The Comedy Cellar: Live from the Table - The Arbery Case

Episode Date: May 17, 2020

The Arbery Case: Two top criminal attorneys join the crew to discuss the intricacies of Georgia Law in this tragic case. 

This is Live from the Table, the official podcast of New York's world-famous comedy seller, coming to you on Sirius XM 99 Raw Dog, and also via podcast on Riotcast, and we have a particularly interesting episode today. We're going to discuss and analyze very meticulously the Ahmaud Arbery case. And we have with us two attorneys to help us do that, Lauren Zimmerman and Andrew Fleischman. Norm, of course, is also not an attorney but has a legal background, as do I. And Periel Ashenbrand is here to add her unique offbeat flavor to the discussion.

And I'll leave it to you, Perrielle, to give the introductions of our attorneys. Okay. Go ahead. Lawrence Zimmerman has been representing those accused of serious crimes for 21 years, both in the state and federal courts. He has acquitted people of crimes ranging from murder to rape and reverse convictions in the appellate court. He has been quoted in numerous newspapers, including the New York Times, Washington Post, Atlanta Journal, Constitution, and the Miami Herald, to name just a few.

And his- Go ahead, sorry. You wanna interrupt me already? I just wanna, you're not gonna read the whole, the whole long thing. Keep it brief, Mario. This is brief. I've seen him on court TVs. Yeah, so his numerous television appearances

include Good Morning America, The Today Show, Anderson Cooper, CBS, Morning News, and CNN, period, the end. He's one of those go-to guys on the law. And Andrew Fleischman. You forgot, he got an Emmy Award, too, for the local news, for the Southeast region, not a national. All right, show off. Andrew Fleischman. You forgot, I got an Emmy Award, too, for the local news, for the Southeast region, though, not a national Emmy.

All right, show off. Andrew Fleischman. Andrew Fleischman is an appeals attorney for Ross & Pines in Atlanta, Georgia. He specializes in assisting the wrongfully or unfairly convicted, and he has placed several clients on the National Registry of Exonerations. I didn't know there was such a registry, but interesting. And I would just like to say that it's been a long time since I've seen Noam this excited for two guests.

Really? I'm just happy to have an intelligent conversation. I do want to say at the top, because my wife gave me a hard time and Perriel did as well. My wife is a person of color and we have no person of color on this panel. And I think we will, hopefully we will do another podcast, which delves into the structural racism, sociological implications of all this. but this is hopefully going to stay on the legal side. And I read a lot of people's opinions about this. And these two attorneys seem to both be people who cared about social justice, who devoted a lot of effort to social justice, and were also very pithy and articulate and knowledgeable people on the law.

So that's why I wanted them. And Andrew wrote an article about this as well. I read so much stuff. I think Andrew was the guy who wrote the article, and Lawrence Irwin was on Court TV and CNN maybe also as well. I read something, yeah. So apologies in advance. Okay, so listen, this is what I want to do. I want to go through, it may take, you know, some minutes to go through the details of

what we know so far about the case, because I believe that the devil will be in the details of this. And I feel like most of the conversations I've had about this with people are almost a waste of time because they don't know key details. They don't know what the law is. So people are really having a kind of gut conversation about what they feel should not have happened, as opposed to a conversation of what is likely to happen in a courtroom. So let me go through it. And I'm going to, I am, believe me, I don't want to leave out any key details so if I have

left something out that anybody thinks is crucial don't think it's by design please jump in and and add it to the the mix I want to be um as fair as any human being can be here and presenting it so that we so that we do it right so it's a high bar. Okay. Yeah. So yesterday we found out a little more news. And so the story really starts at least as back as on February 11th, maybe further back. On February 11th, this is according to Atlanta Journal-Constitution, motion sensors ping the property owner of Larry English, who's having his house built

he texts his neighbor diego perez who's a pacific islander who lives two doors away perez goes to check it out uh gregory who is the dad and travis who is the son who later on is the one who shot um or arbory drive up from the other direction and diego interestingly tells atlanta the newspaper that he didn't know mcmichaels which is strange to me because they live on the same street so i have so let me share my screen here and it's this is what they um say so it says travis saw him in the yard uh and travis stopped perez told the lanta journal constitution on tuesday he confronted the man halfway into the yard he said the man reached for his waistband and travis got spooked and went down the road when michael returned his father

gregory michael was with him and armed said perez who added the elder McMichael had called the Glynn County Police Department. Now, that turns out to be true, because just in the last couple hours, we actually have the call to the police department. So let me share it. I want to make sure I share the audio, so I'm going to do it one more time. So now, just to let you know, i took this audio there was a lot of dead space so i i edited out the dead space to try to condense it i did not edit out any details um i don't think it changes the way the audio feels in any way but i invite anybody who's worried about it they can go on youtube and hear it with the long audio spaces so here we go if. If you can't hear it, tell me, let me know. 911, what's the address of your emergency?

It's a Tila Drive, 230, Tila Drive. What's going on? We've got a string of burglaries. I was leaving the neighborhood, and I just caught a guy running into a house being built, two houses down from me. When I turned around, he took off running into the house. Okay. What did he look like? It was a black male, red shirt, white shorts.

And you said the house was being built? It's being built, yes ma'am. It's vacant right now. He is in the house. What's your name and phone number, sir? Travis McMichael. All right. Where are you at now? I am sitting right across the street in my truck watching the house. Watching the house with her right now. Right here at the two-room purpose.

Are you okay? Yeah, yeah. It just startled me. When I turned around and saw him and backed up, he reached into his pocket and ran into the house. So I don't know if he's armed or not, but he looked like he was acting like he was. So, you know, be mindful of that. Okay. Which pocket did he reach into?

Left, I believe. Okay. And now, so 230 is the vacant lot address? No, it's my address. It's your address? Okay. It's probably 228 or 226. It might be 226? Possibly. How many houses down is it from yours? It's two towards the highway. He's got, I guess he doesn't realize we're here. He's got the damn lights on right now. He's got a flashlight. What's through the house?

Does he? Okay. You just stay where you're at so that the officers will know. Will do. Okay. And I'll stay on the line with you until they get there just in case anything changes. Roger that. So you said he was a black male.

Did he have hair on his head? Any other features you can tell me about? I couldn't tell. He just looked like short hair. Okay. Was he tall, short? Yeah, he was tall. Probably about six foot.

Okay. There's the neighbors. I guess that's where the other neighbors saw it. There's about four of us over here around it right now. Okay. There's the neighbors. I guess that's where the other neighbors saw it. There's about four of us over here around it right now. Okay. So what happened when you first saw him? He was trying to sneak behind a bus. Okay.

He was coming through somebody's yard, and I looked back, and he was trying to sneak behind a bush, and when I drove on by, he got behind a portal that they had here. And when I backed up, he looked at me. I went ahead and backed up to the road, and he reached in his pockets. I kind of watched him, and he ran off into the house, and then stepped back out and went back into the house, and that's when I called y'all.

Okay. We've been having a lot of burglaries and break-ins around here lately. And and I had a pistol stolen January 1st actually. And you know, he's I've never seen this guy before in the neighborhood. Always kind of keep an eye and sure enough, there's more here. Through the yards, you know. Alright, so that's that. And I should add that TMZ

had this detail that he had initially described the man as light-skinned and he's not apparently light-skinned. he's not apparently light-skinned. However, I do have here a, the, it doesn't seem to be getting a lot of play,

this light-skinned thing that people seem to be accepting that it's him, but I just, I do have these side-by-side photos of, where is it? Of these are the various security camera shots from different days. Here, here, and this is the one taken on the day that he was shot. What I notice is the hair. But who knows? Maybe it's a different guy. Okay, so we-

Also a different outfit from the one that he described, right? He said red shirt. No, no, you can't tell because those are infrared. No, that one's in color though. That's not the one. This is from earlier days. Okay. And, and there may be other, and there may be other, from the way they're describing it, there may even be other, I think I saw in one article that they said that maybe four or or five different incidents, but at least we know, we definitely have three

here. So fast forward to the day of the incident and we have a 911 call. We're going to be through it soon. So the first 911 call I will play, I can probably just share the, Oh no, I'll share the screen. So the first 911 call that came in. It's always TMZ. They always get everything. I'm Redwood communications operator Smith. Hey, do you have your address or the address? Yeah, I live out still. The story is out here. There's a guy in the house right now. It's a house under construction.

