RACE CARD
Bigstock
Previous Post
Next Post

The Brady gun control operation (as they’re currently known; that name is subject to change without notice), is taking advantage of the death of Ahmaud Arbery to criticize a law that protects Georgians’ self-defense rights and to further attack the right to keep and bear arms.

Yesterday they tweeted:

That’s three lies in one brief tweet. As things look now, it seems highly unlikely that the McMichaels will walk free. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation has taken the case away from the local good ol’ boy network and both men have been charged with murder. And the feds are considering charges as well.

Nor will a stand your ground (SYG) defense help them. Georgia Code § 16-3-21(b) does not allow a SYG claim when the shooter initiated the encounter. The McMichaels blocked the road (see video here), and Travis McMichael, holding a shotgun, attempted to stop Arbery. Arbery then tried to avoid Travis by going around the other side of the truck and Travis again intercepted Arbery.

Note that neither the McMichaels or their attorney have invoked a SYG defense, and the video makes it unlikely that a judge would allow if they do in the future. But that hasn’t stopped Brady from claiming the law will spring Arbery’s killers.

Further, the stand your ground law is not racist. Not unless Brady believes that a black person isn’t capable of “reasonably believing that such a threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself,” that they lack the mental capacity to do so. That would be racist.

Otherwise, the code as written in no way distinguishes between people on the basis of their color, sex, sexual orientation, religion marital status, or anything else other than which party is the criminal aggressor. The law is available as a defense to any honest person, regardless of race.

Or perhaps Brady thinks stand your ground is racist because blacks might be more likely to attack people, and thus be shot in self defense. If so, they might want to inspect their own beliefs, and why they hold them.

Some might hold that SYG can still apply in the McMichael case because Arbery effectively initiated the encounter by “burglarizing” an under-construction house and the McMichaels were lawfully attempting a “citizen’s arrest.” (That is not just speculation on my part; Twitter twits have tried that argument on me.)

The problem with that is multi-part. While it appears that Mr. Arbery did enter the house, under § 16-7-21, entering an open structure and just looking around isn’t a crime. It would rise to misdemeanor trespass if he was told to leave and did not do so. But that didn’t happen…he left on his own.

§ 17-4-60, only allows a “citizen’s arrest” “if the [felony] offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.” Even if you claim Arbery entering the building was attempted burglary (something the owner himself says it was not), the McMichaels didn’t see that. Gregory McMichael only reported seeing “a black man running down the street.” The 911 call reporting someone in the house came from a different person not involved in the pursuit.

Ahmaud Arbery did not “initiate” the encounter by committing a crime that day. The McMichaels chose to initiate it and therefore do not have SYG immunity.

And the McMichaels weren’t attempting a “citizen’s arrest.” They never claimed that they were. That excuse was invented in April by Waycross DA George Barnhill as he recused himself from the case.

So to sum up the assertions in Brady’s purposefully incendiary the McMichaels likely won’t walk free, the stand your ground law doesn’t apply, and it isn’t in any way racist.

What is racist is violence-enabling victim disarmament. The earliest “gun control” law in America that I’ve found was a 1656 Colony of Massachusetts Bay “General Court” order:

“…henceforth no negroes or Indians, although servants to the English, shall be armed or pmitted to trayne…”

The “Jim Crow” laws of the Democrat-led Southern states were just as racist, targeting blacks.

So if Brady is concerned with racist laws, they should direct their outrage at gun control restrictions.

Previous Post
Next Post

188 COMMENTS

  1. Well… that’s adorable…

    Everyone on the poverty pimp side knows they’ll walk because it’s a bullshit case, so now they’re already covering their bases as more and more things come out to prove it’s a bullshit case.

    • My position is based on the police incident report, assorted DA documents, multiple videos, and statements made by Mr. McMichael and the owner of the under-construction house.

      As more comes out about the elder McMichael’s past, he looks even more like a loose cannon. His POST certification was suspended for years, but he continued to work as a law enforcement officer for the DA’s office. That may end up tainting past cases he was involved in. I’ve already seen reports of defense attorneys looking into getting convictions overturned.

      I’ve never claimed Arbery was an angel. But no one has shown that he committed a crime that day that would lawfully justify what the McMichaels admit to doing. If you have something please share.

