I'd already covered this once, but more information has come to light, and Rekeita had Branco on for an interview.
I think the overall discussion by Branca with Rekeita is good, but I'd like to address one area where he, by focusing on the legal argument, undercuts the moral argument by declaring he thought the McMichaels were unwise, but worse, by classifying citizens arrest laws as an artifact of the past. He also discards any importance in looking at the grounds/reasonability of citizen's arrest.
Annoyingly - he even states why those laws are on the books in the first place, and acts like those factors no longer exist and more importantly, never will, though they plainly do.
I'd mentioned previously that citizens arrest laws are there to provide a degree of legal shielding to citizens when they can reasonably claim to be acting in the interest of the public good. This is necessary because barring an overwhelming police state, the police aren't always around when you need them to stop a crimminal. This is true of urban areas, and overwhelmingly true of rural areas. Police response may be faster these days than over a hundred years ago, but as the mantra goes - when seconds count, the police are minutes away. That is strictly a practical matter - on a moral level, what kind of subjects do you have if you cannot trust your citizens judgement in moral matters such as theft and murder?
Furthermore, anyone arguing how the police have that responsibility now has to contend with tthe fact that, even before Corona-chan spread her blessings, police departments in the west have been ignoring higher and higher levels of "minor" crimes that they would no longer arrest people or pursue justice for. Part of the reason for the McMichael's personal response is that there had been thefts in the area complete with security footage of people caught, at minimum, tresspassing. The police response was effectively useless, such that they no longer bothered to report said thefts.
One can argue the wisdom of stepping in to perform a citizens arrest, and thus putting life, limb, livelihood, and freedom at risk, but that brings up another question of moral fiber. Sure, some things are too petty to risk life and limb over, but I'd argue that bar is much lower than many suppose, for there is an unseen moral cost to tolerating even petty theft when confronted with it.
Which brings me back to dismissing the importance of citizen's arrest. If the case revolves purely on the video, without additional goading, and more importantly, threats, then legally, no matter what the grievance cultists may think, the McMichaels are in the clear. I'll note the cell phone vid of the senior McMichael's call doesn't contain any threats/etc. in the relevant time window.
But the grievance cultists are at work, and what should never have been prosecuted, much like Zimmerman, now has two men arrested, even if you think their assessment of risks vs justice was off. In that context, questions like "why were they driving ahead of him to get him to stop", and "why were they carrying weapons" are entirely answered by "probable grounds for citizen's arrest."