How well did following jurors’ bus work for NBC? This is not a new issue, organized crime bosses had been put on trial before, and they had cohorts a lot more capable than the NBC nincompoop or Antifa. Some testicular fortitude is required from a juror!
The “Run, hide, fight” rule applies here. Some authors, e.g. Freeborn, think these verbs are out of order and when cornered, “Fight” can bring best chance of survival. However, when faced with a hostile firearm, distance is your best friend. Arbery still had avenues for escape, he was outnumbered, maybe trying to get away, and taking a risk to be shot in the back could have been better. This is strictly a comment on tactics.
Tactics Discussion: I agree with you. Being unarmed, the best tactic would have been to continue to flee. Possibly even get off the road, because according to testimony and doorbell cameras around the neighborhood, he was on the road, running in a circle trying (I assume) to get to the entrance of the subdivision.
After 5 mins of trying to get away, I surmise he made the split second decision to fight. Fatigue, higher heart rate from fear and running, high adrenaline. Arbery being unarmed, I assume he didn’t have any defensive training on evasion and finding cover. This is a great example of what can happen. Also, lack of hand to hand combat training played a part because he didn’t do a good job once he approached Travis McMichael. (Grab the shotgun. Avoid the path of the barrel. Gain strategic leverage, etc).
My opinion is, Arbery was terrified. If I was 25, untrained in combat, untrained in weapons, untrained at evasion, I can see myself making the same mistake in order to protect my life. It is my hope people learn from this.
Great observation @Alexander8
@Winny25 Welcome to the community, we are glad to have you here.
That would be ideal, yes, but I’ve never heard a lawyer ask during voir dire “Would you be able to make an impartial decision in the face of death threats against you or your spouse and children?”
It’s a lot to ask of someone — it’s the right thing to ask of them as well — but I sat on a jury where the most important question to some was “how do we get out of having to come back another day?”
There was a discussion some months ago about carrying while running. It’s not something I normally do, and I have often wondered what I would do if confronted during a run. I’m reminded of this almost every time I read about Arbery. You nailed it, though. There are no good options when your assailant is armed and you are not, and it’s compounded when you’re already worn down from exertion or high on adrenaline. I know this isn’t the exact same thing, but there are some common threads, just like every other self-defense topic.
Under extreme, life-threatening stress, people make the best decisions they are capable of in the moment — not necessarily the decisions they might make while calm, and with perfect knowledge of their options. Obviously, they do not have the “wisdom” of Monday morning QBs to guide them in their crisis.
The inability to maintain distance from armed pursuers was a key failure point. In considering whether to leave roadways to evade vehicle pursuit, I think it’s important to observe that this area did not offer open woodlands or a safe refuge “over there” for escape. It was a tight, built-up, residential development — obstructed by fences and hedges and perhaps additional hostile animals or residents.
Whether correct or not, the roadways may have seemed to offer the most direct escape to safety — to some refuge, to find witnesses, to reach a vehicle, to encounter legitimate law enforcement. That didn’t work, but it might have. I also think it’s reasonable/possible to consider that leaving open ground for the possibility of being trapped at some obscure obstacle is similar to being directed “to the back room” or “get in the trunk” — at whatever risk, you just don’t.
Yep, Scott361 and Winny25. I agree with your points wholeheartedly. However, in this thread I that see those who disagree with your argument will protest the loudest.
@Robert1229 Welcome to the community, we are glad to have you here.
Thanks much BRUCE26. Glad to be here.
Really? Prostesting loudly? That has to be the most comical retort, yet. Those of you that believe he acted in self-defense have been using straw men arguments as your basis for that belief. This man was not a naive soul, he was a criminal. Another claimed he was “boxed in” and had nowhere else to run. The video clearly shows that is not true. Supposedly he was out for a jog, but suddenly tires out and can’t run any further? He certainly did not appear tired. The straws are getting thinner and thinner.
This is not a straw man argument. Whether Arbery had violated the law is irrelevant. If I see and even record a stranger breaking in and stealing from my neighbor’s house, I don’t have the legal responsibility nor the legal right to chase him down and hold him in place with the threat of a shotgun.
This happens a lot, I’ve noticed, when a high-profile self-defense or shooting story makes it into the news. Someone invariably wants to justify the shooting by saying the deceased was a bad dude. It almost never matters. If I saw Hannible Lecter, himself, walking down my street, I don’t have the right to point a firearm at him.
