Ame®icano
Platinum Member
- Jul 8, 2008
- 24,750
- 7,531
Not even close.
Well, that's interesting.
Is it him?
Did you hear that "engaged in no illegal activity"? Well, except trespassing. They forgot that one.
.
If it is him, and I'll concede it certainly could be, it does nothing to removed the responsibility for the shooting from Travis McMichael. Travis McMichael didn't see this video. Nothing in it gets McMichael off the hook.
If you kill someone because he trespassed for three minutes, you deserve to be charged with murder...
But if you kill someone who runs into you, despite you're holding a gun, that's self defense.
Not even close.
The McMichaels armed themselves and then pursued Arbery. Those two actions legally negate them from being able to claim self defense. The U.S. Attorney almost laughed when he read that determination by the local DA...
Okay... so why do anyone arm themselves?
To make a fashion statement?
I arm myself in case I have to defend myself. I don't arm myself so that I can go chase down someone who's running down my street so I can "talk" to him but kill him instead...
Yes you do. You arm yourself in case you need to defend yourself.
Stopping the robber means you might need to use force, or that robber might use force against you.
Therefore gun, if that happen, you defend yourself.
He robbed no one, and he was unarmed. Furthermore, Travis McMichael didn't even know that Arbery was inside the construction site. He just did what Daddy told him to do (which is common among redneck racists), and his decision to listen to his father is what will put his redneck ass in jail for the rest of his life.
Again, they armed themselves and pursued him. Because of that they CANNOT claim self defense...
You claim to "know" what is "common among redneck racists" and what their reaction would be.
Okay, let's play...
Is it fair to use the same assessment and claim that is common that blacks are violent and what their reaction would be when confronted?