      • The question of if he actually committed a crime is irrelevant. The only relevant question is if the people chasing him had reasonable and probable cause to BELIEVE he committed a crime. Given that he met at least half of the elements of felony burglary in the 1st degree, that’s hard to argue. A police officer would have been perfectly justified in arresting the “jogger”. The same exact standard applies under Georgia law to citizen’s arrests.

        • Since he clearly did NOT commit a crime, the only reason they had for suspecting him was the color of his skin, which no longer qualifies as “probable cause”. They are going to hang.

        • “His POST certification was suspended for years, but he continued to work as a law enforcement officer for the DA’s office. That may end up tainting past cases he was involved in.”

          Mmmmm, smells like white privilege.…

        • I already laid out how they personally observed two of the three elements of 1st degree burglary. (Entry into the dwelling, and lack of authority to do so.)

          The 3rd (intent) can be inferred from the fact that…
          1. He had been there before (at night) and got caught on tape
          2. Material were missing from the site after his previous “visits”. (Go look it up, the first press conference from the owner revealed he was missing $2500 in fishing supplies.)
          3. He ran when confronted.

          That’s more than enough cause to reasonably suspect that the scumbag in question had committed 1st degree burglary and carry out a citizen’s arrest. This is black letter law commies. Suck it.

          —-
          Added by Carl Bussjaeger:
          The house owner says nothing was stolen.

          The person who saw him enter the house was not the McMichaels. They only told 911 they saw him running.

          Even a strong suspicion is NOT probable cause for a “citizen’s arrest” in Georgia.

        • “I already laid out how they personally observed two of the three elements of 1st degree burglary. (Entry into the dwelling, and lack of authority to do so.)

          Wrong, the owner of the owner of the property who had custody of the video, said the murders had never seen the video.

          Ivan, you must be paid by the response.

          You are such an effective ambassador for the character and integrity of out typical responsible gun owner, Bloomberg thanks you!

        • Incorrect. § 17-4-60: “A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge.”

          Reasonable suspicion is what police require. Private individuals require actual knowledge of a crime, and pursuit requires a felony.

        • When you quote the statute, you might look like less of an ass if you quote the whole thing.

          § 17-4-60
          “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.”

          Georgia has two standards for citizen’s arrest. One general and one for felonies with fleeing suspects. Guess which one applies to 1st Degree Burglary?

          I’d accuse you of misrepresenting the record, but I don’t think you know what that means.

        • Carl, if you’re going to reply, have the balls to reply and not edit my posts.

          That’s bottom tier level bullshit that is simply unacceptable internet decorum. At this point, if someone can go in and edit any post made by a user, we have no reason to believe anything posted was actually written by anybody other than TTAG staff to drive clicks. That’s rage bait site level scumbaggery and I had expected better from a site that claims to hold itself to some sort of journalistic standard.

          You have no idea how badly you fucked up on that one.

        • It’s amazing twits like serge are defending the actions of these two. Go read what Dana Loesch wrote, her detailed piece is spot on.

          The cops on the scene wanted to arrest the mcmichaels that day and now the GBI has. They had ZERO reason to stop or confront Arbery. The GA law requires you to witness a crime, these two twits didn’t know if Arbery was a contractor looking at something, a friend of the builder, etc.

          They should have minded their own business rather than being neighborhood cops.

          They are going to prison for decades if not life. They are not helpful to the pro 2A side.

        • Old man, the law requires no such thing. It requires reasonable and probable suspicion of a felony and a fleeing felon. That’s it. Learn to read statutes.

      • By Carl’s logic every case that FBI management has touched is tainted (and which is likely the case).

      • “Arbery then tried to avoid Travis by going around the other side of the truck and Travis again intercepted Arbery.”

        There is still a lot of unknowns and a lot of questionable things on both sides of this case which will hopefully be cleared up in the adversarial process. But this is a good example of how multiple people all see different things in the same video. It looks to me like McMichael did not “intercept” Arbery at all. It looks to me like Arbery ran to McMichael.

        That may or may not be material. A man being pursued by men with guns may feel inclined to go on the offensive. But then again a man with a gun who is charged by another man who tries to take his gun may feel inclined to defend his life and his possession of that weapon. And gun that is being fought over may be discharged inadvertently.

  2. I hope all the facts come out and we finally get some definitive answers in this case.

    What’s driving me nuts is how everyone is fighting tooth and nail against the 2 surviving guys without having a clue what happened.

