0 taking that left-hand turn around the front of the car, if that began the evidence, you would look at mcmichaels say, he came at me, he saw i had a gun, i'm allowed to protect myself. you must take it in context, and i thought she did a very good job of saying, look, you can't be the aggressor, and start all of this, and put everything in play and at the last minute, time-out, now i get to argue self-defense. i'm looking forward to what she's going to say on rebuttal, it needs to be brought home again. >> on the flip side, what one of the defense attorneys who we heard from said there's been a lot made of how can they say that they were affecting a citizens arrest when they never mentioned that, never mentioned it to the police. there are no magic words that you need to utter while you effectuate a citizens arrest, how do you think both sides are playing today? >> i believe the defense came up with that theory after the fact. i mean, these guys went and pursued ahmaud. they chased him down, three guys in a truck, hey, i want to talk to you. stop, or i'll blow your effing head off. that's not a citizens arrest. that's not saying we're calling the police, they want to attack him and deal with them on their own. that's vigilanteism, and we have to be very mindful that a person does not have to stop and talk or answer questions of anyone, so this is a very very sad case where they took law into their own hands, they did the thing that was illegal, and they killed this man, which that's what ahmaud feared, these people are going to hurt or kill me, and they ended up killing him, and it's a sad, tragic situation. >> another thing the prosecutor did was talk -- basically depict the defendants as schoolyard b bullies, so let me play na that part for everyone. >> you can't provoke someone, so you can harm them and claim self-defense. what's that, ladies and gentlemen. think of your schoolyard bullies, of the three boys walking behind the one who's the target kid who's getting abused, right. you got three on one, they're going down the hallway, they're menacing him, threatening him, and they get him up against the locker, he has nowhere to go, he's trapped, what does the kid who's being bullied, he takes it, and takes it, and finally shoves the one bully, and what does that bully do, bam, punches the target child, right? what's the bully always say, he started it. isn't that what the bully always says, he pushed me, i was defending myself. yeah, three on one with one kid up against the locker, you're bullying him. >> how did that play, do you think, with the jury. >> i think that was very effective. that kind of basic common sense comparison, a schoolyard bully, i think the jury can relate to that. any normal person can relate to that. what the lawyer is doing, the prosecutor, is bringing together this idea of initial aggressor. if they started this, the violence here, they grabbed their guns, they didn't have a legitimate solid basis to think a crime was committed to make this citizens arrest, then they can't complain, no matter what he did, even if he initiated contact, which it's not clear he did with travis mcmichael. she's arguinged if they started, they can't argue self-defense. >> mark, we are in a break, but we understand the jury is being brought back in. they're about to hear from the third defense attorney, so you know only one of the defendants took the stand but there are three defendants, three defense attorneys. what should we expect? >> once again, just trying to show, you know, sort of the state farm defense, the good neighbor defense. we were just trying to do what we thought we had to do, protect you and the neighborhood, protect everything that we wanted to do, nothing wrong, if only he would have stopped and talked to us, in effect saying it's all his fault, and again, they've got to get it that point across because they're the ones that have to show that reasonable doubt exists and if they do, they make the jury's job much more difficult for a conviction. i think it's already going to be difficult with the jury makeup, and the geographical location where we are. gentlemen, let's listen in, they are beginning again. >> no, the mcmichael's brought guns. when did roddie bryan know travis mcmichael would shoot mr. arbery? and at that point, what could roddie bryan have done to stop it? the inconvenient truth is that roddie bryan did not know and could not know that these men were armed until moments before mr. arbery's tragic death. he did not know and could not know that arbery would be shot. and by that time, sadly, there was nothing roddie bryan could do to prevent this tragedy. roddie bryan didn't shoot anyone. at the time of the shooting, he was some distance back. he was armed only with his cell phone. isn't it isn't it time, ladies and gentlemen, that we send roddie bryan home? roddie bryan fully cooperated with the police. he's given several different statements, he's provided the now famous video that you've seen so many times. and probably will again before we're done. roddie provided his cell phone multiple times. he signed all kinds of consent forms. he gives them access to his truck. he gives them the night owl videos from his house, the videos that had been overlooked in the canvassing of the neighborhood because he was down at the police station. he gives them his social media, he gives them his facebook. ladies and gentlemen, without roddie bryan, there is no case. you will have to decide