Branca: Arbery Case Has a Real Possibility of Acquittal

[CLT65]

I gotta hand it to some of you guys. Even the Unite the Right crazies didn't show up to take the McMichael's side.

If you look back through the thread, you'll see that very, very few of "us" are defending the McMichaels.

 

[baker3gun]

I stopped reading here.

Dude . . . YES! TM WAS LITERALLY CHARGING ARBERY WITH A GUN FOR OVER 4 MINUTES!!!
Almost nothing you write is supported by the evidence or even the testimony of the 3 of them while under oath.

With all due respect, maybe stop?

Following a trespasser in your vehicle is not charging.

Everything I have said is supported by the video evidence and the trial testimony.

You saying it is not, is simply you flapping your gums.

Most people on this board know that America is plagued by bad public policy because emotional people not only completely ignore obvious facts and evidence, but they also are happy to tell you that you are ignoring evidence when you say the sky is blue.

You sound exactly like them.

I made supportable contentions.
You ignored them and resorted to veiled insults and unsupported denial.
No prob. I don't mind.

I was genuinely worried about koda earlier. He came back LUCID.

I capitalized that because he didn't just come lucid, he came back LUCID.

You? Not so much. Pretty weak stuff.

Thanks!

 

[baker3gun]

except that Arbury had a right to try to defend himself. Arburys attack was the cleanest case of lawful self defense Ive seen, well since Kyles...

Every human has a right to defend themselves or to flee a dangerous situation.

If some guy is standing in the road with a gun 100' in front of you, and you run up to him and try to take his gun, and he shoots you while wrestling for control of the gun, is he guilty of murder?

Why didn't you just run somewhere else?

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Following a trespasser in your vehicle is not charging.

Everything I have said is supported by the video evidence and the trial testimony.

You saying it is not, is simply you flapping your gums.

Most people on this board know that America is plagued by bad public policy because emotional people not only completely ignore obvious facts and evidence, but they also are happy to tell you that you are ignoring evidence when you say the sky is blue.

You sound exactly like them.

I made supportable contentions.
You ignored them and resorted to veiled insults and unsupported denial.
No prob. I don't mind.

I was genuinely worried about koda earlier. He came back LUCID.

I capitalized that because he didn't just come lucid, he came back LUCID.

You? Not so much. Pretty weak stuff.

Thanks!

"veiled insults"? You mean like "You sound exactly like them."

But that's you, maybe you could quote me where you think I used a "veiled insults"

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Every human has a right to defend themselves or to flee a dangerous situation.

If some guy is standing in the road with a gun 100' in front of you, and you run up to him and try to take his gun, and he shoots you while wrestling for control of the gun, is he guilty of murder?

Why didn't you just run somewhere else?

How do you not get that he was running somewhere else and the 3 of them kept coming after him?

 

[Koda]

Every human has a right to defend themselves or to flee a dangerous situation.

If some guy is standing in the road with a gun 100' in front of you, and you run up to him and try to take his gun, and he shoots you while wrestling for control of the gun, is he guilty of murder?

Why didn't you just run somewhere else?

Georgia is a stand your ground state? Arbury wasn't doing anything wrong? We don't have to let bullies push us around? The McMichaels were conducting an illegal stop, threatening him? Arbury may have felt he was trapped?

lots of plausable reasons, I'm curious why these are not reasons you factor into your opinion on this?

 

[baker3gun]

If you look back through the thread, you'll see that very, very few of "us" are defending the McMichaels.

Acknowledging that you are not addressing me, I'll take the liberty of replying anyway, because this is a discussion forum.

Define "us".

IMO - it's handful of people who have remained active on a gun forum where a significant number of "early" members dropped out long ago.

I like internet forums. I joined arfcom in 2003 and got booted in 2014. I rejoined in 2019, but I've never posted on my new account.

I've witnessed the evolution of many forums.
I personally have dropped out for long periods of time.
The Joe guy here has struggled to find a way to prevent discourse that drives away members.
I respect his strategy - no profanity, no personal attacks, no nongun topics.
Still, he too has seen an evolution of observable philosophy in the membership.