Okay, do you have your address or the other that house is addressed? Right at 219 or 220 Satilla Drive. And you said someone's breaking into it right now? No, it's all open. It's under construction. And he's running right now. There he goes right now. There he goes right now.

Okay, what is he doing? He's running down the street. Okay, that's fine. I'll get them out there. I just need to know what he was doing wrong. Was he just on the premises and not supposed to be? And he's been caught on the camera a bunch before at night. Kind of an ongoing thing out here. The man that's building the house got heart issues.

I think he's not gonna finish it. Okay, that's fine. And you said it was a male in a black T-shirt? A white T-shirt. Black guy, white T-shirt. And he's done run back into the neighborhood. 911, we'll see you just in emergency. I'm out here at Satilla Shores.

There's a black male running down the street. Where at Satilla Shores? I don't know what street we're on. Stop right there! Stop! Okay. No, I'm mute now. Noam, you're muted. No. No. Sir, hello, sir. sir hello sir sir where you at okay and then it just uh stays silent for for for all that time

so now i want to go over just going to introduce the laws now you guys will get the experts in um the these are the laws that i you guys will get the experts in. These are the laws that I think are going to be relevant. The Georgia trespass law, and it says enters a person commits an offense of criminal trespass when he enters upon the land or premises of another for an unlawful purpose. So that's my first question. Is this a criminal trespass

or any of these criminal trespasses? Whoever wants to go first. I mean, there's not enough evidence. We don't know what his purpose was. Sorry, go ahead. Yeah, there's just not enough evidence to say. Now, he might be a looky-loo. You know, if somebody walks into your front yard,

you know, maybe their dog poops there and they're picking it up, that's theoretically a criminal trespass. And the reason we don't arrest everybody who does that, who walks into your front yard, you know, maybe their dog poops there and they're picking it up, that's theoretically a criminal trespass. And the reason we don't arrest everybody who does that, who walks in your front yard, is we require this unlawful purpose or notice that you can't be there. And so here we have somebody who's looking around at a construction site, maybe once, maybe multiple times, we don't know for sure. But without the evidence of unlawful intent, you really can't say he committed the offense

and you don't have all the elements. Oh, how could? Oh, so let me ask you this. If I come home and find somebody in my premises, can they say to me, I'm just looking around. There's no crime here. I mean, if somebody is hung out, you know, they drank from your fridge or they're just hanging out in your couch, watching TV. They're just looking around. What? They're just looking around. I mean, are they in your, if they're in your home, they potentially broke in? No, I left the door open. You left the door wide open and somebody's in there.

You tell them to get out. You may or may not have the unlawful intent element, but you certainly have the element. The second way of proving criminal trespass is you tell somebody to get the hell out and never to come back and they come back you don't necessarily want criminal trespass to be something that's super easy to prove because in the course of just living your life you're going to walk across a lot of people's properties you might go into a business or an office building or anything else and you don't want to be summarily arrested right so we give law-abiding citizens some benefit of the doubt and you got to have some reason to think that entry is unlawful. Like, is he scoping out stuff to take that you can see in the video? Has he come

in late at night? Does he have burglary tools? These are all the things you would use just in the common sense, you know, thinking about it, to figure out if this is unlawful intent or he's just a guy looking around. Mr. Zimmerman, you agree with that? 100%. I mean, criminal trespass is, I mean, listen, it's one of the lowest level charges in the state of Georgia. And, you know, sure, walking to the house. I mean, I guess if you walk into someone's house, start drinking their milk, that could be a theft, which could turn into a burglary, right? So it's hard to infer intent when someone just walks in, especially just to an open construction house. I think it's what would a reasonable person believe and do in this case.

I mean, I think it's pretty common. I've seen a lot of people say, I walk into open construction houses all the time to check out the layout, see what kind of stuff is being put in. I mean, I used to when I was a kid. I haven't done it as an adult. But walking into that house does not necessarily rise to criminal trespass. I think, Nome, if it was your house behind the big gate,

they got past security. I think they would much easier be a criminal trespass case. So now what about in this first call, he refers to him having a flashlight. And then also you talk about kind of like warn somebody not to come again. Would the fact that they kind of chased him away that time, presuming it's the same guy, would that mean that if he came again,

it would be a clear coming of trespass? You can't warn people on other people's property not to go there, right? You can't tell your neighbor's boyfriend not to keep coming by. So his warning is irrelevant. And under the citizen arrest law, that's no longer his immediate presence. It's no longer the thing that he just observed that lets him make that citizen's arrest well andrew can we back up for a second yeah let's pretend it's the same guy and someone else comes by with flashlights and scares him off right is it possible he's on notice that he's not supposed to at least be in that

house just the criminal trespass aspect not to go to the next day. I'm not sure that you can give someone notice to be on a property that's not yours. Because think about the consequences of that. Your white neighbor has a black boyfriend. You tell him not to come by. Should he be on notice then that he can't be there anymore? You know, our criminal trespass law even has exceptions saying that like minor children can't invite people onto a property if the adults don't consent. So we have in mind this idea that it's like up to the property owner who gets there. And Larry English, he spoke to the media. He said nothing was stolen from the site.

He didn't ever notice anything missing. We'll get there, but let's be clear. Larry is the one who called, he got the ping and he asked the neighbor to go check it out. Diego. I, my gut would tell me that if I'm on vacation and my neighbor sees somebody walking on my property says, no, no, you can't be in here. Uh, I mean, I would think unless there's some other fact like, yeah, he doesn't know that I'm his friend or, or something like that would, you can't just be like, as long as I'm not home I can't stop and I can't tell anybody to watch my place for me that that that just I don't think people are gonna buy that and just an everyday common life but seems what do you make

of me somebody being in a house at night possibly with a flashlight does that sound to you instinctively like somebody just checking out a construction zone or being curious? Does that sound to you like anything other than just a curious passerby? Well, as somebody in my 13, 14, 15, and 16 would consistently go into empty houses with a flashlight with friends. We weren't there to, we didn't see anything.

We were still there to hang out and have fun. But it doesn't sound like to me it's something lawful at night going in with a flashlight. I think, you know, it's open construction. So it's a little bit different

than going into a closed house. But it certainly sounds suspicious to me. Let's just be honest. Let me add, I don't, you know, as someone who had built that house, there are plenty of reasons beyond stealing that you don't want somebody walking around your house. Liability. Yeah, the liability is huge. And, of course, there are, and it's dark, and it's not lit. It's not up to code. There's a, you know, it's a, it's not a minor thing. That might even be the main reason you wouldn't want somebody there, depending on what state of build the house is in. But at some point there are light fixtures and expensive tools and all sorts of things. So it's not, it's not, it's not the same as your home, but it's not like, you know, what do you care if somebody's, you know, in that place.

So anyway, so let's go. So then, and then the, I want to get this in the right order. Well, the next law, just to get them all out there, because I'm not sure if there's actually a proper order. The next law is about citizen's arrest. A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. And that applies, as I understand it, to misdemeanors as well, because the next statement is if the offense is a felony, then essentially you can, even on a suspicion, you can go after them. But if it's a misdemeanor, you have to have immediate knowledge of the

crime. So my question is about this immediate knowledge thing. First of all, he does have immediate knowledge if this is a criminal trespass. In the first 911 call on February 11th, that would be immediate knowledge, right? It seems like he saw the guy walking in and out of there. So if it's a criminal trespass, he has immediate knowledge. right? It seems like he saw the guy walking in and out of there. So that would, if it's a criminal trespass, he has immediate knowledge. But in the second call, the night that he's, that Arbery's killed, the day that he's killed, it doesn't seem like McMichael saw him going in and out of the premises with his own eyes. Can immediate knowledge extend back 13 days to the previous 911 call?

