Ahmaud Arbery Shooting

[Abhorsen]

No, that's not how that felony part of citizen's arrest works, as per your own sourced law code:

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

If he isn't escaping from said felony, then you don't get to arrest him. Basically, if you happen upon seeing a guy who's face perfectly matches a description for a murder suspect, you can't actually citizen's arrest him because he isn't currently escaping.

But you're right, the statute could be read in a way even worse for McMichaels.

Reading it a second time, the offense seems to have to have existed for probable cause to matter. So for example, if I secretly rob a bank, and walk funny, and a guy has a reasonable suspicion of me (but not probable cause) and citizen's arrests me, that's not a legal citizens arrest because he didn't have probable cause. But if I didn't rob a bank, but looked like I did past probable cause, since there is no offense committed, I could see that not being a legal citizen's arrest either. It's an if then clause, and if there is no felony, then you can't get to the then clause.

The other way to look at it, and it seems that a number of georgia lawyers that are quoted say this, is that the offense has to happen in your immediate knowledge. Basically, they are saying that the two bold words are linked:

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

Personally, I'm not so sure about this reading, but it seems to be a consensus among all the lawyer sources I see.

Regardless, and more importantly, I think I found some insight into the strategy of the prosecutors:

First, read this ConcealedCarry.com article from 2009:

When Does Citizens Arrest Become Aggravated Assault » Concealed Carry Inc

The little things that we do often get us into trouble. While the laws do vary from state to state, and clearly I'm generalizing here, the primary difference between armed citizens and law enforcement is our inability to...

www.concealedcarry.com

Then recall that the two charges that made it through grand jury are aggravated assault and felony murder. This dodges the citizen's arrest statute, I'm pretty sure. I've updated the legal definitions above with what assault and aggravated assualt are. This makes a much tighter case than what I was hypothesizing. Basically, making Arbery fear for his life is a crime, which is aggravated by doing it with a gun. This is a felony, and felony murder follows.

 

[Shipmaster Sane]

They had a shotgun (not shouldered) and a handgun (holstered).
The guy has quite a distance that he closed to them. Bolting for the woods, before they would have trained guns on him, he would not have been an easy target at all. Considering how dopey the shotgun guy reacted to him closing in, and the one on pickup, to the fight, he probably would be behind trees by then. And if they hit, they would be clearly in the wrong, hitting a far away escaping person for no good reason, in the back.

A weapon is a threat out to it's maximum range, not it's preferred range.

 

[Isem]

If he isn't escaping from said felony, then you don't get to arrest him. Basically, if you happen upon seeing a guy who's face perfectly matches a description for a murder suspect, you can't actually citizen's arrest him because he isn't currently escaping.

That seems like a very questionable reading of a law written back in the 1870s for a time when policemen frequently wouldn't be around. Ignoring how that reading makes it so you can't arrest someone mid crime/felony because they're not escaping at the time (which would make it patently useless to a citizen stuck without police support),

The more sensible reading of that if any crime is happening in your presence, or you have a reasonable belief that one is happening you can legally try to arrest the guy. Additionally in the case of a felony you can legally give pursuit otherwise you cannot chase after them.

Reading it a second time, the offense seems to have to have existed for probable cause to matter. So for example, if I secretly rob a bank, and walk funny, and a guy has a reasonable suspicion of me (but not probable cause) and citizen's arrests me, that's not a legal citizens arrest because he didn't have probable cause. But if I didn't rob a bank, but looked like I did past probable cause, since there is no offense committed, I could see that not being a legal citizen's arrest either. It's an if then clause, and if there is no felony, then you can't get to the then clause.

That's not how probable cause works. Probable cause is basically "Would a reasonable person think you had committed a crime". So if I run out of a house covered in blood and waving a bloody knife while people were screaming from inside the house you or the cops would have probable cause to arrest me on the rather reasonable assumption I had just murdered someone even if I had in fact not murdered anyone and you would not get into any trouble for it. Now if you keep them arrested after it becomes clear that no crime was actually committed and it was all just a misunderstanding then you're in trouble.

Now on the other hand, if you arrest someone just walking down the street because he's wearing a hat and you think that all people who wear hats must be serial killers then probable cause would not apply because reasonable people don't assume that hat wearers are actually serial killer.