Here, and at many other forums, "us" changes observably over time.

IMO.

 

[GWS]

Black people undoubtedly also care about black on black killings. However, being killed by the police or by whites with police looking the other way, as they did in this case, is inherently different, as it is essentially state sanctioned murder of blacks.

And while even one illegal killing by law enforcement is unconscionable, criminal and a betrayal, for an organization to call itself Black Lives Matter and yet say nothing about the racial suicide of Black on Black murder is perhaps a bit disingenuous.

 

[baker3gun]

There is a lot of subjectiveness in your position that isn't established with evidence....

I could rebuttle your reply with a long list of logical reasons but I will ask you this, did you consider that maybe just maybe there might be more to the case than what you've read and the jury got it right?

As always, anything is possible.

Send your rebuttal.

If not, then we aren't going anywhere.
Your latest is like me asking you if you ever stopped to consider whether shoes are necessary.

 

[baker3gun]

Assuming the charges were all independent. But they werent. Because of joint responsibility for crimes done by a group, once they have tried the leader the only issue is whether joint responsibility applies on all counts for the other two guys.

This is an accurate statement in modern America. It's how our law is currently applied.

I wonder: is Roddy Bryan guilty of murder?
Not in the superficial sense, like yes his guilty of murder because he was just convicted of murder,
but rather in the fundamental sense.

Did Roddy Bryan actually and physically murder Arbery?

 

[baker3gun]

Black people undoubtedly also care about black on black killings. However, being killed by the police or by whites with police looking the other way, as they did in this case, is inherently different, as it is essentially state sanctioned murder of blacks.

Hmm. I'm not sure that TM shooting Arbery was state sanctioned murder.

 

[Xaevian]

 

[Koda]

As always, anything is possible.

Send your rebuttal.

If not, then we aren't going anywhere.
Your latest is like me asking you if you ever stopped to consider whether shoes are necessary.

Ive sent plenty of rebuttles actually, if I should pick one lets ask you why the McMicaels claim of citizens arrest turned out unlawful? That's the whole crux of their self defense claim.

I'm technically more curious now with how you've reached your opinions on this subject? You present your position well but its all based on subjective opinion that doesn't line up with the evidence. Sure... Arbury could have tried to flee no matter the situation. But likewise the McMichaels could have not pulled guns on him, if they didn't intend to shoot him and all.

We could go on, I think what Im missing from your positions is how you came to reach it? What evidence do you have to show Arbury knew he could have tried to flee and not get shot in the back for example? ... and maybe then I might be able to see where your coming from.

 

[Koda]

This is an accurate statement in modern America. It's how our law is currently applied.

I wonder: is Roddy Bryan guilty of murder?
Not in the superficial sense, like yes his guilty of murder because he was just convicted of murder,
but rather in the fundamental sense.

Did Roddy Bryan actually and physically murder Arbery?

Im not any kind of legal expert or anything but isnt it a long standing legal doctrine in the US as well as many nations that accomplices to murder espcially actions that help facilitate the murder are held accountable for the same murder?

 

[joshkk]

Their own words may have doomed men who killed Ahmaud Arbery

The men's statements allowed prosecutors to give context to the short video that didn't show the entire shooting.

www.oregonlive.com

Some notable excerpts from the article (bold font mine):

"Greg McMichael, who was in the bed of a pickup truck when his son killed Arbery, told police the Black man "was trapped like a rat" and he told Arbery: "Stop, or I'll blow your f---ing head off!"

"The shooter, Travis McMichael, his dad, Greg McMichael and neighbor William "Roddie" Bryan all spoke extensively and candidly with Glynn County investigators just hours after Arbery was killed in their Brunswick, Georgia, neighborhood in February 2020. They told police they weren't sure exactly what Arbery had done wrong"

""I don't think the guy has actually stolen anything out of there, or if he did it was early in the process. But he keeps going back over and over again to this damn house," Greg McMichael said, according to a transcript of the interview that Glynn County police Sgt. Roderic Nohilly read in court."