Could he be doing a citizen's arrest for that misdemeanor two weeks ago? Andrew, you answer that one. No. The idea is like you're a shopkeep, right? Somebody comes into your store and you watch him put something in his pocket, right? Now, in your immediate knowledge, you've got the offense of – you've got a misdemeanor offense, and you tell them to wait there until the cops get there. That's your citizen's arrest. That's what Walmart will do.

But you don't want to give citizens – and the law doesn't give citizens a freestanding right to just arrest people whenever. Now, there's not really a case right on point to this. I can't point you to something at the Court of Appeals that says, hey, no, we don't, because there's only like seven or eight cases dealing with citizen's arrest anywhere in Georgia. But immediate knowledge or inner presence, typically, I would have a hard time believing that extends indefinitely, that for the rest of that person's life, they have to worry about you coming to detain them. And also, as far as the felony thing goes, the idea that you have the right to pursue,

I don't think that gets rid of the immediate knowledge element of the crime, because you definitely don't want it to be the case that you see somebody running down the street and you can just suspect the burglar at that point. Maybe he has PC. He looks like somebody else committed a crime and you can chase him down indefinitely. That's just my view. What do you think? We're not talking about a felony here.

Is there any plausible argument of a felony here? Well, there's not even, with the lawyers previously said, they don't even believe this to be a misdemeanor or a criminal trespass. If it's not a criminal trespass, that means it's no crime at all, or that just means it's a lesser crime.

No crime. Well, let's be clear. I'm missing for both. Pardon? Yeah. I mean, we're also we're also operating without all the facts right i'm sure there's i'm sure more stuff will come out at some point but as we know right now it looks like at at worst it's criminal trespass so let me tell

you what doesn't feel let me tell you what hold on let me tell you what doesn't feel right i'm sorry what doesn't feel right about what you guys are telling me. I mean, I think that the law is ridiculous. Don't get me wrong. I think it's just crazy that something like this could be permitted. It sounds like right out of the middle ages, but if I saw somebody going in and out of my construction site last week. And there was video of him a few other times. And then the same dude is on the street and I see him running out of there

and my neighbor saw him. I find it hard to believe that whatever rights I would have to pursue a trespasser, which maybe there are none, but whatever rights I would have, I find it to be kind of like not common sense that, that I could have, I could have done it yesterday, but I can't do it tomorrow when it's a constant thing.

We're on the lookout, all the neighbor, he talks about, all the neighbors came out to watch. It's like, they're, they're, they're, they're in a state of alert about this guy. If it's the same guy every time. Isn't it relevant that it hasn't even been established that this is the same person? We're talking hypothetically. We're assuming it's the same person.

We saw the pictures. Presuming they can recognize him, you know, as a person they can recognize, you know. But they haven't. It's almost a little like, what you're saying is that a white guy can't recognize a black guy. They all look alike to him or something.

But I'm presuming he saw the guy and that's the same guy he saw the last time and the time before. And, you know, maybe not. Then nobody's denied. The family hasn't denied. They know this is out there. They've denied that it's him.

I mean. They have denied. At the very least, they've denied that the man in the video from earlier was him. And Larry English also said it didn't look like the same guy they had. Oh, I didn't see that. Okay. That's a good fact.

Go ahead. But back to what the law says, whether we agree with it or not. And, you know, it says within your immediate knowledge, immediate knowledge isn't 13 days before. The law was created so if it was immediate you could take you could do something with the criminal trespass you saw somebody go in your house the day before then you put up a sign saying do not no one allowed to enter this place ever again you put up a warning now next time he enters now that absolutely is going to be charged criminal trespass this has been warned that's a lot of times that's the remedy what the remedy. What's that? Right.

That's the remedy. You talked about the worry that, you know, if the law is this other way, then you can't tell people not to get on your property if you're not there. But you can put a prominent no trespassing signs. And at that point, you've probably given that person notice under the law. Is it chasing him away equivalent?

Well, can you invite someone to your neighbor's house? Well, he's saying because it your neighbor's house? He's saying because it wasn't the owner that chased him away, then it is not putting him on notice. Well, here's what I think. I think we're just sort of getting out into the weeds, and Andrew may disagree, but

when you talk about the first night someone chases him away, I think we may infer unlawful intent if the same guy comes back because he's already been chased away. Whether that person who chased him away didn't have a right to tell him not to come back, he still comes back. Maybe we can then infer there's some unlawful intent because he's been told by somebody not to come here, and now he keeps coming back. What's his purpose? What's his lawful purpose?

Well, the law specifically says, I'm looking it up now, after receiving prior to such entry notice from the owner, rightful occupant, or upon proper identification, authorized representative of the owner or rightful occupant. So there are actually cases in Georgia where police officers tell people not to come back someplace. But without that authorization from the owner, they don't have the right to bar you from another property. You can agree or disagree with the policy, but that's just what the law happens to say. Well, what if this guy had the right to tell him not to come back? What if he was just out there looking, taking care of his neighbor's property? Well, if he said the homeowner has told me that you can't come back here, that nobody else allowed here, then he would have received proper notice. Counsel, isn't there some presumption

that you can't go into somebody's home even if they went away for a week and they forgot to lock the door, that you can't just go and squat in their house? That just seems- Well, that would be unlawful intent, wouldn't it? I mean, if you started to look like you were living there taking advantage,

I mean, the law doesn't have black and white. Taking advantage is law. And you can throw facts at me that'll change the amount. What? You started to look like you were living there, taking advantage. I mean, the law doesn't have black and white. And you can throw facts at me that'll change the amount. What? I'm saying taking advantage. I mean, like, I know. I know I can't just go. If my neighbor is stupid enough to leave for a week

and forgets to lock the door, I'm quite aware that I just can't go in and out of there. I just can't believe there'd be some loophole that that's not illegal. Maybe a construction site is different. And if I had ever been chased out of there once before and found my, if that's what happened, and I was running away because somebody was trying to get me out of there at some point, and then I went back, I would not feel like I could assume this is perfectly legal. I don't know.

Maybe I've been lost. But what if, what if you're a, what if I, what if your cell phone's dead and you, my, my wifi isn't working perfect all day, except for now.

I keep looking down and check my speed. What, what if your cell phone's dead and you're hungry and you want to order pizza and your neighbor's door is open. So you just went in and picked up their phone, made a call, ordered a pizza. I don't know if that's unlawful purpose. I mean, we don't like it. I mean, I don't want someone coming to my house to use my phone, but is it a crime?

That's the issue. The problem is, I mean, I would hope that they wouldn't punish it very much, if at all, because it's kind of impossible for the law to distinguish that. But that would be something for the people deciding to make up their minds about in terms of prosecuting or sentencing, if it's de minimis or whatever it is, if it was a neighbor. But I just feel like that what kind of the, if we carry this to its logical conclusion, we're kind of saying that everybody's house is open to like, you know, checking, you can go in there in there check it out walk around as long as you don't take anything and that can't that can't possibly be yeah but no you know in my opinion my doors are locked i mean my door is closed my front door is shut we're talking about an open

door the door is locked open but a lot of neighborhoods that is frowned upon is illegal Double dipping a chip is frowned upon But it's not illegal So yeah It would be terrible for you to walk into your neighbor's house Just because you left it unlocked Can't you shoot Can't you shoot an intruder in some states Just for them walking in