    The dead man’s lawyer was comparing this guy to Trayvon in a CNN article I read. That’s not a complimentary comparison. In fact, if the deceased and had actually done nothing wrong, it would be an insult!

    So the family’s legal representation is comparing the case to one that was a perfectly plausible self defense case, called originally what it was by the investigating police. THEN made into a political circus, and once again called defense by a jury?

    I don’t know why you would choose to associate your case with one that was ultimately decided against your position multiple times. Do they WANT to lose because complaining and rioting is better than boring old constitutional justice?

    • DING DING DING! We have a winner. This was never about winning in court but about disrupting the 2020 election so that “Muh’ Bad Orange Man” doesn’t sweep enough of the House or Senate to start passing constitutional amendments. (Oh, and to deflect from news that should get O’bongo’bongo put in the greybar hotel for the rest of his life.)

      • Speaking of the upcoming election, Trump visited here, in Allentown, PA today. Just returned from the gathering. People lined the main and side roads for several miles to greet his motorcade. Seemed like many thousands, but so spread out, hard to tell. The enthusiasm was loud, people dancing, chanting, waving flags and signs. A lot of people. It took an hour to make the usual 12-minute drive back to my home. Despite the traffic, everyone was polite, smiling, and waving each other on as we navigated through the driveways and intersections. Uplifting.

        • “Speaking of the upcoming election, Trump visited here, in Allentown, PA today. Just returned from the gathering. People lined the main and side roads for several miles to greet his motorcade.”

          Check this news out –

          “His approval ratings have never been higher, including on Election Day 2016. Plus, he’s ahead of Biden in battleground states.

          Well, that’s interesting, I thought, as I noted that the RealClearPolitics homepage stated that President Trump was tied for his all-time high in CNN polling.”

          https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/05/cnn-buries-its-own-poll-results-on-trumps-favorability-guess-why/

        • So what? Hey, there were dozens of people within a few miles of Biden’s basement, too. Some of them probably knew his name!

        • “Nuremberg, circa 1936 was pretty impressive as well.”

          The gathering of the National SOCIALIST Party, as I recall. No surprise a good little Nazi like ‘miner would know that… 🙂

        • Larry in TX,

          You said “So what?”
          Simple: My wife and I enjoyed it and, apparently, so did many others.

          Or did I miss that the rest of your comment was wry sarcasm about Biden?

        • Geoff,

          Thank you for posting that. I used to subscribe to The National Review. Perhaps I should look at them more often.

    • The dead man’s lawyer (Benjamin Crump) was also Martin’s lawyer (and Tamir Rice’s , and Mike Brown’s and Terence Crutcher’s), and I don’t think they’ve ever given up the idea that Zimmerman tracked Martin down and shot him, despite their own witness saying Martin initiated the final, fatal confrontation.

      As far as Crump is concerned, every dead black person was murdered in cold blood, regardless of the facts. There’s a reason all his songs sound the same

    • I think the lawyer for Trayvon was the same for this case, thus they compare Arbery’s case to that one. I don’t like that bald headed lawyer, — he wants gun control.

      Arbery has the right to stand his ground against people trying to unlawfully detain him by use of arms. Trying to physically stop him could lead to numerous different charges ranging from aggravated assault to kidnapping.

      The black man has human rights too. He should have been treated the same way white men want to treat the McMichaels. The constitution is supposed to protect every human.

  3. When I go “jogging” I always trespass on private property and sneak into unfinished construction to rip off copper tubing and wiring.

    • And what evidence do you have Arbery did that? Loh, none since the videos just show him looking around.

      • There are at least 4 videos showing Arbery in the residence under construction, at night, since October 2019. The owner stated that stuff has been stolen from there before but he has never reported it to police. That’s why he installed the cameras. Mcmichaels investigated Arbery when he was with the DA’s office and knew him. He was shown the other videos previously by the owner who sought his expertise as former law enforcement. The video of Arbery inside the residence the day he died are 4 minutes long but all anyone ever shows is a 7 second loop. Why?

    • Yes, closer inspection of the video will show that he was jogging with 8 feet of copper pipe hidden under his T-shirt….

    • Do you also wear unlaced Timberland boots and jorts halfway down your backside when jogging 14 miles from your home?

  4. So I don’t see any evidence Arbery damaged anything nor was he carrying stolen goods as he was jogging. Why interject a baseless speculation into this discussion?

