What disturbs me most is how many of you think a man should allow himself to be disarmed and murdered just because he investigated a suspected burglar in his neighborhood.
Or that a man who is armed is automatically the aggressor. Some of these guys aren’t too far off from attacking the dude open carrying at the grocery store because they felt threatened.
Break it down to its most simple parts. You can open carry in Georgia. You can open carry in the street in Georgia. You can talk to people, maybe even disagreeably so while open carrying in Georgia. None of that, in and of themselves makes one the aggressor in a confrontation. There is going to have to be some affirmative act...a spoken threat, physical contact, or pointing the gun to make one the aggressor.
Most on here want to argue that the whole situation made the McMillans the aggressors. And maybe, the jury will buy off on that. But if I were their counsel, I would try to break it down to it’s most basic elements and condense their acts down individually and analyze them that way.