In Georgia You can shoot someone who's making a forcible entry into your home so a forcible entry would be your neighbor says not if they you know your neighbor in the middle night here is you bashing at his door with a crowbar yeah you can kill him um but here you're talking about just walking in an open door yeah all right so let's move on. And the final law, and this is the final law I think that we're going to need, and it's not looking good for the McMichaels right now, I'm going to say that. Carrying and possession of a firearm, any person who is not prohibited by law

from possessing a handgun or a long gun may have or carry on his person or possession a weapon without a valid carry license provided that if the gun is loaded it shall only be carried in an open and fully exposed manner does that mean that um if someone's going to go on an authorized, a valid citizen's arrest, which it really beginning to sound like this wasn't, if someone goes on a valid citizen's arrest, they can carry their rifle with them as long as they don't point it at somebody. Is that what that means? Yeah, you're talking, sometimes you have to point the weapon at someone for it to be aggravated assault, but sometimes just gesturing to it, saying something like, I'll kill you or I'll

hurt you. Georgia's really weird. We have armed robbery cases where people don't have a gun, but they cock their hip out like they have a gun. And that is held to be the same as actually possessing a weapon. So if you are carrying a weapon and approaching somebody and telling him to stop, and he reasonably thinking this guy might be about to shoot me, that could be an aggravated assault felony. And also, as you pointed out, you have misdemeanor pointing a gun too. So yeah, those can be crimes. And in Georgia, if somebody is committing a felony, especially a forceful felony,

you typically have a right to even use deadly force to protect yourself. Are you saying that if Arbery reached his hand into his pocket, as McMichael says, as if to touch a gun, that could matter here? He said if you cocked your hip, if you do a gesture as if you have a weapon. Yeah. I mean, Lord knows how many shoot. There are so many shoots from police officers where they say, oh, yeah, the guy was reaching for his waistband. I had to shoot him, which is weird to me why all these people without guns are reaching for their waistband. It seems like a mistake. But yeah, if Arbery before these guys began, what could be termed an aggravated assault?

If he reached for his pocket or reached for his waist. Yeah, that could be potentially aggravated assault or could provide justification for a shoot. Have you seen the same video on YouTube that has a 911 call along with the surveillance cameras playing alongside? Have you seen that? I still don't understand why they're showing that video of him in a white shirt when you're saying that's not from the same day. It doesn't make any sense to me. No, the white shirt is the same day.

That video you see of him going to the construction is him, and that's him coming out. The day before, it's infrared, and I think someone said he was wearing another person wearing a red shirt a week before that. The family's identified that as him.

I think that's what Noam was saying, an article he pulled up. But the family's identified him in that house, for sure. I don't think that's what Noam was saying, that article he pulled up. But the family's identified him in that house, for sure. I don't think that's a debatable issue. And that's him coming out. But it looks like it's six minutes later, though, when you see him running down the road, according to this video.

I'm not telling you this is 100% accurate, but this is what someone sent me. So I'm going to share one more screen, just because it's interesting. I spent time doing it. And then we can go to a free-for-all conversation. This is the Google satellite map of the neighborhood. Can you guys see it?

No, it's black. This is the site. That's the construction site. This is where Diego Perez lives when he went right over there. It's possible this is the construction site, but according to the Google addresses, it's this one. But, you know, sometimes I get that wrong by house. This is McMichael house right here lives. That's the guy who was shooting the video. It's coming this way. And this where the X is, this is where the shooting is, except that they were coming down the road this way, not going that way, which means if you read the police report, he ran down this way, then Roddy maybe had him off and he ran down the other way. Then they ran up this way and somehow they turned around to get back facing this way. So it sounds like it was quite a chase

and I'm sure that I'm right about this because I went and I compared, this is the screen, there's so much about this story that just seems so hard to comprehend. Why does he keep going through this house? Why did he not steal anything? Why are they

chasing him so much what like it's like it was designed by an evil genius law professor as an impossible hypothetical you know and then this this poor guy gets killed um so why don't we take it this way if he gets acquitted by way, do you think it's felony murder for all of them or just the son? Zimmerman. What do you think? All of them. And if they were to get acquitted, so what's the felony that they would all come under? Assault?

Aggravated assault. Aggravated assault. And what would the crime be? What would they get? Well, someone died as a result of an aggravated assault, a felony murder. I mean, listen, it could be a malice murder. If you're telling me they're chasing him

and back and forth like that to catch him, I mean, potentially, I mean, listen, they'll indict it for malice murder. I mean, that happens all the time. They always overcharge cases. I think it's a mistake, but they'll overcharge it so they can get them on something. And if they

were to get acquitted, would the following things have to fall in line? It would have to be a criminal trespassing. It would have to be within his immediate knowledge. And he would have to have not have pointed the gun prior to the shooting. All three things would be necessary to get acquitted, correct?

No, I think the problem is that I think if it's a criminal trespass, that's worse for the defense because it has to be some reasonable force. I mean, think about it. You can't use deadly force in a citizen's arrest unless it's self-defense. Oh, well, that's right. I'm sorry. I was assuming that if you could get that far, as I said, he didn't point because if he didn't point the gun, then when Arbery seems to grab the gun at that point, I figure self-defense would kick in. If they're on firm ground up until then, which seems almost impossible from what you're telling me. But at that point, if you've done nothing wrong and the guy comes and grabs your rifle rifle it seems like then he's the he's the aggressor you and you if you shoot him you're not a murderer i mean is

that really the problem the citizen's arrest when someone's not wearing a uniform how does arboree know who these guys are and why they're trying to yeah well that's why the law that's why the law is absolutely absurd i mean just absolutely maybe from the time of the 1950s yeah i mean i mean obviously it's from 1868 or 1863. But here's a guy running. Maybe he thinks there's two white guys trying to hunt him down because he's in the wrong neighborhood. He's afraid for his life.

Isn't it so obvious that that's what it is? I mean, to me, it's so obvious that that's what it is. To me, nothing's ever obvious. So to me, the way these guys win is probably not in front of a jury. So they're going to go in front of a county judge. They're going to ask for immunity. That judge gets to hear all the facts, make his own decision well before trial. And that judge could go ahead and acquit them before trial in a way that's almost impossible to reverse.

So if they win, that's probably how they win. And then you have riots, right? Well, I mean, I don't know what you have. You certainly have a lot of people mad at Brunswick County. But, you know, judges who are about to retire, especially, and there are some older ones in Brunswick, you know, they might be inclined to go ahead and grant the immunity motion because they know the guy or because they feel like he did the right thing, even if maybe all the elements don't line up exactly. You know, it is what it is. This is a guy who worked in that district attorney's office for 20-some years,

even though he didn't have his proper post-certification. He was acting as an investigator for an office, even though he couldn't deliver subpoenas or make arrests like he was supposed to be able to. And there was this huge, embarrassing thing about it. They let him get by with that. That's just kind of how things are. Not that they're bad people, but they just know the guy. and they trust him. So yeah, they can win the way. And also bear in mind that the burden is

beyond a reasonable doubt. So he raises the affirmative defense. He says the affirmative defense of this guy was committing a burglary. I'm going to say he was there to steal stuff. That's what I reasonably thought. Well, then it's the state's job to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that belief, that reasonable belief that this guy job to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that belief that that reasonable belief that this guy had been committing a burglary and that he was running from it. Citizens arrest. Is it is it a reasonable belief sufficient or you have to be right or the citizens arrest

is invalid? Well, you the citizens arrest law itself. You have to be right. But Georgia has a separate defense is called mistake effect. So if you reasonably believe something to be true, even if it's not, you get the benefit of that doubt. Like for instance, I come to your house in the middle of the night,

I brought you a bouquet of cookies. Hooray, you shoot me. Okay, you made a mistake. I wasn't committing a forcible felony, but you sure had a good reason. So yeah, it's not impossible for them to win. And if I were their lawyer, that would be my angle. I would say either this guy was committing a burglary

or they made a reasonable mistake of fact that he was. And then they were entitled to chase him. And then once he grabbed the gun, as you said, they committed no prior aggravated assault. Well, at that point, they had the right to a deadly response. I don't agree that that's true, but it's not impossible for them to win. So you're saying if they reasonably believe that it was a burglary, they would have a legal right to chase him? There's a citizen's arrest statute that says give chase if it's a felon. Immediate presence is hard to get past. That's the big issue, right?