    • Because both of those variables are irrelevant to the case at bar. Felony burglary in the 1st degree does not require either to be an element of the crime.

      • …and no one has bothered with criminal trespass claims or why a builder might put video cameras in new houses under construction.

        • There are at least 4 videos showing Arbery in the residence under construction, at night, since October 2019. The owner stated that stuff has been stolen from there before but he has never reported it to police. That’s why he installed the cameras. Mcmichaels investigated Arbery when he was with the DA’s office and knew him. He was shown the other videos previously by the owner who sought his expertise as former law enforcement. The video of Arbery inside the residence the day he died are 4 minutes long but all anyone ever shows is a 7 second loop. Why?

      • Except there is no evidence that he committed felony burglary. And even if he had at some point in the past the McMichaels had not seen it and given that they said “he fit the description” they admitted to not having direct knowledge therefore everything they did was outside the law. Had this ended differently and Arbery was charged with something his defense attorney would point out that he was unlawfully detained. The judge would have dismissed the case and if the DA was unhappy he could not only charge the McMichaels for unlawful detention but obstruction as well since their illegal actions let a “criminal” go free.

        Racism is a much devalued term from over use these days but that doesn’t mean racism doesn’t exist. I think it is safe to say that you are a racist.

        • I think it’s safe to say you’re an asshat. See the article picture for why I don’t give a shit if you call me a racist. It’s not an argument and proves you don’t have one.

          Just by entering the building with the intent to steal something, he committed felony burglary. The 911 call immediately before they took after him disproves your bullshit that “they didn’t see anything”. They SAW him leaving the building and take off running when confronted by a neighbor. That is the DEFINITION of reasonable suspicion as required under Georgia citizen’s arrest statute. No “immediate knowledge” is required for a felony.

          Quit regurgitating partial information from the biased mainstream media.

          I’ve posted no less than three analysis videos that go over ALL available information. You have no fucking clue what you’re talking about.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrfTi1RbDf0&t=67s

          https://youtu.be/sjCzJyFKoqo

          https://youtu.be/1pX19TA2n58

          I’ll accept your apology for being an ass when you watch the videos where a cop and a respected civil rights lawyer BOTH tell you your argument is full of shit.

        • I have analyses of the video not associated with the MSM. Go back to the Ukraine where belong and yeah, I deliberately inserted the “The.”

        • You don’t have to prove intent to have reasonable suspicion of a crime. Lack of intent is a defense in court, not a reason to invalidate arrest.

        • You have to have *SOMETHING* to have reasonable suspicion of a crime, they had a black man running down the street. They are gonna hang.

        • “Just by entering the building with the intent to steal something, he committed felony burglary.“

          Then later on, you say intent is not an element needed for a felony charge.

          By asserting intent, you were a certain facts not in evidence… again.

        • No commie, I said intent was not an element required for an ARREST. Learn English you kung-pow-troll.

      • Entering an open building to have a look is not a crime. The owners of the property stated that nothing was stolen.
        The only crime here was committed by two morons who chased, blocked, assaulted and killed an unarmed man!

        • Give up guys, the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger effect is not able to admit he is wrong.
          Feel sorry for him, imagine going through life thinking you are superior to everyone while the reality is you are a dumb ass.

        • Oh look… Mr. “I can recite 1st year psych bullshit” is back.

          I cited the relevant statutes and provided at least three analyses that go over all available evidence.

          Your only response? “Yous a racis”

          I think we all know who the retard is in this conversation.

        • “Entering an open building to have a look is not a crime.”

          Yes, it is. The same argument is made by computer hackers. Entry into the system is a crime, even if no theft of data takes place…

        • Nothing to do with data. Entering an open building to have a look is not a crime, particularly if it is not posted. There is literally ZERO reason to suspect a crime, and I have not seen that the two jackwads even KNEW he had entered that building that day. Serge, you keep trying to manufacture a crime where there isn’t one, if a middle aged white man and his wife entered that construction, stayed for a few minutes and left, would that be justification for two people with no connection to that construction to hunt them down and kill them? You’re being ridiculous.

        • If they ran when confronted and then tried to grab the guns of the people trying to arrest them? Yes. Yes it would.

          You’re assuming an awful lot of shit not in evidence.

      • What do you see as evidence that he intended to commit a crime in that house, other than the entry into that house itself?

