First off, I appreciate how everyone here is seeking out information and evidence on the Arbery shooting. The MSM certainly aren’t interested in that job.
Jug:
He's got the phone to his ear with his left hand, and his right hand is below the roof of the cab. But the clincher evidence that he didn't make any of the shots is the 911 recording, which you posted the transcript of earlier.
Clincher? From the enhanced video — thanks for tracking that down — I see two casings ejected in conjunction with two audible gunshots. The first shot is over the roof of the cab, and presumably strikes Arbery. The second appears to pass through the cab and strike the pavement. The third shot is from the shotgun.
I don't believe this general sequence of events is in dispute, and in any case is not determinative; which party was within their legal rights, is.
--
I assume you're defining 'confrontation' broadly here, in that the repeated attempts to detain via arms was the beginning of the confrontation. But I'm pretty sure the legal definitions are only concerned with the starting of the physical confrontations…. The physical altercation, which is what led to Arbery's death, was started by him when he did a first base turn around the truck to fight with Mjr over the gun.
I’m imprecise in using “confrontation”. I understand the legal term is “altercation”, specifically a physical altercation:
A physical altercation is generally a confrontation, tussle or physical aggression that may or may not result in injury. Physical altercations are distinguished from verbal altercations by the use of physical force or contact. It may also be referred to as bullying, fighting, or battery. Physical altercations are governed by federal and state laws, which vary by stte, as well as rules of conduct of various entities. For example, in a sports league, physical altercation may be defined as any physical contact not associated with the normal playing of any athletic contest.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/physical-altercation/
Everything rests on who initiates, or if it begins as a verbal altercation, who injects physical violence or the imminent threat thereof. The initiator of the violence has no right to self-defense. <>
The McMichael’s admit they initiated a verbal altercation, but claim the right to self-defense once Arbery initiated physical violence. A good question, one I don’t have a definitive answer to wrt GA law, is whether the mere open carrying of firearms constitutes a threat of physical violence.
The McMichael’s also claim they were conducting a citizen’s arrest — incompatible with their above claim — ergo, their preemptive application of the threat of physical force was legally justified.
They really need to pick one argument, but let’s run again with the latter.
From the extended 911 call and the video surveillance footage, it now seems likely that the:
1) perp is indeed Arbery;
2) offense was committed just minutes prior to the shooting;
3) McMichaels either witnessed the offense or had “immediate knowledge” of it.
If all three are true, then this was indeed a legal citizen’s arrest.
--
Andrew:
What they did was seriously stupid and at least one of them was old enough to know better.
They had time to think about what they were doing.
Even if the McMichael’s were within their legal rights, did the nature of the offense merit the risk posed just to themselves? Was it trespassing? What had been stolen? In California, encountering a burglar is considered inherently life-threatening. But even if Arbery had been burglarizing, no one came in close contact with him. For all we know, he was going into the house everyday to take a dump on his jog.
---
<>
cf. the case of Michael Drejka, convicted of manslaughter. Drejka had initiated a verbal altercation with the soon-to-be-dead guy’s girlfriend in a convenience store parking lot. STBDG exits the store, strides over to Drejka and shoves him to the ground. Drejka draws his CCW and shoots the guy.
Drejka was convicted because the jury was confused by the Florida's self-defense statute, which states the defendant cannot have instigated the [not specified as verbal or physical] altercation.
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/fl ... story.html