First, read this ConcealedCarry.com article from 2009:

When Does Citizens Arrest Become Aggravated Assault » Concealed Carry Inc

The little things that we do often get us into trouble. While the laws do vary from state to state, and clearly I'm generalizing here, the primary difference between armed citizens and law enforcement is our inability to...

www.concealedcarry.com

That's talking about a case in Utah. This case is in Georgia. Do I really need to explain what the problem is with trying to use a self defense case from a different state with different laws? More importantly, they did not use force to arrest him rendering this argument worthless. At no point did they point their guns at him until the guy charged them and started wrestling for a shotgun. And having a gun on you does not translate into aggravated assault otherwise we would be arresting the mob prowling about the duo's neighberhood armed with guns.

Then recall that the two charges that made it through grand jury are aggravated assault and felony murder. This dodges the citizen's arrest statute, I'm pretty sure. I've updated the legal definitions above with what assault and aggravated assualt are. This makes a much tighter case than what I was hypothesizing. Basically, making Arbery fear for his life is a crime, which is aggravated by doing it with a gun. This is a felony, and felony murder follows.

I've told you from the start that citizen's arrest and the false imprisonment thing is ultimately not going to amount to anything as far as the case is concerned. This is basically a self defense case where the prosecution has to argue that by merely by showing up with guns and not even remotely pointing them in his direction they did something that justified Arbery trying to charge a man with a shotgun and wrestle it out of his hands which is going to be a very interesting argument to actually make when open carry is legal.

 

[Abhorsen]

That seems like a very questionable reading of a law written back in the 1870s for a time when policemen frequently wouldn't be around. Ignoring how that reading makes it so you can't arrest someone mid crime/felony because they're not escaping at the time (which would make it patently useless to a citizen stuck without police support),

The more sensible reading of that if any crime is happening in your presence, or you have a reasonable belief that one is happening you can legally try to arrest the guy. Additionally in the case of a felony you can legally give pursuit otherwise you cannot chase after them.

First, this law was updated about 10 years ago, so no, it wasn't written in the 1870s. The 1870s part is just what it was based on.

For the midcrime part, you would have immediate knowledge, and it would be allowed under the first sentence, not the second.

The the probable cause part is dependent on felony AND escape. If you don't think a felony just occurred that a guy is escaping from, then you can't arrest someone. In the case of the murder suspect, if he's not escaping, but just walking around, that's not a valid time to arrest (in practice, this would be handled by a warrant for arrest, which would re-allow citizens to arrest, but pretend there wasn't a warrant). Similarly, in the Arbery case, the only way an arrest would have been legal would be if the McMichaels had "reasonable and probable grounds" to believe that Arbery was escaping from a felony he just committed

That's not how probable cause works. Probable cause is basically "Would a reasonable person think you had committed a crime". So if I run out of a house covered in blood and waving a bloody knife while people were screaming from inside the house you or the cops would have probable cause to arrest me on the rather reasonable assumption I had just murdered someone even if I had in fact not murdered anyone and you would not get into any trouble for it. Now if you keep them arrested after it becomes clear that no crime was actually committed and it was all just a misunderstanding then you're in trouble.

Now on the other hand, if you arrest someone just walking down the street because he's wearing a hat and you think that all people who wear hats must be serial killers then probable cause would not apply because reasonable people don't assume that hat wearers are actually serial killer.

I'm not disagreeing (here) about the probable cause part. It's the rest of the law that I'm pointing out. The law refers to an offense that existed. If the offense didn't exist, then I'm not sure probable cause even enters into the legality of the arrest.

That's talking about a case in Utah. This case is in Georgia. Do I really need to explain what the problem is with trying to use a self defense case from a different state with different laws? More importantly, they did not use force to arrest him rendering this argument worthless. At no point did they point their guns at him until the guy charged them and started wrestling for a shotgun. And having a gun on you does not translate into aggravated assault otherwise we would be arresting the mob prowling about the duo's neighberhood armed with guns.

The aggravated assault laws are likely similar, so this is a useful case study. As for this case, if they put Arbery in reasonable fear of his life (by chasing him down then getting out of the car with a gun) that would make this a felony. If you look at the video (now posted in the threadmark with the police report), you can see he crossed the street because the guy with the shotgun was in the middle of the street, so he was trying to use the pickup as a shield. But there was a guy standing in the truck bay as well (maybe with his gun drawn at the time). This could well qualify as attempting to stop him.

The advantage to this line of argument is that you aren't allowed to stop a person, even if they are escaping from a felony, with a gun.

