3 men charged with federal hate crimes in killing of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia

[SavannahMann]

The killers may well walk.

By the law of self defense they should....defending your life with lethal force is lawful.

No the law of self defense doesn’t say that. Idiot.

Would you quote the Georgia law on self defense?

Here it is...https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-3/article-2/16-3-212010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES :: CHAPTER 3 - DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS :: ARTICLE 2 - JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE :: § 16-3-21 - Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution

And you can’t claim self defense when committing a felony. Otherwise every armed robber would claim self defense when they shoot the clerk.

Citizen arrests arent illegal.

They had no grounds for Citizens Arrest. First they had no firsthand knowledge. Second. They had no authority.

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE :: CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS :: ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS :: § 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest

law.justia.com

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

But with this you have to consider the Winn Dixie decision. https://www.gabar.org/forthepublic/forteachersstudents/lre/teacherresources/upload/ch16.pdf

So the McMichaels had no authority. The owner of the property may, but neighbors do not.

So everything from the go was in violation of the law. Arming up. Setting off in pursuit. Attempting to stop Arturo was a crime. It wouldn’t matter if they were sure they Had Jesse James in front of them. They had no firsthand knowledge of a crime, and no authority to arrest him.

So in attempting to arrest him they committed a Felony. Being armed at the time makes it two felonies. Waving their guns around is a third felony. Now no Felon is allowed to claim self defense.

This may not be the law where you are from. It may not be the law you think it should be. But it is the law in Georgia. And has been for decades.

The only one who could claim self defense is Arbury. He was under no legal obligation to run from the attack. Stand your ground.

I would also point out that trespassing is not normally a felony, it’s a misdemeanor. There is nothing in that law that allows anyone to kill a person and there is a huge difference between arrest and killing someone.

Incoherent much? Obviously........of course there is a law that allows the use of lethal force....it is called self-defence.

Ok. Let’s start at the beginning. Explain in light of the Winn Dixie Decision what right the McMichaels had to effect a citizens arrest under Georgia Law.

Who cares? If they werent supposed to make a citizens arrest, then write them a ticket or whatever.

This case is about the right to defend yourself from an attacker.

No sir. The case is about the totality of events. And if you violate the Citizens Arrest law the charge is False Imprisonment. A Felony.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The killers may well walk.

By the law of self defense they should....defending your life with lethal force is lawful.

No the law of self defense doesn’t say that. Idiot.

Would you quote the Georgia law on self defense?

Here it is...https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-16/chapter-3/article-2/16-3-212010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 16 - CRIMES AND OFFENSES :: CHAPTER 3 - DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS :: ARTICLE 2 - JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE :: § 16-3-21 - Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution

And you can’t claim self defense when committing a felony. Otherwise every armed robber would claim self defense when they shoot the clerk.

Citizen arrests arent illegal.

They had no grounds for Citizens Arrest. First they had no firsthand knowledge. Second. They had no authority.

2010 Georgia Code :: TITLE 17 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE :: CHAPTER 4 - ARREST OF PERSONS :: ARTICLE 4 - ARREST BY PRIVATE PERSONS :: § 17-4-60 - Grounds for arrest

law.justia.com

A private person may arrest an offender if the offense is committed in his presence or within his immediate knowledge. If the offense is a felony and the offender is escaping or attempting to escape, a private person may arrest him upon reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion.

But with this you have to consider the Winn Dixie decision. https://www.gabar.org/forthepublic/forteachersstudents/lre/teacherresources/upload/ch16.pdf

So the McMichaels had no authority. The owner of the property may, but neighbors do not.

So everything from the go was in violation of the law. Arming up. Setting off in pursuit. Attempting to stop Arturo was a crime. It wouldn’t matter if they were sure they Had Jesse James in front of them. They had no firsthand knowledge of a crime, and no authority to arrest him.

So in attempting to arrest him they committed a Felony. Being armed at the time makes it two felonies. Waving their guns around is a third felony. Now no Felon is allowed to claim self defense.

This may not be the law where you are from. It may not be the law you think it should be. But it is the law in Georgia. And has been for decades.

The only one who could claim self defense is Arbury. He was under no legal obligation to run from the attack. Stand your ground.

I would also point out that trespassing is not normally a felony, it’s a misdemeanor. There is nothing in that law that allows anyone to kill a person and there is a huge difference between arrest and killing someone.

Incoherent much? Obviously........of course there is a law that allows the use of lethal force....it is called self-defence.

Yet another declaration that "there's a law" without any citation of that law in relation to this particular case.

the law on self defense in Georgia has been posted.

Yeah, by me. And it doesn't say anything like what you keep claiming it does.

 

[PatriotJohn888]

I see an unarmed man on foot, being chased by an armed man in a truck.

That's what I saw. I didn't see anyone "out for a jog".