Because they didn't actually see him go in, as far as I can tell. So maybe that element keeps them from winning. But that would be their best shot. That's what I would try. I think the burglary is complicated by the fact that he's been in there so many times he didn't take anything it's like at this point they they're kind of on notice that the guy doesn't doesn't seem to take anything the hard part's a burglary let's pretend there's a burglary right they can't use force i mean they use some sort of reasonable force they can't taking a gun and pointing someone that's that's a pretty high level of use of force

but that's not that's not that's a fact not in record that they pointed it at him i haven't that's not even on the video as far as i've seen that like i mean if i think if they pointed it at him then they definitely lose but it doesn't look like they're pointing it at him does it you look at that video i haven't been sure about it i i don't think it's impossible for them to win i think they have a they have a shot at it and there's going to be judges and jurors who are sympathetic to their point of view so i'll tell you in mind it's not just whether it's i mean you're going to have an acquittal even if the jury thinks the person did it as long as a reasonable doubt right i think you know what i don't like about the video is afterwards i feel like i guess that's travis mcmichael it looks like he just shoots him and just sort of lets him

walks away from like he's a dog you know like no at least those those few seconds no emotion oh my god i killed some guy or he's on the ground no one's over there trying to help him he just walks away with a gun like he just really just shot a deer and it's like his trophy i'm not saying that's what it is i just don't as a defense lawyer i would say man i hate the way that looks How do we make that look better for us? Jesus, what a case. Do you all predict a guilty verdict or a guilty decision, I gather? I'm not in the business of predicting verdicts. I can tell you this.

They have some of the finest lawyers in the country. Those are all four of those lawyers are my dear friends, and they're great lawyers. They're going to work hard, and they're going to do what's right and fight for their clients. And they got great lawyers to help them. If I was a defense attorney, I might rail against the law. You know, in other words,

what I would say is, I know this is horrible. I know you don't think this is the kind of thing that should happen. But the law created this mechanism of citizen's arrest. And you can see the language itself. It says offense. It doesn't say felony. And if the law created this mechanism, then my client had a right to avail himself of it. And as we know here in Georgia,

we're allowed to take our guns wherever we want, whenever we want. This is our civil right. And I don't have to give up my civil right if I want to go chase somebody who's trespassed in my house. And if you don't like it, you should change the law. But don't blame my client for acting legally under a law that you don't like. That kind of thing. What I do think, where I disagree with the attorneys, even though I have no right to is this thing about criminal trespass. I just feel like, and even, and even the citizens,

I just feel like if a guy's been out in and out three, four times and we've seen him on, on camera, and then I see him and I've been chased and i've chased him once before i i really feel like it's going to take an extremely technical mind to say well you still even though you saw the video and you saw him three times this particular time you didn't have immediate knowledge of this thing he was pretty certain i don't know what was going on yeah go ahead no i see where you're coming from i i can see where that might i mean that's the sort of thing i mean juries nullify all the time

nullifying meaning that they don't follow the law as it's written and they could certainly do that in this case so you guys are the best guests we've ever had and this is the first time we've ever had technical problems and i just want to apologize it want to apologize. I hope you guys will come back in the future. And I appreciate you not getting impatient because it's a little frustrating. Go ahead, Dan. Just something a little bit not clear on. So we keep talking about criminal trespass. If it's not criminal trespass under the statute, then what is it? A completely non-event? In other words, if I go on your lawn, you don't tell me to get off your lawn, you don't tell me anything, you're not even home. I go on your lawn

and I leave your lawn. I don't commit any crime or anything unlawful while I'm there. There's zero offense of any kind. Is that correct? Legally. There's zero misdemeanors or felonies. It might violate some local ordinance, but I feel pretty confident it's not a misdemeanor or a felony. Therefore, at that point, any citizen's arrest law would just not apply at all under any circumstances. I mean, yeah. If it's a non-crime. If it's neither misdemeanor nor felony,

citizen's arrest statute has nothing to do with it. Well, no. I was going to say i mean we're getting hung up on this criminal trespass i mean i think i think it's just a criminal trespass that's a problem for the defense i mean isn't it why i mean how do they well i mean how do they how are they if it's a criminal trespass i mean it's it's a it's just a misdemeanor you already they've already called that one a couple times before it like, so they know they call the police. So here they are taking the law into their own hands, trying to, and if we follow what Noam's saying, if that's what happened, how they sort of boxed him in, I mean, you know,

and they have firearms. Just the fact, if you have a firearm holstered, police routinely use firearms just holstered as a show of force, right? A cop has a gun, or if you have a gun pointed down, that's still a use of force, just a different level of force. There's a force continuum. Even chasing, some states consider chasing a level of force. Well, I'm just taking this argument that they had the guns with them but didn't point them. Like I said, I think if they pointed them, they're going to fry.

I did find an Illinois case which had a similar law where i think i sent it to you and and the um illinois case says that uh uh in a citizen's rest you can even stop a vehicle and detain people you know so there is there is some precedent i mean like i would take it from a different angle if if i were in that situation somebody kept going in my house and I care and I can't catch him. And I almost got him and I chased him out and he comes back. And I said to my lawyer friend, what can I do here? Am I allowed to do anything myself here? Because the cops, my time, not the time the cops get here, I'm never going to get him.

He's out before the nine one one is just futile. And my lawyer said, well, you can make a citizen's arrest. Ah, well, can I bring my gun with me? And he says, in Georgia, you can bring your gun wherever you want. You know, I can see that. They're like, oh, okay. You know, I'm a crazy lunatic. I'm going to go chasing this guy, take my gun and chase this guy for trespassing.

My lawyer told me it's legal. What bum advice has my lawyer given me? That's a big one. You just can't chase for a misdemeanor. And there's actually a Supreme court of Georgia case. I cited in that article where this guy wants an instruction on citizen's arrest because he chased some guy down with a baseball bat for burglarizing his home. Supreme court of Georgia said, nah, that's never going to be okay. You can't chase somebody down with a baseball bat because you think you burgled your, your home. I read that. And I, and I didn't agree with you for some reason, or I thought that it wasn't exactly on point. I just don't understand how you go from this guy who is on this property to getting

murdered. And like these, I mean, isn't that at the end of the day, really what the conversation is? Like this innocent guy who got gunned down by these two like vigilante citizens. Like what are they doing? Like who asked them to do that? Why is that even like remotely in a universe that that's okay? Andrew, do you think there's a possibility of a defensive accident? No, I think it would be a mistake to raise. First off, you have to say that you were not committing any crime at all and the gun kind of went off. Now, maybe you could try for like appointing a gun involuntary or reckless conduct involuntary.

But for here, I don't think you can say that it was purely accidental because you would have to show that you were committing no crime at all. You might not even get the instruction. But one thing that gets lost in all this, nobody ever takes perspective, what are Arbery's self-defense rights under this? Let's assume he's gone to look at a house. He hasn't committed a crime. He's running down the street. Some guys come up to him and tell him to freeze, and they've got weapons,

and maybe they're even a little bit intimidating. Does he have the right to use deadly force and potentially to kill both men? I think if you're anybody who cares about the right of self-defense, you want them to have that right. I feel like it's a little bit lost. Oftentimes we forget the perspective of the person who's dead because we can't hear from them. Right.

Is it relevant what was said, what words were said? You said he said freeze. Did he say freeze or is that that a supposition he said something like stop his version of the events in the police report was something like i asked him to politely stop that's not really shown in the video but you know if somebody comes up to you and they're even if they're not pointing a gun at you and they say hey give me your wallet or stop right there you could reasonably perceive hey man this guy's gonna shoot me if i don't do what he wants totally like why does arbory even have to... Andrew, there's a Patel

case in Georgia where it's similar. He totally got a halt. He was watching him go into a different, I guess he had a store and they're going into an outer part of his property and he shot the guy dead because he wouldn't halt. And he was convicted of murder. Mr. Fleischman, can I tell you why I didn't

agree with you about Carter v. State? I don't want to get too boring, but just, it says, I'm reading from the case, even though slight evidence is enough to justify giving the jury charge, we conclude there was not sufficient evidentiary support in this case to warrant the trial court's charge on citizens' arrest. And here's the key part, I think.

