Ahmaud Arbery: Arrest Warrants: May 18, 2020

Hey folks,

In the last several shows I’ve mentioned that I would share with all of you the arrest warrants for Travis McMichael and Greg McMichael, but realized today that so far I’ve neglected to follow through on that.

NOTE: You can access all our coverage of the Amhaud Arbery case here:


In the interests of picking up that dropped ball, you’ll find both arrest warrants embedded below.

In this show I’ll also step through a legal explanation of the charges and some of the perhaps non-obvious implications of the particular charges chosen by the prosecution in this case.

Before I launch into all that, however, I touch briefly on the “false list of racism martyrs” propaganda technique that has always been a common practice of the racial grievance industrial complex, but has been kicked into overdrive as part of the false narrative construction around this Ahmaud Arbery case.  You owe it to yourself to be aware of this “false list” technique so that you’re not susceptible to this particular form of disinformation.

Enjoy the show!

Travis McMichael Arrest Warrant:

Greg McMichael Arrest Warrant:

As always, remember:

You carry a gun so you’re hard to kill.

Know the law so you’re hard to convict.

Stay safe!


Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
Law of Self Defense CONSULT Program

18 thoughts on “Ahmaud Arbery: Arrest Warrants: May 18, 2020”

  1. Pingback: PINNED: Ahmaud Arbery Files – Law of Self Defense

  2. There’s something that greatly annoys me about that list, too: there are at least two people in there that, while they may be “awful but lawful”, nonetheless should (and, to some extent, do) spark legitimate policy debates that are independent of race. However, since race is brought into the picture, those policy concerns are brushed aside.

    Let’s make that two things that annoy me about that list. There are also white people who are shot by police in questionable circumstances — enough so that they should also spark debate (and often do) — but they generally don’t get the attention that these “racist” cases do.

    Is it too much to ask that (1) we wait until the facts of the case come out before screaming “racism!”, and (2) that we put to rest cases where the “victims” were clearly in the wrong? Of course, that will likely never happen: there’s too much financial and political gain to be had by artificially propping up “racist” incidents.

    1. And, come to think of it, there’s even something more sinister afoot as well: if these “racist” events go away due to good reforms, there’s a good chance that the financial and political gravy train will stop; thus, there’s a perverse incentive to always make a fuss, but to half-heartedly push for reform (if reform is even proposed)!

  3. I don’t understand why the attorneys assume a trial will take place, since first a Grand Jury has to vote a TRUE BILL. It seems to me that the random Grand Jury from the county around Brunswick, GA will vote NO BILL. Do you think that Grand Jury will indict Arbery? Can the prosecutress use a grand jury from a black area around Atlanta, GA, ~200 miles north of Brunswick?

  4. So prosecutors (like Dial who signed the affidavit) have any conscience in swearing under oath that to the best of their knowledge & belief the accused committed some crime, like murder, when it seems so obvious that the crime could not be murder? Or do they just play the game of being a prosecutor with no conscience?

  5. What I’m interested in seeing is the warrant for Travis charging him with an act that constitutes aggravated assault. Based on the warrant for Greg it appears the prosecution is alleging the offense occurred when Travis “pointed and discharged” the shotgun. At that point in time justified use of force in self defense and justified use of reasonable force to arrest a fleeing felon would both be available, but if the alleged assault occurred prior to Arbery charging him the only defense available would be the justified use of reasonable force to arrest a fleeing felon.

    1. The reasonableness umbrella or determination doesn’t have anything to do with them arming themselves and pursuing Arbery. The lawful conduct of the McMichaels doesn’t have to be reasonable before they can claim the defense of self defense. The self defense situation or difficulty or use of force situation, what ever you choose to call it, doesn’t begin until one person uses or threatens the imminent use of unlawful force upon another. At that point, to be justified in defending yourself, you have to have an objectively reasonable subjective belief that it is necessary to use the degree of force you use at the point in time that you use it to defend yourself from what you subjectively and objectively believe to be a use or imminent use of unlawful force. But of course you are barred from asserting the defense of justified use of force in self defense if you were the first person to use or threaten the imminent use of unlawful force on the present occasion. Your subjective belief and the reasonableness of it is immaterial and irrelevant as to the aggressor determination, it is simply a factual determination based on the evidence as to the conduct of the parties.

      1. In the Law of Moses, I don’t recall a crime being defined in terms of reasonable vs unreasonable behavior. That kind of language makes money for lawyers.

      2. “OBJECTIVELY? reasonable SUBJECTIVE?” oxymoron? “objectively reasonable subjective belief that it is necessary to use the degree of force at the point in time”??? If a guy suddenly turns 90 degrees & charges you being 6 feet away, are we really speaking of reasonable & belief, & necessary, & degree of force”???
        I think we are talking about reacting suddenly, almost like when you touch a hot iron accidentally. Who is pondering & weighing reasonableness or degree of force? Now as to Arbery, when he saw that shotgun in Travis’ hand(s), he did have a brief time to consider what he needed to do about that shotgun. So we might think out the reasonableness of an action taken by a terrorized black guy confronted by 2 white guys, one of which had been on a prosecution team vs him before. As a terrorized Arbery got to the front of the truck, I am thinking it might have been “reasonable” for him to try to grab the shotgun only if it were not pointed at him.