Well, let's see . . . man in shorts and a t-shirt, running down the street . . . what is the essential element that constitutes "out for a jog" that you think is missing?

Wait, I thought you said he was "being chased by an armed man in a truck". That's different from "out for a jog".

The missing element is "being chased by an armed man in a truck".

There appears to be no evidence that Arbery was "out for a jog".

 

[TheGreenHornet]

I don't believe he was "jogging." I believe he was trespassing, and fled.

Dont forget the attempted assault too that got him killed by the son.

Yeah, um, I'm also not buying that it's "attempted assault" when he was unarmed and the other men had guns and were illegally detaining him on a street. Not saying I'm not open to more evidence, but so far I haven't heard any that doesn't make me see that as "self-defense".

They werent detaining him for no reason. Also, when you are facing a potential criminal and you are holding a gun, if he charges at you and attacks you, its a pretty fucking good sign that he is not just some friendly "jogger". People have a right to defend themselves against violent attackers.

Okay, give me a good and legal reason for non-police civilians to detain anyone on the street with guns. Give me sufficient and legal reasons they were justified as treating him as a "potential criminal". Tell me what legal grounds they had for doing what they did that made his behavior "assault" and not self-defense. I can assure you that if a group of men with guns detained ME on the street, and I thought hitting one of them and taking his gun would allow me to escape, I'd do exactly that, and I would think you would, as well. And that doesn't automatically make either of us a criminal. People DO have a right to defend themselves against violent attackers . . . so tell me how that's not what Arberry was doing.

If my facts are correct, they thought he was a burglar. You can make citizen arrests.

I know that if someone was yelling at you to stop, you would. If they were wearing masks and yelling "get on your knees motherfucker", it might be a different story, but in this case he evaded them, they told him to stop, he keeps going, they tell him to stop, he keeps going and after quite some time of not shooting him, they cut him off. He had no reason to believe they were truly dangerous at that point. These clearly werent highway robbers. In fact, he was so certain that the guy wasnt going to shoot him that he veered from his path and assaulted a man with a shotgun.

If MY facts are correct, they thought he was a burglar, but didn't have any actual evidence beyond their personal suspicions.

I know that if someone was yelling at me to stop, I'd pause long enough to determine if they had a right to yell at me to stop. If not, I'd continue on my fucking way, and you're damned right I'd evade them if I could. I'm still waiting for you to tell me how that would make me a criminal who deserved to be shot, or how it would make THEM "acting in self-defense" for shooting me.

What do you mean, "he had no reason to believe they were truly dangerous"? They were total strangers holding guns and detaining him with no actual authority to do so. Would YOU feel safe and in no danger in his place? "These clearly weren't highway robbers"? Clear in what way? And don't even start on that "They were THIS PARTICULAR THREAT, therefore they weren't any threat at all" crap. I don't buy that sort of cherrypicked debate parameter from anyone.

"In fact, he was so certain the guy wasn't going to shoot him that he veered from his path". Yeah, or maybe he wasn't certain at all that they weren't going to shoot him, and THAT'S why he thought he needed to disarm one of them.

Why are you brushing over his attack on the son? They yelled at him to stop a bunch of times, and they had guns and clearly suspected him of a crime, but they never got physical with him, so why did he attack the son? Why shouldnt the son be able to claim self defense when he clearly was defending himself from an attacker?

I'm brushing over nothing. I'm saying he was completely justified in attacking the son, because the son fucking started it. Why are YOU brushing over THAT?

Oh, "they yelled at him to stop a bunch of times", did they? And that's supposed to mean what? He's obligated to do what they say? Who the fuck are they to tell anyone to do anything? And please explain to me how it was "clear" to Arbery what they wanted, aside from the fact that they were strangers chasing him in trucks with guns. I don't recall anyone telling us that Ahmaud Arbery was a psychic.

"They never got physical with him." THEY WERE CHASING HIM WITH GUNS. The son got out of the truck and came toward him WITH A GUN. Is your position that Arbery was required to wait and see if he was going to do anything with the gun, or if maybe he just thought it went well with his shitkicker outfit? Shockingly, I don't wait for people to "get physical" with me when they're holding guns in their hands, either. I assume that gun means something. Go figure.

The son shouldn't be able to claim self-defense because HE STARTED IT. He instigated the confrontation; Arbery didn't.

Im not sure why you think its ok to attack someone who hasnt attacked you. You definitely shouldnt attack someone who is carrying a shotgun. That will get you killed.

I'm not sure why you want to ignore the inherent menace of chasing a stranger on foot with trucks, and then approaching him with a gun in your hands. Personally, I'd figure at that point I didn't have much to lose, because my life was in danger either way.

He was almost certainly burglarizing the neighborhood. They had a good reason to stop him. He however didnt have a good reason the violently assault someone.

Whether or no he was burglarizing has no real importance to this case.