 

[Isem]

The the probable cause part is dependent on felony AND escape. If you don't think a felony just occurred that a guy is escaping from, then you can't arrest someone. In the case of the murder suspect, if he's not escaping, but just walking around, that's not a valid time to arrest (in practice, this would be handled by a warrant for arrest, which would re-allow citizens to arrest, but pretend there wasn't a warrant). Similarly, in the Arbery case, the only way an arrest would have been legal would be if the McMichaels had "reasonable and probable grounds" to believe that Arbery was escaping from a felony he just committed

I would argue there's a decent amount of leeway on the "escaping from the crime" part. Just because some distance is covered doesn't stop it from being escaping from the crime, particularly if the person is fleeing on foot.

I'm not disagreeing (here) about the probable cause part. It's the rest of the law that I'm pointing out. The law refers to an offense that existed. If the offense didn't exist, then I'm not sure probable cause even enters into the legality of the arrest.

It's the "on reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion." part of the law. Which is basically another way of saying "if you have probable cause". You don't need an offence to have happened just to have had a reasonable and probable grounds to believe one had occurred.

The aggravated assault laws are likely similar, so this is a useful case study. As for this case, if they put Arbery in reasonable fear of his life (by chasing him down then getting out of the car with a gun) that would make this a felony. If you look at the video (now posted in the threadmark with the police report), you can see he crossed the street because the guy with the shotgun was in the middle of the street, so he was trying to use the pickup as a shield. But there was a guy standing in the truck bay as well (maybe with his gun drawn at the time). This could well qualify as attempting to stop him.

The advantage to this line of argument is that you aren't allowed to stop a person, even if they are escaping from a felony, with a gun.

There are two problems with that line of argument. First off following someone is not illegal nor sufficient cause to suddenly claim you're afraid for your life even if they are armed. People tried that argument with Zimmerman and it held no water that time either. Secondly, the dude in question was not pointing his gun at him in any way nor doing anything aside from standing and calling out to him. Hell, he was so blatantly not attempting to stop him that Arbery felt entirely safe in continuing to run towards him before running to the other side of the truck, without slowing down at any point in time throughout.

 

[Abhorsen]

I would argue there's a decent amount of leeway on the "escaping from the crime" part. Just because some distance is covered doesn't stop it from being escaping from the crime, particularly if the person is fleeing on foot.

Oh, totally. But it does mean that crimes committed days before wouldn't qualify as escaping from those. That's what I'm trying to say here. McMichael's arrested him (based on his statement to police) because he was a break in suspect from previous reported crimes. That wouldn't make his arrest legal. For the arrest to be legal, the McMichaels would have had to believe that he had just committed a burglary.

It's the "on reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion." part of the law. Which is basically another way of saying "if you have probable cause". You don't need an offence to have happened just to have had a reasonable and probable grounds to believe one had occurred.

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is an interpretation of the law where you could have reasonable and probable grounds to believe person X committed a felony and is escaping, but if the crime didn't happen, a citizen's arrest would be a false arrest.

There are two problems with that line of argument. First off following someone is not illegal nor sufficient cause to suddenly claim you're afraid for your life even if they are armed. People tried that argument with Zimmerman and it held no water that time either. Secondly, the dude in question was not pointing his gun at him in any way nor doing anything aside from standing and calling out to him. Hell, he was so blatantly not attempting to stop him that Arbery felt entirely safe in continuing to run towards him before running to the other side of the truck, without slowing down at any point in time throughout.

It held a lot of ground with Zimmerman, that's what Zimmerman argued, and that's how he got off. Meanwhile, the sequence of events would go something like (being followed by a car with a guy in the truckbed demanding you stop. Then the car pulls in front of you, and a guy gets out with a shotgun, blocking your path. You try to go around the truck, but the guy moved in front of the truck to block that way as well. All of this together could create this impression.

 

[Isem]

Oh, totally. But it does mean that crimes committed days before wouldn't qualify as escaping from those. That's what I'm trying to say here. McMichael's arrested him (based on his statement to police) because he was a break in suspect from previous reported crimes. That wouldn't make his arrest legal. For the arrest to be legal, the McMichaels would have had to believe that he had just committed a burglary.

That's not the only reason they tried to arrest him, they saw him trespassing on the property on the day which coupled with the trespassing the previous time would give them reasonable grounds to believe that he had or was trying to rob the place.

Not what I'm saying. I'm saying that there is an interpretation of the law where you could have reasonable and probable grounds to believe person X committed a felony and is escaping, but if the crime didn't happen, a citizen's arrest would be a false arrest.

I'm aware that you're saying that, I'm saying it wouldn't apply because you having reasonable and provable grounds to believe that person X had committed a felony would shield you from it being a false arrest.

