A reconstructed timeline and map of the pursuit and murder of Mr Arbery.
This is not trial evidence — no idea how it differs from the jury presentation.
The jury’s conclusion seems consistent with this reconstruction.
What bigotry, toward who?
Brandishing is threatening display. Making a rifle, or multiple rifles in this case, visible, while demanding money from private citizens - is brandishing by definition. I am not sure if it constitutes armed robbery, quite possibly so. The man who did it is a goon, no quotes around it. He meant to assert his power and intimidate people, there is a video of it. Just as defendants in Arbery murder, meant to assert their power and intimidate Arbery.
Video of goons making threats here: Reddit - Dive into anything
If you have the opportunity to continue fleeing, but you are very concerned that may result in grievous bodily harm or death to yourself by those who have confronted you, I would say especially if you just realized one of them has a gun, then trying to disarm that person is just as valid as using any other tools you might have at your disposal to try to end the threat. The success rate might be wildly different, but that’s a different matter.
2 Likes
You assault someone, you are not the victim, but the assailant. You make-up all these silly straw men to knockdown, but the video shows exactly what happened.
I don’t think that’s a straw man argument, at least not in the strict sense of the term. If I fear someone will use a firearm against me, I have few options. Rushing the person with the firearm may not be a wise choice, but if there is no way to run or hide, I may not have many options. From the victim side, perhaps Arbery should have simply complied and waited for actual police to get involved. I don’t mean that to Monday-morning quarterback a dead mean, just as a lesson I can take from this situation.
But on the flip side, if I introduce a firearm into a situation, a prosecutor could see me as the assailant, no matter what happens next. And that prosecutor might convince a jury that I’m the bad guy, no matter what my actual intentions were. Again, I’m not making a judgment and I’m not trying to convince you what you did or didn’t see in the video, but that’s obviously how things played out for the people involved. And that seems to be in line with the things I’ve learned from USCCA about using firearms. You can be 100% in the right and still face a long life of legal troubles.
4 Likes
If someone simply wanted to kidnap you, they may accuse you of stealing and promise to call the police. Like, drug dealers may mistake you for a delinquent client, etc etc. I don’t know if complying with kidnappers are a solid tactical approach.
1 Like
Again, I’m not trying to second-guess a dead man. I’m just trying to learn from this situation. If you believe someone is willing to shoot you, you really have very few options. Flee, hide, fight. Compliance is an option, but like the other 3, it may not be a good one.
2 Likes
What we see physically in the video does not include what was going on in the minds / perspectives of the persons involved. One can both physically attack (assault) someone and also be the victim, depending on circumstances / situation leading up to the assault.
What part of pursuing someone in a truck and confronting them, with or without a weapon, is not initiating the conflict?
4 Likes
I am not sure why we are doing the what If thought process. A man have been killed 3 men are in jail. We can all agree on that. We can agree that life is precious, it can be taken away in so many different ways. Enjoy the freedom we have been give, have Empathy and tolerance.
1 Like
Contemplating the “what-if” is how we teach ourselves lessons without having to suffer the experience. 
Debating what lessons might be taken from the event can be valuable
Attacking each other about whose interpretation or perception is “wrong” —
or why the jury “dint doot right” — is pointless and destructive. 
2 Likes
I am down with that 100%- In this situation, I am not sure how many of us
- will jump in a car and track a person down
- Try to grab a Gun from a person
I will not do either of those two things.
3 Likes
Seems smart.
If I thought I had witnessed a crime, I might try to keep the subject in view if it could be done without danger or conflict. If I were chased down and threatened at arm’s length by armed assailants, I still think I would go for the gun. Recent examples have demonstrated how that is likely to work out — but if avoidance hasn’t worked, I haven’t figured out the better option.
1 Like
Whoever wrote this article is drinking the cult koolaid
People watch B Tatom video. The verdict was wrong. MUST APPEAL.