"Bryan was on his front porch when he saw Arbery run past with the McMichaels' truck close behind. He told police he didn't recognize any of them, or know what prompted the chase, but still joined in after calling out: 'Y'all got him?' In an interview with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Bryan said he wanted to take a photo of Arbery to show police, but couldn't point to any crimes Arbery had committed. 'I figured he had done something wrong,' Bryan said. 'I didn't know for sure.'

 

[baker3gun]

How do you not get that he was running somewhere else and the 3 of them kept coming after him?

If my neighborhood has some crimes and then two neighbors see a guy sprinting away from a prior scene and the guy looks like the prior trespasser, it is not illegal for my two neighbors to follow him down the road or get out of a car in front of him to try to confront him.
Also, it's not illegal to have a gun.

My road is long. If my neighbors follow him for 10 seconds or 10 minutes, the time period does not change the legality of following him.

Straddling the road may be a traffic violation, but it's not restraint.

The trespasser obviously was capable of running around a car.

Confronting is not illegal.
Holding a gun is not illegal.
Yelling is not illegal.
Pointing the gun at a person who is running at you may or may not be illegal. Probably depends on the state.

The path you are on probably eventually leads to new laws that prohibit any kind of "holding" of a firearm, and then eventually to prohibiting possession. Probably.

 

[Koda]

Confronting is not illegal.
Holding a gun is not illegal.

is threatening to blow someones head off illegal?

 

[joshkk]

"Confronting is not illegal.
Holding a gun is not illegal.
Yelling is not illegal."


Even in states where open carry is allowed, you're not allowed to use your weapon to intimidate or threaten other people, which is clearly why he was carrying the gun when he exited the truck.

 

[joshkk]

Ironic that this guy, baker3gun, advocates that Arbery should have run onto neighboring property ("He wasn't boxed in. Southern residential lots are huge. The lawns were not fenced.") in the same breath that he says it's justifiable for him to have been confronted with firearms on suspicion of trespassing.

 

[baker3gun]

Ive sent plenty of rebuttles actually, if I should pick one lets ask you why the McMicaels claim of citizens arrest turned out unlawful? That's the whole crux of their self defense claim.

I'm not concerned with their defense strategy, and don't know all of it. It was obviously an ineffective strategy.

My point has been that Arbery assaulted TM, and that no evidence suggests that the McMichaels set out to murder Arbery, and if Arbery hadn't assaulted TM, then Arbery would not have been shot while assaulting TM.

I also make the point that a murder conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused willfully killed the victim without cause such as temporary insanity or self defense. If you can introduce reasonable doubt by portraying the incident as self defense, a murder conviction is impossible. Should be anyway, according to the letter of the law.

I'm interested in the mechanics of the incident and of the law as it was applied.

A lot of discourse here centers on emotional response to some incident.

Again, you don't want emotional response to sway the balance of justice. When that is permitted to happen, you live in a lawless society, and eventually you too will become a victim of that form of oppression.

I'm technically more curious now with how you've reached your opinions on this subject?

Watching some footage.

You present your position well but its all based on subjective opinion that doesn't line up with the evidence.

Yah. That's an inaccurate statement. Remember my earlier assertion? "Sky is blue." "No it's not, and your statements don't line up with something!!"

Whatever.

Sure... Arbury could have tried to flee no matter the situation. But likewise the McMichaels could have not pulled guns on him, if they didn't intend to shoot him and all.

Already covered this.

We could go on, I think what Im missing from your positions is how you came to reach it? What evidence do you have to show Arbury knew he could have tried to flee and not get shot in the back for example? ... and maybe then I might be able to see where your coming from.

I'm equally as good at reading Arbery's mind as you or anyone else.

If he ran out across that lawn, do you really think TM would have shot him in the back?

If you do, then I'll never be able to see where you're coming from.

"Rebuttal".

Okay.

I made pretty good points, and directly confronted and addressed numerous points made by others.
Few of my points have been directly addressed or confronted.

One more time: you don't want emotional response to sway the balance of justice or the mechanical application of the law. If the letter of the law becomes meaningless when confronted by emotional response, then the law has no purpose.

I'm done. Thanks.