Also.....the McMichaels did not stop arbary.....and yrs ahmaud arbary engaged in a violent assault and was killed.....completely justifiable under the law of self defense in Georgia.

Video Shows Fatal Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, Unarmed Black Man in Georgia

The fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old unarmed black man, was caught on video and has prompted a grand jury investigation.

www.tmz.com

The above is false. The men arbitrarily without justification impeded the victim and then killed him when he lawfully defended himself.

Absolutely false......Ahmaud Arbary the suspect had complete freedom of movemenr at all times.

Auhmad Arbarry in truth and in fact committed assault as the video shows.

 

[MarcATL]

These bastards need to FRY for this modern-day lynching.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't believe he was "jogging." I believe he was trespassing, and fled.

Dont forget the attempted assault too that got him killed by the son.

Yeah, um, I'm also not buying that it's "attempted assault" when he was unarmed and the other men had guns and were illegally detaining him on a street. Not saying I'm not open to more evidence, but so far I haven't heard any that doesn't make me see that as "self-defense".

They werent detaining him for no reason. Also, when you are facing a potential criminal and you are holding a gun, if he charges at you and attacks you, its a pretty fucking good sign that he is not just some friendly "jogger". People have a right to defend themselves against violent attackers.

Okay, give me a good and legal reason for non-police civilians to detain anyone on the street with guns. Give me sufficient and legal reasons they were justified as treating him as a "potential criminal". Tell me what legal grounds they had for doing what they did that made his behavior "assault" and not self-defense. I can assure you that if a group of men with guns detained ME on the street, and I thought hitting one of them and taking his gun would allow me to escape, I'd do exactly that, and I would think you would, as well. And that doesn't automatically make either of us a criminal. People DO have a right to defend themselves against violent attackers . . . so tell me how that's not what Arberry was doing.

If my facts are correct, they thought he was a burglar. You can make citizen arrests.

I know that if someone was yelling at you to stop, you would. If they were wearing masks and yelling "get on your knees motherfucker", it might be a different story, but in this case he evaded them, they told him to stop, he keeps going, they tell him to stop, he keeps going and after quite some time of not shooting him, they cut him off. He had no reason to believe they were truly dangerous at that point. These clearly werent highway robbers. In fact, he was so certain that the guy wasnt going to shoot him that he veered from his path and assaulted a man with a shotgun.

If MY facts are correct, they thought he was a burglar, but didn't have any actual evidence beyond their personal suspicions.

I know that if someone was yelling at me to stop, I'd pause long enough to determine if they had a right to yell at me to stop. If not, I'd continue on my fucking way, and you're damned right I'd evade them if I could. I'm still waiting for you to tell me how that would make me a criminal who deserved to be shot, or how it would make THEM "acting in self-defense" for shooting me.

What do you mean, "he had no reason to believe they were truly dangerous"? They were total strangers holding guns and detaining him with no actual authority to do so. Would YOU feel safe and in no danger in his place? "These clearly weren't highway robbers"? Clear in what way? And don't even start on that "They were THIS PARTICULAR THREAT, therefore they weren't any threat at all" crap. I don't buy that sort of cherrypicked debate parameter from anyone.

"In fact, he was so certain the guy wasn't going to shoot him that he veered from his path". Yeah, or maybe he wasn't certain at all that they weren't going to shoot him, and THAT'S why he thought he needed to disarm one of them.

Why are you brushing over his attack on the son? They yelled at him to stop a bunch of times, and they had guns and clearly suspected him of a crime, but they never got physical with him, so why did he attack the son? Why shouldnt the son be able to claim self defense when he clearly was defending himself from an attacker?

I'm brushing over nothing. I'm saying he was completely justified in attacking the son, because the son fucking started it. Why are YOU brushing over THAT?

Oh, "they yelled at him to stop a bunch of times", did they? And that's supposed to mean what? He's obligated to do what they say? Who the fuck are they to tell anyone to do anything? And please explain to me how it was "clear" to Arbery what they wanted, aside from the fact that they were strangers chasing him in trucks with guns. I don't recall anyone telling us that Ahmaud Arbery was a psychic.

"They never got physical with him." THEY WERE CHASING HIM WITH GUNS. The son got out of the truck and came toward him WITH A GUN. Is your position that Arbery was required to wait and see if he was going to do anything with the gun, or if maybe he just thought it went well with his shitkicker outfit? Shockingly, I don't wait for people to "get physical" with me when they're holding guns in their hands, either. I assume that gun means something. Go figure.

The son shouldn't be able to claim self-defense because HE STARTED IT. He instigated the confrontation; Arbery didn't.

Im not sure why you think its ok to attack someone who hasnt attacked you. You definitely shouldnt attack someone who is carrying a shotgun. That will get you killed.

I'm not sure why you want to ignore the inherent menace of chasing a stranger on foot with trucks, and then approaching him with a gun in your hands. Personally, I'd figure at that point I didn't have much to lose, because my life was in danger either way.