You’re a Democrat? I’m a fortune teller. To suggest the brown brother could have ran to the exit of the community, but chose to turn and fight the man with a gun. Shows “criminal essence”. The truth will come to light in an appeal. Stop with your defense of criminal behavior. My guess is you yourself may be a criminal??
Agreed. In the states with the felony murder rule, let’s say there is an armed holdup with two guys, one armed and one unarmed and during the holdup the shopkeeper gets to his gun and shoots the unarmed robber while the armed robber has split ahead of his unarmed cohort. When apprehended in a felony murder state the armed robber is going to be charged with felony murder even though he didn’t discharge his weapon.
Let’s carry it one step further. One of the robbers is an older guy and in the excitement of the robbery he drops dead of a heart attack. Same arrest. It doesn’t have to be a death at the hands of another, any death during the commission of a felony is charged as first degree murder. The thought behind the law is "Be careful with whom you commit crimes.
Hey it’s a win-win for the people. One perp gets dropped and the other one gets put away for a long time. Of course if they pop the shopkeeper, then they both get charged with murder even though one was unarmed. Again, be careful with whom you commit crimes.
2 Likes
No. It’s not like the Rittenhouse case.
Arbery was confronted and chased for 5 mins by two men with guns in one truck and another man, Bryant, in a second truck. There is house camera video that shows Arbery trying to get away from the men chasing him. Arbery did not go after the shotgun until he tries to run away for 5 minutes and is boxed in. Bryant became culpable when he changed from observer to participant in the chase. And there is no question it was a chase.
I see many here giving opinion to this case just from the video. The video is just one piece of evidence. There is other porch cam video and testimony that shows the McMichaels chase down Arbery.
By Travis McMichael’s own testimony, he felt empowered to grab his shotgun and have a talk with Arbery. He mistakenly felt empowered to confront Arbery about the trespass.
Here’s the thing. Law enforcement has that authority. A citizen does not. Even with the now abolished citizens arrest law, he didn’t have that authority. Travis didn’t have first hand knowledge of a felony. So he didn’t have the authority to question Arbery. In Georgia, you can’t use a firearm to defend property. Arbery didn’t approach/confront the McMichaels. Thus, the McMichaels created the conditions that led to the death. Bryant participated by helping to box Arbery in.
I can only imagine what must have been going through that young man’s head. Two guys in a truck, one in the flatbed with a 357, are yelling and want to talk to me….then they’re chasing. Now they’re cutting me off. After 5 mins of this, I I can understand why he went after the shotgun. Because why did Travis get out of his vehicle and brandish his weapon?
This is not a self defense case for the McMichaels. They initiated the confrontation through their actions. Had they not committed those actions, the 5 min chase, Arbery wouldn’t have died at that time. The McMichaels are responsible for their actions that led to that death.
Please don’t judge this case from one video. I urge everyone to go find the other videos, especially the LEO body cam video after the shooting. At no point did the MCMichaels claim citizens arrest. That was a defense posed weeks after the shooting. I watched much of the trial, and saw much of the evidence. Again, this is more than one video.
In the Rittenhouse case, it can be argued that the deceased and wounded started the confrontation. In the Arbery case, Arbery did not start the confrontation. He tried to retreat. When he couldn’t, he reacted. If not for the McMichaels creating this situation by trying to confront Arbery, there would have been no death by shotgun that day.
9 Likes
Yup!!!
1 Like
It’s unfortunate that today, mob justice rules, and the court system no longer follows the law, but uses feelings and agenda, to interpret the RULE of law. Jurors whether shielded or sequestered from media and society during a case, has just stepped out of society where they see, every day the media bias (just compare headlines and media interpretation of murder stories) societies agendas, violence, threats and their own fears, which play a tremendous part in their decision making. With threats of “doxing” jurors for giving an unwanted verdict, media printing names, addresses, workplaces, to media actually following jury transportation, and blatant harassment, along with agenda driven judges, juries can no longer be impartial.
3 Likes