Two Weapons, a Chase, a Killing and No Charges: A 25-year-old man running through a Georgia neighborhood ended up dead

What if this case was boiled down to this...

Two men confront AA with a open carried shot gun. (Legal so far right?)

AA tries to steal the gun. (Illegal)

MM defends himself. (Legal?)

It seems to me that the case boils down to that.

[pot]

Add their friend drinving on the wrong side of the road, recording, chaising him down. Hate crime. Conspiracy.

We will hear it all before this case makes it back from the jurors.
 
What if this case was boiled down to this...

Two men confront AA with a open carried shot gun. (Legal so far right?)

AA tries to steal the gun. (Illegal)

MM defends himself. (Legal?)

It seems to me that the case boils down to that.

At what point does a confrontation become an assault and warrant self-defense? That seems to be the million-dollar question. Will be interesting to see this one play out for sure.
 
What if this case was boiled down to this...

Two men confront AA with a open carried shot gun. (Legal so far right?)

No.

Not even remotely. It's assault, as opposed to battery, once they "confront." Aggravated, since it's with a firearm. In Georgia, an assault occurs when someone "commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury."

You also conveniently forgot the part where they impeded his progress. Not just once, either.
 
Last edited:
What if this case was boiled down to this...

Two men confront AA with a open carried shot gun. (Legal so far right?)

AA tries to steal the gun. (Illegal)

MM defends himself. (Legal?)

It seems to me that the case boils down to that.
Legal open carry has nothing to do with this case, he could have had a baseball bat, hammer or knife which also can be “open carried” but people can also perceive that as threatening. If someone was walking towards me with a hammer and telling me to stop get over here, you think I have to wait till he bludgeons me with It.
 
Funny thing is, it's MM the elder himself who leaked the video. This story may have just died had he not. Oops!
The fact the McNugget Sr. had the video in order to leak, puts the lie to Roddie's claim that he didn't know them and had nothing to do with it, but was just an innocent witness.

Double oops!
 
He said he didn't know them? In the original police report MM the elder called him by name "Roddy", saying he tried to block AA. So there's that two. He probably should have coordinated his story with them in the months they had...better. Triple oopsie daisy!
 
What if this case was boiled down to this...

Two men confront AA with a open carried shot gun. (Legal so far right?)

AA tries to steal the gun. (Illegal)

MM defends himself. (Legal?)

It seems to me that the case boils down to that.
You can keep trying to boil it down to that, but it's not.

The armed confrontation, after a chase, with disparity of force, was an attempted false imprisonment, which is a felony, which is illegal.

Attempting to defend oneself against that crime is not illegal.

Using deadly force in that case is not legal.
 
You can keep trying to boil it down to that, but it's not.

The armed confrontation, after a chase, with disparity of force, was an attempted false imprisonment, which is a felony, which is illegal.

Attempting to defend oneself against that crime is not illegal.

Using deadly force in that case is not legal.
If this case boils down to what YOU JUST SAID...

And, if there is no exculpatory evidence that helps MM...

MM should take a plea for manslaughter - 5 years.


I think tons more will come out in the trial, however.

BUT- for the sake of discussion - if it was that simple - taking a plea could save MM from a much longer sentence.

Two things are happening at the same time here:

1. Videos of AA looking bad.

2. MM and Co. stories not looking good.


If both those things are equal, it will be even.

This trial is going to be epic.

So far I have learned a lot to keep me out of trouble.
I put myself in MM position and in AA position.

I can say with confidence that this will never happen to me.

I'll never chase down a suspected robber (that's easy not to do) and I don't think I'd challenge two guys with guns when unarmed.
Hind sight is 20/20, though.
 
The fact the McNugget Sr. had the video in order to leak, puts the lie to Roddie's claim that he didn't know them and had nothing to do with it, but was just an innocent witness.

Double oops!
William “Roddie” Bryan also been arrested and charged with felony murder and criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment.

And: “Other videos in the Ahmaud Arbery case will not be released until trial or when the investigation into Arbery’s death is finished. Action News Jax learned another video showing a second angle in Arbery’s shooting was taken.”
 
William “Roddie” Bryan also been arrested and charged with felony murder and criminal attempt to commit false imprisonment.

And: “Other videos in the Ahmaud Arbery case will not be released until trial or when the investigation into Arbery’s death is finished. Action News Jax learned another video showing a second angle in Arbery’s shooting was taken.”

Who the heck took that video?

That should be very telling combined with the first video.
 
Funny thing is, it's MM the elder himself who leaked the video. This story may have just died had he not. Oops!

I didn't know that. They ain't bright individuals, are they??? As evidenced of his LE career. At the end, he couldn't carry a gun nor drive a LE vehicle. ROFL!!!

What if this case was boiled down to this...

Two men confront AA with a open carried shot gun. (Legal so far right?)

AA tries to steal the gun. (Illegal)

MM defends himself. (Legal?)

It seems to me that the case boils down to that.

According to GA law - NO. That isn't. Even in "Free" Georgia, you still can't wander up a street with a shotgun and attempt to stop a man.



And is has this been mentioned yet?