He was almost certainly burglarizing the neighborhood. They had a good reason to stop him. He however didnt have a good reason the violently assault someone.

Whether or no he was burglarizing has no real importance to this case.

Also.....the McMichaels did not stop arbary.....and yes ahmaud arbary engaged in a violent assault and was killed.....completely justifiable under the law of self defense in Georgia.

Video Shows Fatal Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, Unarmed Black Man in Georgia

The fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old unarmed black man, was caught on video and has prompted a grand jury investigation.

www.tmz.com

Actually, whether or not he was burglarizing, versus they just thought he looked like the burglary suspect, has VERY great importance to the very law you continually talk about (while noticeably never citing it).

It's almost like you know the self-defense law doesn't support you when you actually read it, or something.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I see an unarmed man on foot, being chased by an armed man in a truck.

That's what I saw. I didn't see anyone "out for a jog".

Well, let's see . . . man in shorts and a t-shirt, running down the street . . . what is the essential element that constitutes "out for a jog" that you think is missing?

Irrelevant whether or not he was jogging or running away from the scene of his crime.

The essence of this case is that Ahmaud Arbary engagaged in a violenr assault....no excuse for that.

Documented in the video.

Video Shows Fatal Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, Unarmed Black Man in Georgia

The fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old unarmed black man, was caught on video and has prompted a grand jury investigation.

www.tmz.com

It's not irrelevant to the conversation I was having, which wasn't with you.

The essence of this case is that Ahmaud Arbery was the victim of multiple felonies, which makes shooting him yet another assault.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

These bastards need to FRY for this modern-day lynching.

bwaaaaaaaaaa what hatred this Nig Nog exhibits pure prejudice...no truth...no facts just personal racial hatred......all dem white folks need to get killed......Abraham Lincoln was right about da darkies. Send em back to the hell hole they came fronm....they have always been a curse on America.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

I see an unarmed man on foot, being chased by an armed man in a truck.

That's what I saw. I didn't see anyone "out for a jog".

Well, let's see . . . man in shorts and a t-shirt, running down the street . . . what is the essential element that constitutes "out for a jog" that you think is missing?

Irrelevant whether or not he was jogging or running away from the scene of his crime.

The essence of this case is that Ahmaud Arbary engagaged in a violenr assault....no excuse for that.

Documented in the video.

Video Shows Fatal Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, Unarmed Black Man in Georgia

The fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old unarmed black man, was caught on video and has prompted a grand jury investigation.

www.tmz.com

It's not irrelevant to the conversation I was having, which wasn't with you.

The essence of this case is that Ahmaud Arbery was the victim of multiple felonies, which makes shooting him yet another assault.

Absolutely false.....you are just making up this shit out of thin air. Fuck off now....there is no truth in you.

 

[Yarddog]

I dont know for sure if this guy was really jogging, or if he was casing something out to steal. It could have been either. What is certain though is that those three guys screwed up. We do not operate on mob rule and that needs to be consistent wether it's rulings by a court of law or people on the street.

I dont know what those guys were thinking but, it's not a citizens job to go after someone with guns, based on a suspicion. They would have had to actually see him being a threat. They had a truck and could drive faster than anywhere he could run. All they needed to do was follow at a distance and call the police to question him. This is the kind of thing that can happen when people try to take the law into their own hands, now one person is dead and three are likely going to prison.

On a side note however, we can expect more of this if police officers continue to quit their jobs and begin to back off from proactive policing. At some point more people will be reverting to defending themselves more aggressively.

You are trying to introduce into the narrative that Arbery might have been looking for something to steal. Why would you do this? A jogger of any race is a just a jogger. Arbery was murdered in an ambush.

No actually I'm not. I was responding to previous posts that held out some theory that he had a history of stealing. I'm saying that I don't know his motives for jogging... but that regardless of his motives, he was wrongfully killed by those guys... and they were wrong for what they did taking the law into their own hands. Hope that simplifies it for you.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

The law on self defense has been posted.....it justifies the use of dEADLY FORCE in self defense as do the laws on self dedense in the great majority of the states.....try and keep up.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

I dont know for sure if this guy was really jogging, or if he was casing something out to steal. It could have been either. What is certain though is that those three guys screwed up. We do not operate on mob rule and that needs to be consistent wether it's rulings by a court of law or people on the street.

I dont know what those guys were thinking but, it's not a citizens job to go after someone with guns, based on a suspicion. They would have had to actually see him being a threat. They had a truck and could drive faster than anywhere he could run. All they needed to do was follow at a distance and call the police to question him. This is the kind of thing that can happen when people try to take the law into their own hands, now one person is dead and three are likely going to prison.

On a side note however, we can expect more of this if police officers continue to quit their jobs and begin to back off from proactive policing. At some point more people will be reverting to defending themselves more aggressively.