what justice looks like between the mcmichaels and mr. arbery, between the mcmichaels and the arbery family. but the reason that you can do so, the reason that we can have this trial is because of roddie bryan. roddie's decision to cooperate with law enforcement, to help them discover the truth about the events of february 23rd, 2020, is not the product of slick lawyering. roddie bryan had no lawyer on the side of the road in the minutes after ahmaud arbery was shot. it was not some lawyer. it was roddie bryan, without any lawyer. without any help. without any assistance, making that decision on his own. roddie bryan made the choice. roddie bryan decided to invite officer minshew to sit with him in his truck even before roddie bryan has a chance to look at the video himself. all of this, again, without a lawyer. these actions, ladies and gentlemen, demonstrate good faith. his conduct negatives any in inference of criminal intelligent. >> who is roddie bryan. he never served his country, his community, roddie repairs small engines at the local hardware store. roddie knows most of the english language or so he believes. roddie bryan keeps to himself. his neighbors don't really even know who he is even though he's lived in the neighborhood for three years. roddie is not boastful or a bragger. he is not loud or boisterous. he is not an attention seeker. roddie tries to avoid bad language. not always successfully. roddie is respectful. he's an ordinary guy. a regular guy. roddie bryan is no vigilante. there's no evidence of that. roddie isn't running around with guns openly carried in broad daylight. he didn't even bother to report the theft of his own trailer. after all, it's just stuff. that's what insurance is for. what you take into your hand, you take into your heart. roddie bryan grabbed his cell phone. that's not intended as a comment upon anyone else. but that's just who roddie is. what else does the evidence tell us about roddie bryan. is roddie bryan the smartest guy in the room? is he like some kind of rocket scientist? in these interviews that mr. bryan gives to the police, is there some clever word play like mr. bryan is smarter than everybody else? is that what the evidence suggests in this case? the evidence suggests that roddie bryan legitimately struggles to find the right words that, roddie struggles at times to convey the meaning, the truth behind those words. there is no evidence that he is a word smith, no evidence that roddie was playing word games with law enforcement officers. he simply can't find the right words. the evidence in this case shows that context is key. if you honestly seek the truth here, which is your duty as jurors, if you listen carefully, you will see that what roddie bryan means as opposed to simply hearing his actual words, it is clear that he never wished to hit ahmaud arbery. why the prosecution felt it necessary to phrase the things the way they did in their opening statement ms. will have to answer for you. i was unable to play earlier, we are going to play the excerpt from the interview with mr. lowry, the damaging part of his statement where he supposedly wishes he had hit ahmaud arbery. >> you said that you had hand prints on your truck from where the guy was right to get into it? >> i feel pretty sure that's what he was doing. i can't say for sure that he didn't get a chance to get to the door. after i angled him off the side of the road, you know, and i kind of went on past him because i didn't hit him, which i would have, might have took him out, but i probably got past him a little bit, and he come up on me, and i could see him in the mirror and he was coming for the d , and i seen his hands right behind the door. >> ladies and gentlemen, in the video as opposed to the officer's testimony, you can see mr. bryan's demeanor. you can see his gestures and his mannerisms, and you can see that when he says that he wished he hit mr. arbery, he said that just after he says that he didn't hit him and he's expressing regret because mr. arbery has died, and maybe if he hasn't gotten down where he was, he wouldn't have been shut. that is much much different in context than to suggest that roddie bryan wished that he had hit mr. arbery. that's a reflection of regret that mr. arbery was hurt by the mcmichaels. that's certainly not a suggestion that he bore any ill will. and how many other instances of that do we have in this case. how many other times as the district attorney's office fired cheap shots at roddie bryan. how many times had the gbi taken cheap shots at mr. bryan. and in the end, you may wish to ask yourself why. now, in the defense case, and we didn't do it. we promised we wouldn't, but it's clear that mr. bryan did not wish to strike mr. arbery, that he never had any intention of hurting mr. arbery, he never said anything to the contrary. the evidence will show he had no knowledge, no reason to believe that anyone else out there meant to hurt or shoot mr. arbery. if they had a secret intention or desire to do that, it could not be known to him. now, there is another excerpt that i want to play from the minshew video, only one. okay. because, again, i think it shows you mr. bryan's demeanor. it has been suggested by the state that much of what mr. bryan says later is somehow an after the fact rationalization of what happened that day. but when you listen to this, i think you'll see that mr. bryan's -- the truth of what mr. bryan is trying to convey hasn't really changed.