Aggressive “Self-Defense:” The Killing of Ahmaud Arbery
A mural remembering Ahmaud Arbery in Brunswick, GA. Source: NPR
An unarmed Black man goes for a casual afternoon jog only to be confronted by two surly, armed strangers in a truck. As he attempts to turn around, he quickly realizes another vehicle has ambushed him, cutting off his escape route. The men in the first truck step out, brandishing their weapons and ordering him to get on the ground; he refuses. In mere minutes, Ahmaud Arbery lies on the pavement, his life bleeding out, as his murderer, Travis McMichael, towers over him and mutters in disgust, “f****** n*****.”
The backlash from the murder of Ahmaud Arbery erupted across the nation and — along with the killings of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, and countless other innocent Black Americans — contributed to the racial reckoning seen throughout the summer of 2020. Now, America again faces an internal crisis; following the controversial exoneration of Illinois vigilante Kyle Rittenhouse, the eyes of the nation are on the ongoing trial of Arbery’s killers, Travis and Greg McMichael and William “Roddie” Bryan. At the crux of the conflict is America’s warped and contradictory understanding of self-defense; rather than espousing an obligation to retreat, America’s stand-your-ground laws and citizen’s arrest laws reward the aggressor and shield them from justice.
The death of Ahmaud Arbery is not the first time this country has witnessed the hounding and ultimate killing of an unarmed Black man by a civilian vigilante; in 2012, the infamous murder of teenager Trayvon Martin by neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman thrusted stand-your-ground laws into the national spotlight. These laws state that individuals do not have a duty to retreat when confronted by a perceived threat but can instead impose themselves onto the situation preemptively. In practice, stand-your-ground laws exacerbate racial implicit biases and lead to deadly consequences. With regards to Ahmaud Arbery, stand-your-ground laws mobilized the McMichaels and Bryan, who perceived Arbery’s innocent jogging as something sinister based on his race. By first pursuing Arbery and subsequently blocking his escape route in a move of cold calculation, the McMichaels and Bryan aggressively infringed upon Arbery’s freedom and physical safety. Frustratingly, however, the McMichaels and Bryan are within their right to do so in the eyes of the law due to the philosophy of aggression that stand-your-ground laws affirm. Time and time again, a self-described upstanding citizen yields to their implicit biases and perceives innocent Black and Brown Americans as threats and, emboldened by stand-your-ground philosophies, pursues and executes them; in turn, these laws jettison the central tenets of self-defense and instead reward aggression, bequeathing any citizen a license to kill anyone they deem a potential threat.
Citizen’s arrest laws reinforce the same subversion of self-defense philosophies and fail to combat their racial implications. Defense lawyers in the Arbery case point specifically to citizen’s arrest laws in their attempt to shield their clients. These laws state that a civilian can pursue an offender if the crime was either committed before them or if they have reasonable cause for believing the offender committed a felony. In doing so, they encourage civilian aggression against those whom the civilian — an often inexperienced, unqualified observer by definition — perceives as dangerous. As a result, citizen’s arrest laws equate untrained civilians with professionals and fail to account for the implicit biases and flaws that most civilians harbor. Greg McMichael, a former policeman, routinely failed to complete officer training and consequently lost his firearm license in 2019. William “Roddie'' Bryan, filmer of the confrontation, is, according to his lawyer, a “family man, a NASCAR fan, and an enjoyer of Rock and Roll.” Travis McMichael, the shooter himself, is a former mechanic for the US Coast Guard. Questions must be raised about the qualifications of these men and the citizen’s arrest laws that permitted them to masquerade as trained officials.
Due to the moral and legal ambiguity surrounding self-defense conflicts, the fate of the Arbery case rests, like so many before it, in the hands of the jury. Unfortunately, however, the racial makeup of the court and its associated controversy do not point to a just verdict. Only a singular juror is Black, while the rest are white. Throughout the selection process, defense attorneys repeatedly struck down potential Black jurors, much to the chagrin of the prosecution. Judge Timothy Walmsley even acknowledged “intentional discrimination in the panel” but refused to reinstate the dismissed jurors to the stand. Historical precedent points to a similar result: in the case of George Zimmerman, a jury of five whites and one person who is mixed moved to acquittal. Thus, the likelihood of a conviction seems doubtful.
Bias, discrimination, and obstruction of justice have been everpresent throughout the investigations into Ahmaud Arbery’s death. The former Glynn County District Attorney Jackie Johnson, the county’s top prosecutor, was indicted on charges of violations of oath and obstruction of justice, having shown “favor and affection” to Greg McMichael and directing that “Travis McMichael should not be placed under arrest.” The flagrant discrimination in jury selection only exacerbates these existing injustices. Moving forward, America must reexamine the prejudiced systems in place to eliminate these atrocities and create an equitable future for all Americans.