What we learned from McMichaels about self defense and citizens' arrests.

This is striking me clearly as a divide over politics rather than the facts. Obviously, we're having a lot of those.

I don't know many, if any people who think the McMichaels are heros. I know a few people who think they they're innocent (I'm definitely not one of them).

I know much more people who not only think that Gaige Grosskreutz did nothing wrong; but, also, hailing him as a bit if a hero.

The thing is that there's a lot of overlap here. Yeah, there are differences in the law between Wisconsin and Georgia and I welcome any lawyers (I know a couple who practice in Georgia) to correct me; but, Wisconsin not being a full stand your ground state while Georgia is seems irrelevant.

Now, the McMichaels' whole defense was based on the claim that they were conducting a lawful citizen's arrest and Arbery attacked them. Grosskreutz, to my knowledge, never claimed to be attempting a citizens arrest. One of the things that people still falsely believe about the McMichaels' case is that they saw Arbery leaving the house with their own eyes before pursuing him. This is false that the McMichaels testified to that. That's a large part of the reason why their claim to a lawful citizen's arrest fell flat.

Same with Grosskreutz, he didn't see what happened between Rittenhouse and Rosenbaum. Grosskreutz's own video had him asking Rittenhouse what happened and if he shot somebody.

It's a lot easier to claim self-defense if you're the one running away than it is if you're the one doing the chasing. It's a lot easier to claim self-defense if you're not the one who initiated the altercation.

In both cases, the McMichaels and Grosskreutz believed that they were chasing somebody down who had just committed a crime; but, if you're wrong and you shoot somebody who hadn't committed a serious felony, that's on you. That's why, if God forbid you end up attempting a citizen's arrest, you had better know the law and be damn sure that the person did something that would warrant arrest.

Now, in the case of Grosskreutz, many of you will say that he believed that he was taking down an active shooter - some of you still believe he was; but, the law isn't on your side. Grosskreutz didn't see Rittenhouse fire at Rosenbaum and never claimed to. "Active shooter" means "active" which precludes the suspect running three blocks with the firearm pointed to the ground without firing a shot. Grosskreutz didn't see Rittenhouse fire a shot until Rittenhouse was already on the ground and being assaulted. Make no mistake, if Grosskreutz had fired before Rittenhouse and killed him, Grosskreutz would have committed a murder.