An officer didn't kill him.

I'm sure we'll know more, but pretty disturbing at first read.

The autopsy and two videos are consistent with what the McMichaels said, so (most of) the facts of the case don't seem much in dispute, only what the legal and moral interpretations should be.

The McMichaels pursued Arbery on suspicion of him being a burglar, though its not entirely clear what the evidence was (surveillance video from the previous day, vs whether he was trespassing at the moment they pursued him- an important distinction given the 'immediate' requirement in Georgia code). When he kept running from them, they cut him off and the younger McMichael exited the vehicle carrying a shotgun to confront and arrest Arbery, while the elder McMichael stayed in his vehicle with his gun either holstered or down out of view. Arbery ran around the vehicle, then abruptly turned and charged the young McMichael and both struck him and grabbed his shotgun by the barrel- the first shot was fired at this moment either by McMichael or simply due to the gun being yanked by Arbery, its unclear. That shot passed through Arbery's right hand palm as they struggled, with Arbery clearly both initiating the immediate fight and charging towards McMichaels as they backed away. They continued to struggle for control of the gun with both keeping two hands on it, Arbery continuing to wrestle with him and force him backwards despite already being shot once. The second shot was fired with the rear of the buttstock of the shotgun being pushed away and down and with an upward angle of blood plume visible in the video, with the gun clearly still being wrestled for by Arbery, who despite being severely wounded continued to hold a hand on the gun and rain punches into McMichael's face with his other hand until the 3rd shot, still struggling for the gun. Then Arbery finally stumbled away, collapsed and died.

Legally there's a few questions: Was Arbery actually a burglar? Supposedly there's more video evidence to show he was. But were the Arbery's within their rights to pursue and detain him under the Georgia state code? It requires reasonable and provable probable cause to suspect a felony within their immediate knowledge. If they knew he was a burglar from the previous day, that's not grounds to pursue him the next day- if they thought he was in the midst of a burglary and fleeing the scene at the moment, that's different. Then there's the question of how much it matters whether they were legally authorized to pursue him. Even if they were culpable for a false arrest or other infraction stemming from not understanding the legal requirement to pursue a suspect, that doesn't necessarily form the level of criminal liability that would preclude a self defense claim. Generally speaking, it would have to be a felony. Then there's also the open question of what absolute batshit insane mindset was Arbery in when he suicidally bumrushed a guy with a shotgun and continued to violently struggle with him even as giant chunks of his body were being blasted away. Supposedly Arbery also has undisclosed mental health issues, as well as a somewhat significant criminal record. That wasn't a normal fight or flight or surrender response by any reasonable measure, he clearly initiated and then continued to punch a guy even when he had no control over the gun pointed at him.

Its not some easy or simple case, and its going to get absolutely twisted by people aiming to form social narratives out of it. If all the McMichaels and Arbery were black, or all white, nobody would care.

If I try to kidnap someone at gunpoint and they attack me and I kill them, what do I get charged with? I imagine you get charged with 2nd degree murder for that. To me, it seems fair to charge them with murder, kidnapping, etc.

didn't take you too long trying to spin this, as expected (and predicted). disgusting excuses for human beings attempting to rationalise murder...

the simple truth is, if that had been two black men murdering a white man, they would long be on death row. it would not have taken the evidence to be leaked to the public, in order for them to be charged - months after the incident.

This post was edited by fender on May 6 2020 07:02pm

If you see someone walking down the road legally carrying a firearm and shouting at you "hey stop I want to talk" and you charge him and bash his brains in, seize his gun and kill him, do you get to claim self-defense?

There's a more complicated questions of both mens reas and actus reas here. Were they pursuing him in good faith with reasonable grounds for suspicion, or believing they had reasonable grounds for suspicion? Did their act of pursuing him constitute a criminal liability that led to the immediate risk of a violent confrontation, or was everything kosher up until Arbery tested his gun kata skills by rushing McMichael? Did they have any intent of seeking out a violent encounter, or did they only arm themselves on the belief that the man they were pursuing was armed? Did McMichael fire the first shot at Arbery out of fear for his life as Arbery rushed him, or did Arbery grabbing the gun cause it to go off?

Lets say we assume the 'best' scenario for the McMichaels. Say that Arbery was a serial burglar with mental issues that made him violent, they saw him trespassing and pursued him, they only wanted to stop him but he charged them and caused the gun to go off when he grabbed it. To what degree would that be their liability? Now lets say its the 'worst' scenario for the McMichaels. Say that Arbery was an innocent man out jogging and involved in no crimes, they only suspected he was a burglar because he was black, they had no immediate suspicion to justify pursuing him, they tracked him down with the intent of seeking out a violent encounter, and he only charged them when he rounded the truck because he was surprised by the man with a shotgun and was in fear for his life as he fought back. I think in that scenario we can plainly say its a form of murder.

So what do the facts and evidence point to? And given the presumption of innocence for both parties, what actions can we prove were taken that are criminal without unsupported assumptions?

I think its very hard to accuse someone of committing murder with a gun if the gun only went off because someone else grabbed it and pulled on it, and the evidence so far suggests that's the most likely scenario.

This post was edited by Goomshill on May 6 2020 07:14pm

If sitting parked in a street, brandishing firearms, looking at the darkie jogging down the street towards you is totally cool and not legally threatening, maybe there's something wrong with our laws.

That's not what happened though. A couple of armed dudes blocked off his escape path and tried to capture him. If I'm in his shoes, I'm assuming that someone is trying to kidnap me for ransom, kill me, etc. At that point, I don't know what I'd do tbh. I'd probably think I'm a dead man anyway and I'd fight.

As for your best case scenario, I'd imagine that they wouldn't be charged for murder but they'd get several years in prison. Either way, it won't end well for those two if the facts stand where they do now.

If someone is about to shoot you and can absolutely shoot you in the back if you run away but you can potentially beat his ass one on one, your choices are 1) definitely get killed or 2) maybe win a fight and live.

You’re gonna fight.

These boys need to be killed. The legal system will fail. I hope a vigilante kills them with no fucking mercy.

This post was edited by inkanddagger on May 6 2020 08:32pm

I notice they hid the criminal record and fist assault committed by the "victim"