Travis McMichael says in his murder trial that he felt threatened by Ahmaud Arbery

This is similar to the Rittenhouse trial in the sense that these armed citizens also felt they were protecting property and ended in a situation where their 'suspect' tried to grab their gun and they killed him in self defense. Rittenhouse also pointed his gun at the guy who he eventually killed after the guy presumably tried to grab his rifle. I hope these cases clarify the law in situations where people run around with guns and point them at people and then shoot them when they react. IMO, given the scenarios Rittenhouse has a better chance of being acquitted than these guys. In both cases the defense is calling for mistrial to get their clients off the hook.

Travis McMichael says in his murder trial that he felt threatened by Ahmaud Arbery
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/17/1056585780/travis-mcmichael-testifies-murder-trial-ahmaud-arbery

Travis McMichael took the witness stand Wednesday in his murder trial over the February 2020 killing of Ahmaud Arbery, as the defense launched its phase of the trial. The prosecution rested its case on Tuesday.

"I want to give my side of the story," McMichael said, telling the court that he wanted to explain what happened from his point of view. He is one of three defendants.

Under questioning by his attorney, McMichael said his training from his Coast Guard service included de-escalation techniques — and concepts around the use of force.

"In your experience, can pointing a gun at somebody de-escalate a situation?" his defense attorney, Jason Sheffield, asked.

"Yes," McMichael answered.

"How so?"

"If you pull a weapon on someone, from what I've learned in my training, usually that caused people to back off or to realize what's happening" and comply with orders, McMichael said.

 

This is not similar to the Rittenhouse case at all. Not even in the least of bit. Show me one video where these men acted in a manner that shows fear at all.
•Did they run?
•We’re they outnumbered by their attackers?
•Did they get attacked?
•We’re they in an area where crime was going on nightly and businesses burning?
•Was the man that got killed lunging at him with a skateboard or pointing a gun at them?
•Did the man that died threaten to murder the people who shot him?

This is not similar at all.

you could never convince me that these guys were acting in self defense. Kyle Rittenhouse most definitely was

 

Both claim they were defending property.

Both pointed a gun at their target

Both shot their target

Both claim the target tried to grab their firearm

Both claim they feared the target was a threat and they feared for their lives

Both targets were unarmed

Both are calling for mistrial

Yes, there are differences, and I mentioned "given the scenarios Rittenhouse has a better chance of being acquitted than these guys".

I didn't say the cases are identical, I said: "This is similar to the Rittenhouse trial in the sense that these armed citizens also felt they were protecting property and ended in a situation where their 'suspect' tried to grab their gun and they killed him in self defense"

 

What's the evidence for this?

 

In a video. See the thread about Rittenhouse.

 

No not similar. In kyles case there was witness testimony saying the man that was unarmed threatened to kill him. Did these guys have that scenario? No.

And obviously both were shot. That’s not a similarity. That’s the cause of any murder trial. That’s like saying all murder trials are like this one.


This man grabbed his gun in clear anger. And was recorded. He also threatened to kill him. Why wouldn’t Kyle believe he was going to kill him? He told him he would. Was he suppose to think he was lying while he was being chased?

these cases aren’t remotely similar

 

You can’t honestly make the claim that both scenarios were equal in violent actions against the shooters. Not even close

 

The claims of the accused only matter as to whether they're pleading innocent or guilty. Its up to the jury to decide whether their claims have merit after seeing all the evidence. I suspect the jury will find the claim of self defense justified in this case, but it also sounds like it was a case of unlawful arrest (citizens arrest is lawful in most states, but has much higher prerequisites than arrest by badged/uniformed peace officers, such as often it cannot be done unless the citizen personally witnessed the perpetrator commit a felony). I think this shooting resulted from an unlawful attempt at citizens arrest, which is essential attempted kidnapping, which is what I think these guys should be charged with. Involuntary manslaughter would also be reasonable, since their attempted kidnapping led to the shooting.

I dont think theres any evidense that they hunted the guy down with the intent to kill him, which is what 1st degree murder would be. The information we have suggests they wanted to detain him while lacking the legal authority to do so.

 

This is well-reasoned and well-written but I disagree. I think that we need some landmark decisions here or we're going to have vigilantes taking over this country and some Yahoos serving life sentences are just what we need. If you have these fantasies of killing people you should consult a qualified mental health professional and stop watching Rambo movies not hang out at the local gun store and pray for riots somewhere.

