That's way worse than trying the McMichaels by citation of crimes committed by people they don't even known 70 years ago, is it? You've been cheerleading posts mentioning lynchings from the 1950's, or earlier, including photos of hangings, and those mentioning hate crimes that are entirely unrelated to this encounter, or even to the DA's office and this police department troubles from the previous decade.
Meanwhile, we could establish a string of crimes in this neighborhood over the previous several months; we could cite racial statistics pertaining to perpetrators of property crimes, specifically those in Brunswick County, and go the extra mile of adjusting per capita, while noting the generalized demographic makeup of the Satilla Shores neighborhood in contrast to this; we could cite Arbery's criminal history, and establish multiple arrests/convictions for theft in the past three years, and also a past illegal firearm possession when one of the crime's from the neighborhood involved a stolen handgun; we could establish Arbery's predisposition to respond to the well-grounded probing of authority with an excess of hostility; we could establish with video evidence he is seen committing the crime of trespassing (and not jogging) on the day in question, as well as many days in the past; we could cite the fact that other people from the neighborhood who have witnessed him trespassing do not recognize him, also from 911 calls; we could consider we know he isn't from the neighborhood; we could establish the shooter's past 911 call wherein he identifies the man trespassing on that same property, unfamiliar to him, that apparently is the same one he and his father recognize two weeks later on the day of the shooting; we could establish the father in this duo is a police officer with a lifetime career unblemished by unlawful violence or scandal; we could establish using video evidence Arbery was the one who initiated the physical contact in the final violent struggle that resulted in him losing his life.
All of these truths are immediately relevant to this specific encounter.
Furthermore, all of this circumstantial evidence could reasonably be forwarded to demonstrate the state of mind of the McMichaels, including intent, consistent with their actions, and of course this renders their suspicion reasonable, both with and without the hindsight gained from later revelations mentioned here beyond their knowledge at the time, even if it doesn't legally justify their false arrest. Nothing about their conduct or suspicion is hateful, or racist, nor the most cogent inferences we can make to what motivated them. It has a reasonable basis even extending to the visual identification of the victim's race itself.
Yet you whimper about the victim being blamed, and cheer references to the sins of the Ku Klux Klan a century ago. Spare us the hypocrisy of your indignant reaction.
His past criminal history can't be brought up in a trial unless the person is on the stand and is directly questioned about it.