        • The fact that he stayed in there for almost 5 minutes and ran when confronted. You don’t have to prove all elements of a crime to make an arrest. Intent is, inherently, a matter of fact for a jury to decide. Lack of said intent is a defense, but not a reason to invalidate an arrest. The questions is simple, did his actions justify “reasonable and probable suspicion” that he had intent? I would think that answer is blindingly obvious.

        • “What do you see as evidence that he intended to commit a crime in that house, other than the entry into that house itself?”

          How well would that argument hold up if a hacker wandered into a computer system he didn’t have express permission to be in, even if he was “just looking around”?

          You know the answer to that one…

        • @Geoff – But we can’t shoot people for that either now can we? It’s lucky that Arbery wasn’t playing loud music. God knows what they would have done to him.

        • You can if they attempt to grab your gun when you arrest them. If the guys who shot this particular criminal scumbag had been uniformed cops, you wouldn’t hear a peep about it.

        • Sigh. Serge, listen to yourself. Just because you say the magic words, “You’re under arrest,” doesn’t mean its okay to stick a gun in someone’s face. If it were, we’d be overwhelmed by the old, “but I told him he was under arrest right before I shot him and raided the cash register, your honor,” defense. This isn’t a game of cops and robbers, where you get to be a cop if you can figure out how to tape a playing card to your bike wheel so it makes a cool motorcycle sound.

        • You mean where he tried to bumrush a guy with a shotgun? Yeah. At no point in the video prior to the felon charging towards them was a gun pointed in his direction. Did you know the father was on the line with 911 as the shorts were fired? That seems an odd thing to do if your intent is to break the law.

        • Pwrserge: “Your honor, my clients are innocent, and I would like to direct your attention to the long-established ‘stop hitting yourself’ defense.”

          Judge: (angrily) “Who dressed this low-IQ eight year old like a lawyer and allowed him into my courtroom?”

        • My Actual Argument:

          “My clients had reasonable and probable suspicion that the decedent had just committed a felony and was attempting to flee. Given this fact, they attempted to lawfully arrest the decedent as provided for in § 17-4-60. To this end they pursued the decedent and on numerous occasions verbally directed the decedent to stop, notifying him that the police had been notified and were en-route. After several such attempts to detain the decedent, my clients pulled their vehicle ahead of the decedent’s path and exited in a continued effort to carry out a citizen’s arrest under § 17-4-60. At this time, while the elder McMichael was on the phone with 911, as presented in Defense Exhibit [x], the decedent turned around and proceeded to run towards my clients’ vehicle. Having passed the vehicle the decedent proceeded to attack the younger McMichael and grab his shotgun. The younger McMichael, at this point in reasonable fear of death or grave bodily injury, had no choice but to discharge his shotgun in defense of his life.”

          Would you like to provide offers of proof as to the reasonableness of McMichael’s belief? Because if you give me a couple of hours, I can write you a full pocket brief on the matter.

          My point has always been that we DON’T KNOW what happened. There is not enough material in the record to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt and the McMichaels haven’t had their chance to make their case. (The one time they did, the riding DA didn’t even want to press charges.) Yet here you clowns are assuming the case was plain old stereotypical racism based solely on the fact that the defendants are white and the decedent was black. That’s the sum total of the evidence you have that any racism was involved.

          But sure, continue being a racist ass and throwing people under the buss when the sum total of the evidence available to you is a grainy 30 second video clip and your own racist assumptions..

        • Or perhaps you would like me to write a full opening argument? Because I can do that too.

          Simple fact is, proving any kind of murder in this case would require the jury to completely make up a level of intent that is not demonstrated anywhere in the record. You MIGHT be able to get a conviction on involuntary manslaughter, but that’s a stretch if you can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the suspicions of the defendants were unreasonable.

          You assume that defense has to prove a felony occurred and prove all elements of the crime. That is incorrect. All they have to prove is that the defendants’ suspicion that a felony had taken place was reasonable and probable. The defendant’s prior theft pleading and felony conviction are now suddenly relevant as the father had personal knowledge of both cases.

      • crimes require a victim. Either a person, gov’t, company, society, etc.

        The person who owns the under construction house had nothing stolen from the house ever, did not file a police report. There was no crime period

        Stop with your asinie crap. It’s pathetic people who claim to support 2A like you want these morons lumped in with 2A folks. The mcmichaels are a stain on 2A