You are trying to introduce into the narrative that Arbery might have been looking for something to steal. Why would you do this? A jogger of any race is a just a jogger. Arbery was murdered in an ambush.

No actually I'm not. I was responding to previous posts that held out some theory that he had a history of stealing. I'm saying that I don't know his motives for jogging... but that regardless of his motives, he was wrongfully killed by those guys... and they were wrong for what they did taking the law into their own hands. Hope that simplifies it for you.

No you got it all wrong......obviously you are prejudiced as well as simple minded.


Here is what actually happened...https://www.tmz.com/2020/05/05/shooting-video-unarmed-black-man-killed-ahmaud-arbery-georgia-jogging/Video Shows Fatal Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, Unarmed Black Man in Georgia

 

[TheGreenHornet]

I see an unarmed man on foot, being chased by an armed man in a truck.

That's what I saw. I didn't see anyone "out for a jog".

Well, let's see . . . man in shorts and a t-shirt, running down the street . . . what is the essential element that constitutes "out for a jog" that you think is missing?

Wait, I thought you said he was "being chased by an armed man in a truck". That's different from "out for a jog".

The missing element is "being chased by an armed man in a truck".

There appears to be no evidence that Arbery was "out for a jog".

It does not matter whether he was jogging or running away from the scene of his crime.....that is all irrelevant....the essence of this case is self defense....ahmaud arbarry commited an assault and was killed whilst engaged in an assault.

Video Shows Fatal Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, Unarmed Black Man in Georgia

The fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old unarmed black man, was caught on video and has prompted a grand jury investigation.

www.tmz.com

 

[Cecilie1200]

I see an unarmed man on foot, being chased by an armed man in a truck.

That's what I saw. I didn't see anyone "out for a jog".

Well, let's see . . . man in shorts and a t-shirt, running down the street . . . what is the essential element that constitutes "out for a jog" that you think is missing?

Wait, I thought you said he was "being chased by an armed man in a truck". That's different from "out for a jog".

The missing element is "being chased by an armed man in a truck".

There appears to be no evidence that Arbery was "out for a jog".

Is the argument you're going with, "He wasn't jogging, because they were chasing him, so that means it was okay for them to chase him"? Really, you want that to be your final answer?

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't believe he was "jogging." I believe he was trespassing, and fled.

Dont forget the attempted assault too that got him killed by the son.

Yeah, um, I'm also not buying that it's "attempted assault" when he was unarmed and the other men had guns and were illegally detaining him on a street. Not saying I'm not open to more evidence, but so far I haven't heard any that doesn't make me see that as "self-defense".

They werent detaining him for no reason. Also, when you are facing a potential criminal and you are holding a gun, if he charges at you and attacks you, its a pretty fucking good sign that he is not just some friendly "jogger". People have a right to defend themselves against violent attackers.

Okay, give me a good and legal reason for non-police civilians to detain anyone on the street with guns. Give me sufficient and legal reasons they were justified as treating him as a "potential criminal". Tell me what legal grounds they had for doing what they did that made his behavior "assault" and not self-defense. I can assure you that if a group of men with guns detained ME on the street, and I thought hitting one of them and taking his gun would allow me to escape, I'd do exactly that, and I would think you would, as well. And that doesn't automatically make either of us a criminal. People DO have a right to defend themselves against violent attackers . . . so tell me how that's not what Arberry was doing.

If my facts are correct, they thought he was a burglar. You can make citizen arrests.

I know that if someone was yelling at you to stop, you would. If they were wearing masks and yelling "get on your knees motherfucker", it might be a different story, but in this case he evaded them, they told him to stop, he keeps going, they tell him to stop, he keeps going and after quite some time of not shooting him, they cut him off. He had no reason to believe they were truly dangerous at that point. These clearly werent highway robbers. In fact, he was so certain that the guy wasnt going to shoot him that he veered from his path and assaulted a man with a shotgun.

If MY facts are correct, they thought he was a burglar, but didn't have any actual evidence beyond their personal suspicions.

I know that if someone was yelling at me to stop, I'd pause long enough to determine if they had a right to yell at me to stop. If not, I'd continue on my fucking way, and you're damned right I'd evade them if I could. I'm still waiting for you to tell me how that would make me a criminal who deserved to be shot, or how it would make THEM "acting in self-defense" for shooting me.

What do you mean, "he had no reason to believe they were truly dangerous"? They were total strangers holding guns and detaining him with no actual authority to do so. Would YOU feel safe and in no danger in his place? "These clearly weren't highway robbers"? Clear in what way? And don't even start on that "They were THIS PARTICULAR THREAT, therefore they weren't any threat at all" crap. I don't buy that sort of cherrypicked debate parameter from anyone.

"In fact, he was so certain the guy wasn't going to shoot him that he veered from his path". Yeah, or maybe he wasn't certain at all that they weren't going to shoot him, and THAT'S why he thought he needed to disarm one of them.