Although a private person may make a citizen's arrest under, it gives the statute, only force that is reasonable under the circumstance may be used to restrain the individual arrested. But they will say, we didn't use the guns. We carried our guns with us in case we needed them to protect ourselves because I saw the dude reach into his waist the first time I got him. So I wasn't using my gun. The last thing I wanted to do was use my gun, but I brought it with me just in case. I'm not that.

So I don't, that's why I say using a gun. Yes. But it doesn't say that you can't have the gun in Georgia. I mean, I don't know Georgia, but it seems to me everything I do know about Georgia, they regard carrying a gun,

like, you know, free speech. What, what, what, what if we just set aside a citizen's arrest? What if these guys are defense and if it adds up,

what if they just want to go talk to him and see why he kept going in and out of the home and he had no intent to make a citizen's arrest? And then to them, Arbery ran at the guy who had a gun. He wasn't pointing the gun at him. And that's why the gun, you know, he shot him because he was afraid for his life. I think it's still come up against

the law of assault because they put him in reasonable fear of being shot one would argue of course well you're asking me a possible defense i mean we keep harping on the citizens arrest maybe they weren't trying to arrest them maybe okay they were just going to- Right, but what about the assault charge? What about the notion that he put Arbery in reasonable fear of being harmed? Is there any defense to that? You would have to say that his fear was unreasonable, that he responded instinctively,

maybe because he felt bad and that he was going for the gun and acting crazy. I don't agree with that, but that's what I would say if I were his lawyer. It seems like two guys are chasing you in a car and are armed, and we don't know exactly what was said. It's a pretty good case for being in a reasonable apprehension of physical harm. I mean, he was a cop. But, Noam, you showed us that whole

Google map thing. Are you sure? I mean, is that do we know that they chased him that way and boxed him in back and forth? Is that absolutely? Okay, so I tried to piece it together from the police report. And he says,

McMichael stated he and Travis got in the truck and drove down satilla drive towards buford burford which is here when they arrived at the intersection of satilla drive and holmes drive here they saw an unidentified male running down burford drive michael then stated travis started uh down burford and attempted to cut the mail off. So now he's already on Burford. The unidentified male turned around and began running back in the direction from which he came in. Roddy, that's the guy who took the video, attempted to block him, which was unsuccessful. Michael stated then he jumped in the bed of the truck,

and he and Travis continued to Holmes in an attempt to intercept him. So now maybe they went to Holmes. Maybe they went around up this way around Jones road and back down. I didn't have the whole map to see if they actually intersect, but they looked like they did, but somehow he was riding down these streets and wound up on this street facing this way, which is what appears South. It's not quite South. But so that's quite a, you know, he's changing directions. And then this guy's coming from this side. This dude must've been terrified.

I'm talking about Arbery. And then, you know, the tragedy here is if you look at this, it's such an open field. Like, why don't you run this way? Why don't you run that way? You know, and it's such a kind of like a bravery, maybe born out of panic or something to

chase go right to the guy who has the gun when you have all this open play and the guy's not even in the car anymore so you know he's not going to chase you in the car it's just it's just it's so tragic in that way even if he did it i mean even even if he were let's not forget that even if it wasn't burglary so what you know i mean who i know a million people who've done shit like that. It might give them justification under the law, but it's not like that's a major crime where you say, well, justice was done, the burglar got it.

Nobody wants to see a burglar, especially a kid, shot. I mean, this guy sounds like he was just being gunned down by four or five, how many fucking people i mean that's part of that's part of the the spark that lit this fire when people see this video it's terribly sad but you know as lawyers especially criminal defense lawyers and we've represented some great people and some not so great people and innocent people and guilty people we try to get it in the light of you know and we talked to our clients maybe these guys are saying that's not what really happened here that's why I'm

always hesitant to say this guy's guilty or anything so I don't it's not my case I've had plenty cases where I look at it from the outside I start digging like man this is this guy's innocent and I can't believe nobody knows about these facts so I'm very hesitant hesitant to start saying yeah definitely this is what it shows, and we put this together. I don't know that, but it certainly doesn't look right. Imagine in Israel, just for a second, a Palestinian is accused of murdering an Israeli. And the Israelis say, well, you know, they're terrorists all the time. And we would look at

that and say, wait a second, you can't assume that this Palestinian guy did all, you know, we would see it immediately. You can't. Well, certainly I don't think it's relevant unless McMichaels have in their history that they've gone after other minorities, specifically black men. I don't think

it's relevant to point the finger and say this is Georgia, look what happened. It happened again here. Put them away. I would think that would be highly objectionable. I hope Andrew would agree with that. Well, is it relevant? Andrew looks like he doesn't totally agree. Come on, Andrew.

Well, you know what sticks to my crow in this case? I think if they'd made an arrest that day, this wouldn't be a national story. The thing is, these guys weren't treated like anybody else gets treated in our system. If you see two armed men and one unarmed man on the ground, maybe they got an affirmative defense. You leave that for the courts to figure

out. One of my exonerees, this guy Kelvin Bradley, he's a great guy. A woman, a crack dealer was running people down with her car at a funeral. And he shot and killed her, saving lots of people's lives. And he was arrested that day. He did five years in prison before he got a competent lawyer and I was able to get him out.

And the way he was treated as a licensed security guard with a concealed carry permit, making a good shoot is not the way these men were treated under these very suspicious circumstances. So I see that. I see what my client looks like and what these guys look like and what that county looks like. And I can't help but feel some unfairness there. So it's not just about the shoot. It's about their treatment. Now, if you want to treat everybody like the McMichaels, if everybody gets two months out and some time to talk and work it out before they're arrested, that's a fine system. But if we single them out for good treatment, it's because our government is saying that what they did is more laudable than the other people we arrested.

And that's the racism. I would agree with you 100%. Right. I agree 110% with that as well. I'm talking about in court during a trial will be relevant to bringing historical racism in the South. I don't know if that itself

doesn't get pointed to McMichael's racism historically. That's all I'm saying. I don't think you separate the South. I don't know if that itself was a good point to make. Michael's race isn't historically. That's all I'm saying. I don't think you can separate the two. I mean, I don't think you can separate a culture. When you put somebody in jail or give them the electric chair,

you have to prove what they did, not what other people who look like them have done. They killed Arbery. There's no question that they got a sweetheart treatment from this corrupt legal law. I mean, that's pretty obvious, right? I hope so. I'm actually surprised in this day and age

that what I'm saying is even controversial, which is simply that you have to prove it based on evidence of what he did. That's all I'm saying. It's like that shouldn't be a controversial thing. I don't want anybody convicting me of anything based on what other Jews have done. If God forbid, I'm misfortunate to be born into a family of terrorists, I still want them to prove I did it and not be able to say that my family is terrorists. It's a recipe for injustice. Well, here, I'll give you a better example. God forbid I kill somebody in self-defense and people will say hey george zimmerman killed trayvon martin hey i have no i am not related to him whatsoever at all and people have made comments even in this case i hate that guy because he ruined my family's name okay don't even look

like a white hispanic to me well zimmerman is uh a common enough name that your name is not ruined because there's other zimmermans out there but if your name is not ruined because there's other Zimmermans out there, but if your name were made off and the only made off that anybody's ever heard of is Bernie, then you'd be in trouble. Luckily there's other Zimmermans. Like for example, When OJ got arrested, Homer Simpson was really upset. I associate you more with Bob Dylan.

