Justice for Ahmaud Arbery Won’t Be Found in our Justice System
In late February, Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old black man, was shot and killed when on a run around a residential Georgian neighborhood. He was killed by two white men, a father and son, who chased after him with shotguns because they suspected he had committed several recent neighborhood break-ins. Ahmaud had committed no such crimes and was unarmed. This story is not novel, nor is its aftermath: the McMichaels — the men who chased down and killed Ahmaud — have not been punished in any way, or even charged with a crime. Ahmaud, like too many other young black men, was killed in what amounts to a modern-day lynching. And he won’t get justice through our legal system unless our laws change.
The parallels between this case and the death of Trayvon Martin in 2012 are striking. Ahmaud and Trayvon were killed by individuals who exhibited “vigilante behavior.” In both cases, the killers believed the law to be in support of their actions. They were not wrong. Trayvon’s killer was acquitted in a jury trial, and Ahmaud’s killers have still not been charged of any crimes (although that may change due to the upswell of public outcry). In each case, self-defense and Stand Your Ground laws not only excused but justified the actions of racially motivated killers.
Before recusing himself, one of the prosecutors wrote a letter in which he stated that no charges are warranted for Ahmaud’s death. Under Georgia law, a citizen can arrest someone who they witness committing a crime: “OCGA 17–4–60 ‘A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.’” The prosecutor believed the McMichaels acted with reasonable suspicion, meaning their decision to follow Ahmaud was legal: “It appears [the McMichaels] were following, in ‘hot pursuit’, a burglary suspect, with solid first hand probable cause, in their neighborhood, and asking/telling him to stop. It appears their intent was to stop and hold this criminal suspect until law enforcement arrived. Under Georgia law this is perfectly legal.”
The prosecutor further articulated Georgia’s self-defense laws: “OCGA 16–3–23.1 Georgia’s No Duty to Retreat Law, an individual is not required to back away from or submit to an attack; OCGA 16–3–24[b] The use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm…is not justified unless the person using such force reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. OCGA 16–3–24.2 A person properly and legally defending themselves is immune from prosecution.” The prosecutor applied these laws to Ahmaud’s death and concluded that the McMichaels were not at fault: “Given the fact that Arbery initiated the fight, at the point Arbery grabbed the shotgun, under Georgia Law, McMichael was allowed to use deadly force to protect himself. Just as importantly, while we know McMichael had his finger on the trigger, we do not know who caused the firings. Arbery would only had to pull the shotgun approximately 1/16th to 1/8th of one inch to fire the weapon himself and in the height of an altercation this is entirely possible. Arbery’s mental health records & prior convictions help explain his apparent aggressive nature and his possible thought pattern to attack an armed man.”
The circumstances of Ahmaud’s death are similar to those of Trayvon’s, as are the laws under which both cases must be adjudicated. Trayvon Martin’s death was tried under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, which puts the burden of proof on the state instead of the defendant. Instead of Trayvon’s killer having to prove that he acted in self-defense, the jury had to view his actions as presumptively lawful. Florida also does not require that the danger be imminent; while most state laws include a duty to retreat if it can be done safely, both Florida and Georgia have no such requirement. Under these laws, the McMichaels, who chased after Ahmaud that day, could still claim self-defense even though they instigated the altercation.
The strength of these self-defense laws not only excuses murders but perpetuates them. Tamara Rice Lave, a legal scholar and professor at the University of Miami Law School, argues that Stand Your Ground laws actually incentivize killing: “The presumption of acting lawfully in conjunction with no duty to retreat constitutes a de facto license to hunt and kill suspected criminals, and it makes it easier for a person to murder someone and pass it off as self-defense.” She also explains that these laws foster racist actions, continuing America’s pattern of extrajudicial killings of African Americans. In other words, Stand Your Ground laws are essentially legal justifications for racially motivated extrajudicial murders.
People are rightfully demanding that charges be pressed against the McMichaels for the murder of Ahmaud Arbery. It is completely reasonable to demand that prosecutors indict the McMichaels, but even if they do, that does not guarantee the McMichaels will be punished for their actions. The strength of Georgia’s self-defense laws will more likely cause a result like the case against Trayvon Martin’s killer: an acquittal. The problem reaches farther than one or two biased prosecutors; the laws themselves excuse vigilante behavior against the African American community. Convincing or pressuring the prosecutors to press charges in these cases won’t matter when the laws so heavily favor the killers. Ahmaud Arbery was lynched, and he will not get justice because our laws protect his killers.
