Ahmaud Arbery: For Your Consideration: May 14, 2020
Georgia’s citizens arrest statute:
§17-4-60 Grounds for arrest
Georgia’s justification statute (including use of force in making lawful arrest):
§16-3-20. Justification
Georgia’s felony burglary statute
§16-7-1. Burglary
Georgia’s aggravated assault statute:
§16-5-21. Aggravated assault
Georgia’s simple assault statute:
§ 16-5-20. Simple assault
Georgia’s open carry statute:
§ 16-11-126. Having or carrying handguns, long guns, or other weapons; license requirement; exceptions for homes, motor vehicles, private property, and other locations and conditions
Home under construction qualifies for felony burglary purposes.
Smith v. State, 226 Ga. App. 9 (GA Ct. App. 1997)
Assault requires an unlawful act.
Woodruff v. Woodruff, 22 Ga. 237 (GA Sup. Ct. 1857)
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
Some of the best legal info and analysis you will get
“Poor Judgment.” Agreed! Were these guys “going to the fight”? Certainly, they weren’t going to a mensa meeting. One guy is dead, two guys will undoubtably be tried for murder. I guess they made their point. Tragic and Pointless!
PS I find the lack of comments interesting.
It was not tragic or pointless. A violent felon is dead. When a violent felon is killed in the commission of a violent felony the slayer is doing a great public service, a good deed for society, an act worthy of commendation. The English law on which our law is based didn’t just require the court to discharge a defendant when he was found justified in killing a felon, the court was required to dismiss the defendant with commendation.
As usual great job!
Any thoughts about keeping this informative presentation free, as compared to be available to paying subscribers after a few days. This could certainly be considered a public service presentation. Maybe some from the media might actually learn something.
Andrew,
I feel that this particular video is so important to remain openly available, that I am willing to contribute to a video “scholarship” fund.
Andrew, you asked in the video for anyone with evidence that Travis threatened Arbery with his weapon before he goes around the truck.
In the original video of the shooting, it pretty clearly appears that this is the case. The link below is to a clip of the video after being stabilized just a small amount.
https://m.imgur.com/gallery/ge7BDGh
You clearly see Travis raise both hands to shoulder height in front of his body while holding his weapon. The stance and position of his head indicates he is very much pointing his weapon at Ahmaud. I assume the man filming will have to explain what he saw in that moment, but I want to hear your thoughts on how this may impact the self defense argument.
You said multiple times that this would indeed raise Travis’s actions to aggravated assault if it happened before Arbery turned. Would Travis still be able to claim self defense if this clip does show Travis brandishing his weapon in a threat of violence?
Is there anything that indicates Arbery is performing any action that would require this threat of force in response?
Sorry, I just don’t see what you say you are seeing. Also, at that so-called pivotal moment I note that Arbery is running directly at Travis McMichael, so Travis making a defensive motion with his gun would be characterized an act of self-defense against an oncoming Arbery. It’s indisputable that at this moment it is Arbery closing on the McMichaels, not the McMichaels closing on Arbery.
–Andrew
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
Unfortunately, Travis must have left his Pepper Spray at home. He won’t do that again.
Is that a case of reasonable fear that Arbery is closing on the McMichaels? Arbery was running in that direction before Travis parked his truck in the road. If a person was reasonably afraid of that movement, would they have put themselves in front of the individual already running in that direction?
You have already said in this video at 25:00 as well as during your appearance on Rekieta Law at 57:55
https://youtu.be/9sieuHViTQ4?t3475
that the McMichaels were in fact NOT trying to arrest Ahmaud when they were in the road but only wanted to ask questions to determine if they could make one. You in no uncertain terms state that Arbery at the moment was under no obligation to stop at all when 2 unknown civilians in the public road in the direction he was previously running asked him to stop.
In that video, your exact quote is that “asking someone to stop so you can ask them questions, they can blow you off. They dont have to pay any attention to you at all. They can say piss.”
In this video, your exact quote is that “Arbery is entirely free to say ‘nope, I’m not interested in talking to you. Piss off. Then if they point guns at him or they try to use force, that becomes a different situation.”
You also directly said that the McMichaels were AS A POINT OF FACT not in Arbery’s path because he is free to run around the truck. If the defense claims that it is unreasonable to assume that the McMichaels are not in Atbery’s path, is it not then unreasonable for them to claim that Arbery’s path is IN FACT directed at the McMichaels?
Do you now believe that Travis was justified to brandish his weapon from the start of the video because he parked his truck in the road in the direction that Arbery’s forward progress was leading him?
Why then did you say in this video that we would be looking at a whole different case if there was evidence that Travis was pointing his gun at Arbery at the start of the video?
Can you explain how you simultaneously believe that Arbery was free and in his right to run forward and around the truck to leave if he was ony being asked to stop and that he was lso obligated to stop or be perceived as a threat if he did not?
I made a long comment on this a couple of hours ago and it hasn’t shown up. I guess I did something wrong. I’m not going to do it over again right now because I don’t want it to show up twice. I will restate one part of it. I believe the facts show they did arrest the homicide victim by shooting to death The hue and cry went up when he exited the home, he fled the scene of the offence, they gave chase, and they arrested him with deadly force. Don’t know how much notice of intent to arrest was required, or how much was given, but when he hit the dirt and died he was arrested in fact, whether it was a lawful or unlawful arrest.
No. Just because you’ve shot someone dead doesn’t mean you’ve made a citizens arrest, especially when you yourself don’t claim you were attempting to make an arrest. By your reasoning George Zimmerman arrested Trayvon Martin, and an intended rape victim who shoots and kills her rapist has arrested her rapist.
That’s just not how it works.
–Andrew
Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC
No, you do not believe that Travis was justified to brandish his weapon from the start of the video because he parked his truck in the road in the direction that Arbery’s forward progress was leading him?
In my understanding the shooter hasn’t made a statement yet, so I don’t what he will say, if anything. The only offense in this case is brandishing. Assuming the prosecution has some evidence of brandishing, and we should assume that he does, you need to be able to justify brandishing, because their won’t be any way to prove you didn’t brandish. Very hard to prove a negative, make the prosecution prove the negative. Instead of having to produce enough evidence for the jury to reasonably doubt that you were brandishing, make the prosecution produce enough evidence for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that you were not justified in brandishing. Don’t waive any of your absolute defenses. Your attorney can argue that what you were doing was not brandishing, and also argue that even if it was brandishing it was justified.
There was no evidence that Zimmerman had any grounds for an arrest or that his conduct was in furtherance of his intent to make a citizens arrest. The McMichaels have injected the issue of citizens arrest into this case by declaring their conduct at the time of Arbery’s assault was in furtherance of their intent to make a citizens arrest. I am sure their defense attorneys wish it was not so, but in order to be entitled to a self defense instruction in this case the the defense is going to have to introduce substantial evidence that the McMichaels had grounds for a citizens arrest, otherwise the Court will refuse to instruct the jury on self defense pursuant to section 16-3-21 (b) (2).
Pingback: Ahmaud Arbery: Citizens Arrest, Part 2 – Law of Self Defense
Sorry, I wrote this when your reply was only “no” and I believed it was.in response to my questions.
Pingback: Ahmaud Arbery Files – Law of Self Defense