Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A person commits the offense of aggravated assault when he or she assaults:
They weren't assaulting him. They were brandishing a weapon, and it's not all that clear they were pointing it at him. Brandishing a weapon is not assaulting someone.
Assaulting someone is assaulting someone.
If they were to go up and club him with the gun or kick him in the gut as he walked by, that would be assault while carrying a deadly weapon.
Standing there telling him to stop isn't assault.
What they did was simple assault. Arbery had reason to believe he was about to be seriously harmed.
When a gun is the thing that puts a person in fear of being harmed, it's aggravated assault. Go look at other cases of aggravated assault. You don't have to USE the weapon in any way.
Ex, you are robbing someone and you use your gun as a threat to comply. Robbery or attempted robbery, depending on whether they are successful in that endeavor, and aggravated assault.
Simple assault is the clear and believable threat to harm another (which it appears is what was going on here).
Aggravated assault actually requires that the person IS assaulted, not just threatened.
(Also, discharging a firearm when the shooter is seated in a car, which doesn't apply).
I don't think (this is opinion only) that McMichaels intended at all to shoot Arbery. I believe his intent (and what he actually did) was to threaten him with it to get him to stop so cops could arrive.
So. During the simple assault of threatening Arbery with harm, Arbery attacked him out of fear, and McMichaels shot him in self-defense.
I'd be interested in your take, upon rereading. Aggravated assault actually requires assault, not just threat, which was what McMichaels was doing. Threatening.
They shot him with a gun. Cant make it much clearer for you.
Read it again, I quoted both, because simple assault is needed to have an aggravated assault.
Aggravated assault is a simple assault with a weapon.
Let's put it out here so we can look at it while we're discussing it. Copied from the link Blondy provided:
Aggravated Assault
Aggravated assault, a felony in Georgia, is an assault that is committed:
with the intent to rob, rape or murder (doesn't apply here)
with a deadly weapon or any object that can be or is used in a manner that results in serious bodily injury or strangulation, or (no. He didn't use the weapon until Arbery assaulted him. His pointing the gun at Arbery did not result in serious bodily injury or strangulation UNTIL Arbery assaulted him. Had he shot but not killed Arbery as Arbery jogged by, this would criteria would apply).
by discharging a firearm from a vehicle (doesn't apply here)
Simple assault is the clear and believable threat to harm another (which it appears is what was going on here).
Aggravated assault actually requires that the person IS assaulted, not just threatened.
(Also, discharging a firearm when the shooter is seated in a car, which doesn't apply).
I don't think (this is opinion only) that McMichaels intended at all to shoot Arbery. I believe his intent (and what he actually did) was to threaten him with it to get him to stop so cops could arrive.
So. During the simple assault of threatening Arbery with harm, Arbery attacked him out of fear, and McMichaels shot him in self-defense.
I'd be interested in your take, upon rereading. Aggravated assault actually requires assault, not just threat, which was what McMichaels was doing. Threatening.
Sigh, assault does not mean physical touching. The definition for assault is to put someone one fear of being harmed. It's right there in black and white.
So if you threaten me with a hand up looking like you're about to hit me, that would be assault. If it's a gun or a knife that you use to put me in fear of harm, it's aggravated.
In Texas if you actually cause harm, that is listed. 'Assault with bodily injury'. Assault in and of itself does not require injury or even contact.
Let's put it out here so we can look at it while we're discussing it. Copied from the link Blondy provided:
Aggravated Assault
Aggravated assault, a felony in Georgia, is an assault that is committed:
with the intent to rob, rape or murder (doesn't apply here)
with a deadly weapon or any object that can be or is used in a manner that results in serious bodily injury or strangulation, or (no. He didn't use the weapon until Arbery assaulted him. His pointing the gun at Arbery did not result in serious bodily injury or strangulation UNTIL Arbery assaulted him. Had he shot but not killed Arbery as Arbery jogged by, this would criteria would apply).
by discharging a firearm from a vehicle (doesn't apply here)
What is an assault under GA law?
