Excellent
article published today. The authors key points are located about half way through under the "My take" section:
"As a law enforcement officer, I have to practice objectivity. On most calls for service, I am not present to see the allegations presented by a civilian regarding an assault or similar allegation against another person. Objectivity comes naturally to me by practice.
I want you, the reader, to practice your best to be objective with me. Put aside the forced “two white men kill an unarmed black man” racism narrative that is being pushed by the media and lets consider the facts at hand. I will address those issues later.
(1)
Legalities of the Incident
The Legalities of the incident are first and foremost important factors to this tragedy is to be judged. The two overarching legal issues here are that of a citizens arrest (a) and self defense (b).
(a) Given that the actions by the McMichaels – who determined to locate and detain Arbery as a suspect in a series of burglaries – to try and affect an arrest. The two men essentially instigate the entirety of the incident. Therefore must determine first if the citizen arrest itself was justifiable.
There are two key issues with the McMichael’s claims of a citizen’s arrest. First, at best, the incident at hand was tantamount to a trespassing incident. No burglary took place on this date and time and therefore the “citizen arrest” in this instance is unlawful (see law above) as the crime committed was no longer taking place.
Now, as a police officer, there are times where I must detained people on the basis of suspicion of a crime. This is a lawful act in my duties. And sometimes we are wrong. Police officers can detain and arrest in felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions (only if present and witnessed by the officer).
The statue above does not allow citizens to affect an arrest for anyone for a crime below a misdemeanor.
Now lets suggest the McMichael’s thought a burglary had just taken place. Is their platform solid? Even in law enforcement, officers must be careful about the action of detaining or arresting someone based on the crime at hand. We call it, “having a solid platform.” It isn’t worth the fight (literally) at the present moment or later in court (via civil lawsuits) to justify why you had to subdue the jaywalker with flurry of baton strikes. It’s not worth the battle. Now had the same use of force taken place against someone wanted for murder, then the battle is worthwhile.
The call to 911 made by someone among the McMichael’s party does nothing to defend the mindset that they believed a burglary had just taken place. At best it suggest suspicion of prior incidents.
This therefore violates another key portion of the legal statue that states the incident must be committed “in his presence or immediate knowledge of.” A “stale” felony (one that occurred at a different time) does not warrant a civilian to act to arrest anyone.
Furthermore, it is difficult to suggest that Arbery was attempting to flee. Arbery can be seen jogging steadily toward the McMichael’s truck (which was parked ahead of him waiting) – not running away from him. Had Arbery desired to get away, he could easily flee toward the wooded side yards of the streets he ran on – not jog through the street in plain view.
(b) Self-defense.
Georgia is a “stand your ground” State. In such states, individuals who are on the receiving end of unlawful violence need not back down before defending themselves with reasonable force. Such a removal of a need to stand down is similar to the right afforded to law enforcement (CPC 835) but does not extend them the duty to place themselves in such situations with authority. Gregory being a former law enforcement official lost similar authority and rights when he retired.
Other states that do not have “stand your ground” laws limit the scope of self defense to homes or specified areas. While those states don’t explicitly suggest the right to self-defense outside certain areas, it is understood to be both reasonable and implied that one may defense themselves to a violent attack.
Deadly force is also applicable if the person reasonably believes that the attacker poses a threat of great bodily injury or death. The law does note that (a) you cannot be the aggressor and (b) you cannot be involved in the crime."
Many have attacked “stand your ground” laws especially in the wake of Trayvon Martin’s death at the hand of Andrew Zimmerman. But the legalities behind the law are not an issue – what is an issue is the perversion of the law in the minds of vigilantes like Zimmerman and in this case the McMichael’s.
In fact the “stand your ground law” gave Arbery the right to fight with all his might and try and disarm Travis.
The McMichael’s did not have a legal basis to detain or arrest Arbery and therefore were indeed the aggressors in this situation. Also consider the video. While obscured and very short in length, the initial shot happens almost immediately upon contact between Arbery and Travis. I would venture to judge that there was hardly any time to suggest that Arbery posed any grave danger to Travis, especially given that Travis was armed and Arbery was not. This, therefore, makes Travis the aggressor.
At minimum, the case should be forward by the DA as voluntary manslaughter – if not murder. In my opinion, especially with the lack of standing on either legal issue above, a charge for murder is most accurate."