He's a Zimmerman too, of course. Robert Zimmerman of Hibbing, Minnesota. And then, of course, there was the Zimmerman note from World War I, you might remember from your history class, where they tried to get Mexico

on the... Germany tried to get Mexico to attack the United States, and Germany promised Mexico territory. Anyway, there's other Zimmermans. Last licks. I'm going to have to vote guilty based on what the attorneys have told me

about the various laws. It seems like a tough hurdle. What do you guys want to predict? Are you allowed to predict as lawyers? Well, I'm not going to predict because those are my dear friends that are representing them. And I think it's a terrible case all around. It's a tragedy. well i'm not gonna predict those are my dear friends that are representing them and i i i

think uh it's a terrible case all around it's tragedy nobody should ever die this is awful the tough case i don't know all the facts is all i'm saying okay i'm sure there's more facts to come out that may be helpful it's too early i mean i know you don't try the cases in the media or on zoom i mean we can have our fun, but this is real life. We actually are trying the case on Zoom right now. We're trying the case. This is a mock trial on Zoom. Something else might come up.

What might come up? What could possibly come up that, like, an innocent man got gunned down and murdered, I mean, basically hunted down. Many things are going to come up. Probably things that I can't even think of. Will they? My guess is that...

Who can? We already know there's already a potential witness out there that left a note, right, that now they're looking for him. Someone left a note at the crime scene. No, I saw a headline that they found a person, and it was just Now they're looking for him. Someone left a note at the crime scene. No, I saw a headline that it was just somebody, they found a person, it was just someone who was sad for him. And who cares even if he did steal something?

Who gives a shit? How is that relevant? Well, it means that their sentence of arrest is more likely to be okay. So yeah, you prove the burglary, you prove he actually took something, which is enough for burglary, it's intent to steal. And you prove he was running running from it so they had the right to hem him in

and you prove they didn't point the guns at him and you prove that he reached for the gun and they feared for their life okay you hit that exact sequence oh it's awesome we didn't we didn't talk about this and this is the last thing because this but what about the fact now it doesn't it doesn't may not fit into the law but just as um something to grapple with doesn't it help them that they kept calling 9-1-1 i mean obviously if you're calling 9-1-1 you're not intending to shoot the guy and also if you he was running down the road if you wait till he gets to you and actually let him to get upon you and grab your gun rather than shoot him 10 feet away it all goes in my mind to the fact that it doesn't seem like they were looking to shoot him down they just were stupid they put him in they just created a

terribly dangerous situation what i don't know can i tell you the best piece of evidence in my opinion yeah the fact that b Brian filmed the whole thing. These guys, these aren't like youngsters on TikTok or Snapchat filming crazy stuff. These are older men, ones in the law enforcement. Why would you video something if your intent was to do some real harm and you know someone's going to uncover that? And he gave it to the police immediately.

That's a good fact. And why would you call 911 on your way to a murder? Well, I'm adding that to the fact. Yeah. They were hunting. They hunted them down like animals is, is a difficult one to get behind, but that they committed aggravated assault.

And in the course of that felony, somebody died. I think it's from what we know, a reasonable theory. And perhaps the one that I'll predict, given what we know, that's the theory that will win in court. But maybe something will come out that negates that. Maybe they'll cut a deal. Maybe the kid will cut a deal and take 20 years so his dad can be let go, right? I mean, that may happen so there's certainly a possibility of a reduced plea deal here i think that's actually the way this most likely shakes out because you can't be sure what the jury's going to do you don't have the victim's testimony right victims never testify in murder trials

and so you have basically a little uncertainty cop county is a great office and they win a lot of cases, but I could see them offering something less than life. And I think I could see somebody jumping at that. I don't think they'll get life. I find it hard to believe that it would get life. Well, felony murder conviction carries life in prison automatically. Can I throw this into the mix? Because I don't, I don't frigging understand Georgia.

Look at this headline. Pulling out a gun during a dispute would be legal under this proposal. Georgia senators are pursuing a bill that would make it legal to brandish a gun during a dispute. What kind of, what kind of crazy people, they want to make it legal to take out your gun when you're having an argument. Yeah, because in Georgia, if you just sort of just have your gun at your hip and sort of move like andrew's sort of saying before it could be armed robbery you sort of move towards somebody and you have your gun like hey what's up they can charge aggravated assault because i mean it's kind of brandishing it could be a higher level of that so i think those are legislators and they're not infinite wisdom they're trying to that, I think they should just leave it as is.

I see. The gun laws in this country full stop are just a nightmare. So, Perrielle, before we go, will you acknowledge in any way that the fact that they called 911 and the fact that there's a history of calling 911 and trying to get this guy to stop, does that in any way make you lower what you think their intention was?

Or do you think that a guy who would just set out to murder somebody would do those things? I think that if that guy, if Arbery were white, I think that he would be alive right now. I don't think they would have ever called 911. I don't think they would have chased him down. I don't think that's fine. I'm asking you, I haven't asked that. That's, that's, that's not an answer to my question, obviously. It is. No, I don't. So maybe.

No, it doesn't change what I think. Okay. I think. Go ahead. No, I'm saying I think, and I've been thinking about that a lot. I think that's where the racial bias and subconscious racism comes in, potentially. Would they have chased down a white guy? Of course not.

Right. I mean, I don't know these guys, potentially, would they have chased down a white guy? Of course not. Right. I mean, I don't know these guys, but the way it plays out, I feel like as a white guy, they probably just call the police. But here, this is a young black man. They feel like they have power over him. I think that's where a lot of the racial tensions coming in. And then you have the shooting, obviously.

I would agree, but it's just a guess but it seems you know it it feels right which is dangerous but it feels right that they that they wouldn't have chased him uh if it were not a been a black guy from from out not in their neighborhood and and you know but having that is not to say that they chased him intending to go to jail or get arrested. I mean, it's not like they knew that they just be able to shoot this guy in the street and nothing would happen to them. Why would they call them? Nothing happened to them for two months.

Yes, but they didn't, they couldn't, they couldn't count on him grabbing their gun to give them that, that excuse to shoot them. It was a chance they were willing to take. I find that hard to believe. Go ahead, Andrew. McMichaels was operating without his post-certification, which lets him be a police officer

for like 14 years as part of this office. And he kind of knew the limits of what he should and shouldn't do. But you're right. The calling the 911 says, you know, it cuts one way, but it also cuts the other. Maybe they were just wrong about the law. They didn't know what the law was.

And that's never a defense in Georgia. That's, I think, most likely. I think that they were wrong about the law. I mean, based on what you guys are telling me, they were wrong about the law. It'd be hard for Greg when Michael says he's wrong about the law, considering he spent a long time in the district attorney's office. But we don't know. I mean, we're just opining here. These's office. But we don't know. We're just

opining here. These are allegations and we don't know what happened. No, this is actually the real case. Okay. So what do you want to ask about comedy? We have five minutes. Well, listen, I'm shocked that I'm here talking to you.

I can't believe you want to actually talk about the law. And I'm not so unfunny. Well, Dan's a real comedian. Go ahead. Noam is a comedy club owner, but he's an accidental comedy club owner. Most comedy club owners have had an interest in comedy. The owner of Broadway comedy club, Al Martin was a comic. Chris Mazzilli did comedy, the owner of Gotham,

the owners of the stands have been comedy fans for a long time. They had a website about it. Noam tripped and fell into a comedy club. So he really has no association with comedy. He's a musician. Thank your dad, Noam. What's that?

His dad tripped and fell into it too. He was not a comedy fan either. Your dad was a musician, though. He was a musician and he had a basement. He had some real estate that somebody wanted to make a club in. So neither of them are necessarily comedy superfans. They just happen to own a comedy club. That's why nobody –

I went to law school, and I loved law school. I mean, this – what we're doing now is exactly what you do in law school, and I could do this all day. I hated the glimpse I got of the practice of law, and I think what you guys in law school and i could do this all day i hated the the glimpse i got of the practice of law and i think what you guys do is probably way more interesting but like the corporate law whatever i just said i said no fucking way i'm not gonna be miserable my whole life so i didn't do it but this aspect of the law is is really really interesting to me at some point maybe i'd like to have uh you guys on again because i'm also fascinated with the psychology

of a defense attorney because i mean that's got to be no matter have you guys on again because I'm also fascinated with the psychology of a defense attorney because that's got to be, no matter what you guys say there has to be certain times what am I doing here and that's I always find really interesting Marielle did you read my blog post I texted you? I read part of it I didn't get through the whole thing

give it to Noam, he'll know our psychology well yeah yeah did you guys believe this? Give it to Noam. He'll know our psychology. Well, yeah. Did you guys do the equals? Noam, didn't they film, Seinfeld film comedian at Comedy Cellar? Yes, he did. A lot of it. A lot of it. And of course, Louis as well.