Why are you brushing over his attack on the son? They yelled at him to stop a bunch of times, and they had guns and clearly suspected him of a crime, but they never got physical with him, so why did he attack the son? Why shouldnt the son be able to claim self defense when he clearly was defending himself from an attacker?

I'm brushing over nothing. I'm saying he was completely justified in attacking the son, because the son fucking started it. Why are YOU brushing over THAT?

Oh, "they yelled at him to stop a bunch of times", did they? And that's supposed to mean what? He's obligated to do what they say? Who the fuck are they to tell anyone to do anything? And please explain to me how it was "clear" to Arbery what they wanted, aside from the fact that they were strangers chasing him in trucks with guns. I don't recall anyone telling us that Ahmaud Arbery was a psychic.

"They never got physical with him." THEY WERE CHASING HIM WITH GUNS. The son got out of the truck and came toward him WITH A GUN. Is your position that Arbery was required to wait and see if he was going to do anything with the gun, or if maybe he just thought it went well with his shitkicker outfit? Shockingly, I don't wait for people to "get physical" with me when they're holding guns in their hands, either. I assume that gun means something. Go figure.

The son shouldn't be able to claim self-defense because HE STARTED IT. He instigated the confrontation; Arbery didn't.

Im not sure why you think its ok to attack someone who hasnt attacked you. You definitely shouldnt attack someone who is carrying a shotgun. That will get you killed.

I'm not sure why you want to ignore the inherent menace of chasing a stranger on foot with trucks, and then approaching him with a gun in your hands. Personally, I'd figure at that point I didn't have much to lose, because my life was in danger either way.

He was almost certainly burglarizing the neighborhood. They had a good reason to stop him. He however didnt have a good reason the violently assault someone.

Whether or no he was burglarizing has no real importance to this case.

Also.....the McMichaels did not stop arbary.....and yrs ahmaud arbary engaged in a violent assault and was killed.....completely justifiable under the law of self defense in Georgia.

Video Shows Fatal Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, Unarmed Black Man in Georgia

The fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old unarmed black man, was caught on video and has prompted a grand jury investigation.

www.tmz.com

The above is false. The men arbitrarily without justification impeded the victim and then killed him when he lawfully defended himself.

Absolutely false......Ahmaud Arbary the suspect had complete freedom of movemenr at all times.

Auhmad Arbarry in truth and in fact committed assault as the video shows.

"They didn't have him tied up, they just had guns. He was perfectly free to run away at any time; just because he had to wonder if that would get him shot in the back doesn't mean he couldn't leave."

Yeah, okay.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

I don't believe he was "jogging." I believe he was trespassing, and fled.

Dont forget the attempted assault too that got him killed by the son.

Yeah, um, I'm also not buying that it's "attempted assault" when he was unarmed and the other men had guns and were illegally detaining him on a street. Not saying I'm not open to more evidence, but so far I haven't heard any that doesn't make me see that as "self-defense".

They werent detaining him for no reason. Also, when you are facing a potential criminal and you are holding a gun, if he charges at you and attacks you, its a pretty fucking good sign that he is not just some friendly "jogger". People have a right to defend themselves against violent attackers.

Okay, give me a good and legal reason for non-police civilians to detain anyone on the street with guns. Give me sufficient and legal reasons they were justified as treating him as a "potential criminal". Tell me what legal grounds they had for doing what they did that made his behavior "assault" and not self-defense. I can assure you that if a group of men with guns detained ME on the street, and I thought hitting one of them and taking his gun would allow me to escape, I'd do exactly that, and I would think you would, as well. And that doesn't automatically make either of us a criminal. People DO have a right to defend themselves against violent attackers . . . so tell me how that's not what Arberry was doing.

If my facts are correct, they thought he was a burglar. You can make citizen arrests.

I know that if someone was yelling at you to stop, you would. If they were wearing masks and yelling "get on your knees motherfucker", it might be a different story, but in this case he evaded them, they told him to stop, he keeps going, they tell him to stop, he keeps going and after quite some time of not shooting him, they cut him off. He had no reason to believe they were truly dangerous at that point. These clearly werent highway robbers. In fact, he was so certain that the guy wasnt going to shoot him that he veered from his path and assaulted a man with a shotgun.

If MY facts are correct, they thought he was a burglar, but didn't have any actual evidence beyond their personal suspicions.

I know that if someone was yelling at me to stop, I'd pause long enough to determine if they had a right to yell at me to stop. If not, I'd continue on my fucking way, and you're damned right I'd evade them if I could. I'm still waiting for you to tell me how that would make me a criminal who deserved to be shot, or how it would make THEM "acting in self-defense" for shooting me.

