As I understand it...and I didnt follow the case closely...the judge ruled that the defense argument of citizens arrest was not allowed...not the argument of self defense.
If citizen's arrest wasn't at play, it was false imprisonment, and aggravated assault, and they were the aggressors, they can not claim self defense.
I believe that there are statutory minimums so that even if the judge wanted to be sympathetic to the lynch mob, he could only do so much. But I agree with the consensus: this judge does not appear to be even remotely identifying with the defense. His background suggests he's probably an ideological centrist or moderate. If these guys are convicted, their days as free men are probably over.
As I understand it, the argument for citizens arrest was eliminated...which makes their action of chasing him a crime. However the self defense argument is still valid.
The person defending himself was Arbery. He tried to get away and they wouldn’t let him.
Because, the citizens arrest law in Georgia in effect at the time permitted one to make an arrest for someone fleeing from the commission of a felony. All of the evidence makes it clear that Arbery was committing a burglary in that property. It was reasonable to confront Arbery armed because the police and told the McMichaels they considered the suspect in this long reign of burglaries to be armed. When they went in to make the citizens arrest, Arbery charged Travis McMichael and attempted to fight for his gun.
They can make the claim of self-defense. A claim is either valid or not. Based on the judge's definition of self-defense, the defendant's claims of self-defense are not valid. The defense can reiterate their claims in their closing arguments, but the jury has the rules, instructions, and guidelines by which they must abide - something the foreperson reminds them of, and tries to reinforce. That doesn't mean you can't get the occasional rogue juror, but this is something that the system tries hard to root such characters out before they are in a position to cause harm.
No, that was reversed. The judge was going to issue a completely unfounded jury instruction on Friday which would’ve done that. Then on Monday realized that instruction would’ve been reversible error and given the McMichael’s a strong appeal and so he issued a new instruction simply quoting the citizens arrest statute
They had no knowledge of any felony committed that day that he was fleeing from. The arrest must be immediately after the offense, or while the suspect is fleeing from an offense that was in their presence or immediate knowledge. They told police that day they didn't know what he was doing, Gregory just saw him running by.
Arbery is not on trial and so his claim of self defense is not relevant. Under all traditional rules of self defense Travis McMichael has a claim of self defense. They also had the legal right to detain Arbery for a residential burglary he had just committed
That’s not what the law says.
That also is as I understand it. Take away the misapplication of Georgia law regarding citizens arrrest. Ignore the fact that it is apparently so poorly written that even the judge couldnt make a ruling on it until after closing arguments (which likely created the basis for a call for a mistrial). What you then have is Arbery and the others face to face, and no longer is Arbery considered the criminal (which they all assumed) but now it is the defendants who are considered the cirminals (which NONE of them at the time assumed). Two groups...face to face...what happens next. That is a foundation for a self defense case.
The Law (the dispatcher) told him to stay in his truck. So much for the law.
They didn't know he was there that day, and 2 weeks before when Travis saw him (which is the burglary they say they were arresting him for), Gregory said it was criminal trespass, not burglary. The law does say it must be immediately after the offense.
They told them they suspected him of being the burglary suspect. If you had watched the trial you would know that some of the states witnesses themselves conceded the McMichaels knew full well of all thr burglaries of that residence, had a suspect description, had been asked to come armed to assist police during a prior incident, and had been advised that the suspect, who turned out to be Arbery would be considered armed and dangerous
Wrong. That never happened.
It wasn't that day. Their right to conduct a citizen's arrest for that "burglary" were extinguished two weeks later, and he wasn't fleeing from that when Gregory saw him running past. They said they had no knowledge of what he was doing that day.
