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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Another black scumbag rewarded.

And three more cracker assholes heading up the river.

I doubt that.

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.

bwaaaaaaaaa prejudiced much? Obviously.....

What you see and all you see is MSM bullllfuckensheet ....got dat boyo?

And here we have the inevitable, "I can't make my case, and you're disagreeing with me, so I'll just attack you as a leftist as an excuse to run away from my lack of evidence."

Problem is, "boyo", that I'm probably more right-wing than you are, I get my news primarily from right-leaning sites and the original sources . . . oh, and if you know a lot of boys named Cecilie, then you live in a seriously fucking weird place.

So should I just accept this as an admission that I'm correct in categorizing your position as "I don't care if I'm wrong, because I really want to believe this!", or did you have something real to say?

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

No citizens arrest was made.....you remain in grave error....you lack the ability to properly analyze this case.

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

 

[Godboy]

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.

 

[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.

Exactly.....the libtarded as usual watch the media lies get all whipped up and come on here and exhibit their hatred and igonorance of the truth and facts of the case.

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

 

[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".

 

[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.

 

[Lysistrata]

I want to know what these imbeciles were doing parked in the middle of the road and the stupid twit was holding a shotgun. I want to know why there was a person in a car trailing the jogger and filming him. I want to know what the McMichaels said to the 911 dispatcher when they called 911 to report that there was a suspicious person in their neighborhood. I want to know why two armed men felt endangered by an unarmed jogger such that people are saying that they killed him in self defense. I want to know why a thorough investigation into this death was not started immediately and long before the GBI got on the case.

No matter who one is in terms of race, sex, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or anything else, our first obligation to human kind is to do justice.

 

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

 

[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?

 

[TheGreenHornet]

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.

 

[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 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.

 

[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 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

 

[StormAl]

The victim was not burglarizing the neighborhood; no evidence exists to that point.

The three men had no legal right to impede or restrict the victim's movements, much less use firearms in so doing, then killing him.

 

[StormAl]

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.

 

[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

 

[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.

Nonsense......complete horseshit.

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

 

[Meathead]

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.

Defended himself from what? Being asked questions?