The closing arguments for the McMichaels' murder trial are happening right now. That's the Ahmaud Arbery shooting for those who haven't been following it.
If any lawyer friends wanna chime in I encourage it. I'm not a lawyer. These are just my thoughts.
The defense seems to be floundering in this case just as badly as the prosecution was in the Rittenhouse trial and I assume that the prosecution is going to kick the crap out of the defense in rebuttal. I actually had to chuckle when the defense said that Arbery was "acting aggressive toward the truck."
So, the McMichaels' claim to self-defense is predicated on the premise that the attempt of a citizens arrest of Arbery was justified. To my understanding, the McMichaels would need to reasonably believe that Arbery was escaping after committing a felony. There was some testimony in the case that might serve to allow a jury to believe that the McMichaels thought that Arbery had just committed a robbery given the homeowner's testimony that he had called the police on Arbery almost a dozen times. Still I think it's pretty thin. Still, I haven't been able to follow this case as closely as the Rittenhouse trial.
From what I've been able to see, we got a high profile and correct acquittal in a murder trial last week and we're on the verge of a high profile and correct conviction in a murder trial this week.
I know for sure that about half of my feed disagrees with me on Rittenhouse. You're still wrong. A smaller percentage disagrees with me on the McMichaels.
I want to put this comparison to you because I think it's relevant.
So, the big difference between the Rittenhouse case and this one is that Rittenhouse was being chased and the McMichaels were doing the chasing.
Now, let's imagine that instead of Rittenhouse shooting Grosskreutz, Grosskreutz shot and killed Rittenhouse and Grosskreutz found himself on trial for murder. Would any of you who believe that the McMichaels are not guilty but Grosskreutz's argument if the events played out that way?
If the events played out that way, Grosskreutz may have been wrong in his assumption that Rittenhouse had just murdered Rosenbaum in cold blood, and he clearly would have been; but, he could reasonably believe that he was stopping a murderer who was still an active threat. Grosskreutz could also reasonably believe, more than reasonably believe, that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.
Now, I'm on the side that Grosskreutz would have a case if that happened. A large part of claiming self-defense is the defendant's reasonable believe that he or she is facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. Whether or not the defendant was correct isn't as big as a factor. Namely, if somebody pointed a gun at a defendant and the defendant shot and killed the guy in response just to find that the gun wasn't loaded or even the gun was just a non-functioning replica, the defendant still has a strong claim to self-defense.
The thing is, in this hypothetical flip in which Grosskreutz shoots Rittenhouse, it seems to me that Grosskreutz would have a much better case than the McMichaels. Neither Grosskreutz nor the McMichaels saw the alleged felony happen. Grosskreutz knew that Rittenhouse had a gun while the McMichaels just didn't know that Arbery wasn't armed. The defense in the McMichaels' case literally gave the prosecution the provocation argument that Binger wanted in the Rittenhouse case.
I might be missing something; but, so far as I can see, the prosecution has shown the McMichaels to be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.