last time, the open carry doesn't matter, it's the use of the cars to chase that makes the case.

And if you decide to shift the focus on the cars, i can bring back the simple fact that he could have bolted between the trees, making pursuit by car practically impossible.

The unlawful force would be him being falsely confined.

But he was clearly not confined at all yet.

His personal perspective is exactly what matters. Would a reasonable person in his situation feel in threat of his life? I would have.

And recorded actions matter no less than our guess of his perspective of the situation.
So here we go... The question is, was his personal perspective reasonable, and were his actions in line with a reasonable perspective?

a) If he believed they are about to shoot at him, bolting into the woods would have been reasonable. Soviets needed commissars to make people charge at armed hostiles through open terrain to the point of hand to hand distance.
b)If he did not believe they are about to shoot at him, that makes his decision to run at them seem not completely insane and suicidal... But in turn puts his further intent into question.
Hence i personally would guess that option b is the one close to what really happened.

In general? No, he could have committed crimes. But immediate crimes? We do know he committed none.

We know of none, but that doesn't mean we know for a fact he didn't. If he did, he could be the only person who knew.

The Colion Noir video debunks the trespassing violation. And they need immediate crimes for the arrest to be lawful.

Did he know those little details involving the definition of "immediate", and was he so sure of them that he bet his life on them?

I don't think so. Even if he did, the fact that he could sue the duo over technically screwed up but practically justified citizen's arrest would be a poor consolation prize to him if in the aftermath the arriving cops would have identified him and tied him with his suspicious activities to non-immediate crimes, potentially putting him in prison over those.
I think its a far more reasonable theory that he was afraid of the last part, and decided to risk his life by initiating a fight to avoid this very scenario.

You don't even need the video of the shooting to make the case. By their own admission, they made a citizens arrest attempt.

No, by their admission they tried to stop him, which is not necessarily the same, even if it could be. It's not clear wording, you could be right, or you could be not, this stuff is the reason why lawyers talk in a very specific way. They did not use the term "citizen's arrest" in their statement.

Only there was no crime, as nothing was taken from the house. That's a felony. When we add the felony murder statute, they are all screwed. Oddly, self defense doesn't really matter. If two groups rob the same bank, and one group shoots another in self defense, because it happened during a felony, they are guilty of felony murder, and can't use the defense of self defense.

Probably more nuanced than that, but besides...
That goes back to the question of whether they will be convicted for false imprisonment felony first. If no felony was happening then self defense applies.

 

[ShieldWife]

I can't help but feel that a "felony murder" charge in this case is an abuse on that law. It seems that manslaughter or some equivalent would be far more appropriate.

 

[Abhorsen]

And if you decide to shift the focus on the cars, i can bring back the simple fact that he could have bolted between the trees, making pursuit by car practically impossible.

Again, the cars made it a threat, the guns made it impossible to escape.

Citizens arrest stuff:

No, by their admission they tried to stop him, which is not necessarily the same, even if it could be. It's not clear wording, you could be right, or you could be not, this stuff is the reason why lawyers talk in a very specific way. They did not use the term "citizen's arrest" in their statement.

The DA who wrote initially did. That's why he let him off:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6916-george-barnhill-letter-to-glyn/b52fa09cdc974b970b79/optimized/full.pdf

Trying to stop someone because of a crime is a citizens arrest. That's what they claimed to be doing.

We know of none, but that doesn't mean we know for a fact he didn't. If he did, he could be the only person who knew.

Which is really bad for the McMichaels. If only Arbery knew, then the McMichaels didn't, so they didn't have immediate knowledge of the crime, which ruins their best argument (that the confinement was a citizens arrest).

Arbery self defense stuff:

But he was clearly not confined at all yet.

He would be responding to the imminent threat of that.

And recorded actions matter no less than our guess of his perspective of the situation.
So here we go... The question is, was his personal perspective reasonable, and were his actions in line with a reasonable perspective?

a) If he believed they are about to shoot at him, bolting into the woods would have been reasonable. Soviets needed commissars to make people charge at armed hostiles through open terrain to the point of hand to hand distance.
b)If he did not believe they are about to shoot at him, that makes his decision to run at them seem not completely insane and suicidal... But in turn puts his further intent into question.
Hence i personally would guess that option b is the one close to what really happened.

His actions are ones someone who feared for their life could take. Note that because Arbery didn't use lethal force, he didn't even need to fear for his life, just fear. The actions themselves don't need to be reasonable, just the fear.

Did he know those little details involving the definition of "immediate", and was he so sure of them that he bet his life on them?

