Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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?If my facts are correct, they thought he was a burglar. You can make citizen arrests.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.Dont forget the attempted assault too that got him killed by the son.I don't believe he was "jogging." I believe he was trespassing, and fled.
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".
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.
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.
Citizen arrests arent illegal.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.
I doubt that.And three more cracker assholes heading up the river.Another black scumbag rewarded.
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.Dont forget the attempted assault too that got him killed by the son.I don't believe he was "jogging." I believe he was trespassing, and fled.
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 never detained him or attempted to detain him.
That doesn't even jibe with the statement initially provided by McMichael Sr.
It does not matter what the McMihcals may or may not have said....what matters is what the McMichals and the suspect actually did.
Again.....watch the video....posted more than once....what one sees is ahmaud jogging towards the truck running around the right side of the truck and then veering left to attacks the Macmichael son with the shotgun....no attempt was made to detain or arrest him.
Citizen arrests arent illegal.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.
I doubt that.And three more cracker assholes heading up the river.Another black scumbag rewarded.
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.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.
I'm tired of hearing, "It was a citizen's arrest!" Here's the law in Georgia on citizen's arrest:
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.
I hate to break it to you, but "He looks like the guy we think was robbing houses weeks ago" does NOT constitute "offense committed within his presence or within his immediate knowledge" and it also isn't "reasonable and probable grounds of suspicion."
And three more cracker assholes heading up the river.Another black scumbag rewarded.
Bump.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?If my facts are correct, they thought he was a burglar. You can make citizen arrests.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.Dont forget the attempted assault too that got him killed by the son.I don't believe he was "jogging." I believe he was trespassing, and fled.
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".
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.
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.
I don't believe he was "jogging." I believe he was trespassing, and fled.
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?If my facts are correct, they thought he was a burglar. You can make citizen arrests.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.Dont forget the attempted assault too that got him killed by the son.I don't believe he was "jogging." I believe he was trespassing, and fled.
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".
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.
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.
Citizen arrests arent illegal.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.
I doubt that.And three more cracker assholes heading up the river.Another black scumbag rewarded.
I don't doubt it. These testosterone-poisoned redneck vigilante-wannabes make the whole state look bad. I don't see the jury taking kindly to that, unless their defense attorney has a shitload more evidence than we're seeing now.
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.
Laughable......there was no felony committed....everything the McMichaels did was completely legal....you watch too much t.v. girl.
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.
Laughable......there was no felony committed....everything the McMichaels did was completely legal....you watch too much t.v. girl.
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?If my facts are correct, they thought he was a burglar. You can make citizen arrests.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.Dont forget the attempted assault too that got him killed by the son.I don't believe he was "jogging." I believe he was trespassing, and fled.
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".
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.
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.
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.
Citizen arrests arent illegal.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.
They had no grounds for Citizens Arrest. First they had no firsthand knowledge. Second. They had no authority.
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.
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.
Laughable......there was no felony committed....everything the McMichaels did was completely legal....you watch too much t.v. girl.
Three Felonies before they shot him. It is why they are rotting in jail in heavily Republican South Georgia when a Republican Governor and Republican Attorney General are and were in office.
Citizen arrests arent illegal.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.
They had no grounds for Citizens Arrest. First they had no firsthand knowledge. Second. They had no authority.
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.
