TexasCHLforum.com

AndyC wrote: Sun May 17, 2020 7:17 pm I'm aware of all of those - and you're going unnecessarily WAY beyond my simple point, which (yet again, for the 3rd or 4th time) is simply that if you want to plead self-defense, YOU are going to have to show (burden of production) the evidence - and the prosecutors can sit back and try to knock it down.

I mentioned that one tiny yet important aspect because most people seem blissfully unaware of it, assuming they don't have to produce anything. Wrong.

By the way, I've owned The Law of Self Defense 2nd Ed for about 6 years and the 3rd Ed for a few months, so you're not telling me anything I don't know. I'd also suggest you re-read the preface of the 3rd Ed, written by Massad Ayoob.

Now, have I made my point yet - or are we going to keep going in circles?

...and that’s going to be a toughy given that these two bubbas chased the man, confronted him with a gun and did not simply wait for police to take over from a distance. Their lives were not threatened, he was running away, and the man didn’t commit a murder or was carrying 2 TVs on his back. Nope, just running...

parabelum wrote: Sun May 17, 2020 8:15 pm

...and that’s going to be a toughy given that these two bubbas chased the man, confronted him with a gun and did not simply wait for police to take over from a distance. Their lives were not threatened, he was running away, and the man didn’t commit a murder or was carrying 2 TVs on his back. Nope, just running...

Another tactic would be just to tail him at a distance in their truck or trucks till the popo showed up.

Attorney Andrew Branca, Law of Self Defense, Ahmaud Arbery: Arrest Warrants: May 18, 2020

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.

Why does it say “....during the commission of felony...” on the warrant? What felony?

parabelum wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 11:21 am Why does it say “....during the commission of felony...” on the warrant? What felony?

The arrested individual commited murder during his commission of a felony, (to wit) Aggravated Assualt.

Archery1 wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 12:12 pm

parabelum wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 11:21 am Why does it say “....during the commission of felony...” on the warrant? What felony?

The arrested individual commited murder during his commission of a felony, (to wit) Aggravated Assualt.

Oh, that you for explaining!

parabelum wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 12:49 pm

Archery1 wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 12:12 pm

parabelum wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 11:21 am Why does it say “....during the commission of felony...” on the warrant? What felony?

The arrested individual commited murder during his commission of a felony, (to wit) Aggravated Assualt.

Oh, that you for explaining!

Open carry is legal. Brandishing is felony assault.

And apparently I can’t type at all...I meant “thank” not “that”

parabelum wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 2:42 pm And apparently I can’t type at all...I meant “thank” not “that”

I don't know what is worse. I looked right at the word and my brain saw thank.

AndyC wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 1:34 pm1. Did the McMichaels foresee a potential for shooting in that incident? I'm sure they did, otherwise why would they be armed. Q.E.D.

2. Following onto the above conclusion - that they were aware they might have to use a firearm in this incident - would it be reasonable for someone to have to shoot someone for an alleged offense (and a minor one) that they didn't even witness? I don't think so.

I believe their excuse for being armed is that they had connected Arbery to the burglary of a vehicle where a weapon was taken. In the other video, they also said they could see him reaching into his pants as if for a weapon. That is, IMO, a reasonable justification for being armed when you go to arrest him. I am not saying that the arrest was reasonable, just the justification for being armed.

I am fairly sure the court would agree with that and then look at if the arrest itself was reasonable. If it was, then they might walk on all charges. If the court says the arrest itself was not reasonable, then having firearms could not be reasonable either and murder during the commission of a felony would probably be the right charge.

Without analyzing the case any further (since we all have pretty much made up our minds on that), I will say that this might be the same mistake made in a few other recent cases. Murder during the commission of a felony may be a hard case to make for any jury in Georgia that is not in downtown Atlanta. The more rural, the harder that would be. A jury that might go for manslaughter might not go for murder.

Of course, I also thought the Dalals officer who shot the man in his apartment was overcharged the same way. Then she testified in court and convicted herself. I think this case may be as ripe for stupid testimony as that one.

If you have questions concerning the legal aspects of this case, this is your chance to ask a lawyer. Attorney Andrew Branca does a Facebook LIVE on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday at 1pm Central Time. He includes a Q&A session at the end.

https://www.facebook.com/LawofSelfDefense/

Law of Self Defense is live now on Facebook. Ahmaud Arbery: Propaganda & Cop Video: May 19, 2020 10:40am.https://www.facebook.com/LawofSelfDefense/

oljames3 wrote: Tue May 19, 2020 10:38 am Law of Self Defense is live now on Facebook. Ahmaud Arbery: Propaganda & Cop Video: May 19, 2020 10:40am.https://www.facebook.com/LawofSelfDefense/

I've looked at this guys comments and suggestions, which seems to be more clap-trap, armchair, legal analysis. It makes no useful sense to me.

How can he just jump over a guy driving a truck, a guy in back bed, over 4 minute follow and several cut-offs of a man running/jogging, and then they meet him in the road, stopped in direct confrontation standing with a gun displayed, and then say with a straight face that there might be some self-defense argument for the shooter.

He states: "Unless they affirmatively do something unlawful to communicate that apprehension, that apprehension is Arbery’s speculation, and that’s on Arbery." I'd say they communicated well every form of apprehension in Arbery. He wouldn't have had to speculate anything.