I don't think so. Even if he did, the fact that he could sue the duo over technically screwed up but practically justified citizen's arrest would be a poor consolation prize to him if in the aftermath the arriving cops would have identified him and tied him with his suspicious activities to non-immediate crimes, potentially putting him in prison over those.
I think its a far more reasonable theory that he was afraid of the last part, and decided to risk his life by initiating a fight to avoid this very scenario.

Your theory doesn't actually matter though, in a legal sense. Arbery acted legally.

I can't help but feel that a "felony murder" charge in this case is an abuse on that law. It seems that manslaughter or some equivalent would be far more appropriate.

I have problems with the felony murder law as well, honestly. For one thing, it makes everyone involved guilty of murder. I do think that a manslaughter charge might be a better level of punishment. But legally speaking, this is classic felony murder. A felony occurs, and one of the felons causes a death. This death becomes a murder under felony murder.

 

[PeliusAnar]

Looking at the back and forth it seems there are a couple key points any case would hinge on,
A: Did the individuals in the pick-up truck have the lawful right to stop and attempt to detain/question Ahmaud? From the statements above and the information provided, the stop is allowed. The issue is that Ahmaud acted so quickly that the detain/question portion is unclear.

B. Did Ahmaud have reasonable fear for his life, justifying attacking the people that had stopped him, which in turn resulted in his death? If we take everything else out and two people stop someone on the side of the road and they have guns, and their overall intent is not friendly like a sales person, would that someone be legally justified in attacking said people. What if he managed to get a gun and shoot both people? Would take be acceptable?

Looking at what we know so far, question A would require an in depth legal analysis of case history and the statement of the defendants at the time of their arrest. Most likely, from my shallow and limited experience, it would be inconclusive which would favor the defendants. Question B would most likely be a yes, since putting myself into the victims shoes, would have me being afraid if I was stopped by men with guns. So while the death was not intentional, it happened due to the reckless actions of the defendants, creating said situation by bringing their guns and confronting Ahmaud. This is an unintentional death, but still a death, hence it is open and shut involuntary manslaughter. This is due to their reckless conduct. Differences in Homicide, Manslaughter & Murder in Georgia - J.M. Heller, Attorney at Law

Involuntary manslaughter gives 10 years of prison at most, with a plea deal, they would probably take 5 years, and knock that down to 3 or 4 with good behavior. If I was the DA I would have put that on the table to get ahead of this mess. Now, who the heck knows. If they go for murder, then they will probably get off or get a hung jury. Stacking extra charges on will just make the defendants want to fight in court and drag the mess out if there isn't an acceptable plea deal on the table.

 

[Marduk]

Again, the cars made it a threat, the guns made it impossible to escape.

They had a shotgun (not shouldered) and a handgun (holstered).
The guy has quite a distance that he closed to them. Bolting for the woods, before they would have trained guns on him, he would not have been an easy target at all. Considering how dopey the shotgun guy reacted to him closing in, and the one on pickup, to the fight, he probably would be behind trees by then. And if they hit, they would be clearly in the wrong, hitting a far away escaping person for no good reason, in the back.
But he gave them a good excuse instead.

Citizens arrest stuff:

The DA who wrote initially did. That's why he let him off:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6916-george-barnhill-letter-to-glyn/b52fa09cdc974b970b79/optimized/full.pdf

Trying to stop someone because of a crime is a citizens arrest. That's what they claimed to be doing.

So did the DA that is no longer on the case say it, or did they say it?

Arbery self defense stuff:

He would be responding to the imminent threat of that.

By... heading for the source of the threat in completely uncovered route?
As i said before, it is nonsense as reaction to fear of being shot by them.
Yeah, everyone knows about close distance charging making use of firearms tricky...
But that distance was more than long enough for them to kill him several times over before he got into the shotgun grab distance, if that's what they planned to do. And they would have had some half assed excuse too. Would they intentionally put themselves at risk that he might have brought a knife to this close confrontation when they would have wanted to shoot him and have some legal excuse?

His actions are ones someone who feared for their life could take.

By common sense charging a long distance at armed, hostile, and about to murder you people is not synonymous with "fear".

Note that because Arbery didn't use lethal force,

He was trying to forcibly take a stranger's firearm, that's about as bad as a threat of lethal force anyway.

Your theory doesn't actually matter though, in a legal sense. Arbery acted legally.

It does matter, because the "immediate" part is legally significant, and is based on objective circumstances (which we have some video evidence of), not on what he might have thought at the moment. Which in turn goes back to how the legal system will interpret the tiny details of shotgun guy's handling of his weapon.

As i said in general, this is a controversial case with an easy politicization angle...
That's exactly why it has blown into international media. If it was a slam dunk in either direction, we wouldn't have heard of it.