The defendants in this case obviously thought they had the legal authority to detain Arbery, and at least one of them thought it was a good idea to introduce a firearm into the situation. These were all horrible decisions, and they are now paying the penalty for their choices. I suspect there will be some appeals in the future when the press has forgotten their case, but I think there are some sobering lessons for us from their example. You don’t have to like or agree with the jury, and you may even have good reasons for your opinion. But it’s important to recognize that a jury of your peers might make the same decision if you were to take similar actions.
I did not make that argument.
I never claimed you did. Neither were they doing that. The man with the shotgun was not threatening him with it. It would be like you being armed with a holstered handgun, they don’t make holsters for shotguns, not that I am aware. Having a firearm on your person is not brandishing, nor threatening.
Very true. Prior to the struggle over the shotgun that was initiated by the decedent, they were still legally allowed to be on the street, at least as much as the “jogger”, whether or not you agree with their motives. Following someone is not a crime, though it could be a prelude to a crime.
That’s my biggest takeaway from this case. From my earliest legal briefs on self-defense, I’ve been taught that there’s no self-defense argument if I’m the aggressor, which is determined by a prosecutor and a jury. Had they merely followed Arbery from a safe distance (I’m reminded of the George Zimmerman trial), there would likely have been no story for us to hear about.
I don’t say this to be a Monday Morning Quarterback. I’m just trying to learn lessons to keep myself safe should I find myself in a similar situation.
Ouade5—Yes, I agree. If you start the fight, you can’t claim self defense. So, these three guys are in jail….
I agree with you 100%, any person selected to be a juror should put aside outside thought to decide a verdict strictly on the information presented. But unfortunately, humans are selected to be jurors. The average human when confronted with influences from society, collected over years, cannot put them aside when walking into a courtroom to considering a verdict. They are thinking about their children, spouse, house, job, family, relatives, friends, all things that can be instantly changed by their verdict. As long as the communist party (formerly the democrat party) sanctions violence, crime, rioting, looting, burnings, thuglivesmater, nazifu, with the woke mentality and the media plays a complicit roll in the same, we will never again seat an entire impartial jury. That’s where we have gotten.
I have to disagree with you Dave. I agree, there is no holster for a shotgun. But when you’re following someone with a truck, your dad is in the bed of the pickup with a 357, you’ve been following this young man for 5 mins and turning around several times. Yelling at the young man that you want to talk to him (testimony by the McMichaels), then stop and step out with your shotgun (remember, dad is in the back with his 357), that’s a threat. Anybody who is following me then gets out with a shotgun, with another person in the bed holding a 357….I see as a threat. Someone walking down the street or even in their yard, no. Someone trying to block me using a truck, with someone in a 2nd truck who I just tried to pass and it turned around (Bryant)……yes. Absolutely a threat.
I’m seeing a lot of comments on this thread, judging by only the video of the final encounter. There is other video and testimony that gives us a clearer picture of what happened. Which we need to understand what we’d do under the same circumstances. There’s a 20/20 special that shows a lot of the evidence presented in court, including LE body cam video that shows what was said after the shooting. The McMichaels admitted to trying to chase down Arbery to question him.
As a CC holder, I cannot initiate an assault and claim self-defense. The video clearly shows he had the means and ability to not assault the man with the firearm. There is no law against following someone; there is no law against wanting to talk to someone. There is a law against assaulting someone.
As to what a reasonable person would do, in my opinion, a reasonable person would not illegally trespass onto someone’s property and further it by illegal entry into a home. A reasonable person would not run away when approached after doing such illegal act. Lastly, a reasonable person would not commit assault, nor is said act legal.
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. I side with the State of Georgia and the jurors. My opinion is, if two armed men in one truck, and a 3rd man in another vehicle are yelling at me trying to get me to stop to ‘talk to me’, I don’t want to stop. Those men have no right or authority to question me. Legally, they do not. This situation is one of the reasons I carry when I’m out on a run. Arbery had no idea why these men wanted to talk to him. He had no idea their intentions. I don’t mean to attack you with this next sentence, I’m simply perplexed. How can you ignore the other evidence? I’m perceiving you saying that Greg mcMichael had every right to follow Arbery. If he was doing this at distance and staid in his truck, yes. As soon as he influenced Arbery by cutting him off, then got out of his truck with a shotgun (brandishing, which is illegal in Georgia), he became the threat. Except through Greg McMichael’s actions, the incident wouldn’t have occurred. It’s like these facts are being ignored. Perplexed.
That was not brandishing - learn the law.
Except without the decedent’s illegal activity… the man with the shotgun would not have been there for him to assault.
Because you run through other people’s homes? If you don’t, no need to worry.