Guns owners chase and kill black man who was jogging

"The older McMichael, 64, first spotted Arbery on foot, 'hauling ass' down Satilla Drive, and immediately thought the young man was a burglar who had recently been targeting the neighborhood, according to a Glynn County police report.

"McMichal grabbed his .357 Magnum as Travis McMichael took out a shotgun, and they jumped into their truck to give chase, police said....

"After the men eventually caught up with Arbery, there was a fatal confrontation....

"The victim was a former high school football player and was a health buff who jogged regularly, his family said....

"Authorities have not linked Arbery to the burglaries in the neighborhood cited by Gregory McMichael."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...jogging-southeast-georgia-two-months-n1196621

When untrained people with guns decide to play the hero the results can be tragic.

 

Two months have passed and nobody has been charged? Looks like a great justice system they have in Georgia, as long as you are white.

 

As opposed to train law enforcement officers who recklessly utilize deadly force against a suspect who was not resisting, and proved no threat at the time of the incident?

From the article itself:

But in a memo from Barnhill to police, the DA said he believes Gregory and Travis McMichael should not be indicted. He said the father and son had "probable cause" to believe the victim might be a burglar and were within their rights to arm themselves and chase him down.

The prosecutor said video footage of the shooting, made by a neighbor, shows Arbery to be the aggressor.

"Given the fact Arbery initiated the fight, at the point Arbery grabbed the shotgun, under Georgia Law, McMichael was allowed to use deadly force to protect himself," according to the memo, reported in the New York Times.

The article mentions there was a physical struggle for control of the shotgun after it was grabbed by the deceased, Ahmaud Arbery. The supposedly unarmed, supposedly innocent black male individual, according to the accounts of the article, initiated physical conflict by attacking both individuals, despite being able to tell that they were indeed armed, as a shotgun cannot be hidden from view.

 

The article states video evidence shows the deceased, Ahmaud Arbery, initiated a physical attack against the two individuals who were armed, and attempted to wrestle the shotgun away from its rightful, legal owner. Such are not the actions of an innocent individual who is truly doing nothing more than jogging and minding their own business.

 

There's another thread about this topic in this forum.
A 25-year-old black man was shot dead in Georgia while jogging, prompting online protests labeling t

Quotes from that other thread:

I'm usually not so happy about people starting multiple threads about the same topic in the same forum. In this case, I have a hard time seeing how this story really has anything to do with the subject of gun control. (Maybe someone can tell or explain that to me? Maybe some of you honestly think that if only police had all the guns, something like this couldn't have happened? Honestly?)​

 

It has a lot to do with gun control. Should armed citizens be allowed to pursue someone who they think fits the description of a criminal and order that person to stop while brandishing their firearms?

This is not a case of people protecting themselves against someone who they had reason to believe was an imminent threat.

 

May his soul rest in peace and may whatever god he believes in look after his soul.

 

He may have thought his own life was in danger. How would you react if you suddenly became aware that two armed individuals who were not law enforcement were pursuing you?

 

The actions that may or may have not hypothetically been taken on the part of myself, yourself, or any other outside individual are of absolutely no relevance to the discussion at hand, as they were not the actions of one who was confirmed as being a convicted criminal. Ahmaud Arbery was not merely an innocent bystander, as proven by his criminal record. It does not matter if said criminal record was not known to the two at the time, as it is not relevant. The fact remains that the actual criminal, Ahmaud Arbery, made the conscious decision to engage in physical combat with the two individuals who he knew were armed, thus giving them a legitimate reason to fear for their own safety.

Do not commit physical assault, do not get shot as a result. It is not that difficult of a concept to understand.

 

And yet the matter immediately became such when Ahmaud Arbery chose to commit physical assault and attempted to steal one of their firearms away from their control.

 

Probable cause being 'black'?

 

Hahahaha...he was being chased down by armed men. What the hell was he supposed to do? Just let them kill him? Are you really blaming the person trying to defend himself against TWO armed men?

 

Not relevant. Not every killing of every black individual is done out of racism. Trying to inject a racial narrative that does not exist simply serves to weaken the legitimacy of actual claims of racism.

When one does something stupid, and suffers the consequences of such, they have no one to blame but themselves.

 

So defending oneself is stupid is it? Hahahahahaha....wow

So then what was this 'probable cause'? Last I checked jogging was not probable cause to chase someone down with weapons.

 

They suspended all grand juries during the COVID lockdown so yeah this is the first chance they're having to get to it.

 

Barnhill was required to recuse himself for conflict of interest: His son had worked with Greg.

Not to mention he dropped the propensity inference and the guys priors in the end of the letter as justification, a serious ethical and evidentiary violation that should cost him his bar card.

 

Except Arbery didn't initiate the attack, the McMichaels did by hunting him through the streets and trying to falsely imprison him.

 

That's not a gun control question though. That's a when can private citizens take on the powers and duties of bonded law enforcement officers question. Which I agree should be the crime occurred in my immediate presence only.

 

Having priors does not mean he committed any crime presently. That's called the propensity inference and is explicitly barred in US jurisprudence.
He resisted 3 men (not two individuals, there were three. Get your facts right before you post) who hunted him through the streets and tried to seize him of his liberty. As the initial aggressors, they don't get to claim self defense unless sheltering under the citizen's arrest law which they cannot as the fact Greg says gives him reasonable and probable suspicion that Arbery committed a crime is Arbery sharing skin color and gender with a person he once saw on video tape days or weeks prior.

 

You mean when he used reasonable and necessary force in defense of himself from 3 armed assailants who had hunted him through the streets like an animal?

 

Except in this case we have the McMichaels own statements. Greg claims as Arbery blasted past him at a high rate of speed 'haulin ass' he thought he shared traits with a suspect of some breakins on tape Greg had seen (ie a strange person was seen on tape, not actually breaking in anywhere but on the same night as the breakin) and so Greg went into the house, gathered 3 firearms 2 vehicles and 2 more people and set off in pursuit.
Their only claim for cause was: that running person is black and male, and the suspect from the breakin weeks ago was black and male.

^ that's not reasonable and probable suspicion that Arbery was the break in suspect.

 

how is defending yourself stupid? He was being chased by 2 armed men, and they were attempting to illegally detain him (kidnap). He had every right to face them and defend himself from them.

 

Not to be overly nitpicky, but it was 3 armed men in 2 separate vehicles.

 

That's not necessarily true. If you've seen the latest video, it looks like the (black) man was running (seemed like maybe running away from someone else, not seen in the video) and then running towards them for some reason (hard to tell if he was intentionally running towards them or if he even realized they were there) and then whatever happened happened behind a vehicle and the camera couldn't get a good look at exactly what happened, but it was quick.
From what could be seen in the video, it almost looked like the (black) man was going to ram into them.

 

The law in some states allow private citizens to forcibly detain someone if they have committed a very serious crime. That of course is not the case here, since they only had suspicion and no solid evidence that the man had committed a burglary.
That said, if it had been police, they would very likely have used force to stop the man, even if they had no proof that he committed the crime.

Just because people may have the legal right to defend themselves in certain situations, does not mean it is smart.

In certain situations, the law could allow two individuals to use force against the other, and neither of their actions would necessarily be illegal. That is, the law does not always define which party has the superior rights over the other in such an altercation.
(And that probably is the way it should be)