It held a lot of ground with Zimmerman, that's what Zimmerman argued, and that's how he got off.

That's my point, that saying that they followed him isn't going to do the prosecution any good. Though the prosecutor will no doubt try to mention it repeatedly anyway because a large part of his case is trying to pound on the table hard enough to convince the jury.

Meanwhile, the sequence of events would go something like (being followed by a car with a guy in the truckbed demanding you stop. Then the car pulls in front of you, and a guy gets out with a shotgun, blocking your path. You try to go around the truck, but the guy moved in front of the truck to block that way as well. All of this together could create this impression.

See here's the problem here a) asking someone to stop isn't illegal, b) the guy kept running towards him from a very large distance instead running in the opposite direction or anywhere else which is extremely odd for someone who was supposedly in fear of his life. I've seen a fair amount of police shooting vids and the only times I've seen something like that is from people who were actively trying to attack the cop in question with something and even most of those didn't try it from as far away as Arbery did.

 

[Abhorsen]

That's not the only reason they tried to arrest him, they saw him trespassing on the property on the day which coupled with the trespassing the previous time would give them reasonable grounds to believe that he had or was trying to rob the place.

They didn't though. Read their statement to police in the threadmarks.

I'm aware that you're saying that, I'm saying it wouldn't apply because you having reasonable and provable grounds to believe that person X had committed a felony would shield you from it being a false arrest.

I'm not sure that it would though.

That's my point, that saying that they followed him isn't going to do the prosecution any good. Though the prosecutor will no doubt try to mention it repeatedly anyway because a large part of his case is trying to pound on the table hard enough to convince the jury.

No, I'm saying Zimmerman was threatened, and he proved that. If the prosecution can prove that Arbery was threatened, it doesn't matter what McMichael's felt.

See here's the problem here a) asking someone to stop isn't illegal, b) the guy kept running towards him from a very large distance instead running in the opposite direction or anywhere else which is extremely odd for someone who was supposedly in fear of his life. I've seen a fair amount of police shooting vids and the only times I've seen something like that is from people who were actively trying to attack the cop in question with something and even most of those didn't try it from as far away as Arbery did.

He was also being followed by another car, and he did try to avoid the people as best as he could. The way in which he was approached basically tells the story. As for a) the demand that he stop combined with everything else could be illegal. One way this could be illegal is in the concealed carry article I linked, where there was a gun pointed at the robber. Another way this could be illegal is if people got in front of you and tried to block your way, even when you try to escape.

The cop part is different, as cops have a lot more authority than do civilians. They also have qualified immunity, which means that a lot of times, when they should be prosecuted they aren't.

 

[Isem]

They didn't though. Read their statement to police in the threadmarks.

Even under that circumstance, seeing him trespassing the other time and then seeing him running from the area this time would still give a reason to believe he'd tried again.

I'm not sure that it would though.

The alternative doesn't make sense though. It's a ok to arrest someone on a reasonable suspicion that they've committed a crime if they have committed the crime but it suddenly ceases to be ok if it turns out they didn't? That doesn't make any sense. You would still be working off the exact same information both times.

No, I'm saying Zimmerman was threatened, and he proved that. If the prosecution can prove that Arbery was threatened, it doesn't matter what McMichael's felt.

Zimmerman also followed the guy into the alley. Which is the point I'm making. Just because he followed the guy into the alley didn't justify him trying to beat Zimmerman up.

He was also being followed by another car, and he did try to avoid the people as best as he could. The way in which he was approached basically tells the story. As for a) the demand that he stop combined with everything else could be illegal. One way this could be illegal is in the concealed carry article I linked, where there was a gun pointed at the robber. Another way this could be illegal is if people got in front of you and tried to block your way, even when you try to escape.

Driving up to someone and asking him to stop is not illegal. Even if you are armed at the time. You would have to start pointing the gun at someone to get into illegal territory because you can't use or threaten lethal force to arrest someone (something which holds true for cops as well, they can only start shooting or pointing their gun at someone if they're a threat to their life or the general public.)

The cop part is different, as cops have a lot more authority than do civilians. They also have qualified immunity, which means that a lot of times, when they should be prosecuted they aren't.

There's not a case of authority, it's a case of someone having decided that trying to charge an armed man with a knife or the like rather then putting it down was a brilliant idea and getting shot for it. The only difference there is that the cops have a cam on them recording the whole thing meaning that even the most police hating of people has a hard time trying to argue why they should be prosecuted for shooting someone who tried to do that.