What do you mean, "he had no reason to believe they were truly dangerous"? They were total strangers holding guns and detaining him with no actual authority to do so. Would YOU feel safe and in no danger in his place? "These clearly weren't highway robbers"? Clear in what way? And don't even start on that "They were THIS PARTICULAR THREAT, therefore they weren't any threat at all" crap. I don't buy that sort of cherrypicked debate parameter from anyone.

"In fact, he was so certain the guy wasn't going to shoot him that he veered from his path". Yeah, or maybe he wasn't certain at all that they weren't going to shoot him, and THAT'S why he thought he needed to disarm one of them.

Why are you brushing over his attack on the son? They yelled at him to stop a bunch of times, and they had guns and clearly suspected him of a crime, but they never got physical with him, so why did he attack the son? Why shouldnt the son be able to claim self defense when he clearly was defending himself from an attacker?

I'm brushing over nothing. I'm saying he was completely justified in attacking the son, because the son fucking started it. Why are YOU brushing over THAT?

Oh, "they yelled at him to stop a bunch of times", did they? And that's supposed to mean what? He's obligated to do what they say? Who the fuck are they to tell anyone to do anything? And please explain to me how it was "clear" to Arbery what they wanted, aside from the fact that they were strangers chasing him in trucks with guns. I don't recall anyone telling us that Ahmaud Arbery was a psychic.

"They never got physical with him." THEY WERE CHASING HIM WITH GUNS. The son got out of the truck and came toward him WITH A GUN. Is your position that Arbery was required to wait and see if he was going to do anything with the gun, or if maybe he just thought it went well with his shitkicker outfit? Shockingly, I don't wait for people to "get physical" with me when they're holding guns in their hands, either. I assume that gun means something. Go figure.

The son shouldn't be able to claim self-defense because HE STARTED IT. He instigated the confrontation; Arbery didn't.

Im not sure why you think its ok to attack someone who hasnt attacked you. You definitely shouldnt attack someone who is carrying a shotgun. That will get you killed.

I'm not sure why you want to ignore the inherent menace of chasing a stranger on foot with trucks, and then approaching him with a gun in your hands. Personally, I'd figure at that point I didn't have much to lose, because my life was in danger either way.

He was almost certainly burglarizing the neighborhood. They had a good reason to stop him. He however didnt have a good reason the violently assault someone.

Whether or no he was burglarizing has no real importance to this case.

Also.....the McMichaels did not stop arbary.....and yrs ahmaud arbary engaged in a violent assault and was killed.....completely justifiable under the law of self defense in Georgia.

Video Shows Fatal Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, Unarmed Black Man in Georgia

The fatal shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old unarmed black man, was caught on video and has prompted a grand jury investigation.

www.tmz.com

The above is false. The men arbitrarily without justification impeded the victim and then killed him when he lawfully defended himself.

Absolutely false......Ahmaud Arbary the suspect had complete freedom of movemenr at all times.

Auhmad Arbarry in truth and in fact committed assault as the video shows.

"They didn't have him tied up, they just had guns. He was perfectly free to run away at any time; just because he had to wonder if that would get him shot in the back doesn't mean he couldn't leave."

Yeah, okay.

heh heh......again it all comes down to Ahmaud Arbary committing assault.

In a nutshelll that is it....no excuse for committing assault

 

[Cecilie1200]

I see an unarmed man on foot, being chased by an armed man in a truck.

That's what I saw. I didn't see anyone "out for a jog".

Well, let's see . . . man in shorts and a t-shirt, running down the street . . . what is the essential element that constitutes "out for a jog" that you think is missing?

Wait, I thought you said he was "being chased by an armed man in a truck". That's different from "out for a jog".

The missing element is "being chased by an armed man in a truck".

There appears to be no evidence that Arbery was "out for a jog".

Oh, you figure Hornet's rendition of this crap sounded so good, you'd echo him rather than come up with your own answer?

Okay, if you two really want to go with, "He wasn't jogging at the moment they chased him with a truck, so that makes it okay for them to chase him with the truck", then I certainly can't and won't stop you from sounding like an imbecile.

The missing element is logic.

Frankly, I think the last year of BLM riots and bullshit has just broken both you and your buddy, Hornet, to the point where you just desperately want to kneejerk to "A black man got shot, he HAD to have deserved it because BLM IS BAD AND WRONG ALWAYS!!"

I agree that BLM is trash that needs to be hauled to the landfill, but that doesn't mean they can't occasionally stumble into the truth, much the way a stopped clock is right twice a day. If it had REALLY been a justified shooting, the media would still be gassing away about it and BLM would be burning shit down over it. Instead, the story largely vanished, because they're not interested in black men who really are victims; it's not controversial enough.

 

[Godboy]

I don't believe he was "jogging." I believe he was trespassing, and fled.

Dont forget the attempted assault too that got him killed by the son.

Yeah, um, I'm also not buying that it's "attempted assault" when he was unarmed and the other men had guns and were illegally detaining him on a street. Not saying I'm not open to more evidence, but so far I haven't heard any that doesn't make me see that as "self-defense".

