Like a lot of people here, I’m in favor of the principle that the jury can decide the law as well as the facts (as it applies to a particular case).
I said before that the best defense for these guys was the LAW which permits civilians to detain a suspect under certain circumstances. That was their best defense because the facts in the case were not as good for them as the law.
But I can see that they jury could reasonably conclude that the law was being parsed by the defense to avoid the facts, and could JUDGE the law, as is their right, to be invalid under these particular circumstances.
I support the right to keep AND TO BEAR arms, but in the course of bearing arms, someone winds up dead, you are going to face a judge and sometimes a jury, and it happens that they don’t see things your way.
This was a close call. If they chased Arbery after he was found over a dead body with a bloody knife in his hand, they would not have been found guilty. If they caught him with stolen goods, they might not have been found guilty. But trespassing? If he went away in handcuffs and they were charged with brandishing or assault, they might walk.
But blowing his head off after uttering a threat to do that over a trespassing charge (on someone else’s property)? Guilty 99 times out of 100.
Good post.
Makes it clearer to me.
You misrepresent the defense.
Travis McMichael did not claim the shooting was justified in order to detain a burglar.
McMichael said Arbery grabbed McMichael’s gun and struck him in the head repeatedly so he fired in self defense.