Yeah, we've been fortunate. I don't know if we're ever going to open again. Stop saying that. But I think we will. This is such a horrible time. When the pandemic started, I went on Amazon Prime and spent like 1 a.m. to 5 a.m. watching old Carlin stand-ups. Oh, you're a real fan. Carlin was fantastic. Yeah.

By the way, speaking of Amazon Prime, you should watch Contagion. Did you see this movie, Contagion? With Matt Damon? Yeah. I mean, it's exactly what happened. I watched it years ago. I don't want to watch it again. I'll die.

The details are amazing. All right. So, guys, I hope that you guys thought this was a decent conversation. We're not a bunch of dummies. How do you guys know each other? Did you ever face each other on opposite ends? We're both on the same side. So Andrew works for a lawyer who's a dear friend of mine.

So I'm the president of the George Association, as you said. Andrew is a chair of one of our committees, one of the appellate committees. So technically he works for me for the organization. But he's a super, he's a rising star and super brilliant. So we love last names. And I'm wondering to myself, if you live in Buckhead or Dunwoody. Beautiful Decatur, Georgia.

There's nobody else famous here except Childish Gambino. That's the other guy from here. So there you have it. That's a good one to have. That's a great guy from here. So there you have it. That's a good one to have. That's a great one to have. I live in Marietta, which is famous for hanging Leo Frank years ago. Jewish. And Julia Roberts. And David Cross.

You got a comedy background there. You got David Cross in Marietta, Georgia. There you go. So there you have it. Neither of you are from Atlanta. Okay. Neither of you have Southern accents. I gather that you're not, are you lifelong Georgians or not lifelong?

I was born in Providence, but I moved to Miami when I was six, which Miami is New York South, as you know. And Andrew? I'm a lifelong Georgian. My wife is from Cairo, Georgia, which is more Southern than you can imagine, but nobody has an accent. I cannot explain it. Well, the accent, the southern accent I read might disappear one day. It's sort of an endangered species. It's rare and rare. Maybe Jews have antibodies against it. I think that people in like, if we know our, our dear friend Robert Kelly is from Boston and has the thickest Boston

accent you ever could imagine. And, um, John Fish is from outside of Boston, just outside of Boston. He's from Newton and has no accent, no Boston accent whatsoever. So different people have different, I don't know how that works, but some people might be a Jewish thing. No, I think, I think it's an economicconomic thing, to be honest. My wife is an Italian Catholic, just so you know. Her parents are from New York.

She grew up, she was born here in Atlanta. She does not sound like she's from Georgia, but her sister, who was born here also, sounds like she's from Georgia, a very Southern accent. Same parents, same house, so who knows why. It seems to me, there's no point unless you sound Southern, like that fellow on the 911 tape

that was a southerner central casting there we go right now my goal here is to come up one day to New York and we go have some pizza somewhere in Johnson Bleeker Street and we'll go to the Comedy Cellar and watch Dave Chappelle maybe I would love that

I'd love to hang out with you you can keep going again and again and again and we'll go to the Comedy Cellar and watch Dave Chappelle maybe? I would love that. I'd love to hang out with you. You can't plan on Chappelle being there. You can keep going again and again and again, and if you go enough times, Chappelle will probably show up eventually, but you can't count on it at any given time. But I usually get a heads up from Mustafa. Anyway, we've got to wrap it up. The connection is beautiful now. Just our luck. But, Periel, if you send me the files,

I will edit out the tedious part. I'm going to send you two video files because we got kicked off at one point. Or I did, anyway. Do you guys have... Where can everybody find you if they want to find you guys? Andrew?

I'm all over Twitter under ASFleishman. I write sometimes for like Slate or ArcDigi like this one. I also used to write for a blog called Fault Lines and also, you know, I work at Ross and Pines. We do good work. If you know someone who's convicted of a horrible crime, please come

by. We're happy to help out. Even if you're guilty. If you're guilty and it hasn't come to me're happy to help out even if you're guilty i don't do it if that's an answer right there if you're guilty if you're guilty or hasn't come to me go to my website atlanta not guilty.com and we love even if you are guilty you can call that number if you're if you are guilty definitely call me if you're we take everybody guilty not guilty even if you're guilty you can you still need a guy to make sure that you get you don't get too many years in prison or you don't get the chair or no there's nothing more than a prison or no

there's nothing worse than an innocent client you just have to stay up all night you got to worry about the case you know if you don't win you feel terrible yeah yeah that's the truth i rather represent someone guilty all day because it's very stressful and you really believe someone's innocent you know they're innocent it's very you can't sleep you can't eat you you lose hours and days and months fighting for them actually quite interesting that is the question is there is there like someone who you morally or ethically wouldn't represent or is it like you have to represent whoever because that's your job well i mean i'm a private attorney so i'm in practice and i try not to have a high caseload so i mean i try i'm very lucky a lot of people

come to me at this point in my career to try to pick and choose certain cases, but I represent all types of people. I mean, I've represented a neo-Nazi, I've represented a convicted al-Qaeda terrorist. My cousin died in 9-11. Wow. This guy wasn't involved in 9-11, but my point is I don't condone what these people do.

I don't agree with crime. I don't like crime. I have nothing to do with crime, but everyone has a right to us represent them, And there are plenty of people that come to me in case it looked bad, and we tear it apart. And they're not as bad as it seemed on the outside. And things change. And I think everybody deserves a right to have a good, competent lawyer to help them. That's how things should ultimately work. Obviously, in our system of justice, we know that if you're a minority or you're poor,

things don't necessarily work out for you because you may not be able to afford a good lawyer. Those things have to change. Everyone should be treated equally, and I hope we can work harder to make that happen. That's a good last question. If this does get before a jury, it will not be an all-white jury, will it?

Glenn County sort of mixed up a little bit. I think they do have a fairly decent African-American population, but the other side of the bridge, St. Simons and Jekyll Island is a fairly wealthy white population. I think it's two-thirds African-American. I looked at the demographic. Well, any defense

worth his salt will be able to get as many people he thinks will be sympathetic as possible on that jury. You can't strike people just based on their color. No, but I think it's sympathetic, which may or may not have to do with color, as the case may be. It'll be the opposite of your typical case. In this case, you'll have prosecutors seeking to have black jurors and defense attorneys

seeking not to. But Batson applies even to defense attorneys. So the state can start objecting. If you're striking every black juror as a defense attorney, the state can say, no, that's screwed up. Put that guy back on. I think you're just doing it out of racism. And there's a whole procedure. If I was a prosecutor, I would want Perry L. Ashenbrand on my jury. Because her mind is made up and will, would never, it seems to me, Perry L.,

that you would not listen to any evidence, exculpatory evidence. That's not true. That's not true we gotta go they're being very polite we're overstaying our welcome listen I'll talk to you for another two hours I've been locked up in my house for eight weeks then come on the next time

we do a legal thing be part of the family because we need a good legal we're going to put you guys on retainer alrighty do a legal thing come on the the be our be be part of the family because we need a good legal uh we're gonna put you guys on retainer all righty i'm good like i said i'm just good on new york pizza alone okay very special episode of live from the table be safe goodbye dan be safe everybody be safe good night and if you have questions you can email us where? Podcast at ComedySeller.com. And you can follow us on Instagram at Live From the Table.

Thank you guys so much. Thank you. My pleasure. It got better as soon as Dan left. Okay, bye. Bye-bye. Bye.