"(a) A person commits the offense of simple assault when he or she either:
(1) Attempts to commit a violent injury to the person of another; or
Let's put it out here so we can look at it while we're discussing it. Copied from the link Blondy provided:
Aggravated Assault
Aggravated assault, a felony in Georgia, is an assault that is committed:
with the intent to rob, rape or murder (doesn't apply here)
with a deadly weapon or any object that can be or is used in a manner that results in serious bodily injury or strangulation, or (no. He didn't use the weapon until Arbery assaulted him. His pointing the gun at Arbery did not result in serious bodily injury or strangulation UNTIL Arbery assaulted him. Had he shot but not killed Arbery as Arbery jogged by, this would criteria would apply).
by discharging a firearm from a vehicle (doesn't apply here)
With a deadly weapon that can be or is used.........in this instance it would be 'can be'. The gun could cause serious bodily injury, so the use of it as a threat is aggravated assault. Again, go look at other cases of aggravated assault. Over and over you will see cases of that charge where a weapon was involved but not actually applied to the victim.
Simple assault is the clear and believable threat to harm another (which it appears is what was going on here).
Aggravated assault actually requires that the person IS assaulted, not just threatened.
(Also, discharging a firearm when the shooter is seated in a car, which doesn't apply).
I don't think (this is opinion only) that McMichaels intended at all to shoot Arbery. I believe his intent (and what he actually did) was to threaten him with it to get him to stop so cops could arrive.
So. During the simple assault of threatening Arbery with harm, Arbery attacked him out of fear, and McMichaels shot him in self-defense.
I'd be interested in your take, upon rereading. Aggravated assault actually requires assault, not just threat, which was what McMichaels was doing. Threatening.
I dont believe the DA's case will be that the moment of aggravated assault was limited to the moment Travis and Arbery collided (however you want to describe that) and shots were fired(either accidently or intentionally). It will imo be presented as a collection of events that represented aggravated assault possibly including threatening with guns and trucks as weapons. She will present the case as the McMichaels being the instigators which results in loss of the right to self defense.
I dont believe the DA's case will be that the moment of aggravated assault was limited to the moment Travis and Arbery collided (however you want to describe that) and shots were fired(either accidently or intentionally). It will imo be presented as a collection of events that represented aggravated assault possibly including threatening with guns and trucks as weapons. She will present the case as the McMichaels being the instigators which results in loss of the right to self defense.
I would say the prosecutor will argue without these men acting the fools he would be alive.
I would say the prosecutor will argue without these men acting the fools he would be alive.
their actions = his death. case closed. 50 years.
I agree with your intent but that is not how it works.
The issue is and will remain whether they were doing a citizen arrest. And they will likely provide expert testimony they were and it may even include some of the local DAs.
They are not going to get a ruling that they were doing a citizen arrest. But there is not going to be a ruling they were not. So the jury gets two sets of knowledgeable experts differing on the subject. That is called reasonable doubt. So they walk .
I would say the prosecutor will argue without these men acting the fools he would be alive.
their actions = his death. case closed. 50 years.
Summed up nicely.
It still amazes me how many on here argued that McMichaels did nothing wrong, did nothing to invite the confrontation and did nothing to make Arbery feel fear.
Chasing him with 2 vehicles? Nah Nothing to worry about.
Shouting at him while chasing him? Nah he was over eating.
Trying to cut him off? Perfectly acceptable.
Cutting him off then jumping out of their vehicles brandishing guns? Nah That's normal behavior, everyone does that. Nothing to be afraid of.
These necks were so confident in themselves that they had a friend video them as they created the situation where they pushed Arbery into a confrontation. Worse still the Law enforcement tried to help them out by covering it up and lying to Arbery's family. Then 1 of the 3 idiots then posted the video on line.....
Like a bad joke.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.