I might start referring to the MM's as The Gomers. LOL
 
All this "what if" reminds me of the guy we all wanted to beat the snot out of at training in the military. You all know that guy that always had to twist up the regulation, procedure or doctrine that the instructor was trying to teach. Same principal here, the law and the elements of crime are what will matter, not conjecture and feelings. I'm done till it's on court tv...............
 
In the preliminary hearings it has been stated they had hit him with a truck and he was turned around to run back into the development, using two trucks. Then Travis McMichael said "f***ing n***er" as he lay dying. Sounds like a nice neighborhood of wholesome families, what goes on at the block parties?
 
All this "what if" reminds me of the guy we all wanted to beat the snot out of at training in the military. You all know that guy that always had to twist up the regulation, procedure or doctrine that the instructor was trying to teach.

Why, when in an educational setting, would you be so averse to considering an alternative viewpoint?
 
Why, when in an educational setting, would you be so averse to considering an alternative viewpoint?
Oh, perhaps in more articulate terms then;
The aforementioned "What if" type questions were not so much objective and alternative as they were not really related, connected, germane, or likely to be experienced within the narrow focus of the military TRAINING being given.

or in less articulate terms, it wasn't Poli Sci 303 or phukkin quantum physics...........
 
Honestly, I don't.

That was not covered much in my self defense and legal defense classes.

Please school me on how I'm forced to reveal my encrypted comms.

A warrant is a court order. If a warrant orders you to reveal your encrypted comms, you reveal your encrypted comms. If you choose to defy the court order, then you get a contempt charge and your bail revoked. Then they go ahead and crack your Enigma machine anyway.
 
Not to mention that the average person obviously has highly sophisticated encryption of all their life's communications. :rolleyes:

Edit:


Please school me on how I'm forced to reveal my encrypted comms.

I just had to go back to this. I don't need a warrant, your permission, or any special equipment to access over 15,000 of your communications. You've certainly done a poor job of keeping your views private. 😀
 
Last edited:
Oh, perhaps in more articulate terms then;
The aforementioned "What if" type questions were not so much objective and alternative as they were not really related, connected, germane, or likely to be experienced within the narrow focus of the military TRAINING being given.

or in less articulate terms, it wasn't Poli Sci 303 or phukkin quantum physics...........

Thanks so much for setting the record straight. I really appreciate it..

For a minute, I thought you might be diminishing the role of critical-thinking troops who might be inclined to stop wrongdoing -- irrespective of any "germane" training -- when in the field.

 
Last edited:
Not to mention that the average person obviously has highly sophisticated encryption of all their life's communications. :rolleyes:

Edit:




I just had to go back to this. I don't need a warrant, your permission, or any special equipment to access over 15,000 of your communications. You've certainly done a poor job of keeping your views private. 😀
What if my comms are so secret that only I know about them?

Some comms are so sneaky that they disappear after a couple minutes.

Some accounts disappear after a while because I forget the user names and passwords.

How can the state force me to reveal my iPhone password and read my cyber chats with my woman when that is outside the scope of a shooting.

The state may as well enter my bedroom and go through my office and read every USPS letter I sent, too.

Do I have to reveal the content of texts that I sent that were sent though Apple of which there is now no trace of them?

How about my private thoughts?

Where does this end?
 
Where does this end?

It ends where the court says it ends. The warrant defines specific parameters for every search. I know you're asking a broader philosophical question, but warrants are one of the few checks and balances our system has that generally works okay. They make sure police do their homework, protect the integrity of investigations, and safeguard the citizen's general 4A rights to the extent possible.

The burden is fairly high, I hope, before a judge will sign one.
 
It ends where the court says it ends. The warrant defines specific parameters for every search. I know you're asking a broader philosophical question, but warrants are one of the few checks and balances our system has that generally works okay. They make sure police do their homework, protect the integrity of investigations, and safeguard the citizen's general 4A rights to the extent possible.

The burden is fairly high, I hope, before a judge will sign one.

I guess you've never seen FISA warrant statistics? As in they approve 100% of them. More like a rubber stamp than a high burden. And why would this be? Lack of ability to hold judges personally accountable.
 
I guess you've never seen FISA warrant statistics? As in they approve 100% of them. More like a rubber stamp than a high burden. And why would this be? Lack of ability to hold judges personally accountable.

Yeah, pretty much nothing about this case involves FISA warrants. I'm not talking about them, and Reptile isn't asking about them. I share your concerns.
 
Yeah, pretty much nothing about this case involves FISA warrants. I'm not talking about them, and Reptile isn't asking about them. I share your concerns.

My point is FISA has far stricter rules for warrants than local courts. Try to get stats on number and percentage of warrants submitted and approved.

If you had public databases with full access to all court documents, I bet you'd quickly be able to identify the judges that sign any piece of paper they see.

One if the things I've always said we should have is online law doc submissions that are posted publicly for everyone to see instantaneously. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Everything a state agent does should be recorded and publicly searchable by free online database that allows anonymous access by all citizens.
 
My point is FISA has far stricter rules for warrants than local courts. Try to get stats on number and percentage of warrants submitted and approved.

If you had public databases with full access to all court documents, I bet you'd quickly be able to identify the judges that sign any piece of paper they see.

Agreed.

FISA courts are an abomination. They're among the worst things we've ever allowed our government to do.
 
Back
Top Bottom