 

[Abhorsen]

Even under that circumstance, seeing him trespassing the other time and then seeing him running from the area this time would still give a reason to believe he'd tried again.

That's nowhere near probable cause though. That's maybe at the level of a hunch, which you might be able to argue up to reasonable suspicion that he just committed a crime. And that still wouldn't be enough. And I need a cite that they saw it before. Not just heard about it, saw the video.

Zimmerman also followed the guy into the alley. Which is the point I'm making. Just because he followed the guy into the alley didn't justify him trying to beat Zimmerman up.

No, the reason Zimmerman got off was because Zimmerman left, and the guy re-engaged. That made Zimmerman's subsequent actions self defense. If there hadn't been the disengagement, Zimmerman would have been guilty.

In this case, the disengagement doesn't even matter, because it happened during a felony. Also, there was no disengagement, as the video shows.

Driving up to someone and asking him to stop is not illegal. Even if you are armed at the time. You would have to start pointing the gun at someone to get into illegal territory because you can't use or threaten lethal force to arrest someone (something which holds true for cops as well, they can only start shooting or pointing their gun at someone if they're a threat to their life or the general public.)

Calling it "Driving up and asking to stop" is wildly mischaracterizing what happened, and what the McMichaels admitted to doing in the police report.

There's not a case of authority, it's a case of someone having decided that trying to charge an armed man with a knife or the like rather then putting it down was a brilliant idea and getting shot for it. The only difference there is that the cops have a cam on them recording the whole thing meaning that even the most police hating of people has a hard time trying to argue why they should be prosecuted for shooting someone who tried to do that.

Oh, if you are trying to argue that Arbery wasn't fearing his life because he ran at them, that's hilarious. It's called a flight or fight response. Also, that distance wasn't large at all. They were very close the entire time. From the video, it McMichaels is in front or just to the front left of the car (15 seconds), while Arbery was trying to escape by going to the other side of the car. Crucially, McMichaels was out of the car in the road, trying to stop him, then when Arbery tried to avoid him going around the car, McMichaels moved towards the front of the car to cut him off.

 

[PeliusAnar]

William "Roddie" Bryan Jr., the man who recorded the deadly February shooting of Georgia jogger Ahmaud Arbery, has been arrested on charges of felony murder and criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation [GBI] announced Thursday night.

That seems a bit over the top, but probably trying to pressure him into a plea deal.

 

[Abhorsen]

That seems a bit over the top, but probably trying to pressure him into a plea deal.

I agree, but I think they also want him to turn state's evidence. But legally speaking, if the McMichael's are guilty, it's not hard to show he is guilty of felony murder also. Felony murder is a really broad thing that is easily abused, as I noted before.

 

[Abhorsen]

Figured I'd toss an update here. All three of them are apparently guilty as sin. Also, fond of the N-word, which makes this a federal hate crimes case as well. More evidence has come out, showing that Bryan definitely helped with corralling Arbery, including swiping him with his car.

Ahmaud Arbery was hit with a truck before he died, and his killer allegedly used a racial slur, investigator testifies | CNN

William Bryan told investigators he heard Travis McMichael use a racial epithet after fatally shooting Ahmaud Arbery in Glynn County, a Georgia Bureau of Investigation agent testified Thursday at a preliminary hearing.

edition.cnn.com

 

[Shadepen97]

Figured I'd toss an update here. All three of them are apparently guilty as sin. Also, fond of the N-word, which makes this a federal hate crimes case as well. More evidence has come out, showing that Bryan definitely helped with corralling Arbery, including swiping him with his car.

Ahmaud Arbery was hit with a truck before he died, and his killer allegedly used a racial slur, investigator testifies | CNN

William Bryan told investigators he heard Travis McMichael use a racial epithet after fatally shooting Ahmaud Arbery in Glynn County, a Georgia Bureau of Investigation agent testified Thursday at a preliminary hearing.

edition.cnn.com

Is there another source that you can find? CNN has published a few artfully framed reports before about both this case and many others over the past few months. Giving a quick look in the article it looks more like a creative reinterpretation of events relayed from past reports and uses inflammatory language, emotional rhetoric , and uses their past news segments sandwiched by un-sourced quotes (and statements) attributed to the accused (and other parties) but could have been made-up just for the purposes of this article. I would take this article with a high amount of skepticism about anything presented in this article.