  6. Andrew

    Is it possible there could be a problem with objective reasonableness? As an analogy if someone is in my driveway “casing” my car, would it be objectively reasonable to arm myself and go outside to “just ask him what he is doing?” Or would the objectively reasonable thing be to call the police and wait inside my house in safety until they arrived and questioned him. In other words, even if it is legal for me to be armed, and legal for me to go outside and ask them what they are doing, does that make it reasonable for me to go outside and do it?

    In the Level 1 class you say that “Reasonableness” is like an umbrella, that everything you do in self-defense has to reasonable. Your perceptions, your decisions, and your conduct must all be reasonable. Specifically, you talk about the hypothetical, imaginary person and tell us to think of the most responsible person we know and how they would have acted under the circumstances. When I think objectively, I would never have armed myself and pursued Ahmaud Arbery. You have stated that you would not have either. If we feel that way, isn’t it possible a jury could feel that way?

    1. As to the reasonableness of arming & pursuing Arbery, I think that the presence or absence of a NO TRESPASSING sign is important. But thus far, I have been unable to find proof either way, tho surely neighbors are witnesses to that.

    2. Mbrescia

      Reasonableness applies to your subjective belief that the use of otherwise unlawful physical force is necessary to protect yourself at the point in time you use such force to protect yourself. It also applies to your subjective belief that the extent of the otherwise unlawful force you use to protect yourself is necessary to protect yourself. It also applies to the degree of otherwise unlawful force you subjectively believe is necessary to adequately protect yourself. It also applies to your subject belief that there is a use or imminent use of unlawful force that creates the necessity for you to use otherwise unlawful force to protect yourself from irreparable injury. Your lawful acts do not have to be objectively reasonable, just lawful.

  7. So holding a long-gun in your hands while telling someone to stop and answer questions is “lawful open carry”? It only becomes assault once the muzzle gets pointed or with verbal threats? Was it reasonable to confront Arbery holding a firearm in hand rather than slung or holstered? In the absence of evidence of a deadly threat, LEOs do not confront suspects with firearms drawn, right? Does “lawful open carry” really include holding the firearm in hand(s) for immediate use or slung/holstered?

  8. I find this controversy to be confusing, and every time someone peels up another layer of this onion, surprises (for me) await. Among the questions needing answered:

    Georgia Investigator Dial said during the preliminary trial hearing that Travis (I think) pointed his gun twice as Arbery. The first time was presumably when 30 to 40 yards away when approaching, and Travis said ‘stop stop’. He said that was in a statement made to police (or to him?). He also said using ‘video stabilization and enhancement’ that Travis raised his gun in front of the truck…exactly when I am uncertain.
    If this is true (or if it can be proven) wouldn’t this be aggravated assault UNLESS he Travis had a) a self-defense claim or b)is executing a lawful citizens arrest ?

    Furthermore, did Travis regain ‘innocense’ if he lowered or cradled his gun before Arbery reached the vehicle?

    1. Addendum:
      According to Dial, the McMichaels “decided he was some place he was not supposed to be,” so they armed themselves, Gregory with a revolver and Travis with a shotgun; entered their pickup truck; and began pursuing Arbery. They did not call 911, and they later told first responders that their intention had been to capture Arbery and detain him so that police could identify him.

      They pursued Arbery, … Arbery attempting to change his direction in front of Bryan’s house to evade his pursuers, who ordered him to stop. Travis stepped out of his vehicle and then, according to his own testimony, told Arbery that they “just wanted to talk.” Arbery then continued fleeing down Burford Road, before shaking off his pursuers and doubling back west toward Holmes Road.

      … Bryan admitted that he made “several” attempts to block Arbery, which the young man dodged, and then pursued him the rest of the way up Burford Road until he turned right and ran northeast up Holmes Road. It was at this point that Arbery came upon the McMichaels from the opposite direction and Bryan started recording the events from his cell phone.

      According to Dial, Arbery “couldn’t run anymore and saw someone with a shotgun, so he chose to fight.” … Dial specifically testified that Travis already had his weapon in “firing position” before contact was made between himself and Arbery.

      Bryan’s cell phone recording shows that Arbery then struck Travis McMichael with his hand and began struggling with him over the shotgun. This is when Travis fired two more rounds into Arbery—one into the upper left portion of his chest and the other into the center of his chest. Travis McMichael admitted to first responders that he fired all three shots, for which spent shells were found at the scene. After these were fired, the video shows that Arbery fell to the ground.

      Travis McMichael told police who arrived on the scene that he “could tell Arbery was going to fight.” It was at this time that he “squared up” into a fighting stance and shot him.

      1. Attorney Andrew Branca

        “According to Dial, the McMichaels “decided he was some place he was not supposed to be,” so they armed themselves, Gregory with a revolver and Travis with a shotgun; entered their pickup truck; and began pursuing Arbery.”

        Now we have TRIPLE hearsay, and a lot of mind reading. This is just not evidence.

    2. Attorney Andrew Branca

      “Georgia Investigator Dial said during the preliminary trial hearing that Travis (I think) pointed his gun twice as Arbery.”

      Was Dial personally present to witness this conduct? A: No. So it’s hearsay, not admissible, and likely the typical nonsense that’s created by prosecutors to drag people into court. Just like the charging document that dragged Zimmerman in to court was full of allegations–e.g., racial animus–that were never even mentioned at trial.

Leave a Comment