They werent detaining him for no reason. Also, when you are facing a potential criminal and you are holding a gun, if he charges at you and attacks you, its a pretty fucking good sign that he is not just some friendly "jogger". People have a right to defend themselves against violent attackers.

Okay, give me a good and legal reason for non-police civilians to detain anyone on the street with guns. Give me sufficient and legal reasons they were justified as treating him as a "potential criminal". Tell me what legal grounds they had for doing what they did that made his behavior "assault" and not self-defense. I can assure you that if a group of men with guns detained ME on the street, and I thought hitting one of them and taking his gun would allow me to escape, I'd do exactly that, and I would think you would, as well. And that doesn't automatically make either of us a criminal. People DO have a right to defend themselves against violent attackers . . . so tell me how that's not what Arberry was doing.

If my facts are correct, they thought he was a burglar. You can make citizen arrests.

I know that if someone was yelling at you to stop, you would. If they were wearing masks and yelling "get on your knees motherfucker", it might be a different story, but in this case he evaded them, they told him to stop, he keeps going, they tell him to stop, he keeps going and after quite some time of not shooting him, they cut him off. He had no reason to believe they were truly dangerous at that point. These clearly werent highway robbers. In fact, he was so certain that the guy wasnt going to shoot him that he veered from his path and assaulted a man with a shotgun.

If MY facts are correct, they thought he was a burglar, but didn't have any actual evidence beyond their personal suspicions.

I know that if someone was yelling at me to stop, I'd pause long enough to determine if they had a right to yell at me to stop. If not, I'd continue on my fucking way, and you're damned right I'd evade them if I could. I'm still waiting for you to tell me how that would make me a criminal who deserved to be shot, or how it would make THEM "acting in self-defense" for shooting me.

What do you mean, "he had no reason to believe they were truly dangerous"? They were total strangers holding guns and detaining him with no actual authority to do so. Would YOU feel safe and in no danger in his place? "These clearly weren't highway robbers"? Clear in what way? And don't even start on that "They were THIS PARTICULAR THREAT, therefore they weren't any threat at all" crap. I don't buy that sort of cherrypicked debate parameter from anyone.

"In fact, he was so certain the guy wasn't going to shoot him that he veered from his path". Yeah, or maybe he wasn't certain at all that they weren't going to shoot him, and THAT'S why he thought he needed to disarm one of them.

Why are you brushing over his attack on the son? They yelled at him to stop a bunch of times, and they had guns and clearly suspected him of a crime, but they never got physical with him, so why did he attack the son? Why shouldnt the son be able to claim self defense when he clearly was defending himself from an attacker?

I'm brushing over nothing. I'm saying he was completely justified in attacking the son, because the son fucking started it. Why are YOU brushing over THAT?

Oh, "they yelled at him to stop a bunch of times", did they? And that's supposed to mean what? He's obligated to do what they say? Who the fuck are they to tell anyone to do anything? And please explain to me how it was "clear" to Arbery what they wanted, aside from the fact that they were strangers chasing him in trucks with guns. I don't recall anyone telling us that Ahmaud Arbery was a psychic.

"They never got physical with him." THEY WERE CHASING HIM WITH GUNS. The son got out of the truck and came toward him WITH A GUN. Is your position that Arbery was required to wait and see if he was going to do anything with the gun, or if maybe he just thought it went well with his shitkicker outfit? Shockingly, I don't wait for people to "get physical" with me when they're holding guns in their hands, either. I assume that gun means something. Go figure.

The son shouldn't be able to claim self-defense because HE STARTED IT. He instigated the confrontation; Arbery didn't.

Im not sure why you think its ok to attack someone who hasnt attacked you. You definitely shouldnt attack someone who is carrying a shotgun. That will get you killed.

I'm not sure why you want to ignore the inherent menace of chasing a stranger on foot with trucks, and then approaching him with a gun in your hands. Personally, I'd figure at that point I didn't have much to lose, because my life was in danger either way.

He was burglarizing the neighborhood. They had a good reason to stop him. He however didnt have a good reason the violently assault someone.

Can you prove that he was burglarizing the neighborhood? Show me the evidence, do NOT just assert that it's so. And then you can show me their authority to stop him.

Its a moot point. It has nothing to do with the shooting.

 

[B. Kidd]

This is a farce by the "moderate" Merrick Garland.

Garland would have fit right in with Stalin's regime.
This is where a pissed-off wannabe Dimm SCOTUS gets us.

 

[Godboy]

I see an unarmed man on foot, being chased by an armed man in a truck.

That's what I saw. I didn't see anyone "out for a jog".

Well, let's see . . . man in shorts and a t-shirt, running down the street . . . what is the essential element that constitutes "out for a jog" that you think is missing?

You think thats why they stopped him? Do you even know why they stopped him?