 

Our justice system isn't designed to make examples of people. Its supposed to prosecute them for crimes they commit, not crimes we're afraid others might commit. In this case, based on the evidence available to us, they're guilty of unlawful attempted detainment, which I hope is pretty serious crime itself. Charging them with murder just to send a message would undermine our entire justice system and open it to unfathomable abuse.

I still prefer the system where its better that 10 guilty go free than one innocent be falsely imprissonned.

 

Actually it looks like Georgia abolished "citizens arrest" as a result of this incident.

Agree with the last part, - they didn't chase him with intent to kill. This is another case of armed citizens trying to enforce law and it ends up with someone dying. They lacked the authority and they lacked the training/skills to handle the situation. IMO they will get manslaughter charge.

 

Yes, I hope these cases bring clarity to what people can, and cannot do legally. In Kenosha we had it both ways, one vigilante killing people, and others trying "citizens arrest" to stop the shooter and getting shot in the process.

Both of accused are claiming their guns were grabbed and they fired in self defense. The gun grabbing is becoming a standard defense. Claim: If you carry a gun and someone grabs it, you are justified to kill. If you carry a purse and someone grabs it, you are NOT justified to kill. This is a problem with open carry.

 

There is little one can do about stupidity. McMichael should have dialed 911, reported the incident and waited for the police. Rittenhouse should not have attended the riot. I say the same thing about those who were shot. Attacking a person with a gun is beyond stupid. I agree that there is an element of vigilantism in both cases. I also agree that we need to stop government from hamstringing police and let them provide the public protection they are sworn to provide.

 

I agree with your last sentence but guilt being undeniably established we have punishments to deter others. These two both armed up and then purposely put themselves in situations where killing someone was inevitable. If they get off we are telling others that riots and suspected burglaries are good ways to find out what killing someone is really like

 

I never said they should 'get off.' I think they're guilty of attempted kidnapping and unintentional homicide. It sounds like you're saying we should charge them with intended homicide to send a message, even though thats not what they did. Is this what you're saying?

Why do you think kidnapping and manslaughter wont send the appropriate message?

 

The McMichael's made a lot of assumptions and created/orchestrated this horrific situation they are now in.

Dead men tell no tales, let this be a lesson to all.

 

Wasn’t this the case where MSM claimed the guy was “jogging”? That’s a huge red flag right there with that fat lie coming right out of the gate.

 

Video does tell a tale. This guy was no threat to anyone. They had options. They could have called the police. This case is nothing like kyles case. Period!

 

I'll let the jury decide this one. But yes, this is nothing like Kyle Rittenhouse.

From what I can tell, he chased down and cornered a lone jogger while brandishing a gun. They hadn't seen him commit a crime. He wasn't on private property. They had vehicles while the other guy was on foot.

At least the guy followed Biden's advice and got a shotgun.

From what I can tell, he had nothing on him and no weapons.

He might have been scouting the area for a robbery - but might have been is not a reason to chase down, corner a guy, and brandish a deadly weapon.

 

Well except for having home videos of him breaking into houses and having him try and wrestle the gun away from one during a citizens arrest you might have something.

 

Well, I've been educated.

I can't find the video of him breaking into a house - only walking around a half-built one. . . I guess I need to improve my google skills.

As for the citizens arrest, that wouldn't fly with an East-Texas jury, but Georgia might be different. In Texas, the video would be worthless unless the guy saw the video and the suspect was actually carrying stolen goods.

 

The reason I mentioned that is because, if I am correct, that is the defense position.

Also, the defense has been very good from what I have been told and the little I have watched were neighbors testifying of their own videos and theft problem in the neighborhood.

 

We should charge them with what they did. They made it unavoidable they they would kill someone and then they did. Is premeditation necessarily directed at a known person?

 

Well, he obviously failed the training, because you can't de-escalate anything by bringing a vehicle to a screeching halt in front of someone and having two rednecks jump out with weapons at the ready.

McMichael did not witness a felony crime and had no evidence a felony took place, nor did he have any reason to believe a felony took place, and on top of that, no one's life was in danger.

The only de-escalation technique needed here was calling 9-1-1 to report suspicious activity and monitory the "suspect" from a safe distance.

This was clearly murder. No question about it.

 

Why does this matter? Does this mean that he had no right to defend himself from that human waste who were trying to severely injure/kill him?