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:
http://lawofselfdefense.com/arbery
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!
–Andrew
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
Law of Self Defense CONSULT Program
Pingback: PINNED: Ahmaud Arbery Files – Law of Self Defense
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.
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)!
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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?
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.