Edit: Added words in paranthesis or "()"

 

[Abhorsen]

Is there another source that you can find? CNN has published a few artfully framed reports before about both this case and many others over the past few months. Giving a quick look in the article it looks more like a creative reinterpretation of events relayed from past reports and uses inflammatory language, emotional rhetoric , and uses their past news segments sandwiched by un-sourced quotes (and statements) attributed to the accused (and other parties) but could have been made-up just for the purposes of this article. I would take this article with a high amount of skepticism about anything presented in this article.

Edit: Added words in paranthesis or "()"

There are a bunch of news reports, all basically saying the same thing: the McMichael's used the N-word and Bryan hit Arbery with a car, though some say that Bryan just used the car to corral him. Here's another, from CBS:

Judge advances murder case against 3 men in Ahmaud Arbery's death

Arbery, 25, was shot and killed in February.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Shadepen97]

No, there are a bunch of news reports, all basically saying the same thing: the McMichael's used the N-word and Bryan hit Arbery with a car, though some say that Bryan just used the car to corral him. Here's another, from CBS:

Judge advances murder case against 3 men in Ahmaud Arbery's death

Arbery, 25, was shot and killed in February.

www.cbsnews.com

Thank you, I honestly was worried that only CNN was publishing articles on it, but the knowledge that the case was not memory holed leaves me feeling conflicted. On one hand the idea that they are not publishing any new facts, but instead are try to push such a one sided narrative is disheartening. On the other hand, the fact that it may cause people to be interested in investing more things that have been going on make me smile. Best of luck to you and may god bless you for your endeavors.

 

[Zachowon]

Figured I'd toss an update here. All three of them are apparently guilty as sin. Also, fond of the N-word, which makes this a federal hate crimes case as well. More evidence has come out, showing that Bryan definitely helped with corralling Arbery, including swiping him with his car.

Ahmaud Arbery was hit with a truck before he died, and his killer allegedly used a racial slur, investigator testifies | CNN

William Bryan told investigators he heard Travis McMichael use a racial epithet after fatally shooting Ahmaud Arbery in Glynn County, a Georgia Bureau of Investigation agent testified Thursday at a preliminary hearing.

edition.cnn.com

I like to point out there is literally one one eye witness out of multiple others that brought up the N word.

It is highly suspect.

 

[Abhorsen]

I like to point out there is literally one one eye witness out of multiple others that brought up the N word.

It is highly suspect.

The eyewitness is also a defendent, and the McMichaels have already lied to police about other things. But more, it fits with them saying it multiple times on social media, including George McMichael saying that he loved his job because "there aren't any N-words there."

A federal hate crimes might take some work to prove, but I'd give fair odds to them being able to show it beyond a reasonable doubt. But more importantly, this evidence will be enough for the jury to envision this as a lynching instead of a citizens arrest gone wrong. Both are equally illegal (they end up with 1st degree murder), but the first is more likely to get a jury to convict instead of nullify. On top of all of that, framing it like this will likely make the sentence harsher. I don't see them getting life with parole here.

 

[Zachowon]

The eyewitness is also a defendent, and the McMichaels have already lied to police about other things. But more, it fits with them saying it multiple times on social media, including George McMichael saying that he loved his job because "there aren't any N-words there."

A federal hate crimes might take some work to prove, but I'd give fair odds to them being able to show it beyond a reasonable doubt. But more importantly, this evidence will be enough for the jury to envision this as a lynching instead of a citizens arrest gone wrong. Both are equally illegal (they end up with 1st degree murder), but the first is more likely to get a jury to convict instead of nullify. On top of all of that, framing it like this will likely make the sentence harsher. I don't see them getting life with parole here.

That is what I hate, how saying the N word already makes it a hate crime, when it doesnt mean you are racist....
Like seriously.

I doubt they will get that.
I havnt been following the case but that is the only eye witness to have heard hin say that out of multiple. It is suspect

 

[Abhorsen]

That is what I hate, how saying the N word already makes it a hate crime, when it doesnt mean you are racist....
Like seriously.

If a white man saying "f---ing N-----" after killing a black man doesn't make him a racist, I really don't know what does. When this is further backed up by a ton of social media posts with the N word, which were talking about how happy they were they didn't have to work with black people, it becomes a slam dunk. This is racism. If, upon reading this further evidence, you don't think this is racism, the problem is with you, not the data.

I havnt been following the case but that is the only eye witness to have heard hin say that out of multiple. It is suspect

Again, the one eyewitness is a defendant, the other witnesses are the people alleged to have said the slur. The other witnesses lied to police repeatedly, and also have a history of making racist statements. With a little more evidence (which I bet they have) and a decent prosecutor, that seems like enough to show racial animus.