Legal Issues in Arbury Murder Case Incorrectly Reported Citizen's Arrest Largely irrelevant to Defense From Murder Charge WASHINGTON, DC. (Ap 15, 2020) - Although much ofthe public scussion about the shooting death of| [Ahmed Aouy has centered arouné whether the dofondarts wore authorized to make a cszen's aest, tht Joga isava le argalywolovat to the most klysucoossfl dafone tothe charge of muréor which s Geol’ Stand-your-ground se defense sat, argues pubic ntorest law ptessor John Banzha! Banzhal hes successtuty predicted «and provided a egal analysis for - many noteworthy juste set defense | cases going back to subway shooter Bernhard Goetz, and mere recently nelucing George Zimmerman. ‘mathe or not Gregory andlor Travis MeMicnel would have the aga pvlage to pertrm a cizen’s atest - ether as ordinary cltzans, or because of Gregory's formar law enforce inetverent- makes no dererce | Bocause they are not charged wih unlawiuly aresting Arury. In any even, It might be Gffcut to prove beyond a recsonetle dou that fey hed infact made such an etemt The defenders’ apparent beet that hey nad such algal priviog - whether legal corect or not - probably ‘xpisined why they folowed ang eventual conronted Artur, who they may have beled Nad engaged I Some wrongdoing. At th time that Tavis confronted Arby, each had the protacton of Georgia's stand. your ground sel deters law [5163-21] which permts any person to usefece [and inthis case probably dead fore since a gun was| ‘volte "aganat anaher when anc othe extent that ha or she reasonably bales that such threat or fore 'Srocossary to defond himsol «against such ohors imminent us of unlewtl force." Under the stanéyourground porto, nether has any legal duty to ty to retreat, douse he stuation, ec. So| ‘each may have ad legal prviege to se force against he othe. In other werd, Arbury was privloged to engago ina vient and possibly ite-troatering attack upon Tavis he reasonably beloved because of what Travis may have sid, and because he was caryng a gun - a ‘was necossar o protect himsai from imminent se ef daly force. Howover, if Atoury cid atack Trevi, the ater could thon be legally prvloged to shoot Arbury it ho fo it was| nocossary fo protact hms, or even his father. Mote precisely, Travis woud be egal orvleged to shoot Arbuty - which shoud be a sfcentdetense to any criminal charge, including murder - ures the prosecuor can prove beyond «reasonable doubt that Travis dd not have uch a boli, oF thatthe bot wae not reasonable wndor the creumetancos. There i, a6 one might expect. an exception under the statute If ho person cain the priviego of so etonse provoked the attack against himself, but only in a narrowy defnod circumstance." Me niall provokes the use of force against hmsol wih the intont fo use such force as an excuse 1 init body harm Spon the assalare So here, to avoid that rabiem, the prosecutor would have fo prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Tras by his woes anor actions ~ nt cnly provoked bury to tack hin, bu that he di 0 iniending to provoke Arbury 6 tat ho oul then ogaly choot him It the detendants choose not o testy inthe own detense, i may be diiut to prove beyond a reasonable dou that Travis do nt reasonably Delove that he had to use deadly force to defend himeal, © that Travis Selbeatly provoked Aroury so hat his shooting would be logalypvioged under Georgia la. [On the other han, Trav testes that he eter said nothing to Arbury, o that his words wore not sufiiert| provoke an attack (8. "may | ask what you are cong ere"), might sso be dificult forte prosecutor to prove the cotary, especialy beyond a reasonable doubt Banzhat notes thal another Georgia state - Provocation by Wordt Alone (62.1042) provides that “provocation by words alone wil. in no case, justly such excitement of passion...” ahough "words accompanied by menaces, tough the monaces do net armeunt oan actual assault, may in some instances be| Suert provocation” Sa detente counsel may well argue that even i Trave's words were confrontatonal andor ieuting (29 what are you doing here 1°99"), they are legally Insuticent to justly any kind of aac by te person (Arbour) they were adresse, In shot, says Banzhaf, the rea issues in this murder ta are wht happened batwoon the me when Trav Ist approached Arbury and the time he shot Arbury, and not wheter he or his father may have had, ance edo tle, any legal auhorty to make actizens rest, suggests Banzhal JOHN BANZHAF I, BSE, JD, SoD. Protesor of Public Ines! Law’ ‘George Washington Unversity Law Sohco, ‘The Man Behind The Ban on Cigrete Commerc FAM! Ds. Wiliam Canan Disirguished Professor, Flow, Wold Technology Network, ‘Creer otha “Barna! nd Founda, Action en Smoking and Heath (ASH), 2000 H Street. NW, Wash, BC 20052, USA (202) 004-7200 (709) 527-2418 Dp ltanchat ne paroh!SATomallcom @profbenzhat George Washington University Law School, 2000 H St., NW, Washington, DC 20052